In recent times, Chennai has gained notoriety as a key player in the global illegal animal trade. The city has seen an increase in incidents involving poaching and trafficking of wildlife, casting doubt on the effectiveness of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (WLPA).
Highlighting Lacunae in WLPA Implementation
The primary focus of the WLPA is the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) who is appointed under Section 4. Unfortunately, there have been several instances where CWLWs did not perform their statutory duties to the fullest extent as stipulated by the Act due to various reasons.
One case in point is the power granted to CWLW under sections 18-26 to initiate settlement in protected areas. Yet, even after 46 years of the act’s inception, this task has not started. Conversely, CWLWs are endowed with the responsibility of overseeing the destruction of wildlife and managing water inflow and outflow in wildlife habitats. However, there is minimal engagement from their end.
Additionally, Sections-27 and 28 allow for regulation of entry, along with the registration of arm licenses and vaccination of cattle to prevent diseases. However, there has been negligible action taken, calling into question the efficacy of these roles.
Conflict Between WLPA and Forest Right Act 2006
There exists an ongoing conflict between the legislative intent of WLPA and the Forest Right Act 2006. The act often puts resource-poor farmers and tribal communities at odds with wildlife animals and forest guards due to conflicting interests and lack of understanding.
Lack of Institutional Capacity & Coordination
At an institutional level, forest guards are not sufficiently trained in dealing with issues specific to forests, such as species diversity, animal behavior, landscape planning, and Animal Classification. Further, they are unequipped with arms, making them vulnerable during conflicts with poachers.
Another significant hurdle in wildlife protection is the lack of space within Wildlife Departments to house rescued animals until their release orders are provided by court.
Moreover, the lack of coordination between various agencies working towards wildlife protection and the inability to establish control mechanisms at international borders further adds to the problem.
Legal Impediments
Section 11(2) of the wildlife act permits self-defence or killing animals in good faith, a provision often misused by forest dwellers when caught hunting animals.
Furthermore, the punishment associated with wildlife crimes does not match the severity of the crime, causing ineffective deterrence. There are also several species not covered under the WLPA or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), meaning perpetrators get away with a mere penalty.
A Snapshot of Wildlife Before & After WLPA
| Before WLPA | After WLPA | |
|---|---|---|
| Rhinoceros population | 75 in 1905 | N/A |
| National parks | 5 | 110 (as of July 2018) |
| Tiger population in the Indian subcontinent | 1800 tigers in 1971 | 3550 in India and Nepal today |
Looking Ahead: Suggestions for Wildlife Protection
To improve the future of wildlife protection in Chennai and India at large, it’s critical that we broaden the definition of wildlife animals in the WLPA 1972 to align with the international situation. The efficacy of any law relies heavily on the active participation of local communities. Successful initiatives led by local communities include Gujarat’s Maldhari tribe aiding in Gir lion conservation, the Naga Tribe making Nagaland the amur falcon capital of the world, and the pastoral community in Rajasthan’s Thar Desert protecting the Great Indian Bustard. Replicating this model across India is essential to strengthening our fight against illegal animal trade and promoting the well-being of our wildlife.
