11 environmental disasters Narendra Modi blessed in his first 100 days

QUARTZ, 26 August, 2014

We get it: India reposed faith in a leader who promised achhe din–”good times,” good governance, transparency, development, jobs, jobs, jobs.

Now nobody can argue that prime minister Narendra Modi does not mean business. So his government has gone about eliminating the policy paralyses that many claimed ailed the previous regime. This meant dismantling roadblocks that hamper economic growth. But what also happens to be under fire: laws and rules that safeguard India’s environment, forests, wildlife, and tribal rights.

Consider what all the new government has achieved (or undermined, depending on which side of the growth-versus-green debate one stands) in just about three months:

• Environmental and forest clearances have been delinked to allow work on linear projects, such as highways, on non-forest land without waiting for approvals for the stretches that require forest land. Defence projects get priority along China borders up to 100km from the Line of Actual Control in the sensitive eco zones of the higher Himalayas. The government has decided to soften some rules in the Forest Rights Act and Forest Conservation Act to step up economic activities in Naxal-affected states which account for some of the country’s best forests and the majority of our tribal population.
• The height of the Narmada dam will be raised. Irrigation projects requiring 2,000-10,000 hectares are now exempt from the scrutiny of the Centre and can be cleared by state governments. Those requiring less than 2,000 hectares will require no green clearance at all. Separation of power generation components from irrigation projects has allowed promoters to project smaller requirement of land, making clearance easier.
• Changes in the pollution classification now allow mid-sized polluting industries to operate within five km of national parks and sanctuaries (instead of the 10-km restrictive limit ordered by the Supreme Court).
• Ban lifted on new industries in critically polluted industrial areas, such as Gujarat’s Vapi. Pollution index-based moratoriums were lifted and a review of the index has been ordered. Norms for coal tar processing, sand mining, paper pulp industries, etc. were eased.
• National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) reconstituted by slashing the number of independent members from 15 to just three. This truncated NBWL cleared most of the 140 projects before it on August 12. On August 25, the Supreme Court questioned the Centre’s move, ruling that “any decision taken by it (NBWL) shall not be given effect to till further orders”.
• The process of reviewing the National Green Tribunal Act to reduce the judicial tribunal to an administrative one has been initiated. Headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or a high court chief justice, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) hears all first challenges to environmental and forest clearances. “Laws keep changing,” Modi’s environment minister Prakash Javadekar has famously justified.
• The new government has also diluted the Forest Rights Act that requires the consent of the local tribal population for diverting forestland. Instead of gram sabhas (village councils) certifying that their rights had been settled and that they had consented to projects, the district administrations have now been asked to do the same. This exercise must be completed in 60 days, irrespective of the number of project-affected villages or the complication of the process. Moreover, prospecting for minerals in forests are now exempt from having to acquire the consent of local gram sabhas or settling tribal rights.
• No public hearing for coal mines below 16 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) that want to increase output by up to 50% and those above 16 mtpa wanting to expand by up to five mtpa. Instead of individual clearances, now mines can seek approvals in clusters.
• To turn the clock back, the new government is considering as many as 19 amendments to the new Land Acquisition Act. These include dilution of the local consent requirement for public-private-partnership projects, removal of the social impact assessment requirement, delinking compensation for land from market value, relaxing the time limit for completing acquisition, not returning unutilised lands to the original owners, giving states overriding discretionary powers, etc.
• The Ken-Betwa river-linking project that will drown more than 40 sq km of the Panna tiger reserve has been revived.
• The new government also approved field trials of 21 genetically modified (GM) crops, including rice, wheat and maize (beforeputting it on hold under pressure from the RSS).

To be fair, the process of undermining green concerns to facilitate unbridled growth was initiated by the previous regime. For whatever little ground he stood, the rhetorical Jairam Ramesh was kicked out of the environment ministry and even his more pliant successor Jayanthi Natarajan had to make way soon for Veerappa Moily. The oil minister cleared more than 100 big-ticket projects during his short stint at the environment ministry. With Modi watching over his shoulders, Javadekar has already eclipsed Moily’s grand feat, in less than three months.

