India’s vanquished wildlife stand a 50:50 chance @ Wild life (Protection) Act 50

 

Prelude

The India’s 1972 Wildlife (Protection) Act completed 50 on the fifth September this year. Country wide debates are on in various platforms including the Governments at the Centre and the States, forest bureaucracy, conservation NGOs, forestry and wildlife research organizations, wildlife enthusiasts and the common man as to what the half century of the Act did for the dumb denizens of the wild in the country. Some of the questions that engage the minds of a spectrum of concerned people include: Are the populations of different wild animal species flourishing? Have the conditions of wild habitats in which the wildlife dwell become better off? Is the escalating confrontation between man and wild animal reaching a point of no- return? Is the response of wildlife administrators and managers to this growing conflict bringing results? Has some wildlife gone forever, some facing extirpation, while few others are staging a comeback? What is facing the future of the wildlife in the country? I intend to address these questions objectively in this post.

Hunters’ Thirst and the fall out

The positive disposition of man towards Nature and to their wild animal cohabitants is ingrained in the ethos and deeply seeped in the traditions of India’s people. Historically, man’s interaction with wild denizens commenced from the time of hunter-gatherer society. It travelled through development of symbiotic association with certain animal species like elephant, when man of early civilizations began to tame the mighty beast for his benefit. Despite the aura of hunting being the hallmark of Emperors in ancient India, some rulers like Chandragupta Maurya were benign to the jungle dwelling species such as elephant and deer for whom he established  ‘hathivana’ (elephant forests) and abhayaranya’ or forest sanctuary, where animals could roam freely without any fear of molestation and were under special care. 

     In the medieval India, the Mughal kings in the line of succession uniformly indulged in sport hunting in an abundant measure, so much so they carefully maintained exclusive royal hunting preserves called ‘sikhargarh’. Emperor Jahangir formed a separate hunting division in his court. Their penchant for record keeping to finer details on the animals and birds they hunted is unparalleled, as evident from the portraiture and the memoirs they had left behind. Elephants continued to be veritable war machines in all kingdoms that ruled the country. 

    When the colonial rule set in India, hunting legacy of the Mughals got carried on to the British settlers at ease. For most of the British army men and civilian officials, posting to a place devoid of sporting opportunity was considered the dullest in the career. For the ruling echelon, represented by the Nobility, British army and bureaucracy, landed gentry and the provincial kings, gallantry hunting was more of a display of their masochism and for providing paternal protection to the hapless villagers from the marauding elephant ‘rogues’ or ‘man-eating’ big cats. In fact, eliminating wild animals declared as vermin entailed rewards to the killer. Incidental to these objectives, animal and bird hunting served the purpose of giving them protein rich venison on their table and gifting themselves with highly cherished trophies. 

    Furthermore, intrusion of man into forest lands for meeting very many developmental needs, including plantation enterprise with horticultural and cash crops besides monocultures of exotic trees such as Eucalypts, Acacias, and Pines fuelled the decimation of natural forest wealth in the first half of the twentieth century. Removal of wood (both timber and fuel) and non-wood produce went beyond sustainable limits. Domestic cattle had a free run in the forest for grazing. Resultant was the fragmentation of forests and depreciation of its quality. 

     The cumulative impact was Asiatic Cheetah, one of the apex predators was officially declared extinct from India by 1952. This was despite sporadic presidency/province- and species-specific legal enactments to protect species such as elephant, rhinoceros, Nilgiri ibex. The Madras Wild Elephants Preservation Act 1873, The Elephants Preservation Act, 1879, The Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act 1879, The Wild Birds Protection Act 1887, The Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act 1912, The Bengal Rhinoceros Preservation Act 1932 were few of them. The 1935 amendment to the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act witnessed for the first time the emergence of sanctuaries and National Parks (NP), where the animals and birds could enjoy certain degree of legal protection. During 1936, the Hailey NP (present day Corbett) opened up in the then United Province with much fanfare, after which not much progress was made in the sphere till the country’s independence. A 23 sq.mile of Mudumalai sanctuary in Madras Presidency declared in 1940 and a few water fowl sanctuaries across the country were forerunners in this regard. The first set of sanctuaries and NPs was seen as the genesis of area oriented protection strategy for wildlife. 

