Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2022

Mains level: Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2022, concerns, impact and way forward

What’s the news?

The recent inclusion of a plethora of species in the new schedules of the Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2022 has raised numerous questions among ecologists.

Central idea

The inclusion of a multitude of species in its schedules has raised concerns about the lack of an objective and replicable process. While the intention behind the amendment is to enhance conservation efforts, it is imperative to address the issues it raises in terms of conservation, its impact on people, and its implications for research.

Schedule 1: Houses around 600 species of vertebrates and numerous invertebrates, with the highest protection.
Schedule 2: Contains roughly 2,000 species, including 1,134 bird species.
Alignment with CITES: The act also incorporates the CITES appendices.

Ambiguity in Resource Allocation: The act does not provide a clear direction on prioritizing species for resource allocation.
Uniform Protection Levels: Species ranging from tigers to jackals and from great Indian bustards to common barn owls are accorded the same protection level.
Unintended Consequences: Acts meant to conserve might sometimes yield counterproductive results. For instance, listing the invasive spotted deer (chital) in Schedule 1 has inadvertently protected it, despite the harm it inflicts on the Andaman Islands’ ecosystem.

Human-Wildlife Conflict: The WLPA underlines the concept of co-existence, often neglecting the harm certain species can cause to humans, both physically and psychologically. By elevating wild pigs and nilgai to Schedule 1, the act potentially limits states’ abilities to cull problematic animals, disregarding farmers’ concerns.
Traditional Practices Overlooked: Despite hunting and use of certain animals being traditional practices, the WLPA imposes restrictions. There’s a lack of balance between conservation needs and societal traditions.

Research Constraints: The listing of a vast number of species could inhibit research. Securing permits for research becomes a convoluted process. Furthermore, the act’s implications on citizen science and data sharing remain unclear.

Some ecologists have been observed to neglect the broader issues.
Their operations sometimes resemble ‘parachute science’, taking more than they give back to local communities.
The implications of this act not only hinder research, but also severely impact these communities.

Transparent Inclusion Process: Develop a replicable and objective process for the inclusion of species in the schedules. This could be based on ecological significance, population sizes, and expert consultations.
Reassess and Reclassify Species: A re-evaluation of species, especially those like the spotted deer in the Andaman Islands, is necessary. Reallocating species between schedules can ensure more appropriate protection levels.
Resource Allocation Blueprint: Given the vast number of species included, a clear guideline for resource allocation is essential. It should be based on urgency, ecological significance, and conservation viability.
Human-Wildlife Conflict Mitigation: Design a more nuanced policy for managing conflicts. It should include better conflict response, compensation schemes, and awareness programs, especially in areas where Schedule 1 species are in direct conflict with human populations.
Reconsideration of Traditional Practices: Address the disconnect between the Act and traditional practices by incorporating provisions for regulated and sustainable use of species, especially where they are abundant and pose no threat to their populations.

The imperative now is a balanced approach that ensures human safety, bases management actions on research, and permits observation without harming the ecosystem, respecting both human rights and wildlife conservation.