Discuss how the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 balance decentralised governance with central oversight. Suggest reforms.

The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, replaced the 2010 Rules [1]. They give day-to-day regulation to States and keep strategic control with the Centre. On paper this is a sound cooperative-federal balance, but it works unevenly in practice.

Decentralised governance

• State/UT Wetlands Authorities are responsible for conserving, managing and monitoring the wetlands in their jurisdiction [2].
• They can add to the list of prohibited activities and set limits for "regulated" activities in each wetland's notification [3].
• Enforcement runs through the State's own machinery, and management plans need the Authority's approval [3].
• Mission Sahbhagita pushes this further towards a "society ownership" model of participatory conservation [2].

Central oversight

• A National Wetlands Committee oversees how the Rules are implemented [2].
• Only MoEFCC can permit a prohibited activity. The State must ask for it, with the Authority's recommendation and supporting evidence such as an EIA [3].
• NPCA is a cost-shared Centrally Sponsored Scheme. It gives central aid only against Integrated Management Plans [4].

Where the balance falters

• Capacity deficit: CAG's audit of wetland conservation found no State budget provision, no baseline data on migratory birds and weak monitoring [5].
• Fiscal dependence: if a State does not pay its share, NPCA work stalls, so weaker States fall further behind [4][5].
• Split accountability: MoEFCC decides exemptions, but States carry the burden of enforcement [3].

Reforms

• Statutory timelines for notifying wetlands and approving management plans.
• A dedicated State budget line for wetlands and technical cells funded through NPCA [4][5].
• A public exemption register listing every MoEFCC permission and its reasons [3].
• Baseline surveys and periodic health cards for every wetland, with NPCA releases linked to results.
• A formal role for panchayats and community volunteers under Mission Sahbhagita [2].

The 2017 Rules rightly put regulation close to the wetland while keeping a central check against irreversible loss. Building State capacity, publishing exemptions and giving communities a formal role would turn this design into real protection. That would serve Articles 48A and 51A(g) and SDG 6.6.