Making space for the tiger a reality

PRAVEEN BHARGAV

WAY OUT: A participatory community-based tourism plan can help reduce pressure on core areas.
Photo: Special Arrangement

Promoters of development projects in forest areas can be made to compensate by creating buffer zones around sanctuaries through minor modifications to the Forest Conservation Act guidelines
The contentious issue of notifying buffer areas around tiger reserves came under sharp debate when the Supreme Court issued interim directions to stop tourism in core or Critical Tiger Habitats (CTHs) and notify buffer areas. However, after the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) filed comprehensive guidelines on tiger conservation and tourism on October 15, 2012, the Supreme Court permitted the reopening of tourism strictly in accordance with the guidelines. Visitation is now permissible in existing tourism zones subject to a maximum of 20 per cent of core areas being used. But the important issue of creating viable buffers around a core area lost focus even though the NTCA guidelines harp on its importance to sustain tiger populations.

In most tiger reserves, core areas comprise notified sanctuaries and/or national parks, which are to be managed as areas free of incompatible human activity. Reserved forests, deemed forests and other unencumbered government land with some vegetation immediately abutting the CTHs are to be notified as buffer areas, which can act as “shock absorbers” for core areas.

Viable buffers

While notifying such contiguous forests as buffer areas may be relatively easy, the real challenge is in creating viable buffers wherever private agricultural lands abut core areas. Merely notifying such areas as buffer or peripheral areas without any viable habitat, as is being done now, may not only fail to deliver the imagined benefits for tiger conservation but also lead to hostility and loss of support from the local community.

Yet, acquiring large extent of private land abutting tiger reserves, to insulate the entire core area with a complete “wrap around” buffer that can support wildlife might be impractical. So is there a way forward to resolve this important issue?

An innovative mechanism can be created within the current legal framework with some very minor modifications to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 Guidelines. This could greatly contribute to creating additional areas as viable forested buffers around tiger reserves.

Presently, most development project promoters seeking diversion of forest land for a non-forestry purpose have to identify an equivalent area of non-forest land. This has to be transferred and mutated in favour of the forest department for declaration as reserved forest/Protected Forest (PF). The project must also deposit funds for taking up compensatory afforestation in such lands. Stage II clearance under the Forest Act is to be granted only after compliance of this important condition. As far as possible, such areas should be contiguous with reserved forests for effective management. This is mandated under Chapter 3 of the Act’s guidelines.

Legal loophole

Unfortunately, in most cases, this important condition is relaxed based on certification by the State that sufficient/appropriate non-forest land is not available. In such cases a simpler condition of compensatory afforestation in degraded forest land twice the area diverted is insisted upon. This legal loophole has meant the loss of an excellent opportunity to create viable buffer areas as State governments routinely provide this exemption to most projects.

To facilitate the creation of viable forested buffers, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) must first revise the current guidelines appropriately to plug this loophole. A new mechanism must then be created whereby the Tiger Reserve Authority in each tiger reserve State identifies private (non-forest) land immediately abutting a reserve, based on scientific and objective criteria, to be developed as ecologically viable buffers.

Private enclosures within contiguous reserve forests can also be identified. This data must be shared with development project promoters to explore the possibility of them privately acquiring the lands to comply with the Forest Act guidelines.

There could be two possible scenarios under which this idea could be enabled:

1. The owner(s) of such identified farm land may be willing to sell the land at prevailing market prices (which the project proponent /owner mutually agree upon as in any private land transaction). The project promoter has to then transfer and mutate the land in favour of the Forest Department for notification as a reserve forest/PF, as mandated by existing guidelines or even as a conservation reserve under Section 36-A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 under the proposed new mechanism or;
2. The owner(s) may not be willing to sell but may be agreeable — with suitable benefits — to develop it as a private/community reserve based on an appropriate management plan. There are enabling provisions in the Wildlife Act, which allow for any individual/group of individuals or community volunteering to conserve wildlife and its habitat to approach the government for a notification. While the land will continue to be owned by the individual/community, the land use will be agreed upon jointly with the Forest Department based on a management plan.

