All posts by : Ruveer Vohra

About the author: Ruveer Vohra is a Grade 12 student of Vasant Valley School in Delhi, India. He is passionate about wildlife conservation and has conducted extensive research about India’s tiger reserves. Inspired by this work, he has written research on India’s wildlife policies to advocate for stronger protection provisions and sustainable conservation strategies. He aspires to pursue Economics and Political Science at the undergraduate level to develop a deeper understanding of how economic models can be applied to promote environmental sustainability and development.

Abstract

India is home to a wide variety of flora and fauna due to its different ecosystems, which span from the snow-covered Himalayas to the tropical rainforests of the Western Ghats. India’s exceptional biodiversity places it among the world’s 17 megadiverse nations. However, human activities like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, poaching, and illegal wildlife trade have put this rich natural legacy under growing jeopardy. Realising the need of conserving its wildlife, India passed the landmark Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act in 1972 to save both the nation’s species and its habitats. This paper explores the current wildlife policy in India in terms of several challenges and gaps that need to be addressed to ensure effective conservation and protection of the country’s biodiversity. This research analyses existing wildlife policy, identify the key issues and gaps, and proposes areas of improvement. 

Introduction

India is a nation rich in biodiversity due to its rich historical legacy and abundance of rare and indigenous natural resources. Illegal trade and exploitation of natural resources continues to be a great concern and India faces a significant challenge in protecting and conserving its wildlife. This goal cannot be accomplished until and unless all government agencies, local residents living in and around the protected regions, law enforcement officers, non-profit and nongovernmental organisations, and the general public collaborate to achieve it (Niraj, Krausman & Dayal, 2012). Therefore, it is imperative that everyone preserve this abundant resource and keep the environment in balance.

Despite the country’s rigorous legal provisions for the very purpose of wildlife protection and conservation being provided by the laws pertaining to the protection of wildlife and their natural habitat, it is observed that the actual situation on the ground is different. This research identified weak enforcement and implementation of the Wildlife Protection Act as a major concern (Soni, 2020). Even the use of hazardous materials in industry, daily human activity, building and road construction, leisure, and entertainment activities has a negative impact on the environment, which in turn has an impact on wildlife and their natural habitat.

An important turning point in India’s history of wildlife conservation was the passage of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act in 1972. Before the legislation was passed, state-specific regulations that varied widely in their implementation oversaw wildlife conservation in India (Karanth et al, 2008). With the passage of the 1972 Act, a complete legislative framework for the conservation of wildlife nationwide was established for the first time.

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), provides the legal framework for the protection of various species of wild animals, management of their habitat and also for the regulation and control of trade in the products derived from various parts of wild animals (Karanth, Gupta & Vanamamalai, 2018). The Act was introduced at a period when animal population in India were rapidly declining because of widespread hunting and habitat destruction. Due to the threat of extinction facing the Bengal tiger in particular, Project Tiger, a significant conservation effort run under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, was started in 1973. The Act therefore established the groundwork for the nation’s conservation initiatives and has played a significant role in the recovery of a number of species over time, including the Asiatic lion and the Indian rhinoceros (Maikhuri et al, 2001).

Important Provisions of the Indian Wildlife Act

The Wildlife Protection Act is a landmark piece of legislation in India’s environmental and conservation history. The act shifted the focus from exploitation of wildlife resources to conservation and protection. Firstly,the Act banned the hunting of most wild animals, with specific species listed under various Schedules of the Act. Schedule I and II species, which include some of India’s most iconic and endangered animals like the Bengal tiger, Asian elephant, and Indian rhinoceros, were afforded the highest level of protection (Hundal, 2004). A famous case where this was applied was when famous Bollywood actor, Salman Khan, was sentenced to 5 years in prison for hunting a black buck, The actor was charged with Section 9/51 of the Wildlife Protection Act.

Secondly, it established protected areas by creatingnational parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and biosphere reserves. These areas were designated to serve as safe havens for wildlife, where human activities were either strictly regulated or prohibited altogether. The Act also imposed strict regulations on the trade of wildlife products, including skins, trophies, and other derivatives. The commercial exploitation of wildlife was curtailed, with penalties for violations designed to deter illegal trade (Singh et al, 2023). It mandated the establishment of Wildlife Advisory Boards at both the central and state levels. These bodies were tasked with advising governments on the implementation of the Act and the management of protected areas.

