Wildlife crimes were among the three major crimes worldwide, next only to illegal arms and drug trades. Removing a species from the flora and fauna will have an impact not only on the forest, but also on humans

Provisions regarding prosecuting offenders in the wildlife protection act:-

• Offences in relation to animals specified in Schedule I and Part II of Schedule II of the Act carry a prescribed penalty of not less than three years imprisonment, which may extend up to seven years and a fine of not less than Rs10,000. These cases are non-compoundable.
• South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Network India joined (SAWEN) to work with seven other South Asian countries to fight against trans-border wildlife crime through communication, coordination, collaboration, capacity building and cooperation in the region.

Reasons behind high acquittal rates in wildlife related crimes:-

• Recent book titled “State of India’s Environment 2017: In Figures” suggests a worrying 52 per cent increase in poaching and wildlife crimes between 2014 and 2016.
• Maharashtra, for instance, recorded only 17 convictions of the 147 court orders between 1995 and 2014, with a success rate of 11.56 per cent.
• Most of the poaching cases either do not come out or are simply attributed to various other ‘non-suspicious’ factors.
• Every forest guard is so burdened that even if they see a tiger carcass lying there with suspected situation of being poached, they would simply try and not register it.
• Even if the dead animals are brought on record, it will be hassle to transport it and then appear at the court as witness.
• Chances of forest guards spotting a carcass before decomposing are slim. In most cases, the carcasses rot before being sent for investigations so authorities cannot prove the cause of death.
• Rate of conviction is abysmal, owing to the lack of evidence:- The latest data available from National Crime Records Bureau of 2014 says that the out of 5,835 cases reported under environment-related offences, 770 cases were reported under the Wildlife Protection Act, for which, 134 people were arrested and fewer were convicted.
• There are only a few labs to do DNA profiling and these are overburdened to the extent that there are over 3000 pending cases in the court awaiting the completion of laboratory examination.
• Incase the accused is caught red-handed with the animal parts, the witnesses turn hostile or the prosecution authorities do not shown up in court.
• Even in cases where the accused is proven guilty, wrong sections under the Wildlife protection act are cited, The accused are not sentenced to the mandatory minimum punishment prescribed under the Act.

Measures needed further are:-

• To meet the challenges posed by wildlife trafficking, stronger institutions and law enforcement are needed. Equally important is take action to simultaneously reduce poverty through expanded livelihood opportunities and the involvement of indigenous and local communities in decision-making, as well as general awareness raising.
• Police need to provide enough priority to such trans-national crime.Majority of police personnel need to be aware that wildlife laws define the duties of police along with forest staffs.
• Need for effective coordination between police and forest officialsfor reducing poaching.
• Infrastructure update, use of new technology and creating new habitats for rhinosis recommended by forest officials. Electronic-eye technology, or E-eye for short, provides around-the-clock monitoring of sensitive regions.
• International collaboration:- UNDP supports an integrated approach to combat illegal trade in wildlife and forest products. We support countries to diversify rural livelihoods, manage human-wildlife conflict, strengthen protected area management.