Participatory plan

This will enable appropriate development of the private/community reserve or the land mutated in favour of the Forest Department, by creating suitable vegetation with mixed plantation/bamboo/grassy patches/salt licks, etc to attract wildlife. The funding for this can come from money deposited by the project promoter for compensatory afforestation. The individual or community could then be encouraged and assisted to develop a participatory community-based tourism plan with benefit sharing as envisaged in the new NTCA guidelines. The tourism pressure on core areas can thus be reduced progressively.

All that is required are some minor modifications in the Forest Act Guidelines to include the terms “Core or Critical Tiger Habitat,” “Protected Area” and “Community Reserve” to enable identification and transfer of lands adjacent to these areas to the Forest Department by the project promoter. But for this idea to work, the MoEF must issue a proper clarification to States that, henceforth, transfer of non-forest land will not ordinarily be condoned.

This innovative mechanism, which is within the framework of existing laws, could open up tremendous opportunities for increasing viable buffers and creating additional habitats for wildlife where it is most needed — around tiger reserves/protected areas. It will not only help in achieving the true objective of compensatory afforestation, but also deliver benefits to local communities from the increasing economic opportunities of non-consumptive tourism outside core areas.

(Praveen Bhargav is a trustee of Wildlife First and has served on the National Board for Wildlife.)

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/making-space-for-the-tiger-a-reality/article4630903.ece

Power project stuck as TN fails to constitute wildlife board

K A Shaji, TNN Apr 1, 2013
COIMBATORE: Tamil Nadu's failure to constitute a State Board for Wildlife (SBWL) is posing problems for at least three major projects mooted by the AIADMK government, including the much anticipated 2X500MW Coal-based Thermal Power Plant at Tuticorin.

According to top sources in the Union ministry of environment and forests, three proposals that came up for clearance were turned down at a recent meeting of the standing committee for National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), which said these were submitted directly by the state without getting the mandatory approval of the state board. The committee then found that Tamil Nadu was the only one state in the country that had not constituted the SBWL. Like NBWL, which frames wildlife protection policies at the national level, SBWL is expected to undertake the task at the state level. Any project that could have an impact on a protected wildlife area has to get the clearance of both SBWL and NBWL.

The refusal of NBWL to discuss the Tuticorin power plant mooted jointly by Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited and the state department of power happens at a time when Tamil Nadu is facing an extraordinary energy crisis. According to NBWL standing committee member and senior wildlife scientist A J T Johnsingh, there is no option left before the state government other than to constitute SBWL at the earliest. The NBWL clearance is mandatory for the Tuticorin project as it comes within the 10 km periphery of Mullakadu range of forests.

Proposals for a bridge on Chennai-Pulicat Road and a fish landing centre at Periyamongagodu near Thiruvallur are similarly stuck as NBWL standing committee has refused clearance. While 1.11 hectare of forest land from Pulicat Bird Sanctuary will have to be transferred for constructing the bridge on Pasiyavaram Road, the fish landing centre needs 0.65 hectare of forest land from the same sanctuary. NBWL will look at the proposals only after these are cleared by its state counterpart. "According to Section-6 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 (amended in 2006), each state government is bound to constitute a state board for wildlife under the chairmanship of the chief minister or administrator in the case of a Union territory. It is a curious case that Tamil Nadu is lacking such a board. It is high time the state government constituted the board as interests of wildlife must be protected while undertaking bigger development projects,'' said K Mohan Raj of Tamil Nadu Green Movement.

According to Johnsingh, Uttarakhand was giving Tamil Nadu company till last year. "But that state constituted the board in 2012 leaving Tamil Nadu as the only one without the board. Setting up the SBWL will help boost conservation and ensure protection of forest wealth. The Supreme Court has stressed the importance of review of projects by such a board on a number of occasions. The nation board can decide on projects only on the basis of the findings of the state board,'' he said.

Sources in the ministry said NBWL members, Kishore Rithe, Prerna Singh Bindra, M K Ranjit Singh and N Madhusudan, expressed concern that Tamil Nadu has approached the national body without even constituting its local board.

Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-01/coimbatore/38188792_1_nbwl-sbwl-state-board

Human settlements, a threat to Sathyamangalam tiger reserve

P. OPPILI

Unauthorised temples, new resorts disturbing the tranquillity

The presence of a large number of people in
core areas disrupts movement of animals

Unauthorised temples, new resorts and makeshift shops inside the core area are major threats the newly formed Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve is facing.

The State government announced the formation of the fourth tiger reserve in the State through a notification, issued on March 15 this year.

Members of the Tamil Nadu Green Movement pointed out that several unauthorised places of worship were found inside the tiger reserve. There are three main temples – Karuvannayan temple near Nandhipuram, Bannariamman temple Bannari and Madeswara temple in Kongalli. The three temples are under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board. Apart from them, several unauthorised temples are found inside the core area, say the members.

People visiting these temples camp there, even cook, and travel in large numbers into the core areas in trucks. Their movement creates a lot of disturbance to the wildlife. The State government must immediately relocate the unauthorised temples from the core areas, the members pointed out.

Another important issue is the springing up of new resorts in the core areas. S. Jayachandran of the Tamil Nadu Green Movement said Kongalli, Mavallam, Araiya Palayam and Hasanur are the places where the resorts are coming up. There were more than 200 resorts inside the STR.

Man-animal conflict

In the long run, it will lead to man-animal conflict, he said. The department officials have to immediately promulgate the ecologically sensitive zone to stop any more resorts in the core areas, he said.

Environmentalists also pointed out that during festival season, people set up shops, stay in the forests and defecate in the core tiger reserve area. Temporary shops have come up right on the elephant corridors located between Susilkuttail and Bannari. The Forest department authorities have to intervene and take action under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, the activists said.

‘Make them partners’

Raman Sukumar, Professor and Chairman, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Sciences, who began his research on elephants in the early 1980s, said the tiger population had increased substantially in the Sathyamangalam area. A good number of settlements over a century old were in Hasanur, Talamalai, Geddasal, Chikkahalli, Neydalapuram and Kadambur, to name a few. People in these settlements co-existed with the tigers over time. These people should be made partners in the management of the tiger reserve.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/human-settlements-a-threat-to-sathyamangalam-tiger-reserve/article4560872.ece

Row over dumping of garbage in forest area

A vehicle of the Meppadi grama panchayat
dumping garbage inside the Attamala forest area.
—Photo: E.M. Manoj

The Forest Department and the Meppadi grama panchayat are locking horns over the dumping of garbage in the Attamala reserve forest area of the Meppadi forest range under the South Wayanad forest division.

The panchayat authorities have been dumping garbage after collecting it from Meppadi town and the nearby small towns under the panchayat inside the forest at Attamala for more than a decade, sources in the Forest Department says.

Though forest officials had reasoned with the panchayat authorities for the past many years to stop the practice, they were yet to respond positively, the sources added. The ‘dumping yard’ of the panchayat on the banks of a small stream, a tributary of the Chaliyar river, was posing a serious threat to the wildlife habitats and the waterbodies in the area. Poultry waste, disposable plastic glasses and plates, and rotten vegetables and watermelons were being heaped in the area.

“The panchayat authorities dump waste everyday, except on holidays,” K. Mathew, a villager, said. He added that wild herbivores, including elephants, boars, and sambar deer, could be seen feeding on the garbage and it created many health issues among them. The practice also contaminated the waterbodies in the area, especially during monsoon, and the fumes arising from burning the garbage polluted the serenity of the area, he added. Though the forest officials had erected a billboard prohibiting waste-dumping in the area at the entrance to the forest a few months ago as per the direction of Forest Minister K.B. Ganesh Kumar, the panchayat authorities seemed to have taken no notice of it, the sources added.

