Wildlife Protection Act Amendments Legal Challenges And Conservation Gaps

Abstract

The Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) of 1972 stands as a seminal piece of legislation in India's environmental jurisprudence, established to provide a robust legal framework for the protection of the nation's rich and diverse flora and fauna. Enacted at a time when India's wildlife faced unprecedented threats from hunting and habitat loss, the Act created a structured regime of protected areas, schedules of protected species, and regulations on trade. However, over the five decades since its inception, the ecological, socio-economic, and legal landscape of India has transformed dramatically. This has necessitated a series of amendments to the Act, aimed at addressing emerging challenges and closing existing loopholes. This article presents a critical analysis of these amendments, tracing their evolution from the foundational 1972 Act to the most recent changes. It delves into the profound legal and constitutional challenges that have arisen, including issues related to the rights of forest-dwelling communities, the complexities of human-wildlife conflict, and the tensions between federal and state jurisdictions. Furthermore, the article identifies and examines the persistent and emerging conservation gaps that the amended legislation has failed to adequately address. These include the inadequate protection for ecologically critical areas beyond the designated protected area network, the burgeoning challenge of linear infrastructure projects fragmenting habitats, the threats posed by invasive alien species, and the insufficient focus on the conservation of non-charismatic fauna and marine ecosystems. By synthesizing judicial interpretations, policy analyses, and ground-level conservation realities, this article argues that while the amendments have strengthened the WPA in certain respects, they have also created new dilemmas and left significant vulnerabilities unaddressed. It concludes that a future-proof wildlife conservation strategy for India requires a more holistic, inclusive, and ecologically nuanced approach to legislation, one that moves beyond a species-centric and fortress conservation model to embrace landscape-level planning, community stewardship, and a proactive stance against contemporary threats like climate change and zoonotic diseases.

Introduction

The enactment of the Wildlife (Protection) Act in 1972 marked a paradigm shift in India's approach to nature conservation. Prior to this, wildlife laws were fragmented and primarily focused on regulating hunting for sport or revenue, with little regard for ecological balance or species survival. The WPA 1972 consolidated these scattered laws and established a comprehensive national framework. Its primary objectives were to prohibit hunting of specified wild animals, birds, and plants; to create a network of protected areas (National Parks, Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves, and Community Reserves); to regulate trade in wildlife and its derivatives; and to manage the populations of endangered species through dedicated plans. The Act’s Schedules, particularly Schedule I and Part II of Schedule II, accorded the highest degree of protection to threatened species like the tiger, elephant, rhinoceros, and snow leopard, prescribing the most stringent penalties for their poaching or trade.

The initial Act, while revolutionary, was not without its flaws. It was largely exclusionary, often displacing local and indigenous communities from their ancestral lands in the name of conservation. Its enforcement mechanisms were initially weak, and it did not adequately address the complexities of wildlife management in a country with a vast and growing human population. Consequently, the Act has been amended several times—in 1982, 1986, 1991, 2002, 2006, and 2013—each time attempting to refine its provisions and respond to new challenges.

The most significant amendments came in 2002 and 2006. The 2002 amendment introduced the concepts of Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves, acknowledging the need for community participation and protecting corridors. More profoundly, the 2006 amendment established the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB), signaling a heightened focus on flagship species and organized wildlife crime. However, these amendments have also been a source of contention, creating a complex interplay of legal, social, and ecological issues.

This article embarks on a detailed examination of this evolutionary journey. It first provides a historical overview of the key amendments to the WPA. It then dissects the major legal challenges that have emerged, including the contentious interface with the Forest Rights Act, 2006, the adjudication of human-wildlife conflict, and the jurisdictional tussles between the centre and states. Subsequently, the article shifts its focus to the critical conservation gaps that persist despite legislative tinkering—the plight of neglected ecosystems and species, the menace of habitat fragmentation, and the emerging threats of invasive species and climate change. Through this analysis, the article aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the successes, shortcomings, and future trajectory of India's primary legal instrument for wildlife conservation.

Part 1: Historical Evolution and Key Amendments to the Wildlife Protection Act

The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 was not created in a vacuum; it was a response to a growing national and international consciousness about the precipitous decline of wildlife. The post-independence era saw rapid agricultural expansion, industrialization, and hunting pressures that pushed many species, including the iconic tiger, to the brink. The Act provided the necessary legal teeth to combat these threats.