1

The prime minister, of course, has the mandate. He won on the promise of nationwide development along the lines of the Gujarat model. As the Yamuna in Delhi or the Ganga in Varanasi gets artificial facelifts like the Sabarmati in Ahmedabad, one could possibly blame ignorance for selling concrete riverfronts as the cure for choking rivers. But for good times’ sake, will India be able to rationalize embracing Vapi—among the world’s most polluted places—as the model of growth?

CIC prods PMO on Haryana whistleblower’s case

For two years, state govt has been citing a DoPT note to stall CBI probe into forest scams. IFS officer seeks info.

The Indian Express, 8 August, 2014

For more than two years, the Haryana government has been citing a note issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to prevent a CBI probe into multi-crore forestry scams and other illegalities, allegations that go all the way up to Chief Minister B S Hooda’s office.

After IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi, who blew the whistle on the scams, moved the Central Information Commission (CIC) with questions on the note and its legality, the CIC on May 20 set the PMO a seven-day deadline to come clean on the note. On July 30, the CIC issued a notice to the PMO for noncompliance of that order.

The note contends that the Centre has no jurisdiction to intervene if states violate central Acts or harass whistleblowers belonging to the All India Services and, therefore, an inquiry conducted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests was “ultra vires of their powers and.devoid of any force of law”.

The MoEF had conducted its inquiry in 2010. In December 2011, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) advised the MoEF “to take up the matter of registration of FIR with the state government and subsequent transfer of the case to the CBI”, confirming that the agency was ready to probe the cases.

Earlier in 2011, Chaturvedi wrote to the PMO seeking a CBI probe. The file was referred to the DoPT, which in February 2012 wrote the confidential note to the PMO.

On the CVC’s prodding, when the MoEF asked Haryana in March 2012 to file FIRs and entrust the matter to the CBI, the state government used the note to stonewall the ministry and counter the opposition in the assembly. The note has remained the state’s key defence since Chaturvedi moved the Supreme Court in November 2012 seeking a CBI probe. Then, in April 2014, the Hooda government moved the high court against the Centre on the strength of the same note, questioning the MoEF’s authority to probe such matters.

While the confidential note was meant for the PMO, M M Joshi, a serving IFS officer in Haryana and a prime accused in the scams and violations, filed an RTI application a week after it was issued. In three working days, the DoPT handed Joshi the note, which was third-party information, without inviting objections from Chaturvedi, which is mandatory under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
Armed with the note, Joshi moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against the whistleblower in March 2012. The DoPT was made a party in the case but it did not submit its opinion in the tribunal. After one-and-a-half years, the case was dismissed in August 2013 by the principal bench of the CAT.

The delay

When Chaturvedi challenged the legality of the note, the PMO in May 2012 asked DoPT for a clarification. It took 17 months and six reminders before the DoPT defended the note in September 2013 while admitting that the Department of Legal Affairs did not “specifically comment” on the key issue of the Centre’s jurisdiction.

The PMO wrote back, asking for specific comments on the legality of the MoEF inquiry and the recommendation for a CBI probe. Ten months on, the DoPT is yet to reply. Contacted repeatedly, Dr Jitendra Singh, MoS, DoPT, refused to explain the delay.

In October 2013, Chaturvedi filed an application under the RTI Act, seeking the minutes of the meetings between the PMO and DoPT officials and action-taken reports on his case so that he could initiate legal proceedings against the officials concerned for “manufacturing and leaking a blatantly anti-constitutional opinion”. He also sought to know if the DoPT note was approved by the cabinet minister concerned (prime minister himself).

The First Appellate Authority directed that the information be provided to Chaturvedi by November 25, 2013. Instead, the PMO wrote to the MoEF that the PMO “cannot enter into a communication with individual members of the services” and that the MoEF should take suitable action against the officer for any “further breach of established procedure”.

Chaturvedi wrote again to the prime minister in March 2014, before approaching the CIC. On May 20, chief information commissioner Sushma Singh ruled that the information sought under the RTI was “disclosable” and set a week’s deadline. The new government took over on May 26 but the PMO maintained its silence. Two months on, the Commission issued the latest notice, asking the PMO to furnish a compliance report within three weeks.

While UPA-2 dragged its feet, a number of MPs including the CPM’s Basudeb Acharia and the BJP’s Rama Devi wrote to then prime minister Manmohan Singh for a CBI probe. Last month, it was BJP MP and the party’s national executive member Udit Raj’s turn to write to Dr Jitender Singh. Pointing out that “the officers who manufactured this anti-constitutional opinion under political pressure are still continuing in your department”, Raj urged the minister to ensure that “the said opinion is withdrawn” and “accountability is fixed.for its unauthorised leakage”.

Chaturvedi refused to comment. Since 2007, he has been at the receiving end after raising several allegations  of corruption and violation of laws. It took seven years, four presidential interventions and an MoEF inquiry to revoke the suspension order and chargesheet slapped on Chaturvedi by the state. In 2012, he moved out of Haryana on a deputation to the health ministry.

Moily flagged MoEF Secy’s ‘self-posting’ as NBA chairman, Javadekar clears it

Moily proposed, then disposed citing conflict of interest

The Indian Express, 5 August, 2014

Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar has cleared the appointment of Union Environment Secretary Dr V Rajagopalan as chairman of the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) even though his predecessor M Veerappa Moily had flagged conflict of interest in the selection process, whereby Rajagopalan virtually oversaw his own appointment.

A 1978-batch IAS officer of Uttar Pradesh cadre, Dr Rajagopalan belongs to Tamil Nadu and is due to retire on August 31. The NBA is based in Chennai and its chairman’s post is of the rank of secretary to the Government of India.

Having initially approved Dr Rajagopalan’s selection as the next NBA chairman on May 5, Moily had called the file back. His detailed file noting (which has been accessed by The Indian Express) dated May 15 raised four key objections:

As per DoPT rules, the search-and-selection committee should have recommended a panel of names for selection to the government. Instead, it recommended, without citing any reason, only Dr Rajagopalan’s name for the job. Seven out of 38 applicants were interviewed by the selection panel.

* As per the provisions of the Biodiversity Act 2002, the post of the NBA chairman should be occupied by a person of eminence who is an expert in the field and merely being a retired bureaucrat may not fit the bill. For the record, Dr Rajagopalan is an MTech from IIT Madras and a PhD on air pollution modelling from Lucknow University.

* Certain changes were made in the eligibility criteria to favour retired government officials. The advertisement seeking applications for the post of NBA chairman issued on October 4, 2013, demanded “30 years of experience in dealing with issues of science and social sciences, with at least 5 years of experience of working in the central/ state government at senior level including heading government institutions”. The ministry’s 2011 advertisement for the same post asked for 20-25 years of experience.

* Although then environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan had wanted a panel of names for the chairman of the search-and-selection committee, Dr Rajagopalan later suggested Dr K Kasturirangan’s name to Moily and got it approved. “However, at that time, I was not aware that the Secretary himself will be one of the applicants,” wrote Moily on the file. “Therefore, completion of the selection process with the Secretary at the helm of the affairs has created a situation of conflict of interest. I feel the whole issue should be reviewed and a fresh process for appointment maybe initiated.”

Both Javadekar and Dr Rajagopalan did not respond to emails and phone calls.

Following Javadekar’s approval, Dr Rajagopalan’s selection as NBA chairman is now awaiting the nod of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, now comprising the Prime Minister and Home Minister.

