While addressing Environment Ministers of the States recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserted that environment and growth can go together. He said that the Government was in the process of recovering four times the present rates for the forests that were felled. At present the developers have to pay Rs 10 lakh per hectare for the dense forests that are felled for mining or other purposes. This is estimated to be the value of the timber and grazing that are provided by the forests. The Supreme Court had directed the Indian Institute of Forest Management to review and revise these rates. The IIFM recommended an increase from the present Rs 10 lakh to Rs 56 lakh per hectare. The Prime Minister actually wants to reduce the increase from 5.6 times to four times.
The Prime Minister also iterated his commitment to clean the Ganga. The flow of a river is its main characteristic. Hydropower projects destroy this character with the construction of a barrage and by converting a flowing river into a stagnant pool, with tunnels bypassing its long stretch. The Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding these hydropower projects. The Ministry of Environment had notified in December last year that all hydropower projects would be required to ensure that the mainstream of the river flowed without any obstruction. That would have conserved the basic character of the Ganga. But following a meeting called by the PMO in January, the Government counsel submitted before the court that six projects pertaining to barrages on the Ganga and its tributaries may be allowed. The Government also misled the court by not submitting the full report of the four members and gave a doctored version to the Court. This was a clear reversal of the Ministry’s earlier pro-river stand. Inquiries revealed that counsel was given these directions from the Prime Minister’s Office directly.
One of the “pet” projects of the NDA government was to erect a series of barrages on the Ganga between Allahabad and Buxar to enable large ships to ply. That too would reduce the free-flowing Ganga to a cluster of stagnant pools. Another pet project of the Prime Minister is interlinking of rivers. This envisages the construction of dams on the Ganga, resulting in diversion and further destruction of the river. This means that the Prime Minister is not happy with the smooth flow of the Ganga. Cleaning the river without ensuring its uninterrupted flow is not going to lead to rejuvenation. What good is pollution control if there is no flow?
The Prime Minister has formed a committee with the former Cabinet Secretary, TSR Subramanian, to revive the environmental laws. The only member of the committee who had some connection with environment is Vishwanath Anand. He holds the distinction of dismissing every appeal seeking protection of the environment that came before him when he was the vice-chairman of the National Environment Appellate Authority.
At present, coal mining is prohibited in all protected areas such as wildlife parks and ecosensitive zones. The high-level committee has recommended that coal mining may be permitted in parts of protected areas that have less than 70 per cent forest density. These are called “very dense forests” and constitute only 2.5 per cent of the forest cover. This means that large tracts of protected areas will be opened for mining.
The Prime Minister has correctly stated that environment and growth can go together. But who will decide whether it is indeed so? At present the affected public can approach the National Green Tribunal and seek changes in Government policy that does protect environment while pursuing growth. The committee has recommended that such complaints may be heard in future by an Appellate Board. The Board will be chaired by a retired judge of the High Court and two of its members will be former Secretaries to the government. There will be no independent representation or of people who are familiar with culture or environment. Secretaries generally sing the tune of the Ministers. The underlying idea is to fill the Appellate Board with persons who have a history of being pliable and purchasable.
The National Green Tribunal has been playing an important role in recent years. The committee has suggested that the wings of the Tribunal be cropped. The Tribunal, it is suggested, will undertake only a “judicial review” of the decisions of the Appellate Board. Judicial Review means that the process of arriving at a decision shall be scrutinized, but the merit of the decision cannot be challenged. For example, the Appellate Board may decide to allow mining in protected areas. As per the recommendations, such a decision cannot be challenged as long as the committee follows the correct process such as hearing the litigants. An anti-environment decision, given after following of the procedures, will be beyond challenge. The committee has recommended that eco-sensitive zones may be declared around protected areas. This seemingly impressive proposal can actually be ominous. At present, development activities are prohibited within 10 kilometers of a protected area under orders of the Supreme Court. The declaration of eco-sensitive zones can mean reducing this limit. I am told that a buffer zone of mere 100 meters is proposed around the Okhla bird sanctuary as also in a large number of other protected areas.
The environment and the common people and their livelihoods are inextricably related. The poor are the worst affected by environmental degeneration. For example, the poor drink contaminated groundwater while the rich install RO systems. The impact of “developmental” projects on the poor must therefore be addressed with concern, sense of justice and sensitivity. The present law requires that large developmental projects will necessitate a public hearing and the views expressed will be considered by the Ministry of Environment while granting environment clearance. The high-level committee has, however, recommended that only local people should be allowed to participate in such public hearings. This means that the people of Varanasi will not be permitted to express their views if a barrage is being made on the Ganga at Allahabad. The committee seeks to localize the environment instead of expanding it globally.
