The clearance of 40 projects by the National Board for Wildlife in a matter of three hours may or may not mean something. What's more interesting and actually of more environmental significance are the voices of reason that went unheard in the bargain.
The first concerned the diversion of 7.2871 ha of forest land for construction of a ropeway from Bhavnath Taleti to Ambaji Temple in Girnar Wildlife Sanctuary by Usha Breco Ltd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Board, Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh, had visited the site and recommended the proposal subject to the condition that the state government would look for alternative alignment. The latter said it was not, and the committee after "discussions" cleared it.
One of the committee members, Prerna Bindra, said in a dissent note, “The ropeway will pass through a known breeding site of the long billed vulture (69 vultures in 2010, an increase from the last count of 41, suggesting an increase in numbers, as against a massive decline in the state, and indeed India.)
The report by Divyabhanusinh Chavda and Dr Nita Shah placed before the committee on January 24th clearly states that the ropeway, if constructed, would lead to the local extinction of the long-billed vulture Gyps indicus in North Gujarat. The critically endangered long billed vulture has seen a collapse of nearly 99 per cent of its population, and is categorised as Critically Endangered. Ironically, the vulture is part of MoEF’s species recovery programme.”
Vultures, in other words, are not out of the woods yet.
Another proposal that was discussion was about granting permission for the 330 MW Dholpur gas-based combined cycle thermal power project stage-II for drawing water from National Chambal Ghariyal Sanctuary at Dhlopur, Rajasthan. The study report on the water intake requirement of different projects from the Chambal river by the the Director of the Wildlife Institute of India had recommended that no new projects could be allowed for taking water from the Chambal river as the present flow was inadequate and declining @3 per cent every year.
The committee recommended the proposal subject to the condition that no new projects on Chambal river could be considered by the it in future. One last time, please.
Bindra recorded her dissent, “The Chambal river harbours 85 per cent of the entire population of the critically endangered gharial and a high density of the national aquatic animal, the Gangetic dolphin per river km. The ‘Assessment of minimum waterflow requirements of Chambal river in the context of gharial (Gavialis gangeticus) and Gangetic dolphin (Platanista gangetica) conservation’ conducted by the Wildlife Institute of India categorically states that any further withdrawal of water from Chambal river will seriously affect the gharial, the wildlife and other ecosystem service values of the river.”
One entire wildlife sanctuary, the Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary (31.4 sq km) was denotified in Jammu and Kashmir. Bindra remarked, “This denotification sets up a very bad precedent of denotifying entire sanctuaries. It has been decided this in lieu of the denotification another PA should be declared. As pointed out by Dr MK Ranjitsinh, such a site - double the area of the current notification - should be identified with a proper biodiversity survey, and put before the Board and first notified as a PA before any denotification of Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary.”
Bad precedent, indeed.
The proposal for diversion of 7.005 ha of protected land from the Bahu Conservation Reserve in favour of the Revenue Department, Jammu and Kashmir, was also passed subject to certain conditions. This land will be leased to the Army, in lieu of the Army land acquired by the Revenue Department for the expansion of Jammu airport. Bindra said, “The agreement and assurance of transferring revenue land to the army was made by the revenue department, and from the information given there seems to be no role of the forest department while giving this assurance. It was the revenue department which acquired the army land. In such circumstances it would be highly inappropriate for a Protected Area to be diverted; it will set a wrong precedent that part of a Conservation Reserve is diverted in order to meet the assurances given by the revenue department.”
The committee looked at the proposal for setting up Captive Thermal Power Plant (4x60MW) with 1 MTPA Cement Grinding Unit and 1 MTPA Coal Washery-proposal within 1.5 km from boundary of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh. It decided that the Wildlife Institute of India would undertake an impact assessment study on the biodiversity of Kaimur submit a report. A decision would thereafter be taken based on the findings of the study report.
It however glossed over the record of the company itself. Said Bindra, “The report for the site visit for M/s Jaypee Super Cement Plant from clinker production 2.01 MTPA to 2.50 MTPA in Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh (for which my report has been submitted) records that the JP Associates flouted the Forest Conservation Act and ignored the directions of the honourable Apex court, the directions of the CEC and the directions of the regional office (Central) of MoEF.
“It came to our notice that construction has already began for the Captive Thermal Power Plant (4x60MW) with 1 MTPA Cement Grinding Unit and 1 MTPA Coal Washery, again without the mandatory clearance. A clarification and information has been sought from the concerned DFO. Also in light of the fact that a related matter of the JP Super Cement plant is subjudice (with information concealed from the Standing Committee at the time of submitting the proposal), it is judicious that this proposal be very carefully examined, before any decision is taken.”
The proposal for a dam on the Parvan river for major irrigation and drinking water supply project just outside Shergarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, was recommended subject to a set of conditions. Dr MK Ranjitsinh, another member, expressed his concern on the large number of trees involved in the construction of project. He said. “The Parvan major irrigation project, Rajasthan, which will submerge 81.67 sq.km. of the Shergarh Wildlife Sanctuary and what is more, will result in the destruction of approximately 186443 trees, in a tree deficit State like Rajasthan.
“Furthermore, even though 25cusecs of water is proposed to be continuously released into the Chambal from the proposed dam, this project will result in a major diversion of water from the Chambal, which has already been identified as deficient in water flow to support the last viable populations of the endangered Gharial and the Dolphin, in the April 2011 report prepared by the Wildlife Institute of India at the instance of the MoEF. The report specifically recommends that no further diversion of water from the Chambal should take place if the future survival of the endangered aquatic species mentioned above, is to be secured. There is also no EIA of the project, with regard to the impact upon the aquatic life and ecology of the downstream Jawahar Sagar Sanctuary, Rana Pratap Sagar Sanctuary and the National Chambal Sanctuary”.
