Decoding the judgment on Jim Corbett

• In its ruling in March, the Supreme Court brought to light the unholy nexus of politicians, forest officials, and local contractors responsible for the felling of 6,000 trees in the Jim Corbett National Park in Uttarakhand.

Key highlights

• Despite conservation goals receiving priority through policies and laws including the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Project Tiger, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 the state’s main interest remains increasing revenue.
• The illegal destruction of trees in Jim Corbett can be seen in contravention of the 1983 Supreme Court judgment in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
  • Which said that “economic growth cannot be achieved at the cost of environmental destruction and people’s right to healthy environment.”
• National and State forest authorities have leaned on ecotourism to simultaneously attain conservation goals, enhance revenue, and improve the livelihoods of local people.
• The Supreme Court said that the approach must be of eco-centrism and not anthropocentrism.
• The court directed the banning of tiger safaris in core areas and the constitution of a committee to explore the feasibility of permitting tiger safaris in peripheral areas in not just Jim Corbett, but across India.
• It also disagreed with the 2019 guidelines of the National Tiger Conservation Authority permitting a tiger safari on the lines of a zoo in a national park.
• The court stressed that tigers should be sourced from the same landscape as where the safari is being conducted and not outside the tiger reserve.
• According to a report of the Centre for Science and Environment in 2021, India has lost 90% of the area under its four biodiversity hotspots.

What the court missed

• Recovering the cost of restoration does not amount to necessarily recovering the loss of the ability of the environment to provide goods and services.
• In India, the framework of valuation which predated the T.N. Godavarman case (1996) was aimed at replacing lost natural forest with compensatory plantations.
• The two choices which are supported legally and institutionally and serve as the background for the valuation of forest land in India are now compensatory afforestation levy and net present value (NPV).

Conclusion

• The Court could have set a precedent by saying that ecosystem services are more important and generate more revenue than eco-tourism or raised the need of putting in place a precise law and policy relating to ecosystem services. T
• the reasoning provided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua (2018) could have been used to understand the methodologies in evaluating damage to the environment.