1.
On November 21st 2001, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that large sums had been received as compensatory afforestation
for diversion of forest land and were lying with the states and no appropriate
scheme for the disbursement of the same has been created.
2.
In October 2002, the Supreme Court
in the case of TN Godhavarman v. Union of India [WP 202 of 1995] directed that
a Compensatory Afforestation Fund be created in which all monies received from
user agencies towards compensatory afforestation, penal compensatory
afforestation, net present value of forest land, etc. shall be deposited.
3.
On April 24th, 2004, vide Notification of
the same date MoE&F issued a Notification constituting a Compensatory
Afforestation Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) with the concurrence of
the Central Empowered Committee of the Supreme Court.
4.
On May 5th 2006, following the
recommendations of the CEC, the Supreme Court constituted the Ad-Hoc CAMPA
authority to collect funds (accumulated with the States post 30th
October 2002).[i] This body was intended to
function till the creation of a statutory body to perform the said functions.
Additionally, the Chief Secretaries of the various State Governments/
Administrators of UTs were directed to cooperate with this body as well as with
the Comptroller and Auditor General in the performance and discharge of their
duties.
5.
In March 2008, the Union Cabinet
decided to constitute a CAMPA and a Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF). A
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in May
2008.
6.
In October 2008, the Standing Committee
of Parliament on E&F rejected the Bill saying that CAMPA should be at the
state-level. The Bill was passed by the LS in December 2008. However the same
could not be passed in the RS.
7.
On February 25th 2009, the Supreme Court
observed vide its order of the same date that a large amount of funds had been
collected under CAMPA. It was further observed that 23 proposals had come
before the Ad-Hoc CAMPA and were currently pending before the body for
consideration. The Court directed the
Ad-Hoc authority to scrutinize the feasibility of these proposals and file a
report with regard to the same. The
Court further directed that the funds be used for the implementation of these
schemes and invited States/UTs which had not submitted schemes to come forward
and submit their proposals within four weeks (i.e. end of March 2009).
8.
In March 2009, Principal
Secretary to PM held a meeting and it was decided to constitute state-level
CAMPAs along the lines suggested by the Standing Committee. Guidelines were
prepared by MoE&F and circulated to states. It was also agreed that the
MoE&F would approach the Supreme Court for seeking concurrence to this
arrangement.
9.
On May 29th 2009, MOS(I/C) E&F took over and
immediately began a review of the long—pending CAMPA issue. He was concerned
that the new guidelines drawn up after 7. above had no role whatsoever for the
Central government, something that he believed was both undesirable and that
would be unacceptable to the Supreme Court. He also felt that the draft
guidelines did not accord the requisite priority to protection/regeneration of
natural forests and the rejuvenation of degraded forests. He suggested the
inclusion of a section that addressed these concerns by according a greater
role to the Central Government and reflected the prioritization of regeneration
and rejuvenation of existing natural forests. A revised draft of these
guidelines, incorporating these changes, was prepared accordingly by the MoEF.
10.
On June 17th 2009, MOS met with the
Attorney-General and with the Chairman, Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of
the Supreme Court and Member-Secretary CEC on June 27th, 2009.
Chairman, CEC and Member-Secretary, CEC pointed out that April 24th
Notification should be activated and that this has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
MOS( I/C) told them that he wants a system which gives a meaningful role to
both the Centre and states and said that while the April 24th
notification was too centralized, the PMO/MoE&F guidelines went to the
opposite extreme.
11.
On July 2nd 2009, MOS(I/C) E&F
met with Secretary, Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law along with Chairman CEC and
Member-Secretary CEC. After a detailed
discussion it was agreed that (i) the ad hoc CAMPA Authority constituted by the
Supreme Court by its order of 5th May 2006 would be activated and
this Authority would consider and clear/reject the 23 proposals already
submitted by the state governments; (ii) submission would be made by the
MoE&F to the Supreme Court on the basis of the first meeting of the ad hoc
CAMPA Authority and get Supreme Court approval for the decisions taken at that
meeting.
12.
On July 3rd 2009, the first meeting
of the Ad Hoc CAMPA Authority set up by the Supreme Court by its Order of 5th
May 2006 took place. The meeting considered the set of revised guidelines (as approved by the
Minister of Environment and Forests in 8. above) for funding under CAMPA which
envisaged a more meaningful role for the Centre in planning and monitoring
while leaving operational details to the states and also accorded over-riding
priority to protection and regeneration of natural forests. The meeting also
considered the 23 proposals already submitted by the states in terms of the
Order of February 2009 (6. above). The meeting decided to submit both documents
to the Supreme Court for further orders. It was further decided to recommend
the release of Rs. 5000 Crore at the rate of Rs. 1000 crores per annum for the
next five years to the State CAMPAs.
13.
On July 7th 2009, Mr. Harris Beeran
filed an Affidavit [in I.A. No. 2143] on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Forests praying for
the disbursement of funds through the mechanism of an Ad Hoc CAMPA.
Simultaneously, and in furtherance of the meeting of 3rd July 2009
above and also in keeping with the directions contained in the order of the
Supreme Court dated February 2009, Mr. Ansar Ahmed (IG, Forests and member Ad
Hoc CAMPA Committee) filed a report of the Ad Hoc CAMPA committee on the
feasibility of the 23 proposals submitted and the implementation of the same.
14.
On July 10th 2009 the abovementioned Affidavit was listed before the forest
bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court [consisting of Hon’ble Chief Justice KG Balkrishnan, Justice Aftab Alam and Justice
Kapadia]. Mr. Ghoolam Vahanvati, Attorney General for India appearing on behalf
of the Ministry along with Mr. Harish Salve as Amicus Curiae urged the Court
to accept the Affidavit and the suggestions made by the Ad Hoc CAMPA (also
endorsed by the CEC as per its report). The learned Bench allowed the prayer subject to an annual audit and
the submission of a compliance report every six months by the CEC. The Court
also observed that the states should attempt to follow NREGA guidelines while
implementing the programme, by involving the local people in afforestation
projects as far as feasible