‘We are planning to take stringent actions against the authorities to stop the illegal activities, as per the Kerala Forest Act, 1961,” P. Dhaneshkumar, South Wayanad divisional forest officer, told The Hindu . But Ancy Baby, president, Meppadi grama panchayat, said they were forced to continue the practice owing to non-availability of land to dispose of garbage. The panchayat had identified land at Chooralmala, near here, to set up a dumping yard and its acquisition process was under way, she added.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/row-over-dumping-of-garbage-in-forest-area/article4549582.ece

Violation of law in land allotted to tribals, claims study on Forest Rights Act

MEENA MENON

• There is a trend of putting barren forest land to agriculture between 2005 and 2008
• People cleared forest cover and started cultivation after FRs have been recognised

Sloppy implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) has resulted in large tracts of forests being cut down and claimed as cultivated land in Maharashtra, according to a study. Data shows that in Jalgaon district alone, more than 79 per cent claims over cultivated forest land were apparently on ineligible lands and about 25 per cent had forest cover. In Thane, adjacent to Mumbai with a high land value, about 12 per cent of the land allotted to tribal people was ineligible according to the eligibility criteria under FRA.

Maharashtra government had, a few years ago, relaxed the measurement for land claimed by tribal people and this has caused discrepancies in settling claims under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA). A study done by a private company in 2012, at the behest of the State Forest Department, used a database from the Tribal Research and Training Institute (TRTI), Pune, and the National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC), Hyderabad. Satellite maps and GPS data were collated to examine changes after 2005 in tree cover, vegetation and land-use in forest land under forest rights (FR) claims and those which have recognized rights of cultivation.

TRTI has the data of 1,89,400 forest plots under Forest Rights (FR) claims, which are measured using GPS and uploaded on its website. Each land under claim has a unique 13 digit code comprising alpha numerical identification for district, tehsil, village and initials of the claimant. Of the 3, 44,330 claims received in Maharashtra, 2, 34,242 claims were rejected, according to latest data from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs website. Only 1, 05,930 claims have been approved, of which 99,368 titles were distributed for about 2, 50,000 hectares . Activists and tribal people have been contesting the delay in allotting rights and the high rejection of claims.

However, Thane district, with one of the highest number of claims in the State, did not provide details of the 13 digit-code for all claimants, and in fact, cleared cases without GPS measurement, the study says. The government blames the high rate of false claimants for the rejections. Gadchiroli, Chandrapur, Nasik, Raigad, Gondia and Bhandara districts also provided little data. Overall, data only for 40,428 approved cases was made available for the study from 19 districts covering 1705 villages.

In 2,433 cases, out of a total of 36,640 cases analysed, there was a road/ river/nallah within the plot. The highest number of such cases is in Dhule and Nandurbar districts. As seen on 2005-06 satellite images, about 15 per cent approved cases are on lands having forest or no agriculture.

Data using Cartosat-1 satellite images of 2005-06 and 2007-08, shows that in 789 cases out of 35, 044 approved FR cases, land-use changed between the years 2005-06 to 2007-08. Large numbers of such cases with land-use change are in Jalgaon, Nandurbar, and Dhule. Out of 539 FR cases from Jalgaon district, 321 cases are from three villages of Chopda Taluka — Umarti (118), Satrasen (113) and Melane (90).

The data reveals that there was a huge trend of putting barren forest land to agriculture between 2005 and 2008 to stake claims. About 37 per cent of barren area was converted into agriculture and 33 per cent was converted from forest cover to agriculture. Jalgaon has the highest area so far of forested areas and barren forest land converted to agriculture. An analysis of 5,373 FR cases on satellite images of 2007-08 shows that in these 789 approved FR cases, land-use change occurred after 2005. The study says this implies that people first claimed rights of cultivation, irrespective of the fact whether it was under cultivation on December 13, 2005 (as mandated by FRA) or not and later that forest land was cleared for cultivation. Though the percentage of land-use change detected is less than one per cent in terms of total area, about 641 hectares forest land appears to have been converted from barren land to agriculture and about 580 hectares of forests to agriculture.

In a separate set of data, since satellite images of 2011-12 were available for six districts, only 26,807 finalized FR cases were analyzed, covering 45,034 hectares in Jalgaon, Dhule, Nandurbar, Nashik, Thane, and Gadchiroli districts. It was found that 39,996 (89 per cent) hectares is under cultivation within the approved plots in 2011-12 which is a four per cent increase from 2007-08, Forest/tree cover and barren land has reduced from 910 to 433 hectares and 5476 to 4605 hectares respectively between 2007-08 and 2011-12. This means that people have cleared forest cover and started cultivation after FRs have been recognized on these lands, the study points out.

