Letter to Minister, E and F

To 

Smt Jayanthi Natarajan  


The Minister of State (Independent Charge)


Ministry of Environment and Forests 


Government of India


Date: 25^th September,2011

Hon’ble Minister,

Re: National Board of Wildlife

We, the non-official members of the National Board of Wildlife would like to begin by congratulating you on assuming charge of the Ministry.

As you are aware the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife (NBWL), under your chairmanship, is an important statutory body under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, for the purpose of conservation of wildlife in the country.  Section 5C of the Act provides that it shall be the duty of the NBWL to promote the conservation and development of wildlife and forests by such measures as it thinks fit. Since the powers and functions of NBWL have been delegated to the Standing Committee, for all practical purposes, the Standing Committee has, therefore, been entrusted with the powers and duties of the NBWL.

As Chair of the Standing Committee, we would respectfully like to draw your attention to some serious concerns regarding the mandate and functioning of the board: 

Standing Committee decision making is flawed:  

Protected Areas are the last refuges of many endangered and endemic species, and of our biodiversity, and as we well know they are already stressed and fragmented.   Many of the proposals require clearances that adversely impact these habitats, thereby further endangering wildlife. Yet, the usual practice is to place a large number of proposals -including large projects like dams, highways, mines - in a single meeting of the Standing Committee, and its members are expected to decide their fate in the space of just an hour or two.

Unfortunately, during the recent past, the role of the Standing Committee has been merely limited to that of a clearing-house. The last meeting of the Committee held on 25th April 2011 is a striking example of this, where 59 proposals for diversion from PAs or areas adjoining PAs were considered and most of them, barring a few, were cleared in just a short span of two hours. This has caused immense concern amongst the non-official members and invited criticism, even from the media.

Yet another fact of the same meeting was that 39 clearance proposals were received only two days prior to the meeting leaving very little time, and no working day, for the members to even glance through the proposals. Even more so, the information provided by the states was incomplete, misleading and attuned for fast track clearances.

Such practices make a mockery of the role of the Standing Committee of the NBWL. Clearing or rejecting such a large number of proposals in such a short time span also signifies a lack of proper consideration and can lead to legal complications in case any decisions of the Standing Committee are challenged in courts.

While the Standing Committee of NBWL cannot do away with discussing the various developmental projects seeking diversion of Protected Areas, there should always be adequate time devoted during every meeting of the Standing Committee for discussing wildlife conservation issues and policy matters that require urgent attention. It has been seen in the last few meetings that the prime focus is on clearances within and around PAs, while conservation issues and agenda items of the members get short shift as they are always deferred for ‘next time’.  

Late, incomplete information, and misinformation:

The agenda items are usually sent to the members late, sometimes just a day or two before the meeting. As pointed out in a previous communication, the notification of the Standing Committee states that, “The Member-Secretary shall prepare agenda items for the meeting, obtain approval of the Chairman and circulate it to all members at least fifteen days prior to the date of such meeting.

The information given is rudimentary, poorly drafted and the maps of poor quality. Many times the information given is deliberately incomplete and the Committee is also misinformed. To cite just three examples:

1.   Proposal for setting up a captive thermal power plant (4x60MW) with 1 MTPA cement grinding unit and 1 MTPA coal washery unit within 1.5 kms from the boundary of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh in the 21st meeting of the Standing Committee, January 24th, 2011: it came to our notice that the state government deliberately misled the Standing Committee of the NBWL by not informing that the matter was subjudice before the Honourable Supreme Court. The state and the MoEF failed to mention the fact that gross violations of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 had taken place, which in fact was pointed out by the regional office (northern region) of the MoEF. Also, the fact that the matter was sub judice and that construction had already begun in full swing, even though the clearance was yet to be obtained, was withheld from the NBWL. Responsibility has to be fixed both on state/MOEF officials in order to prevent its recurrence.

2.   Proposal for diversion of 124.054 ha of forestland from Majathal Wildlife Sanctuary for construction of Kol Dam Project, Himachal Pradesh, in the 20th meeting of the Standing committee on October 13th, 2010:  The Chief Wildlife Warden had stated that no trees would be felled in the execution of the project. But this was wrong information. The CEC letter dated 04.10.2006 to the Chief Secretary, Government of HP had sought clarification on the number of trees to be felled, and the state government in its reply had stated that about 51,262 trees would be under the submergence area. Responsibility has to be fixed both on state/MOEF officials in order to prevent its recurrence.