Furthermore, the Act prescribed penalties for various offenses, including hunting, poaching, and the illegal trade of wildlife. These penalties included fines and imprisonment, with the severity of the punishment depending on the species involved and the nature of the offense. It led to the creation of various bodies and authorities for wildlife protection and management at both central and state levels (Padmakumar & Shanthakumar, 2023). This act has also been instrumental in shaping India’s wildlife conservation efforts and has been amended several times to strengthen its provisions.

Additionally, the Amendment Act of 1991 increased the effectiveness of the nearly complete ban on hunting. The amendment was a significant step toward increasing the deterrence against wildlife crimes by introducing stricter penalties. This change was driven by the rising tide of poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and their derivatives, which had become a serious threat to species like tigers, elephants, and rhinoceroses (Menon & Borah, 2024). The amendment introduced harsher punishments, including longer prison terms and heavier fines, for offenses related to the hunting and illegal trade of wildlife (Rana & Kumar, 2023). An amendment resulted in the insertion of the special chapters dealing with the protection of specified plants and the regulation of zoos. This also recognized the needs of tribal and forest dwellers and changes were introduced to advance their welfare.

Continuing in this vein, widespread changes were made by the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 and a new chapter has been incorporated to deal with the forfeiture of property derived from illegal hunting and trade. This amendment also introduced the concept of co-operative management through conservation reserve management committee and community reserve committees. It also saw the creation of the National Board for Wildlife, chaired by the Prime Minister, which was intended to provide high-level oversight and coordination of wildlife conservation efforts across the country. Additionally, the amendment introduced the concept of community reserves, recognizing the role of local communities in wildlife conservation (Alam & Nayak, 2024). However, the practical implementation of these community reserves has been inconsistent, with many communities lacking the resources and support needed to manage these areas effectively.

India is also a party to five major international conventions related to wildlife conservation: CITES, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), International Whaling Commission (IWC), United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization World Heritage Committee (UNESCO-WHC) and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS).

The 2013 amendment was a response to India’s commitments under various international conventions, particularly the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This amendment sought to align the Act with international standards on the regulation of wildlife trade. It introduced provisions for the regulation of trade in endangered species and their products, tightening controls on the import and export of species listed under CITES (Milda et al, 2023).

The main purpose was to strengthen the enforcement of wildlife protection laws in response to an increase in wildlife crime. The amendment outlined increasing the penalty for wildlife offences; banning the use of animal traps except in specific situations; requiring permits for scientific research; granting exemptions for specific activities, such as livestock grazing and movement; and preserving the Scheduled Tribes’ right to hunt in the Union territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Despite these progressive provisions, the amendment has faced criticism for its limited impact on the ground. In many cases, the involvement of communities in conservation decision-making has remained superficial, with significant power imbalances between local communities and government authorities.

Challenges in the Existing Policy Landscape

Although India’s wildlife policy has a robust framework, it faces several significant challenges and gaps that undermine its effectiveness. Despite the numerous amendments and the overall strengthening of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, several policy gaps continue to hinder its effectiveness in addressing the contemporary challenges of wildlife conservation. These gaps reflect both the evolving nature of threats to wildlife and the complexities of implementing conservation laws in a rapidly developing country like India (Verma & Kumar Yadav, 2024).

Although the Wildlife Protection Act, Customs Act, and Import-Export policies in India contain provisions governing the conservation measures and trade of wildlife species, particularly the endangered species, the illicit hunting, poaching, and trade of these species continues unabated, and their exploitative practices continue. It was the involvement of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India’s main investigative agency, that found that there were no tigers after a 2-month investigation. The CBI concluded that forest officials were undoubtedly involved. Since then tigers have been reintroduced into the Sarika Tiger Reserve (Kuttappa & Bhat, 2023). While some human settlements have been relocated however villages continue to exist inside the protected area.

As human settlements encroach on wildlife habitats, incidents of conflict increase. This not only endangers wildlife but also results in loss of human life and property, leading to negative perceptions of conservation efforts among local communities. In regions where wildlife attacks are prevalent, such incidents have profound socio-economic implications, particularly for rural communities dependent on agriculture and livestock rearing. Crop raids by elephants, predation on livestock by big cats, and attacks on humans can lead to economic losses, exacerbate poverty, leading to resentment towards wildlife conservation efforts.