1.1 The Foundational Act of 1972

The original Act established the core principles of wildlife conservation in India.

» Schedules of Protection: It categorized species into Schedules, with Schedule I and Part II of Schedule II affording the highest level of protection. Hunting of these animals was prohibited, with severe penalties.

» Protected Area Network: It provided for the creation of Sanctuaries and National Parks. While both restrict human activity, National Parks enjoy a higher degree of protection, where no human rights are allowed unless specifically permitted by the Chief Wildlife Warden.

» Regulation of Trade: It controlled the trade and commerce of wild animals, animal articles, and trophies.

» Administrative Machinery: It established posts like the Director of Wildlife Preservation and Chief Wildlife Wardens in states to implement the Act.

Despite its strengths, the 1972 Act soon revealed limitations. Its "fortress conservation" model led to conflicts with local communities. The procedures for declaring protected areas were often opaque, and the settlement of rights was a contentious issue.

1.2 The Amendment of 1986: Closing Loopholes

This amendment was primarily technical, aimed at plugging legal loopholes that were being exploited by poachers and traders. It strengthened the provisions related to the forfeiture of property used in committing offences and made the penalties for violations more stringent.

1.3 The Amendment of 1991: Embracing Biodiversity

Influenced by the global momentum leading to the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), this amendment expanded the scope of the Act beyond animals to include plants. It added a new Chapter (Chapter III-A) for the protection of specified plants, prohibiting their picking, uprooting, possession, or trade without a permit. This was a crucial step in acknowledging the integral role of flora in ecosystem health.

1.4 The Amendment of 2002: A Paradigm Shift Towards Inclusion

The 2002 amendment was a significant step towards a more inclusive and landscape-based approach to conservation.

» Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves: This was the most innovative introduction. Conservation Reserves are areas adjacent to National Parks and Sanctuaries owned by the government but managed by the state government in consultation with local communities. Community Reserves are private or community lands where individuals or a community have volunteered to conserve wildlife and its habitat. These provisions recognized the importance of wildlife corridors and buffer zones and formally incorporated community participation into the legal framework.

» Strengthened Management: It made it mandatory for every Sanctuary and National Park to have a Management Plan, ensuring scientific and planned conservation.

1.5 The Amendment of 2006: The Tiger Amendment

Triggered by the shocking disappearance of tigers from Sariska Tiger Reserve, the 2006 amendment was a watershed moment, particularly for tiger conservation.

» National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA): The NTCA was established as a statutory body with overarching authority for tiger conservation. It was tasked with monitoring tiger reserves, approving their management plans, providing technical and financial support, and ensuring adherence to the guidelines of the Tiger Conservation Plan.

» Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB): Recognizing the transnational and organized nature of wildlife crime, the WCCB was set up as a specialized agency to combat illegal trade and poaching networks.

» Tiger Conservation Plan: It mandated the preparation of a Tiger Conservation Plan for each tiger reserve, which would be a superseding document over other management plans, focusing on the specific needs of the tiger and its ecosystem.

» Reconstitution of SAWCB: It reconstituted the State Board for Wildlife to include a greater number of non-official members, including ecologists and conservationists, to advise the state government on wildlife policy.

1.6 The Amendment of 2013: Regulating Captive Wildlife

This amendment primarily focused on regulating the possession and trade of captive animals and dealing with the issue of animals declared as "vermin." It aimed to create a more systematic process for documenting and regulating captive elephant trade, though it has been criticized for not going far enough to prevent misuse.

Part 2: Major Legal Challenges Posed by the Amendments

While the amendments have strengthened the WPA, they have also engendered complex legal battles that question the very foundations of conservation law in India.

2.1 The Conflict with the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA)

This is arguably the most significant legal and social challenge in contemporary Indian wildlife conservation. The FRA, enacted in the same year as the pivotal WPA amendment, aims to redress the "historical injustice" done to forest-dwelling communities by recognizing their individual and community forest rights. The collision between the two acts is inevitable.