In these six districts, at least 5037.88 hectares of ineligible forest land on which Forest Rights have been recognized is still not converted into cultivation as per 2011-12 satellite images.

In FR cases’ analysis on Cartosat-1 satellite images of 2007-08 and 2011-12, it has been observed that in 827 cases out of 26, 807 finally recognized FR cases, land-use changed between 2007-08 to 2011-12.

The percentage of land-use changes in finally recognised FR cases shows an increase in 2011-12 (3.1 per cent) compared to 2007-08 (2.3 per cent). In an analysis of claims applied for but not recognised, it increased from 12.4 per cent to 18.3 per cent.

Land use changes violate the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and data from all districts needs to be revisited for verification of claims and ensuring forests are not cut down, said a forest official.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/violation-of-law-in-land-allotted-to-tribals-claims-study-on-forest-rights-act/article4549144.ece

Forest Department staff attacked while on duty

The team was in N. Belthur village to rescue a leopard

• Anti-social elements booked by Forest Department suspected to be behind the attack
• Officials dispute ‘delayed response’ as the motive for the attack

A mob assaulted Forest Department staff who had come to rescue a leopard that had strayed into N. Belthur village in H.D. Kote taluk on Tuesday.

The leopard strayed into the village from Antharsanthe range of the Nagarahole National Park and was first sighted in the bathroom of a house around 6.30 a.m. When there was a commotion, it attacked four persons, identified as Rama, Rani, Gundaiah and Krishna, and escaped into another house.

The department staff received information of the leopard attack around 8 a.m. and they reached the village by 10 a.m.

Though the immediate cause for the “unprovoked” attack on the staff is not clear, a section of the village residents said the local people were upset about the “delayed” response from the department team.

Disputing this, the officials said the staff and the veterinary team was mobilised from Mysore and Hunsur and they reached N. Belthur within 2 hours of receiving the complaint.

Terming the attack brazen and unprovoked, the staff suspected that anti-social elements, against whom cases had been booked by the department for violation of various provisions of the forest conservation and wildlife protection Acts, were behind it.

The department team, led by Range Forest Officer A.T. Pooviah, included a veterinarian armed with a tranquilliser gun, and forester Hemanth Kumar. On reaching the village, the officials found that a large number of people had surrounded the house in which the leopard was hiding.

The staff ran for cover when a section of the crowd turned its ire against them. However, they were chased around the village and roughed up. Blows were rained in on some of the guards who tried to escape into the adjoining sugarcane fields, according to a source.

Mr. Poovaiah, Mr. Kumar, and Raje Gowda and Chikkanna, watchers, who were injured in the attack, were taken to a local hospital.

When additional police force and forest staff reached the village, the mob melted away, following which the officials launched the operation to rescue the leopard. The leopard was tranquillised and released at Kaimara in the D.B. Kuppe range.

The Beechanhalli police have registered a case in connection with the attack.

The incident has been condemned by Wildlife First, an NGO, which called for a strong and deterrent action against the “emboldened criminal elements”.

Their modus operandi is to form mobs and attack Forest Department staff on duty when they enter villages either to rescue wild animals or to apprehend wildlife offenders, according to Praveen Bhargav and K.M. Chinnappa of the NGO.

They recounted two similar incidents that were reported in the region in the past and said lack of strong action against the offenders had only emboldened them.

The police should immediately identify and arrest those involved in the incident, they said.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/forest-department-staff-attacked-while-on-duty/article4480458.ece

Forest, Law departments against transferring ownership of kumki land

R. KRISHNA KUMAR

State Cabinet has decided to confer their absolute ownership to farmers

• Kumki land is wasteland where privileges are enjoyed by kumkidars, without ownership rights
• ‘Transferring ownership of Kumki lands amounts to granting of forest land for non-forest purpose’

The Forest and Law departments are opposing the State Cabinet’s decision to confer absolute ownership of kumki land to farmers, saying these lands have been classified as forests.

Kumki land is defined as government wasteland where certain privileges like right to collect minor produces like timber for domestic use and to raise fodder for cattle are enjoyed by the kumkidars, who do not have land ownership rights per se or to use it for non-agricultural purposes.

