Wildlife management and protection in India warrants a separate ministry, says a committee recommendation
The Delhi High Court (DHC) has recently been informed by the Centre that it
"is examining" the bifurcation of the
Union ministry of environment and
forests (MEF). This development came
about after a committee appointed by
the DHC on wildlife preservation, protection and laws, made its recomendations to the court.
The committee pointed out that the
post-Rio scenario warranted a ministry
for natural resources (forests and
wildlife), for wildlife management and
protection". This is deemed necessary as
the MEF dedicated a large portion of its
administrative time and finances evaluating largescale industrial, hydroelectric, thermal power, mining and other
sectors. It added that the PAS be
increased to 7.5 per cent of the country,
from the present 4.3 per cent.
'Strongly endorsing' the suggestion
that a ra'dius of 25 km around protected
areas (PA) be declared 'no development zones', the Centre has, however, pleaded its inability to remove or
relocate industries that have come
up even within a five-km radius,
besides imposing a blanket ban on
development activities, once an area had
been denotified.
The committee, comprising the
present inspector general of forests
(IGF), a former additional IGF, environmentalists and advocates, had
come down heavily on the issue of
denotification.
"The current perceivable threat to
Protected 'Areas (PA) arise from the
sheer bullish power of denotification
which the legislature wields over these
areas," the committee noted. "The
power is so immense that if not properly exercised, it may lead to unregulated
denotification Of PAS not based on any
scientific and researched studies, but on
political and industrial contingencies,"
it said. The committee suggested that
committees be formed in each state,
which would look into every application
to denotify a PA.
These committees, it was recommended, would comprise the local
member of the legislative assembly, a
member of Parliament, the additional
inspector general (wildlife), chief
wildlife warden of the state concerned,
and two reputed environmental scientists nominated by the Centre.
Senior officials of the MEF who are
involved with the committee, however,
refrained from making any comments
;on the recommendations or the
i Centre's response in court, stating they
were awaiting DHc directives.
Regarding the issue of peoples representation in PAS, the committee suggested the formation of an advisory
council comprising village representatives1panchayats, who could participate
in the management and protection of
the denotified area.
"A long-term compensation scheme
has to be immediately initiated for all
resettlement / relocation from forests,"
the committee recommended. In the
recommendations former additional
IGF, S Deb Roy, said that "NGOs are now
putting pressure on the government of
India to amend the Indian Wildlife
(Protection) Act to allow human use in
national parks also. This will be disastrous for wildlife and hence should not
be allowed under any pretext".
Valmik Thapar of the Ranthambhore Foundation, who is a member of
the committee appointed by the DHC,
criticised the Centre's stance on handling the 'no development zones'.
"While they (the Centre) acknowledge
that these are ecologically sensitive
areas, many proposals have been
granted within these areas. Though
closure would certainly endanger jobs,
granting fresh permission is just not
done," he stated.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.