Mission on Sustainable Habitat Promotes Incineration

Incinerator Alternatives Committee ToxicsWatch Alliance

Press Release

Mission on Sustainable Habitat (MSH) contrary to Kyoto Protocol, Environment
Ministry’s White Paper & Supreme Court’s Order

NAPCC & White Paper recommends Biological Treatment, MSH suggests Incineration of Waste

Shifting a Hazardous Plant Does Not Make it Non-Hazardous

July 26, 2011 New Delhi: Incinerator Alternatives Committee (IAC) and ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) reject the recommendations of National Mission on Sustainable Habitat (NMSH) on incineration of waste. Contrary to the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and White Paper of Environment Ministry, NMSH is suggesting a technology that emits persistent organic pollutants, green house gases and heavy metals.

NMSH notes that 42 million tones of municipal solid waste is generated daily in the urban areas in the country, which is not segregated at source and mixed waste is being dumped in to the low lying areas in and around the towns. Municipal waste comprises 30 per cent -55 percent of bio-degradable (organic) matter, 20 per cent-35 per cent inert matter and 5 per cent -15 per cent recyclables. It rightly suggests that organic fraction of municipal solid waste can be profitably converted into useful products like compost (organic manure) but its recommendation for energy production through waste to energy based on Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)/Pelletisation and Pyrolysis/Plasma Gasification-a co-incineration process is highly misplaced. It is right in stating that incineration is difficult due to low calorific value and high moisture content in the waste at page no. 31 of the 114 page Mission document prepared by Union Ministry of Urban Development.

The composition of the waste and its chemical characteristics create a compelling logic against waste incineration either through RDF or any other incineration technology. Indian municipal waste has 25.2 % moisture content and 23.4 % organic matter and 40.03 % ash and inert matter. In such a scenario, if the waste to energy incinerators aren’t merely subsidy concerning initiatives, one does not know what it is.

Union Ministry of Urban Development must not allow Union Ministry of New & Renewable Energy to subvert and distort waste management through its obsession with waste incineration which is one of the sources of green house gases as per Annexure A of Kyoto Protocol.

Residents of Delhi’s Narela-Bawana, Gazipur, Timarpur and Okhla fear imminent public health disaster from the Dioxins emitting waste to energy incinerators in Delhi. Delhi High Court has fixed 29th August as the next date for the hearing of Writ Petition (Civil) 9901/2009 in a related matter. These proposed plants are a toxic legacy of A Raja’s tenure as Union Environment Minister and Rakesh Mehta, the former Chief Secretary, Delhi Govt.

Delhi’s waste to energy incinerator plants are proposed in violation of the Supreme Court’s order dated 6th May, 2005 wherein it said, “…we hope that till the position is clear, the Government would not sanction any further subsidies.” It is noteworthy that on 15th May, 2007, the Court’s order "permit (s) Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources (MNES) to go ahead for the time being with 5 pilot projects chosen by them" but it is noteworthy that this refers specifically to bio-methanation technology. MNES is renamed as Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (MNRE). It has been revealed through RTI that neither the proposed Delhi’s waste to energy incinerator projects one of those 5 pilot projects nor is it based on the recommended technology.

Earlier, government agencies misled Delhi High Court at the behest of the company. It was in March 2009 that Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9901 of 2009 which was initially dismissed on 12th August, 2009 because of misrepresentation of facts by A S Chandiok Additional Solicitor General. The court later found that it was misled earlier which had led to it dismissing the petition. The Petition was restored and the bench headed by the Chief Justice, Delhi High Court in an order dated 15th January, 2010 observed, “that the project in question” and “the location of the pilot project in Delhi was neither recommended by the Expert Committee nor approved by the Supreme Court.” Thus, these projects are in manifest violation of the court order.

Notwithstanding such facts of the case, the matter has been listed some 11 times before the High Court but there has not been a single hearing in the matter because the respondents appear to be engineering delay in the verdict so that the waste incinerator plant get constructed and they can present a fait accompli to the court. It seems to be an attempt to outwit and second guess the court’s order even before the hearing starts.

Delhi High Court on 18th July asked Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) to conduct a joint inquiry about India's first waste-to-energy plant and file a report on the allegations that it posed health risks to citizens. The Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna ordered, "A joint report be submitted by the DPCC and the CPCB after an inquiry of the site of the energy plant about the alleged risks posed to citizens". Counsel for petitioners sought an order to restrain the Jindal Company from constructing the plant. Although, the court said, “The operator must obtain consent to operate from the pollution control board before it can start functioning.” It is a bizarre case where the company has got a consent-to-operate letter on January 20, 2010 even before the plant is ready.

Standing counsel for the Delhi government and for the DPCC did the unthinkable. He shared a note of reply prepared for submission in the Court with a newspaper wherein he claimed that there no “complaints or proof about adverse effects health on the people and surrounding environment” unmindful of the public health disaster in Gandhumguda , Peeranchery Panchayat, Ranga Reddy district, Andhra Pradesh (not Hyderabad as is being claimed). Even Union Environment Minister in a letter dated 1st April, 2011 wrote to Delhi Chief Minister stating “there has been a violation of a basic condition stipulated in the environmental clearance.

A Project Feasibility Report dated November 2010 by Jindal’s Timarpur Okhla Waste Management Pvt Ltd reveals that there has at least been three amendments made to the environmental clearance given for processing of 1950 tons for 15 MW dated 21st March, 2007, it was amended on 9th May, 2007 for processing of 1950 tons for 16 MW and now for processing of 2050 tons for 20.9 MW. A MNRE order reads: “Projects for power generation from MSW through a two-stage process involving production of RDF by processing of MSW and it’s combustion for generation of power are proposed to be taken up in a fast track mode. …The developers will be selected on the basis of a bid for minimum amount of financial assistance (or ‘viability gap’ funding) within an overall ceiling of Rs 1.50 crore per MW.” Clearly, amendments appear to be made to gain this assistance even as the stay by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on sanction of any further subsidies for projects on energy recovery from Municipal Solid Wastes continues to be in force, in manifest contempt of court.

In the light of the Supreme Court order and the letter of the Union Environment Minister, TWA has written to MNRE asking it withdraw or modify its letter (No.10/3/2005-UICA) to refrain from promoting polluting technologies like incinerators.

Hon'ble Supreme Court is quite categorical in saying, "The Committee has recommended that projects based on bio-methanation of MSW should be taken up only on segregated/uniform waste unless it is demonstrated that in Indian conditions, the waste segregation plant/process can separate waste suitable for bio-methanation. It has opined that there is a need to take up pilot projects that promote integrated systems for segregation/collection/ transportation and processing and treatment of waste. In view of the report of the Committee and having regard to the relevant facts, we modify the order passed by this Court earlier and permit Ministry of

Non-conventional Energy Sources (MNES) to go ahead for the time being with 5 pilot projects chosen by them, keeping in view the recommendations made by the Expert Committee and then take appropriate decision in the matter." Despite this Delhi Government has erred in supporting illegal waste to energy incinerators in Delhi which is contrary to the Hon'ble Court's order.

The Okhla waste to energy plant based on hazardous incinerator technology is being set up by Timarpur-Okhla Municipal Solid Waste Management Company Pvt. Ltd (TOWMCL), 100 % subsidiary of O P Jindal Group’s Jindal ITF Urban Infrastructure Ltd amidst bitter protest from residents, environmental groups and waste pickers. This plant is based on Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) patented technology for incineration of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) made of municipal solid waste. The project was due to start on August 2006 and get completed in April 2008 but remains mired in several controversies. TIFAC is under Ministry of Science & Technology. A paper in journal Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, titled URBAN INDIA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: MITIGATION STRATEGIES TOWARDS INCLUSIVE GROWTH recommends “Composting and Recycling may be opted as suitable rather than mechanism of incineration or energy generation.” It has been published by Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University, South Korea.

While bulldozing such manifestly hazardous technologies down the throat of residents of Delhi, MCD’s Feasibility Study and Master Plan for Optimal Waste Treatment and Disposal for the Entire State of Delhi is ignored. The Master Plan says, “Incineration of RDF is considered waste incineration.” (Page 25, Appendix D, Technology Catalogue). It also says the costs of RDF are often high for societies with low calorific value because energy is used to dry the waste before it becomes feasible to burn it. Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) is a tried, tested and failed technology. In fact the Master Plan Report (2020) of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) itself says, “RDF is often an option when emission standards are lax and RDF is burned in conventional boilers with no special precautions for emissions.”

Unmindful of the fact that Asian Development Bank has withdrawn from the Okhla waste incinerator plant, it is sad that World Bank has announced to take up Okhla’s waste incineration plant as a case study at the C40 Cities Mayor's Summit, held in Sao Paulo in Brazil from May 31 to June 2, 2011 in the presence of Delhi government’s Chief Secretary P.K. Tripathi. This is being presented as an endorsement of the polluting plant by the vested interests. A presentation by National Institute of Bank Management, Pune titled Sustainable Development: An Indian Perspective and Role of Banks states “Incineration considered unsuitable due to high moisture content of waste”. World Bank should take note of it and recommend against such hazardous technologies which emit unmnageable toxic emissions that poison our food chain.