      Independent India too compromised forestry and wildlife interests by diverting huge parcels of forest lands for agriculture, mining, irrigation and hydro power infrastructure, settlements, roads and rails, industries and other developments. India lost nearly 1.5 lakh hectare of forests per year between 1950 and 1980. Liberal grant of ‘crop protection gun licenses’ and ‘game hunting licenses’ in the first two decades of independence only went on to accelerate the killing of wild animals of all descriptions. Despite the existence of regulatory framework such as ‘closed areas’, closed seasons’, ‘limiting bag size’ of licensees, ‘certain species prohibited from hunting’, their enforcement suffered mainly because of least priority, lack of manpower and absence of political will. The charismatic species like tiger, lion, one-horned rhino and elephant too were hunted as big game even after independence. This, despite the fact that the country had five NPs and 50 odd sanctuaries including four water fowl congregations spread over 12 states, protected under the provisions of the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act 1912. For instance, the position of tiger fell to such a depressing state by 1970, when the country’s tiger numbers plummeted to a mere 1,700 in 1970 from an estimated population of 18,000 when the British left. 

1972 - Watershed Year in the Annals of Wildlife Protection 

In the first general assembly of International Union of Conservation of the Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) held in New Delhi in 1969, the young Prime Minister in Indira Gandhi spoke ‘When forests are cut down, wildlife is naturally threatened. Some beautiful and interesting species have become extinct. At the rate at which severe poaching and shooting are taking place, the rhinoceros, the famous Bengal tiger and even the elephant might disappear unless we take vigilant and drastic steps to preserve them…We do need foreign exchange but not at the cost of the life and liberty of some of the most beautiful inhabitants of this continent’. After consultations with Guy Mountford, the founder of World Wildlife Forum (WWF), she became seized of the matter and announced the imposition of a country wide ban on tiger hunting in 1970. A ban on the export of tiger and leopard skins was too put in place. That year, the Government drew a National Wildlife Policy, which identified various causes for wildlife depletion and made specific recommendations for wildlife conservation in the country. These events turned out to be the precursors to larger wildlife conservation initiatives that were to follow.

         That the then prevailing Wild Birds and Animals Act was outmoded and the provisions in the state laws were grossly inadequate and unsatisfactory found ample expression in the statement of objects and reasons that urged the need for enacting a comprehensive national legislation for wildlife protection. The subject matter of ‘protection of wild animals and birds’ was then in the State list in the seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Parliament had no power to make a law in that regard, unless legislatures of two or more States adopt a resolution empowering the Parliament to do so. Following due process of constitutional requirement, the Wild life (Protection) Act 1972 promulgated by Government of India came to effect on 5th September 1972, which is taken as a watershed development in the annals of wildlife management in the country. The country also launched the first ever prestigious wildlife conservation programme, namely ‘Project Tiger’ during 1973 to pull back the endangered Royal Bengal tiger from the path to extinction.

         

        The Act had undergone series of amendments in 1982, 1986, 1991, 1993, 2003, 2006, 2013, some of which brought far-reaching positive impact for Indian wildlife. Major amendments in 1991, for instance, removed all things associated hunting, shooting and trapping that served a severe blow to the gunnery. ‘Exclusionary principle’ of freeing the wild animals and birds was indeed a bold step forward that legally kept the licensed hunters out of bounds. This has brought significant reprieve for the forest animals, though illegal hunting and organized poaching continued to challenge their wellbeing. 2003 amendment inserted a generic term ‘Protected Areas’ which included areas such as Conservation Reserve and Community Reserve, besides sanctuaries and National Parks. Possession and trade in wildlife and their products were too brought under substantial regulation and control. Amendments also conferred more primacy for the conservation of a host of wild plants, which was somehow missing in the original Act.

Is India’s wildlife in their spring season?

The foremost milestone in the progress of Wildlife Act is to secure appropriate habitats for the wild animals by designating forest areas as ‘Protected Areas’. Thus, the tally of sanctuaries and NPs has risen to a phenomenal 671 in May 2022 from a measly figure of 55, when the Act came into being. That the Protected Areas at present occupy about 5.08 per cent of the total geographical land area is a no means accomplishment. In Tamil Nadu, there are 42 Protected Areas, including 17 bird sanctuaries. By improving wildlife habitats and strengthening protection, the country registered a significant increase in numbers of many species. Of late, the State Forest departments with support from wildlife research institutions have been adopting robust census methodologies. The species such as elephant, one-horned rhino, lion, tiger, leopard, gaur, sloth bear, wild boar, deer etc., which were facing persecution for long recovered from the path of decline, as confirmed from the successive censuses. For example, animal counts in 2017-18 showed a population of 28,000 elephants and 2,960 tigers in the range states. Tiger numbers alone jumped over 3.5 times between 2006 and 2018. Lions that were once in few tens in their Gir home steadily grew to 674 in 2020 count. Same can be said of one-horned rhino that registered a smart recovery from a mere 75 in 1905 to 3,262 as per the 2022 rhino status report. That the apex species like elephant and tiger flourish is a pointer to the healthy condition of the ecosystems and the biodiversity richness of the forests, which they inhabit.

