Published in Dwarka Express on 30.5,23

It is not that easy to protect the 662 National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in India. Our conservation efforts depend on how serious we are in protecting these natural forests and its users. Encroachment in reserve forests is nothing new for India forests. Efforts are always made to prevent large scale deviations and intrusions. Quite often, the much controversial mining and Infra development activities are accorded environmental clearances for free access into forest areas. Resultant protests and litigations between locals, environmentalists and proponents of development are not new. Stringent guidelines become necessary to preserve the natural resources. When some stringent measures are initiated against forests being affected by such mega projects, it is quite natural that some innocent people get affected by such orders. One such order by Environment Ministry was in 2022 that ended detrimental for the forest dwellers as any development or construction activities were halted.  Deciding on the petition of  Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India, Supreme Court delivered a land mark judgment on 26.4 23 showing justice to the affected villagers. The Supreme court bench headed by Justice B R Gavai and others on 26.4.23 classified 26 activities into 3 categories namely ‘prohibited’, ‘Restricted with safeguards’ or ‘permitted’. This has brought relief to the local villagers and tribals living in the eco sensitive zones in the borders of the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.

Most of the above natural forests have settlement colonies and villages in these protected areas, both inside and also in the eco sensitive zones (ESZs) which are within one KM of the protected forests, measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest as per existing guidelines of 2011. The villagers living in these areas have a right to their livelihood and they need to construct or reconstruct their shelters. Their population also grows and the expanded families also have a right to live. The reality is that such villagers never lead extravagant life but live contented with basic amenities.

The present SC verdict revisited the existing stringent guidelines and permitted certain activities while rejecting certain other activities outright. The activities which were rejected included commercial mining, polluting industries, hazardous chemical producing factories, saw mills etc. However certain other activities such as felling of trees, construction of hotels, resorts and infra structures such as schools and hospitals, introduction of exotic varieties, widening of roads, allowing commercial vehicular traffic in nights, display of signboards are some of the activities which are allowed in the ‘regulated’ activities. Ongoing agriculture and horticulture practices local communities, organic farming, rain water harvesting and adopting green technologies are coming under permitted categories. The clear definition of these 3 categories of activities gives a sigh of relief for the locals and at the same time controls the mining and polluting activities. While this is a people friendly judgment, there is a rider to this judgment that this will not affect the ongoing activities already identified and permitted prior to 2011 guidelines

So according to the petitioners, these relaxations will bring relief to the villagers, settled in the Protected Areas coming under the 6 provisions of Sections 18 to 25A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. However, one cannot forget that the Indian Board for Wildlife held on 21st January 2002, recommended the “Wildlife Conservation Strategy-2002” which envisaged that lands falling within 10 KMs of the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries should be notified as eco-fragile zones under Section 3(v) of the 1972 Act. However, the same have already been made flexible by reducing the ESZs to 1 KM. While relaxing rules to accommodate the deprived class is appreciable, it also should be borne in mind that such relaxations must do better than harm in the long run.

 

Published in Dwarka Express on 23.4.23

A Jeep with tourists in North east was attacked by one horned Rhino and providentially no one was injured. My own impression about a jungle safari has suffered a change after participating in a Jeep Safari in Sariska. In my young age a lot of trekking was undertaken by me during nature camps in Western Ghats, crazily longing for a tiger darshan. But now, I wonder whether ecotourism is commercialized heavily. Hiring a jeep in Sariska at Rs 3500 for 2 hours made me think, ‘Are we really following norms when we enter into a tiger reserve?

Several thoughts brewed up after sitting in the safari jeep. My jeep was open and there is every possibility that a wild animal, leave alone a tiger, will attack. Why they are taking a risk? Are we taken for a ride by the agencies? Is eco-tourism commercialized? While questions were bubbling up, an abrupt question by the guide whether we want to go to Hanuman Mandir pulled me back to the current moment. The idea of Hanuman Mandir visit was negated by me, because in a Tiger land, I firmly believed that there could be none above a tiger. The Guide took us in a different route and we had no much disappointment as we could have plenty of wild animals like Spotted Deer, Nilgai, Crocodiles, Indian Hare, Jackals besides variety of avians. Yes, the thrill of riding in a dry deciduous scrub jungle is not a small experience though there was bleak chance of tiger sighting. Suddenly there was a commotion. Mobile phone information from similar Safari guides made several jeeps, rounding up a 10 KM area. I could see similar tourists in about a hundred jeeps on various sides of the encircled area curiously waiting for the tiger to come out from bushes. Nothing happened and everyone returned with disappointment.

 Let’s appreciate one thing. No one is permitted in the core areas of a jungle. In more than 800 Sq kms of Sariska, only 20% is open for safari. Same is the situation in any forest. On interaction with the guide, I understood that we have a chance of sighting M-12 (a chest number allotted to each tiger). After my discussion with the guide and seeing that 100 jeeps surrounded an area giving false hope to tourists, I am of the opinion that sighting tiger naturally in the natural habitat is perhaps a kind of a concoction by the ecotourism operators to create a hype and lure more tourists. In one or two locations I saw a PET bottle or a Kurkure pocket. No guidelines or strict instructions were given by tourists to follow the ‘law of the jungle’. Perhaps, the phrase ‘Jungle law’ was rightly coined to indicate the boisterous dictates of an appallingly dominant political parties with brutal majority. Eventually, it is also applicable to such ‘callous tourists’ in forests who are least concerned about the rules