Last October, the ministry had raised eyebrows by seeking applications for the NBA chairman’s post 10 months before the incumbent was to demit office. However, Dr Balakrishna Pisupati, the only expert on genetics (plant biotechnology) to have ever been appointed as NBA chairman, resigned in February. Sources claim Dr Pisupati was under pressure to step down before his three-year tenure ended this August. Hem Pande, additional secretary, MoEF, is holding temporary charge as NBA chairman till August 11.

The selection committee shortlisted seven out of 38 applicants on April 1 and interviewed them on April 29. “While all major decisions were on hold due to the model code of conduct during the Lok Sabha polls, these meetings were conducted with exceptional urgency,” recalled a senior MoEF official who refused to be named.

The NBA is an autonomous body formed in 2003 under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, to regulate and advise the government on matters of conservation, sustainable use of biological resources and fair, equitable sharing of benefits.

Now, accidents rival poaching as key threat to leopards in India

Figures from Karnataka show that for every three leopards poached, two come under vehicular traffic. And few of these killer roads pass through sanctuaries or national parks.

FirstPost, 2 August, 2014

While reptiles and amphibians are the most affected by traffic,
the risk to slow-breeding large mammals are often much bigger.
Image: HS Basavanna

Poaching, destruction of habitat and revenge killing by farmers and herdsmen are the major threats our wildlife face across the country. Now add to these another growing menace: roads and railway tracks. In the past five years, 25 leopards were mowed down by road and rail traffic in Karnataka alone. This by no means is a negligible number when compared to the number of confirmed poaching cases in the state during the same period – 41 leopard pelts have been seized in Karnataka since January 2009.

Of course, the actual number of leopards poached would be higher as for every pelt seized at least another escapes the enforcement agencies. But then, not all leopards hit by vehicles or trains are reported or found either. Many limp away, severely injured, to adjacent forest patches and die a painful death afterwards.

A paper in the spring issue of IUCN’s Cat News by researchers from Mysore-based Nature Conservation Society and New York-based Panthera pointed out that massive expansion of road and railways in the last two decades not only fragmented several ecologically important areas in India but also increased the risk of direct mortalities of wildlife due to collisions with vehicles.

“While small roads with low-volume traffic are being converted into busy high-speed highways, new roads are opening up remote locations. Besides, India has seen a rapid growth of motor vehicles at a compound annual rate of 10.5% during 2002-2012,” says Sanjay Gubbi, the lead author of the report.

In 2012, Gubbi was among the researchers who studied the impact of vehicular traffic on the use of highway edges by large animals in Nagarhole and Bandipur tiger reserves. He observed high road mortality of chital, sambar, mouse deer, black-naped hare and small Indian civet, particularly when night traffic movement was unrestricted. Bonnet macaques and langurs are two other common victims of road accidents.

Earlier, in 2010, a study from Mudumalai tiger reserve reported road mortality of 40 species, including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. In 2007, another study reported 21 reptile species found as roadkill near Kaziranga national park. While reptiles and amphibians are the most affected by traffic, the risk to slow-breeding large mammals are often much bigger.

The most significant finding of the recent study published in Cat News is that 19 out of 25 leopards died on road stretches that were outside sanctuaries or national parks. This underlines the presence of leopards in multiple-use and human dominated areas. Yet, few roads outside protected forests factor in the risk vehicular traffic poses to wildlife or care to undertake mitigation measures such as constructing underpasses etc.

19  of 25 leopards die on road stretches outside sanctuaries
or national parks, according to a study. Image: Halli Suresh

The National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016) prescribes regulations and mitigation measures which are rarely implemented on the ground. Road width, traffic speed and volume determine the chances of successful wildlife crossing. The risk of damage increases after sundown when wild animals are more active. But there have been few attempts to study the impact of roads on wildlife in India.

