The global wildlife trade is worth an estimated US $ 20 to 25 billion per annum, nearly half of which is illegal. “The looting and smuggling and fencing and hoarding of impossibly precious, feathered and scaly wild things," as Donovan Webster described the trade in plants and animals in the New York Time magazine, approximated between $10 and 20 billion worldwide in 1996, with the US leading the list of buyers, at about $3 billion. Conservatively, it is estimated that illegal wildlife worth $1.4 billion enters the US every year. The world market for wildlife includes more than 4,000 primates, ivory from 90,000 tuskers, one million orchids, four million live birds, 10 million reptile skins, over 250 million tropical fish and other diverse items.
    At the 12th Conference of Parties at Santiago, Chile, Willem Wijnstekers, Secretary-General, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) said in November 2002 that the illegal wildlife trade is next only in size to the narcotics trade and may equal that in armaments. Recent evidence suggests a close nexus between wildlife-smugglers, narcotics-traders and gun-runners. Poaching and human exploitation has led to the extinction of many animals including the cheetah, Pink-headed Duck, stellar sea cow, Passenger Pigeon and seriously threaten many others including the black rhino, giant otter and the tiger.
The Indian scenario
    In India, wildlife crime is defined as a contravention of any domestic, foreign or international law concerning preservation, management, protection and trade etc. of wildlife. The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 defines wildlife as any animal, aquatic or land vegetation, which forms part of any habitat. Wild animal means any animal specified in the schedules of the Act and found wild in nature.
    With 32.87 lakh sq. km., India occupies 2.4 per cent of the world's land area and holds about eight per cent of the world's life-forms - including 350 species of mammals, 1,224 birds, 408 reptiles, 197 amphibians, 2,546 fishes, 57,548 insects and over 46,000 species of plants. With 17 major forest types and 26 biotic provinces, India is one of the world's 12 mega biodiversity countries, harbouring 11 per cent of the world's plant species, 7.6 per cent of mammals, 12.6 per cent of bird species, 6.2 per cent of reptiles, 4.4 per cent of amphibians and 11.7 per cent of fish species. Our 586 Protected Areas covering 156,392 sq. km. are home to 50 per cent of the world's tiger population, 65 per cent of Asiatic elephants and 80 per cent of all Asian one-horned rhinos.
    The Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 48A of the Constitution enjoin the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife. Article 51A of the Constitution containing fundamental duties states, “It shall be the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures."
    In keeping with this aim, India has launched various projects including what Cory J. Meacham calls the “flagship of modern animal conservation" - Project Tiger in April 1973 - to protect our wildlife. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was enacted in 1960 and the Wildlife (Protection) Act in 1972, while India became a signatory to CITES in 1974. The National Board for Wildlife (NBW) with the Prime Minister as the Chairperson is now a statutory body. Budgetary allocation for the forests and wildlife sector has increased from Rs. 145 crores in 1997-98 to Rs. 265 crores in 2002-03, in addition to state expenditures. Yet wildlife crime continues to be organised, dangerously effective, extensive and unabated.
Why fight the trade?
   The wildlife trade threatens the survival of many wildlife species valued for their aesthetic, biological and natural worth, making it one of the biggest threats to global biodiversity. Inhuman transportation of live animals results in many dying even before they reach the market. The trade can also result in the introduction of diseases, injurious pests and exotic species, permanently damaging natural ecosystems. The Newcastle disease was transmitted by imported birds in 1980 resulting in the destruction of over 30,000 pet birds in 45 states at a cost of over $1 million to the US government.
   The socio-economic consequences of the illegal trade are equally severe. Many wildlife criminals are highly organised, with a network starting from poachers through middlemen and financiers to the syndicate members with international linkage. Huge profit margins and low detection possibilities encourage
the unemployed to join the group. Recent evidence of its links with narcotic trading
and gun-running shows that the trade can have disastrous consequences for society
if unchecked.
