There’s a gai in nilgai so BJP in a fix, both in Centre and state

The Indian Express, 19 November, 2014

When Vasundhara Raje visited Ranthambore early this year, she was confronted by angry farmers complaining about the large-scale destruction of their crop by herds of nilgai. The Chief Minister promised action, saying there were rules that clearly permitted culling in such cases. And yet, Asia’s biggest antelope remains a nagging headache for the BJP government — how do you cull an animal that has ‘gai’ (cow) as part of its name?

The state government has now approached the BJP-led NDA government at the Centre for an answer, putting Union Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar in a spot.

According to sources, Javadekar was ready to take action after Raje sought an order from the Centre on the issue during a meeting in New Delhi on November 24. But his advisors then pointed to the potential political fallout of allowing the culling of a species belonging to the bovine sub-family, and called nilgai, the sources added.

“Nilgais raiding crop has become a big problem in the state. It is a different animal but many call it a ‘gai’, there are sentiments involved. I am a Brahmin and killing any animal doesn’t feel right. So we are looking for a solution. Maybe the animals can be moved to areas away from crop land,” Rajasthan Forest Minister Rajkumar Rinwa told The Indian Express.

According to Section 11 of the Wildlife Protection Act, the Chief Wildlife Warden of a state is empowered to allow culling in such cases. Besides, an order was issued in the late 1990s by the then Congress government of Rajasthan, allowing the culling of wild animals considered pests under certain circumstances.

“Not a single nilgai was ever culled under the existing order because people want the Forest Department to do the dirty job. Most of the people are vegetarians and there is a religious angle. But the nilgai problem is present across the state and farmers petition the ministers and officials wherever they visit. The Chief Minister had recently approached the Centre on this matter but no fresh order has been issued,” O.P. Meena, Additional Chief Secretary, Forest and Wildlife, Rajasthan, told The Indian Express.

At the Centre, meanwhile, Javadekar too had received similar petitions from different parts of the country on animals that destroy crop. He had also briefed the ministry’s High Level Committee (HLC), headed by T.S.R. Subramanian, to address this issue in its report on key green laws.

Subsequently, the HLC report acknowledged that “there are some sentimental issues attached to these animals” but recommended that the MoEF issue a circular reminding the state governments of “the authority already vested in them” to allow culling when necessary.

Even earlier, in March 2012, the Ministry had issued an advisory for the management of nilgais for protecting crops in 14 affected states, including Rajasthan.

Neither Raje nor Javadekar responded to requests seeking comment.

Three firms that bought land from Vadra have records riddled with holes

The Indian Express, 11 December, 2014

Addresses that are either inaccurate or don’t exist, shareholders who cannot be traced or are clueless about the companies, a mismatch between what’s on paper and what’s on the ground — such discrepancies mark the land transactions between Robert Vadra’s firms and three of the four companies that bought nearly 200 hectares from him.

READ: In 3 years, Robert Vadra firms reaped up to 600 per cent profit in land deals

These three firms are all linked to Faridabad-based manufacturer of medical disposables Poly Medicure Ltd which is linked to the family of Congress leader and former Rajasthan Finance Minister, the late Chandan Mal Baid.

According to records, the three companies, Allegeny Finlease, Sachchiya Enterprises and VCB Trading, own 14.1%, 3.5% and 4%, respectively, in Poly Medicure. These companies, as first reported in The Indian Express on November 27, paid three to seven times the price at which Vadra companies were buying land in the same areas at around the same time.

Allegeny bought 69.5 hectares, Sachchiya 17.6 hectares and VCB Trading 53.8 hectares from the three Vadra companies Sky Light Hospitality, Sky Light Realty and Blue Breeze Trading in Bikaner’s Kolayat tehsil. The remaining land was bought by Mumbai-based PR Fonroche, a joint venture between PR Clean Energy and French Fonroche Energy.

Himanshu Baid is managing director and his father Jugal Kishore Baid is non-executive director of Poly Medicure. Jugal Kishore is the brother of the late Chandan Mal Baid. Himanshu Baid’s brother Vishal is president (sales & marketing) at Poly Medicure. While Vishal Baid owns VCB Trading with wife Shaily (65.45%, 34.55%), Allegeny and Sachchiya have 41 and 12 shareholders respectively.