Reminding the concerned people that “Distancing the population at risk” from the plant using hazardous technology “is an improbable solution to the question of risk”, IAC and TWA disapprove of Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) approach in dealing the imminent public health hazards from incinerators by merely seeking alternative locations for the proposal. Delhi Chief Minister’s proposal to shift polluting plants from one site to another is uncalled for because shifting a polluting plant to another location does make it non-polluting.

It must be noted that Union Minister of Environment & Forests’ publication titled ‘White Paper on Pollution in Delhi with an Action Plan’ says, “The experience of the incineration plant at Timarpur, Delhi and the briquette plant at Bombay support the fact that thermal treatment of municipal solid waste is not feasible, in situations where the waste has a low calorific value. A critical analysis of biological treatment as an option was undertaken for processing of municipal solid waste in Delhi and it has been recommended that composting will be a viable option. Considering the large quantities of waste requiring to be processed, a mechanical composting plant will be needed.”

Unmindful of and oblivious of the composition of Indian waste, which has a low calorific value and is hence unsuitable for electricity-generation, MNRE and Delhi Government had for quite a long time experimented with incineration technologies despite consistent failures against the cardinal principles of waste management at considerable human cost.

For Details: Incinerator Alternatives Committee (IAC), Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) Mobile: 9818089660, E-mail: krishna2777@gmail.com Web:toxicswatch.blogspot.com

Read more...

Supreme Court Fines Hindustan Agro Chemicals Pvt Ltd

Note:Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)has been campaigning for listing of chrysotile asbestos in the UN hazardous chemicals list. It had written to UPA Chairperson, Prime Minister and the Chemicals & Fertilizers Minister prior to the the UN Meeting. BANI has thanked them for change in Government of India's position after 7 years and urged them take the next logical step to phase out asbestos for good, decontaminate asbestos laden buildings and ensure relief for the victims of asbestos.

Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)

Asbestos toxic, says India

IN WHAT could prove to be a breakthrough in containing environmental impacts of white asbestos globally, India has agreed to label the mineral hazardous under the UN’s Rotterdam Convention. This is a historic shift in stance, as India has always claimed there was not sufficient data on the health risks of chrysotile asbestos. Listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention or the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) list will mandate the exporting countries to share information on the hazards of the mineral with the importing countries. India announced its position on June 22, the third day of the 5th Conference of Parties (COP) of the Convention in Geneva, at a meeting of contact groups set up to discuss listing of chrysotile asbestos in the absence of a consensus. It received a standing ovation at the plenary meeting for changing its stand.

Source: Down to Earth

Dyeing units: women observe a fast

Members of the Save Tirupur Women's Forum observed a fast here on Wednesday in order to draw attention of the State Government to the crisis prevailing in Tirupur knitwear cluster owing to the closure of dyeing units by the order of Madhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifras High Court.The agitators sought the intervention of Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, for evolving a comprehensive solution which could help the industry to overcome the problems encountered in the discharge of effluents generated from the dyeing units. Rajathi Santanakrishnan, president of the forum, said the members wanted the Chief Minister to have a direct interface with workers and family members of those running dyeing units.

The Hindu, New Delhi, July 22, 2011

Chemical firm to pay Rs 200 crore for defying SC orders

The Supreme Court has come down heavily on a chemical company for defying its orders for the past 15 years to pay Rs 37 crore compensation for polluting water in Rajasthan and enhanced the amount to Rs 200 crore as punishment.

"This is a very unusual and extraordinary litigation where even after 15 years of the final judgement (date of judgement - February 13, 1996) the litigation has been deliberately kept alive by filing one interlocutory application or the other in order to avoid compliance of the judgement," a bench of justices Dalveer Bhandari and H L Dattu observed and directed Hindustan Agro Chemicals Pvt Ltd to pay the compensation of Rs 37 crore with 12 per cent compound interest amounting to approximately Rs 202 crore.

"The said judgement of this Court has not been permitted to acquire finality till date. This is a classic example how by abuse of the process of law even the final judgement of the apex court can be circumvented for more than a decade and a half," the Supreme Court said.

This is indeed a "very serious" matter concerning the sanctity and credibility of the judicial system in general and of the apex court in particular, the court observed.

The judges regretted that though the apex court had directed closure of the Hindustan Agro Chemicals and attachment of its assets as early as on November 4, 1997, for causing large scale pollution several villages of Rajasthan, the company had successfully dodged compliance due to its money power.

The bench imposed a further cost of Rs 10 lakh on the company for prolonging the litigation.

Taking a stern view of sustained efforts made by the company to circumvent the order, the bench said people who perpetuate "illegal acts" by obtaining stays and injunctions must be made to pay the sufferer.

http://www.indiapress.org/gen/news.php/The_Times_of_India/400x60/0

Source: The Times of India, New Delhi, July 25, 2011

Biomedical waste: 4 Ambala hospitals issued notices

District administration on 25,July 2011slapped notices on four private hospitals after they were found to be ignoring rules for disposal of Biomedical waste. Officials had also conducted raids there last week. The facilities warned of action in accordance with Environment Act. include Ashirwad Hospital, Ashirwad Nursing Home, Saket Hospital and Narayan Hospital functioning from Ambala city and cantt areas. At the same time, the administration also directed private medical practitioners and diagnostic centres to ensure proper disposal of biomedical waste.

http://www.indiapress.org/gen/news.php/The_Times_of_India/400x60/0

PPCB closure notices to 20 dyeing units in Ludhiana

The Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) today issued closure notices to as many as 20 dyeing units of Ludhiana, located on the Bahadur-Ke Road, for failing to initiate the process to install a common effluent treatment plant. According to the PPCB notice, all the erring dyeing units should explain their position individually within 15 days as to why the Board should not direct the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) authorities to disconnect their power connections without any further notice.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110722/punjab.htm#1

Source: The Tribune, New Delhi, July 23, 2011

Read more...

Illegal mining a reality: Chief Justice Kapadia

New Delhi, July 24 (IANS) Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia Sunday said that illegal mining was going on in various states of the country and called upon the central government to put in place a regulator for both appraisal and pricing of extracted minerals.

'Illegal mining is going on in different states,' said Justice Kapadia, who presided over the valedictory function of a seminar 'Global environment and disaster management: Law and Society'.

He said that norms concerning mining were there but these were being flouted at the state level.

'All norms and mining plans are there, but at the state level, they are being flouted for some reasons. We do not have machinery to supervise even mining plans for environmental protection. There is a biggest problem of pricing. Time has come when excavated minerals should be judged, auctioned or should have price determining mechanism,' he said.

'Over the years, I have come to realise that loopholes are not in law, loopholes are in our character,' Justice Kapadia added.

His remarks come at a time when Karnataka Lokayukta's yet-to-be submitted report on illegal mining has created a political storm in the state, as it apparently names Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa and some other political leaders.

Justice Kapadia said there was under-invoicing in the prices of extracted minerals and it was sold abroad for a huge margin.

He said that a problem faced by the apex court was of cases relating to buildings and projects coming up at the end in the form of public interest litigations (PILs).

Justice Kapadia said that in many cases, village bodies initially grant no objection certificates, but later turn their backs and protest against the projects.

His remarks come in the wake of courts stricking down some of the land acquisitions made by the Uttar Pradesh government in Greater Noida.

The Supreme Court had earlier this month quashed acquisition of land in Shahberi village in Greater Noida. A total of 156 hectares of village land was acquired by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) in Shahberi and then sold to developers at exorbitant rates.

The Allahabad High Court too has quashed acquisition of 598 hectares in Patwari village - the second land acquisition struck down by the court this month.

Justice Kapadia called for a regulatory mechanism for appraisement of projects, saying that the authorities cannot rely on the reports of the project proponents.

He also referred to reduction in arable land in the country.

He said development should take place in a scientific manner and courts were sometimes faced with cases relating to choosing between protection of livelihood and environment.

Regulator for green appraisals soon, says PM
New Delhi, July 24, PTI:

In the backdrop of the controversy over environmental clearances to major projects, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Sunday said an independent regulator would soon revamp the process and help protect ecology without bringing back ''the hated licence permit raj'' in the country.

“We hope to establish an independent regulator, the National Environment Appraisal and Monitoring Authority soon. This authority could lead to a complete change in the process of granting environmental clearances. Staffed by dedicated professionals, it will work on a full time basis to evolve better and more objective standards of scrutiny,” Singh said at a seminar on “Global Environment and Disaster Management: Law and Society”.

The move to establish the authority appears to have come in the wake of stalling of several industrial and mining projects by the Environment Ministry, till recently led by Jairam Ramesh.
The prime minister hoped that in future there would not be much litigation in projects due to environmental issues. “I must also mention that but for the enduring wisdom of our judiciary, we would not have the bulk of what we proudly call ‘environmental jurisprudence’,” Singh said.

Singh maintained that in the 1990s, due to rapid industrialisation, brought about by economic liberalisation, there was a threat of depletion of natural resources. But the judiciary had ensured there was no compromise on this issue.

“Over all, a major challenge ahead is to put in place a legal and regulatory framework which is effective in protecting the environment but without bringing back the hated license permit raj of the pre-1991 period,” Singh said.

Singh also hailed the new “comprehensive law” which established a specialised tribunal for settlement of a “broad spectrum of environmental cases of civil nature.”

“We have joined a handful of forward looking countries to have such a dedicated mechanism. This tribunal has started functioning and I expect it will help to reduce the workload of our courts,” he said.

Read more...

