NBWL approves SCCL proposal for merger of 11 coal mines in Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary's Eco-Sensitive Zone
V Nilesh | Hyderabad
Do officers of the Forest Department execute the duty of protecting forests, or do they just submit to the whims of their masters in the government? Like bureaucrats from other departments, they succumb to their masters' whims. I present to you one such recent example from Telangana.
The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life (NBWL) in its 66th meeting held on December 31, granted approval for a coal mining project of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL), 6-7 kilometers from the core area of Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary. The meetings' minutes were recently made public.
The NBWL approval permits the merger of 11 coal mines over an area of 3,296 Hectares (including 372 Hectares of forest land) - all of it located inside the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary.
The Sanctuary, a tiny 4 kilometer stretch on the Godavari river, covers an area of just 29 square kilometers but is home to various endangered species including Mugger Crocodile - its flagship species.
The SCCL is a Government coal mining company jointly owned by the Government of Telangana and Government of India on a 51:49 equity basis.
Without going into the debate of whether the NBWL approval is justified or not, let's see how the Telangana State Forest Department officers fail to adhere to the spirit of their duties and responsibilities.
When Foresters Speak the Language of Miners
Getting a clearance from the NBWL for taking up a project inside a Wildlife Sanctuary, National Park, or their Eco-Sensitive Zone involves site inspections by forest officers, evaluation of the project's potential impact on ecology, granting of approvals at various levels of the forest department, and plans by the project-proposer to mitigate the effects of the project.
As part of the process of evaluating the SCCL proposal inside the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary, some of the critical project evaluation criteria on which officers of the Telangana Forest Department had to submit their views were:
- Do you agree that the present proposal of diversion of NP/WLS (national park/wildlife sanctuary) area is the best or only option and is viable
- List the likely positive and negative impacts of the proposed project giving scientific and technical justification for each impact.
- Provide comprehensive details of the impact of the proposals in terms of Sections 29 and/or Section 35(6) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as the case may be
The Telangana forest officers who had to respond to these questions were the Forest Divisional Officer of Chennur and the District Forest Officer of Peddapalli. They simply copied SCCL's justification in support of mining and presented it as their own replies.
When Forest Department officers present arguments of a mining company as their own in support of mining inside Eco-Sensitive Zone of a Sanctuary, be sure, our future is doomed.
Look at the similarities in the reply by the Peddapalli DFO to the question "Do you agree that the present proposal of diversion of NP/WLS (national park/wildlife sanctuary) area is the best or only option and is viable" and the justification by SCCL in favor of its mining proposal.
| Reply by the Telangana State Forest Department officer |
| Justification by the SCCL for its project. |
Do you see the similarities between the two?
Here's another example of complacency by forest officers. Look at the replies by the Forest Divisional Officer of Chennur to questions seeking 'scientific and technical justification' and 'comprehensive details' on the impact of the mining project on the Sanctuary.
| Replies by Forest Divisional Officer of Chennur |
The Chennur forest officer mentions that the project area is located upstream of the Sanctuary, that a river (Godavari river) passes through the Sanctuary, and merely mentions the need for mitigation measures. Where are the 'scientific and technical details' behind the need for mitigation measures?
Moreover, how would the project impact its ecology, considering that it is located upstream of the Sanctuary?
Would pollution from mining cause damage downstream?
How harmful would that prove for the Sanctuary's mugger crocodiles?
Who is supposed to answer these questions, if not the Forest Department officers?
Past Records Don't Matter?
To Sum Up
1) Minutes of the 66th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wild Life
No comments:
Post a Comment