The following dissent notes clearly show the manner in which projects are being cleared by the ministry.
Dissent note by Dr MK Ranjitsinh:
“Items 2[4(2)] : Construction of fencing and patrol road along the Indo-Bangladesh Border in Damp Tiger Reserve, Mizoram; 4.1(3) denotification of Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary, Jammu and Kashmir, and others : The Standing Committee has always followed the norm that where a substantial portion of a national park or sanctuary is to be denotified, it would have to be compensated by having at least an equivalent area added elsewhere to the same protected area and if this be not possible, by the creation of another PA or by addition to an existing PA within the state. An excellent example was Himachal Pradesh, where an additional area larger in size was notified and only thereafter the MoEF, on the recommendation of the Standing Committee, gave permission for the denotification of various parts of PA's in the state. I would like to very emphatically reiterate, as I mentioned in the meeting itself, that this practice must continue, for otherwise the Standing Committee and hence the NBWL, would only be party to the reduction of the PA's with no areas ever to be added in the future, which cannot be the mandate of these two august bodies, especially in view of the fact that, as we all know, the only hope for the long term survival of India's natural heritage lies in our protected area system.
2. I would like this dissent note / observation to be recorded in both the above mentioned items where a total denotification of the Trikuta Sanctuary in Kashmir and a large scale secession of the Dampa Tiger Reserve, are envisaged. Would also wish to mention that the alternate notification adding to a PA or creating a new one to compensate for the denotification of any PA, must precede the propose denotification, as was done in the case of Himachal Pradesh”.
3. As was mentioned in the meeting itself by some members, the agenda items must be sent well in advance and that in future additional agenda items must not be given in the meeting for the first time. Unlike in the past, maps are now being provided with the proposals but not in all cases. However, crucial information such as the opinion of the state wildlife advisory boards without which the Standing Committee cannot consider the proposals, must be clearly stated in the project format prepared for each proposal. It was noticed that in a number of cases, especially in the case of Madhya Pradesh, the number of trees to be felled was simply not given. This is a very important requirement and proposals which lack this data should not be considered.
4. There was far little time allotted for the meeting with the agenda that it had, as a result of which items on conservation suggested by the members were not discussed. This has frequently occurred in the past. In view of the very infrequent meetings of the full NBWL, the Standing Committee is the only fora where conservation issues can be raised by the members and if even this opportunity is denied, then the Standing Committee would only be a project clearance committee and nothing more. The matter could be resolved by having longer duration meetings and more frequent meetings, which the Chairman has acknowledged and agreed to.”
Joint dissent note by Prerna Bindra and Dr Koustubh Sharma:
“Due to the hurried manner in which the proceedings of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) were conducted on 25 April 2011, we would like to put our dissent note on a number of the decisions taken during the meeting, and request that these be put on record.
2. The Ministry’s 14 September 2010 Notification constituting the Standing Committee states that “The Member-Secretary shall prepare agenda items for the meetings, obtain approval of the Chairperson and circulate it to all members at least fifteen days prior to the date of such meeting.” In view of the above, we dissent from the decisions taken by the Committee on the additional agenda items that were sent to the members on the night of Friday, 22 April 2011, giving us not a single working day before the meeting, and no time to review and assess the items for an informed decision making process.
3. The decision-making process of the NBWL is hampered by the fact that maps, FAC clearances, EIAreports, etc., for all agenda items usually reach the members a day or so before the meeting, a fact repeatedly pointed out by the members. It is important that members should be able to assess the proposals and the likely impacts they will have on PAs and wildlife.”
Dissent note by Dr Divyabhanusinh Chavda:
“This is with reference to the last meeting of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL). I want to bring to your attention the following:
a. While the agenda was circulated by email the hard copy with the maps was delivered to my house on Sunday, 24th April at Jaipur when I had already left for Delhi.
b. Additional items in the agenda were presented at the meeting itself.2. In view of the above, I was unable to fully prepare for the meeting as I would have liked to do.
3. With regard to Parvan major irrigation project in Rajasthan, please record that I had pointed out at the meeting that nearly 2 lac trees need to be inundated/chopped for the purpose. Though I did not mention it then, I feel very strongly that proper EIA of the project must be done.
4. I would request you to kindly arrange to send the agenda well in time with maps so that one can be
prepared for the discussion and contribute effectively.”
Dissent note by Prerna Bindra:
“It was pointed out by Ms Prerna Bindra that the area of Hastinapur sanctuary is 2079 sq km. The sanctuary has huge human habitation; there are villages, highways etc, and huge tracts have been degraded and fragmented and are known to have become of little value to wildlife. But crucially, there are still pockets which are of immense biodiversity value, with swamp deer, leopard, jungle cat, sarus cranes, Gangetic dolphins which must not be compromised. It will be prudent to have a site visit to understand which part of the sanctuary this and other proposals pertaining to Hastinapur sanctuary is being impacted by the proposals put before the committee, on the basis of which an informed decision can be made. It was assured that the area in question was not of value to wildlife, but to be on the side of caution it was agreed that a site inspection be made and after ascertaining the facts, due permission may be given subject to the following.
2. During the April 25th meeting, it was pointed out that clearance for the above proposal was given unconditionally during the January 24th meeting. However, I would like to place on record my dissent to a blanket clearance without verifying the area’s value in terms of wildlife/biodiversity, as specified above.”
