Open Letter to the Ministry of Environment and Forests

Issued on 24thJuly 2007

Ecologically Sensitive Areas Require Special Attention:

ESA Committees should not be disbanded in the light of the proposed Environment Tribunal Bill

Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) are one the most innovative conservation tools of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Their planning and management is entrusted to localized monitoring committees or authorities, which are now threatened by an impending Bill for setting up national and regional tribunals.

Powers of these committees or authorities are to be handed over to State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs), which are to be set up for the implementation of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. This will severely and negatively impact the localized management and monitoring of ESAs.

There is an urgent need to restore the ESA committees and/or authorities and provide them with resources and powers needed perform their functions efficiently.

One of the most innovative strategies adopted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in last decade for conservation of Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) has been the use of Section 3 (2) v of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (EPA) and Section 5 (1) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (EPR). Both the government and non-governmental sectors have used these simple clauses to highlight the sensitivity of regions as well as restrict damage to overexploited areas by granting it a special protection status. In the more recent instances these areas have been called Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESA) or Ecologically Fragile Areas (EFA).

Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (EPA) gives power to the central government i.e. the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests to take all measures that it feels is necessary to protect and improve quality of the environment and to prevent and control environmental pollution. To meet this objective the Central Government can restrict areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards [Section 3 (2) (v)]

Section 5 (1) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (EPR), states that the central government can prohibit or restrict the location of industries and carrying on certain operations or processes on the basis of considerations like the biological diversity of an area (clause v) maximum allowable limits of concentration of pollutants for an area (clause ii) environmentally compatible land use (clause vi) proximity to protected areas (clause viii).

In 2000, ESAs got a formal status when a comprehensive set of guidelines laying down parameters and criteria for declaring ESAs, was approved. A committee constituted by the MoEF put together detailed ecology based criteria on which areas can be declared as ESAs. These criteria are Species Based (Endemism, Rarity etc), Ecosystem Based (sacred groves, frontier forests etc) and Geomorphological feature based (uninhabited islands, origins of rivers etc). In 2003 another expert committee of the MoEF prepared a report on the environment criteria for declaring hill stations as sensitive and prepared lists of hill stations the needed immediate and urgent declaration as environmentally sensitive.For consideration of ESA/EFA proposals, MoEF had also set up the Mohan Ram Committee for Evaluating Proposals for Declaring Ecologically Sensitive Areas.

Since 1989 areas such as Doon Valley (Uttarakhand), Murud Janjira, Dahanu, Matheran, Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani (Maharashtra), a portion of the Aravallis (Rajasthan), area around Numaligarh refinery towards the conservation of the Kaziranga National Park (Assam) have been notified as ESAs/EFAs. These notifications have provided for a lot of flexibility in the range of ecosystems (like coasts, forest, plains islands) and kinds of protection it can provide. It has been an opportunity for creative environmental and land use planning of a region which can take both the ecological security and livelihood security of a region in mind.

Notifications have allowed for categorization of industries as red, orange and green, specifying which kind can be allowed and with what restrictions in a particular ESA. Some notifications have also directed that master plans need to be prepared for the ‘development’ of a notified region. This needs to be done through effective participation of local communities, where local needs and priorities are built in. These ESAs have also provided an opportunity to set up committees/authorities at district/local level with representation of local people, researchers and members of the concerned agencies. These multi-sectoral committees can together plan for the region and also oversee the implementation of what has been notified.

THE IMPORTANCE OF ESAs

The concept of ESA takes cognizance of the fact that protection of environment cannot be limited to areas within regional/state boundaries. There are several other strengths that the ESA present:

  • The area is declared ecologically sensitive with the support of a central legislation.
  • The notification of an area as Ecologically Sensitive/Fragile allows for holistically planned development/ land use for that particular area taking into consideration the environment and carrying capacity of the region. Thus industrial and developmental activities can be regulated based on local priorities and conditions benefiting local communities and without displacing them.
  • The concept of an ESA/EFA extends to any kind of ecosystem like coasts, forest, plains, islands etc. It can even be applied to agro-biodiversity hotspots.
  • An area can be protected as a whole keeping the entire ecoregion in mind, like the entire coastline.
  • Areas already declared ESA, allows for the formation of committees at level of districts and talukas with representation of local people besides researchers and members of the concerned agencies to look into the implementation of the notification. Example of this is the Dahanu Taluka Environmental Protection Authority (DTEPA) or the High Level Monitoring Committees in Matheran, Mahabaleshwar Panchgani.
  • All other provisions under the Environment (Protection) Act including the Environment Impact Assessment and Public Hearing Notification, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, Hazardous Waste Handling Rules, Siting Guidelines etc are still applicable (wherever relevant) to an ESA/EFA.

The concept of an ecologically sensitive area is also gaining support from other processes and conservation efforts. For example, the National Wildlife Action Plan has specific recommendations that 10-25 kms around Protected Areas (PAs) and Biosphere Reserves, Heritage Sites to be considered as Ecologically Sensitive Areas.