        With a view to extend preferential treatment to certain charismatic animal species over the others owing to its preponderance in a landscape gave genesis to species-centric protected approach. Across the country, many such sanctuaries and NPs were notified under the Act over time. Examples in Tamil Nadu include:

• 1962-Mudanthurai Sanctuary for Tiger

• 1976- Kalakadu Sanctuary for Lion Tailed Macaque

• 1987- Valanadu Sanctuary for blackbuck

• 1988- Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel Sanctuary 

• 2001- Mukurti Nilgiri Tahr National Park

• 2013- Gangaikondan Spotted Deer Sanctuary

• 2022- Gulf of Mannar Dugong Conservation Reserve 

• 2022- Dindigul-Karur Slender Loris Sanctuary

        Under the aegis of the Project Tiger, protected areas supporting viable population of tigers were declared as tiger reserves. The opening year saw eight such reserves, which by 2022 grew to 53, covering an extent of 75,255 sq.km. About 33 elephant reserves with the total area of 80,754 sq.km have been notified till this time under the ‘Project Elephant’, another flagship programme initiated by the Union Government in 1991. Considering the extensive and larger home range elephants occupy and the vast territorial extent tigers require, our conservation policy saw a paradigm shift from area-based approach to landscape level strategy. This new direction attempted to transform the administrative boundaries of conventional PAs to broader management units, by encompassing areas outside the PA realm as buffer zones to the core PAs. That the buffer area constitutes 45.0 per cent of the total extent of tiger reserves lends support to this approach. Building the core-buffer continuum rests on the premise that species’ conservation goal, improvement of local peoples’ livelihood and the various development needs are aimed to be achieved simultaneously. But what has been seen on ground is not hunky-dory situation in many landscapes. Incidentally, within the overall area of elephant reserves, forest and water occupy about 76.9 percent only and the balance extent of 29.1 per cent are under agriculture, fallow and built up areas, as revealed from a 2018 Land Use Land Cover classification study of elephant reserves by Wildlife Institute of India. The pattern suggests that sizeable chunk of buffers in these landscapes continue to be riddled with human presence and the associated activities.

Wild habitats haven’t become better off

Most of the present day ills are linked to what probably happened in the landscape some 50-100 years ago. Wild animals are exacerbated due to fragmentation of forest habitats, disturbances in the migratory corridors and loss of habitat quality for reasons described in the earlier part of the write-up. There used to be a mandatory 40-60 metre buffer along forest margins in Madras Presidency as per a Board of Revenue standing order of 1912 where no cultivation was permitted. If farming was undertaken, the cultivator could make no claim for any loss from wild animal damage. With passage of time, all these buffers vanished. Extension of cultivation up to the boundaries of forests brought the wild herbivores such as elephant, gaur, deer, wild boar etc. out into the farm fields for foraging nutrient rich, palatable crops. Population of certain species like wild boar, nilgai, chital (spotted deer) have grown to astounding numbers and their frequent forays into agricultural lands invite the wrath of farmers. The affected farmers clamour for killing the crop raiders, claiming precedence over wildlife. A virtual war on selective species has been unleashed through state-permitted culling of trouble making animals of wild boar, nilgai in many states, which has the sanction from the national ministry.  

         Few of the plant species such as Lantana, Prosopis, and Wattle introduced from foreign soil into Indian land by the British marched into newer forest areas over a period and have assumed invasive proportions. Such aliens profoundly altered the landscape characteristics, degraded the quality of forests, and reduced the availability of native fodder for herbivores. Many of the PAs in the country suffer from occupation of significant extent of invasives. Bonafide cattle grazing and browsing within sanctuaries, as permitted by the law, throw fierce competition to the wild herbivores in meeting their forage needs. Such cattle could turn into potent transmitters of contagious diseases like anthrax, foot and mouth, rinderpest that will decimate wild animals. Mass death of gaur in the Mudumalai sanctuary of Tamil Nadu during late 1960s from rinderpest is a case in point. Another associated risk from cattle grazing is from the incendiary forest fires set by the grazers before the onset of monsoon to obtain new flush of green.  

        Herding and penning domestic cattle in the forest fringes turn out to be an open invitation to senile carnivores and those with injuries and disabilities. These predators lift livestock occasionally, prompting the villagers to avenge the loss by resorting to revenge killing of the carnivore. Lack of adequate water resources for the wild animals within the forest habitats especially during summer force them to move out of forests.   

