Mining Around Ramsar Wetland Sites in light of SC Verdict

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 3- Environment

Introduction

The Supreme Court has expanded judicial safeguards for Wetland Conservation Reserves across India. It clarified that its February 2024 directions are not limited to the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve in Uttarakhand. The ruling requires greater scrutiny of mining activities near such wetlands. It also strengthens the role of expert authorities in deciding where the 10 km mining safeguard will apply. Mining Around Ramsar Wetland Sites in light of SC Verdict.

Importance of Ramsar Wetlands

1. Internationally Recognised Wetlands: Ramsar Sites are wetlands identified under the Ramsar Convention, 1971 for their international ecological importance and wise use.
2. India’s Global Commitment: India became a Contracting Party in 1982 and is committed to maintaining the ecological character of these wetlands through domestic environmental laws.
3. Leading Position in Asia: India currently has 101 Ramsar Sites, the highest among Asian countries, with Glaw Lake (Arunachal Pradesh) becoming the 101st site on 3 August 2026.
4. Ecological Significance: Ramsar wetlands support aquatic biodiversity, protect fragile ecosystems and provide important habitats for migratory birds and other wildlife.
5. Recognition, Not Separate Legal Protection: A Ramsar designation recognises international ecological importance but does not create an independent statutory protection regime under Indian law.

Conservation and Regulatory Framework

1. No Statutory Mining Buffer: Neither the Ramsar Convention nor the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 prescribe a statutory buffer zone or prohibit mining within a fixed distance.
2. Protection under the 2010 Rules: The Wetlands Rules, 2010 prohibited activities such as reclamation, new industries and waste dumping while requiring approvals and environmental impact assessments for specified activities.
3. Shift under the 2017 Rules: The 2017 Rules introduced a decentralised system through State Wetland Authorities and transferred much of the responsibility for identifying and regulating wetlands to the States.
4. Reduced Explicit Restrictions: Unlike the 2010 Rules, the 2017 Rules removed the detailed list of prohibited activities within wetlands and their zones of influence.
5. Judicial Review of the Framework: The constitutional validity of the 2017 Rules is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court.
6. Concerns Raised by Petitioners: Petitioners argue that the 2017 Rules exclude several artificial wetlands recognised under the Ramsar Convention and weaken safeguards available under the earlier framework.

Background of the Asan Wetland Case

1. Ecological Importance of Asan Wetland: The Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve, located at the confluence of the Asan and Yamuna Rivers in Uttarakhand, became a Ramsar Site in 2020 and supports rich biodiversity.
2. Origin of Mining Restrictions: In 2015, the Uttarakhand High Court imposed an absolute restriction on mining within 10 km of the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve.
3. Modification by the Supreme Court: On 14 February 2024, the Supreme Court modified the Uttarakhand High Court’s order by permitting mining within 10 km only after prior approval from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and/or the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
4. Reason for Enhanced Scrutiny: The Court held that the ecological importance of a Ramsar Site requires stricter examination of activities that may affect its ecological character.
5. Judicial Safeguard Beyond Existing Law: The Court required prior approval from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and/or the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) before mining within 10 km, although the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 contain no such requirement.

Supreme Court’s Directions and Recent Clarification

1. Reason for Fresh Clarification: The Himachal Pradesh Government sought clarification because the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve lies in Uttarakhand and wetland reserves have no statutory buffer zone.
2. Extension of the Principle: The Court clarified that the February 2024 directions apply, for the sake of parity, to Wetland Conservation Reserves across India and are not confined to Uttarakhand.
3. Uniform Ecological Approach: The Court observed that administrative boundaries cannot justify different environmental standards where adjoining States share the same ecological conditions.
4. Role of Expert Authorities: The NBWL Standing Committee or the MoEFCC was directed to determine whether any Wetland Conservation Reserve exists or extends into Himachal Pradesh.
5. Conditional Application in Himachal Pradesh: If a Wetland Conservation Reserve is found in Himachal Pradesh, the February 2024 directions will apply there with necessary modifications.
6. Decision in Absence of Wetland Reserve: If no Wetland Conservation Reserve exists in Himachal Pradesh, mining proposals will be decided under the existing legal procedure.
7. Time-bound Determination: The Court directed the competent authority to complete this factual determination and take an appropriate decision within one month.
8. Nationwide Applicability: The Court clarified that the February 2024 mining directions will apply to all similarly notified Wetland Conservation Reserves across India, ensuring a uniform approach to ecologically similar areas.

Comparison with the Legal Regime for Other Protected Areas

1. Mining Around National Parks and Sanctuaries: Mining is prohibited inside National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
2. Eco-Sensitive Zone Protection: The Supreme Court has held that mining is not permitted within 1 km of every National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary, unless a larger notified Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) already exists, in which case the larger buffer applies.
3. Wildlife Clearance Requirement: Projects located inside protected areas or likely to affect wildlife habitats require prior scrutiny by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL).
4. Forest Land Diversion: Diversion of forest land for mining requires prior approval of the Union Government under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980.
5. Environmental Clearance: Mining projects generally require environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 before commencement.
6. Difference from Wetland Reserves: Unlike National Parks and Sanctuaries, Wetland Conservation Reserves do not have a statutory buffer zone, making judicial safeguards more significant.

Challenges Ahead

1. Absence of Statutory Buffer Zones: Existing laws do not prescribe a fixed protection zone around Ramsar Sites or Wetland Conservation Reserves, creating regulatory uncertainty.
2. Pending Legal Challenge: The constitutional validity of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 remains under consideration before the Supreme Court.
3. Changing Regulatory Framework: The replacement of the 2010 Rules with the 2017 Rules reduced explicit prohibitions, leading to concerns over weaker wetland protection.
4. Coverage of Artificial Wetlands: Petitioners contend that several artificial wetlands recognised under the Ramsar Convention are excluded from the present regulatory framework.
5. Need for Scientific Identification: Effective implementation depends on timely identification of Wetland Conservation Reserves by expert authorities before mining decisions are taken.
6. Consistent Implementation Across States: Uniform application of judicial directions requires coordination among States, the NBWL, and the MoEFCC while respecting ecological realities.

Conclusion

The judgment strengthens judicial protection for Wetland Conservation Reserves through a uniform approach to mining regulation. It reinforces the role of expert authorities in deciding the applicability of the 10 km mining safeguard. At the same time, it allows mining proposals to follow the existing legal procedure where no Wetland Conservation Reserve exists.

Question for practice:

Examine the significance of the Supreme Court’s recent directions on regulating mining activities around Ramsar Wetland Sites and Wetland Conservation Reserves in India.

Source: The Hindu