It can be argued that the committee’s recommendations are not those of the Prime Minister. The fact remains that the Prime Minister had nominated such people and allowed them to function in a non-participatory and opaque manner. The high-level committee in turn furnished a report which gives expression to his views.
The Prime Minister also iterated his commitment to clean the Ganga. The flow of a river is its main characteristic. Hydropower projects destroy this character with the construction of a barrage and by converting a flowing river into a stagnant pool, with tunnels bypassing its long stretch. The Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding these hydropower projects. The Ministry of Environment had notified in December last year that all hydropower projects would be required to ensure that the mainstream of the river flowed without any obstruction. That would have conserved the basic character of the Ganga. But following a meeting called by the PMO in January, the Government counsel submitted before the court that six projects pertaining to barrages on the Ganga and its tributaries may be allowed. The Government also misled the court by not submitting the full report of the four members and gave a doctored version to the Court. This was a clear reversal of the Ministry’s earlier pro-river stand. Inquiries revealed that counsel was given these directions from the Prime Minister’s Office directly.
One of the “pet” projects of the NDA government was to erect a series of barrages on the Ganga between Allahabad and Buxar to enable large ships to ply. That too would reduce the free-flowing Ganga to a cluster of stagnant pools. Another pet project of the Prime Minister is interlinking of rivers. This envisages the construction of dams on the Ganga, resulting in diversion and further destruction of the river. This means that the Prime Minister is not happy with the smooth flow of the Ganga. Cleaning the river without ensuring its uninterrupted flow is not going to lead to rejuvenation. What good is pollution control if there is no flow?
The Prime Minister has formed a committee with the former Cabinet Secretary, TSR Subramanian, to revive the environmental laws. The only member of the committee who had some connection with environment is Vishwanath Anand. He holds the distinction of dismissing every appeal seeking protection of the environment that came before him when he was the vice-chairman of the National Environment Appellate Authority.
At present, coal mining is prohibited in all protected areas such as wildlife parks and ecosensitive zones. The high-level committee has recommended that coal mining may be permitted in parts of protected areas that have less than 70 per cent forest density. These are called “very dense forests” and constitute only 2.5 per cent of the forest cover. This means that large tracts of protected areas will be opened for mining.
The Prime Minister has correctly stated that environment and growth can go together. But who will decide whether it is indeed so? At present the affected public can approach the National Green Tribunal and seek changes in Government policy that does protect environment while pursuing growth. The committee has recommended that such complaints may be heard in future by an Appellate Board. The Board will be chaired by a retired judge of the High Court and two of its members will be former Secretaries to the government. There will be no independent representation or of people who are familiar with culture or environment. Secretaries generally sing the tune of the Ministers. The underlying idea is to fill the Appellate Board with persons who have a history of being pliable and purchasable.
The National Green Tribunal has been playing an important role in recent years. The committee has suggested that the wings of the Tribunal be cropped. The Tribunal, it is suggested, will undertake only a “judicial review” of the decisions of the Appellate Board. Judicial Review means that the process of arriving at a decision shall be scrutinized, but the merit of the decision cannot be challenged. For example, the Appellate Board may decide to allow mining in protected areas. As per the recommendations, such a decision cannot be challenged as long as the committee follows the correct process such as hearing the litigants. An anti-environment decision, given after following of the procedures, will be beyond challenge. The committee has recommended that eco-sensitive zones may be declared around protected areas. This seemingly impressive proposal can actually be ominous. At present, development activities are prohibited within 10 kilometers of a protected area under orders of the Supreme Court. The declaration of eco-sensitive zones can mean reducing this limit. I am told that a buffer zone of mere 100 meters is proposed around the Okhla bird sanctuary as also in a large number of other protected areas.
The environment and the common people and their livelihoods are inextricably related. The poor are the worst affected by environmental degeneration. For example, the poor drink contaminated groundwater while the rich install RO systems. The impact of “developmental” projects on the poor must therefore be addressed with concern, sense of justice and sensitivity. The present law requires that large developmental projects will necessitate a public hearing and the views expressed will be considered by the Ministry of Environment while granting environment clearance. The high-level committee has, however, recommended that only local people should be allowed to participate in such public hearings. This means that the people of Varanasi will not be permitted to express their views if a barrage is being made on the Ganga at Allahabad. The committee seeks to localize the environment instead of expanding it globally.
It can be argued that the committee’s recommendations are not those of the Prime Minister. The fact remains that the Prime Minister had nominated such people and allowed them to function in a non-participatory and opaque manner. The high-level committee in turn furnished a report which gives expression to his views.
No comments:
Post a Comment