Waste Incinerator Company Conducts Hearing Outside High Court

HC orders inquiry about energy plant to ascertain health hazards
PTI (TOI)

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on 18th July asked Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) to conduct a joint inquiry about India's first waste-to-energy plant and file a report on the allegations that it posed health risks to citizens.

"A joint report be submitted by the DPCC and the CPCB after an inquiry of the site of the energy plant about the alleged risks posed to citizens," a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by Sukhdev Vihar Residents Welfare Association alleging the waste-to-energy plant emits hazardous gas and other products which posed serious health threats to the persons staying in and around it.

During the hearing, Justice Khanna asked the Delhi government whether the shifting of the plant was possible or not.

Govt, residents spar in court over waste-to-energy plant

Indian Express
New Delhi The spat between residents of Sukhdev Vihar and the Delhi government over the proposed waste-to-energy plant witnessed another twist during the ongoing hearing in the Delhi High Court on 18th July.

While the counsel for the Residents’ Welfare Association (RWA) adduced a note claiming that the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) had given to the plant operator a consent to run it in January last year, even before the unit was ready, the government counsel countered that the operator had not applied for such a permission till date.

The matter came up for hearing before a division bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna during which senior advocate Arvind K Nigam sought a court order to restrain the operator from making the plant functional till the judges adjudicated upon the contentions regarding its proximity to residential area, and also the possible harmful effects on people owing to its emission.

“Let there be a court order. In the meantime, they (operator) will not function,” pleaded Nigam. To this, the court said, “The operator must obtain consent to operate from the pollution control board before it can start functioning.”

“The court must appreciate that they have already got a consent-to-operate letter. How could they obtain this on January 20, 2010, when the plant was not even ready?” argued Nigam.

Responding to this, standing counsel for the Delhi government and for the DPCC, Najmi Waziri said the information being furnished by the petitioner’s counsel was not right since the private operator had not even applied for obtaining a consent to operate.

“I have (a statement) from the operator that they have not even applied for the consent to operate. Only a consent to establish has been given. There is no question of granting a consent to operate when they have not even applied for it,” submitted Waziri.

After hearing the two completely contradictory statements, Justice Khanna asked Nigam to verify the source of the consent letter, for the operator had refused to having even applied for it till date and the government has also supported this stand.

“Considering what has transpired in the court, you must verify the documents you are relying upon,” Justice Khanna told Nigam.

The bench then recorded the statements of both the lawyers. It, however, refrained from passing any restraining order and merely elucidated that “without a consent to operate, the plant cannot operate”. The court will now hear the matter in August.

The plant awaits a nod from the court as residents of the area have filed a PIL, claiming that the plant was too close and posed an environment threat.

The Rs 200-crore project in Okhla is expected to treat more than 1,000 tonnes of solid waste, converting it into electricity. The Delhi government has termed it as a “potential answer to the city’s waste disposal problem”.

Concerns over Sukhdev Vihar plant baseless, model a success across the world: Govt to HC

Indian Express

Waste-to-energy plant z Residents of colony filed PIL in HC claiming that the plant was too close and posed an environment threat

The Delhi government has filed a detailed counter to the PIL by Sukhdev Vihar residents who had claimed that the construction of a waste-to-energy plant in the locality will damage the environment.

Calling the project a “potential answer to city’s waste disposal problem”, Delhi government’s Standing Counsel Najmi Waziri told the Delhi High Court that similar models are running successfully in other countries.

The PIL was filed by Sukhdev Vihar Residents’ Welfare Association in 2009.

The government, in its reply, has listed reasons why the court should give its approval for the construction of the Rs 200-crore project in Okhla. The plant is expected to treat more than 1,000 tonnes of solid waste, converting it into electricity.

Waziri also presented several photographs of similar plants operating in other countries, along with related charts and graphs on the estimated emission from the proposed plant. The counsel presented examples from Japan, Denmark, US, France, Sweden, Italy, etc.

He told the Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that any reservations regarding the proximity of the proposed plant to densely populated residential areas or hospitals are “unfounded and baseless”.

“Over 800 such waste to energy plants are in operation worldwide. A large number of them are located, literally, in the heart of thriving cities and have been functioning ever since without any complaints or proof about adverse effects health on the people and surrounding environment,” the note presented by the government read.

The government has also drawn a parallel between Delhi and Japan, considering the topographical match of the two cities and paucity of space in them.

“Delhi has the additional challenge of an ever-increasing population, leading to a further increase in waste generation. It is estimated that by 2020 Delhi’s municipal waste generation will be about 18,000 mt/day from 8,000 mt/day today. Both Japan and Delhi cannot ship out their municipal solid waste (MSW) and must find solutions to dispose of the same in the most effective and environment-friendly way,” the note added.

Pitching for the technology to be used in the plant, the government claimed that the Refuse Derived Fuel incineration technology was already in use at Hyderabad and Vijayawada and it had been approved by the Department of Science and Technology.

The government also denied any instance of violation of the municipal rules, regarding management and handling of municipal solid waste. It argued that a decision to set up an integrated waste processing project at a suitable location was taken after due deliberations with the representatives of various departments of the Delhi government.

It said that for over three decades, the land in question has been earmarked and used for disposal of municipal solid waste. As per allotment of the land by the DDA to the NDMC, first an area of 8.5 acre was given in 1980 and subsequently an additional five acre was handed over for a compost plant in 1995.

Residents, in their PIL, had argued that while they are not against the idea behind the project, their concern is the proximity of the plant to their colony. They had also submitted a memorandum to Minister of Environment and Forests and held demonstrations demanding that further construction of the plant be stopped immediately.
 

Read more...

Land Titling Bill, World Bank, US & UID Number

Nandan Manohar Nilekani's promotion of Hernando de Sotto's failed idea and the book 'The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else' through his own book Imagining India arguing that national ID system would be a big step for land markets to facilitate right to property and undoing of abolition of right to property in 1978 in order to bring down poverty!.

The above-mentioned idea is linked to the proposed Land Titling Bill. In the Draft Land Titling Bill, 2010 there was a reference to Unique Property Identification Number. It appears that the real motive of the Unique Identification (UID) Number is being hidden.

Government of India has revised the draft and come out with the Land Titling Act, 2011. Its Section 10 deals with "Preparation of Records". It reads as follows: “Upon proclamation issued under Section 4, the Authority shall proceed to prepare a record of all immovable properties, situated in notified area, which shall contain: (A) (i) Survey: A record of boundary or boundaries or any part of boundary of every immoveable property duly identified with a distinct I.D. This distinct I.D. may be tagged with the unique identity being developed by the Unique Identification Authority of India." Section 36 (2) (b) (i) of the Bill deal with "Register of Titles". It reads: With respect to each immovable property, the Register of Titles shall contain a property sheet inter alia consisting of the following particulars, namely:- Part I:- Descriptive data regarding the immovable property (Unique Identification Number, plot number, total area, built up and vacant area, address, site area, undivided share, if any, in the land, etc.). The Bill is given below.

The World Bank’s partnership with six multinational companies and two governments was announced by the World Bank on April 23, 2010 in Washington. Wikileaks cable that reveals the US State department is interested in knowing about India’s Unique Identification program, a biometric database of the world’s largest democracy. The information sought by US authorities is available on Wikileaks website. It appears that UNDP’s "Innovation Support for Social Protection" is also linked to it. In effect, it seems to be a surveillance initiative done at the behest of transnational interests.

Government of India
Ministry of Rural Development
Department of Land Resources
New Delhi, India

PUBLIC NOTICE

In continuation on the previous preliminary draft Land Titling Bill, 2010, the Department of Land Resources (DoLR), Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, has revised the bill, based on comments / suggestions received from various stake holders. The revised draft Land Titling Bill, 2011 is attached herewith for comments / suggestions. The comments / suggestions may kindly be sent by email to da-dolr@nic.in or posted to Director(Land Reforms), Department of Land Resources, G-Wing, NBO Building, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi upto 31st July, 2011.

Click here to view/ download Revised draft Land Titling Bill, 2011

Read more...

Global Wealth to $308 trillion by 2030

Global GDP growth is expected to slow to 3.2% in 2011 and stay there in 2012. India’s GDP is expected to be $ 30-trillion by 2030. It has been projected that there will be ten-fold growth in the global economy, from US$32 trillion at its onset in 2000 to US$62 trillion today and US$308 trillion in nominal terms by 2030.

The first industrial revolution spanned 1870 to 1913 and marked the emergence of the U.S. as the world's biggest economy.

Japan and the Asian tigers—Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan—grew from the second economic surge, which began after World War II.

Standard Chartered Bank says the current supercycle will push the world economy from $62 trillion in 2010 to a projected $308 trillion by 2030, with emerging economies accounting for 68 percent of that growth.

Read more...

Fact sheet on Rio Tinto, Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh

January 1997: DIAMONDS and politics make strange bedfellows. But not in Madhya Pradesh where they threaten to bring down a government as charges of corruption and a sell-out of national honour are being bandied about. http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?202841

Fact sheet on Rio Tinto, Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh

May, 2004: ACC Rio Tinto of Australia, De Beers of South Africa, BHP Minerals of Canada and the National Mineral Development Corporation are set to start survey and exploration of diamond mines in the Panna, Chhattarpur, Tikamgarh, Sagar, Angor and Majhgawan areas of the state. ACC Rio Tinto has been issued four reconnaissance permits for 10,000 sq km area in the Panna Damoh and Chhatarpur districts.