The Act’s approach to community involvement in conservation remains limited and often superficial. While the 2002 and 2013 amendments introduced the concept of community reserves and sought to involve local communities in the management of protected areas, these initiatives have not been consistently implemented (Dey, Goswami, Sharma & Sarma, 2024). In many cases, local communities are either excluded from decision-making processes or their participation is tokenistic, without real influence over conservation policies. This lack of meaningful involvement is problematic, especially in regions where indigenous and local communities have a deep ecological knowledge and a vested interest in the sustainable management of natural resources. The Act needs to be reformed to genuinely empower these communities, giving them a more significant role in conservation efforts while ensuring that their rights and livelihoods are respected.

It has also been observed that the Act’s penalty and penalties for violations are insufficient to prevent and regulate the exploitation of wildlife. Offenders can still escape punishment by paying penalties, and individuals who are defending themselves in court are similarly unaffected by the very sluggish resolution of cases in Indian courts (Alam & Nayak, 2024). The reason behind it also explains the thousands of cases that are backlogged in District Courts and other courts. As a result, it takes the courts almost ten years to reach a decision in these kinds of cases, during which time the perpetrators prosper in their business and the poaching of wildlife carries on.

Furthermore, one of the most significant shortcomings of the Act is its inadequate focus on habitat conservation. While the Act provides for the establishment of protected areas, it does not sufficiently address the broader landscape-level conservation required to maintain ecological connectivity (Gupta et al, 2023). Many species, particularly large mammals like tigers and elephants, require vast tracts of interconnected habitats to survive. The fragmentation of these habitats due to infrastructure development, agriculture, and urban expansion has severely impacted wildlife populations.

Another issue is that there is insufficient training or funding for the Forest Departments and Forest Officers, which prevents them from carrying out their duties as law enforcers and facilitators of conservation efforts. It is evident that the legal framework in India pertaining to the preservation and safeguarding of fauna is intricate. The rules offer forest officers the ability to safeguard the forest’s resources, but they also deny them the authority to enact policies about the matter, which makes it more difficult to seize stolen animals or fallen timber (Sunder, 1995). This has contributed to the rise in exploitation even more. However, the forest officers themselves participate in the exploitation practices due to corruption and self-interest. Even though the locals in the area can genuinely assist in preventing exploitation and safeguarding the wildlife resources, it has been observed that the forest officials have never included the locals in their efforts to stop the exploitation of wildlife.

In addition, the Wildlife (Protection) Act has also struggled to keep pace with advancements in conservation science. Modern conservation strategies emphasize the importance of data-driven decision-making, which involves the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), remote sensing, and genetic studies to monitor wildlife populations and habitats. However, the Act does not mandate the use of these technologies, and their adoption by wildlife authorities has been inconsistent. There is a need to integrate these scientific tools into the legal framework of the Act, ensuring that conservation policies are informed by the latest research and technology. This would not only improve the effectiveness of wildlife management but also help in identifying and addressing emerging threats more rapidly.

Finally, the Act does not adequately address the growing threat of climate change, which is increasingly impacting wildlife and their habitats. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns are altering ecosystems, affecting species distribution, and exacerbating issues like habitat loss and human-wildlife conflict (Manhas & Meena, 2024). The Act’s current provisions do not sufficiently account for these climate-related challenges, which are likely to become more severe in the coming decades.

Policy Recommendations

Inadequate enforcement of laws protecting wildlife is one of the main issues, which is frequently made worse by ineffective government. Enforcement agencies’ ability to properly enforce these laws is frequently limited by shortages of funding, manpower, and political support. These efforts are further impacted by corruption and a lack of accountability, which permits illicit operations like poaching and habitat damage to continue (Rodgers, 1989). To tackle these problems, more funding must be allotted, and the number of personnel working on wildlife enforcement must be increased. Furthermore, improving enforcement staff training and capacity-building programs can greatly increase their efficacy. To make sure that policies are being carried out correctly, it is also essential to strengthen the procedures for interagency cooperation and intelligence sharing and to put in place strong monitoring and evaluation systems. Using technology to monitor communities and encourage more accountability and openness can lead to better governance (Choudhury et al, 2023). Examples of this technology include drones and camera traps.

