Human Dimensions A Stakeholder Perspective into Wildlife Policy in India SHEKHAR K. NIRAJ, 1 School of Natural Resources, Biological Sciences East Building, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA P. R. KRAUSMAN, 2 School of Natural Resources, 325, Biological Sciences East Building, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA VIKRAM DAYAL, Institute of Economic Growth, University of Delhi Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007, India ABSTRACT We investigated perceptions of wildlife policy and issues through questionnaires ( n ¼ 148) administered to policy makers, conservation scientists, individuals representing non-government organ tions (NGOs),and field officials, who implemented government policies and enforced laws. We found significant differences among attitudes of stakeholders identifying major threats to wildlife, the use of the role of poaching in conservation, and the composition of species illegally traded. Policy makers and officials differed in their views with NGOs and scientists on community response to wildlife policies and varying threat perceptions to different species due to poaching and illegal trade. We noted ambiguity a stakeholders about sustainable use principles in India. Policies must be more effective in conservation process of making policy must be broad-based and participatory if wildlife conservation is to advance o subcontinent. ß 2011 The Wildlife Society. KEY WORDS biodiversity, conservation, India, poaching, stakeholders, sustainable use, wildlife policy, wildlife trad Stakeholders are important in contemporary society and there is a worldwide interest in involving them in policy processes (Oldfield 2003). Stakeholder approaches were first established in management science and then in natural re- source management (Singh and Hegde 2004). Different stakeholders have differentinterestsand perceptions. Policymakersmayperceivewildlifeissuesinadequately if they fail to understand the science of wildlife conservation, or if they lose touch with field reality. On the other hand, the framing of policy in a democracy requires balancing perceptions of differentgroups.Understanding different perceptions of diverse stakeholders, and comparing them, contributes to an understanding of environmental policy (Singh and Hegde 2004). A wide range of stakeholders can usefully contribute to the process of reviewing, developing, and implementing policies. If scientists are not involved in the policy-making process issuescould be assessed subjectively. In North America, scientific inputs in policy making have been ensured for decades (Noss et al. 1997). Stakeholder participation was stressed upon by the inter- nationalpolicy frameworkconventionssuch as the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention of BiologicalDiversity(CBD) and wherenon-government organizations (NGOs) and conservation scientists are maj role players (Reeve 2002) with government representativ This has worked well in international policy evaluation. On the other hand, the localevelhas become important for effective implementation and in providing the experience and reflections needed to fine-tune the best practices and identify dysfunctional policies. Insights gained can be pro- vided to other decision-making bodies and aided by the NGOs (Sinclair-Brown 2003). Similarly, keeping the field officials away from direct participation in the policy proce can result in losing ground-truthing in policy. Often,the distance between the policy-makers who establish regula tions and the enforcement agencies that apply them was (Oldfield 2003). The evolution of wildlife policy in independent India can be divided into 3 phases: 1947–1970, 1971–1990, and 19 present. The first phase generally ignored wildlife and mo conservation policies were subsets of the national forest policy.During 1971–1990 India established initiatives to protecttigers(Panthera tigris) and crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus), and developeda networkof protectedareas (PAs).Protected areas, were established to conserve biodi- versity,naturalresources, and associated cultural values (Weeksand Mehta 2004). Nationalwildlife action plans were developed also during the second phase. The last ph addressed poaching (Mishra 2002), habitat loss, and incre ing human–wildlife conflicts and expanded the PA network As negative anthropogenic influences on India’s wildlife increased, policies to mitigate these impacts were unclea largely undeveloped. In 1991,a complete ban on trade and hunting of wildlife was a major amendment to the Wildlife Received: 16 November 2009; Accepted: 9 March 2011; Published: 18 November 2011 Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article. 1 E-mail:shekhar.niraj@gmail.com 2 PresentAddress: Booneand CrockettProgram in Wildlife Conservation, 32 Campus Drive, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812,USA. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76(1):10–18; 2012; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.263 10 The Journal of Wildlife Management 76(1)