<p>The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021, passed by parliament last week, was hanging fire for long, but even after its passage, there are some important questions and reservations about it. It was cleared by the Rajya Sabha four months after it was passed by the Lok Sabha. Amending the Wild Life Protection Act (WLPA), 1972, the new bill seeks to enhance protection for wildlife species and to implement some key provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), of which India is a signatory. Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav observed in the House that there were gaps earlier in the application of CITES and these would be filled now. It is claimed that<br />the new law would make implementation of the rules easier and would empower the Centre to regulate or prohibit the trade, possession, or proliferation of invasive alien species.</p>.<p>But there are some issues that need to be addressed better. A Parliamentary Standing Committee headed by former Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh had studied the bill and made some recommendations. One of them related to elephants. Since 2003, the law has banned the transfer and transport of captive wildlife, including elephants. But the 2021 amendment proposed an exception that allowed the transfer or transport of any live elephant by a person having a certificate of ownership. This has rightly attracted much criticism. The government, under pressure from conservationists and the committee, has modified the exception and allowed the “transfer or transport of a captive elephant for a religious or any other purpose…” “Any other purpose” is vague and open-ended. It is certain to be misused and will lead to torture and ill-treatment of elephants and extraction of forced labour from them, particularly in southern states like Karnataka and Kerala. The provision should be reviewed to make it elephant-friendly. </p>.<p>Another controversial provision is the one that retains the Centre’s powers to declare species as ‘vermin’. The 1972 Act had identified some species as vermin that spread diseases or destroyed crops, making them ineligible for protection under the Act. Till 1991, state governments took these decisions but then the Centre was empowered for it, ostensibly to avert its excessive use. But the states have the complaint that the Centre is using it to issue sweeping orders declaring species as vermin at the state level. This has become a Centre-state issue. The Centre’s declaration of nilgais as vermin in Bihar and monkeys as vermin in Shimla and refusal to declare wild boars as vermin in Kerala have become controversial and invited criticism. There are other contentious issues, too. They need further debate and review. </p>
<p>The Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021, passed by parliament last week, was hanging fire for long, but even after its passage, there are some important questions and reservations about it. It was cleared by the Rajya Sabha four months after it was passed by the Lok Sabha. Amending the Wild Life Protection Act (WLPA), 1972, the new bill seeks to enhance protection for wildlife species and to implement some key provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), of which India is a signatory. Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav observed in the House that there were gaps earlier in the application of CITES and these would be filled now. It is claimed that<br />the new law would make implementation of the rules easier and would empower the Centre to regulate or prohibit the trade, possession, or proliferation of invasive alien species.</p>.<p>But there are some issues that need to be addressed better. A Parliamentary Standing Committee headed by former Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh had studied the bill and made some recommendations. One of them related to elephants. Since 2003, the law has banned the transfer and transport of captive wildlife, including elephants. But the 2021 amendment proposed an exception that allowed the transfer or transport of any live elephant by a person having a certificate of ownership. This has rightly attracted much criticism. The government, under pressure from conservationists and the committee, has modified the exception and allowed the “transfer or transport of a captive elephant for a religious or any other purpose…” “Any other purpose” is vague and open-ended. It is certain to be misused and will lead to torture and ill-treatment of elephants and extraction of forced labour from them, particularly in southern states like Karnataka and Kerala. The provision should be reviewed to make it elephant-friendly. </p>.<p>Another controversial provision is the one that retains the Centre’s powers to declare species as ‘vermin’. The 1972 Act had identified some species as vermin that spread diseases or destroyed crops, making them ineligible for protection under the Act. Till 1991, state governments took these decisions but then the Centre was empowered for it, ostensibly to avert its excessive use. But the states have the complaint that the Centre is using it to issue sweeping orders declaring species as vermin at the state level. This has become a Centre-state issue. The Centre’s declaration of nilgais as vermin in Bihar and monkeys as vermin in Shimla and refusal to declare wild boars as vermin in Kerala have become controversial and invited criticism. There are other contentious issues, too. They need further debate and review. </p>