2004: Rio Tinto discovered a significant diamond deposit in Chhattarpur district of Madhya Pradesh.

2006: Rio Tinto was given the prospecting licence

17 January 2007: Bunder Project is a proposed new diamond mine , located at Janpad Panchayat Buxwaha, Tehsil Buxwaha, District, Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh. If the project is approved and proves viable, it could be the "first significant world class diamond mine in India", according to the Rio Tinto Group, who have proposed the mine. The foundation of the plant was inaugurated by Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan on 17 January 2007. Government accorded pollution clearance certificate by its letter no. 213/EPCO/SEIAA/08 dated 22.11.08 for DMS plant.

July 2007: Australian multinational mining company, Rio Tinto has applied for prospecting license for locating diamond area in Madhya Pradesh's Panna and Chhatarpur districts. Diamond Officer J S Solanki said Rio Tinto has discovered a 'Kimerlite Pipe Line' at Bakswaha in Chhatarpur and Amjhiria and Rampur in Panna district. The company has applied for prospecting license. After receiving no objection certificate (NOC) from the forest department, the application would be forwarded to the state government. The company would begin its work as soon as it receives permission from the government. National Mines Development Corporation (NDMC) has also started surveying the area in view of new possibilities.

23 June 2008: Rio Tinto announced on 23rd June that it had filed for a mining lease to proceed with the project. They are also waiting permission from the pollution control board for a Dense Media Separation Plant which would allow samples taken from the mine to be processed on location.

December 2008: Rio Tinto has discovered diamond deposit in Chhatarpur district of Madhya Pradesh. Rio Tinto Diamond - one of the largest producers of rough diamond - has sought the mining lease from state government for running its commercial business in Chhatarpur, he added. Chhatarpur is the second district after Panna in the state where diamond deposit was discovered. They were expecting 30 million carats of diamond deposit in Chhatarpur and the state government is hopeful of getting Rs 100 crore royalty from this project's commercial production. Rio Tinto would begin mining diamonds using latest technology. Rio Tinto has put in around USD 25 million in exploring and discovering the diamond deposit. The firm was exploring diamond reserve for well over four years and eventually discovered it some months ago. Rio Tinto is the first in the last five years which has got prospecting license for diamond exploration in India.

August 2009: Virbhadra Singh, India’s Steel Minister said that National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) is exploring for diamond reserves in the Chattarpur District. "We have requested the Madhya Pradesh government to allow NMDC to explore more areas adjoining the Panna mines so that the area could emerge as a diamond hub. Moreover, Chattarpur district is also rich in diamond reserves," he said. Maintaining that this would attract investments in diamond cutting and polishing

2010: The presence of diamond deposits has been detected in Chhattarpur district of Madhya Pradesh during an aerial survey by an Australian company. "The process for granting permission for a land survey to confirm the presence of diamonds is underway". Diamonds were earlier found in Panna district, which is close to Chhattarpur. Australia's Rio Tinto Exploration Company had been carrying out aerial surveys for diamonds over the past three years in the northeastern part of the state. The central government had given permission to the Australian firm for such surveys.

31st August, 2010: The second largest mining company of the world Rio Tinto has began production of diamonds from its Bunder Diamond project at Chhatarpur district in Madhya Pradesh. "Rio Tinto has commenced production and bulk sampling at Mumbai diamond auctions," said SK Mishra, MP Mining and Mineral Secretary. The company has so far invested about Rs 250 crore and mining lease had been offered on 475 hectares. Rio Tinto was given prospecting licence for the project in 2006. The company will gradually scale up investment and will cover 5,000 hectares over a period and the investment is expected to touch Rs 2,500 crore. Madhya Pradesh's Additional Chief Secretary (Commerce, Industry and Employment), Satya Prakash said, the company will invest Rs 370 crore over the next three years. The state government has also earmarked 280 acres near Indore for a diamond park for value addition like cutting, polishing and jewellery. MP is the only diamond producing state with prospect of 1200 thousand carats of diamond reserve.

November 2010: Environmentalists and conservationists raise serious objections about the Madhya Pradesh government giving full support to global diamond giant Rio Tinto’s Indian subsidiary planning commercial mining of diamonds in an eco-sensitive zone close to the Panna tiger reserve. Tiger expert Valmik Thapar, asked about Rio Tinto’s Bunder diamond project in Chhatarpur district, a few kilometers from the Panna reserve’s western border, said: “It’s an example of a completely dysfunctional system of government from top to bottom.” He said that if Panna were to recover (the loss of all its tigers), it would need at least another 10 years of complete protection of surrounding forests and (their) connecting corridors. Asked about Rio Tinto’s plan to start commercial diamond mining in an area which is also the watershed for the Panna reserve and the Shyamri river, considered one of the cleanest in the country, Thapar said the water regime was also essential for life and no water resource should be negated by those bent on commercial exploitation of mineral resources in forest areas. Almost 99 per cent of the Bunder diamondiferous block is inside a forest which is the northernmost tip of the best corridor of teak forests south of the Gangetic plain. “It is an established law that mining is non-forestry activity — if pitting is involved, prospecting is also mining activity,” a senior state forest officer said, adding that a probe was needed to determine on what grounds clearance to prospect in this area was given in the first place.

March 10, 2011: PROCCEDINGS OF THE FOREST ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING of Ministry of Environment & Forests refer to Agenda no. 6 on “ Prospecting of diamond at 143 additional locations in 2329.75 ha. forest land located in 18 compartments in Buxwaha Range in Chhatarpur district of Madhya Pradesh by M/s Rio Tinto Exploration India Private Limited. [File No. 8-49/2006-FC-(Vol.)]” It states, “Due to paucity of time the proposal could not be discussed during the meeting”.
March 22, 2011: Jeetendra Singh Bundela, MP from Khajuraho laid a statement in Lok Sabha on “need to review the diamond mining project in district Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh posing serious threat to environment in the region.”

April 2011: Rio Tinto applied for a mining licence for what could be the largest diamond mine in India. The global mining giant is carrying out pre-feasibility exploration at the Bunder Mine project near Chhattarpur in Madhya Pradesh. The mine can have reserves of 27.4 million carats, making it the largest diamond find in the last 10 years in the world. The Bunder mine is likely to hold resources seven times more than Panna, the only operating diamond mine in the country. It is estimated that the grade of the Bunder reserves is 0.7 carats per tonne. Diamond traders in Delhi estimated the value of the roughs at $4-5 billion.

The grant of the licence to Rio may get delayed as environment activists have filed a case against the firm in Madhya Pradesh High Court. The company claims that it is fully compliant with all laws, including environmental norms. The domestic diamond processing industry generates revenues of more than Rs 70,000 crore annually but is facing a shortage of 30 per cent in its requirement of roughs. Rio, a Reliance Industries’ subsidiary has been prospecting for diamond in the country. The Reliance subsidiary holds a prospecting licence for about 1800 sq km spread over Rewa, Siddhi and Satna in Madhya Pradesh.

9th April, 2011: Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notices to the Centre and the state government on illegal mining of diamonds by international mining companies. The court has asked both the governments to reply in this matter within four weeks. Considering the act of illegal mining as a serious offence, a double bench of Chief Justice Sayed Rafat Alam and Justice Sushil Harkauli rapped the Forest Departments, Mining Secretaries of the state as well as the Centre and issued notices against them in addition to the MP Pollution Control Board and Chattarpur Collector. The issue of illegal diamond mining came to light when a PIL was filed by a social activist. The PIL stated that an Australian mining company, Rio Tinto, has been carrying on exploitation of mineral resources in Chattarpur district violating the prescribed provisions. The PIL said that under Section 2 of the Forest Preservation Act, permission from the Central government is required to carry on mining trade in any part of India. Other than this, a no objection certificate (NOC) from Pollution Control Board is mandatory. The counsel of the petitioner, Vipin Yadav, told the court that the Collector of Chattarpur had written a letter to the Revenue Department in this context, but no action was taken. Yadav added, “This proves that the officials of Forest and Revenue departments are working hand-in-hand and foreign companies are making profit at the cost of our country’s natural resources.”

Read more...

An Open Letter to the People of India: a Day Light Robbery in Ethiopia

An Open Letter to the People of India: a Day Light Robbery in Ethiopia
Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE)

“If it is unacceptable for Ethiopians to go to India, China or Saudi Arabia and clear their land without consulting the people, it is unacceptable here. We are human too and we care about the future of our children like everyone else...my message to the foreign investors is, listen to the owners of the land!” (An Anuak man from the Gambella region of southwestern Ethiopia)

Dear People of India:

I greet you in peace and hope that the good people of India, who have yourselves thrown off the shackles of colonialism only 63 years ago, will join with Ethiopians and other Africans in confronting the hundreds of Indian companies who are now at the forefront of colluding with African dictators in robbing the people of their land, resources, lives and future! As either prospective buyers or simply as justice-loving Indians, you deserve to have full disclosure regarding the nature of these Ethiopian “business deals,” the impact it is having on “real people” on the ground, and the risks of “doing business” in Ethiopia with the current dictator of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi.