But the Cabinet recently agreed to bestow ownership to kumkidars in Dakshina Kannada and Udupi and intends to introduce an amendment to the Karnataka Land Grant Rules by inserting Rule 17B to pave the way for transfer of ownership, which would benefit thousands of farmers.

Differing views

But copies of the correspondence of the Forest and Law departments on the subject made available to The Hindu makes it clear that there is difference of opinion on the subject and the issue is likely to be get ensnared in legal imbroglio as a few environmentalists are toying with the idea of approaching the court to stall the move.

The Forest Department had stated that “kumki land in South Canara district are statutorily recognised forests and clearly fall within the definition of ‘forest’ as per the definition of the Supreme Court of India in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs Union of India case”.

In its detailed note replete with various provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act and other laws to reinforce the argument, the Forest Department opposed the amendment and said: “District forests includes all land at the disposal of the government not included within the limits of any reserved or village forests nor assigned at the survey settlement as free grazing ground or for any other public or communal purposes”. Hence it argued that kumki lands fall clearly within the definition of “district forests”.

However, the Advocate-General ruled otherwise and opined that kumki lands cannot be construed as statutorily recognised forest land as they are not mentioned as forests in the records of the Government of Karnataka and gave concurrence for Cabinet approval.

But the Law Department supported the Forest Department’s stance and stated that transferring ownership of kumki lands amounts to granting of forest land for non-forest purposes and was not permissible without the prior approval of the Union government.

Law Department contention

Citing the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, the Forest Conservation Rules 1981 and ruling of the apex court, the Law Department said: “The State government cannot amend the existing Land Grants Rule 1969 to make provision for grant of kumki lands in South Canara which are also forest lands”.

It even recommended that before amending the Karnataka Land Grant Rules 1969 by inserting Rule 17-B, the proposal may be forwarded to the Union government as required under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. However, the Cabinet ignored these objections and went by the Advocate-General’s opinion and intends to grant ownership to kumki land holders.

This attempt to rush through the amendment despite strong reservations by the Forest Department and the Law Department, is being perceived as an attempt to obviate the need to seek prior approval of the Union government as required under the law. Sources said there are fears that the Centre may delay granting permission and the election code of conduct may come into force denying the Bharatiya Janata Party an opportunity to reap electoral gains at environmental costs.

There are thousands of acres of kumki lands in Dakshina Kannada and if ownership rights are granted, it will set a precedent to pave the way for similar rights to those holding Bane and Jamma land in Kodagu, Soppina Betta in Uttara Kannada, most of which contains evergreen forest patches and transferring ownership will spell doom for the environment.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/forest-law-departments-against-transferring-ownership-of-kumki-land/article4376755.ece

National Highway To Doom

BAHAR DUTT

No, Mr PM. Our green laws are not impeding the country’s development

AT A recent Cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lamented that green laws are the new ‘Licence Raj’. This is not the first time the PM has expressed this view; in 2011, he emphasised at a public forum that “saving the environment could not be at the cost of development”.

In 2008, he laid the foundation stone for the 3,000 MW Dibang hydropower project in Arunachal Pradesh, even though it had yet to get the green clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). The clearance was in limbo because the public hearing had not been held as mandated under the Environment (Protection) Act (EPA).

The PM’s attitude towards green laws seems to propagate a myth that such laws are impeding development. For every three projects rejected by the MoEF’S statutory bodies, 97 are cleared. And those that are rejected can apply again. Also, more than 100 projects on 9,000 hectares of forestland have been cleared by the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) in the past three months, which means we are losing forestland at the rate of 100 hectares per day.

Two coal mining projects were cleared in Odisha despite glaring violations found by the FAC. In the September meeting of the FAC, (Source: EIA Resource and Response Centre, New Delhi) more than 93 percent projects didn’t show any history of compensatory afforestation, yet they were considered. Worse, more than 90 percent projects were approved, even though the nodal forest officer, who has to give detailed comments on why the project should be given a go-ahead on prime forests, had either just signed or left the columns blank. Even areas rich in biodiversity are not spared, such as the Gola corridor, which is crucial for elephants and tigers in Uttarakhand.

