Wetland conservation reserves lack a statutory buffer unlike national parks and sanctuaries.

Q. Wetland conservation reserves lack a statutory buffer unlike national parks and sanctuaries. In this context, discuss the significance of the Supreme Court's clarification extending mining restrictions around such reserves nationwide. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Conservation reserves are notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, but unlike national parks and sanctuaries they carry no statutory eco-sensitive buffer, while wetland protection rests on the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [1]. The Supreme Court's clarification that its 10-km mining restraint around the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve applies to all notified wetland conservation reserves nationwide fills a real regulatory vacuum, though it also creates fresh implementation strain.

The regulatory gap - No codified buffer: sanctuaries and national parks attract eco-sensitive zone regulation; conservation reserves do not, leaving high-value wetlands exposed to riverbed mining and quarrying at their edges [2]. - Split legal regimes: the 2017 Rules decentralise wetland management to State Wetland Authorities with a limited central role, so enforcement quality varies across states [1].

Significance of the clarification - Parity of protection: extends a site-specific interim order of February 14, 2024 into a general norm — mining within 10 km now needs prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife and/or MoEFCC [2]. - Ramsar compliance: Asan, a Ramsar site since 2020 within India's expanding Ramsar network, gains operational protection as a Wetland of International Importance [3]. - Precautionary principle: continues the Court's protected-area buffer jurisprudence, treating hydrological and avifaunal integrity as non-negotiable.

Concerns - Administrative bottleneck: the Centre and NBWL must first map wetland conservation reserves state-wise before the restraint can bite. - Federal friction: Himachal Pradesh's plea for exemption reflects state anxiety over mining revenue and lease cancellations. - Judicial law-making: a general nationwide norm created through a clarificatory order, not statute or rule.

The judiciary has supplied an interim floor where the executive left a gap. The durable fix is codification — MoEFCC notifying graded, science-based eco-sensitive buffers for conservation reserves under the 2017 Rules, with state-wise wetland inventories and compensatory livelihood support for affected mining workers. That would convert a court-mandated restraint into settled policy, advancing Article 48A and SDG 6 and 15.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, MoEFCC — statutory basis of wetland regulation; State Wetland Authorities and limited central role 2. National Board for Wild Life notification, MoEFCC — NBWL's statutory clearance role for activities near protected areas; absence of buffer for conservation reserves 3. PIB — India adds 11 more wetlands to the list of Ramsar Sites — Ramsar designation framework and India's Ramsar network 4. The Hindu — "How will the Supreme Court order impact mining around Ramsar wetland sites?" — pan-India extension of the 10-km restraint; Himachal Pradesh's plea; Asan's 2020 Ramsar tag