On June 8, 2011, Oakland Institute (OI) http://www.oaklandinstitute.org and the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE) www.solidaritymovement.org released a joint investigative report on Ethiopia, Understanding Land Investments in Ethiopia, http://www.solidaritymovement.org/downloads/110608UnderstandingLandDealsInAfrica.pdf, part of a larger study of nine African countries affected by the new phenomenon called land-grabs. In Ethiopia, these “land-grabs” are being carried out as foreign investors make deals to lease some of the most fertile agricultural land for up to 99 years at negligible prices. Because private land ownership is prohibited in Ethiopia, “land deals” are being negotiated in secret agreements between these foreign investors and the Ethiopian government; without any consultation with the people.

My name is Obang Metho and I am writing this to you on behalf of the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE), a non-violent, grassroots social justice movement of diverse Ethiopians committed to bringing truth, justice, freedom, equality and the respect for human and civil rights to the people of Ethiopia and beyond. Our guiding principles are based on putting “humanity before ethnicity,” or any other distinctive that dehumanizes other human beings; and secondly, that “no one is truly free until all are free,” meaning that ignoring or contributing to the injustice, exploitation and oppression of our neighbors, near or far, creates greater insecurity and disharmony for all of us in this global world.

I come to you first and foremost as a fellow human as I call you to join our effort to stop the plundering of Ethiopia and Africa by African dictators, their cronies and their foreign partners—some of whom are Indian—who are hungry for our resources but care little for our people. An indigenous Ethiopian man described it this way: “This regime is one of the most hated regimes in Ethiopian history… they kill the people like they are nothing and with no remorse.” In light of this, I must warn you that those who are “doing business” in Ethiopia, are partnering with an illegitimately elected dictator and his authoritarian regime built on the brutal suppression of the rights of its citizens. The intent of my open letter is to expose the dark underside of these “deals” with the hope of joining forces with those in India who demand justice and human rights for all.

Ethiopia is controlled by a repressive regime, posing as a democracy, which maintains its power not by the ballot, but by the bullet; clearly shown by its99.6% claim to victory in the 2010 election and complete closing off of any political space. All sectors of society are tightly controlled by a one-party minority regime (TPLF), which politicizes all benefits—including business opportunities, education, jobs, agricultural supports and even food aid (see recent Human Rights Watch report http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/10/18/ethiopia-donor-aid-supports-repression )—and punishes any dissent; creating a silenced Ethiopian society.

Ethiopians are pro-business and pro-investment; particularly as Ethiopia is reported to be the second poorest country in the world with 90% of the people living under the poverty level. What we oppose is the daylight robbery of Ethiopia by modern day bandits who are willing to make secret deals with a corrupt government that would be illegal in India and other more developed countries. Abundant resources; combined with a disenfranchised public, few protective regulatory mechanisms, a lack of transparency, duty-free deals and regime promises of cheap labor have brought opportunists from all over the world—from India, China, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Turkey and beyond—all hungry to eat off the weakened carcass of the future hopes of the Ethiopian people.

Into this environment, have come over 500 Indian companies—more than from any other country in the world—to capitalize on this “goldmine of opportunity.” One Ethiopian from the Oromia region protested: “Our land is being given to the Indian companies and anyone who speaks out against it is labeled as a terrorist who is not supposed to have any rights or question any actions by the government.”

Why would any Indians be part of this? Any who resent the colonial past of your own country, should know that it began through the British East India Trading Company; where some of the more unscrupulous often colluded with corrupt indigenous government officials. What would Gandhi say today were he to know that Indians, who were only freed from the shackles of colonialism in recent history, were now at the forefront of this “land-grabbing” as part of the race for foreign control over African land and resources; currently being called the Neo-Colonialism of Africa?

Karuturi Global Ltd, (KGL), the largest investor, has now leased 300,000 hectares in Gambella for 99 years; allegedly paying only $1.19 US per hectare; starting six years from now. This is the equivalent of 55 rupees per hectare! The local people have not been consulted nor compensated and are now being forced from ancestral land and told to build their own homes in resettlement villages.The Karuturi contract, as well as others that have been seen, show no benefits to the local people despite what was said publically. Instead, the regime promises foreign investors that the land will be handed over to them as “vacant” land, free of any impediments. Because villages of people have been living on this newly leased land for centuries, their resettlement elsewhere is being assured in these contracts. Anticipating resistance from the displaced, the regime also promises to provide “security” to these companies.

No one is representing the people or refuting government claims. One indigenous Anuak man in the highly fertile Gambella region complained, “This land is not just “nobody’s land” as the government claims; it is our life! Without it, we could have never existed as a people. I don’t think we will accept our land being given away to foreigners without resisting.” Many Anuak have already been displaced and many more have been warned to leave their homes so Karuturi Global Ltd, can take possession of their land but the people have refused. Please watch the following 12 minutes video of the families who have been forced from their ancestral land. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/ethiopia-centre-global-farmland-rush?CMP=twt_gu. In response, Ethiopian troops have arrived in Gambella; arresting increasing numbers of Anuak. Some have disappeared; others have been killed. Whenever the troops come, human rights violations increase. This is not new.

In 2003, 424 Anuak leaders who were opposed to the exploration of oil—due to lack of input from the people and adequate measures to prevent environmental destruction—were brutally massacred in three days. Extra-judicial killings, arrests, rape and destruction of property continued for two years. See Human Rights Watch report: Targeting the Anuak: Human Rights Violations and Crimes against Humanity in Ethiopia's Gambella Region http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/03/23/ethiopia-crimes-against-humanity-gambella-region. Investigations by Genocide Watch called these acts of genocide and crimes against humanity; linking culpability to top Ethiopian leadership. The case is now referred to the International Criminal Court.

As Ethiopians are threatening to rise up against the large-scale robbery of land and resources; accompanied by the widespread perpetration of human rights abuses; the Meles regime just has purchased 200 new tanks for $100 million (USD) rather than meet the growing food needs of the 13 to 16 million Ethiopians who must rely on falling levels of food aid from donor countries in the coming months. Who will these tanks be used against if not Ethiopian citizens who are only wanting to survive in their own land?

Companies like Karuturi, Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Enami Biotech, Supra Floritech, Sharpoorji Pallonji and Co, Praj Industries and others doing business in Ethiopia, should be warned of the risks of complicity in human rights violations or corrupt practices—including bribes and kickbacks—when partnering with a regime known for both; particularly as the government attempts to evict citizens from their land.

Additionally, once this TPLF/EPRDF regime ends—something inevitable considering the rising outrage surrounding these deals—a whole new set of laws will be put in place and any prior agreements will not be binding. Instead, companies seeking to do long-term business in Ethiopia should put pressure on this regime to ensure that no unethical business practices were followed and that the civil and human rights of the people were upheld. As Gandhi warned, “There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it—always.”

My fellow people of India, from far away, you may not hear the cries of the Ethiopian mothers, see the tears flowing on the cheeks of the children, feel the pain in the hearts of the elders or know the desperation of the fathers as they lose hope in providing for their families. You may not see the increasing numbers of Ethiopian children with swollen bellies, the emaciated people dying in the streets or the homeless children searching for food, for Ethiopia is already widely known for these images of suffering; however, to Ethiopians, the level and depth of poverty has tragically deepened despite claims of double digit economic growth—the profits of which all must be ending up in the pockets of those in power who have sold out on the people. Only good leadership, accompanied by good governance, will change the image of Ethiopia. As the people of Ethiopia engage in a fervent struggle for such change, will the people of India support or hinder them?

What would you do if an Ethiopian company came to India and evicted citizens from millions of hectares of their own land in order to grow food for export; affecting food security for generations? Would you stand for it? As Indians anticipate the vote on the National Right to Food, does that same right apply to Ethiopians?

In 1947, the Brits did not offer independence to the Indian people, but liberation only came when the Indian people rose up to peaceably demand their God-given rights—something that has made India a shining example to the world. Will you deny us the same?Ghandi’s fight for Indian independence was undergirded with a deep belief in the worth and dignity of every human being. It inspired the greatest movements for freedom and rights in the 20th century; including the Civil Rights Movement of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

We Africans have been the target of colonialization, slavery and exploitation in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and a target of African dictators and their foreign cronies in the 20th century. We have had enough and will not tolerate this new onslaught of exploitation and dehumanization in the 21st century! Many want to keep us Africans poor, disenfranchised and vulnerable only to more easily take advantage of the pillaging of our continent.

Will you help work within India to bring greater transparency and compliance with whatever protective laws and safeguards are in place in India? Will Indian individuals, social justice groups, the media, policy making groups, religious groups and all other stakeholders join us in our struggle for freedom from a dictatorial regime robbing us of our future?

Ethiopians are ready for their liberation and they will slowly, but surely claim it, but we ask you not to be a roadblock. Africans know that when two elephants fight, the grass in the middle is trampled. Right now, the people of Ethiopia and Africa are in the middle of a giant struggle for African resources. Many who are profiting want Africans to stay just as they are—struggling for survival so they “do not get in their way.” Yet, behind the scenes of these business deals, real people are suffering.

Gandhi said, “Non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty.”What does this mean today?As investors, companies and nations seek opportunity; let none of us forget the shared humanity of our brothers and sisters both near and far and our God-given responsibility to live “humanely” among each other. Only then will we have reason to hope for greater peace, harmony and cooperation among peoples and nations, for “no one will be free until all are free!

Your African brother,

Obang Metho, Executive Director of the SMNE
Phone 202 725-1616. Email: Obang@solidaritymovement.org. Website: www.solidaritymovement.org
You can find more about The Oakland Institute (OI) through its website at http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/

SMNE
URL to Article: http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/18812

Read more...

