(GS Paper 3: Conservation, Environmental Pollution and Degradation, Environmental Impact Assessment)
Context (Introduction)
Kerala’s proposed amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 — empowering the State to declare certain species as ‘vermin’ — marks a critical federal moment in India’s environmental governance, balancing local distress with national conservation safeguards.
Main Arguments and Developments
- Federal Assertion in Environmental Governance: The Wildlife (Kerala Amendment) Bill, 2025 seeks powers previously vested in the Union Government, allowing the State to decide when a Schedule II animal can be declared vermin for specific areas and durations.
- Rationale of the Amendment: Kerala cites recurring human–wildlife conflicts, especially with wild boars damaging crops and endangering lives. Multiple unresolved requests to the Centre under Section 62 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act have driven the State to act independently.
- Expanded Administrative Powers: The Bill authorises the Chief Wildlife Warden to order killing, tranquilising, capturing, or translocating any animal that has severely injured a person — powers currently restricted under central oversight.
- Ecological and Ethical Concerns: The move risks normalising lethal solutions over ecological balance. Human expansion into buffer zones has intensified conflict, making wildlife appear as intruders rather than victims of habitat compression.
- Federal Frustration: The Centre’s opaque and delayed decision-making on declaring vermin has created tension. Kerala’s move is both a critique of centralised control and a test of federal flexibility in environmental governance.
Criticisms and Concerns
- Threat to National Conservation Safeguards: Section 62 acts as a national brake against indiscriminate culling. Transferring this power without accountability mechanisms risks eroding conservation baselines and India’s commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
- Opacity and Lack of Criteria: Whether exercised by the Centre or the State, the absence of transparent, science-based thresholds for declaring animals vermin perpetuates governance opacity.
- Risk of Federal Fragmentation: Uncoordinated state-level decisions could lead to fragmented wildlife protection regimes, weakening India’s cohesive environmental policy framework.
- Ethical and Ecological Implications: The focus on short-term political relief — such as downgrading species protection status — may legitimise lethal shortcuts rather than addressing root causes like encroachment, food scarcity, and poor compensation systems.
- Judicial and Constitutional Tensions: Since wildlife falls under the Concurrent List, any repugnant state law requires Presidential assent. The test lies in whether Kerala’s amendment maintains the “floors” of protection envisaged by the Central Act.
Reforms and Way Forward
- Transparent, Science-based Criteria: Establish clear, data-driven frameworks for classifying species as vermin, ensuring decisions are guided by ecological indicators, not political pressures.
- Strengthening Non-lethal Conflict Mitigation: Promote fencing, compensation schemes, early-warning systems, and community participation rather than defaulting to culling as the first response.
- Institutional Collaboration: Develop Centre–State co-management boards for wildlife governance, enabling faster yet accountable decisions under a uniform legal architecture.
- Baseline and Ceiling Approach: Maintain national “floors” of conservation (no dilution of central safeguards) while allowing states to innovate higher “ceilings” — quicker response mechanisms and decentralised ecological management.
- Incentivising Coexistence: Link compensation, insurance, and eco-tourism rewards to non-lethal interventions, creating economic incentives for local communities to protect wildlife.
Conclusion
Kerala’s move reflects both a cry of ecological distress and a challenge to centralised environmental federalism. While urgency in addressing human–wildlife conflict is undeniable, it must not compromise the principle of conservation integrity. True devolution must empower states with tools, data, and transparency, not with powers of arbitrary exclusion. Federal autonomy should strengthen — not substitute — ecological reason.
Mains Question:
Q. Kerala’s move to amend the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 raises questions about the balance between state autonomy and national ecological safeguards. Examine. (15 marks , 250 words)