FIGHT against wildlife crimes has slowed as a wildlife crime control unit report shows that it carried out no drives against poaching and wildlife smuggling in the first 23 days of May. The slowdown has followed a steady decline in enforcement over recent months. After 37 drives in January, 25 in February and 22 in March, the number of drives dropped to 12 in April, the lowest in two years. The decline is striking given the unit’s performance between September 2024 and January 2026, when several hundred drives led to the rescue of more than 11,000 wild animals, marking it the most successful period since its establishment in 2012. Officials attribute the slowdown to a shortage of logistics, especially vehicle, while officials say that the vehicle previously used in drives was reassigned to other purposes. With only five wildlife inspectors covering the entire country, the unit struggles to respond to information on wildlife crimes, as wildlife experts say, and cannot regularly carry out interception at airports and land ports because of inadequate deployment and accommodation facilities.
The wildlife crime control unit has for long been constrained by the shortage of human resources, inadequate logistics and a lack of facilities at ports. The structural deficiencies require urgent correction, particularly through strengthened staffing, reliable transport arrangements and functional operational space at important border points, alongside the effective implementation of provisions under the wildlife law to ensure sustained institutional backing. However, the long-acknowledged constraints did not previously prevent the unit from carrying out hundreds of drives and rescuing thousands of animals in recent months, which raises questions about what has changed behind the sharp decline in enforcement. The timing and abruptness of the slowdown appear difficult to understand with similar conditions having largely persisted over time. More concerning is the apparent fragility of a system in which the absence of a single operational vehicle can effectively stall activities against poaching and smuggling, suggesting weaknesses in planning, resource allocation and institutional resilience rather than isolated logistical gaps. In addition, the differing accounts regarding the vehicle do not explain whether the slowdown resulted from issues of repairs or administrative reassignment, leaving a gap in transparency in decision-making. Taken together, the inconsistencies and gaps in explanation warrant a close scrutiny of how operational priorities are set and whether enforcement capacity is undermined by avoidable administrative choices rather than only structural limitations.
The situation reflects not only logistical strain but also an enforcement system lacking consistency and resilience. The contrast between earlier intensive operations and the recent slowdown highlights this fragility. With legal frameworks already strengthened, the immediate need is to ensure that implementation translates into steady, dependable action on the ground.
