|
| New formula for coal clearances ignores reality |
| Sreelatha Menon / New Delhi Jun 19, 2009, 00:01 IST |
|
Environment and Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh's decision to allow coal mining in all “degraded forests” can expedite mining but may not ensure safety of forests.
The agreement between Coal Minister Shriprakash Jaiswal and the Environment Minister would mean all proposals for mining in dense and moderately dense forests would be automatically cancelled, while all proposals for mining in “degraded, semi degraded forests” would go through the clearance process and may ultimately get approved. But as per the Forest Survey of India (FSI), there is no category called “degraded forests” and experts say the minister has clubbed what it terms as “open forests, scrub and non-forests” under the head of “degraded forests”.
Besides, the government definition of forests also leaves out bio-diverse grasslands and forests which are not recorded on paper. These would now be open for mining. “The term degraded is never used by the FSI, as it would mean admission of failure to protect the forests”, says environment researcher Sharadchandra Lele of Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment. ''It is also a dangerous statement to make, for if the minister says that half the forests are junk and miners can take it, then it will open the gates for degrading the remaining forests,'' says Lele.
Ramesh and Jaiswal have agreed on expediting approvals for coal mining through a strategy of terming all dense forests as “no go areas” and all degraded forests as “go areas”. This is being done by superimposing the coal field areas with digitised maps of the forest cover and is expected to be done in a month.
In the “no go areas”, the proposals for mining would be peremptorily rejected without going through any procedure, while proposals for mining in the “go areas'' proposals would go through routine clearance procedures, which may include a public hearing if it is challenged under the Forest Rights Act.
Chandra Bhushan, deputy director of Centre for Science and Environment, feels that if forests are to be really saved, then it cannot be on the basis of a narrow definition.“The better way is to define ecological hot spots using more criterion than the canopy coverage,” he says. Also, the definition of a forest excludes a lot of bio-diverse grasslands which we cannot lose, he says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