The NHAI recently threatened to sue the MoEF over delays in green clearances. Here again, one needs to look at the ministry data. If you look at three highway projects that came up for discussion with the FAC, two were cleared and one sent back for additional information.

Take the example of Yamunotri-Saharanpur Highway. More than 1 lakh trees are facing the axe, and the application makes no mention of the damage to wildlife or biodiversity, yet it was cleared. Worse still, the project is based in UP, but a certificate from the collector of Mahasamand (a district in Chhattisgarh) was provided! Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan has made it amply clear that clearances are being held up because of incomplete application forms or false information. But these statistics seem to escape the prime minister’s eye.

In his 2011 Independence Day speech, the PM took credit for setting up the National Green Tribunal, but it faces many hurdles. Two years later, the regional benches are yet to be set up; there is no proper courtroom; many members have quit due to lack of accommodation; and a chairperson was appointed only after the SC forced the Centre’s hand.

Green laws are not ‘Licence Raj’, Mr PM. They were introduced by your government, the Constitution and Parliament. The development brigade may show you the example of China. China’s breakneck speed of development has overshadowed the environmental disasters facing the country. Sixteen of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in China. More than 70 percent of China’s rivers, lakes and streams are heavily polluted. Every year, 6,000 square miles of grasslands and forests are lost to desertification and over 300 species are endangered or threatened. Is this the development model we want?

Of course, we want to develop. But not at the cost of our right to fresh air and clean water or our wildlife. That’s what the EPA and the Forest Conservation Act ensure. They protect our rights to have access to clean air; they ensure the industries you give the licence to operate do so with some system of checks and balances. You would do well by supporting your environment minister, who has a tough job of balancing the environment and development needs, while ensuring these checks are in place. And the industry could do well by respecting the law of the land instead of being a constant crybaby.

Bahar Dutt is Environment Editor, CNN-IBN
letters@tehelka.com

Source: http://tehelka.com/national-highway-to-doom/

Himachal Pradesh's green activists oppose move to divert forest land

IANS
SHIMLA: Green activists in Himachal Pradesh have strongly opposed the union environment ministry's decision to wave off approval from the locals for diverting forests to projects under the Forest Conservation Act.

In a missive to minister of environment and forests (MoEF) Jayanthi Natarajan Saturday, the activists have objected to the ministry's "unilateral" decision, saying the rights of forest-dwellers should be settled after securing consent from the affected 'gram sabha' (village councils).

"The arbitrary decision is against the provision of the scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (recognition of Forest Rights) Act of 2006," Rahul Saxena of Himdhara, an environment action group based in Palampur town, told IANS Sunday.

He said it was also violation of the ministry's own circular of August 2009 that made mandatory for project proponents to get non-objection certificates (NoCs) of the affected 'gram sabhas' and compliance with the forest rights act before diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes.

Saxena said the environment ministry, acting on the representations of the state last September, dispensed with the condition for consent from the project-hit as their rights have already been 'settled' under the forest settlement process in 1970s.

"Now the MoEF has decided to accept a certificate by the deputy commissioner stating that there exist no pending claims under the forest rights act as sufficient evidence to meet the procedural requirements. Thus the requirement of the gram sabha's NoC has been done away with," he added.

Himdhara, one of the signatories to the letter to the environment ministry, said the ministry had agreed to such a demand for allowing forest diversion without NoCs without having consulted the ministry of tribal affairs, which is the nodal ministry for the implementation of forest rights act.

Nek Ram Sharma of Satluj Bachao Jan Sangharsh Samiti said: "More than 10,000 hectares of forest land since 1980 have been diverted for hydropower projects, mines, transmission lines and roads."

"The state forest department should have compensated all the forest dwellers whose rights have been compromised by this diversion, if it claims to have already recognised these rights," Sharma said.

"Allowing the deputy commissioner to certify that claims have been settled would directly affect the rights of the affected communities who have individual and community rights on the forest resources," said the letter, signed by various environmental bodies.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Himachal-Pradeshs-green-activists-oppose-move-to-divert-forest-land/articleshow/18103680.cms