Canopies and Corridors - International Fund for Animal Welfare

clarified that the orders passed by Supreme Court in
Godavarman case with respect to North Eastern States
are also applicable to District Council. In this order,
the Supreme Court stated that even though
proliferation of wood based industries has been the
main cause of degradation of forest in the North East,
considering the extent of forest and the dependence of
local people on the forest region resources in the
region it is neither feasible, nor desirable, to ban
completely either the timber or running of wood
based industries. It was emphasized that the number
and capacities are to be regulated in relation to the
sustainable availability of forest produce. Most
significantly it emphasize that industrial requirement
have to be subordinated to the maintenance of the
environment and ecology as well as bonafide local
needs.
The major highlight of the order with respect to the
District Council was that the Forest under it should be
worked in accordance with working schemes, which
shall specify both the programme for regeneration
and harvesting and whose period shall not be less
than five years. It was, however, clarified that the
plantation schemes raised on private and community
holdings shall be excluded from these requirements
but shall be regulated under respective state rules and
regulations.
The Supreme Court by its order dated 8.1.2001 in
I.A. No. 424 in T.N. Godavarman vs U.O.I W.P. (C).
202 of 1995 emphasized on the partnership of all the
States to ensure the maintenance and improvement of
the forest cover and provided forest compensation to
the forest-rich States. The Court observed, “It is to be
borne in mind that taking an overall view it is
important for the country that in certain areas where
natural forest exist, the same should be preserved.
The political boundaries are drawn for various
considerations but as far as the environment is
concerned, one has to take a holistic view and in that
view of the matter one cannot overlook the fact that
even though the national average of the forest cover is
low, even that low figure is there because of the
higher percentage of the forest cover in the Hill States
and in the State of Madhya Pradesh and in North
eastern States. Majority of the States in India fall short
of national average as far as the forest cover is
concerned. For the benefit of the said States also - nay
for the benefit of the whole region, it is important that
there should not be any further depletion of the forest
cover in these sensitive areas of Madhya Pradesh and
in the Himalayas and the other sensitive areas like the
Western Ghats etc. In order to ensure the
preservation and regeneration of forests in these
areas, the Central Government should consider
Canopies and Corridors
whether the deficient States should not be asked to
contribute towards the preservation of the existing
forest cover and compensation/incentive given to the
forest-rich States to preserve and regenerate forest: In
a sense, there should be a partnership of all the states
to ensure the maintenance and improvement of the
forest cover. This suggestion should be considered by
a Committee of the Secretary (Finance) and Secretary,
Ministry of Environment & Forests in consultation
with the Chief Secretaries of all the states and a report
submitted preferably within eight weeks. Although,
most of the forest deficient states expressed their
inability to ‘compensate’ the forest rich states, the
Supreme Court directed that in the absence of the
States willing to part with their money, the Central
Government should devise a scheme to compensate
the forest rich states.
This order was complied by the State and the
Supreme Court by its order dated 26.9.2005 in T.N.
Godavarman vs U.O.I W.P. (C). 202 of 1995, took
notice of the compensation given to the forest rich
states to preserve and regenerate forests and held,
“It would also be useful to make a mention of the
order dated 22nd September, 2000 passed by this
Court which led to grant of sanction of rupees 1,000
crores for maintenance of forest under the 12th Finance
Commission (2005-2010). The said order took note of
the fact that felling of the trees is far in excess of what
would be justified with reference to regeneration, and
the main cause is non-availability of sufficient funds.
It also notices that even with regard to the felling of
trees as per working plans in the last three years, the
corresponding prescription for regeneration has not
been implemented. It further notices that there cannot
be any felling without regeneration because that will,
over a period of time, only result in forest vanishing.
Further, the order says that the shortfall of
regeneration which has resulted in depletion of forest
cover has to be made up. The court took note of the
suggestion that for regeneration there should be a joint
venture between State of Madhya Pradesh, a state
having a large forest area, and the Central
Government whereby the working capital, in whole
or substantially the whole, can be provided by the
Central Government and the regeneration of
degraded forests carried out. Taking an overall view,
it is important for the nation that in certain areas
where natural forest exists, the same should be
preserved and at the same time the Central
Government should consider whether the deficient
States should not be asked to contribute towards the
preservation of the existing forest cover and the
compensation/incentive given to the forest rich States
to preserve and regenerate forests. In a sense, there
35