UNDERSTANDING DEFICIENCIES IN KARNATAKA COMPENSATION MECHANISM FOR HUMAN WILDLIFE COLLISION EVENTS
- Shiva Srinivasan
- Aug 12, 2022
- 6 min read
Karnataka sits at tri-junction with neighbouring states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala as one of the most bio-diverse hot spots in the world with plethora of big fauna as well phenomenal bird and reptilian species. It almost then evitable goes with much deduction skills that it also happens to be the theatre for largest instances of wildlife-human conflict incidents in the country.
There is no uniform and standard statutory enactment or formalised guidelines in the India concerning the field of compensation for damage and loss of life caused by tumultuous interactions between wildlife and human settlements and we see that individual states have their own individual processes concerning the same.
In the Karnataka, the entire process of compensation/re-compensation for wildlife human conflict incidents is curiously governed largely by few Government Orders chiefly and primarily Government Order No. APG 143 FWL 2010 dated 30.04.2011 and Government Order No. APG 130 FWL 2016 dated 19.06.2016 (‘Compensation GOs’ for convenience) which covers ex-gratia payments for five incident categories: (i) Compensation for injuries caused to a human, (ii) Compensation for death of a human, (iii) Compensation for crop damage, (4) Compensation for injury or death caused to livestock and (v) Compensation for damage property (which is nether crops and/or livestock).
On study of the said Government Notifications, we see that same is issued are directional or instructive in nature and appear to masquerade as standardised operating procedure. There is no procedure that is set forth for appreciation and adjudication by the concerning authorities when an aggrieved individual of human wildlife collision event either in terms of a list of required documents or pre-requisite steps to be undertaken by such aggrieved individual to report the incident and process an application for the claim amounts as mentioned in said Government Order No. APG 143 FWL 2010 dated 30.04.2011 and Government Order No. APG 130 FWL 20106 dated 19.06.2016.
In this regard we see that as per statutory enactments present, on report of such incident of HWCE on the occurrence of human wildlife collision event (‘HWCE’ for brevity and convenience) and filing claim application to concerned department, the said HWCE is investigated by a Range Forest Officer as designated in Karnataka Forest Code 1976 with powers as bestowed upon by Section 62A and preparation of report thereafter under Section 62B of Karnataka Forest Act 1963.
Due to the absence to put forth a conclusive and standard list of documents under the Compensation GOs to be prepared at the filing stage of the HWCE claim application by the aggrieved party, we see that inevitably an enormous amount of time goes in retrospective oriented backlog compliance by the aggrieved party to cater to the requirement of the investigating Range Forest. Further, due to the ambiguity in Compensation GOs, permits each Range Forest Officer to even ask for different set of primary and additional documentation for investigating a HWCE. This causes a procedural inconsistency between district jurisdictions leading to confusion and inefficiency.
This appears to be a severe lacuna seeing that Compensation GOs are applicable across the entire state of Karnataka but on ground realities sets forth for situation where the thereby the investigating Range Forest Officer in Mysore District can ask and appreciate base documentation in sets and criterion different from an investigating Range Forest Officer in Dakshina Kannada District.
On study of the Compensation GOs we see that the Government of Karnataka has curiously failed draw any pertinent and comprehensive distinction between livestock or crop that is subject to the damage or destruction due to the HWCE. On a bare reading of the same crop damage is treated in rather inclusive manner with no real concern or interest practically or administratively speaking to appreciation difference in valuation of different varieties of crop and thereby the difference in monetary loss caused by the damage or destruction of the same, to the aggrieved party.
Similarly, there is absence setting out in the Compensation GOs, for criteria for hierarchical differentiation for the current and prospective value of livestock so injured or killed in HWCE based on age, breed, practical and prospective economic use, health, sex. This creates a situation where a old native Indian cow (i.e. no longer producing milk), young adult jersey cow (i.e. milk producing), a paddy bull and buffalo breed for Kamaballa events all will attract the same scope of compensation irrespective the having vastly difference ages, gender and economic value. Further, the same lack of structure permits for situations where two separate incidents of injury or death of livestock equivalent on all parameters, attracts varying quantum of compensation. This is an inefficient and lethargic process that neither benefits aggrieved party or the State Exchequer.