Is the escalating confrontation between man and wild animal reaching a point of no- return? 

The conflict between man and wild animals is in the first decades of the new millennium has accentuated for many reasons. It is being recognized as the most serious management challenge for the forest managers, as their prevention and mitigation demand high level of human resources input from the department at the cost of other pressing requirements. Not only has the confrontation inflicted severe human sufferings in the form of crop and property losses besides human deaths, it causes deep distress to the concerned wildlife. Wild animals facing mortality by hit and run by vehicles on forest roads, and by locomotives on railway lines, electrocution by the sagging high tension lines in the forests and the illegal power fences on forest margins, trapping of many animal species in snares, revenge killing by carcass poisoning etc. are on the increase. From a legal perspective, the railways, the highways and the electricity agencies of the Government claim exclusive right of way for their static and moving infrastructure within the designated width of the linear alignments and counter any penal action by the forest department for animal casualties happening on railway tracks, roads or under transmission lines. Such incidents are sought to be avoided by better inter-department coordination. It is essential for the wildlife administrators, managers, wildlife enthusiasts and the people dependent on forests to recognize that minimizing the opportunity for human-wild animal interface situations will remove the possibility of confrontation. And we must aim to move towards that target. In the current context, the moot question that arises in the mind of wildlife lovers and enthusiasts is ‘as to who is mightier- the man or wild animal?’

Some wildlife gone forever, some facing extirpation, while few others are staging smart recovery

For the reasons of intense hunting pressure on wild animals, poster species such as tiger, lion and one-horned rhino had shrunk from their original distribution range to only a few restricted pockets by the early decades of the 20th century. For instance, one-horned rhino, which was once present throughout Indo-Gangetic plain and the Brahmaputra river basin, got confined to Kaziranga in 1905 with only 75 animals. Asiatic lion that ranged from Bengal in the east down to the Narmada River in the south two centuries back got confined to a dozen animals as a single population in Gir by 1880. Likewise distribution range of tiger in India too got reduced substantially. Thus, lion, rhino and tiger best illustrate wild animals that faced local extinction. Asiatic cheetah wasn’t that lucky in that the species was officially declared extinct from India in 1952.

         Legal protection conferred on wildlife and the follow up management interventions and initiatives that happened in the fifty years post the Act had far-reaching implication for the above extinct and extirpated species. An experiment in reintroduction of Kaziranga’s rhinos to Dudhwa NP, its erstwhile home initiated in 1984 is rated as a resounding success by establishing a thriving population of 42 individuals by 2020. Overall rhino population in the country increased to 3,262. Lion staged a smart comeback to 674 animals by establishing new homes over 30,000 sq. km., large extent of which is outside the Gir Conservation Area. However, spilling over of the species to large extent of adjacent unprotected forests, wastelands, and agriculture lands with most of it dominated by the resident human population and a whole range of livestock is in itself a huge management challenge for the long term survival of lion. Finding a second home for Asiatic lions in the Kuno sanctuary area in Madhya Pradesh, though identified some 15 years back, has become a roller coaster ride, as the Asiatic cheetah has taken over the lime light.

       The tiger crisis blew out in Sariska (Rajasthan) and Panna (Madhya Pradesh) tiger reserves in the first decade of the millennium with the species eliminated to its last numbers from the reserves. This was despite the operation of the protection regime as like in any other reserve. Union and State Governments responded by launching reintroduction projects in these reserves with close monitoring, which helped in reestablishing thriving tiger population in those reserves. The latest in the list is the unique African cheetah introduction project in the Kuno Palpur landscape of Madhya Pradesh. The first batch of eight Nigerian cheetahs was released during September 2022. Long term outcome of the programme needs to be closely monitored. 

Threats from smuggling and illegal trade in wildlife and products 

The craze for finished vanity products derived from wildlife parts and the lust for owning animal trophies accelerated wildlife trade during the first half of the 20th century.  Absence of specific laws to regulate trade on wildlife and its products in that period was the chief reason for indulgence of people in such transactions. It was one of the major drivers for the worldwide decline of chosen species of wild fauna and flora. Wildlife trafficking has transformed into a pervasive and complex organized global network post 1970s and is rated as the fourth largest transnational organized crime in terms of magnitude. According to the 2020 World WISE Database, 180,000 seizures of almost 6,000 species were reported between 1999 and 2018 involving suspected traffickers from 150 citizenships suggesting that wildlife crime is truly a global concern. India is currently one among the top 20 countries for wildlife trafficking and among the top 10 nations for wildlife trafficking through air ports. Wildlife crime has negative implications for climate change, preservation of biodiversity, security and public health.

