Placing the reconstituted NBWL in the Regulatory Framework

There has been a hue and cry over the newly reconstituted National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) as the same has inadequate representation from NGOs, eminent conservationists/ecologists/environmentalists and States from what is stipulated in the law. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (Section 5A of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972) mandates that 10 States (by rotation), 10 ecologists/conservationists/environmentalists and 5 NGOs need to be present in the 47 member body of the NBWL whereas the newly constituted NBWL has representatives only from 5 States, 2 ecologists/conservationists/environmentalists and  1 NGO.  

It is pertinent to note that the role played by the NBWL and the Standing Committee to the NBWL in regulating developmental and other activities in and around protected areas is crucial with the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter the WLPA) vesting regulatory, recommendatory, advisory and consultative powers with the NBWL and the Standing Committee to the NBWL. The  Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest on 19^thDecember 2012 on taking up non-forestry activities in wildlife habitats (hereinafter the Guidelines) states that to undertake any non-forestry activities in any wild habitats, the project proponents requires Environmental Clearance, Forest Clearance and NBWL Clearance, making NBWL clearance another clearance process.   

The details of the regulatory role of NBWL and the Standing Committee are provided below:

Regulation of Activities in protected areas

The NBWL is empowered under the WLPA, to

1. Recommend on matters relating to restriction of activities in national parks, sanctuaries and other protected areas (Section 5C(2) (b), WLPA,);
2. Carry out or cause to carry out impact assessment of various projects  and activities on wildlife or its habitat (Section 5C(2)(c), WLPA);
3.  Give prior approval  of NBWL is for undertaking construction activities for commercial tourist lodges, hotels, zoos and safari parks in sanctuaries (proviso to Section 33(a), WLPA);
4.  Recommend any alteration to the boundaries of national parks and sanctuaries. (Section 35(5) and Section 26A(3), WLPA);
5. Be consulted  before the Chief Wildlife Warden grants permit to use or divert the habitat of any wild animal or forest produce from national parks (Section 35(6), WLPA);
6. Give approval for diversion of tiger reserves (Section 38(O)(1) (g), WLPA);
7. Give approval for alternation boundaries of tiger reserve, de-notification of tiger reserve (Section 38W(1) and (2)).

The powers mentioned in (1) and (2) have been delegated to the Standing Committee of the NBWL by notification dated 4^th November 2003 

The Honorable Supreme Court of India by order dated 9th May 2002 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337/1995 has directed that all projects in both national parks and sanctuaries require the Supreme Court’s approval based on the recommendations of the Standing Committee of NBWL.  

Hence, any project in national parks and sanctuaries requires the recommendation of the Standing Committee of NBWL and the approval of the Supreme Court which will be based on the recommendation of the Standing Committee.

Regulation of Activities within 10 kms of national parks and sanctuaries

As per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 4^th December 2006 in Goa Foundation v. Union of India, to undertake activities within 10 kms of national parks and sanctuaries, the recommendations of the Standing Committee of NBWL is required.

Procedure for consideration of proposals

Procedure for consideration of proposals is described in the Guidelines and it requires the project proponent to submit the performa as provided in the Guidelines. The procedure involves and includes comments from Chief Wildlife Warden and recommendations of State Board for Wildlife on the proposal which will be considered by the Standing Committee of the NBWL. The NBWL can also undertake site inspection in case proposal involves large scale diversion of forest/wildlife habitat or if impact of proposal is serious.  Based on the performa, comments of the State Board and Chief Wildlife Warden, site inspection, the Standing Committee may recommend the proposal. The user agency/State government, thereafter, has to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for its final approval.

Participation of Indigenous Peoples in REDD+: Workshop Report Published

In September 10-12, 2013, Natural Jusice’s Dr. Cath Traynor attended an international expert workshop entitled: "Practical Approaches to Ensuring the Full and Effective Participation of Indigenous Peoples in REDD+". the workshop was held in Weilburg, Germany, and was co-hosted by BMZ, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the UN-REDD Programme.  

The workshop offered space for the analysis of REDD+ participation and consultation standards, explored practical approaches and shed light on unsolved questions evolving around the challenge to provide for legitimate, effective and yet feasible inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in REDD+processes. Dr. Traynor shared with the participants the value of community protocols, and the work that Natural Justice is doing in this area.  This, and other contributions and insights are included in the recently published workshop report.

A People's Dialogue on Fracking

On Thursday, 21 August, Stephanie Booker of Natural Justice attended 'A People's Dialogue on Fracking: Global to Local", hosted by Groundwork and Southern Cape Land Committee in Cape Town.

The dialogue was attended by a number of South African NGOs and community members from the Karoo, in addition to guests Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth, The Netherlands) and Dutch representatives currently resisting fracking in their communities. It gave an opportunity for participants to share their concerns - and their work - on fracking in South Africa.

Stewarding the Earth: Rethinking Property and the Emergence of Biocultural Rights. A New Book by Kabir Bavikatte

The recent Oxford University Press, Stewarding the Earth: Rethinking Property and the Emergence of Biocultural Rights seeks to theorize some of the most significant experiences of Natural Justice since its inception. Written by Kabir Bavikatte, a co-founder and former member of Natural Justice, the book makes a strong case for the right to stewardship of Nature through biocultural rights. 

Weaving a fascinating tapestry of law, economics, anthropology and philosophy, Kabir maps and argues for biocultural rights of communities through compelling examples of environmental agreements, legislation, judicial decisions, and community practices. While most books on environmental jurisprudence tend to be expensive and dense tomes directed at academia, Kabir has made good on his promise of writing a low-cost, engaging book that theorizes the work of Natural Justice and its partners. Informative and stimulating, Stewarding the Earth is bound to have a profound impact on the environmental lawscape.