» The Core Conflict: The WPA, in its traditional form, advocates for inviolate core areas in tiger reserves and protected areas, often requiring the relocation of human settlements. The FRA, conversely, secures the right of these communities to live in and sustainably use forest resources. This has led to numerous legal disputes, particularly concerning the relocation of villages from tiger reserves. The Supreme Court has been repeatedly petitioned to adjudicate on which law takes precedence. The judiciary has often leaned towards the imperative of creating inviolate spaces for critically endangered species like the tiger, but this has come at a significant social cost, leading to allegations that conservation is perpetuating displacement.

» The 'Critical Wildlife Habitat' Conundrum: The FRA itself provides for the identification and declaration of Critical Wildlife Habitats (CWH) within protected areas, from which communities can be relocated only after scientific evidence establishes that coexistence is impossible, and the process of recognizing and settling rights under the FRA is complete. However, the implementation of CWH has been slow and contentious, with conservationists arguing it hampers the creation of inviolate spaces and community rights activists arguing that the process is often bypassed.

2.2 Human-Wildlife Conflict: The Legal Vacuum

As wildlife populations have recovered in some areas and habitats have fragmented, incidents of human-wildlife conflict have skyrocketed. Farmers face crop raids by elephants, nilgai, and wild boars; livestock are killed by leopards and tigers; and human fatalities and injuries are on the rise. The WPA, however, provides a clumsy and often delayed response.

The 'Vermin' Declaration: Section 62 of the WPA allows the central government to declare any wild animal (other than those in Schedule I) as "vermin" for a specific area and period, allowing for its hunting. This is often used as a political tool to appease agitated farming communities. However, declaring a species like the nilgai or wild boar as vermin is an ecologically unsound approach that fails to address the root causes of the conflict, such as habitat loss, the decline of natural predators, and the availability of crops as easy forage. It is a reactive, not a proactive, legal measure.

» Compensation Delays and Inadequacy: While most states have compensation schemes for crop damage, livestock loss, or human injury/death, the process is marred by bureaucratic delays, inadequate compensation amounts, and complex claim procedures. The WPA does not mandate a uniform, timely, and transparent compensation mechanism, leaving victims of conflict in a state of financial and emotional distress, which erodes public support for conservation.

2.3 Federal Tensions: Centre vs. State Jurisdiction

The Constitution of India places "forests" and "protection of wild animals and birds" in the Concurrent List, meaning both the central and state governments can legislate on the subject. This has led to tensions.

» Overriding Powers of NTCA: States often perceive the directives of the NTCA, a central government body, as an infringement on their autonomy to manage their forests and wildlife. The mandatory approval of Tiger Conservation Plans by the NTCA is sometimes viewed as central overreach.

» Differential Implementation: The commitment to and capacity for implementing the WPA varies vastly across states. While some states have progressive conservation policies, others prioritize industrial or developmental projects in ecologically sensitive areas. The central government's power to issue advisories or withhold funds is often insufficient to ensure uniform compliance, creating a patchwork of conservation effectiveness across the country.

2.4 Judicial Activism and Its Double-Edged Sword

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and various High Courts, has played a proactive role in interpreting and enforcing the WPA through Public Interest Litigations (PILs).

» Positive Interventions: Landmark judgments have strengthened conservation. Examples include the ban on the use of diclofenac in veterinary medicine (which caused the catastrophic decline of vultures), the regulation of tourism in core areas of tiger reserves, and the enforcement of coastal zone regulations.

» Unintended Consequences: At times, judicial orders, while well-intentioned, have had negative repercussions. A prime example is the Supreme Court's order in 2019 that effectively evicted millions of forest dwellers whose claims under the FRA were rejected. While the order was later stayed, it highlighted how a narrow interpretation of conservation law can lead to immense social injustice. The judiciary, lacking specialized ecological expertise, sometimes issues blanket orders that may not be context-specific or scientifically nuanced.

Part 3: Persistent and Emerging Conservation Gaps

Beyond the courtroom battles, the amended WPA fails to address several critical ecological challenges, leaving gaping holes in India's conservation safety net.

3.1 The 'Charismatic Megafauna' Bias

The WPA, and particularly its amendments, exhibits a strong bias towards large, charismatic species. The 2006 amendment, for instance, created an entire new administrative and legal superstructure for the tiger.

» Neglected Species: This focus often comes at the expense of less charismatic but ecologically vital species. The catastrophic decline of vultures due to diclofenac, for instance, was not addressed by the WPA but by a separate order of the Supreme Court. Similarly, the conservation of amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and many plant species receives far less attention, funding, and legal enforcement. Many species in lower schedules continue to be traded and exploited with relative impunity.

