Calls for a comprehensive review of the 36-year-old Protection of Wild Life Act 1972 (PWA), the primary legislation on wildlife issues in Peninsular Malaysia, have been made as far back as 10 years — and have even come from the environment ministers.
There were amendments made in 1976 and 1988, including changes in the lists of protected animals but a massive overhaul to truly "empower" the legislation — what conservationists and NGOs have been seeking all these years — has yet to take place.
That's why the Malaysian government had also been urged by the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) secretariat to amend its laws for harsher penalties and fundamental affirmative steps were taken with the introduction of the CITES Act 2007.
In the meantime, poaching has become a bigger menace, with Malaysia for some time now being dubbed a major transport route country.
Penalties under the PWA, for starters, state no minimum – so fines could end up being really insignificant in comparison to the crime.
For example, the penalty for being caught with a tiger is RM15,000 and/or five years in jail. But, as poaching and illegal wildlife trading is somehow not regarded as a "serious" crime, in 2006, a RM7,000 fine was imposed on a Kota Bharu man found with a quartered tiger in his fridge.
Authorities cannot prosecute anyone found using the derivative of a protected species in medicine — the onus is on the authorities to prove it is so before any action can be taken.
Many animals listed in the appendices of CITES, that governs the trade in endangered species, also receive no protection under the Act.
Natural Resources and Environment Minister Datuk Douglas Uggah Embas is to be briefed by the Wildlife and National Parks Department (Perhilitan) this week whether to immediately ban the issuance of hunting licences of the internationally-threatened "sambar" deer — as a threatened species under the global 2008 Red List released last month. Open season on deer hunting in the peninsula begins this month. As far as public participation is concerned, the Act is silent. It has no provision for crucial information to be made public either – like how authorities set hunting quotas.
The Act provides no mechanism to determine the status of a species and if it should have more protection. While it requires wildlife breeding to be licensed, there are no specific provisions for the regulation or monitoring of captive breeding.
Basically poachers are known to move on to the countries which have weaker and non-comprehensive laws.
This article was taken from: the malay mail: news 10 november 2008
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment