'Delhi pollution higher than Beijing' report denied

The head of a global environment measurement index has denied reports suggesting it had found air pollution in the Indian capital, Delhi, to be worse than in Beijing.

The US-based Environmental Preference Index (EPI) did not rank cities as it did not have any comparative information, Dr Angel Hsu said.
The 2014 EPI has ranked India at 174 out of 178 countries for air quality.
The EPI is prepared by researchers from the Yale and Columbia universities.
"The EPI does not rank cities, nor do the data in the EPI provide any information on city-level performance," said Dr Hsu of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy who is also the project director of the index.
On some indicators, India emerged as having air quality worse than or as bad as China's, but overall comparable data did not exist
"Beijing reports [pollution] data on an hourly basis over a publicly accessible platform. Delhi's reporting is not as consistent or transparent, making direct comparison impossible. Delhi may or may not have dirtier air than Beijing, but it is clearly behind in how it makes air quality information available to its citizens," Dr Hsu added.
Dr Gufran Beig, chief scientist at India's System of Air Quality Weather Forecasting and Research, has also refuted the report saying that the average concentration of smaller dust particles (PM2.5) - that penetrate deep into the lung - was 210 microgram per cubic metre (m/cum) in Delhi this month.
This, he told the BBC, is not even half of Beijing's PM2.5 level recorded this year.
But the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi-based think tank, has pointed out that the average daily PM2.5 levels in Beijing during 2013 largely remained below 250 m/cum and their winter peaks did not cross the 400 m/cum mark till December.
In comparison, Delhi recorded an average PM2.5 level of 240 m/cum since November 2013 but the peaks have hit as high as 575 m/cum this winter, the CSE said.
The permissible limit of PM2.5 is 60 m/cum.
Dr Sarath Guttikunda, director of Delhi-based Urban Emissions Info, refused to be drawn into this number game.
"Our pollution levels do not need to get worse than Beijing's for us to wake up and take action. Delhi's air is bad, very bad, and it's getting worse by the year," he warns.
Winter smogs are common in Delhi, but this year's haze has been sometimes severe, disrupting air and railway traffic.
Rising pollution has been blamed mainly on a huge increase in the number of vehicles in the city, particularly diesel-driven cars.
Delhi's government introduced greener fuels for public transport in 2000 to control air pollution but the levels have continued to rise.

After backing the Yamuna, AAP faces green test on water, power

The governments before never took up the battle seriously. But the only way out of perpetual shortage and the subsidy cycle is to make rainwater and solar power harvesting mandatory in the capital.


In this season of daily controversies, one of the truly historic decisions taken by the Aam Aadmi Party government went virtually unnoticed. Possibly for the first time, a government in India has decided to sacrifice an investment of Rs 60 crore and surrender prime real estate of 60 acres to secure a river.
The decision to remove India’s largest bus depot from the Yamuna riverbed is truly game-changing because the previous government was in no mood to let go of the land it had temporarily gained access to for accommodating the buses required for the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
Instead of vacating the area that comes under Zone 'O' where no urbanization is allowed as per the Delhi Master Plan, the Sheila Dikshit government had asked the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) last year to initiate the process of changing its land use to transportation. This would have remained yet another brazen instance of how land grab on the Yamuna riverbed gets regularized but for Arvind Kejriwal’s intervention.
The new chief minister expressed helplessness that his government could not remove the more permanent constructions – the Akshardham temple or the Games village, for example -- but assured that his government would not allow any building close to the river in the future. This was not even on his list of 17 promises.
But this bold step will not be enough to revive the Yamuna, though. Only half of Delhi’s 2000 MLD sewage can be treated in the city’s 32 sewage treatment plants most of which do not even work to capacity. Kejriwal will have to master the will and resources to gradually reduce this load of untreated human waste flowing unchecked into the river.
The new government’s green tests also include finding sustainable remedies to the city’s water and power needs. Purchasing expensive power from the grid to meet the demands of cheap power will only make the subsidy bill unmanageable. Channeling dam waters from far-flung hinterland to compensate for the sinking aquifers will only fuel inter-state wars.
Like every mega city, Delhi’s only solution lies in rainwater and solar power harvesting. The city faces a daily average shortage of 150 MGD or almost 55,000 million gallons a year. At the standard 60 per cent runoff coefficient, Delhi’s average annual rainfall of 611 mm can meet this deficit if we harvest rainwater across even less than half of the city’s 1500 sq km area. Accounting for the open space, this is very much possible.
In June 2001, the Ministry of Urban affairs and Poverty Alleviation made rainwater harvesting mandatory in Delhi for all new buildings with a roof area of more than 100 sq meter and plots larger than 1000 sq meter. The Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) made rainwater harvesting mandatory in all institutions and residential colonies in notified areas of south and southwest Delhi, Faridabad, Gurgaon and Ghaziabad and set a deadline of March 31, 2002.
There is time before the monsoon arrives. The new government must channel its energy in cracking down on every government, institutional and commercial buildings violating these rules. As for individual households and RWAs, the chief minister should know how a carrot-and-stick policy works. A bureaucrat in Chennai and a scientist in Bangalore have already shown the way.
The Delhi administration has been debating about how to offer subsidy to consumers who use solar heaters. The Delhi airport has set up a mega 2.14 MW solar plant. The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) is consulting stakeholders before introducing meters for rooftop solar power plants to keep records of self-consumption and contribution to the grid.
Yet, with at least 300 sunny days a year and more than 700 sq km of built-up area in around 30 lakh households for installation of photo-voltaic plates, Delhi has so far failed to tap its enormous solar potential of more than 100 GW. More realistically, a 2013 Greenpeace study estimated that Delhi can become a 2GW city by 2020.
The stagnation of the solar boom across Europe where governments have been struggling to bear the burden of over-subsidizing the clean fuel is pushing the price of solar technologies down. On the other hand, the depletion of fossil fuels and the growing awareness of the ecological costs of dams are making traditional electricity costlier. In another five years or so, solar electricity is likely to lose its price disadvantage.
While the US may eventually emerge the biggest beneficiary of the lull in the European solar scenario, one town in California has already decided to go the whole distance. About 70 miles north of Los Angeles, Lancaster passed an ordinance and obtained the approval from the state energy commission to make it mandatory for new builders to provide 1 KW of solar electricity per housing unit.
Power and distribution companies resist such moves everywhere. But that should only encourage Kejriwal. Mass harvesting of sun and rain will require his government to budget for early incentives. But, if he is serious about equal entitlement, this may just be the only way out from the vicious and perpetual cycles of energy and water subsidies.

No, Veerappa Moily Didn't Start This Fire. He's Just Feeding It

Barely a month at the helm of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Veerappa Moily has cleared projects worth at least Rs 150,000 crore. While many see in his rush an unprecedented green sellout, truth is, the minister is only taking forward the dubious legacy of his predecessors, and being unabashed about it.


It is the art of the absurd, protecting the environment at any cost while ensuring unbridled growth. Environment ministers know this even though each of them claims to have accomplished the impossible. But after clearing 70-odd projects worth at least Rs 150,000 crore in two weeks, Veerappa Moily accepted that destruction was inevitable.

Before one could marvel at his gall, the environment minister clarified, "Destruction has to take place but that is to create something, not for destruction in a negative way." He dubbed it 'creative destruction'. Suddenly, what even an eloquent Jairam Ramesh could best describe as a "fine balancing act" sounded nearly esoteric.

But how he says or does it is all that separates Moily from his predecessors. Barring the possible exception of Suresh Prabhu - who many veterans recall as being 'somewhat different' - environment ministers have been indifferent gatekeepers, to put it very mildly, of India's oft-squandered natural wealth.

Since 1982, for example, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has approved 94 percent of coal mining projects that came to it for clearance. But the green sellout in the decade under the stewardship of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) stands out on many counts. It began under the watch of the DMK's A Raja, prime accused in the 2G scam, who took it upon himself to break the dubious records set by his predecessor and party colleague TR Baalu during the final years of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government.

To begin with, Raja packed the ministry's Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs) with members from Tamil Nadu, his home state. A number of appointments, like that of hydel project promoter and former Union Power Secretary P Abraham, reeked of gross conflict of interest. 

In just two years, between 2006 and 2008, the MoEF had issued 2,016 clearances and rejected only 14 projects. Raja ignored his Danish counterpart Connie Hedegaard's warning about a fugitive hazardous ship seeking entry into Indian waters in 2005, and went on to allow trading in dangerous waste material.

The MoEF under UPA-I cleared thermal power projects worth 701,820 megawatts (MW), thrice the additional capacity projected till 2032 by the Planning Commission. Besides clearing 124 coal blocks, the ministry allowed 169 mines in Goa, handing private companies nearly 60 million tons of iron ore in violation of India's wildlife and environmental laws.

As Raja's successor in UPA-II, Jairam Ramesh brought the warmth of transparency to Paryavaran Bhawan, the ministry headquarters, and made all the right noises. Within three months of taking charge in May 2009, he ordered that no forest land be diverted for the POSCO project in Odisha without the consent of the affected gram sabhas.

But the demands of growth soon started telling on the minister. In the next 12 months, Ramesh issued 535 clearances, rejecting only six projects. In violation of his own August order, he also granted 'final clearance' for land diversion for the POSCO project on 29 December. Then, unable to defend the volte-face, he wrote to the state after 10 days that the 'final clearance' was 'conditional' on settlement of rights under the Forest Rights Act.

In fact, Ramesh's most significant legacy is his invention of the 'conditional route' to escape legal and moral scrutiny. Every time he let a contentious project slip through, he justified the decision by slapping a ridiculously large number of conditions on the clearance. No matter that the MoEF has neither the manpower nor the infrastructure to check for compliance or take punitive action.

The nuclear plant in Maharashtra's Jaitapur, for example, was cleared with 35 conditions. The Steel Authority of India was allowed to mine the invaluable elephant forests in Jharkhand on 13 conditions. The Navi Mumbai airport project got a go-ahead with 32 conditions. Nobody knows if and how any of these riders is helping the Konkan's fragile coastal ecology or the ancient sal forests of Saranda or the mangroves off Mumbai.

In 2010 though, Ramesh had the chance to distinguish himself when the coal ministry requested the MoEF to draw up a method to demarcate areas to be kept out of bounds for mining. The idea was that such a classification would expedite clearances in the remaining areas. But when Ramesh listed several densely forested stretches as "no-go areas" for mining, the coal ministry and the Prime Minister's Office were outraged. He backed down and conceded 85 per cent of the proposed "no-go" zones.

For all his bravado, Ramesh was eventually reduced to a rubber stamp. A couple of months before he was shifted out, the minister 'evaluated' 59 project proposals in a little over two hours during a 2011 meeting of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), rejecting only four. That works out to less than three minutes of scrutiny per project.

Yet, an impatient PMO replaced Ramesh with a low-profile Jayanthi Natarajan. Unlike her media-savvy predecessor who was suspiciously vocal against the system he served, the lady did not protest too much. In fact, the former Congress spokesperson barely spoke on matters of her ministry. But she delivered.

Just as Raja picked Abraham and Ramesh settled for Rakesh Nath, who headed the Indian chapter of the International Commission on Large Dams - a rabidly pro-large dam lobby - while serving as the EAC chairman, Natarajan's choice for the job was former coal secretary Alok Perti who famously called upon India to "decide whether she wants electricity or tigers". During 2012-13, none of the 198 proposals for coal mining was turned down; only six of the 101 proposed thermal power plants were rejected.

But the growth hawks wanted still more.

Raising the green bogey


As early as 2011, the Reserve Bank blamed environmentalism for a one-third dip in foreign investment and the Prime Minister underlined how it was "necessary to ensure that these (green) regulatory standards do not bring back the Licence Permit Raj". In 2012, Finance Minister P Chidambaram sprung the proposed National Investment Approval Board (NIAB) to grant prompt single-window clearances to projects worth Rs 1,000 crore or more.

To her credit, Natarajan stood her ground in this turf war. She even issued a press release in August 2012 to counter allegations that her ministry was a bottleneck for growth. It read: "The 11th Five Year Plan has projected a target of 50,000 MW of additional thermal power capacity; the 12th Plan asks for 100,000 MW. In the past 5 years, up to 2011, the MoEF has granted environmental clearance to 210,000 MW of power - that is 60,000MW more power than has been proposed until 2017. In most cases including coal and thermal power projects, clearances given by MoEF far exceed targets, and even capacity projected for the future."

The NIAB proposal was scrapped, and the Cabinet Committee on Investment (CCI) was set up in January 2013, with representatives from several ministries. But the agenda did not change. The UPA-II government was desperate to circumvent forest and wildlife laws - its legacy from the years of Indira Gandhi - and the Forest Rights Act, a major achievement of the UPA-I.

At stake were some 215 projects worth over Rs 7 lakh crore. The argument was that huge bank loans had been made available to these projects held up due to delay in environment and forest clearances or lack of coal supplies. Everybody was worried about idling investments. Nobody wondered why funding was given to projects whose environmental viability was in question.

But this was a time-tested strategy.  In October 2012, coal mining was allowed in Mahan block of Singrauli district - despite denial of clearance by the forest advisory committee - because Essar and Hindalco had already invested Rs 3,600 crore. Ramesh had written to the prime minister in March 2010: "Shri Shashi Ruia [of Essar] says that the coal mine should be cleared because 65 per cent of the power plant is ready. I cannot agree, sir, to this logic. I have repeatedly raised my objection to such fait accompli arguments in Cabinet meetings..."

Eventually, though, one of the oldest and largest sal forests of Asia in the catchment of the Mahan river was left to the mercy of some 36 conditions attached to the clearance. No crystal ball is needed to see which way POSCO may go. Though the steel plant has been delinked from the proposed port and mining, once the company sinks a few thousand crore, it will demand that the ancillary projects be cleared no matter what the environmental cost.

Sadly, for all the concessions she made, Natarajan was perhaps doomed to fail in her brief to outdo Ramesh. But how does one better a 99 percent clearance rate? By getting there faster. Between 1982 and 1999, the average delay in project clearance was five years. During NDA rule, it came down to three years. The UPA-I reduced it to 17 months. The MoEF under UPA-II was taking just about 11 months.

One would have thought that was quite an improvement until Moily stepped in and redefined "speed". Within days, he relaxed norms for several industries, stalled the notification process of environmentally sensitive areas in the six Western Ghats states (which would have become a political liability before general elections) and cleared a slew of mega projects.

With industry cheering, Moily is also expected to help his government present a unified stand in favor of permitting field trials of genetically modified food crops before the Supreme Court. Since Ramesh declared an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal in 2010, the environment ministry, for a change, has been consistent in its stand. 

Natarajan put on record her disagreement with the ministries of Agriculture and Science and stood by the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee and the Technical Expert Committee of the Supreme Court opposing field trials in the absence of an effective regulatory regime. But with the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill still pending in Parliament, it will take some serious jugglery, even from Moily, to reverse the stated position of his predecessors. 

He will also find it difficult to justify regularization of many pre-2006 allocations of coal mines in violation of norms after the Supreme Court made it clear on January 8 that investments adding up to Rs 2 lakh crore "cannot be a defence and no law would help them [companies]".

But Moily is not wasting time. He has allowed coalmines with an annual capacity of up to 8 million tons to expand capacity by 50 percent without any public consultation. He cleared the 2,800MW Fatehabad nuclear power plant in Haryana without a public hearing on its environment impact assessment report. He issued environmental clearance to the POSCO plant without a forest clearance by delinking it from the port and mining components of the project.

The promises of a cumulative impact assessment study made and broken by his predecessors helped Moily clear Tawang-II and Teesta-IV hydel projects by overruling recommendations of the National Board for Wildlife. But even in his rush, he did not forget to justify these decisions with long lists of conditions. The Rs 5,000-crore Vizhinjam port, for example, has got environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone clearances with 29 specific and 14 general conditions.

While Moily is evidently building on the dubious legacy of the green ministry, his unabashed urgency has unsettled many. After all, the Lok Sabha polls are knocking at the door. But those shocked by Moily's home run could not have missed the build-up. Nobody frowned when Planning Commission  Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia spelled out in September 2012 Finance Minister Chidambaram's "excellent idea" of amending the rules of business for projects above a critical size so that "the permission that has to be given is given".

Moily has merely done away with the charade of due process.

Why are India's tigers killing humans?

There are about 1,700 tigers left in the wild in India. In the past five weeks, 17 people in four states have been killed by tigers. Jay Mazoomdaar investigates the reasons behind the current spate of killings.

BBC, 20 January, 2014

In a country which is home to the world's largest population of tigers, few things swing public opinion more sharply than a "man-eater" does.
With 17 people killed by tigers in the past five weeks in the four Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, angry residents of affected areas are threatening to take the law into their own hands.
But then, to those who do not know it, nothing can describe the terror of living in the shadow of a "man-eating" tiger on the prowl.
In Tamil Nadu's Nilgiri district, schools in the Dodabetta region have been shut for over a week now. The majority of the householders here are people on daily wages who have not gone to work. If the "tiger curfew" continues much longer, the poorer families may start to starve.
Drawing a blank
The tiger that killed three people since 4 January in Dodabetta has been confirmed as a "man-eater". But the jury is still out on whether a "man-eater" killed two people in Maharashtra's Tadoba region. In Uttar Pradesh, a wandering tigress from Jim Corbett National Park has killed seven people since Christmas. Another five people have been killed by a tiger in Karnataka.
While two "man-eating" tigers - and one which killed livestock - have beencaptured in Karnataka since last month, forest authorities in Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh have so far drawn a blank.
Trap cages and camera traps are in place. Trackers on foot and veterinarians with tranquiliser guns on elephants are scouring the forest patches. Even recorded mating calls are being blared to lure the "man-eater" out. But with little luck so far.
It is never easy when a tiger loses its fear of people.
In fact, most attacks on people are chance encounters gone wrong. Victims of such accidental attacks are rarely dragged away as prey or actually eaten.
But a series of attacks on people in quick succession is a telltale sign of a man-eater at work.
Forest guards and labourers quietly give way to a big cat inside Rajasthan's Ranthambhore national park.Forest guards and workers give way to a tiger inside India's Ranthambhore national park
Fortunately, a tiger turning to human prey is rare.
A tiger usually makes one large kill every week. For India's 1,700-odd tigers, that adds up to more than 85,000 kills in a year.
If humans were part of a tiger's natural diet, and since there are people everywhere in India, a good number of these 85,000 kills would be humans.
The truth is, less than 85 people are killed or injured - accidentally or otherwise - in a year by tigers here. Many times more die of snakebites or rabies.
Yet, the tiger remains the most feared killing machine in public perception.
People rarely discriminate between accidental and deliberate killings. And every time there is an attack, the media jump the gun.
Under the law, the heads of the state wildlife departments can declare a tiger a man-eater and permit its killing.
'Risky delay'
But a spate of shooting licences issued to private hunters prompted the union environment ministry to issue a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in January last year.
According to the SOP, "under no circumstances, a tiger should be eliminated by invoking the Wildlife [Protection] Act, 1972, if it is not habituated for causing human death".
But when a tiger stalks and kills people, the only option is to eliminate it.
India's strong animal welfare lobby, however, insists on capturing "man-eaters" alive, rather than shooting them down.
It takes a lot more effort and time to trap or tranquilise a "man-eater" than to gun it down.
And every delay is fraught with the danger of more human casualties and the subsequent revenge killing of random tigers by hostile villagers.
"Once confirmed, a 'man-eater' has to be dealt with promptly. Any delay is risky and this angers local people. This may undermine public support for conservation of tigers as a species," argues tiger biologist Dr Ullas Karanth.
Conservationist Valmik Thapar insists that independent experts must be engaged to determine if a tiger is a "man-eater".
 A camera-trap photo of the Bandipur man-eater in its primeA photograph of the tiger in Bandipur which killed humans. The tiger was captured later.
"If it is established that a tiger is too dangerous to be rehabilitated in the wild, it should be put down rather than made to serve a life term in a zoo," he says.
Not surprisingly, most "man-eaters" in recent times have been reported from areas with high tiger populations, such as the Bandipur-Nagarahole, Tadoba, Corbett-Rajaji, Ranthambhore and Kaziranga regions.
Densely packed tiger forests - many call them the price of India's conservation success - often lead to young and old tigers wandering outside. Such wandering tigers are more likely to come into conflict with people.
'Too many tigers'
"Tigers that come into conflict with people are more likely sub-adults [a tiger that has passed through the juvenile period but not yet attained typical adult characteristics] trying to find new territories, and among old, injured animals that are evicted from their home territories," Dr Karanth explains.
The man-eater captured in Karnataka on 5 December was a 12-year-old male. It had nearly completed the full lifespan expected in the wild.
The one trapped on 2 January was an eight-year-old male with injuries to its right paw and shoulder.
A tiger in a zoo in Calcutta, IndiaA tiger turning to human prey is 'a rare aberration'
Since such weak animals would not have lasted too long in the wild anyway, it makes no difference to conservation if they are killed or sent to zoos, say wildlife experts.
But prompt action sends the right message to local communities.
Experts believe that the public outcry over the present spate of human killings should neither provoke officials to hastily declare the tigers as "man-eaters" nor come in the way of promptly gunning down an identified "man-eater".
"Any confirmed 'man-eater' should be eliminated, though not a tiger that accidentally kills someone in self-defence. Zoos already have far too many tigers," says Dr George Schaller, the world's foremost field biologist.
Meanwhile, life is on hold in India's terrified villages reeling from tiger attacks. The search for the "man-eaters" continues.

‘ডর নাহি লাগতা?’

কুঞ্জুম লা ১৫০০০ ফুট ওপরে, অক্টোবরেই সুনসান। নভেম্বর থেকে জুন এ পথ মাড়ায় না সেনাবাহিনীর জোঙ্গা-ও। সেই যমদুয়ার পার করেই জন্নত, শীতের স্পিতি।    


“কাম তো হোতে রহেগা, ইন্দর সাব, পর আপকো ডর নাহি লাগতা?”
জিপ্সির টায়ারে মোটা চেইন জড়ানো, দুধশাদা রোহতাং এর পথে এছাড়া কোন শব্দ নেই। তাই স্পষ্ট শোনা যায় ইন্দরের নাতিদীর্ঘশ্বাস । কুসুমের থাক না থাক, তার তো মন আছে।
একটু আগেই, মানালিতে জিপ্সির পেছনে ব্যাগ-বাক্স-ক্যামেরা ইত্যাদি রাখতে গিয়ে দেখি আদ্দেক জায়গা নিয়ে কোদাল-বেলচা-দড়ি। প্রশ্ন করতে ড্রাইভার-জির সংক্ষিপ্ত “জরুরত হোগা” এবং ইন্দরের একগাল অপ্রস্তুত হেসে “ভেরি থটফুল অব হিম”। তা হবে।
জবুথুবু শহর ছাড়ার কয়েক মিনিট বাদে অস্বস্তিটা ফিরে এল। মাসখানেকও হয়নি এ পথে দেখেছি রোহতাংগামী ট্র্যাফিকের রীতিমত জ্যাম। আমি, ইন্দর, আর দুই ক্যামেরা ও সাউনড অ্যাসিস্ট্যান্ট মিলে এই রোহতাং লা উজিয়েই গিয়েছিলাম লাহুলের ইয়োচে গ্রামে। গ্রাম্ফু থেকে কেলং হয়ে লেহ-এর পথে জিস্পা পেরিয়ে ডানহাতে ঘণ্টাখানেকের পিঠভাঙ্গা চরাই
এযাত্রা পথচলতি দু-পাচটি গাড়ি গুনতে গুনতে পিছনের সিট থেকে শুরুতে খেয়ালই করিনি রাস্তার যাছেতাই হাল । এলোমেলো ঝাঁকুনিতে টনক নড়তে গলা বাড়িয়ে দেখি রাস্তায়, দুধারে, মাঝেমধ্যে মাথার ওপর ঝুলে থাকা গলা, পেঁজা আর জমা বরফের বহররোহতাং না পৌছতেই এই অবস্থা দেখে অনেকটা লালুবাবুর ঢংয়েই আমার সওয়ালঃ “রোড আগে সেফ হ্যায় না, ড্রাইভার-জি?” কয়েক মুহূর্ত সময় নিয়ে ড্রাইভার-জির জবাবঃ “সেফ ভী বোল সকতে হ্যায়।”
সঙ্গেসঙ্গে ইন্দরের আবার সহাস্য হস্তক্ষেপঃ “সেফটি তো ড্রাইভার কা উপর রুপু সেড দিস ম্যান ইজ মানালি’স বেস্ট ড্রাইভার...” রুপু, মানে রূপচাঁদ নেগি, ইন্দরের বাল্যবন্ধু, মানালির বিখ্যাত মেফ্লাওয়ার হোটেল আর হিমালয়ান অ্যাডভেঞ্চার সংস্থার কর্তা । আমি আশ্বস্ত ঘাড় নেড়ে ওঠার আগেই নির্বিকার মুখে ড্রাইভার-জির স্বগতক্তিঃ “রোড কা উপর ভী...”
কিছুক্ষন কারো মুখে কথা নেই। তারপর, এক বরফিলা চরাই বাঁকে পিছলোতে থাকা গাড়ি সামলে স্টিয়ারিং-এর মালিক ব্যাপারটা প্রাঞ্জল করলেন। “আপকো মরনা হ্যায় তো মুঝে ভী ফাঁসা দিয়া মেরে বস নে।” এরপর কোন কথা হয়? এখন আর ড্রাইভার বদলাবার সুযোগ আছে কিনা ভাবছি, প্রশ্ন এলঃ  “কিউ যা রহে হ্যায় ইস টাইম?”
বোঝো, যেন কোন উপায় ছিল না গিয়ে। আরেক প্রস্ত বিব্রত হেসে ইন্দর বোঝাতে থাকে। শীতের মাস ছয় সমস্ত ট্রান্সফরমার বরফ চাপা পরায় লাহুল-স্পিতির অধিকাংশ গ্রামই ডুবে থাকে অন্ধকারে। সমুদ্রতল থেকে এত ওপরে সূর্যের তেজ গনগনে হলেও আদ্দেক সময় দীর্ঘ তুষারঝড়ের রোদমোছানো আকাশের নিচে কাজে আসে না সোলার প্লেট। কিন্ত হাড়জমানো ঝড়োবাতাস বনবনিয়ে ঘোরাতে পারে হাওয়াকল।
আমাদের ডকুমেন্টারি ফিল্ম এই সোলার-উইন্ড যুগলবন্দীতে বিদ্যুৎ সমাধান নিয়ে। লাহুলের ইয়োচে-তে উইন্ডমিল খাড়া করার পর্ব শ্যুট করে আমাদের গন্তব্য এবার স্পিতির লোসার গ্রাম, এই এক্সপেরিমেন্টের আঁতুড়ঘর শীতে না পৌঁছুলে শীতের সমস্যা বুঝব কি করে? আর সিমলা থেকে কিন্নরের পথ অনেক নিরাপদ হলেও ওই রাস্তায় স্পিতি যেতে-আসতে চারদিনের এক্সট্রা ভাড়া গুনতে হোত ক্যামেরাসমেত সবকিছুর।
“কাম তো নিকলনা হি হ্যায়, ব্রাদার!” ইন্দর শেষ করতেই ড্রাইভার-জির সেই ব্রাদারলি প্রশ্নঃ “সাব, আপকো ডর নাহি লাগতা?” খানিকটা ইন্দরের প্রতি মায়া আর অনেকটা আশঙ্কা-বিরক্তি নিয়ে ঠিক করলাম এবার ঘুরে দাঁড়ানোই ভালো। “আপ ডর রহে হো তো চলো ওয়াপস চলে!”
মুখ না ফেরালেও ইন্দরের ব্রাদার যে নিঃশব্দে হাসছে বুঝলাম কাঁধের ওঠাপড়া দেখে। তারপর ঘাড় বেঁকিয়ে, “ঘাবড়াইয়ে মৎ!” এবার বেশ তেড়েমেরেই বললাম যে আমরা ঘাবড়াই না ঘাবড়াই, যে গাড়ি চালাচ্ছে সে ঘাবড়ালেই মুশকিল। সুর নরম হলঃ “সরি! হর সাল সিজন কা দো-চার মাহিনা স্পিতি রুট মে হি মেরা সাফারি চলতা হ্যায়। ইস টাইম কভি গয়া নাহি। পর পঁহুছা দেঙ্গে, সাব
ততক্ষনে গাড়ি রোহতাং পেরিয়ে গ্রাম্ফুর পথে। সিজনের ভিড় না থাকলেও গাড়ি যে একেবারে নেই তা নয়। সরকারি ভাবে আরও হপ্তাখানেক হয়ত খোলা থাকবে রোহতাং লা। তাই বছরের শেষ রসদ পৌছচ্ছে কেলং হয়ে লেহ-র রাস্তায়। গ্রাম্ফু থেকে ডাইনে স্পিতির দিকে বাঁক নিয়েই বুঝলাম বাকি পথটা একলাই চলতে হবে।
কাগজেকলমে জানা ছিল ব্যাপারটা গুরুতর। মাসখানেক হল কুঞ্জুম লা এ বছরের মত বন্ধ ঘোষিত হয়েছে। সোজা বাংলায়, আগামী জুন-জুলাইয়ে পাস খোলার আগে গ্রাম্ফু আর লোসারের মাঝখানে কোন বিপত্তির দায় সরকার বা সেনাবাহিনীর নয়। আর কিছু না হোক, তুষারঝড়ে বা বরফধ্বসে ১৫০০০ ফুট ওপরে এই ৮০ কিলোমিটার দূরত্বের কোথাও আটকে পরলে, ছ-সাত মাসের আগে কেউ রাস্তা খুলতে আসবে না। এসওএস পাঠাবার বালাই নেই কারন কুঞ্জুম লা মোবাইল নেটওয়ার্কের বাইরে।
এসব ঝুঁকি নিয়েও স্থানীয় মানুষ যে বিশেষ প্রয়োজনে ‘বন্ধ কুঞ্জুম’ পেরয় না এমনটা নয়। মাঝ-নভেম্বর পর্যন্ত লোকাল জিপের যাতায়াত লেগেই থাকে। কিন্তু এই নভেম্বরের শেষে নেহাত দায় না পড়লে তারাও এপথ মাড়ায় না। নিতান্ত যেতেই হলে, চার-পাচটা গাড়ি একসাথে চলে যাতে বিপাকে পড়লে কোদাল-বেলচা চালাবার লোকের অভাব না হয়।
গ্রাম্ফু থেকে আমাদের একাএকা গুটিগুটি চলে ছোটাধারা অবধি পৌছুতেই ঘণ্টা আড়াই। তারপর গাড়ি যত এগোয় পথ তত পাথর থেকে আয়না। নিত্যনৈমিত্তিক ধ্বসের কারনে মানালি ছাড়ার কিছু পরেই পিচের রাস্তা সীমানা শেষ। কাঁচা পাথুরে রাস্তার ঝাকুনিটা অভ্যেস হয়ে যাওয়ায় আর বরফচাপা পরার ভয়ে পাহাড়ে আর আকাশে চোখ রেখে বুঝতেই পারিনি কখন গাড়ি নৌকোর মত টলমল হতে শুরু করেছে।
বাংলাতে snow-ও বরফ, ice-ও বরফ। কিন্ত পেঁজা আর জমাট বরফে ফারাক অনেক। নরম বরফ তেমন গভীর হলে গাড়ির চাকা ফেঁসে যেতে পারে। যেমন বালুতে বা কাদায়। জমাট বরফ আয়নার মত শক্ত ও মসৃণ। টায়ারে চেইন জড়িয়েও তার ওপর গাড়ি সম্পূর্ণ নিয়ন্ত্রনে রাখা অসম্বব। আর ১০-১২ ফুট চওড়া ওই টলমল পথের একপাশে নিরন্তর অতলের ডাক শোনা গেলে, ওস্তাদ ড্রাইভারের পা-ও বারবার পৌঁছে যাবে ব্রেক-এ। দাবালেই, স্কিড... চরকিবাজি... এবং চিত্তির! মানে, পপাত চ, মমার চ।
ততক্ষনে বরফের চাট্টান হয়ে যাওয়া পথে এগুনোই মুশকিল। শ্যেনদৃষ্টি ড্রাইভার ব্যাপার গুরুচরন বুঝলেই গাড়ি থামিয়ে নেমে পড়ছে কোদাল-বেলচা হাতে। বরফের চাদর ভেঙ্গে রাস্তা বানাবার প্রথম চেষ্টায় ‘ব্যাপারটা কি’ দেখতে গাড়ি থেকে নেমেই বুঝলাম ভুল করেছি। দরজা খুলে গদাইলস্করি চালে জমিতে পা রাখতেই, ধড়াস। কপালজোরে পাহাড়ের দিকে নেমেছিলাম, কাঁচের মত বরফে হাত চারেক পিছলে পাথরের, থুড়ি বরফের, দেয়ালে সপাট ঠোকর। কোনমতে পাহাড় ঘেঁষে উঠে দাঁড়িয়ে টাল সামলে বুঝলাম খাদের দিকের দরজা দিয়ে নামলে ওই পদস্খলন অতলান্তগামী হত।
তারপর আরও অন্তত বার পাঁচেক গাড়ি থামিয়ে বরফ ভেঙ্গে গ্রিপ ভিক্ষে করতে হয়েছিল কুঞ্জুমের পথে। কানফাটানো হাওয়া, হাড়জমানো ঠাণ্ডা, গোমরা আকাশে লাগাতার ঝঞ্ঝাভাস আর যেকোন সময় গাড়ি যেকোন দিকে চলে যেতে পারে জেনে একটা সময়ের পর কেমন একটা অকুতভয়, জীবনে-কি-আছে-ভাই ভাব আসে মনে। চোখে পলক পরে না
এখানে সেখানে পথের পাশে ঘাড়ের ওপর ঝুলে থাকে তীক্ষ্ণ পেল্লাই আইসিকল, ছড়িয়ে ছিটিয়ে বরফে ডুবে থাকা বৌদ্ধ্ব স্তূপ, ঝড়ো হাওয়ায় টিকে যাওয়া কয়েক সারি রঙচটা প্রেয়ার ফ্ল্যাগ, আর কুঞ্জুমের প্রায়-ছোঁয়া-যায় দুরত্বে অতিকায় বড়াশিগরি গ্লেসিয়র। ছবিতে অনেক দেখেছি এই ল্যান্ডস্কেপ, আগস্ট-সেপ্টেম্বরের সবুজে আর নানা রঙে অলৌকিক। কিন্তু বিদ্যুত-মোবাইল-প্রাণ বিবর্জিত অমন কঠোর আদিমতা এই একরঙা শীতে অন্যরকম সুন্দর। ভয়ঙ্কর সুন্দর ।

Moily has a clear brief but let’s not feign shock or awe

The rabid greens want to save everything. And nothing is enough for the growth hawk. They can curse or cheer the project clearance spree but neither benefits from their all-or-nothing battle

FirstPost, 12 January, 2013


Veerappa Moily: The "karma yogi"
Two weeks in the job. More than 65 infrastructure projects and investments worth at least Rs 80,000 crore cleared. The notification of Ecologically Sensitive Areas in 60,000 sq km of the Western Ghats across six states stalled indefinitely. A united sarkari stand cemented against the Supreme Court’s Technical Expert Committee report, clearing the decks for resuming field trials of Genetically Modified (GM) crops.

Since he relaxed clearance norms for certain industries, such as river sand mining, immediately after taking over the green ministry on 24 December last year, Veerappa Moily has not wavered from his brief. All in all, in less than a year, the Cabinet Committee on Investment (CCI) and the Project Monitoring Group in the Cabinet Secretariat of the UPA2 have pushed through at least 300 investments worth nearly Rs 6 lakh crore.

If India Inc is not cheering openly it is because the industry sees this surge — coming after nearly four years of so-called policy paralysis — as too late, if not little. Environmentalists and rights activists, however, hold that the CCI was set up to bypass laws to ensure summary clearances for big investments. They are naturally aghast at Moily’s tearing hurry.

Indeed, many of these clearances overrule the recommendations of various statutory bodies — the National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) in case of the Rs 3600-crore Teesta IV in Sikkim or the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) in case of the Rs 6100-crore Tawang II in Arunachal Pradesh. Others, such as the Rs 4000-crore Nellore port that has been cleared without the consent of 40,000 project-affected fishermen in Dugarajapatnam, violate livelihood or religious rights.

But truth be told, very few, if any, of these 300 mega projects would have passed the increasingly righteous green muster. For both growth and green hawks — and I dare say they rule this debate — it is an absurd game of all or nothing. The green lobby wants to save everything. And nothing suffices for the growth lobby. Since neither has any rational yardstick for success or failure, their shrill debate has long been reduced to a clash of two belief systems.

But India needs new roads, industries, mines, power plants, ports etc. Unless we demolish our houses or clear agricultural fields to make room for these, we have to build them where natural space is available. And wherever we build them — in forests, pastures, mountains, deserts or beaches — we will end up destroying natural ecosystems. Even wasteland, such as ravines, has its own biodiversity.

In the absence of a zero-loss scenario, the solution lies in maximizing the gain and minimizing the loss. The existing infrastructure must be milked to its capacity. Before asking for more power, the massive transition losses must be plugged. Before opening up new mines, the existing ones must be exhausted. And aspirations must be rationalized, too. Unbearable infrastructure boom eventually ends up in recurrent tragedies, like the deluge in the Uttarakhand hills.

But even a most reasonable demand for infrastructural growth will require conversion of more and more natural areas over time. While it is nobody’s guess how efficient our technology, or how frugal our needs, may become in the future to deal with increasing scarcity of land, water and other natural resources, it certainly makes both ecological and economic sense to save our best natural landscapes for, or till, the last.

To ensure that, we need to know which natural areas are invaluable; which can be compromised if we must; and which can be dispensed with to accommodate legitimate growth. At present, everybody is in the dark about these relative priorities of our natural assets. So, industries can be barred from ten times the area of a tiny, nondescript pocket forest because laws prescribe an ecologically sensitive ring around every sanctuary, while a critical wildlife corridor does not even come under any legal protection.

In fact, former environment minister Jairam Ramesh had prescribed a ‘go, no-go’ forest regime for coal mining but backed out in the face of the growth hawks in the cabinet. Then, last January, an expert MoEF panel proposed a mechanism for demarcating top-priority natural areas on a national grid of 1km x 1km units.

These included protected areas (PA) and a one-km-ring around PAs; compact patches of very dense forests; last remnants of forest types found in less than 50 sq km area in the entire country; areas located in direct draining catchment of important perennial streams that serve as water sources or feed hydropower projects; areas within 250 m of perennial rivers and important wetlands.

Remaining forested areas, the report said, would be scored on a scale of 100 against six  measurable parameters — forest type, biological richness, wildlife value, forest cover, landscape integrity and hydrological value — and an area with a score of 70 or above will be considered untouchable. Though this report was in the context of mining, similar exercises are a must to map the hydel carrying capacities of our rivers and so on.

The report was immediately shelved. Surprisingly, busy fighting battles wherever a project is proposed or opposed, the green and growth warriors also forgot about it. It is anybody’s guess why they failed to thrash out a consensus on the proposed parameters that, once accepted and applied on the ground by the government, would have drastically reduced the room for both sidestepping green laws and flagging trivial green objections.

The second flashpoint of this debate is the people’s consent under laws such as the Panchayat or the Forest Rights Act. Since unanimous verdicts — such as the rejection by 12 palli sabhas of Vedanta’s plans for mining bauxite in Odisha’s Niyamgiri hills — from the project-affected are rare, we need a set of clear yardsticks to determine what constitutes consent or lack thereof. But that discussion will require another article.

As it stands, rhetorical green-versus-growth debates undermine both ecology and economy. While it allows both groups to play victim, a coveted position in any ideological faceoff, it does make real victims of both. Unless the growth hawks are happy that they always have their way eventually — often through costly manipulation of the system after many years of delay — they will not seek much comfort in Moily’s clearance sale.

As for the greens, they can feel justifiably outraged that a number of decisions taken by the new minister brazenly overstep the due process of law. But that will have as much effect on him as it has had on his many predecessors. Unless the greens accept that everything is not defensible and demand of the proponents of growth that they sit with them to identify and defend together what indeed has to be defended.

When it is not all-or-nothing, there will be something in it for both.

The Hills Are Going Somewhere

One of the rarest repositories of biodiversity on earth and a key watershed, the rainforests of Western Ghats are scarred by mining, quarrying, polluting industries and land conversion. Yet, four years after an expert panel was set up to protect this natural wonder, India is dragging its feet over putting the plan into action. At stake are hundreds of unique species and the livelihood of millions.


(Courtesy - Getty Images)

Nearly half of Pathanamthitta, Kerala's newest district, is covered with evergreen and moist deciduous forests. A major pilgrim destination because of Sabarimala and other temples, its economy rests on agriculture, handloom and mining. The three major rivers of Pathanamthitta (literally rows of houses by the river) - Pampa, Achankovil and Manimala - descend from the Western Ghats, produce one-third of the state's electricity and are ravaged by illegal sand miners who operate in the night.

Not far from these riverbeds, stone quarrying - both legal and illegal - is gnawing away at the once-lush hills. There is money to be made in stone crushing and transport. And, as asthma and lung cancer cases go up, in the sale of drugs. The local economy is in tatters though. Landslides and choked streams are ruining agriculture. And the idle local farm labor has no place in the quarries that hire migrants from Jharkhand and Odisha, themselves victims of mindless mining at home, for measly wages.

It is to protect various models of this destructive economy that the governments of six Western Ghats states and the Center have been resisting recommendations from the experts to safeguard one of India's last remaining treasure troves of nature. The result is a loss of livelihood, health, water, forest, wildlife and biodiversity.

As Minister for Environment and Forests, Jayanthi Natarajan admitted to (some would say sought credit for) a higher green clearance rate than her predecessor Jairam Ramesh who, notwithstanding his frequent protestations, let nearly 99 percent of projects pass the scanner. Yet, their environmentalism was blamed for holding up projects worth Rs 10,000 crore. The Prime Minister himself repeatedly blamed the sluggish economy on the 'clearance raj', a euphemism for India's wildlife, forest and environmental laws.

The laws have not been annulled by Parliament yet. But attempts were afoot to bypass them pretty early on. Natarajan, to her credit, fought in 2012 the Finance Minister P Chidambaram's proposal of setting up a National Investment Approval Board (NIAB) under his ministry to unilaterally grant prompt one-window clearances to projects worth Rs 1,000 crore or more. As a compromise, the Cabinet Committee on Investment (CCI) was set up early in 2013 and the Prime Minister constituted a Project Monitoring Group to push big investment.

Things came to pass when Natarajan resisted the pressure to ease green clearance rules which were being routinely manipulated in their existing form. As far back as in October 2012, the Prime Minister's Office asked her to do away with "the necessity of public hearings for obtaining environment clearance (for coal mines) in cases where 25 percent expansion is required". Days before her ouster, Natarajan had a heated argument with Petroleum Minister Veerappa Moily at a CCI meeting over granting clearances to three pending projects in Tamil Nadu (by the Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited), Assam (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation) and Gujarat (Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation).

