FOREST CASE UPDATE

Issue 2, July 2004

CONTENTS

1.    Forest Compensation Order of 8^th January 2001

2.      The Central Empowered Committee (CEC)

3.      Some Important Intervention Applications (IAs) in the Godavarman Case

4.      CEC and the Protection of Olive Ridley Turtle in Orissa.

5.      Applications Listed for the Godavarman Hearing 2.8.2004

Forest Compensation Order of 8^th January 2001

An important aspect dealt with by the Supreme Court in the Godavarman case was the issue of ‘forest compensation’. In its Order dated 08-01-2001, the court emphasized the essential need for certain areas with natural forest to be preserved and no further depletion of forest cover in areas which have forest cover such as in Madhya Pradesh, the Western Ghats, the North Eastern Region and the Himalayas. 

According to the Court “the political boundaries are drawn for various considerations but as far as the environment is concerned one has to take a holistic view”.  It noted that majority of States fall short of the national average (33%) as far as forest cover is concerned.  It therefore felt that in order to ensure that the forest cover continues to exist in the abovementioned areas it is essential that the forest deficient States should be asked to contribute towards the preservation of forests by means of compensating the forest rich states so that they maintain their existing forest cover. The Court visualized that there should be a ‘partnership’ between different States to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the forest cover. The suggestion of the Court was to be considered by a committee constituting of the Finance Secretary and Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests in consultation with the Chief Secretaries of all the States.

Following the directions the Committee constituted above held discussions with various State Governments and the matter was heard on 08-01-2001. It was pointed out to the Court that about twelve States that are deficient in forest cover have expressed their reservation in accepting the suggestion of the Court. The States were Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh. Orissa, Gujarat, Punjab, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh. The Court after issuing notice to the Chief Secretaries of all the above States which had expressed reservation over the scheme also issued notice to consider the suggestion that if in the Government of India’s opinion the forest deficient State cannot be asked to compensate the forest rich states in such situation the Union of India should be able to bear the expenses of maintaining the natural forest cover in view of Article 48-A of the Constitution of India

The Central Empowered Committee

In I.A 296 heard on 12-4-2000, the Supreme Court considered the feasibility of constituting a National Level Committee as well as State Level Committees on the lines of the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Protection Authority set up under the provision of Section 3 (3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The National Level Committee would serve in the nature of supervisory or appellate authority over the State Authorities. However, the delay by the Central Government in constituting this Authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 led to the Court to constitute on 9-5-2002 an Authority at the National Level called the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).

The task assigned to it included the monitoring of the implementation of the Orders of the Court, encroachment removal, implementations of Working Plan, compensatory afforestation, plantations and other conservation issues. The Committee was envisaged as a body to advise the Court on all matters in the two writ petitions. All pending applications as well as examining the reports and affidavits filed by the states in response to the Orders made by the Court.

The notification formally constituting the CEC was issued on 17-9-2002 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests under sub section (3) of section 3 of the Environment Protection) Act, 1986. The CEC was constituted for a period of five years. Perhaps with a view to insulate the CEC from routine administrative changes and political pressures, it was stated that all members are appointed in their “personal capacities”

In terms of the scope of CEC’s intervention, the Notification did not limit the CEC only to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 but also to the implementation of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the National Forest Policy, 1988 including the Rules, Regulations and Guidelines framed under these laws.

Wide-ranging powers were conferred on the CEC. The CEC could call for documents from any person or the Government, summon any person, and receive evidence from such person either on oath or on affidavit. Further, the CEC’s activities were not be limited only to Delhi, rather it could undertake field visits, conduct public hearing, meet with NGOs. CEC is also empowered to pass interim orders in situations demanding immediate action.

With the formal setting up of the CEC through a Government Notification, a new chapter in the Godavarman case began. The simplified procedure of filing as well as hearing led to a spurt of cases coming before the CEC. Originally, based in the committee room of Ministry of Environment and Forests, CEC utilized the formal set up of the National Environmental Appellate Authority located at New Delhi’s Nehru Stadium for hearing cases. Initially limited to just one to two hearing a month, the CEC Hearing has now become more and frequent.

Some Important Intervention Applications (IAs)

CEC and the Protection of Olive Ridley Turtles in Orissa

The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) visited Bhubaneshwar, Gahirmatha, Devi River Mouth and Rushikulya to see the extent of compliance of directions issued in the Interim Order (See http://www.sanctuaryasia.com/resources/environlaw/protectionofoliveridleyturtles.doc) dated March 7, 2003. The Application (No. 46) had raised the important issue of large-scale deaths of the endangered Olive Ridley Turtles due to multiple factors. The team comprised of P.V Jaykrishnan, Chairman CEC; Bittu Sahgal. Editor, Sanctuary Magazine; and V.R Chitrapu, Retd Principle Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) Tamil Nadu.

