Dr. JVSharma Regulatory Framework for the implementation of NLBI In India.
-
Upload
bernard-george -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of 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