**"Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel - Part I - 11. Existing ESZs: Lessons Learnt :-" 1.

"THE MINDSET, OF KERALA PEOPLE'S CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE, MUST CHANGE; AS THIS IS UNSCIENTIFIC AND NOT ACCORDING TO ECO-SYSTEM; LIVE WITH UNDISTURBED NATURE SHOULD BE PROMOTED : THIS IS NEGLECTED SINCE GULF BOOM AND BIRTH OF NEW GEN POSH CULTURE; UDF AND LDF ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENTS MISERABLY FAILED TO EDUCATE PEOPLE IN THIS REGARD"

Opinion
   21/09/2018
            1411.

*11.1 - Existing ESZs: Lessons Learnt :-
****************************

The Pronab Sen Committee did not evolve a methodology for regulating the nature and extent of human activity in designated Ecologically Sensitive Zones/ Areas, a task that was addressed later by the Ministry of Environment and Forests itself. For this purpose, the MoEF has put in place a centralized system grounded in regulating land use employing the provisions of Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. After receiving an ESA proposal, the MoEF prepares the ESA notification and calls for responses from the public and the concerned state government. Since land is a state subject, the state government is then asked to prepare a Regional Development Plan that will provide for appropriate use of land as visualized in the Ecologically Sensitive Zone/ Area notification. The state governments, in turn, finalize the Regional Development Plan after calling for public inputs. To oversee the implementation, MoEF constitutes a High Level Monitoring Committee (HLMC), in most cases without any local representation.

While the constitution of such ESZ /ESAs has had many positive consequences, there are also serious flaws in the system. The most serious problem is that the system depends heavily on bureaucratic regulation. With little or no meaningful participation by the local community, and given the absence of bureaucratic transparency and lack of accountability, this breeds corruption. The result is that the weaker sections suffer harassment and extortion, while the wealthy and the powerful successfully flout the regulations, leading to tremendous local resentment.\

...................................................................................................................................................................

Box 6: Extracts from resolution of Gram Sabha of village Talkat, Taluka Dodamarg, District Sindhudurg (translated from Marathi)

It is necessary to consider the following things for conservation of forest, and development of the village: -

Watershed development programme: Though we have perennial streams as a water source for village, it is important to plan methods for efficient use of these resources. In summer, orchards do not get enough water due to lack of planning. It is possible to build nala bunds and small dams for water storage. Government officials have made preliminary observations and conducted background investigations in the village. That’s why it is very important to prioritise watershed development. Each wadi in the village is in need of this.

Perennial streams are present in the Western Ghats ridges in the village. It is possible to build mini hydel projects for power generation on these streams. There is need to study this possibility. It is needed to improve the present condition of cashewnut and arecanut orchards. In the areas where forest and enough water sources for horticulture are not present, we can develop agroforestry dependent on rainwater. We require training and funds from the government for this.

At present we don’t have a plant nursery. We can develop one indigenous plant nursery for the above-mentioned agroforestry. Some self-help groups will get income from this.
Village tourism: Traditional houses, orchards and greenery in our village attract tourists. Our people from Mumbai (whose native place is Talkat) come here along with their city friends. There is scope to develop the village as a tourist place.

Human–Wildlife conflict: Location of Talkat village is near to the forest. Orchards are surrounded by forest. The forest area in the village is blessed with rich wildlife as it is a part of the forest between Amboli-Tillari. We are living with this wildlife for many years. But these days we are facing nuisance from monkeys, sambar, elephant and leopards. While preparing a development plan we have to consider this issue. We do like to live with wildlife.

This is what we think. Government and villagers should work on the development plan of our Ecologically Sensitive Area. We are ready to do it. Because projects like mining are hazardous for our life as well as will destroy our income source. Instead of such projects we would like to have our village located in an Ecologically Sensitive Area.

There are four ESZs constituted in the state of Maharashtra, namely, Murud-Janjira, Dahanu Taluka, Matheran and Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani. The experience has been that both the Central and State Government authorities tend to act slowly and hesitantly in the necessary follow-up. For instance, in the case of the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority (DTEPA), the Authority was constituted for an initial period of one year vide Notification dated 19-12-1996 and thereafter the Ministry started granting extensions piecemeal, first for a period of two months, next for a period of three months, thereafter for a period of six months. The Ministry was requested to make this Authority one of a permanent nature from the perspective of the efficiency of the monitoring function of the Authority. However, the Ministry granted extensions for the period of six months from November–December1999 onwards, until the Courts intervened once more. It is only such Court interventions that have ensured that DTEPA is armed by powers to issue directions under Section 5 and for taking measures with respect to the matters referred to in Clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xii) of Sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

In contrast, the Mahabaleshwar-Panchagani High Level Monitoring Committee has continued to suffer seriously through lack of continuity, as also due to lack of adequate powers. WGEEP has had extensive dialogue with current Mahabaleshwar-Panchagani HLMC members and other activists, as also field visits and discussions with a cross-section of local community members, and a picture of very mixed reactions emerges. Unfortunately, there was no HLMC in place at all for a period of years from 2002–2005. While under the current Chairmanship of Shri Dev Mehta, the HLMC has tried to reach out to people and solve their problems, this did not happen earlier. So people have a strong impression that the ESZ is a regime imposed from outside and that it is a regime focused on rigid bureaucratic controls that are subverted by corrupt officials to harass and extort. WGEEP has received written petitions complaining that a farmer is obliged to pay a bribe of Rs 20,000 to get permission to dig a bore well on his farm. Mahabaleshwar-Panchagani region has large populations of Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers. Hence, it was imperative that the Forest Rights Act should have been implemented in these areas in its true spirit five years ago. Nothing has been done in this regard, and it appears that this is to facilitate extortion. People complain of very old paths to their villages being disrupted by trenches dug by the Forest Department, and Madhav Gadgil has personally inspected some of these. Allegedly, the trenches are then filled on payment of bribes, to be dug again some time later. The apparent lack of local support for the ESZ is also reflected in the report that at one time activists of the Bombay Environmental Action Group could visit Matheran, one of the ESZs promoted by them, only under police protection (Kapoor, M: K Kohli and M Menon, 2009 ).

Boxes 7, 8 and 9 summarize these experiences.

To be continued ...

JAIHIND
VANDEMATHARAM