» Habitat Neglect: The focus on flagship species can lead to a "tunnel vision" where the health of the entire ecosystem is measured solely by the population of one species. This can lead to management practices that benefit the tiger but are detrimental to other components of biodiversity.

3.2 The Inadequate Protection of Conservation Landscapes

The Protected Area network covers less than 5% of India's geographical area. However, wildlife does not recognize these legal boundaries.

» Wildlife Corridors: Many crucial wildlife corridors, which connect protected areas and allow for genetic exchange and seasonal migration, lie outside the formal network. While the 2002 amendment created Conservation Reserves for this purpose, the notification of such reserves has been slow and patchy. Most corridors remain unprotected, facing severe threats from agriculture, mining, and urban sprawl. The WPA does not have a mandatory mechanism to identify, secure, and legally protect these vital landscape connectors.

» Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) Outside PAs: A vast amount of biodiversity exists in reserved forests, deemed forests, and even revenue lands. These areas receive minimal protection under the WPA and are highly vulnerable to diversion for "development" projects.

3.3 The Threat of Linear Infrastructure

Roads, railways, power lines, and canals are essential for development, but they are also one of the biggest drivers of habitat fragmentation and wildlife mortality.

Habitat Fragmentation: Linear infrastructure slices through forests, creating barriers that disrupt animal movement, increase edge effects, and lead to population isolation. The WPA has no provisions to mandate a comprehensive, landscape-level environmental impact assessment for such projects that considers cumulative impacts on wildlife corridors.

» Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions: Deaths of animals, from elephants to reptiles, on roads and railways are a daily occurrence, contributing significantly to human-wildlife conflict and population decline. While the WPA can regulate activities within protected areas, it has little say in the planning and alignment of such infrastructure outside them. The recent push for mitigation measures like underpasses and overpasses is a step forward, but it is often an afterthought rather than a legally mandated, integral part of project planning.

3.4 Invasive Alien Species (IAS)

The proliferation of invasive plant species like Lantana camara, Parthenium hysterophorus, and Prosopis juliflora has emerged as a silent crisis, degrading millions of hectares of forest land. These species outcompete native flora, reduce fodder availability for herbivores, alter fire regimes, and diminish the overall ecological carrying capacity of habitats. The WPA is virtually silent on the threat of invasive species. There is no legal mandate or dedicated strategy for the early detection, rapid response, and systematic management of IAS, leaving forest departments to fight a losing battle with limited resources.

3.5 Marine and Coastal Conservation

The WPA was designed primarily for terrestrial ecosystems. Its application to marine environments is weak and inadequate.

» Limited Protected Areas: While there are a few marine national parks and sanctuaries, their management is challenging, and the level of protection is not commensurate with the threats from overfishing, pollution, coastal development, and climate change.

» Marine Species Protection: Many marine species, including sharks, rays, and several fish species, are threatened by unsustainable fishing practices and trade. The regulatory mechanisms under the WPA for marine conservation are not as robust or as effectively enforced as those for terrestrial wildlife.

3.6 Climate Change: The Unaddressed Multiplier

Climate change acts as a threat multiplier, exacerbating all other conservation challenges. It can alter species distributions, disrupt phenology (timing of life-cycle events), increase the frequency of forest fires, and impact water availability. The current framework of the WPA is static; it is not designed to handle the dynamic and large-scale shifts in ecosystems that climate change will bring. There is no legal requirement for protected area management plans to incorporate climate vulnerability assessments or adaptation strategies.

Conclusion and The Path Forward

The journey of the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, through its various amendments, reflects India's evolving understanding of conservation. From a rigid, protectionist law, it has gradually, albeit imperfectly, moved towards incorporating concepts of community participation, landscape-level planning, and combating organized crime. The creation of the NTCA and WCCB are testaments to the nation's commitment to saving its iconic species.

However, this analysis reveals that the legal challenges are as formidable as the ecological ones. The unresolved tension with the Forest Rights Act continues to create social conflict and legal uncertainty. The issue of human-wildlife conflict remains a legal and administrative orphan, addressed through ad-hoc measures like vermin declarations rather than comprehensive, preventive solutions. Furthermore, the persistent conservation gaps highlight that the law has failed to keep pace with emerging threats like habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and climate change.