On 4th December 2006, the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 406 of 2004, Goa Foundation v/s Union of India gave a specific direction related to declaration of ESAs in an area of 10 kilometres around PAs. Most state governments had not responded to the earlier orders/directions of the court. The Supreme Court bench observed that this continued lack of response will only be at the own risk and peril of the state governments, The order clearly stated the need to notify the areas within 10 k.m. of the boundaries of the sanctuaries and national parks as eco-sensitive areas with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and environment, and having regard to the precautionary principles.

THE SCENARIO OF NEGLECT

Over the last two-three years there has been tremendous pressure to nullify the spirit of these notifications as well as the collapse the specialized committees and authorities. In July 2006, representatives of the “Coalition of Ecologically Sensitive Areas” in Maharashtra wrote to the R.Chandramohan, the then Joint Secretary (Impact Assessment) highlighting the neglect and disregard for the ESAs and its committees/authorities. It highlighted that:

  • The High Level Monitoring Committee (HLMC) for Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani had been pro-active in working with the spirit of ESA Notification, ensuring that the hill station is protected with the participation of the local communities. However, the term HLMC for the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani Eco Sensitive Zone expired in end-January 2005. Since then, this Eco Sensitive Zone has been without a Monitoring Committee.
  • The term of the Monitoring Committee for the Matheran Eco Sensitive Zone expired on 31 December 2005. Since then the Eco Sensitive Zone has been without a Monitoring Committee.
  • The letter highlighted that the undue delay in the reconstituting of these Monitoring Committees is having its negative impact on these hill stations. The Master Plan of the ESAs are being finalized without it being overseen by the concerned Monitoring Committee.
  • In addition, the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority (DTEPA) has been unable to function effectively because of the huge delays in the release of funds, in spite of commendable work done in the last ten years in ensuring the protection of Dahanu's eco-fragile environment. The experts on the Authority have played a pivotal role in controlling pollution from a local thermal power plant, ensuring land use is not significantly altered and working towards planned development with the active participation of local communities. The Authority enjoys tremendous popular support and while repeated attempts have been made to disband it by the MoEF. Local groups have also approached the Supreme Court to ensure the smooth functioning of the authority.

At another level, some draft notifications have simply lapsed due to lack of action. In 2000 the MoEF proposed two notifications to protect the unique environment of the Himalayas. The proposed notifications states, “In order to ensure environmentally sound development of hill towns, the following restrictions and conditions are proposed for all future activities in the areas in the Himalayan region…” The notifications emphasised on Location Planning in Urban Areas in Hills, Rain Water Harvesting and stable Hill Roads, all of which are much needed to protect the environment and people living in these regions.

The MoEF issued draft notifications in 1998 and 2000 declaring Pachmarhi as an ESA. Both the notifications were allowed to lapse.

ESA related proposals have been pending with the MoEF, one of them being the Sahyadri Ecologically Sensitive Area (SESA) along the Western Ghats. 7,350 sq km of the Western Ghats in North Karnataka, Goa and South Maharashtra have been proposed as ESA. The boundaries have been defined and the proposal as per a specified format has been presented to the MoEF in 2001. It is very likely that other proposals for ESAs are also pending before the MoEF.

CURRENT THREAT

The state of neglect and disregard for these specialized ESA monitoring and implementation bodies is evident, now that the draft National Environment Tribunal Bill for the MoEF is due to be taken up at the upcoming Parliament session/s. In total disregard to its own innovative practice of local and area specific planning for ecologically sensitive areas, this new Bill seeks to dissolve all the authorities set up under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, which includes all ESA authorities and also the Committee set up for evaluating ESA proposals.

The MoEF has proposed to set up National and four Regional level Tribunals in order to implement the recommendations of the 186th Report of the Law Commission. This report essentially speaks about the setting up of the tribunals and states that the existing National Environment Appellate Authority and National Environment Tribunal be dissolved. However, the MoEF Bill also seeks to dissolve a list of identified authorities/committees/bodies set up using Section 3 (3) of the Environment Protection Act. These include all the committees set up for Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) including Dahanu Taluka, Matheran, Doon Valley etc; the National Environment Appellate Authority and the Central Ground Water Authority. A total of 16 such authorities/committees/bodies have been listed.

Transferring the powers of the specialized and localised ESA committees to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAA) as envisaged in the draft NET bill will result in a loss of the decentralization that had been achieved for the management of ESAs. It will also affect the speedy decision making and grievance redressal that had been made possible by ESA committees. Most importantly, ESA committees have been in a position to take proactive steps for protection of ESAs through planning and implementation of conservation measures due to their location within or close to the ESAs and familiarity with local situations. These advantages will not be available to the SEIAAs.

