We are a nation notorious for delaying decision-making. While rushing into taking decisions on crucial matters of public importance is not a solution, decisions need to be taken and taken when it matters. The sooner we realise this, the better it is for us. The constitution of a committee headed by T.S.R. Subramanian to look into six major environmental laws and suggest ways to improve the regulatory framework was a very welcome step. However, the fact that after the >Committee submitted its report , some looked into ways for implementing it and some others criticised it heavily did not serve its cause. That a parliamentary committee, which was constituted to look into it, trashed it completely made the entire exercise look futile. But was the report really that bad? Were there no recommendations good enough to be implemented? Let us examine this.
Nawneet Vibhaw The High Committee headed by Mr. Subramanian was tasked with reviewing six environmental statutes namely, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; and The Indian Forests Act, 1927. The task before the Committee was to align the relevant current statutes with ground realities and provide suggestions for the necessary improvements/amendments to the existing laws. The Committee noted that the laws under review had failed the litmus test due to tardy implementation and recommended a new project clearance mechanism, based on the ‘single window’ concept, with an integrated process, one that would also significantly reduce the processing time. This was a good recommendation and should not have been seen as a tool to promote development at the cost of environment.
The Committee had also suggested that Parliament could enact a law titled Environment Laws (Management) Act (ELMA) for constituting a ‘National Environment Management Authority’ (NEMA) at the Centre and ‘State Environment Management Authority’ (SEMA) in States, both comprising experts in different fields, which will deal with applications for clearances and permissions under environment related laws at the Central and State level respectively thus making it a single window. While the report also provided for the composition, functions and responsibilities of these proposed bodies, it also suggested the abatement of Central and State Pollution Control Boards.
It would be unfair to say that the recommendations were mindless as the idea clearly was to streamline the process and do away with laws which are unnecessary or rather repetitive. At the same time, tinkering around too much with the established institutions and processes and making abrupt changes may not always be a feasible idea either.
On the issue of institutional reforms, the Committee came up with some really good suggestions which included establishment of a National Environment Research Institute, creation of a new All India Service called the Indian Environment Service and setting up an Environment Reconstruction Fund (ERF) for funding research and creating awareness on environmental issues.
On the issue of forest conservation, the Committee recommended identification of ‘no go’ areas in forests to ensure that 70 per cent of the canopy cover and protected areas are not disturbed except in exceptional circumstances, and that too only with the prior approval of the Union Cabinet. The Committee urged the legislature to define the term ‘forest’ in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 as the present definition is one derived from the Supreme Court in the T.N. Godavarman Case.
The Committee suggested that economic incentives need to be offered for increased community participation in farm and social forestry by way of promoting and providing statutory safeguards to ‘treelands’, as distinct from forests and that the Compensatory Afforestation (CA) guidelines be revised.
The Committee called for the amendment of Schedule I to the Wildlife Act, 1972 to include the endangered species that are likely to be affected by illegal trade. It also proposed that an expert committee be appointed for the same.
All these were excellent recommendations even though these were criticised as being meant to fast-track projects by diluting processes like public hearing.
That the Subramanian Committee was constituted in August 2014 and that its recommendations have been rejected in July 2015 simply means that we have lost one entire year and are back to square one. Who is to be blamed for its failure is difficult to decipher but what is clear is that we have lost an excellent opportunity for a course correction.
( Nawneet Vibhaw is Managing Associate (Environment & Regulatory Practice) at Luthra & Luthra Law Offices )
