Rajasthan govt claimed no mining near Sariska but look at what’s happening

The Indian Express, 29 October, 2014

The Rajasthan government, which is arguing in the Supreme Court to reduce the safety zone limit around the Sariska tiger reserve from 1 km to 100 metres, told the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in June this year that there was no mining activity within 100 metres of the protected forests.

But a ground check by The Indian Express found a sprawling marble mining complex at the Dighota forest block of Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary, notified as the buffer zone of the tiger reserve.

Mining and polluting industries are prohibited in the buffer and eco-sensitive zone, an additional safety ring that may stretch to 10 km around protected forests.

While 881 sq km was notified as the core critical area of the Sariska tiger reserve in 2007, a buffer of 329 sq km was declared in 2012. Rajasthan proposed to notify Sariska’s eco-sensitive zone in 2011 by reducing the limit to 100 metres and the matter is being examined by the Supreme Court.

Security guards at the Sankotda cluster of marble mines near Andhi turned away The Indian Express and the lone forest employee, manning the Sankotda post barely 500 metres from the mines, said he could not say how far was the mining complex from the reserve boundary.

But photographs taken from a vantage point show that the quarries extend right up to the sanctuary boundary wall — complete with buildings, freshly-cut blocks of marble, trucks and heavy machinery.

In April, while hearing a petition against mines operating close to the tiger reserve, the NGT closed 84 mines within 1 km of Sariska following a submission by the forest department and ordered a joint ground survey with the mining department. In July, the ban was revoked after Rajasthan assured the tribunal that there was no mining within 100 metres of the tiger reserve.

“The 84 mining leases are not falling within the prohibited zones like core area and buffer area of Sariska tiger reserve or. the eco-sensitive zone as proposed by the state of Rajasthan to be notified as prohibited area,” B S Sodha, Superintending Mining Engineer “duly authorised by the state government” said in an affidavit on June 18.

When The Indian Express told Sodha that conditions on the ground were different from what was said in the affidavit, he declined comment.

Rakesh Kumar Hirat, Additional Director (Mines), Jaipur circle, put the onus on the forest department. “If mining is going on somewhere, it has to be within legal parameters. If not, it is for the forest department to find out and report violations,” he said.

Rahul Kumar, who heads the Rajasthan forest department, said Chief Wildlife Warden S N Singh would be “in a better position” to comment on the matter. Singh, in turn, said the Sariska reserve management should be asked about “alleged violations” around the reserve. “I don’t know if there was any joint survey of the location of these mines,” he said

The Sariska management refused to confirm if and when a joint survey was conducted before the state submitted its affidavit. “These areas have been surveyed several times. I cannot comment on the specifics of any particular block without checking but there is no question of mining activity within 100 metres of the tiger reserve,” Manoj Parashar, Deputy Field Director of Sariska, said.

R S Agarwal, Chairman of Jaipur-based Andhi Marbles Pvt Ltd that owns mines in Sankotda, denied any violation of rules. “Some mining areas may fall within 100 metres but there is a 7-feet-high barbed-wire fence (at 100-metre distance) that only Olympic jumpers can scale,” he said. On the ground though, no barbed-wire fence could be found.

In 2003, the Central Empowered Committee asked Rajasthan to demarcate the sanctuary boundary on the ground and closed the mines in Jamua Ramgarh. Most mines were back in business in 2008 when the state mining department claimed that the boundary had been demarcated. Quarries were allowed beyond 100 metres from the sanctuary. This was in violation of the 2006 Supreme Court order which banned mining within 1 km of sanctuaries.

SC panel slams Rajasthan govt, orders mining ban around Sariska

The Indian Express, 27 October, 2014

The central empowered committee of the Supreme Court has asked the Rajasthan government to immediately stop mining activities allowed around Sariska in “blatant violation” of the court’s orders and name the officers responsible so that “appropriate action” can be taken against them.
The decision to allow mining activities within one kilometre of the Sariska tiger reserve and Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary was taken at a meeting chaired by then acting chief secretary of Rajasthan C S Rajan on December 4, three days after the Assembly polls. “I do not recall that file. I can’t comment as I am not privy to the developments in this issue since last year,” Rajan told The Indian Express.

According to the forest department, there are 84 mines within one kilometre of Sariska tiger reserve and Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary.

While barring mining around national parks and sanctuaries, the SC, in its August 2006 order, ruled that as an interim measure a one-kilometre radius be maintained as a safety zone. This April, the apex court’s order in the Goa mining case made it clear that the 2006 order “has not been varied subsequently nor any orders made regarding Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary” and that “the order passed by this court saying that there will be no mining activity within one kilometre safety zone around national park or wildlife sanctuary has to be enforced”.

Referring to the two rulings, the SC panel sent a letter to the Rajasthan government on October 21, pointing out that the state, in blatant violation of the apex court’s directions, permitted mining close to national parks and sanctuaries by reducing the safety zone limit from one kilometre to 100 metres and sought the names of the officials who gave the go-ahead. A copy of the letter has been accessed by The Indian Express.