The forest service and other government employees assigned to the reserves and protected areas need to be made aware of protecting and conserving wildlife. Training and research on wildlife conservation strategies and the legal protections available for their preservation should be given to these interested personnel. It is imperative to engage the local population residing in the vicinity of the protected areas by raising their awareness of the significance of wildlife conservation and protection, as well as the applicable legal frameworks that govern it (Gupta et al, 2023). It is important to inform the local population about all the legal provisions that are in place to preserve and protect wildlife and endangered species. They should also be aware of the consequences and repercussions for breaking any laws and endangering the wildlife. This will contribute to a greater level of awareness among the local population, which will further aid in supporting government officials and forest officials operating in these protected regions.

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) also could contribute significantly to the conservation and protection of wildlife. The Wildlife Protection Society of India is one such group that strives to save the environment by supplying data and assistance to government authorities involved in wildlife conservation and protection (Niraj, Krausman & Dayal, 2012). This is done to combat the illegal wildlife trade and poaching of wild animals. The protection of India’s wildlife resources will be greatly aided by the cooperation of such NGOs. Additional strategies for safeguarding and preserving animals include breeding, bolstering the resilience of natural reserves, and establishing and overseeing biosphere reserves.

Enhancing natural reserves’ resilience is required which includes preserving natural reserves, establishing buffer zones, reducing human activities like building, road, and transportation construction, minimising wildlife tourism, minimising habitat fragmentation, discussing genetic diversity, and safeguarding biodiversity “hot spots” to prevent extinction and save threatened species (Milda et al, 2023). For landscapes to be as resilient as possible, buffer zones must be created around them. Buffer zone protected areas also need rehabilitation, with an emphasis on mitigating particular climate change impacts. Certain ecosystems possess intact landscapes and may possess adequate resilience; nonetheless, the way in which the inhabitants of these areas utilise land and water must be regulated to avoid the loss of resilience.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have the potential to significantly address the funding challenges in wildlife conservation by leveraging the strengths of both sectors. One of the key ways PPPs can contribute is by leveraging private sector investments. Companies with an interest in sustainable resource use or those committed to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives can provide crucial financial resources and technical expertise for conservation projects (Menon & Borah, 2024). Through PPPs, these private sector funds can be directed towards essential activities like habitat restoration, anti-poaching measures, and community-based conservation initiatives, helping to bridge the gap left by limited public funding.

Another important contribution of PPPs is the development of innovative financing mechanisms. These partnerships can help create revenue streams that are both sustainable and reliable, reducing dependence on government budgets. For example, PPPs can facilitate the implementation of ecotourism revenue-sharing models, biodiversity offsets, and conservation trust funds (Kalra, 2023). These mechanisms ensure that conservation efforts are financially supported over the long term, even as public funds remain constrained.

PPPs also bring valuable expertise and resources to the table. The private sector often possesses specialized skills and technologies that can enhance wildlife monitoring, habitat management, and community engagement efforts. When public agencies collaborate with private partners, they can achieve more efficient and effective conservation outcomes. This collaboration not only improves the implementation of conservation strategies but also allows for the sharing of best practices and innovative solutions (Sekhar, 2003). For instance, Sony India supported the conservation of red pandas and snow leopards in Arunachal Pradesh and tiger conservation through documentation and dissemination. Apart from supporting commercially, Sony provided technical equipment and know-how such as cameras, lenses, projectors and related products for creating the films and raising awareness (Rana & Kumar, 2023).

Moreover, successful PPP models in wildlife conservation can be scaled and replicated across different regions and habitats, amplifying their impact. The involvement of private sector partners helps in expanding effective conservation approaches, creating a multiplier effect that benefits broader ecosystems (Maikhuri et al, 2001). Additionally, PPPs can improve stakeholder engagement by bringing together various actors, including local communities, NGOs, and government agencies. This collaborative approach enhances transparency and accountability in the use of conservation funds, ensuring that resources are utilized effectively. Finally, PPPs offer sustainability and long-term commitment, which are crucial for the success of conservation initiatives. Unlike public funding, which can be subject to political and economic fluctuations, PPPs provide stability and continuity. Private partners can commit to ongoing financial and operational support, contributing to the overall sustainability of conservation programs.

Conclusion

The policy gaps in the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 underscore the need for a more holistic approach to wildlife conservation. While the Act has been instrumental in protecting many of India’s iconic species, its limitations highlight the challenges of implementing effective conservation policies in a rapidly changing world. Addressing gaps will require not only legal reforms but also a stronger commitment to enforcement, community involvement, and the integration of modern conservation science. In a situation when various wildlife species are threatened and many are on the point of extinction, the government must act in accordance with the current needs and desires. It is necessary for the federal government and state governments to collaborate and execute all applicable laws and conservation strategies to protect the wildlife and prevent illegal hunting and trade of these endangered species and wildlife as a whole.