Extent of the crime
   A big question is how extensive is the wildlife trade and how accurate are the available statistics. Rhetoric, albeit emanating out of genuine concern but often intended to create a sensation, has it that one tiger is poached every day. It is said that what is known is the tip of the iceberg and as against one seizure, five or six manage to get away. In the absence of a full-fledged central agency dedicated to compiling and disseminating wildlife crime statistics, the data at the official level is allegedly incomplete. The absence of such a body and mechanism also encourages authorities either to conceal or delay reporting crimes. As a result updated ‘official' figures are either not available or viewed with suspicion. NGOs fill in the void by furnishing data on the basis of their own investigations, which in the absence of official sanctity and often-controversial methods of computation do not evoke much credibility.
   Limitations notwithstanding, there have been some laudable efforts in compiling poaching statistics. On the basis of field investigations and court records, the Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI) claims that for the years 1994 to 2002, 95, 121, 52, 88, 44, 81, 60, 72 and 38 tigers respectively were poached. These figures are disputed by other NGOs and differ from official estimates. TRAFFIC International, on the basis of unpublished data, estimates that an average of 22 tigers were illegally killed, though the average tiger mortality was 46 from 1994 to 1999. The Minister for Environment and Forest (MoEF) stated in the Rajya Sabha on July 28, 2000, that 140 tigers, (averaging 28 per year) have been killed by poachers in sanctuaries during the last five years i.e. 1995 to 1999. Understandably there were many more poached in the vast areas outside sanctuaries. On November 29, 2002, the Minister stated in the Upper House that the number of tigers killed during 2001, as reported by the states, was 16.
   Despite the high conservation priority and great religious and cultural significance attached to the elephant in India, it is under increasing pressure from ivory poachers.
110 recorded poaching cases were reported in 1997, 91 in 1998, and 76 in 1999. Between 1996 and 2001, an annual average of at least 270 kg. of raw ivory was seized, indicating the efficacy of law enforcement, but also the continued existence of a large domestic market.
   Leopards live on the fringes of forest areas and frequently intrude into human habitation, making them much more vulnerable than the tiger or elephant. Recent investigation indicates the existence of a huge market for leopard skin and bone, which often serves as a substitute for tiger bone. The MoEF estimates that approximately 700 leopards have been poached from 1994 to 1999. Poaching of the rhino for its horn, though on the decline, continues to be a matter of concern because of suspected linkages with insurgent movements. Illegal killing of Himalayan black and sloth bears for bile, musk deer for musk or Kasturi, jackal and wolf for fur, Tibetan antelope or chiru for shahtoosh and snakes and otter for their skin are equally rampant. The live trade in reptiles, monkeys, birds, butterflies, frogs and tortoises seriously endangers the survival of many species because of high mortality rates.
Â
Existing legal framework
    The Magna Carta of Indian law enforcement is the Wildlife (Protection) Act (WPA), 1972. The WPA provides for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for related matters with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country. It extends to the whole of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which has its own J&K Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1978. The WPA prohibits trade or commerce in trophies, animal articles, etc. derived from animals listed in the four schedules and prescribes punishment for such offences. It underwent two major amendments in order to meet changing requirements, the 1986 amendment making penal provisions stricter, and the 1991 amendment adding chapters for the protection of plants and management of zoos.
   In 2002, the WPA was comprehensively revised by an amendment passed by Parliament, which became effective from April 1, 2003. While changing many definitions to enlarge their scope, the Act provides for the constitution of a National Board for Wildlife responsible for promoting, conserving and developing wildlife and forests. Similar boards are envisaged for all the states.
   The most significant change in the WPA pertains to penalties. While the maximum sentence for any contravention of the Act has been enhanced to three years, for an offence against any animal or derivative specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, the minimum sentence is imprisonment for three years, extendable to seven and also a fine of not less than Rs. 10,000. In case of a second conviction, the minimum fine amount shall be Rs. 25,000. Any vehicle or weapon used in the commission of an offence shall be forfeited while the arms license shall be cancelled for five years. Bail terms have been made stringent and no accused shall be released on bail unless the public prosecutor is heard and the Court is of the belief that the accused has not committed the offence or shall not commit any offence while on bail.