Reviewing RSPO's Complaints System

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) has had a complaints or grievance mechanism for the past several years to allow for social and environmental issues and concerns with the RSPO system itself to be raised and resolved through an institutionalised procedure. This complaints mechanism has been adapted alongside the organisation's Principles and Criteria, but it faces a growing number of critiques from communities, NGOs and companies alike and calls for widespread improvement. Since April 2014, Natural Justice has been undertaking a review of RSPO's complaints system along with BC Initiative Sdn. Bhd. in light of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and other relevant international law and policy, experiences from complaints mechanisms in other sectors, and civil society critiques, among other things. The first interim report was submitted in May 2014 and the research will continue until November.

As part of this review, Natural Justice and the RSPO Secretariat held a workshop from 18-19 August in Bandung, Indonesia, with a range of stakeholders. The purpose of the workshop was to seek their feedback on the first interim report and to further develop the recommendations therein, which are divided into four categories, namely: governance, management, procedural, and substantive issues. The recommendations will continue to be developed and refined in the run-up to the 12th Roundtable in November, where a penultimate version of the review will be presented.

AU Access and Benefit Sharing Policy Frameworks and Guidelines Ready for Adoption

Gino Cocchiaro, Natural Justice, took part in the Validation Workshop on the AU Guidelines  for the Coordinated Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing from the 11th to the 14th of August in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The workshop was attended by African government representatives, experts on access and benefit sharing, indigenous people and local community representatives.

The workshop produced a final policy framework and guidelines on access and benefit sharing, which will both be presented to the The African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) for adoption. Natural Justice provided assistance to the indigenous people and local community representatives attending the meeting to ensure that the text adequately reflected their calls for recognition of their customary laws, community protocols and procedures.

CBD Alliance Publishes an Activists' Guide to the CBD

The CBD Alliance is proud to announce the publishing of the "Activists' Guide to the CBD". The guide describes the work of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), its structures, its protocols, cross cutting issues, among other valuable resources. The  guide is intended to provide a simple and accessible introduction to the Convention on Biological Diversity and current efforts to protect biodiversity. It aims to reflect a range of views held by members of the CBD Alliance, and includes summaries of CBD materials and other resources. The guide is aimed at those new to the CBD processes, as well as anyone wishing to deepen their understanding of the work being undertaken by different parties at an international level.

Seeking Feedback on New Publication: Human Rights Standards for Conservation (Part I)

A Bajau Laut child begging from tourists near Tun Sakaran
Marine Park, Malaysia. (cc Harry Jonas)

Despite increased recognition that conservation initiatives can violate the human rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, addressing 'unjust' conservation remains a contemporary problem. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and Natural Justice are seeking feedback on a series of technical reports that aim to provide clear guidance about the human rights obligations of conservation actors, and specific details of the rights and forms of redress available.

Ahead of the World Parks Congress in Australia in November 2014, IIED is working with Natural Justice to systematically review and analyse relevant international law to answer the following three questions:

• Which actors bear human rights obligations and responsibilities in the context of conservation initiatives?
• What are their obligations and responsibilities?
• What are the grievance mechanisms available to peoples and communities in cases of violations of their human rights?

The results will be published in a three-part series of discussion papers and technical reports that will serve as an empirical basis for developing an accessible "Guide to Human Rights Standards for Conservation".

The first in the series is "Human Rights Standards for Conservation, Part I: Which Standards Apply to Which Conservation Actors?" (July 2014). With a focus on issues relating to protected areas and Indigenous peoples and local communities, it provides the legal rationale for the human rights obligations of governments and their agencies, international organisations, businesses, and NGOs including funders.

Conclusions

• There is an evolving consensus that internationally agreed standards regarding the human rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities have been established through international instruments, custom, and other sources of international law;
• International law is a dynamic system that is now widely recognised as setting standards for non-State entities, including international organisations and businesses; and
• The social license of businesses to operate gives rise to their responsibility to respect human rights, and other entities with similar or even broader social licenses, such as NGOs, also have similar responsibilities to respect human rights.

Have your say

We are keen to receive feedback on our conclusions and comments on their implications, from a range of interested parties including the following non-exclusive groups: lawyers, conservationists, Indigenous peoples, and local communities.

To contribute, email Natural Justice's Harry Jonas (harry@naturaljustice.org) or IIED's Dilys Roe (dilys(dot)roe(at)iied(dot)org).

What's next?

• "Human Rights Standards for Conservation, Part II" (expected in October 2014) will provide a review of the most up-to-date human rights standards relevant to protected areas, starting with a full revision of the existing Living Convention;
• "Human Rights Standards for Conservation, Part III" (expected in October 2014) will provide an assessment of existing formal and informal grievance mechanisms available to parties alleging infringement of their rights;
• A synthesis report based on Parts I-III will be produced in time for the World Parks Congress in Australia in November 2014, and will provide empirical input to a new 'Social Compact' that is under discussion at the Parks Congress as a way of building multi-stakeholder commitment to addressing planetary scale environmental problems.

Contact

Harry Jonas is a lawyer and co-founder of Natural Justice; Dilys Roe is a principal researcher in IIED's Natural Resources Group and leader of the biodiversity team.

To provide comments or reflections on our plans and work so far, please email Harry Jonas (harry(at)naturaljustice(dot)org) or IIED's Dilys Roe (dilys(dot)roe(at)iied(dot)org).

To be notified of future outputs in this series, email IIED's Fiona Roberts (fiona(dot)roberts(at)iied(dot)org).