The National Tiger Conservation Authority guidelines in 2012, amended from time to time prohibits tiger safaris in core and critical areas but permits Only in non-core, buffer areas to reduce pressure on wildlife. While a jackal or unpredictable Nilgai was seen just in 30 feet distance, I wonder why a spotted deer even doesn’t shy away human intrusion. Because it has become a routine for them. Even a lion in Gir is undisturbed by a human visitor. For them, its life as usual. Perhaps, they are as domesticated as that of caged animals. A Supreme court enabled CEC panel recommended withdrawing of approvals to allow the safari in fringe areas too. But will the forest conservation act 1980 recently amended, reconsider the decision is a question mark. So, until some good decisions taken in the lines of global best practices, in my opinion Safari is not just like wearing a Safari suit. A Safari if permitted has to bring a change in the mindset of visitors and organizers. It should not be a ecotourism business

DR V SELVARAJAN

Published in Dwarka Express on 15.4.23

On 6.4.23, a question was asked by a BJP Member Sushil Kumar Modi in Rajya Sabha about the area of forests diverted in the last 5 years.  Ashwini Kumar Choubey, the Minister of state in the ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEF & CC) answered that during the last 5 years, various approvals for diversion of forest land for non-forestry purpose including for infrastructure and industrial projects, involving an area of 889.03 Sq. kms have been accorded by the Central Government under the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act,1980. Or on a comparative term, a forest land equal to Sariska Tiger Reserve (881 Sq kms) has vanished.

Interestingly it is claimed that during the last 4 years, 200 tigers have been added to the Indian count, taking the total number of tigers to 3167, almost three fourth of world tiger population. Out of the 889 Sq. kms of the sacrificed forest land, 194 Sq. kms have gone to ROADS, 188 Sq kms for MINING and 133 Sq kms for IRRIGATION. As per the tabled data, the forests have given way to about 26 avenues such as railways, defence etc. which are treated necessary for development.

According to Dr Ullas Karanth, a Conservation Zoologist, who dedicated his life for tiger conservation, we have 380000 Sq kms available for tiger conservation. Even if a set of 5 tigers have a territory of say, 100 Sq kms, India would have a minimum of 10000 tigers by now. He laments over lack of scientific temperament to achieve the same. Besides, the effective conservation of wildlife squarely depends on the political will and the only way it is possible is by increasing the much-needed forest cover. Not only tigers but reports indicate that elephants and wild animals emerge out of the jungles in search of food and water while locals make a big hue and cry for their safety, resulting in man-animal conflicts. This is the reason why scientists and environmentalists become vociferous, seeking tangible solutions, whenever an infra project encroaches forest areas. When affected locals protest, they are branded as pro-environment, anti-development proponents. When places like Joshi Math disappear, then we do a post mortem and conclude that the destruction is due to tunnelling and large infra projects. Environmental Impact Assessment provisions are flexed so that the existing stringent norms do not come in the way of developmental projects. It is emphatic that the environmental clearances are accorded in an equitable manner

Published in South Express on 8.4.23

Sankey is not an isolated episode. History has seen many such episodes. In 18th Century, 363 Bishnoi’s laid down their lives for the protection of Khejri trees in the Khejarli village of Rajasthan. One of the 29 principles of the community speaks about protecting trees and the other  stresses the need for protecting animals. The world renowned Chipko movement had lots of challenges. The unfortunate death due to his 111 days fast unto death agitation of Gurudas Agrawal, an ace environmentalist, engineer, religious leader and professor demanding action against polluting industries of river Ganga evoked lukewarm interest among the bureaucracy and political bigwigs. Bhopal tragedy has not yet faded from our memory. Similar examples are innumerable.

Whether it is citizens’ voice against Char Dham Road project of Himalayas, anti-Sterlite agitation in Tuticorin or Central Vistas of New Delhi, Aravalli agitation, activists are blamed for the activism and condemned as anti-development protagonists. On the one hand our leadership only makes tall claims of voicing our strong views in COP 27 at Egypt and pledges that India will strictly adhere to net zero emissions. On the other, we circumvent the time-tested legal provisions of the land to appease the corporates who are least cared about environmental concerns. When disasters happen and Joshimath’s disappear, expert committees do postmortem just to pile up the papers in the dusted record rooms of Government departments.

Coming back to what happened in Bangalore is astonishingly strange when the century old trees were paving way to the Sanky Flyover construction project in Sankey road , Malleswaram Bangalore adjacent to Sankey tank. It was a peaceful march wearing black shirts to save 55 heritage trees. The protesters hugged the trees and demanded shelving the projects. Signature campaigns were held. All these in non-violent manner. What prompted the law makers to file FIR on April 1st against 60-70 protesters is not clear though the charges indicated that wrongful confinement, unlawful assembly and obstruction of public ways. Under sections 341,141, 149 and 283 of IPC. Threatening people will never silence the lawful people’s movement. History has seen many such onslaughts and may continue to see in future too.. One thing is clear, the residents are determined to take the movement forward. Already many videos have gone viral. Everyone knows that the garden city is slowly losing its charm. Lakes are drying and birds are vanishing. Once known as retirement heaven, Bangalore is slowly becoming a garbage city. Bangalore is no more a garden city with increasing population, mushrooming of IT industries and concrete jungles.

The hasty decision of the Police makes one wonder whether they are unknowingly helping the protesters to ‘make the movement’ go viral. They may also quote the usual excuse, ‘uper se pressure’ (pressure from higher-ups). Interestingly, the local MLA is allegedly against the protests.Perhaps he has forgotten that the election is round the corner. State election has been declared already. Hardly one month is left out. And of course, the politicians are busy hunting vote banks and have no time for all such ‘trivial’ issues. The civic and environmental problems of the city are plenty.  Felling trees will further aggravate the microclimate. Will the officials understand the seriousness of the issues and take corrective measures?