HC orders inquiry about energy plant to ascertion health hazards

PTI July

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on 18 July asked Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) to conduct a joint inquiry about India's first waste-to-energy plant and file a report on the allegations that it posed health risks to citizens.

"A joint report be submitted by the DPCC and the CPCB after an inquiry of the site of the energy plant about the alleged risks posed to citizens," a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by Sukhdev Vihar Residents Welfare Association alleging the waste-to-energy plant emits hazardous gas and other products which posed serious health threats to the persons staying in and around it.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-18/pollution/29786608_1_hc-orders-inquiry-energy-plant-cpcb

Read more...

What Jairam did and didn't do as green minister

Jairam Ramesh's tenure as Minister of Environment and Forests cannot be assessed in a hurry; there are lots of positives there, but also many question marks, says Himanshu Thakkar

"Kicked upstairs" is how many lobbyists gleefully describe Jairam Ramesh's removal from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests in the cabinet reshuffle on July 12.

Their glee in fact reflects on the biggest failure of Ramesh era, namely that he could not bring systemic changes. Had he brought them, the lobbyists would not have been as happy as they are now.

But let us first look at his positive contributions first. And there are many. Ramesh has been reported to have listed these as some of the achievements of his tenure at MEF: Literal (glass doors at his office) and virtual (up-to-date website) transparency, public hearings on GM Brinjal (and others), speaking orders (e.g. on Posco, Vedanta, among others).

These are all correct claims, but each came with significant limitations. The MEF website is indeed a remarkable achievement of Ramesh. However, some of the crucial information that was statutory requirement (e.g. six monthly compliance reports of ongoing projects, which are still not available as per statutory requirements or agenda notes and minutes of meetings of Forest Advisory Committee) were missing on the website; some of it appeared only after RTI applications, some not even till date.

His orders did speak at times, but they did not always throw full light on the issues on hand (e.g. final order on Posco clearance). And then there were times when he refused to listen at all. Public hearings (for not project specific issues like GM crops or North East Dams) were good initiatives, but he did nothing to institutionalise them.

Ramesh was also very happy to institutionalise National Green Tribunal, but his failure to ensure that the NGT starts functioning before the National Environment Appellate Authority was wound up meant that there was a vacuum for over an year when neither of them were available. Jury is still out on how effective NGT will be, but its formulation has many serious problems.

Has he been transparent? Has he been accessible? Has he been responsive? Has he been clean, honest? Was he hard working, focussed, active, zealous? Indeed yes for each of these, a major plus point of Ramesh tenure was his accessibility and responsiveness.

Ramesh also got more than his share of brickbats, though. Small-minded commentators like Indian Express editor Shekhar Gupta has actually accused Ramesh of being publicity clamouring (headline hunting), but such commentators completely fail to understand the importance of environment issues. Gupta also said on TV channel on the night of reshuffle that Ramesh had brought emergency raj at MEF, which is again completely off the mark, as the following analysis shows.

To what extent was he constrained by the fact that he was not a cabinet minister and the Prime Minister was not with him on most issues? There are a number of occasions, when it seemed he had to tow the PM line (e.g. Posco, Lavasa, Jaitapur, Navi Mumbai [ Images ] airport, dereservation coal block from No-Go areas) and he may have taken a different view, left to himself. At many such points, he claimed he had to balance, but balancing is not an environment minister's mandate. His mandate is protection of environment as per legal norms and on many such occasions he did not do justice to his mandate.

Has he been consistent? One has to say no, many times he was not. While he cancelled clearances to Vedanta and Posco for lack of adherence to the Forest Rights Act, he refused to do the same in case of Polavaram dam in Andhra Pradesh.

Even on Posco, while three different committees from his own ministry gave evidence about violations, he ultimately succumbed to the pressure from the lobbyists and gave it ok when on ground there was no change in the situation from the point when he had cancelled the clearance.

He knew his YES BUT option has no meaning since the ministry has no capacity to ensure compliance, but he kept using that options (e.g. Posco, Navi Mumbai airport, Jaitapur).

On many occasions, even when repeatedly forewarned, he stubbornly refused to act till violations and environment conflicts on ground lead to deaths (e.g. thermal power projects in Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh), but ultimately he acted.

Precious lives could have been saved had he acted earlier.

Similarly a lot of groups wrote to him that IIT Roorkee is not the right agency to do cumulative impact assessment of Ganga basin hydro projects due to the agency's pro hydro bias and that consortium is not the right agency for preparing the Ganga Basin Management Plan due to their lack of knowledge of ground realities or understanding of governance issues, but he remain stubborn on both occasions.

The pathetic outcome in the form of Ganga Cumulative Impact assessment is now available for all to see.

All the same, the number of battles he fought during his 25-month tenure makes an impressive list. He faced opposition from PMO (blind push for big hydro projects in North East), Power Minister Shinde, Coal Minister Jaiswal, Planning Commission vice chair Montek, Agriculture Minister Pawar (GM crops, Lavasa), Civil Aviation minister Patel (New airport for Mumbai), Orissa Chief Minister (Posco, Vedanta), Delhi Chief Minister (Renuka dam in Himachal for Delhi's water supply), Kerala [ Chief Minister (Athirapally), Maharashtra chief minister (Adarsh, Lavasa, Jaitapur, Mumbai airport among others), Uttarakhand Chief Minister (hydro projects on Bhagirathi among others), IPCC chief Pachauri (wrong predictions about glacier melting), lobbyist media groups like Indian Express (GM crops, hydro projects in North East), Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister (Maheshwar hydro, Ken Betwa link), among many others.

Moreover, Ramesh was also fighting battles within the MEF. So while he remained accessible and responsive, he could not ensure that his ministry officials were also accessible and responsive. On the issue of implementation of Forests Rights Act in particular and reforms in forestry sector in general, he was known to be battling with the forest bureaucracy.

He has been on a steep learning curve from the beginning. He learnt a lot, but the learning curve remained steep right till the end of this tenure. Climate change is an example here where he took over the complete negotiation on the climate change issue on behalf of the Government of India even at international level.

One of the important contributions of Ramesh on the climate change front was in formulation of India Climate Assessment Report and in pushing the case that India also needs to take responsibility for the climate change impact of its activities.

However, this need not have been done at the expense of weakening of the pillars of Kyoto protocol, which he ended up doing.

Even his fiercest critics acknowledge that Jairam Ramesh has brought the environment to the front pages, his track record will be difficult to emulate by his successors.

As one of his sternest detractors Shekhar Gupta of Indian Express said, Ramesh ended the ATM raj that prevailed at MEF when Raja and Balu were MEF ministers.

For me, Jairam Ramesh made one of the most important remarks at the discussion on approach to the 12th Five Year Plan when he said that the target of the plan should be how to improve governance and not target higher growth.

He invited undeserved criticism when he emphasised that the target of achieving 100 000 MW capacity addition in power sector for the 12th plan is not ecologically sustainable.

His welcome initiatives to protect Tiger zones like the Panna Tiger Reserve (against submergence due to Ken Betwa river link project), western ghats, wetlands, river zones and to improve our knowledge base on glaciers remains to be taken to logical conclusion.

However, the biggest limitation of the Ramesh tenure at MEF was that he could not bring systemic changes in the functioning of the ministry. He kept saying that Environment Impact Assessments are dishonest, cut-paste jobs, but did nothing effective to change that situation.

He did not penalise EIA consultant for fraudulent EIAs, when evidence was presented to him and when law empowered him to do so. He kept saying the public hearings are fixed, but did nothing to make them more genuine.

He knew that MEF does not have capacity to ensure compliance with the conditions of clearance that his ministry gives, but he did nothing to change that. Here again even when evidence was presented to him about non compliance (e.g. on Polavaram, Karcham Wangtoo, Nathpa Jakhri, Baspa, Phata Buyang, Shingoli Bhatwari, Srinagar), he failed to act appropriately.

Right in the beginning of his tenure he said that the MEF's rejection rates of projects is very low, but his tenure has not seen any higher rejection rates. We kept writing to him that his EIA notification excludes massive dams like Kalu and Shai in Maharashtra's ecologically fragile tribal areas from the requirements of EIA, Environment clearance and public hearing, but he refused to act.

He agreed on the floor of Parliament that Ganga and Yamuna Action Plans have failed to clean up the rivers, but the new initiative in the form of National Ganga River Basin Authority has absolutely no elements to take care of the reasons for failure of the Ganga and Yamuna Action Plans.

In conclusion, Ramesh's tenure in MEF cannot be assessed in a hurry. There are lots of positives there, but also many question marks. Yet, he has succeeded in bringing the environment issue deservedly, onto the front pages of media.

So much so that the biggest discussion point of this cabinet reshuffle is not elevation of Ramesh to cabinet rank, not his getting important portfolio of Rural Development, but his removal from the Environment ministry. One prominent English news channel devoted its entire half hour of 9 pm prime time slot to discuss just that!

Himanshu Thakkar is coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People. He can be reached at ht.sandrp@gmail.com

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/what-jairam-ramesh-did-and-did-not-do-as-green-minister/20110720.htm

Read more...