“In the global context, road ecology studies and Environment Impact Assessments generally prescribe mitigation measures, including slowing traffic speed, providing wildlife crossing structures and increasing driver awareness,” the study says. In the Indian context, where protected forests are typically small (less than 300 sq km), it also recommends realignment of roads to avoid fragmenting wildlife rich areas.

In a background paper to the National Board for Wildlife in 2011, TR Shankar Raman of Nature Conservation Foundation outlined the parameters for framing ecologically sound policies on linear projects affecting wildlife habitats. While analysing the impact of highways, railways, transmission lines, irrigation canals etc, Raman recommended a four-pronged strategy of prevention, restoration, realignment and mitigation. Probably, it was not convenient enough for the ministry to implement.

In 2009, a review of 79 studies that covered 131 species found that the number of documented negative effects of roads on animal abundance were five times the number of positive effects. Large mammals were predominantly affected. The review concluded that the evidence for adverse effects of roads and traffic on entire populations of species was strong enough to merit routine consideration of mitigation measures in all road construction and maintenance projects.

Carnivores are anyway relatively fewer and with big cat numbers sliding, the figures from Karnataka paint a scary picture. This should serve as baseline data on leopard road kills. But the paper cautions that rapid expansion of physical infrastructure may not allow time to fully assess its impacts through long-term monitoring. The solution is to opt for mitigation even “where data are sparse as it is invariably harder to reverse the damages caused by these permanent structures than to prevent them.”

“There is no alternative for ecologically sound and economically viable conservation planning. We cannot avoid investing in mitigation measures that safeguards the wildlife,” says Gubbi. Given that bulk of road fatalities for the leopard occur outside sanctuaries, we need to provide for safe passage wherever these animals are present, including urban stretches such as Bangalore and Gurgaon, so that the spotted cat does not have to pay for its amazing adaptability that allows it to live among us.

Terrace farming drive, construction boom to blame for Pune landslide

BBC, 31 July, 2014

Environmental experts are blaming the flattening of hilly slopes for agriculture and a construction boom for Wednesday morning's landslide that has claimed at least 30 lives and buried up to 200 people in the western Indian state of Maharashtra.

The mostly tribal population in these regions has traditionally grown a single crop of rice or finger millet, but in recent years the focus has shifted to wheat cultivation, says Saili Palande-Datar, an environmentalist with Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group.

This, she says, has necessitated flattening of larger areas, including steep slopes "which is obviously risky".

Malin village, the site of the disaster, is located close to the backwaters of the Dimbhe dam, constructed a decade ago, and experts say areas adjoining backwaters of dams are usually landslide-prone.

"The role of the dam needs to be investigated," says Parineeta Dandekar, associate coordinator at South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People.

But she adds that "as a policy, the government is helping expansion of areas under traditional padkai (terrace farming) in the tribal belts. Earlier, the tribals used stones to support terraces, but these days big machines are used to level the ground. The presence of loose mud and absence of any reinforcement or water channels is a recipe for disaster."

Rampant construction activity is threatening the ecology of hilly areas near Pune

In recent past, the region has witnessed several flash floods and landslides.

Between 2006 and 2007, landslides hit Siddhagadwadi and Saharmach villages, burying more than 100 cattle. And last year, a flash flood caused by an illegal construction boom in Katraj hills outside Pune swept away several cars and killed two people, including a child.

Critics say massive road and real estate projects in the area have also made the region unstable.

"Hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest land has been cleared since 2007. Often, plots of encroached land are sold to builders for constructing housing complexes," says Kishore Rithe, a member of the Maharashtra state wildlife board and a conservation expert.

"The other menace is construction or widening of roads where mud is simply pushed down the slope. This chokes water channels and destroys vegetation that holds the soil together," he adds.

A massive anti-encroachment drive by the Pune district administration in 2011 failed to rein in the errant builders.

Environmental activists say that unless the wanton destruction of this ecologically fragile area is stopped immediately, the region will continue to face disasters similar to what happened in Malin.