The Indian Express found that none of the three companies exists at their registered addresses as mentioned in the Registrar of Companies (RoC) records. Consider the following:

Allegeny Finlease: One Risal Khan of Asaoti village, Faridabad, is one of the two directors of the company and signed the land deals with Vadra’s companies for Allegeny. When The Indian Express visited Khan’s house, he was away at work. His family and neighbours said he worked for Poly Medicure as manager.

At the Chittaranjan Park address of Allegeny in south Delhi is an office of Faridabad-based accountancy firm VRSK & Associates. VRSK partner Vineet Gupta directed queries to one Arvind (Gupta could not recall his last name) who he claimed dealt with the firm on behalf of Allegeny. He turned out to be the same Arvind named by Faridabad’s Narender Mittal & Co — auditors of VCB Trading — as the company’s point person  Arvind’s number went ‘out of service’ soon after he promised to get back with details of the company.

VCB Trading: Its Vasundhara Enclave address in Delhi till August 14, 2013 as per RoC records turned out to be the residence of one Sujit (he refused to share his last name), a marketing executive at Poly Medicure. He claimed he knew nothing about VCB Trading.

VCB Trading’s Jaipur address – B-64, Bais Godam – was traced to the office of Polycure Martech Limited which has three Baids – Vishal, Himanshu and Jugal Kishore – as directors.

One Kulvansh Singh of 58, Jagdamba Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, signed the land deals on behalf of VCB Trading. A visit to this address showed that Plot 58 is divided into three segments, two of which are vacant. The third has residents who said they have lived there for 10 years and don’t know any Kulvansh Singh.

Sachchiya Enterprises: There is no second floor in A-19, Industrial Estate at Bais Godam in Jaipur where it claims to have its office as per RoC records. Kamal Dugar, who owns 2.82% in Sachchiya and signed the Bikaner land deals for the company, could not be traced at either his 4, Gayatri Nagar or Plot No 13, Devi Nagar Extension, Road No 8 address in Jaipur.

There are more discrepancies when it comes to shareholder details in these three firms. The Indian Express investigated the addresses of six of the 12 shareholders in Sachchiya and 18 of the 41 shareholders of Allegeny.

Consider these:

* Four members of one Chowdhry family, owner of Al Karma Aluminium Private Limited, in Delhi’s Kirti Nagar, own stakes in Allegeny. “My brother Sachin, sister-in-law Bhawna and their two children (the four shareholders named in RoC records) are settled in the US since 1999. They rarely visit India. I have checked with my brother who has known Himanshu Baid for many years but he is not aware of this (Allegeny) company or their shareholding in it. Sachin is travelling now and will take this up with Baid,” said Sandeep Chowdhry, director, Al Karma Aluminium.

* Jaipur’s Soni family (Indra, Aarti, Subhash and Sheetal) owns 11.27% and 6.5% shares in Sachchiya and Finlease, respectively. But no Sonis were found at 9/107, Malviya Nagar, that they claimed as their Jaipur address.

* Lokesh Jain of 480, Kishanpole, Jaipur, also owns shares in both companies. This address was not traceable. While one shareholder, Ajit Singh Bhatia, of Allegeny listed a Manipur pin code (795004), another provided Udaipur’s code (313001) with their Jaipur addresses.

* Anju Agarwal and Shatrughan Sharma hold 21.12% of Sachchiya. Their common address — 22A, Nandpuri — could not be traced. Kamal Jeet Singh Sandhu, resident of 22, Nandpuri, was clueless about Agarwal and Sharma.

* Geeta Devi Agarwal of 34, Gayatri Nagar, Jaipur, owns 5.63% in Sachchiya. The Indian Express found one Geeta Devi at the address but her father’s/husband’s name (B S Agarwal) did not match with RoC records. Geeta Devi said she did not buy any land in Bikaner.

* Allegeny shareholders Bhabhi Bharti Joshi and Bikram Chand Purohit are listed at M15, New Market, Jaipur. Another stakeholder Manoj Purohit’s address is recorded as G37, New Market, Jaipur. There is no New Market in the city. All three addresses have Udaipur PIN (313001).

