The Wildlife Protection Amendment Bill 2013, tabled in the recently concluded Parliament Session, has kicked up a controversy.
While the proposed amendments aim at strengthening mechanisms for wildlife protection and providing for more stringent punishment to wildlife offenders, certain provisions have made experts sceptical over the future of researches on wildlife in the country arguing that researchers will have to face disproportionate penalties for relatively minor violations.
Former member of National Board For Wildlife (NBWl) Praveen Bhargav pointed out, Section 51A(1) of the Bill for instance now reads: “…the breach of any of the terms and conditions of any licence or permit granted… shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees.”
If approved, it will imply a compulsory prison term of up to three years for relatively minor research permit violations. “On the other hand, more serious offences like sale/purchase/
transfer and trade of meat or animal article/trophies of wild animals listed in Part I of Schedule II, III and IV do not carry a compulsory imprisonment term. The punishment proposed is imprisonment up to three years or fine of Rs 1 lakh or both,” said Bhargav in a recent letter to Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan.
“This structure of penalties seems to be extremely illogical and therefore needs your immediate intervention,” he said, while suggesting the Minister to make necessary changes before the amendments are passed by Parliament.
He, however, appreciated few clauses in the amendment which according to him will help researchers free themselves of the subjective discretionary powers of State Chief Wildlife Wardens (CWlW). Section 12A(1) states that “the Chief Wildlife Warden shall, on an application, grant a permit, by an order in writing to any person, to conduct scientific research.”
Further, there is confusion in the proposed amendments over the meaning of trapping by any device designed to restrain or capture an animal. There is a provision stating that the chief wildlife warden may permit the use of traps (except steel traps) to safeguard agricultural crops and property of farmers.
Henceforth, in such a case any trap for even trapping vermin, will need to be produced, kept, sold, etc with the permission of CWlW. The new amendment also changes the definition of wildlife which, experts fear, will have far-reaching implications.
It broadens the definition of wild animals as any creature found in the wild. If this is so, even fishermen or fish vendors may also need a licence to operate. A section of experts is worried about the possible abuse of the Bill. According to GB Mahure of Bor Foundation, many traps were hard to define. “A snare, for example, is only a length of wire looped in a particular way. A person with a simple two-wheeler clutch wire can also be arrested in such a case,” he added.