When the Union environment ministry gave the GMR Group its go-ahead to the Alaknanda hydroelectric project in Uttarakhand three weeks ago, it invited suspicion from non-profit organisations about a possible underhand deal. For, the project was approved despite a recommendation against it by none other than a statutory body, the forest advisory committee (FAC) of the ministry.
The 140-Mw Alaknanda is not the only case where authorities ignored the FAC’s view. The last year saw Paryawaran Bhawan that houses the environment ministry giving the green nod to as many as four projects (including Posco and SAIL’s Chiria mines), overlooking the recommendation of the FAC. In 2010, the ministry had overlooked the committee’s recommendations on the Renuka Dam project in Himachal Pradesh.
The pattern-like recurrence has mystified many. South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP) wonders why statutory bodies exit if none is willing to listen to them. “In the case of the Alaknanda project, it featured issues so serious that both the FAC and the Wildlife Institute of India had raised the issue,” points out Himanshu Thakkar of the Delhi-based not-for-profit organisation founded in 1998.
As for the Chiria mines in deep-south Jharkhand, FAC had raised serious concerns over the proposed diversion of forest land for non-forest use. “It is high time that the committee got more tooth and claw,” adds Thakkar.
FAC advises the ministry on any activity that requires the diversion of forestland for non-forest use. The committee was constituted under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The first such body was constituted at a time when the ministry did not exist, but the charge of the department was held by then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi.
“It is just an advising body,” says an environment ministry official. “The minister may choose not to listen to its recommendations. At times, the ministry has had to look into the broader aspect of development and growth over forest conservation.”
Take, for instance, the case of the three coal blocks in the Hasdeo-Arand region of Chhattisgarh. The FAC was against it, but the ministry had to give clearance, as it was linked to a supercritical thermal power plant. So, in the mid-summer of this year, Jairam Ramesh, then environment minister, gave clearance to SAIL for diverting 595 hectares of forestland. This decision in end-June again overlooked the FAC. The minister had himself pointed out that the committee was against the proposal.
The FAC, said Ramesh while explaining his stand then, would “continue to focus single-mindedly” on issues and concerns related to forest and biodiversity issues, while “as a minister, I will have to necessarily take a broader view”.
The FAC, with seven members — three of them independent — is headed by the director general of forest.
Today, Kalpavriksh feels the FAC’s operations should be made more transparent. “More than strengthening the body, we need a way for public participation in the process of forest clearance,” notes Kanchi Kohli of the 1979-formed non-governmental organisation. “Forests are directly linked to the lives and livelihood of people.”
In the last two to three years, the three independent members of the FAC have become “more vocal” about the process of granting clearances. “However, its functioning must be more transparent,” adds Kohli.
Recently, the FAC members wrote a letter to Jayanthi Natarajan -- Ramesh’s successor in the environment ministry -- raising doubts over the expertise of the site-visiting officers. It claimed that “shoddy reports” formed the basis of large-scale approval for most of the ecologically damaging projects. An evaluation report on the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa (by a retired forest official) “could not even differentiate” between a tiger and a hyena. The report relates to Vedanta’s controversial bauxite mining bid, the three members noted.