To truly future-proof India's wildlife heritage, a more fundamental legislative rethink may be necessary. Future amendments, or perhaps a new generation of conservation law, must focus on:

1. Integrating Rights and Conservation: A harmonious implementation of the WPA and FRA is not just desirable but essential. This requires recognizing community conservation efforts, co-managing protected areas and corridors with local communities, and ensuring that conservation benefits are shared equitably.

2. Mainstreaming Conservation in Development Planning: The WPA needs teeth to influence sectoral policies. Mandatory wildlife clearance for linear infrastructure projects, with a focus on avoiding critical habitats and mandating state-of-the-art mitigation, should be legally embedded.

3. Moving Beyond the 'Fortress' Model: The law must incentivize and legally recognize conservation outside protected areas. This includes strengthening the Conservation Reserve and Community Reserve framework, providing tax benefits or payments for ecosystem services to private landowners who conserve wildlife, and empowering Gram Sabhas to manage community forests for biodiversity.

4. Addressing Contemporary Threats: A new chapter or a separate legislation is urgently needed to tackle invasive alien species. Similarly, marine conservation requires a dedicated and strengthened legal framework, possibly through a significant overhaul of the relevant sections of the WPA.

5. Building Climate Resilience: Management plans for all protected areas and conservation landscapes must, by law, include climate change adaptation strategies, ensuring that our conservation networks remain resilient in the face of a changing climate.

The Wildlife Protection Act has served as a vital shield for five decades. The task now is to transform it into a dynamic and intelligent instrument that not only protects but also restores, connects, and fosters a harmonious coexistence between India's people and its unparalleled natural heritage. The amendments have been steps, but the journey towards a truly effective, just, and ecologically comprehensive conservation law is far from over.

Here are some questions and answers on the topic:

1. How has the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) evolved from its inception in 1972 to address emerging conservation challenges, and what have been the most significant shifts in its approach?

The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 was established as a foundational statute primarily focused on prohibiting hunting and creating a network of protected areas like sanctuaries and national parks. Its initial approach was largely exclusionary, often prioritizing the creation of inviolate spaces for wildlife without adequate consideration for local communities. Over the decades, a series of amendments have significantly refined this approach. The 1991 amendment expanded the Act's scope to include plant conservation, acknowledging the importance of biodiversity beyond just animal species. A major paradigm shift occurred with the 2002 amendment, which introduced the concepts of Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves. This marked a move away from a purely fortress conservation model towards a more inclusive, landscape-level approach that recognized the importance of buffer zones, corridors, and community participation. The most profound change came with the 2006 amendment, which was a direct response to a conservation crisis—the disappearance of tigers from Sariska. This led to the creation of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB), signifying a heightened focus on protecting flagship species through dedicated administrative machinery and combating organized wildlife crime. The evolution thus shows a trajectory from a simple protective law to a more complex framework that attempts to integrate ecological science, community involvement, and the challenges of modern wildlife crime.

2. What is the core legal conflict between the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) and the Forest Rights Act (FRA), and why has it proven so difficult to resolve?

The core legal conflict between the Wildlife Protection Act and the Forest Rights Act stems from their fundamentally different objectives and conceptions of land rights. The WPA, particularly through its amendments strengthening protected areas and creating inviolate cores for species like the tiger, often necessitates the relocation of human settlements to minimize human-wildlife conflict and secure critical habitats. In contrast, the FRA aims to redress historical injustices by recognizing the rights of forest-dwelling communities to live in, access, and sustainably use forest resources, including areas within designated sanctuaries and national parks. This creates a direct legal collision: the WPA empowers the state to exclude people for conservation, while the FRA empowers communities to claim their right to remain. This conflict has proven immensely difficult to resolve because it involves deeply entrenched legal principles, ethical questions of social justice, and complex ecological realities. The judiciary has often been called upon to adjudicate, sometimes leaning towards the imperative of creating inviolate spaces for critically endangered species, a stance that risks perpetuating displacement. The FRA's own provision for declaring Critical Wildlife Habitats (CWH)—intended as a scientific and rights-respecting mechanism for relocation—has been poorly implemented, leading to confusion and mistrust. Ultimately, the resolution is not merely a legal one but a socio-political challenge that requires finding a balance between two legitimate but competing public goods: the conservation of national wildlife heritage and the rights of vulnerable indigenous communities.

