Dr. JVSharma Regulatory Framework for the implementation of NLBI In India.

Dr. JVSharma

Regulatory Framework for the implementation of NLBI In India

Legal Framework in India India has strong legal regime to implement NLBI which

for the implementation of SFM:1. Indian Forest Act,1927-• To regulate transport of forest produce• To prevent illegal activities in the forests such as

illegal felling, encroachments• To create RF,PF and VF2. Forest Conservation Act,1980:• To regulate diversion of forest land for non

forestry purposes• Promote forest conservation• Maintain balance between conservation and

development.

Legal Framework in India3. Wildlife Protection Act,1972- An act to provide for

the protection of wild animals, birds ,plants with a view to

ensuring ecological and environmental security of the

nation.

The Wildlife (Protection) Act , 1972, the provisions of the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

(CITES) and Export and Import Policy of India are enforced

through the offices of the Regional Deputy Directors of

Wildlife Preservation located at Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta and

Chennai with the help of State Wildlife Department, the

State Police Departments, the Customs Departments, BSF

and Coast-Guards.

Legal Framework in India

4. Biological Diversity Act,2002- An Act

to provide for conservation of biological

diversity, sustainable use of its components

and fair and equitable sharing of the

benefits arising out of the use of biological

resources, knowledge and for matters

connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Legal Framework in India5. Forest Right Act ,2006-

• Provides tenurial security to live and cultivate

• Provide tenurial security to use forest produce

on sustainable basis

• Provide tenurial security to community based

forest governance

• Wild Life Conservation through the provision of

Critical Wildlife Habitat

• Security to livelihood of Forest dwelling

communities

Judicial Activism The Godavarman Case since 1995, the Centre for

Environment Law –WWF-India in 1995 and the

Navin Raheja case since 1998, ongoing before the

Apex Court with over few thousand applications of

intervention from various stakeholders are the

three most prominent examples of judicial

activism in the sphere of forests and wildlife.

definition of forest and forest produce,

transit of forest produces,

Judicial Activismuse of forest land and encroachments,

mining in forest areas,

diversion of forestland for non forestry purposes,

settlement of rights of people in and around PAs,

depleting tiger population in the country and

management of zoos,

Creation of CEC

Judicial Activism

No forest, National Park or Sanctuary can be de-reserved without the approval of the Supreme Court.

No non-forest activity is permitted in any National Park or Sanctuary even if prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 had been obtained.

An interim order in 2000 prohibited the removal of any dead or decaying trees, grasses, driftwood, etc from any area comprising a National Park or Sanctuary. It was also directed that if any order to the contrary had been passed by any State government or other authorities, that order shall be stayed.

Doctrines Evolved by Courts: Judicial Activism

Absolute Liability Principle:

M. C. Mehta v. UOI, AIR 1987 SC 1086 (Oleum Gas

Leak Case): The principle was adopted to compensate

victims of pollution caused by inherently dangerous

industries.

Narmada Bacho Andolan v. UOI, AIR 2000 SC 375:

The Supreme Court held that the precautionary principle

could not be applied to the decision for building a dam

whose gains and losses were predictable and certain.

Doctrines Evolved by Courts: Judicial Activism

Sustainable Development:

M.C. Mehta v. UOI, AIR 1997 SC 734 (Taj Trapezium Case):

while taking note of the disastrous effects that the emissions from

the Mathura Oil Refinery had on the Taj Mahal, the Supreme

Court applied the principle of sustainable development to the

case, and apart from passing various directions, stepped in to

execute and supervise the resultant actions.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, AIR

1996 SC 149, the Supreme Court invalidated forest based

industry, recognizing the principle of inter-generational equity

and sustainable development.

Doctrines Evolved by Courts: Judicial Activism

Polluter Pays Principle: The object of this principle is to

make the polluter liable for the compensation to the

victims as also for the cost of restoring of environmental

degradation.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI, AIR 1996 SC

2718: It was held that the precautionary principle and

the polluter pays principle are part of environmental

law of the country.

Gaps in the implementation of legal FrameworkIndian Forest Act,1927-

Forests of India are largely protected with

the help of this legislation. Appropriate

number and capacity of front line staff is

lacking

Fine tuning of legislation is needed with

respect to FRA

:

Gaps in the implementation of legal Framework2.Wildlife Protection Act.1972 and CITES-

Lack of appropriate number and capacity of

frontline staff

International market for wildlife products

Not enough intelligence to control the crime

International cooperation is lacking

Inadequate institution for crime control at

GOI level

Gaps in the implementation of legal Framework3.Biological diversity Act,2002-

Lack of Institution to implement this

legislation

Lack of capacity of the community

No mechanism for sustainable harvest

The activities of Biodiversity authorities

are largely limited to celebrate occasions

Gaps in the implementation of legal Framework4. Forest Right Act,2006-

• Institutional Conflict in the implementation of this Act

• No mechanism to harvest forest produce sustainably

• Only right to cultivate which is attractive to political

agenda is being exercised largely, only limited

community Rights

• Lack of conservation agenda in the implementation

• Livelihood is based on unsustainable harvest largely

• Nodal Ministry do not have capacity to

implement ,particularly the conservation spirit of the

Act

Forest Conservation Act,1980Lack of Monitoring for the compliance after

approval

Lack of adequate action for the violation of

FC Act,1980

Success percentage of Compensatory

Afforestation is question mark.

NPV is under utilized

Thanks for Attention