2000 years old caves demolished to excavate coal

CHANDRAPUR: The 2,000 year-old Buddhist caves, located in the premises of Mana opencast mines, were demolished by authorities of Western Coalfields Limited (WCL) here on Tuesday evening. They carried out the demolition to excavate huge deposits of coal underneath it and plan to pull down the entire hillock to erase the remains of the caves.

Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast (HLOC), sub-area of WCL had taken up the excavation of the 300 sq metre block bearing the ancient caves two years ago. Excavation of 1.5 lakh metric tonnes coal deposits was withheld due to these caves.

They had withheld the demolition in 2009, after the collector intervened in the matter, after the religious organizations and Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage raised a hue and cry against it. However, their continued excavation around the caves had made it inaccessible.

Sources informed that the mine authorities gave the tender to a private company to demolish the hillock along with the caves. The company drilled the explosives 80 meters into the long solid rock bearing caves and blew it away. The ancient caves crumbled as boulders scattered over the high hillock. Fumes of smoke emitted from the hillock as the coal underneath caught fire.

Though the state archaeology department is aware of the old Mana caves, WCL obtained a letter from the Archeological Survey of India stating that the structure is not officially listed as a protected monument by the department.

District collectorate sources said that in 2009 the collector had asked WCL authorities not to demolish the caves. The present collector was not available for comments. However, the resident deputy collector Abhay Badkelwar said he does not remember any request for permission to demolish the caves in the last few months.

WCL chief general manager TN Jha, in charge of Chandrapur region, was in Nagpur and not available for comments.

Member of central governing committee of INTACH Ashoksingh Thakur said, "These caves should have been protected as they were a part of our culture and their destruction is irrevocable. WCL has no right to demolish the ancient structure just because it is not listed as 'protected' in the ASI's list." Terming the day as a black day for archaeology and history, he added that the WLC officers, who were from other states, held no value for local history or cultural values.

According to historians, the ancient caves belonged to the Heniyan sect. It was used as a place of worship and meditation during 1st century AD. It got its name the from Nag dynasty of Mana community that ruled the area in 9th century AD and later accepted Buddhism. The four caves were carved adjacent to each other in around 80 foot long single solid rock in Mana.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-15/nagpur/29777361_1_heniyan-mana-caves-wcl-authorities

Read more...

"No dichotomy between development and environment": Jayanthi Natrajan

Will promote enviroment, growth: Natrajan

Karan Thapar

CNN-IBN

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil's Advocate in a special interview with the new Environment Minister. How does she see her job and how will she face up to the challenges she has to contend with? This is the key issue I shall explore today with Jayanthi Natrajan. Mrs Natrajan, congratulations on becoming the Environment Minister. It took the media by surprise, was it a surprise for you as well?

Jayanthi Natrajan: Well I wouldn't call it a surprise, in the sense that oh my God, I am a minister, but I think I was extremely emotional and a little overwhelmed by the responsibility given to me and by the faith, a little emotional about the faith that the party had shown in me.

Karan Thapar: Now there is a question that you must have asked yourself frequently, you were a minister last time round in 1998, why do you think it took them 13 years to pick you and make you a minister again?

Jayanthi Natrajan: You know, Karan, I don't think about it in that way at all. On one hand I feel my loyalty to my leader and my party is absolute and I work very hard as best as I can. But on the other hand, I feel extraordinarily privileged in many ways. Many responsibilities have been given to me, so I never think why I haven't been made a minister before. I think very important responsibilities have been given to me.

Karan Thapar: But there must have been times when either the government was being constituted or reshuffles happening, when you said to yourself why haven't they found a place for me?

Jayanthi Natrajan: Yes ofcourse, to be perfectly honest, in 2009 when the government came back with such a spectacular victory, UPA 2, and I didn't find a place in the council of ministers, I was disappointed. But at no time was I angry or was I frustrated because I always felt that my party had given me great opportunities. I was very disappointed and I did wonder why. But the answer seems to be very obvious to me, which is, that Tamil Nadu had an overwhelming presence. Because our coalition partner was from the state and so I just went on to do my work.

Karan Thapar: But it must have been difficult to accept it?

Jayanthi Natrajan: No, you accept it in politics, there is always another day.

Karan Thapar: Now you got a ministry where you step into Jai Ram Ramesh's shoes. He not only left with a very high profile, he was the minister who was not just highly acclaimed by NGO's but several other sections of society. Is it daunting to have to follow after him?

Jayanthi Natrajan: I'm my own person and I am very confident of my own capacity to work hard and to do my best. It is not daunting. But I want to place on record that my predecessor Jai Ram did an absolutely spectacular job in main streaming environmental concerns. And certainly as India's Environment Minister I will strive every nerve to make sure that environment is the main concern.

Karan Thapar: Let me put it like this, Jai Ram Ramesh was both - a much loved minister but also a much hated minister. And the problem that he faced was that corporate India saw him as the road block on the way to development. Many people believed that they petitioned that the Prime Minster remove him and that's why you got the job.

Jayanthi Natrajan: No I don't believe that, you know, I believe these issues are sometimes blown out of context. Let me tell you how I see it. I have only been here for two days, Karan. I mean I am only taking to you because I know your concern for both the subject and the political impact is great. But the point, even after two days in the ministry, I feel this is really a mythical and non-existent dichotomy. There is no dichotomy between development and environment. Both have to go hand in hand. And I believe that sometimes it is blown out of proposition.

Karan Thapar: You know, that's what you said, but there is a wide spread perception that the Prime Minister in removing Jai Ram Ramesh even if in the process he also promoted him, he gave in to expediency and compulsion and sacrificed principal and conviction and you are the result. Does that perception embarrass you?

Jayanthi Natrajan: Not in the least, my actions will show that there can be no compromise on either issue that I will always act for the best welfare of the country. I will act according to the conscience of an Environment Minister and how it should be. And I think it is very unfair to say that the Prime Minister gave into compulsion.

Karan Thapar: But there is a wide spread perception that he didn't stand by convection, he actually came on to pressure from corporate India.

Jayanthi Natrajan: I don't think that the Prime Minister's compulsion and convection depends upon one person or one ministry. I think he looks at a much larger canvas.

Karan Thapar: That I accept, but you said a moment ago that you will do the best for the welfare of India. The problem is that different people interpret the welfare of India very differently. Now corporate India is hoping that on all the projects where Jai Ram Ramesh either stalled or slowed down. Projects like POSCO, Vedanta and Nirvana you will expedite matters, you will free up the process. Is that expectation going to be pressure for you? Because they are looking and they are waiting to see this happen.

Jayanthi Natrajan: Well here is the way I look at it. - I think as I said that I don't see any essential dichotomy at all, I think that there is no such thing as a road block and that there is no such thing, as an adversarial position. So I will look at each issue, it's not a question of corporate India verses the Environment because neither can exist with out the other. And I feel it's all the same, we are all on the same track. And I will look at the issue at the merits of that issue.

Karan Thapar: No doubt, but the problem is this, that if you don't free up, the projects that Jai Ram Ramesh has slowed down you would incur and very quickly incur the wrath of corporate India. On the other hand, if you do free up those projects and you do expedite the projects you will incur that wrath of the very NGOs and those section of civil society that supported Jai Ram Ramesh. You are caught in a dilemma.

Jayanthi Natrajan: But may I question that way you put it. The fact that people see it, your viewers, you, corporate India, anybody and NGOs, see it either freeing up or giving up and giving in. Well I would restate that position to say that every issue, you know, it is a fact that the environment is something that is absolute vital, critical, important, we can't, you know, there is no way that we can lose out and give up on the environment.

Karan Thapar: But POSCO, Vedanta, Narvasa are also critical and important.

Jayanthi Natrajan: However, development is equally critical and therefore, I will look at every issue on the merits of it.

Karan Thapar: No doubt you will look at the issues on its merits, but this is the problem. You are dammed if you do and you are dammed if you don't. You can't escape one way or the other from serious criticism from one way or the other.

Jayanthi Natrajan: That doesn't bother me, I would have satisfied my conscience.

Karan Thapar: It really doesn't bother you?

Jayanthi Natrajan: No it doesn't bother me because I don't see it, you can't lump POSCO, Vedanta and say somebody is against the corporate. And you can't lump something else and say somebody is against the environment. It simply doesn't work like that. Except from the fact that Environment Minister protects the environment and says hear is an area where you can't locate a plant. Here is a kind of coal that you can't use; it's simply not a question of being against a corporation.

Karan Thapar: Except for that fact that when you come to those critical subjects, that are so much in the public, like POSCO, Nirvana, like Vedanta. You are going to know that one side or the other is going to descend upon you like a ton of bricks of anger because you have taken a decision that they don't like. No doubt the other said will support you but 50 per cent will be against you. Doesn't that worry you that you are caught in the middle of a binary where one way or the other you would be dammed?

Jayanthi Natrajan: You know governance, politics all these, I think, this is an occupational hazard. What would give me sleepless nights and what will cause immense anxiety is that I should make that right decision. Is the line I'm drawing the right balance. Am I drawing the line between development, am I denying someone a livelihood, am I stopping half a per cent growth or am I saving the environment, that would give me sleepless nights and not what people might say about me.

Karan Thapar: So what you are saying in effect is that if my conscience is clear that I have taken the right decision, I don't mind unpopularity even it comes through large groups?

Jayanthi Natrajan: You have put it better than I did.

Karan Thapar: But you are accepting that?

Jayanthi Natrajan: Yes.