References

• Niraj, S. K., Krausman, P. R., & Dayal, V. (2012). A stakeholder perspective into wildlife policy in India. The journal of wildlife management, 76(1), 10-18.
• Soni, V. K. (2020). Wildlife conservation in India: issues and challenges. Journal of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research, 12(10), 796-802.
• Karanth, K. K., Gupta, S., & Vanamamalai, A. (2018). Compensation payments, procedures and policies towards human-wildlife conflict management: Insights from India. Biological Conservation, 227, 383-389.
• Rodgers, W. A. (1989). Policy issues in wildlife conservation. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 35(3), 461-468.
• Johnson, M. F., Karanth, K. K., & Weinthal, E. (2018). Compensation as a policy for mitigating human-wildlife conflict around four protected areas in Rajasthan, India. Conservation and Society, 16(3), 305-319.
• Sekhar, N. U. (2003). Local people’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of environmental Management, 69(4), 339-347.
• Karanth, K. K., Kramer, R. A., Qian, S. S., & Christensen Jr, N. L. (2008). Examining conservation attitudes, perspectives, and challenges in India. Biological Conservation, 141(9), 2357-2367.
• Hundal, S. S. (2004). Wildlife conservation strategies and management in India: an overview. In Proceedings of the species at risk 2004 pathways to recovery conference, Victoria conference centre, BC, Canada (pp. 2-6).
• Maikhuri, R. K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K. S., & Saxena, K. G. (2001). Conservation policy–people conflicts: a case study from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (a world heritage site), India. Forest Policy and Economics, 2(3-4), 355-365.
• Sunder, S. S. (1995). Wildlife conservation and forestry: concerns and policy developments in India. The Commonwealth Forestry Review, 35-40.
• Choudhury, U. R., Margulies, J. D., Mariyam, D., Rajeev, B. R., & Karanth, K. K. (2023). Seeing animals like a state? Divergent forester subjectivities and the managing of human-wildlife conflicts in South India. Geoforum, 147, 103892.
• Manhas, A., & Meena, S. D. (2024). Wildlife Conservation in the Current Era: Issues and Challenges. Forest, Wildlife & Environmental Issues, 9.
• Singh, R., Sethy, J., & Chatrath, D. (2023). Trends and Patterns of Illgeal Wildlife Hunting and Trading in Uttar Pradesh, India. International Journal of Conservation Science, 14(1).
• Padmakumar, V., & Shanthakumar, M. (2023). The impact of human-wildlife conflict on biodiversity conservation in India. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud, 11(3), 107-110.
• Rana, A. K., & Kumar, N. (2023). Current wildlife crime (Indian scenario): major challenges and prevention approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation, 32(5), 1473-1491.
• Gupta, S., Kumaresan, P. R., Saxena, A., Mishra, M. R., Upadhyay, L., TA, A. S., … & Magrey, A. H. (2023). Wildlife Conservation and Management: Challenges and Strategies. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology, 44(24), 280-286.
• Kuttappa, B. B., & Bhat, S. (2023). The Sustainable Harvest of Wildlife in India: A Comparative Analysis.
• Kalra, S., Poonia, A., Sharma, R., Kaur, R., Sharma, P., Kumar, A., & Gulia, N. (2023). Wildlife conservation through local community engagement in India. Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology, 44(2), 13-24.
• Verma, G., & Kumar Yadav, D. R. (2024). Through the Government’s Lens: Nature’s Cry—India’s Battle against Illegal Wildlife Trade. Available at SSRN.
• Menon, A., & Borah, R. (2024). Tiger conservation, biopolitics and the future of Indian environmentalism. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 45(1), 70-84.
• Milda, D., Ramesh, T., Kalle, R., Gayathri, V., Thanikodi, M., & Ashish, K. (2023). Factors driving human–wild pig interactions: implications for wildlife conflict management in southern parts of India. Biological Invasions, 25(1), 221-235.
• Dey, S., Goswami, M., Sharma, N., & Sarma, K. (2024). Content analysis of print media articles on biodiversity conservation and human-wildlife conflict in Northeast India.
• Alam, R., & Nayak, D. (2024). Examining human-wildlife conflict and management strategies in Indian protected areas: evidence from Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1-18.