* Allegeny shareholder Bhagwan Sahai’s address is recorded as 17A, Suraj Vihar, Hawa Sadak. There is Suraj Nagar East and West but no Suraj Vihar in this Jaipur area.

*Two Kolkata companies Jai Tara Movie Private Limited and Arpan Agro Private Limited, own 8% and 6% shares, respectively, in Allegeny and both are recorded at S69, Raiser Plaza, Jaipur. The shop was closed and the board read B C Purohit and Co (Tax Consultant).

The phone number painted on the board was unavailable. Shiv Kumar Purohit, director of Jai Tara Movie, also owns shares in Allegeny. His address is G1/109 Kamal Apartment, Bani Park, Jaipur. Of the five Kamal apartments in Bani Park, only one has G1 but this has no flat no 109. The only Purohit here is one Kailash Purohit of Flat no 103. The security staff said he was from Kolkata and visited once in a while.

* Allegeny shareholder Dimpal Ravinder Singh’s address is recorded as House No 67, Sector 9, Faridabad. The house is owned by one Gupta who the tenants claimed is long settled in Mumbai. Neither the tenants who are staying here for over six years nor the neighbours could recall any Dimpal Ravinder Singh.

Don't meddle with forest rights, Tribal Affairs ministry tells MoEF

The Indian Express, 9 December, 2014

Following a strong letter from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) telling the Environment ministry (MoEF) that its orders violated the Forest Rights Act (FRA), the NDA government has shelved its plans to “rationalise” certain provisions of the FRA through executive orders.

On November 12, the MoTA wrote to the MoEF, asking it not to meddle with the FRA and withdraw its October 28 order that allowed district collectors to unilaterally clear diversion of forest land to expedite development projects.
Seeking withdrawal of the order, MoTA secretary Hrushikesh Panda in his letter to Ashok Lavasa, secretary, MoEF, pointed out that “though the Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal ministry of the FRA, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has been issuing advisories to the states relaxing certain provisions of FRA”.

Underlining that the FRA does not provide “any scope to any executive agency for any kind of relaxation” of the applicability of the Act, the MoTA said: “The letter of 28th October takes a short-cut, which can derail the projects completely… The FRA is the law of the land. The above letter violates the law.”

Soon after, Panda and Lavasa met on November 17 and the issues, it is learnt, were subsequently discussed between Jual Oram and Prakash Javadekar, the two ministers concerned. The MoEF, claimed sources in the ministry, was forced to accept the MoTA’s position and is working on a face-saver to modify its order.

The MoEF’s October 28 circular had given district collectors unilateral powers to sanction diversion of forest land in areas notified as forest after 1930, the cutoff date for forest rights, and with no record of tribal population as per Census 2001 and 2011. Under the FRA, tribals and other forest dwelling communities have traditional rights over forests and the power to decide, through gram sabhas, if they want to allow diversion of forest land.
In a veiled reference to the growing Left-wing extremism in the forested districts across India, the MoTA letter also pointed out: “The recent announcements… of the MoEFCC… have conveyed a message that the Government is against fair implementation of the FRA. This is not desirable in the interest of peace and governance in forest areas.”

Panda and Lavasa were unavailable for comments.

At an inter-ministerial meeting chaired by the MoEF secretary on September 25, the ministry proposed exclusion of forest land outside Schedule V (tribal-dominated) areas and those notified as forests after 1930 from the consent clause of the FRA.

In response, the MoTA wrote to the MoEF on October 21, pointing out that “no agency of the government has been vested with powers to exempt application of the act in portion or in full” and any alteration of an Act other than by an amendment passed in Parliament would not be legally tenable.

That did not stop the MoEF from issuing the October 28 order. Armed with the recommendation of the TSR Subramanian committee to exempt liner projects from gram sabha approvals, the government, it is learnt, now plans to bring an amendment bill in the Budget session of Parliament.

Don’t rush into field trials of GM crops:TSR panel

The Indian Express, 1 December, 2014

The government should exercise caution and seek “greater assurance” given the “potential for medium/long-term adverse affects through unprepared introduction of Genetically Modified (GM) food crops”, a high-level committee (HLC) chaired by T S R Subramanian has warned.