The effort to sidestep the SC’s 2006 order began in 2008 when the Rajasthan mines department referred to a 2003 communication of the central empowered committee that had recommended resumption of mining only after the boundary of Jamua Ramgarh sanctuary was demarcated on the ground. Claiming that the demarcation was complete, the state permitted mining outside the periphery of 100 metres of the sanctuary.

In 2011, when Rajasthan prepared a draft notification for eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) around its national parks and sanctuaries, it stuck to a 100-metre safety zone in the mining areas around Sariska. While the ESZ proposal has been under the SC’s consideration, the mining department, in January 2013, again referred to the 2003 CEC recommendation to justify allowing mining outside 100 metres of the sanctuary. However, a decision on the issue was put on hold in March 2013.

In December 2013, the government decided to withdraw the ban imposed by the state forest department in March 2012 and grant “consent to operate” to all mines falling beyond 100 metres of the sanctuary boundary. Other than Rajan, officials who cleared the decision included former chief secretary Rajiv Mehrishi, former mining secretary Sudhansh Pant and additional chief secretary (forest) O P Meena.

3 government agencies, NGO unite to save wildlife passages along Indo-Nepal border road

The Indian Express, 21 October, 2014

At a time when green clearances for border infrastructure projects are being fast-tracked, a strategic road on the Indo-Nepal border is set to go the extra mile to save forests and wildlife of the 810-km-long trans-boundary Terai Arc landscape.

The Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department have joined hands with the state Forest Department to draw up a conservation plan which involves elevating road stretches at 16 sites — a total of 31 km will be elevated — and realigning three stretches to secure wildlife movement between India and Nepal.

B D Sharma, Director General of the SSB, told The Indian Express: “We support conservation and share the collective concerns of the stakeholders.”

Sources said the proposed changes to the border road plan will increase the project cost by 20-30 per cent though the actual figure will be known only after the detailed project reports (DPRs) are finalised.

Conceived during the term of the first UPA government, the 961-km road from Uttarakhand to Bihar will connect all SSB border outposts. In 2010, the Ministry of Home Affairs cleared the 640-km UP stretch with a budget of Rs 1,621 crore.

Work is set to begin in 12 segments of the road that do not involve forest land. The remaining 16 segments cut through the Dudhwa national park, three sanctuaries and three forest divisions, home to a rich population of globally endangered wildlife including tigers, elephants, rhinos and swamp deer.

The original road alignment would have made it a physical barrier, blocking movement of animals. To avoid habitat fragmentation and delay in project implementation, all parties concerned — user SSB, builder PWD, regulator Forest Department and environmental groups WWF-India and WWF-Nepal — came together in 2013 to find a solution.

S P Saxena, Chief Engineer of the Uttar Pradesh PWD, said: “This road is a must for the country’s security and these forests and animals are our national asset. We have agreed on a set of measures though these will be expensive.”

Two options were considered for the passage of animals — an elevated road with underpasses for animals and a natural animal overpass mounted on the road. The SSB ruled out the second option as a security threat since this would have created tunnels.

The PWD then suggested the “substantially costlier” option of elevated roads with animal underpasses 6 metre high and 30 metre wide, spacious enough for elephants.

Avinash Chandra, IG, SSB Frontier HQ, Lucknow, said the SSB wanted smooth connectivity to all its border posts and that has been ensured while finalising the realignments.

Rupak De, Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttar Pradesh, said: “It was important for different interest groups to sit together and find a middle ground. We have to finalise site-specific details and then set up a joint monitoring committee to ensure compliance during construction.”

Dipankar Ghose, Director, Species and Landscapes, WWF-India, is cautiously optimistic: “The conservation benefits justify additional costs and we hope financial considerations will not come in the way of this landmark consensus.”

“Also, India is financing a similar road project in Nepal that will run close and almost parallel to this road. Unless the two governments come together to incorporate similar measures in that project, all the good work on the Indian side may not be enough to secure this landscape,” he said.

Officer hounded by both Congress and BJP gets CBI’s support

The Indian Express, 16 October, 2014

The CBI has sought permission of the Supreme Court to take over investigation into alleged violation of forest and wildlife laws in Haryana under the watch of the Bhupinder Singh Hooda government.

The probe agency has filed an affidavit to the effect while responding to a Supreme Court notice on a criminal writ petition filed in September 2012 by whistleblower Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an Indian Forest Service Officer who accused the Haryana government of harassing him for uncovering alleged forest scams running into crores of rupees.

“CBI herein seeks kind indulgence of this Hon’ble Court to pass necessary order qua the Respondent No 2 — CBI for taking over the investigation of the matter,” stated the affidavit filed on October 10 by Tarun Gauba, SP, CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Chandigarh. The matter will come up for hearing in the second week of November.

Now on deputation to the Union Health Ministry, Chaturvedi was removed recently as AIIMS Chief Vigilance Officer by Health Minister Harsh Vardhan. This came after BJP MP J P Nadda demanded his ouster. The row over his removal prompted Prime Minister Narendra Modi to seek a report from the Health Ministry.

Since 2007, Chaturvedi has locked horns with the Haryana government, raking up alleged cases of corruption and violation of laws. It took five years, two presidential interventions and an inquiry by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to revoke the suspension order and chargesheet that the state slapped on Chaturvedi.

