Wetlands Unsung Heroes

A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court in 2000 for the protection of wetlands.
M K Balakrishnan, an advocate, has filed the petition, which also includes a provision for paddy fields to be declared as productive wetlands.
This has resulted in saving of lakhs of water bodies & Wetlands from destruction.

An extract from.order passed on 4th October 2017 is as under :
We make it clear and reiterate that in terms of ourorder dated 8th February, 2017, 2,01,503 wetlands thathave been mapped by the Union of India should continue to
remain protected on the same principles as wereformulated in Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation andManagement) Rules, 2010.
Learned counsel for the parties may file theirobjections to the new Rules within a period of two weeks.
We direct that only one set of objections should be filedand both learned counsel should sit together and arriveat some consensus on the objections.
We further direct the State Governments that have notcomplied with earlier orders or directions given by theCentral Government should do so within a period of fourweeks from today failing which we will be constrained torequire the presence of the Chief Secretaries of theState Governments in addition to imposition of heavycosts keeping in mind the necessity of conservingwhatever water bodies are left in the country.List the matter for further directions and forhearing on the objections to the new Rules on 9th
November, 2017.

Further on 18th July 2018 the petitioners was allowed to amend the writpetition to challenge the Wetlands (Conservation and
Preservation) Rules, 2017.

The 2017 Wetland Rules have been criticised for doing away with strong wetland monitoring systems and omitting important wetland types. At the same time, the Supreme Court order directs States to come forward and notify wetlands.

The 2010 and 2017 Rules for wetlands both emphasise that the ecological character of wetlands ought to be maintained for their conservation.

In the 2010 Rules, some related criteria were made explicit, such as natural beauty, ecological sensitivity, genetic diversity, historical value, etc. These have been omitted in the 2017 Rules. There are a few reasons why this is problematic. First, there is multiple interest around wetlands. Multiple interests also have governance needs, and this makes it absolutely necessary to identify and map these multiple uses. Leading on from this, and second, it is crucial to identify ecological criteria so that the wetlands’ character can be maintained. The key to wetland conservation is not just understanding regimes of multiple use — but conserving or managing the integrity of the wetland ecosystem. Finally, restriction of activities on wetlands will be done as per the principle of ‘wise use’, determined by the State wetland authority. Whether wise use will include maintaining ecological character remains to be seen. Under the new Rules, no authority to issue directions, which are binding in nature to desist from any activity detrimental to wetland conservation, has been prescribed to State wetland authorities.

Salt pans are an example how one use (of making salt) has trumped the other (of environmental balance). Salt pans as ‘wetlands’ have been omitted from the new Rules. They were identified as wetlands in the 2010 Rules, as they are often important sites of migratory birds and other forms of biodiversity. The omission in the 2017 Rules suggests that while saltpans do exist as wetlands, they do not require any conservation or ecological balance. The inference can also be that it would be acceptable to tip the environmental balance or integrity of such a wetland, which could lead to damage and pollution.

Hats off to such crusaders of environment.
Please share maximum so that efforts of such heroes do not go waste & creates maximum awareness.

Sunil Agarwal