       Despite thinning of legal source of wildlife products into domestic wildlife market, substantial contraband materials obtained from trapping and poaching continued to make their way into international trafficking. Economic reforms introduced in 1990s including globalization fueled the general climate of deregulation that weakened environmental enforcement through market liberalization, lowering of tariffs and downsizing of Government bureaus.  

          India has some legal and policy framework to regulate and restrict wildlife trade. Even while the Wildlife (Stock Declaration) Central Rules 1973 and the Wildlife (Transactions and Taxidermy) Rules were notified under the principal Act, several set of rules regarding possession, ownership and trading on wildlife and their products like the Wildlife (Specified Plants-Conditions for possession by Licensee) Rules 1995, the Wildlife (Specified Plants Stock Declaration) Central Rules 1995, the  declaration of Wildlife Stock Rules 2003 were notified subsequently through amendments to the Act. Under the Act, export and import of over 1800 species of wild animals, plants and their derivative are prohibited. Species not listed under the 1972 Act are subject to the provisions of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES), of which India is a signatory (some 33,000 species of plants and animals) and Export and Import Policy (EXIM). Several national agencies such as Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs, and Wildlife Crime Control Bureau are engaged in prevention and control of wildlife crimes, besides the Forest department. 

      The nation’s wildlife protection law only applies to species of Indian origin. A major lacuna in possession law pertains to the regulation of ownership of CITES-listed exotic animals and birds that are kept as pets in India. People caught transporting such species can be charged with the crime only if it can be proved that they crossed an international border illegally with those animals. During seizures, right identification of listed wildlife and products, apprehension of criminals involved in smuggling chain, further investigation into the crime and successful prosecution rests on the skill of investigators through efficient use of wildlife forensics. Regular study and monitoring of emerging trade issues, trade routes, capacity building by way of training and retraining, provision of equipment, close co-ordination amongst the enforcement agencies, regular follow up of the court trials are few of the key components for effectively combating the criminals and curbing illegal trade in wildlife.  

What is facing the future of the wildlife in the country?

Forest departments usually respond with appropriate management solutions to mitigate the enervating situations. Many engineering measures such as erection of solar-power fence, digging of Elephant Proof Trench (EPT), iron girder barricade, random rubble wall etc are tried in the conflict zones to prevent the animals from straying out of forests with mixed results. Augmentation of fodder and water for the animals and removal of invasive alien species through habitat improvement programmes is carried out to confine the animals within the forest boundaries. Other structural solutions to achieve status quo ante of the forest habitats like establishment of green bridges across canals, channels, railway lines, roads in critical habitats and corridors, flyovers with under passes in case of highways are tried to facilitate conflict-free movement of wild animals. Despite such interventions, the confrontation has not abated completely.

        For ushering in restoration of habitat integrity and transforming the forest fragments into healthy contiguous landscapes, actions such as relocation of ecosystem people from the enclosures  (settlements) located within forests to non-PA areas, acquisition of private estates and Government plantation estates lying in migratory paths of wild animals, declaration of Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) in case of larger biogeographic entities such as the Western Ghats are attempted. For example, acquisition of a private estate near Kallar by the Forest department, reverting the forest areas diverted for Kallar Government Horticultural farm for safeguarding Kallar-Jacanarai corridor, resumption forest lands developed into tea fields by the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation in Valparai and Gudalur, reserving the undeveloped portion of the Jenmam lands supporting natural jungles to the control of forest department, resettling indigenous people settled deeply inside Mudumalai Tiger Reserve are some of the initiatives of the Tamil Nadu Forest department. Many such instances are reported from several states across the country.

          One positive development from the Act is the establishment of a multitude of organizations in the Government, quasi-government and non-government sectors. World Wildlife Forum (WWF), Wildlife Institute of India, Bombay Natural History Society, and Wildlife Trust of India are few of them. Institutionalizing wildlife conservation by establishing educational and research organizations opened up the protected areas to the scientific community and academia, which is seen as breaking the bureaucratic and political hurdles in pushing forward the research and development agenda.  Specialized study areas like protocol on census, monitoring, wildlife forensic, wildlife crime investigation and prosecution, conflict resolution etc. connected with wildlife management seek such interaction with the concerned departments.

Take away

Having attempted to address the questions raised in the first part of the blog reasonably well, it remains to be concluded without an air of ambiguity that the national Wildlife Act has achieved cent per cent of the objective for which it was brought in. In my opinion, on the basis of the results from the past deliveries and under the present and immediate future dispensation, India’s vanquished wild life stands only a 50:50 chance.