On study of the Compensation GOs, we see that due to ambiguity so inherent, there is a complete discretion that is granted to adjudication officer usually the Assistant Conservator of Forest, to whom the Range Forest Officer forwards, for grant of quantum of ex-gratia compensation. The Government of Karnataka has in Compensation GOs provided for no parameters for adjudicating and estimating the quantum of compensation leaving the aggrieved applicant to the complete mercy of the said adjudicating officer.
Worst still, if the HWCE compensation application is rejected by the adjudicating officer, there is no remedy for appeal available to aggrieved party. We observe the following legal and practical anomalies concerning rejections as follows:
(i) It is seen that the despite there being no standard format issued by the Government of Karnataka for the filing of the HWCE compensation application and the same not having a requisite list of documentation clearly conveyed; the Range Forest Officer often provided a negative Report under Section 62B of Karnataka Forest Act 1963 based on incomplete or incorrect base or additional documentation. This creates vicious cycle for deficient filing to inevitably result in negative reports.
(ii) The Range Forest Officer in preparation of the Report in Districts which grow multiple crops fails to account or appreciate the nature of the stage of the growth crop or the monetary value of the different crop so damaged within the same acreage.
(iii) Several HWCE face potential rejection due the aggrieved party failing to have (i) medical certificate/ bill for treatment for injury caused to the human or veterinary certificate/ bill for treatment for livestock so injured or (ii) post mortem conducted for the deceased human or veterinary certificate for livestock, in the first instance of filing HWCE compensation application. This medical certificate/death certificate would provide the Range Forest Officer in prima facie foundation whether the injury or death was indeed caused by wild animal.
Note: It is a current subject of debate as to whether the State Exchequer should bear the cost for the medical examiner as many of the aggrieved parties fall within severally disadvantaged and economical backward demographic thereby unable to access or afford the said expertise.
One major concern that is seen on study of the Compensation GOs, is the glaring fact that there appears to be no mandated time frame imposed on the adjudicating officer’s process, grant or reject the ex-gratia compensation, often leaving the aggrieved party in state of uncertain limbo.
Without the certainty of standardised compensation policy so enshrined by legislative statute, it becomes difficult for people living in close proximity to wildlife corridors, national parks, sanctuaries and protected areas to feel enthusiastic or inclined to assist wildlife conservation effort. In absence of grant of legislative sanctioned certainty for compensation policy for HWCE, there runs a grave risk that people in the conflict zone opting to trap and poison wild animals as coercive and pre-conceived preventive measure as opposed to waiting in perpetuity for grant of ex-gratia compensation or worst still to see their patience rewarded with rejections on technicalities.
Further a statutory enactment laying down a policy for compensation for HWCE incidents permits the concerned forest department officials to be able to filter out claims of alleged HWCE that have not been caused by a wild animal at all or where the said human or livestock incident happened whilst encroaching/wandering in the sphere of protected and restricted areas.
Karnataka nonetheless has been the leader in the country in terms of quantum of ex-gratia compensation payments for HWCE and the Government Order No. APG 66 FWL 2019 dated 07.01.2020 has increased the compensation for a human death caused by HWCE from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 7,50,000/-. While financial reparation for a loss of a human life is inadequate, it is a life line for the grieving and beleaguered family of the deceased. The increase while still inadequate is step in the right direction and welcome measure displaying Government of Karnataka’s commitment to wildlife protection.
In the larger perspective, it is incumbent that Government of India to enact central statutory act for a national compensation policy and mechanism for HWCE, which can be a stencil that will assist be adopted by various State Government and thereby permitting them to be amended so as cater to the ground realities faced by such respective states.
Shiva Srinivasan
Partner
Diwakar&Srinvasan
Comentários