Page 17 - Discussion Paper - Restructuring the Environmental Governance Architecture for India
P. 17
DISCUSSION PAPER
The Report recommends that Central • Analysis of current legislative frameworks:
Government should be responsible for The current laws fall into 3 distinct categories:
environmental legislation; State Government should
supervise the functioning of SEMA, and collect the • Laws under Article 246: such as the Forest
environmental levy. Every District should have an (Conservation) Act
environmental management plan and capacity of
local bodies should be built up (pp. 83–84). • Laws under Article 252: such as the Wildlife
Act and the Water Act; and
It would appear that some of the recommendations of
the Committee are not well considered. For instance, • Laws under Article 253: such as the Air Act
“water” is clearly a State subject; under the Water and EP Act.
Act, the SPCB is a body under the State Government,
whereas its proposed replacement, the SEMA is These laws, analysed from a structural perspective in
proposed as a body under the Central Government. the federal context reveal the following:
Similarly, the draft ELMA attached to the report (pp. A Federal Structure: As in the Water Act, Air Act,
66–77) does not require an Annual Report either to
Parliament or State Legislatures; whereas under the and Wild Life Act, the primary functions are to be
Water Act, the CPCB is required to submit an Annual performed by State-level bodies accountable to
Report which is tabled in Parliament and the SPCB is the State Legislature; and Central institutions to
to submit an Annual Report to be tabled in the State provide policy and technical support and perform
legislature. In some of its provisions, the Report is central functions.
clearly in favour of further centralization, despite the A Quasi-federal Structure: As in the FC Act
fact that in the case of CAMPA, the Government Bill of where any proposal for diversion of forest land
2008 was turned down by the Parliament Committee for non-forest purpose has to come from the State
for not following the principle of subsidiarity. Government only, however “prior approval” of
the Central Government is needed before the
The Report of the Parliamentary Committee State Government can divert the land. Rule-
examining the HLC Report making power rests with the Central Government.
Accountability under the Act lies to Parliament
In this backdrop, the Department-related but the State Government has strong institutional
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & structures and resources and accountability
Technology, Environment & Forests, decided to to State Legislature through alternative means
take up the Report of the High Level Committee (such as the Indian Forest Act 1927). However,
(HLC) for examination and report. The Committee the provisions relating to CAMPA had a strong
invited memoranda from various stakeholders on centralizing character for several years. The
the recommendations of the High Level Committee Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016,
and heard the views of the experts/Civil Society has endeavoured to restore the federal flavour
Organisations/NGOs on the issue at its meeting. to some extent. However, the Annual Plan of
In its Report dated July 21, 2015, the Committee Operations for execution of activities funded out
recommended that “the Ministry of Environment, of State Funds are still subject to final approval by
Forest & Climate Change, instead of proceeding with the National Authority.
the implementation of the recommendations contained A Centripetal Structure: As in the EP Act where
in High Level Committee Report, should give due all the statutory institutions are of the Central
consideration to the views/opinion and objections raised Government (including the SEIAA and authorities
by stakeholders including environmental experts.” created under Section 3(3)) though composed
partly of State-nominated members. Powers to
Analysis of the current framework for State-level institutions are by delegation (with
environmental governance power to withdraw), precluding the creation of
proper institutional and supporting capacity at
Analysis of the existing framework and its State level and alignment of other State institutions
operational impact reveals the following: (including Panchayati institutions) in accordance
with the legislative architecture. The rule making
OCTOBER 2017 17
The Report recommends that Central • Analysis of current legislative frameworks:
Government should be responsible for The current laws fall into 3 distinct categories:
environmental legislation; State Government should
supervise the functioning of SEMA, and collect the • Laws under Article 246: such as the Forest
environmental levy. Every District should have an (Conservation) Act
environmental management plan and capacity of
local bodies should be built up (pp. 83–84). • Laws under Article 252: such as the Wildlife
Act and the Water Act; and
It would appear that some of the recommendations of
the Committee are not well considered. For instance, • Laws under Article 253: such as the Air Act
“water” is clearly a State subject; under the Water and EP Act.
Act, the SPCB is a body under the State Government,
whereas its proposed replacement, the SEMA is These laws, analysed from a structural perspective in
proposed as a body under the Central Government. the federal context reveal the following:
Similarly, the draft ELMA attached to the report (pp. A Federal Structure: As in the Water Act, Air Act,
66–77) does not require an Annual Report either to
Parliament or State Legislatures; whereas under the and Wild Life Act, the primary functions are to be
Water Act, the CPCB is required to submit an Annual performed by State-level bodies accountable to
Report which is tabled in Parliament and the SPCB is the State Legislature; and Central institutions to
to submit an Annual Report to be tabled in the State provide policy and technical support and perform
legislature. In some of its provisions, the Report is central functions.
clearly in favour of further centralization, despite the A Quasi-federal Structure: As in the FC Act
fact that in the case of CAMPA, the Government Bill of where any proposal for diversion of forest land
2008 was turned down by the Parliament Committee for non-forest purpose has to come from the State
for not following the principle of subsidiarity. Government only, however “prior approval” of
the Central Government is needed before the
The Report of the Parliamentary Committee State Government can divert the land. Rule-
examining the HLC Report making power rests with the Central Government.
Accountability under the Act lies to Parliament
In this backdrop, the Department-related but the State Government has strong institutional
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & structures and resources and accountability
Technology, Environment & Forests, decided to to State Legislature through alternative means
take up the Report of the High Level Committee (such as the Indian Forest Act 1927). However,
(HLC) for examination and report. The Committee the provisions relating to CAMPA had a strong
invited memoranda from various stakeholders on centralizing character for several years. The
the recommendations of the High Level Committee Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016,
and heard the views of the experts/Civil Society has endeavoured to restore the federal flavour
Organisations/NGOs on the issue at its meeting. to some extent. However, the Annual Plan of
In its Report dated July 21, 2015, the Committee Operations for execution of activities funded out
recommended that “the Ministry of Environment, of State Funds are still subject to final approval by
Forest & Climate Change, instead of proceeding with the National Authority.
the implementation of the recommendations contained A Centripetal Structure: As in the EP Act where
in High Level Committee Report, should give due all the statutory institutions are of the Central
consideration to the views/opinion and objections raised Government (including the SEIAA and authorities
by stakeholders including environmental experts.” created under Section 3(3)) though composed
partly of State-nominated members. Powers to
Analysis of the current framework for State-level institutions are by delegation (with
environmental governance power to withdraw), precluding the creation of
proper institutional and supporting capacity at
Analysis of the existing framework and its State level and alignment of other State institutions
operational impact reveals the following: (including Panchayati institutions) in accordance
with the legislative architecture. The rule making
OCTOBER 2017 17