“I am not against GM crops but we need to take appropriate caution. All I am saying is that don’t take chances that you cannot undo,” Subramanian told The Indian Express. “Keep your eyes open and check carefully the possible consequences (of field trials) on our biodiversity. European countries are not allowing field trials and they are not idiots.”

Set up to review six green laws, the committee, in its 106-page report submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) earlier this month, recommended the use of latest technologies to prepare an environmental map of the country that will help assess project proposals objectively and quickly and effectively monitor compliance with conditions imposed for clearances.

But, on page 93, the report cautions that “while utilising science and technology, their limitations as well as the need for appropriate human intervention should not be lost sight of”.

It goes on to say: “The potential consequences of mindless use of science and technology could possibly be illustrated by referring to the potential for medium/long-term adverse affects through unprepared introduction of Genetically Modified (GM) food crops. While other Ministries naturally would aggressively push for early field trials and induction, the role of the MoEF & CC may have to be one of being a Devil’s Advocate to advise due caution.”

Pointing out that Europe does not permit field trials, the report warns that “the average Indian farm is of very small size (which could lead to severe adverse impact on biodiversity through gene-flow)” and that “there are no independent expert agencies in the country”.

Subramanian claimed that his panel sought to improve rather than merely maintain the environmental standards and biological assets of the country. The HLC report envisages a National Environmental Monitoring Authority (NEMA), a statutory body that will prepare an environmental map of the country incorporating details of forest cover, pollution, hydrology, wildlife protected areas, human settlement, eco-sensitive zones, pristine and fragile zones, etc. This, it says, will help lay down a unified, transparent and single-window process for project approvals.

“The mapping may take up to three years but will go a long way in effective environment management. The ground status has to be in the public domain to ensure transparency. Till then, the NEMA will evaluate project proposals case by case and we have recommended geo-referenced maps in 1/50,000 scale available with the Forest Survey of India for the purpose,” said Subramanian.

The committee also proposed the enactment of a new umbrella law — the Environment Law (Management) Act (ELMA) — under which a new appellate board under a retired high court judge will hear appeals related to project clearances. While decisions of this board can be challenged at the National Green Tribunal, the latter will not be able to examine the technical aspects of any project clearance.

“Once something reaches court, it often takes up to five years to get any decision. What we have proposed is based on transparency and the principal of utmost good faith. For any violation, there will be heavy penalties under the ELMA. These cases will be heard at Special Environmental Courts to be set up in every district. Anyone is free to challenge the decisions of these courts in high courts and subsequently in the SC,” said Subramanian.

Centre notifies royalty slabs for biological resources

The Indian Express, 29 Nov, 2014

The government has notified the guidelines for sharing access and benefit arising from use of biological resources on November 21, four days after The Indian Express reported how the environment ministry was sitting on it for over three months.

It took the National Biodiversity Authority six years, 18 drafts and a prod from the National Green Tribunal to finalise the Guidelines for Access and Benefit Sharing this August.

The benefit-sharing slabs for companies are 0.1 per cent, 0.2 per cent and 0.5 per cent on annual ex-factory gross sales of a product, depending on if the sales are less than Rs 1 crore, between Rs 1-3 crore and above Rs 3 crore, respectively.

Fair and equitable sharing of benefits accrued from utilisation of genetic resources is a key objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted in June 1992 and ratified by 194 countries, including India. In compliance with the CBD, the Biological Diversity Act was passed in 2002 and the Biological Diversity Rules followed in 2004. It took another 10 years for the country to notify the guidelines for the quantum of revenue companies need to share, under the Act, with local communities and for biodiversity conservation.

A wide range of industries — biotech, pharma, forestry, herbal, sugar, distilleries, food processing, soya, textile, fisheries, sericulture etc — use biological resources. Globally, the potential value of biological diversity and genetic resources is pegged at around $1 trillion. India can collect an estimated Rs 20,000-25,000 crore annually as benefit under the notified guidelines. This money would go to the National and State Biodiversity Funds and to communities from whom such resources or knowledge have been accessed by the companies.