Transcript Regulatory Framework for the implementation of NLBI In India

Regulatory Framework for the
implementation of NLBI In India
Dr. JVSharma
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 VF
2. 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 India
3. 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 CoastGuards.
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 India
5. 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 Activism
 use 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
Framework
Indian 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
Framework
2.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
Framework
3.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
Framework
4. 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,1980
 Lack 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