3.   Proposal for diversion of 16.09 ha of forest land from Keladevi Wildlife Sanctuary for Dohari Minor Irrigation Project by Water Resource Department, Distt. Karauli, Rajasthan, brought up in the 22nd meeting of the Standing Committee held on April 25th, 2011: The state government withheld the critical fact that this is part of the Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve and even denied the same in the course of the April 25th meeting.  Responsibility has to be fixed both on state/MOEF officials in order to prevent its recurrence.

In spite of repeated requests, the agenda is not circulated to all National Board of Wildlife Members or put up on the website (this was discussed in the 21st meeting and approved by the Chair) to avail of the expertise of the wider conservation and scientific community.

In view of such facts, we suggest the following:

§        The agenda should reach us at least two weeks before the meeting as mandated by the notification of the Standing Committee, and should be copied to all members of the NBWL. This should include maps, surveys, Google maps etc. At present, we usually receive the complete agenda (with detailed information including maps, etc) just a day or so before the meeting as if that factual information provided should be substantial enough for rational decision-making.   It is also suggested that the proforma of the Forest Advisory Committee be made applicable to the proforma for Standing Committee meetings.

§        Each project proposal/plea for clearance must be presented to the Standing Committee with the Environmental Impact Analysis Report, the Forest Clearance details and the Project Report. The documents should be accompanied by the minutes of the meeting of the Environmental Appraisal Committee / Forest Advisory Committee concerning the project, together with any letter of clearance given. 

§        Full compliance with the Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly section 4 (1) (c) since the MOEF is not disclosing the relevant background material under which decisions were taken for clearing projects in/and around PAs. They also have to disclose the names of the officers who took part in the decision making process. This will ensure full transparency and accountability since the public as well as project proponents  would know the reasons why a particular project was cleared or rejected and who decided this.

§        Agenda items once rejected by the Standing Committee should not be brought back for discussion and clearance unless there is a court order to the contrary. This wastes the time of the Committee and undermines the authority of the Committee’s decisions.

§        There should be a proper mechanism for monitoring the conditions imposed while recommending the project proposals. An independent monitoring committee may be set up under each regional office of the MOEF.      

As per the notification, the committee’s mandate calls for promotion and conservation of wildlife, advising state governments on conservation, effective control of wildlife trade, recommendations in setting up PAs, advising on and control of activities in PAs. Most of us are doing this in an individual capacity but as a collective body our role frankly is minimal. The role of the NBWL is even less so, given that meetings are held about once a year, if that. The last full meeting of the NBWL was held in March, 2010 and more than a year has elapsed.

We are sorry to say that in the current scenario, the Standing Committee of the NBWL has been reduced to a clearing house.  Project clearances are part of the mandate of the Standing Committee, one of the duties and functions, certainly not the objective, nor its raison d’être.

We request you to please take note of our concerns and issue appropriate directions to ensure that the NBWL can fulfill its mandate properly and effectively.

A hard copy of this letter is being sent separately.

Yours sincerely,

1. Mr. Biswajit Mohanty,Wildlife Society of Orissa

2. Dr. Asad Rahmani, Bombay Natural History Society

3. Mr.Kishore Rithe, Satpuda Foundation

4. Mr. T.R. Shankar Raman, Nature Conservation Foundation

5. Dr. Bivabh Talukdar, Aranyaak

6. Dr. M.K.Ranjit Sinh

7. Dr. Divyabhanusinh Chavda

8. Mr. Brijendra Singh

9.  Mr. Valmik Thapar

10. Ms. Prerna Bindra

11. Mr. Bittu Sehgal

12. Ms. Mitali Kakkar

13. Dr. Uma Ramakrishnan

Letter to Jairam Ramesh about Wildlife Act amendments, Feb 26, 2010

FROM THE NON GOVERNMENT MEMBERS OF

THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR WILDLIFE

To

Shri Jairam Ramesh

Minister for Environment and Forests (I/C)

Paryavaran Bhavan

CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi, 110 011

26 February, 2010

Hon’ble Minister,

Sub: Second Letter of Members of the National Board for Wildlife regarding the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2009.

Ref: Our letter and recommendations dated 15 December 2009.

As you are aware, a sub-committee of National Board for Wildlife members was constituted to advise the Government on the amendments to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA). The sub-committee, in consultation with other non-official members of the NBWL, analysed the draft amendments in detail and submitted about 80 recommendations.

However, we are dismayed to find that only 25% (i.e. 20 out of about 80) of our recommendations have been included in the final draft of the Bill dated 1 January 2010, and that many of the critical issues that we had pointed out have been omitted. In fact, the members only came to know through media reports that a draft had been finalized and forwarded to the Law Ministry. This gives us the impression that the advise of the members of NBWL, a statutory body under the WPA, is being largely ignored and the consultations are of no importance.

