||Date: 15th November
||Points to remember
||Why in news…???
- The National Tiger Conservation Authority has commissioned an independent team of wildlife experts to investigate the killing.
- A few tiger reserves are being pampered at the expense of others. A recent study by the World Wildlife Fund said that eight tiger sanctuaries in India could, over time, support more than four times the current population of tigers in these sanctuaries.
- Conservationists have also said that “man-eaters” is a legacy term from colonial hunters and incorrect in today’s times.
- Tigers don’t actively seek out humans; it is only because of increased contact between humans and animals that there are more conflicts which leads to deaths.
|India’s wildlife laws permit a tiger which is believed to have preyed on humans to be killed.
The decision to shoot T1 (known as Avni) was taken in January but stayed by the Bombay High Court after appeals by activists.
||A new norms by SEBI for Rating Agency
- SEBI has come out with new guidelines to improve the quality of disclosures made by credit rating agencies.
- According to the new norms, credit rating agencies will have to inform investors about the liquidity situation of the companies they rate through parameters such as their cash balance, liquidity coverage ratio, access to emergency credit lines, asset-liability mismatch, etc.
- SEBI has been working hard to improve transparency and credibility among rating agencies for some time now, including through a circular issued in November 2016 calling for enhanced standards for rating agencies.
|After the IL&FS crisis, the Securities and Exchange Board of India is now trying to increase the level of scrutiny on credit rating agencies that failed to warn investors about it.
||The Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA) 1972
- The primary means of protecting India’s forests and biodiversity—the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA) 1972—has failed to take this into account adequately.
- As Neema Pathak Broome, Meenal Tatpati and Nitin D. Rai have pointed out in “Biodiversity Conservation and Forest Rights Act”, Economic & Political Weekly: “The model of conservation enshrined in the WLPA is premised on creating human-free zones for the protection of rare species based on the erroneous notion that local people are the prime drivers of wildlife decline.”
- This approach has been successful in protecting certain species, certainly. But such an exclusionary approach is better suited to countries that are less densely populated and have a more developed non-rural economy.
- In India, it has led to compromising the economic rights of those least able to defend them via forced relocations from areas around buffer zones and the like. This can—and often does—rebound to the detriment of conservation efforts.
|The Wildlife Protection act is in News always because of Man-Animal conflict.