Karan Thapar: The problem again and let me take Jai Ram Ramesh as an example, is that many times in the period that he spend here has a minister, he took positions, he took decisions, which on the force of circumstances or political pressure he was forced to reverse them. Can you give an assurance that when you take position or you make a decision, you won't similarly oscillate or simply compromise?

Jayanthi Natrajan: No I will simply and certainly make every effort, I will not take a position unless I'm reasonably sure, both on merits and by my conscience that it is the best.

Karan Thapar: Can you stand by it?

Jayanthi Natrajan: I will stand by it. However I will be guided by the circumstances that are a part of as a whole.

Karan Thapar: So you will stand by it but will be guided by other circumstances?

Jayanthi Natrajan: No, I do not operate in a vacuum. I operate in an environment where I work with colleagues; we need to listen and talk to each other. That does not mean its weakness that does not mean it's giving up, that does not mean its reversal.

Karan Thapar: But it does mean you have to take acknowledgment of the reality where decision you have taken or position you have taken may have to be changed altered or reversed, if circumstances required.

Jayanthi Natrajan: No, but this is a hypothetical question ofcourse, but I am very conscious that I don't operate in a vacuum.

Karan Thapar: Pride won't be a problem?

Jayanthi Natrajan: Pride won't be a problem.

Karan Thapar: You know, as I hear you talk and as I analyze the sought of dilemmas, I call it a hall of dilemmas that you are placed between. I get the feeling that the Environment Ministry is a bit of a poisoned chalice, do you have wished that the Prime Minister had given you another portfolio?

Jayanthi Natrajan: No I'm very great full to the Prime Minister because it is am incredibly white canvas and it has got incredibly important issues. I feel absolutely honoured to be able to contribute. And I mean it from my heart. That you know, the wet lands of the nation, the water ways of this country, the bio diversity, the incredible canvas that he has given me to work in.

Karan Thapar: So the excitement of the challenge is greater than the apprehension of the pit folds that lie ahead?

Jayanthi Natrajan: And the absolute privilege I feel is being able to contribute.

Karan Thapar: Mrs Natrajan lets come to a subject that you have hinted at right through the start and what many believe is the essential dilemma of conundrum that lies in the heart of your ministry. The struggle between the need to protect the environment and the need to secure growth, no one would deny that protecting the environment is important, but the problem is that the India is crying out for growth, the poor need it more than anything else and the growth involves cost. America and Britain faced those cost in the 19th and the 20th century, China is facing them today. How are you going to respond to that essential duality, that binary opposition between the two?

Jayanthi Natrajan: I don't see any opposition at all, there should not be and as it is my privilege to be the Environment Minister, I will make a serious effort to convince all my colleagues, you and everybody that there cannot be a question of sustainable development unless the environment is a cornerstone. This is not a cliché.

Karan Thapar: That I totally accept but what about when ministers impose no go areas for mining, where the richest coal and the richest iron ore is to be found, what happens where essential projects cannot take place because certain communities regards hills as precious and sacred? There is real dilemma between protecting the forest or protecting some ones cultural rights and progress which brings jobs to millions and at the end of the day those jobs are necessary. What will you do?

Jayanthi Natrajan: You know I have actually two things to say, one is not directly related to the question and I will come back to that later. To directly address to what you have said, yes, where the question of no go area or go area comes, I in one day, not even two days at this ministry, have found that this is something that has been very much hyped. For example, if you say coal production has fallen because there are no environmental clearances, that might not be strictly true, it many be because coal production might have fallen, I'm saying it as an example, it might not be true.

Karan Thapar: The press has either misconveyed the message or the popular impression is wrong?

Jayanthi Natrajan: I'm not saying the press, I'm saying that the popular impression and the perception that for example, I'm not saying it has fallen. If coal production has fallen, people tend to blame the environment ministry. You know to say there was a no go area we couldn't do as everything has fallen, there was no energy. Whereas when you look at it, when I look at my papers, for example, if you give a coal miner a license to start it takes three years to get operationalised. So, you cannot possibly attribute to the fact that there was no permission if there is a fall from one year to the other. So, my point is that sometimes the environment ministry becomes the fall guy for other issues.

Karan Thapar: That no doubt is true, often environment ministry is blamed unnecessarily but equally important, it is blamed rightly, when you have clearances being given in one month suspended in the next month and then re-given in the third months later. It has happened with POSCO, Vedanta and people are left with the impression that there isn't a clear cut road to progress. It puts off Indian investors, it worries foreign investors and as a result growth doesn't happen, jobs don't happen and people remain grinding in poverty.

Jayanthi Natrajan: Well there should be certainly one window clearance and no, I think there should be complete clarity.

Karan Thapar: Will you ensure that?

Jayanthi Natrajan: Absolutely.

Karan Thapar: Will you also ensure that once the clarity is given it is not revoked, suspended?

Jayanthi Natrajan: That will be my major agenda but having said that will happen in the future. As far as I'm concerned, I will make sure that there will be no confusion and complete clarity but having said that, in the past perhaps there was something that came up later that necessitated a change. The past is over and I will ensure that complete clarity on these issues exist.

Karan Thapar: Let me put it like this, there are major land marks, test mark projects like POSCO and Vedanta largely because they attracted attention both home and abroad, can you ensure speedy resolution one way or the other so that the suspension and the uncertainty which puts off investors is removed?

Jayanthi Natrajan: Well certainly, while I will insist that at all cost the environment should be protected in all it's dimension, the easy way to do it by a speedy decision, that I can facilitate and I will.

Karan Thapar: There is another saying that the corporate India has, they say that they think India, given the point of its historic development is paying far too much attention to environment concerns at the cost of growth. They point out that America and Britain, when they were developing in the 18th and the 19th century didn't worry much about the environment, no doubt we live in a different world and need to pay more attention but are we overdoing it at the cost of jobs, investment, because at the end of the day those jobs are going to lift people out of poverty?

Jayanthi Natrajan: You see the damage that has been caused to the environment and this an issue I wish influential people, opinion makers like you, would pay more attention to. It is like climate change what has happened is going to swirl around for 150 years. Therefore that compensation, that problem is in our heads.

Karan Thapar: But does it have to be environment before growth?

Jayanthi Natrajan: No, I think there is no real growth unless the environment is taken in consideration.

Karan Thapar: What is the point of having a beautiful environment if the people are living in poverty?

Jayanthi Natrajan: No, it is not a point of having a beautiful environment. I'm talking about destroying a habitat; I'm not talking about picture book issues. I'm talking about, if you get low grade coal and ruin your environment, if you ruin your forest you are not going to get rain next year. I'm talking about bread and butter environment.

Karan Thapar: Can you send a message to corporate India to say that once I'm determined to protect the environment for the good of everyone, I'm determined not to slow down the growth. I will not be the cause of India's growth or investors put off.

Jayanthi Natrajan: I can send a message to corporate India that environment was never the reason why there was a slow down and will not also in the future.

Karan Thapar: Will you do everything possible to facilitate growth because at the end of the day it is growth that will lift India's poverty and people out of the life they live?

Jayanthi Natrajan: I will do everything I can to protect the environment and facilitate growth.

Karan Thapar: Mrs Natrajan, a pleasure talking to you.

Jayanthi Natrajan: My pleasure.

Read more...

Regressive Influence of CCEA on Environment Ministry Remains Intact

Mixed reaction by eco-brigade to Jayanthi replacing Jairam
Vibha Sharma/Tribune News Service
New Delhi, July 12
Environmentalists have offered mixed reactions to the appointment of Congress spokesperson Jayanthi Natrajan as the Environment Minister, replacing high-profile Jairam Ramesh, who, with some very decisive and controversial decisions during his tenure, managed to bring the previously low-key Green Ministry on front pages of newspapers. Since Tamil Nadu polls are over, Jayanthi’s appointment has raised eyebrows in political circles. Environmentalists feel that the Congress spokesperson, with her consultative way of working, clean image and a good rapport in the inner circles, will handle the ministry well. However, some also feel that since a minister of state does get any representation in the all-powerful Cabinet, her appointment proves that the Prime Minister does not accord the priority that environment issues deserve.

Toxics Watch Alliance activist Gopal Krishna says the fact that Jayanthi has been appointed a junior minister like her predecessor underlines that Prime Minister does not accord the priority the environmental issues deserve. “Once again the minister has been kept structurally weak so that whenever there is conflict between blind economic growth and ecology, the former is given precedence at the cost of the latter. The CCEA -Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (from which the Environment Ministry draws its mandate) and the Prime Minister are not yet alive to the collapsing ecosystem,” he says, adding that the “regressive influence of the CCEA will not provide her adequate space to act as it did as in the case of Jairam Ramesh”.

Centre for Science Sunita Narain however differs, saying that Jayanthi’s appointment means that the government continues to take environment seriously.

“Jayanti Natrajan has good reputation with high integrity and is an articulate person. We believe that the government continues to take Environment seriously and do not expect any roll-back in the environmental policies. Yes, she has a tough job ahead as Jairam has raised a lot of hopes but we have full faith in her,” she says.

Sunita adds that elevating Jairam to the Cabinet rank with an important portfolio like rural development means that the government recognises good work, saying “MNREGA is the biggest climate adaptation programme and we expect the programme will be brought to complete justice under Ramesh”. Manoj Misra of Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan considers “any change is for the better”.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110713/nation.htm

Read more...