We have submitted our response to the committee. I am an optimist, however this process doesn't give me much hope.

The total time limit for reviewing several acts is only two months. One month was for accepting the responses. The problem is that the committee wants the responses limited to only 1000 words. So we have to only choose a few points and talk about it. That means many other areas are not represented.

The committee is not doing extensive consultation process. In the past, I have been participant in many consultation processes held by MoEF which were far more rigorous. This High Level Committee is not going to present a draft findings for public consultation. It will give its report to MoEF. Clearly this process lacks transparency.

Nevertheless we have urged the committee to look at issues which others may not have taken up. I am sharing some of those points focused on preserving the habitats and wildlife corridors and omitted others.

Pointers from Supreme Court Judgment:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgement on the writ petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995 in the Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I vs Union of India and others, has noted that conservation of biological diversity is an integral part of our development process. “Conventions on Biological Diversity, signed in the year 1962 at Rio Summit, recognized for the first time in International Law that the conservation of biological diversity is “a common concern of human kind” and is an integral part of the development process.”

The above mentioned judgement says “While giving effect to the various provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, the Centrally Sponsored Scheme 2009, the NWAP 2002-2016 our approach should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric.”

In page 43 of the same judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further says “Sustainable development, it has been argued by various eminent environmentalists, clearly postulates an anthropocentric bias, least concerned with the rights of other species which live on this earth. Anthropocentrism is always human interest focused thinking that non-human has only instrumental value to humans, in other words, humans take precedence and human responsibilities to non-human are based (on) benefits to humans. Ecocentrism is nature-centred, where humans are part of nature and non-humans have intrinsic value. In other words, human interest does not take automatic precedence and humans have obligations to non-humans independently of human interest. Ecocentrism is, therefore, life-centred, nature-centred where nature includes both humans and non-humans. The committee should incorporate the above-mentioned points as per by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order into the new amendment.

The above judgment is a far reaching in terms of setting the principles ie foundation for other judgments to refer to apart from being direction to the Government for its actions. There are a few oft quoted judgments which I have omitted mentioning.

Wildlife Corridors:
The unplanned growth of human habitations is leading to various forests and protected areas getting disconnected from each other. Due to this the movement of wildlife from one protected area to other is stopped. This fragmentation of wildlife habitat leads to a closed gene pool, and in many cases leads to local extirpation of a species. Wildlife corridors need to be protected at any cost and there should be effort to recreate wildlife corridors that historically existed but have been lost. Enabling provisions in the Wildlife protection act should be created to help protect and recreate wildlife corridors for all endangered wildlife.

Create National Elephant Conservation Authority:

The MoEF based on the Elephant Task Force report had announced Elephant as the National Heritage animal. However, it hasn’t yet implemented its other suggestions. We urge you to create a National Elephant Conservation Authority and provide statutory status to the Elephant Reserves.

Expansion as well as any projects of railways through elephant habitats should be brought under FCA. Widening of roads and upgradation of railway tracks to broad gauge and electrification should only be allowed if adequate underpass and over passes are constructed in the elephant corridors.

Landowner of agricultural land where an elephant dies of electrocution should be prosecuted. This would curb the tendency of farmers to electrocute elephants and other wildlife.

Unscrupulous elements are exploiting a loophole by applying for permissions for small mines and quarries with area less than 5 hectares as these do not come under the Mines and Mineral Development Act. Several permissions sought under different entities results in complete fragmentation of the wildlife habitats, and are a big problem for the vanishing elephant corridors. The relevant acts needs to be strengthened and before according permission the combined effects along with other such mines or entities operating in the area should be ascertained.


Modify EIA process:
The EIA (Environment Impact Assessment) process needs to be strengthened. Too often people mention in the EIA reports that not many animals were sighted and hence certify an area to be devoid of wildlife. Nothing can be farther from the truth. By design wildlife turn nocturnal in disturbed areas. Also, certain areas are visited by animals and birds in various seasons during their migration and serve as key roosting areas for birds or migratory corridors for animals. Such places may appear desolate during other seasons. So EIA reports have to take into consideration about migratory wildlife. Also, EIAs should mandate recording of the soundscape of the place. Sound recordings over a period of time will help us in identifying the animals and birds in the place and would serve as a far more authentic record. Hence recording of soundscapes of the places to be made mandatory for EIA purposes.