Minister Lalkantha’s remarks reflect a failure to align governance with legal and ethical responsibilities. Addressing human-wildlife conflict requires sustainable, lawful approaches that respect ecological balance while safeguarding farmers' livelihoods. The government must reaffirm its commitment to environmental stewardship and responsible policymaking by ensuring that public statements and actions adhere to legal and societal obligations.
Legal Contradictions
The Wildlife Protection
Ordinance No. 02 of 1937, as amended by Act No. 07 of 2022, strictly
prohibits harmful actions against wildlife. It bans the use of poison,
explosives, intoxicants, artificial light, and baiting to harm or capture
animals. Additionally, possessing animals killed using these methods is a
criminal offense. Violations carry significant penalties, including fines
ranging from Rs. 15,000 to 30,000, imprisonment of one to two years, or
both.
Minister Lalkantha’s comments risk encouraging farmers to contravene these legal provisions, exposing both individuals and policymakers to legal consequences. This undermines the existing framework designed to balance human interests with environmental protection and creates potential conflicts between governance and the rule of law.
Ecological Context
The rising incidents of human-wildlife conflict are a result of ecological disruptions, including deforestation, habitat fragmentation, and unsustainable agricultural practices. Expanding settlements, monoculture plantations, and the proliferation of non-native plant species have displaced wildlife, pushing animals into farmlands in search of food. Compounding the issue is the decline of natural predators, which has led to unchecked growth in populations of species like wild boars and peacocks, intensifying the conflict.
Legal Status of Wildlife and Control Measures
The Wildlife Protection Ordinance does allow limited and regulated control measures for certain species classified as unprotected. For example, species like wild boars and rabbits may be controlled on private farmlands using licensed firearms. Specific bird species may also be managed under legal provisions. However, these actions must strictly comply with guidelines, which prohibit traps, chemicals, and baiting to ensure humane and lawful practices.
Path Forward: Sustainable
Solutions
Minister Lalkantha’s controversial remarks underscore the urgency of adopting a more comprehensive approach to human-wildlife conflict. Sustainable solutions should include:
- Revising Wildlife Protection Schedules: Updating legal classifications to address modern realities and emerging conflicts.
- Sustainable Farming Practices: Promoting techniques that reduce wildlife encroachment, such as cultivating non-palatable crops near wildlife habitats.
- Natural Barriers and Community Programs: Encouraging the use of natural deterrents, such as hedgerows, and fostering community-led initiatives to manage conflicts.
- Strengthened Enforcement and Awareness: Bolstering enforcement of wildlife protection laws and conducting public awareness campaigns to prevent illegal practices and promote coexistence.
Conclusion
Minister Lalkantha’s remarks reflect a failure to align governance with legal and ethical responsibilities. Addressing human-wildlife conflict requires sustainable, lawful approaches that respect ecological balance while safeguarding farmers' livelihoods. The government must reaffirm its commitment to environmental stewardship and responsible policymaking by ensuring that public statements and actions adhere to legal and societal obligations.
No comments