World Wildlife Day 2026: Why Bangladesh needs a dedicated wildlife service now

On this World Wildlife Day 2026, Bangladesh stands at a defining environmental crossroads. Despite having multiple conservation laws on paper, wildlife across the country continues to decline at an alarming pace. 

Large mammals and forest-dependent species now survive mostly in fragmented, isolated populations that are biologically non-viable in the long term.

The crisis is not primarily legislative. Bangladesh already possesses a relatively strong legal foundation. The real challenge lies in institutional structure, implementation capacity, land governance, and the absence of a long-term wildlife policy framework.

It is time for structural reform. This article proposes two transformative steps: the establishment of a Bangladesh Wildlife Service (BWS) and the adoption of a National Wildlife Policy (2026–2040).

A strong legal foundation — but weak outcomes

Bangladesh has enacted several important environmental and wildlife laws:

• Forest Act, 1927
• Bangladesh Wildlife (Conservation and Security) Act, 2012
• Environment Conservation Act, 1995
• Biodiversity Act, 2017

In addition, Article 18A of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh clearly mandates that:

"The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to preserve and safeguard the natural resources, biodiversity, wetlands, forests and wildlife for present and future citizens."

Yet despite this legal architecture:

• Reserved forest land continues to shrink through encroachment and diversion
• Wildlife populations remain critically low
• Habitat fragmentation persists
• Wildlife crime continues across borders and within protected areas

The laws exist. The ecological results do not.

Where the gaps lie

1. Legacy forestry model

The Forest Act, 1927, was originally designed for revenue forestry. While it enables the declaration of Reserved Forests and control of land use, wildlife conservation was not its central purpose.

Modern biodiversity conservation, especially landscape connectivity and genetic viability, goes far beyond extractive forest management.

2. Institutional embedding of wildlife

The Bangladesh Wildlife (Conservation and Security) Act, 2012 provides strong punitive provisions and allows the declaration of protected areas. However, wildlife governance remains institutionally embedded within a forestry framework. This limits specialisation, scientific monitoring, and species recovery planning.

3. Weak biodiversity integration in EIAs

Under the Environment Conservation Act, 1995, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are required for major projects. However, biodiversity impact assessments often fail to:

• Evaluate wildlife corridor fragmentation
• Assess cumulative ecological impacts
• Incorporate an independent scientific review

4. Limited operationalisation of biodiversity governance

The Biodiversity Act, 2017, was enacted to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Yet integration with field-level wildlife management and protected-area governance remains limited.

In short, the problem is institutional, not legislative.

Proposal 1: Establish a Bangladesh Wildlife Service (BWS)

Bangladesh needs a specialised, autonomous wildlife governance structure.

A Bangladesh Wildlife Service (BWS) could be established either through amendment of the Wildlife Act 2012 (as modified in 2026) or through a new dedicated Wildlife Service Act.

Why a separate wildlife service?

Wildlife conservation today requires:

• Species recovery planning
• Population viability modelling
• Corridor restoration
• Wildlife crime prosecution
• Genetic monitoring
• Climate resilience planning

These are specialised scientific and enforcement tasks that require a dedicated cadre and administrative autonomy.

Core functions of the BWS

• Enforcement of wildlife laws
• Management of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries
• Development of legally mandated species recovery plans
• Landscape-level corridor restoration
• A national wildlife monitoring system
• Wildlife crime investigation and prosecution

A Wildlife Service would shift conservation from reactive protection to proactive ecological restoration.

Proposal 2: National Wildlife Policy (2026–2040)

A long-term policy framework is essential to operationalise constitutional and statutory obligations.

The proposed National Wildlife Policy (2026–2040) would align:

• Article 18A of the Constitution
• Wildlife Act 2012
• Biodiversity Act 2017
• International commitments under the CBD, CITES, and SDG 15

Key policy pillars

1. Zero diversion of reserved forest land

Strict enforcement of provisions under the Forest Act 1927 to prevent encroachment and land diversion.

2. Mandatory biodiversity impact assessment

Reform EIA procedures under the Environment Conservation Act 1995 to include:

• Wildlife corridor assessment
• Cumulative ecological impact evaluation
• Independent scientific review panels

3. Species recovery programmes

Legally mandated recovery plans for critically reduced populations, with measurable population targets.

4. Landscape-level conservation

Recognition of ecological connectivity as a formal conservation objective — not merely site-based protection.

Proposal 3: National forest land audit

Transparency strengthens law enforcement.

Using powers under the Forest Act 1927 and the Environment Conservation Act 1995, the government should conduct:

• Satellite-based forest boundary mapping
• GIS verification
• Public disclosure of encroachment data

A national forest land audit would clarify the true status of Reserved Forest lands and strengthen legal accountability.

Proposal 4: Strengthen wildlife crime enforcement

The Wildlife Act 2012 already provides penalties. The missing link is enforcement capacity.

Reforms should include:

• Dedicated Wildlife Courts
• Fast-track prosecution procedures
• Strengthening of the Wildlife Crime Control Unit
• Inter-agency coordination among the Police, the Border Guard Bangladesh, and the Customs

Wildlife crime is often transnational. Enforcement must match that scale.

Proposal 5: National Wildlife Research Institute

To ensure science-based governance, Bangladesh should establish a National Wildlife Research Institute under the Biodiversity Act 2017 and the Wildlife Act 2012.

Its mandate would include:

• A national camera-trap grid
• Genetic viability studies
• Climate change impact assessment
• Long-term ecological monitoring
• Scientific advisory support to the BWS

Without data, conservation becomes guesswork.

International commitments

Bangladesh is a signatory to:

• The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
• CITES
• The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 15: Life on Land)

Strengthening wildlife governance domestically will reinforce compliance internationally.

A moment for structural reform

Bangladesh does not suffer from an absence of law. It suffers from an absence of institutional specialisation and long-term policy direction.

World Wildlife Day 2026 should mark the beginning of structural reform consistent with:

• Constitutional Article 18A
• Wildlife Act 2012 — and the 2026 Ordinance replacing it
• Forest Act 1927 (with several modifications)
• Biodiversity Act 2017

The future of Bangladesh's forests and wildlife depends on decisive institutional reform — not incremental adjustments.

A Bangladesh Wildlife Service and a National Wildlife Policy (2026–2040) would transform conservation from fragmented protection into coordinated ecological recovery.

The window for action is narrowing.

The time is now.

Sketch: TBS

Dr Reza Khan is a wildlife, zoo and safari park management and conservation specialist.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.