3. In what ways does the current legal framework under the WPA inadequately address the growing problem of human-wildlife conflict, and what are the consequences of this failure?

The current legal framework under the WPA addresses human-wildlife conflict in a largely reactive and ecologically unsound manner, which has led to significant social and conservation challenges. The primary tool available is Section 62, which allows the central government to declare a wild animal as "vermin" for a specific area and period, thereby permitting its hunting. This approach is problematic because it simplistically labels ecologically important species like nilgai or wild boar as problems to be culled, without addressing the root causes of the conflict, such as habitat loss, degradation, the decline of natural predators, and the availability of agricultural crops as easy forage. Furthermore, the compensation mechanisms for crop damage, livestock depredation, or human injury and death are not uniformly mandated by the WPA. They are managed by state governments and are often plagued by bureaucratic delays, inadequate compensation amounts, and complex claim procedures. This failure has two major consequences. First, it erodes local support for conservation, as communities living on the front lines bear the direct economic and personal costs of protecting wildlife, leading to resentment and sometimes retaliatory killings of animals. Second, it promotes a short-term, populist solution in the form of vermin declarations instead of incentivizing long-term, sustainable solutions like habitat restoration, the creation of physical barriers, and community-based conflict management programs.

4. Beyond the focus on charismatic species like the tiger, what are the major conservation gaps that the amended WPA has failed to close, particularly concerning habitats and lesser-known species?

Despite amendments, the WPA retains a significant bias towards charismatic megafauna, leaving substantial conservation gaps, especially for habitats and lesser-known species. A critical gap is the inadequate legal protection for wildlife corridors and landscapes outside the formal protected area network. While the 2002 amendment created Conservation Reserves for this purpose, their notification has been slow and inconsistent. Most crucial corridors, essential for genetic exchange and seasonal animal migration, remain vulnerable to fragmentation from linear infrastructure like roads, railways, and canals. The WPA lacks the power to mandate a landscape-level planning approach that would prevent such fragmentation at the outset. Furthermore, the Act offers weak protection for ecologically sensitive areas that are not designated as national parks or sanctuaries, such as reserved forests and revenue wastelands, which often host rich biodiversity. Regarding species, the plight of non-charismatic fauna is largely overlooked. The catastrophic decline of vultures, for instance, was not tackled by the WPA but by a separate judicial order. Similarly, the conservation of reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and many plant species receives minimal legal attention, funding, and enforcement. The threat of invasive alien species, which degrade millions of hectares of habitat by outcompeting native flora, is virtually unaddressed by the legislation. These gaps reveal that the law is ill-equipped to handle ecosystem-level threats and continues to operate with a narrow, species-centric focus.

5. Considering the identified legal challenges and conservation gaps, what should be the key priorities for future amendments or policies to make India's wildlife conservation framework more effective and holistic?

To create a more effective and holistic conservation framework, future reforms must move beyond amending the WPA in isolation and focus on integrating it with broader environmental governance and social justice principles. A key priority is to genuinely harmonize the WPA with the Forest Rights Act by ensuring the rigorous and transparent implementation of the Critical Wildlife Habitat provision and promoting collaborative management models where communities are recognized as partners, not adversaries, in conservation. This includes equitably sharing benefits from ecotourism and other conservation-linked incentives. Secondly, conservation must be mainstreamed into development planning. This requires legally mandating a robust environmental and social impact assessment process for all linear infrastructure and other projects, with a strict protocol to avoid critical wildlife corridors and habitats, and a legally binding commitment to implement mitigation measures like safe animal passages. Third, the legal framework must explicitly address emerging threats by introducing a dedicated chapter or strategy for the management of invasive alien species and by requiring all protected area management plans to incorporate climate change vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies. Finally, the scope of protection must be expanded by providing stronger legal status and management support for Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves, and by creating a dedicated legal framework for marine and coastal conservation. The ultimate goal should be to transition from a law that primarily protects designated areas and species to one that fosters resilient, connected, and collaboratively managed landscapes.

Disclaimer: The content shared in this blog is intended solely for general informational and educational purposes. It provides only a basic understanding of the subject and should not be considered as professional legal advice. For specific guidance or in-depth legal assistance, readers are strongly advised to consult a qualified legal professional.