SEIAAs are new bodies to comprise of 3 persons at the state level which will grant or reject clearances to Category B projects of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification. It is unrealistic to perform along with this, the role planning, implementation and monitoring that the ESA committees did until now. The merging of these roles within the same authority could also result in a situation where there is little or no checks to counter the inappropriate clearance decisions made by the SEIAA that may impact the ESA. Under the EIA notification and the proposed Coastal Zone Management notification clearances are deemed to have been granted if the SEIAA does not clear or reject the proposal in the stipulated time. Burdening of SEIAAs with these additional tasks of monitoring ESAs and coasts may ultimately result in deemed clearances, unheard of in the context of environment.

WE therefore urge that:

  • ALL ESA COMMITTEES NOTIFIED USING SECTION 3 (2) V TO BE RECONSTITUTED AS PER NOTIFICATIONS AND ADEQUATE FUNDS BE ALLOCATED SO THAT THE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ESAs CAN TAKE PLACE IN THE ENVISAGED SPECIALISED AND INNOVATIVE MANNER.
  • ALL ORDERS / POLICY DECISIONS, IF ANY, FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF ESA COMMITTTEES BE WITHDRAWN.
  • MAKE THE REPORTS/APPLICATIONS FOR PENDING ESA DECLARATIONS FROM STATES AND NGOs PUBLIC AND REGULARLY UPLOAD DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROGRESS ON THESE DECLARATIONS ON THE WEBSITE OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS.

Sincerely,

  1. Giridhar Babu, A, AP Food Sovereignty Network, Andhra Pradesh
  2. Latha, A, River Research Centre, Kerala
  3. Zonunmawia, A.C, Centre for Environment Protection, Aizwal, Mizoram
  4. Ramesh Agarwal, Jan Chetna, Raigarh, Chhatisgarh
  5. Ramachandran Balachandran, San Francisco Bay Area, USA
  6. Michelle Chawla, Dahanu Campaign for Social and Environmental Justice, Dahanu, Maharashtra
  7. Harekrishna Debnath, National Fishworkers’ Forum (NFF)
  8. Umendra Dutt, Kheti Virasat Mission, Jaitu, Punjab
  9. Madhumita Dutta, Corporate Accountability Desk, Chennai
  10. Ritwick Dutta, Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE), Delhi
  11. Srinivas, G, Samata, Vishakhaptnam, Andhra Pradesh
  12. Soumitra Ghosh, NESPON, Siliguri, West Bengal
  13. S.R.Hiremath, National Committee for Protection of Natural Resources, Dharwad, Karnataka
  14. Ramaswamy Iyer, Ex-Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi
  15. Nityanand Jayaraman, Collective for Economic, Social and Environmental Justice, Chennai
  16. Jayasri, K, AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity, Andhra Pradesh
  17. Pradeep Krishen, New Delhi
  18. Ashok Kumar, Wildlife Trust of India, New Delhi
  19. Ratan Lalkaka, Matheran Bachao Samiti, Matheran, Maharashtra
  20. Syed Liyakhat, EQUATIONS, Bangalore
  21. Vijayan M.J, Delhi Forum, New Delhi
  22. Vijay Mhatre, Dahanu Parisar Bachao Samiti, Dahanu, Maharashtra
  23. Manju Menon/Kanchi Kohli, Kalpavriksh, New Delhi
  24. Samir Mehta, Bombay Environment Action Group, Mumbai
  25. Shweta Narayan, Community Environmental Monitoring, Chennai
  26. Kumar Onkareshwar, Ridge Bachao Andolan, New Delhi
  27. Satheesh, P.V, Deccan Development Society, Andhra Pradesh
  28. Mahesh Pandya/Hiral Mehta, Paryavaran Mitra, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
  29. M.M.Pant, (IFS Retired), Natural Resources’ Economist, Dehradun
  30. Sujit Patwardhan, Parisar, Pune
  31. Farrokh Wadia, Mahabaleshwar-Panchagani Environment Support Group, Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani, Maharashtra
  32. Haresh Gidwani, Association for Protection of Eco Sensitive Areas, Maharashtra
  33. Joanna Van Gruisen, BAVAAN-Bagh Aap Aur VAN, New Delhi
  34. Ajayan, R, Plachimada Solidarity Committee, Kerala
  35. Nitin Rai, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE), Bangalore
  36. Sreedhar Ramamurthy, Academy for Mountain Environics, New Delhi
  37. A.K.Roy, Hazards Centre, New Delhi
  38. Kitayun Rustom, Centre for Environmental Research and Education (CERE), Mumbai
  39. Shantha Salanki, Samaj Parivartan Samudaya, Dharwad, Karnataka
  40. Samuel Sundar Singh, South Against Genetic Engineering, Andhra Pradesh
  41. Shekhar Singh, New Delhi
  42. Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, Delhi
  43. Umesh Varma, Independent Activist, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
  44. Malvika Vartak, Delhi Solidarity Group, New Delhi
  45. Vimal Bhai, Matu People’s Organisation, Uttarakhand
  46. Milind Wani, Kalpavriksh, Pune

Address for Correspondence: Kalpavriksh, 134, Tower 10, Supreme Enclave Mayur Vihar I, Delhi-110091

1