‘There should be a rule that cities have to maintain 30 per cent forest cover’

Let me start with telling you about the process of preparing of the report. The 14-member panel was formed in March 2010. We were given some mandates. First,we were to assess the current status of ecology of the Western Ghats region and demarcate areas that need to protected as Ecologically Sensitive Zones. And to make recommendations for conservation and protection of the Western Ghats region through a comprehensive consultation process involving people and governments of all the Western Ghat states concerned. During this process,we got inputs from activists,government agencies and technical experts. We also had a lot of papers published specifically for the report. We held expert meetings,consultations with government agencies and field visits. In addition,I had the opportunity to work with Goa government’s Golden Jubilee Development Council to prepare document for the state. The interactions we had with the civil society,experts and people in Goa have also been incorporated. On August 31,2011,we submitted our report. We were told that it will be released at a public function on September 21,2011. On September 19,2011 we were informed that the report is not going to be made public for the moment,and that we should not release it or discuss it publicly. Many people tried to get the report through RTI. The Chief Information Commissioner finally ordered the MoEF to make the report public by May 10. After subsequent appeals and High Court orders,the report was recently published. The most important purpose of report is to create awareness. It is never binding on anyone.

Sunanda Mehta: Why was the government so reluctant to make the report public?

I do not wish to speculate,but perhaps they are concerned that unlike most other panels,we do not pretend to be experts who know all the answers. When you claim to have all the answers,it is easy for others to say that we know better and set aside the material. On the contrary,we say that all we are attempting to do is to carefully compile pertinent information and make it available to stakeholders. We also suggest that the most significant stakeholders are the people of Western Ghats tract. So we suggest that our report should serve as a basis for an informed debate involving the stakeholders,and decisions should be taken respecting the desires of the Western Ghats communities. We suggest that report should be translated into all regional languages and circulated to all gram sabhas/ward sabhas throughout the Western Ghats tract. Decisions as to delineation of Ecosensitive Zones 1,2 and 3 as well as locally appropriate management regimes should be based on grassroots level feedback. Possibly,it is difficult for government to contest this democratic approach,and that is why they were stalling the release of the report.

Sushant Kulkarni: A large number of mining,tourism and infrastructure projects are coming up across Western Ghats. Two important elements which are making this happen are forest department officials and politicians. Do you think these two are responsible for degradation of ecology?

The report clearly states with the help of specific examples where the forest department has misled government by giving false information or by suppressing facts. Environmental clearances have been given by manipulating inputs. And this is in collusion with private players. No doubt corrupt practices within the forest department are by and large responsible for the loss to biodiversity. As for as politicians are concerned,their role is that of policy making. In Goa if you see,a single party government came into power as people there voted against the false environment clearances that have damaged the ecology.

Anuradha Mascarenhas: Do you think awareness among people in Goa is higher as compared to other states in the country?

Overall awareness about environmental issues is growing. But states like Goa,Meghalaya and Kerala,which have high literacy rates,have seen movements. And Goa is a small state,smaller than many districts in Maharashtra.

Ishfaq Naseem: There are problems of man-animal conflict across the country. What is your take on these problems?

We must take a rational,and not emotional approach to wildlife conservation,and put our faith in motivating people,rather than in bureaucratic control. So we must create incentives for people to maintain wild animal populations in their surroundings,and allow them to harvest in case of overpopulation. In Australia,they auction commitments to maintain wild animals like kangaroos on private lands.

Ishfaq Naseem: Like vested political and business interests,do you think there are vested environmental interests,too?

Certainly,ecotourism businesses dependent on foreign tourists give this impression.

Nisha Nambiar: Have you come across other instances of reports being stalled or data being buried?

Zonal Atlas for Siting of Industries was an exercise undertaken by Central Pollution Control Board,working with all state boards,to create a spatial database of pollution assimilation capacities and existing pollution loads to generate prescriptions for where additional industries generating different levels and kinds of pollution should be located. Regrettably,after investing substantial human resources and spending large amounts of funds,the completed database has been put in cold storage (or possibly consigned to flames) at the insistence of a Secretary,Environment,so as not to inconvenience polluting industries. This is clearly most inappropriate. I urge RTI activists to work towards making the database public.

Sushant Kulkarni: The concept of people’s biodiversity register put forward by you has helped in preserving many local species. How are the laws in this regard being implemented?

One of the important law is Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act. We have that people’s participation. Farmers have come forward and registered seed varieties that they have.

Chandan Haygunde: We have reported about a mining project just one km away from the boundaries of a protected forest in Chandoli,as against the Supreme Court norm of a distance of 10 km. Are you aware of this project?

No,I am not aware. But we have come across many such instances where norms have been violated,often with the help of officials.

Ajay Khape: Pune Municipal Corporation says maintaining hills is a difficult task. And if limited development is allowed,maintaining them will be possible. What do you think?

There is no question of limited development. I feel no development should be allowed on hills in the city. There is a rule that on 30 per cent of the total land,forest should be maintained. Why is this rule only for forest areas? I think there should be a rule that cities have to maintain 30 per cent forest cover. In Pune,I think at present less than 30 per cent of land is under green cover. The process of conservation of hills is now garnering support. I gather around 85,000 signatures were collected in the support of the movement.

Nisha Nambiar: What do you have to say about the government proposal to allow four per cent construction within the Biodiversity Parks (BDPs)?

No construction should ever be allowed within these areas and they should be declared as forest areas.

Pupul Chaterjee: In a lot of states like Jharkhand,people are branded anti-industrialists if they oppose new projects. Most of the time,there is no scope for democratic decision making. Is there a middle ground to all this?

I’ve not worked much in Jharkhand,but this kind of an attitude is present everywhere in the country. In fact,from my experiences in the Scandinavian countries (which have very equitable distribution of resources),I have learnt that it is possible for industrial development and environmental conservation to take place simultaneously. One does not need to stop industrial growth to conserve the environment.

Sunanda Mehta: How has your experience as a NAC member been till now? Have you been able to achieve some of the goals on the agenda?

The experience has been very rewarding,but I am afraid that there has been little progress in case of my particular assignment to assess the implementation of Forest Rights Act.

Sunanda Mehta: You also chaired the committee for revision of environment education curriculum in schools. What is it that drastically needs revision?

We have been asking schools to have a more practical approach to this issue. In Australia,they have students groups who look after their rivers. They are given basic indicators by which they can tell the state of a river’s health and the upkeep of the waters is like a community responsibility. But here in our country,I believe this cannot be done because there are godowns of books that have been published on environment that must be sold or there will be huge losses. Hence,environment continues to remain a bookish subject in our schools.

Sushant Kulkarni: Tell us a bit about your experience as a visiting faculty at Stanford,Berkley and Harvard?

It was intellectually the most rewarding experience. What is most refreshing is the independence that even the youngest scientists enjoy,and the free reign given to irreverence. That said,I must put on record that I found my 31 years at Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru equally satisfying. IISc is a world class institute,though it is nowhere near the resources Harvard has,with its huge private endowments. But at IISc,I was freer of the American ratrace,and could explore disciplines like Ecological History without restraint. So,in a way,I had the best of both worlds.

Sunanda Mehta: What is the single most important ecological danger/hazard that we are staring at?

Water,its overuse and abuse. The way we pollute it,not only the rivers and seas,but also ground water. I have it on very good authority that many industries dig borewells to pump their most toxic waste into ground water,and our pollution control boards take no action at all.