The Committee in paragraph 2.2 notes that although the mortality of Olive Ridley Turtles upto 31.1.2004 was 3689 compared to 10086 during the year 2002-2003, it is too early to conclude as to whether there is any declining trend in the mortality of turtles.

According to the CEC there are a number of issues that still need to be addressed and issued the following direction in addition to the Interim Order dated 7-3-2003. Some of these include:

r      Trawlers should be prohibited from fishing from 1^st November to 31^st May upto a distance of 20 kms towards the sea from the High Tide line at the mass nesting sites of Gahirmatha, Devi River Mount and Rushikulya.

r      The present restriction on all fishing inside Gahirmatha Sanctuary must remain. These restrictions are not merely for turtles, but also dolphins, fish, prawns, crabs etc so as to preserve their breeding grounds.  No fishing of any kind should be allowed inside the core area of the Marine Sanctuary.

r      Fishing by traditional, non-motorized gill net vessels may be permitted within 5kms of the High Tide Line in all areas including the three nesting beaches. However, the nets used by such vessels must be small mesh, monofilament nets with a maximum length of 300m.

r      Fishing by traditional vessels (vessels without in-board or out board engine and without mechanized fishing gear) using small mesh, monofilament nets with a maximum length of 300m may be permitted inside the turtle congregation zone.

r      Three types of gill nets cause turtle mortality namely Sankucha jaal (ray net), Ring Seine and Bhekti/Bahal jaal; The Orissa Traditional Fish Workers Union (OTFWU) has voluntarily decided to give up of these three types of nets during the turtle season.

r      In Gahirmatha Sanctuary area, the tourists should travel in traditional boats and not motorized boats. This will enhance the employment opportunity for the local populations.

r      No intensive aquaculture should be permitted within 5km along the coast and inland from the boundaries of the Gahirmatha Sanctuary and the Bhitarkanika National Park. Also along the entire coast and upto 5 Km inland from Hatadhar River to the Rushikulya River Mouth.

r      An action plan should be put in place for ‘blackout’ practices on Wheeler Island from January 1^st to 31^st May every year during the mass nesting season.

r      The Forest as well as the Fisheries Department must involve the traditional fishing communities in conservation efforts highlighting at the same time that certain restriction will ensure their long-term livelihood security.

r      The Orissa Forest Department should work with the OTFWU to arrive at a list of facilities/ schemes/programmes to be provided by the Orissa Government as also the Government of India that will benefit the traditional fishing community.

r      The Proposed Dhamra port is to be located close to the Gahirmatha National Park.  The present site will seriously impact the nesting turtles and could lead to the beach being abandoned. It is therefore necessary that an alternative site is located for this port (See: http://www.hinduonnet.com/mag/2004/03/28/stories/2004032800160200.htm).

r      The Reliance Gas Handling facility is being thought of at Rushikulya, which could result in serious pollution (traffic as well as light). It should therefore be located elsewhere in case there are plans for the same.

r      No new licenses should be granted for industries that cause pollution along the sensitive stretches from Gahairmatha to Rushikulya.

r      The State Government should set up a Consultative Monitoring Committee consisting of Fisheries Department, Forest Department, the OTFWU, Coast Guard and representatives of Operation Kachappa and also other NGOs.

r      There should be a “Project Turtle” on the lines of Project Tiger/Project Elephant”. A comprehensive turtle protection and conservation programme could be undertaken.

Applications Listed for the Godavarman Hearing 2.8.2004

The following matters are listed for hearing before the Supreme Court on 2-8-2004 in the T. N Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs Union of India W.P. 202 of 1995.

For impleadment on behalf of South Eastern coalfields ltd.

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh  I.A. Nos. 857-858

Regarding use of reserve forestland for non-forestry activity by fishing trawlers, mechanized boats in violation of the Order of the Supreme Court.

- For intervention and directions on behalf of National Fish Workers Forum.  

- For Modification/ clarification of Order dated 25.08.2003 on behalf of national fish workers forum)

-  For leave to withdraw affidavit of Fisheries Department an file fresh affidavit on behalf of state of West Bengal

- For seeking leave to withdraw the affidavit of Forest Department, state of West Bengal)

Recommendations of CEC. in I.A No.566

- Directions/modifications on behalf of federation of Indian mineral industries

I.A. No. 826 In I.A. No. 566

Utilization of Rs. 50 crores in the Rajaji National Park, Uttaranchal

If you are interested in receiving a copy of the complete listing, do write to forestcase@yahoo.com