Cotton Seed Units Pollute Farmlands in Gadwal For Years, NGT Orders Telangana PCB To Retrieve Rs 1.3 crore Environmental Compensation

Cotton ginning and seed processing discharge industrial effluents and hazardous waste in agricultural fields for years in Jogulamba Gadwal district of Telangana

Polluting units directed by the National Green Tribunal to pay around Rs 1.3 crore Environmental Compensation 

V. Nilesh | Hyderabad 

More than Rs One crore Environmental Compensation is to be paid by 17 cotton ginning and seed processing units in Jogulamba Gadwal district of Telangana, for violation of environmental laws that continued with impunity for years. 

The cotton ginning and seed processing units discharged untreated industrial effluents and hazardous waste into the nearby agricultural farms, destroying the environment by turning the soil and groundwater acidic in the region. 

The issue came to light after P Madhusudhan Reddy of Vitalapuram village, Maldakal mandal of Jogulamba Gadwal district petitioned the National Green Tribunal seeking action against the polluting cotton ginning and seed processing units. 

Reddy had alleged that the cotton ginning and seed processing units use chemicals such as Sulphuric acid but don't process the effluents as per government norms and discharge the untreated effluents in agricultural fields. 

Reddy also raised an issue with permission granted by Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TSPCB) to the cotton ginning and seed processing units, allowing them to transport and get their effluents treated 300 kilometers away at the Jeedimetla Common Effluent Treatment Plant. 

Following the petition, the NGT set up a Joint Committee of experts to conduct an investigation into the allegations against the cotton ginning and seed processing units. 

Environmental violations observed by the Joint Committee during their inspections include: 

• Around Rs 1.3 crore levied as Environmental Compensation by the TSPCB on 17 cotton ginning and seed processing units is yet to be paid. 
  
  
• None of the units were found to be sending their effluents to the Jeedimetla CETP for treatment and more than 60 percent of the effluents generated by the units were just being discharged into agricultural lands. 
  
  
• Lagoons of acidic effluents with pH values as low as 1.29 were found abutting the compound walls of one of the units. One of the units had been storing the effluents in tanks for more than nine months rather than getting them immediately treated at the Jeedimetla CETP. 
  
  
• Few of the companies were found to be operating without a valid Consent for Operation(CFO) from the TSPCB for more than 1-2 years. 
  
  
• The industries were not maintaining any records for generation and disposal of used oil to authorized user /recycler as per the Hazardous & other wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. 
  
  
• While all the cotton ginning and seed processing units employed 40-50 workers, none of them provided basic toilet facilities for the workers. 
  
  

The Joint Committee in its report presented to the NGT recommended that all the cotton ginning and seed processing units must pay the Environmental Compensation levied on them by TSPCB for violation of environmental norms. 

Passing its order on the matter earlier this month, on February 3, the NGT directed that the polluting cotton ginning and seed processing units must pay the Environmental Compensation within 15 days, and take up all corrective steps prescribed by the Joint Committee to stop further pollution. 

The NGT also directed TSPCB to take action against the units that do not remit the environmental compensation, by initiating the proceedings for recovery of the same through District Collector by invoking Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. It further directed that the Environmental Compensation recovered from the polluting units must be utilized by TSPCB for the purpose of protecting the environment in that region, by preparing an action plan in coordination with the District Collector. 

Ends/ 

References:

1) Find the judgment copy of this NGT petition here.

When Foresters Speak The Language Of Miners

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?

The Minutes of Meeting of the NBWL Standing Committee that approved the SCCL proposal near Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary mentions that the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWW) of Telangana (who is also the state's Principal Chief Conservator of Forests) "...informed the  Standing Committee that the area where the mines are located is far from  Siwaram Sanctuary and also from  Pranahita  Sanctuary,  which is a  blackbuck habitat. She  said  that  the  proposed  activity  would  not  lead  to  any  loss  of habitat  or  grazing  area  and  that  the  required  mitigation  measures  are  in place."

The NBWL Standing Committee was happy with the explanation and other paraphernalia presented by the CWW, promising that the project would have no impact on the Sanctuary, and granted its approval. 

Surprisingly, the NBWL Standing Committee did not discuss Siwaram Wildlife Sanctuary's performance in the Management Effectiveness Evaluation survey by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change. The Sanctuary was ranked 19th among 37 Wildlife Sanctuaries, and National Parks evaluated in South India, scoring 64.17 percent. 

The MEE report highlighted the lack of food availability for crocodiles in the Sanctuary due to extensive fishing and other anthropogenic threats from being surrounded by agricultural fields. The NBWL Standing Committee didn't see any discussion if these matters had been mitigated. 

To Sum Up

The government has increased public transparency in Environmental, Forest, and Wildlife Clearances. Looking at the various documents available in the public domain, we can see that although the set procedures are being followed, neither the Project Proponents nor Forest Department officers adhere to the spirit of the process. Instead, Forest Department officers have clearly become facilitators of clearances for industries. 

Ends/ 

References - Find documents mentioned in the blog here:

1) Minutes of the 66th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wild Life

2) Documents related to SCCL's proposal of merging 11 coal mines

3) Replies given by the Telangana State Forest Department officials, mentioned in the blog. 

3) Management Effectiveness Evaluation of National Parks & Wildlife Sanctuaries in India 2018-2019.