Moily stalled the report of a panel set up by his predecessor Jayanthi Natarajan. (Getty Images)

Impatient to boost the economy, the growth hawks in the UPA government were running out of time. When the Prime Minister's Office put Moily in charge of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) - setting aside objections about an obvious conflict of interest - on 24 December, its immediate agenda was to allow summary clearance of big infrastructure projects. But there was more.

Moily was to get the MoEF to agree to the government's position on genetically modified crops dictated by Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, whose home state Maharashtra has been awaiting a nod from the Supreme Court to start field trials. He was also asked to buy time for the governments in the six Western Ghats states that were wary of being encumbered by green regulations and foregoing development work (and irking the mining mafia) ahead of a general election.

Barely two weeks into his green avatar and Moily has already delivered on all counts.

* * *

The Western Ghats or the Sahyadri hills are the repository of life that predates dinosaurs. Identified by UNESCO as one of the world's eight most important biodiversity hotspots, these forested hills are the source of numerous rivers that feed the mightier Godavari, Krishna and Cauvery, among others. These rainforests are home to 325 globally threatened species and many still unknown to the world. Only two years ago, 12 new species of frogs were discovered here. Over 1800 species found in these hills are not found anywhere else in the world.

Loss of these hill forests will not only make thousands of unique life forms disappear from the face of the earth but also jeopardize the livelihood of many millions who depend on the rivers and streams fed by these rainforests for agriculture and fishery. Presciently enough, the Save Western Ghats Movement emerged in Maharashtra as early as the 1980s to save one of the country's four key watersheds.

But it took nearly 25 years and a Jairam Ramesh to set up an expert committee - the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) - in March 2010 under the ecologist Madhav Gadgil to chart a strategy for conserving these Ghats. Rapid development, particularly since Independence, had already scarred many of these evergreen hills. For all its ecological and economic importance, only 10 percent of the Western Ghats remains protected under law.

In fact, Ramesh saw the significance of these rainforests even before he set up the WGEEP. Accepting that the Western Ghats were as important an ecological system as the Himalayas, he said the Center would not "give sanction for mining and hydroelectric projects proposed by Maharashtra, Karnataka and Goa that will destroy this ecosystem."

By the time the Gadgil panel submitted its report in August 2011, Ramesh was already shunted out of the MoEF. The recommendations were too hot to handle for his successor Natarajan. She refused to make it public, denied applications under the Right to Information Act seeking the gist of Gadgil's recommendations, and even contested a Central Information Commission ruling at the Delhi High Court. Finally, after dithering for a year, the MoEF in August 2012 formed yet another panel - under Planning Commission member Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan - to examine the Gadgil report.

Kasturirangan submitted his report on April 17, 2013, identifying roughly 37 percent of the Western Ghats as Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA). Since Gadgil in his report had marked 60 percent of the Western Ghats as highest-priority Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZ), Kasturirangan was criticized by conservationists for compromising the cause.

However, Gadgil and Kasturirangan defined and demarcated the area of the Western Ghats differently. Going by forest types, Gadgil's measurement of the ghats came to 1,29,037 sq km, and he proposed to declare 60 percent of this landscape 'ESZ 1' - highest conservation priority. Kasturirangan adopted the criteria followed by the Plan panel and identified 1,64,280 sq km as the Western Ghats. He marked 37 percent of this stretch as ESA where hazardous industries, thermal plants or mines would not be allowed.  

As per Gadgil's specification, the ESZ-1 areas add up to approximately 77,000 sq km (60 percent of 1,29,037 sq km). Kasturirangan's ESA, on the other hand, accounts for around 60,000 sq km (37 percent of 1,64,280 sq km). However, this reduction of 17,000 sq km, which is roughly 10 percent of the entire Western Ghats landscape, is not the real difference between the two reports.

While proposing three ESZ areas - of high, moderate and low conservation priority - the Gadgil report sought to let the gram sabhas decide what sort of land use and local demarcations would best suit their livelihood and social interests. While the Kasturirangan report did stress on the livelihood needs of the people, its demarcation of the ESA did not make any room for people's participation or ground input.

In an article last month, Gadgil wrote, "Evidently, the Kasturirangan panel wishes to facilitate the continuance of the present system of a predatory economy, but was obliged to prescribe some minimal level of protection for natural resources. Quite typically, this protection is proposed to be imposed from above and is not decided upon through a democratic process. But even this minimal protection is unacceptable to the beneficiaries of the current system."

* * *

Ironically, the governments and the industries found even the watered-down prescription too bitter to swallow. Strong resistance from the state governments of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala was backed by a disinformation campaign that claimed farmers would lose their livelihoods and not get title deeds if ESAs were notified. 

Finally, under pressure from the National Green Tribunal to choose between the Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports, Natarajan in October 2013 accepted, in principle, the latter. Protests took a violent turn in Kerala with daylong strikes observed in several districts. The state even appointed its own committee to examine the Kasturirangan report. Last week, the Kerala panel concluded that villages and plantations be excluded from the proposed ESAs.

On November 13, the MoEF issued directions to the states under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, banning construction projects on areas of 20,000 sq m and above and other red-category polluting industries in the ESAs identified by Kasturirangan. While finalizing the ESA notification draft that called for no fresh mining leases and phasing out of existing mines within five years, Natarajan clarified only a day before she resigned on 21 December that nothing would affect land ownership rights or livelihood practices such as agriculture.

Like all stakeholders, the six state governments would also have the opportunity to give their opinion within a 60-day window if the draft ESA notification was put up for public consultation. But after that deadline, the government would have a take a call either way, presumably in March. 

Immediately after taking charge following Natarajan's resignation, Moily met Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy and Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan. The decision was to invite comments from the six state governments. By doing so before making the draft notification public and allowing five long months for the states to reply, Moily made sure that UPA II will not have to bite the bullet. 

What does that mean for the Western Ghats? Not much, if the status quo is maintained and no new projects are cleared till the new government at the Center takes a call. But, given the dash for a home run, holding up development is an unlikely option before the elections. Big projects, including the Athirappally and Gundia hydel plants, are long pending. And every delay is an opportunity for vested interests to take preemptive steps and maximize damage before ESAs are notified.

Ramesh, for one, has not given up yet and is batting for Gadgil. A week after Moily took over the green ministry, Ramesh underlined that the WGEEP report, the true roadmap for conserving the Western Ghats, was "hijacked by a few political voices who had a vested interest" and should be resurrected for a dispassionate debate after the Lok Sabha polls.

The hills may not be going anywhere, but time is not on our side.