Experts say proposed changes to wildlife legislation might affect research

Concerns have been expressed by biologists and ecologists that the Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 2022, which restricts or makes it impossible to collect specimens, would make it difficult to conduct ecological and genetic study on a significant number of species.

This is because a huge number of species have been included to the so-called Schedule I of the updated statute.

In order to study a variety of topics, such as how thermal stress is affecting endangered species, how their migration patterns are changing, or even zoonoses or the transmission of pathogens from animals to humans, it is crucial to capture specimens. Birds, for example, are mist-netted and then released.

The amendment law aimed to streamline the schedules and only produced two primary tiers of animal protection: Schedule I, which lists the species of animals with the greatest level of protection, and Schedule II, which lists the species of animals with a comparatively lesser level of protection.

The amending act’s Schedule IV protects species covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), while Schedule III covers plant species.

The original legislation, in contrast, had six schedules: schedule I for animals, with the greatest priority being endangered species; schedule II for species with a somewhat lower level of protection; schedules III and IV for non-endangered species; schedule V for vermin; and schedule VI for plant species.

Due to this rationalisation, a relatively significant number of species have been added to Schedule I, which was primarily intended for critically endangered and endangered species.Additionally, this defies the scientific principle that a species should first be studied in natural populations before being added to Schedule I.

The fact that scientists may need two levels of approval from the state and the Centre to gather specimens is one of the problems with the new timetables, according to ecologists. Another problem, according to them, is that the new approach does not prioritise species according to their biological relevance, including whether or not they are endangered and whether their habitat is deteriorated.

“In addition to the state, MOEFCC (the ministry of the environment) must also provide approval for any treatment of animals on Schedule I. As a result, state and Central approval will now be required for any sample collection, tagging, ringing, etc. As a result, research on creatures listed on Schedules I and II would be severely constrained, according to Kartik Shanker, an ecologist at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore’s Centre for Ecological Sciences.

The list of species in the amendment legislation seems to have been compiled with little to no consultation, according to a group of ecologists who made this observation in an open letter in January. Few wildlife ecologists were aware of the significant alterations to the schedules’ list of species. As a result, they said, the results of the revised timetables are not supported by science.

The new schedules, according to a group of ecologists and geneticists from the Indian Institute of Science, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Tata Institute for Genetics and Society, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, and other institutions, give the critically endangered Great Indian Bustards and peafowl, which are so numerous that they are classified as agricultural, the highest level of protection (Schedule I).

“Jackals and bonnet macaques are similarly categorised in Schedule I with tigers and rhinos. The forest owlet, which is uncommon and probably endangered, and the barn owl, a very common bird that often builds nests in urban buildings, are both included in Schedule I. On the other hand, the Palani laughingthrush, a species with a comparable ecological and a much more constrained range, is in Schedule 2 whereas the white-bellied sholakili is in Schedule 1. The majority of other snakes, including rare and range-restricted species, are on Schedule II, while the checkered keelback and rat snake, two of India’s most ubiquitous and common snakes, are on Schedule I. (The letter continued, “The ‘list’ is endless.)”

The committee emphasised the need for far more in-depth knowledge on species as the rate and severity of climate change keep accelerating. Future India will need to depend on professional wildlife biologists and disease ecologists to comprehend quickly developing health hazards to animals and people and advocate cutting-edge conservation programmes; as a result, it is important to support and promote wildlife research.

The status of the species in India should serve as the basis for Schedule I species. Are they listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as being vulnerable or endangered? They must then be added. Schedule I protection should also be given to species that are culturally significant or that are frequently traded but may not be in danger. A species’ inclusion in Schedule I should have a strong scientific justification, and schedules should sometimes be modified. The government has to take action and focus more on the habitat of endangered animals in light of the timetables. According to experienced naturalist and former head of the Bombay Natural History Society Asad R. Rahmani, the goal is to move species from Schedule I to Schedule II via conservation efforts.

“Research permission should be made easier. For Schedule I species, research is crucial. Researchers need to be extremely cautious about how securely they can do their work. The government should be informed of the study results so that it may make informed policy decisions. Don’t just compose academic papers and set them aside. Research approvals have to be straightforward, quick decisions that are made case-by-case, said Rahmani.

“Prior approval of the Central Government is necessary if the wild animals listed in Schedule I are to be caught or if their tissues, blood samples, etc. are to be gathered from those living in the wild. Similar study must get approval from the State Government for Schedule II wild animals. Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) may provide authorization at his level if there is no capture occurring or any intrusion in the body of wild animals. This was the situation before to the modification as well, the MoEFCC noted in a statement in response to the issues brought up by ecologists.

“CWLW may authorise research if neither the capture of wild animals nor the study is intrusive to the bodies of wild animals…Based on feedback from our scientific institutions, the Zoological Society of India and Wildlife Institute of India (WII), the schedules have been rationalised by primarily including the species that were listed in Schedule I and part II of Schedule II for hunting of which the penalties were the same prior to amendment and mentioning individual species instead of mentioning them as groups. Because animals are now divided into two schedules, the procedure of requesting approval for research has become simpler, the statement said.

“From a conservation standpoint, it is beneficial to schedule a greater number of species. Many habitats in India are not protected. When ecosystems or forests that include Schedule I species are altered, it may call for caution. But there must be a mechanism to prevent this from becoming a barrier to scientific investigation. According to Debadityo Sinha, Director, Climate & Ecosystems, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, there must be a clear and time-bound procedure for providing approvals to research initiatives that are required to understand species and have ramifications for conservation.