Answer

Introduction

Kerala recently launched the Wild Life Protection (Kerala Amendment) Bill 2025 to address escalating human-wildlife conflicts and grant the State greater authority over wildlife management. The Bill aims to enable context-specific action, empower officials to act swiftly, and enhance localised conservation decision-making.

Positive Implications of Devolving Powers

• Context-Specific Management: Enables States to address local wildlife-human conflicts effectively.
  Eg: Kerala can manage wild boar threats in farmlands without waiting for central approval. 
• Faster Decision-Making: Reduces bureaucratic delays in emergency situations.
  Eg: Chief Wildlife Warden empowered to act immediately if an animal attacks humans.
• Enhanced Accountability: State-level authority increases responsibility for local conservation outcomes.
  Eg: District forest officers directly answerable for mitigating wildlife damage.
• Innovation in Conservation: Encourages locally-tailored strategies for coexistence.
  Eg: Kerala can pilot non-lethal measures like electric fencing or translocation programs.
• Strengthened Federal Engagement: Promotes active Centre-State dialogue on ecological priorities.
  Eg: State reports on ‘vermin’ declarations can inform national policy adjustments.

Negative Implications of Devolving Powers

• Risk of Inconsistent Standards: Different States may apply varying protection levels.
  Eg: Downgrading bonnet macaque protections in Kerala may conflict with national guidelines.
• Potential Overreach: Authority may be used for political expediency rather than ecological need.
  Eg: Declaring animals ‘vermin’ for short-term electoral gains rather than long-term conservation.
• Reduced Transparency: Localised decision-making may lack clear, data-driven criteria.
  Eg: Decisions on culling wild boars may occur without public consultation.
• Fragmentation of Conservation Efforts: Devolving powers risks undermining national baselines. Uneven State-level protections could endanger migratory species traversing multiple regions. 
• Human-Wildlife Conflict Escalation: Speedy lethal measures without exploring non-lethal alternatives may normalise violence over coexistence.

Way Forward

• Maintain National Baselines: Ensure minimum protections under Central Act are upheld.
• Data-Driven Decisions: Base culling, translocation, or other interventions should be done on scientific research and ecological data.
• Promote Non-Lethal Measures: Incentivise coexistence through fencing, relocation, deterrents and habitat management.
• Transparent Protocols: Publicly communicate criteria, procedures, and decisions to maintain accountability.
• Centre-State Collaboration: Align State initiatives with national conservation goals through regular dialogue and joint planning.

Conclusion

Devolving wildlife powers can enhance responsiveness, accountability, and innovation in environmental governance. However, safeguarding national conservation standards, ensuring transparency, and promoting non-lethal, data-driven strategies are essential to balance State autonomy with India’s ecological commitments and maintain sustainable human-wildlife coexistence.

DOWNLOAD PDF