In March 2012, the Centre recommended a CBI probe into the charges he had levelled.

But the state government, citing a note by the Department of Personnel and Training which stated that the Centre had no jurisdiction to intervene, said an inquiry conducted by the MoEF was “ultra vires of their powers and… devoid of any force of law”.

Chaturvedi moved the Supreme Court which sent notices to the Cabinet Secretariat, the state government and the CBI in November 2012.

By April 2013, the Centre and the state filed their affidavits, the former standing by its recommendation for a CBI probe, the latter opposing it. In a parallel move, the Haryana government moved the High Court this April, challenging the Centre’s jurisdiction.

UPA’s tribal panel red-flags policy, NDA keeps it under wraps

The Indian Express, 9 October, 2014

* Amend the new Land Acquisition Act to safeguard tribal land and disallow acquisition by a non-tribal, including private companies.

* Make gram sabha consent mandatory for acquisition of land, even by the government for its own use.

* Introduce penalties to prevent deliberate flouting of the Forest Rights Act, such as (through) exception to linear projects, and (through) decisions of the Cabinet Committee on Investment.

* Appoint a judicial commission to investigate cases of ‘Naxal offences’ filed against tribals and their supporters.

These are some of the key recommendations of the high-level committee constituted by the UPA to study the socio-economic, health and educational status of tribal communities, and to “identify areas of intervention by government” and “suggest policy initiatives”. The NDA government has been sitting on the report for four months now.

Set up in August 2013 in line with the Sachar Committee, the seven-member panel chaired by Virginius Xaxa, a member of the UPA’s National Advisory Council, submitted its report on May 29, three days after the Narendra Modi Cabinet took oath. Sources in the Ministry of Tribal Affairs said the report was forwarded to the Prime Minister’s Office in the second week of July and the PMO sent it back to the ministry in August.

Since then, the Tribal Affairs Ministry has been tightlipped about it. Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram told The Indian Express, which has accessed the report, that “the HLC (high-level committee) report is still under consideration”. He refused to say if his ministry had received any specific instruction from the PMO.

“When I met the minister in August, I was told the government was studying our report. I wrote to the ministry three weeks ago but I am yet to hear from them,” Xaxa said.

Tribal Affairs Secretary Hrushikesh Panda was the member-secretary of the Xaxa committee and contributed one chapter to the report. Dr Usha Ramanathan, Dr Joseph Bara, Dr K K Mishra, Dr Abhay Bang and Sunita Basant were the other members.

The government’s dilemma, say ministry sources, is over certain observations and recommendations in the report that challenge the policy push to clear bottlenecks and road blocks in land acquisition for development projects, mining, large dams etc.

The thrust of the panel’s recommendations:

Land acquisition

* Prevent all kinds of tribal land alienation and restore alienated land to tribal owners as per the PESA — Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act — and confirmatory Acts by states.

* Halt measures of institutions such as the Cabinet Committee on Investment that pursue priorities in direct breach of law.

* Limit exercise of ‘eminent domain’ and definition of ‘public purpose’.

* Review the practice of signing MoUs with companies, that takes away the neutrality of the State.

* Curb government agencies acquiring land to transfer it to private companies for “public purpose”. The public-private partnership mode is simply a backdoor method of alienating land in violation of the provision restricting transfer of tribal land to non-tribals in Scheduled Areas.

* Government officials should not be seen as negotiators on behalf of project authorities.

* Government must have the mandate to return unutilised tribal land with it or PSUs, or use the same for resettlement of displaced tribals. The suggestion of the Vijay Kelkar committee (2012) that “unutilised and underutilised land resources” be used for “raising resources” to “finance infrastructure needs” is against the purpose and intent of the land acquisition law.

* Stop forthwith the move to notify rural areas as urban areas in order to nullify PESA provisions.

Mining

* Amend the Coal-Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, to provide for return of land to original land holders post-mining.
* States must adopt the amended Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, to facilitate Registered Scheduled Tribe Cooperative Societies taking up mining activities. Minerals in Scheduled Areas should be exploited only by tribals.

Large dams

* Large dams have harmed tribals. Evolve strategy for water-harvesting structures on various small and large water sources, including big rivers.
* Development projects lead to influx of outsiders to tribal areas. Don’t allow reduction of areas declared Scheduled further.

Gram Sabhas

* Cases of consent of gram sabhas being fraudulently obtained should face penalties, and such projects should not be allowed to proceed.
* Gram sabhas should be empowered to restore alienated land pending a long legal battle, to discourage a prospective non-tribal buyer.
* Public policies should learn from the experience of Niyamgiri and adverse lessons of Salwa Judum.

Grassroots movements & Naxalism

* State should engage with grassroots movements against exploitation of tribals instead of crushing them.
* There is no legal basis for terming anything a “Naxal offence”. Many are charged in areas where there is resistance to projects, and the acquittal rate is “extraordinarily high”, leading to the belief that law is being used as a tool to suppress dissent. Appoint a judicial commission to investigate cases filed against tribals and their supporters.