We believe that the present draft has serious flaws and that it will weaken the WPA, making it a disjointed piece of legislation. We are also extremely concerned that a number of our key recommendations have not been taken into account, and frankly we fail to understand the reasons for this.

We are aware that not all recommendations can be incorporated in the Bill. However, having reviewed the final draft we feel that under no circumstances can there be a compromise on the following points, which we would like to re-iterate in the order in which they appear in the Act:

1. In our recommendations dated 15 December 2009, we had suggested the incorporation of a new Section 9-A which criminalises the manufacture, sale and use of animal traps. If the Act and its enforcement are to be strengthened, this provision is essential. We would like to reiterate that the use of steel/iron-spring traps is banned in several countries across the world. These traps can cause extreme injury and even death, not just to animals but human beings as well. We strongly recommend that a definition of such traps, and a provision penalising their manufacture, sale and use be incorporated in the Act.

2. The Bill seeks to delete Section 12 (bb). We would like to reiterate that this is an extremely important provision which ensures that no killing of animals can take place in the name of “population management”. The deletion of this provision will weaken the protection afforded to scheduled species by the Act. We strongly oppose the move to delete this provision. 

3. The Bill seeks to add a new proviso to Section 20 which will allow for the transfer of private land even after the intention to declare an area as protected has been notified. We fear that this will result not simply in multiplying claims but also encourage unhealthy practices such as land-grabbing and profiteering. The entire purpose of Section 20 will be defeated by this proviso. We strongly recommend that this proviso is struck down from the Bill. 

4. The Bill seeks to amend Section 21(b), giving claimants in protected areas six months to claim their rights, as opposed to the two months currently provided for. The settlement of rights for most protected areas across the country already takes an unreasonable amount of time. This amendment will only further exacerbate those delays. Two months is a reasonable period for a claimant to assert his/her rights. We strongly recommend that this amendment is removed from the Bill. 

5. We had recommended that Section 35(8) is amended so that Section 18(A)(1) & (2) apply to National Parks as they do to Sanctuaries, and that Section 38V(2) is amended so that Sections 31 and 35(6) apply to Tiger Reserves as they do to National Parks. Even though they clearly strengthen the protection afforded to protected areas, these amendments have not been included. We strongly recommend that these two amendments are made.

6. We had recommended that Section 38V(5) sub-clauses (i) to (vii) inclusive should be deleted. There is already a procedure prescribed in Chapter IV for settlement of rights in National Parks and Sanctuaries that should apply to Tiger Reserves as well. Any impediment to voluntary relocation violates the Right to Life, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The sub-clauses put restrictions on an individual’s wish to be relocated outside a Tiger Reserve, which is unconstitutional. We strongly recommend that the sub-clauses are deleted.

7. We had recommended that Section 39(1)(a) is extended to apply to specified plants as it should and does to animals, animals articles, trophies, etc. This amendment has not been included and again, we see no reason why. We strongly recommend that Section 39 is extended to apply to specified plants.

8. The Bill seeks to delete Section 40A of the Act. This is an important enabling provision that empowers the Central Government to ensure that the Act is implemented justly. Including the Central Government in Section 40(4) will not result in the same position, as Section 40A is much broader. It is essential for the Act’s flexibility and we can see absolutely no reason for its deletion. We strongly recommend that Section 40A is not deleted.

9. We had recommended the insertion of a new Section 50(1)(e) which will empower forest officers of the rank of Forest Guards and above to use force to prevent the commission of Category I and Category II offences inside National Parks, Sanctuaries and Tiger Reserves. This has not been included. In the face of armed poachers who kill schedule animals and do not even hesitate to attack forest officials, this is an essential power without which forest officers will be unable to effectively enforce the Act. We strongly recommend that this provision is included in the Bill.

10. We had strongly opposed the new categorisation of offences on the grounds that it afforded greater protection to well-known animals, while other similarly endangered species did not get this protection. This is unscientific and arbitrary and should not happen. While some minor changes have been made to Section 50B, we are very disappointed with this. On exactly what grounds do tigers, lions, elephants, rhinos and the other species mentioned in the proposed Section 50B(1)(a)(i) deserve greater protection than any of the other species listed in Schedule I and part II of Schedule II? We strongly recommend and reiterate that Category I offences should apply to all species listed in Schedule I and part II of Schedule II. That Category II offences should apply to all species listed in part I of Schedule II and Schedule III and that Category III offences should apply to all species listed in Schedule IV. Alternatively, the concept of categories should be removed altogether as it will confuse frontline staff and the present Section 51 should be amended simply to increase penalties.

