6th January 2013
To
The Principal Secretary,
Department of
Environment and Climate Change,
Government of Kerala.
Respected Sir,
SUB: Objection to the criteria suggested for
the field verification and demarcation of Eco-Sensitive Zones under HLWG Report.
Kindly
see the references. As per Ref No.2, the State governments are free to do field
verification for detecting the Eco-Sensitive Zones and inform their opinion to
the Ministry of Environment and Forest. In my opinion, HLWG report completely
failed to address the ecological conservation in its sense, and participatory
approach taken by the WGEEP report. It also failed to address the meaning of Eco
Sensitive Zones with respect to various directions from Supreme Court and High
Courts, in this regard. The HLWG report viz
Kasturirangan Committee report, though a highly diluted report, has been
accepted in principle by the MoEF which is not going to bring about the much
needed ecologically sensitive and sensible planning across the Western Ghats
outlined in WGEEP report or several attempts made prior to it.
The
MoEF had also completely failed to keep the continuity of this attempt to protect
the Western Ghats. The conclusion of the earlier attempts like Pranab Sen
Committee report, various SC directions, suggestions of National Wildlife
Board, WGEEP Report were not at all considered by the HLWG or even MoEF. HLWG report explicitly mentions that
wildlife habitats are not considered, except
the Tiger and Elephant corridors, while the demarcation of ESZ. This is a very
serious failure of the HLWG Report. Therefore the un scientific criteria
accepted by the HLWG report need not be followed by the State off Kerala.
Through
the layered zonation approach WGEEP report has ensured that development related
to rivers and forests in the Western
Ghats, the most critical to sustainable development in any landscape are
brought under some sort of regulatory regime to ensure their continuity and
ecological integrity. The HLWG report has meanwhile categorically divided
forests and rivers between natural and cultural landscapes thus affecting their
habitat and ecological continuity. For instance, studies world-wide, including in India indicate that
freshwater biodiversity is even under greater threat than forest biodiversity.
WGEEP perspective considers this properly, including in its specific
consideration of riverine forests, whereas the HLWG just ignores it.
Now, as
per Reference No.1, the State government has formed a committee, including the
local officials, to conduct the field verification and to find the actual ESZ
areas, by applying the accepted criteria of the ESZ. In the said government
order, there are some directions issued to the officials.
1.
To demarcate the human inhabited, agricultural
and plantation areas correctly and exclude all these areas from ESZ.
2.
To exclude the forest lands where the
encroachment was happened before 1-1-1977 and regularized by the government.
I am
strongly opposing these directions, as it is issued without proper authority,
and it will destroy the purpose of the ESZ declaration. These directions will
further reduce the ESZ area to a large extend, and will allow to extend the
destruction of Western Ghats into more areas. It will be counterproductive to
the purposes enumerated in the WGEEP report or HLWG report. State government
has no authority to direct excluding such areas from the demarcation or
physical verification of ESZ.
As per
Ref.2 OM, the officials and the State government are bound to follow the criteria
accepted by the HLWG Report, which is explained in the pages 56 and 57 of the
HLWG Report. It is very clear that, the
population density of the village has taken into consideration only if the
village area comes within the definition “High Biological Richness area with
Medium Forest fragmentation”. If the
village comes within ‘Very high biological richness with low or medium forest
fragmentation’, the village should have included in the ESZ without considering
its population density. If the village
comes within ‘High biological richness with low forest fragmentation’, then
also that village will have to be included in the ESZ without considering its
population density. It is pertinent to note that, the any of the villages
listed in the government order do not come within the definition of ‘High Biological Richness area with Medium
Forest fragmentation’. A mere perusal of the forest records and the
bio-diversity register prepared by the local bio-diversity management committees
(BMC), we can easily understand that these villages are having the presence of so
many endemic and threatened species, and definitely will come under the
definition ‘very high biodiversity’. Since the fragmentation of the forest is
very low, it has to be concluded that, in no way, the ‘population density’ can
be taken as a criteria in those villages.
It is
also evident from the WGEEP Report and HLWG report that, the area under agriculture
and plantation is not a part of the accepted criteria for identifying ESZ.
There is no role for such lands in identifying the ESZ. The directions from the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases including Goa Foundation Vs Union of
India, also has to be followed while identifying the Eco sensitive Zone. The
suggestions of the National Wildlife Advisory Board, in which the Hon’ble Prime
Minister is the Chairman, also need to be followed. In none of the
recommendations, population is a criterion for the exclusion of an area from ESZ.
Neither under the EP Act nor under the OM dated 20-12-2013 referred in the
above mentioned Govt order, the state government has got authority to fix new
criteria for identifying the ESZ, other than following the existing criteria accepted
by the Central Government as advised by Pranob Sen report, WGEEP report, or
HLWG report. Hence, the new criteria
prescribed in the above mentioned Government order for the demarcation of ESZs
are unfair, unsustainable, anti environmental and illegal and therefore is liable
to be withdrawn.
Considering the above mentioned arguments, I submit
that state environment department is duty bound to accept the criteria declared
by the WGEEP Report, Pranab Sen Committee, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, or at
least the HLWG Report, while demarcating the eco sensitive areas of the Western
Ghats. The direction to exclude populated areas and plantation areas are
against the principles of conservation and the criteria accepted for
identifying ESZ. I request you to withdraw that government order, reject the Oommen Committee report, and follow the legally accepted criteria in WGEEP Report for the demarcation of Eco Sensitive Zone.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Adv.Harish Vasudevan.