   Introduction of provisions for forfeiture of property derived from illegal hunting and trade now puts the WPA at par with the Narcotics and Psychotropic Act, 1985 and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003. Any property, acquired by a person convicted for three years, or his associate, which is obtained from or attributable to illegal hunting and wildlife trade is defined as ‘illegally-acquired'. Order of forfeiture can be passed by an officer of the rank of Chief Conservator of Forests, designated as the Competent Authority, after giving a show cause notice of 30 days. Interim seizure of property is also permissible if there is apprehension of concealment or transfer. The burden of proof that the property was not illegally acquired rests on the accused and not the State, as in the case of other criminal offences. An Appellate Tribunal headed by a Chairman, qualified to be a Judge of a High Court will hear appeals against seizure and forfeiture orders.
Global comparison
   The illegal wildlife trade in the United States is controlled primarily by the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Lacey Act, enacted in 1900, is the oldest national wildlife protection law and today it has become an anti-trafficking statute protecting a broad range of wildlife. Its prohibitions focus on wildlife trafficking, (domestic and international) and false labeling. It makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase any fish or wildlife already taken or sold in violation of State, Federal or even foreign laws or regulations related to wildlife. The Act creates both misdemeanor and felony offenses, distinguished by the defendant's knowledge of the underlying law violations. Violations can result in up to five years imprisonment, a fine of $250,000 ($500,000 for organisations) and forfeiture of equipment involved in the offense. The unique feature of the Act is its ability to incorporate foreign laws as an underlying law or predicate offences to ‘trigger' a Lacey Act violation. Thus a person who imports wildlife into the US in violation of a foreign law can be prosecuted in the US for a Lacey Act offence.
   The ESA of 1973 fulfils the US's obligations under CITES. It establishes enforcement infrastructure, management authorities and prescribes penalties to execute the CITES mandate of regulating the international wildlife trade. The ESA makes it illegal for any person to import, export, offer or sell in interstate or foreign commerce, or to receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, any endangered or threatened species. Penalties range up to one year's imprisonment and a fine of $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for organisations. Equipment, vehicles, vessels, aircraft and other means of transportation, used to aid the commission of the crime are subject to forfeiture, on conviction of the accused. The Act's most far-reaching innovation is section seven, which directed federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardise the continued existence of protected species or degrade the habitat of such species.
Conclusion
   “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated", said Mahatma Gandhi. These words have never been more relevant. Organised wildlife criminals have ravaged our forests, shooting, snaring, poisoning and electrocuting animals to feed a voracious market of exotic medicine users, collectors, clothiers, fashion designers, leather craftsmen, pet fanciers and fancy cuisine-lovers. Poachers have formed international syndicates, acquired the deadliest weapons, developed facilitators within the enforcement machinery and engage the best legal practitioners to sabotage the judicial system. The result is obvious: a systematic decimation of wildlife, pushing species to the brink of extinction.
   With the 2003 amendments, the WPA is now comparable to international standards and contains stringent penal provisions. The poor situation on the ground has to do with the implementation of the Act rather than the Act per se. While there have been many impressive seizures, subsequent investigation has been poor. Since the system is easily manipulated to secure bail, there is little deterrence created by arrests. Hostile witnesses and delayed trials are the norm, and until recently, not a single person accused of a tiger-related offence since 1990 had been convicted!
    To stem the tide, we need many approaches working in tandem. While we need to improve the visibility of deterrence, logistic support and forensic assistance to enforcement agencies must improve. A strategic offensive against known organised syndicates, as successfully undertaken for the Amur tiger in ‘Operation Amba', is urgently needed. Our anti-poaching strategies need to be reoriented towards increasing the ‘opportunity costs of poaching activities'. Border management should improve
while incentive to informers and rewards to investigators need to be institutionalised. Greater coordination amongst the enforcement agencies is the call of the day while skill improvement of the enforcement personnel by way of targeted training is imperative. Synchronisation of the activities of wildlife NGOs with efforts at the official level will produce multiplying effects in terms of information flow and awareness
building. Professional investigation needs to be followed by forfeiture of property and effective prosecution to take cases to their logical conclusion.