11. We had recommended that Section 50 (3) and 55 be amended to allow Courts to take cognizance on the complaint of a police officer not below the rank of sub inspector. The police are investigating and prosecuting several cases of wildlife crime across the country. It is essential that the Act gives them the necessary powers to do so, rather than be a hindrance to the prosecution of these crimes. We strongly recommend that police officers are empowered under Section 50 (3) and Section 55.

12. The Bill seeks to delete Section 58Y of the Act. The deletion of this provision weakens the deterrent value of the Act as a lower punishment will be prescribed for this offence by Section 50B(3). We strongly recommend that Section 58Y of the Act should not be deleted.         

13. As an additional comment, there is growing concern about the increase in both the size of the peacock feather trade and instances of peacock deaths. We recommend that Section 43(3)(a) is deleted in the interests of conserving our National bird.  

14. Our last comment is that in the Definitions, Section 2, sub-section 37, a comma should be inserted after the words “land” and before the word “vegetation”.

We would like to make it very clear that positioning this amendment on the enhanced penal provisions alone will not achieve the stated goal of increasing deterrence against illegal hunting.

In view of the serious problems with the draft bill, we once again urge you not to push the bill any further towards legislation until the issues highlighted above have been satisfactorily dealt with.

Yours sincerely,

Praveen Bhargav, Wildlife First

Signed on behalf and in consultation with the following members:

Wildlife Protection Society of India - Belinda Wright; Reef Watch - Mitali Kakar; World Wide Fund for Nature-India - Ravi Singh; Bombay Natural History Society - Dr. Asad Rahmani; Dr. Divyabhanusinh Chavda; Valmik Thapar; Biswajit Mohanty; Dr. Bibhab Talukdar; Shekar Dattatri; Mahendra Vyas; Brijendra Singh; Dilip Khatau; Bonani Kakkar

Cc:             Addl. Director General (Wildlife), and Member Secretary, NBWL

Letter to Jairam Ramesh re Pench Highway, Jan 28, 2010

Letter to Jairam Ramesh on Wildlife Act Amendments, Dec 15, 2009

Letter to Jairam Ramesh re CAMPA funds, Oct 14, 2009

Letter to Minister E&F re meeting in his chambers, Feb 19, 2008

        

Dr. Divyabhanusinh Chavda M.Sc. (Econ) D. Litt
"Suryodaya"
310 Gom Defence Colony
Vaishali Marg
Jaipur - 302021


Shri. S. Raghupathy,

Hon’ble Minister of State

Ministry of Environment and Forests

Paryavaran Bhavan,

CGO Complex, Lodi Road

New Delhi – 110003

Sub: Meeting of the Non-official members of the National Board for Wildlife with the Hon’ble Minister in his chamber on 19^th February 2008

Dear Sir,

At the outset we would like to thank you for meeting us to address some of the issues raised in our letter to the Hon’ble Prime Minister.

We are delighted to learn that the sub-committee consisting of Mr. Mahendra Vyas and Mr. Valmik Thapar is still in existence. There is some confusion regarding this sub-committee. Its meeting should be called at the earliest with the purpose inter alia of examining the adverse impact of the Forest Rights Act on the fauna and flora of India.

We appreciate your decision to form sub-committees of independent members of NBWL Standing Committee specifically to look into matters of conservation such as marine protected areas, tigers etc. There are only three independent members in the NBWL. This objective can be easily met by co-opting special invitees to attend the Standing Committee meetings and making them part of such sub committees as present three members are not enough and in any case a wider number shall ensure greater specialist knowledge being available.

We expressed our concern regarding the deaths of ghariyals, poaching of rhino and the ongoing tiger crisis. We expressed our concern voiced earlier at the previous meeting of the Standing Committee as well as the last meeting of NBWL that only matters of doling out protected areas lands for various purposes come before the Standing Committee. Matters concerned directly with conservation did not come up either at all or rarely. We appreciate your understanding of our apprehensions and we hope that the Ministry will ensure that an overview of the various developments/ crises are surveyed at the next Standing Committee meeting as also, we are informed of what the relevant authorities are doing to counter the various threats. The main concern of NBWL being the protection of our endangered fauna and flora, it is only proper and necessary that these issues are a part of our deliberations and advise.

We have no doubt that your personal interest in the matters mentioned here will redress the situation.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

Signed on behalf of

Dr. Bibhab Kumar Talukdar

Dr. Asad Rahmani/ BNHS and for self

Dr. Divyabhanusingh Chavda

CC:              DGF & SS

            IGF WL

            Dy. IG WL