**"Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel - Part I - 12. Buffering Protected Areas -2.

Opinion
   28/09/2018
            1425.

**"Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel - Part I - 12. Buffering Protected Areas -2.

12. Buffering Protected Areas : 2.

While there are many eco-friendly and positive suggestions in these management rules, there has been little or no dialogue of officials with local communities, and consequently there is much confusion as to the management regime that will be followed in these ESZ /ESAs. For instance, “No artificial lighting will be used in ESZ” can be interpreted as no electric lights, nor even kerosene lanterns or oil lanterns with wicks will be permitted even inside residences in the 10 km zone. This zone includes large numbers of villages, and many other establishments. People interpret such regulations in only one way; that these will create opportunities for officials to harass and extort bribes.

As a result, WGEEP has received many representations that the only fallout of such a programme will be for the poor to suffer harassment and extortion, and the wealthy and the powerful to successfully flout the regulations. Indeed, Kolhapur Zilla Parishad has passed a formal resolution on 6th October 2010 rejecting the ESZ /ESAs around PAs in the Kolhapur district. When WGEEP visited Kolhapur and neighbouring areas between 11–12 October, 2010, it received a large number of written and oral representations submitting that while they are very much in favour of nature conservation, the Forest Department is an agency that will only harass and in no way act positively to conserve nature. Indeed, a written submission from a prominent member of Wai Taluka panchayat has gone so far as to state that the rule of the Forest Department is more tyrannical than that of the East India Company.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

5 Ref: Power point presentation made by Mr.Chavan, DFO at the meeting held on 12/10/2010 at Kolhapur Zilla Parishad Assembly Hall)

Several political leaders belonging to many different parties from Sindhudurg also met WGEEP between 6–10 October, 2010, and submitted memoranda to the same effect. Notably enough, in the same Sindhudurg district, some 25 village Gramsabhas have passed resolutions requesting their areas to be constituted as ‘Ecologically Sensitive Areas’. WGEEP had the opportunity of visiting many of these villages on 9th October and discussing the WGEEP concept of ‘Ecologically Sensitive Areas’. It was made clear to them that there need be no rigid regulations associated with ESAs in their villages; instead they should themselves suggest an environment- and people-friendly management system that they believe to be appropriate. Many of these Gramsabhas have submitted their proposals to WGEEP along these lines.

12.1 Bhimashankar Wild Life Sanctuary :-

Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani ESA, constituted prior to the IBWL resolution of 2002 calling for the 10 km ESAs around PAs, serves to protect a significant belt of evergreen forest of the Western Ghats, near the origin of Krishna river and its major tributary, Koyna. The northward extension of this evergreen forest belt constitutes the Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary, an ancient, extensive Sacred Grove on the hill from which the Bhima river, another major tributary of the Krishna, originates. No action whatsoever has been taken since 2002 to establish an ESA around this PA, despite the following communication from PPCF(WL), Maharashtra dated 19/8/04 to CCF(WL), Nagpur, Nashik, Mumbai and CF(project Tiger), Amaravati: “Central Government had asked for proposals regarding the constitution of ESZs over an area of 10 km surrounding all PAs in connection with a resolution of the IBWL in 2002. The follow up should have been concluded by 2004. However, no action has been taken so far. Hence, in response to the direction of Nagpur High Court, all Wildlife Wardens in charge of Protected Areas are asked to constitute a committee involving forest officials as well as NGOs and Hon. Wildlife Wardens to decide on the necessity of declaration of ESZs around PAs. Even if it is considered unnecessary to constitute any ESZ, full rationale for why this is considered appropriate should be provided.” The report was to be submitted by 30.10.04. Subsequently a Wind Mill project by the company ENERCON has come up in this area. This project has proved to be controversial, with pending Court cases. As a result WGEEP was asked to specially look into the matter by the Hon Minister for Environment and Forests at the WGEEP meeting in his chambers on 24 March 2011.

WGEEP therefore attempted to obtain information in this connection from the following officials of Maharashtra Forest Department: PCCF(General), PCCF(WL), CF(T),Pune, CF(WL), Pune. Beginning 7th April 2011, they were all requested in writing to provide all pertinent background documents and maps relating to ENERCON project, and the proposal to constitute an ESZ around Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary. The Forest Department subsequently facilitated WGEEP field visits to this area by Madhav Gadgil on 14 April, 2011 and by Renee Borges on 19 May, 2011. Pertinent documents were requested during these field visits also. No documents relating to Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary have been provided to Madhav Gadgil at any stage till date despite repeated reminders, and on 2nd June 2011 Shri Sinha CF(T), Pune personally told Madhav Gadgil that no papers relating to this matter are traceable in any office of the Maharashtra Forest Department. However, Renee Borges was handed a file with correspondence that has been exchanged on the ENERCON project and also the legal proceedings vis-a-vis the case filed by Shri Kale. In addition, substantial material was accessed under RTI by an activist, Shri D K Kale, a resident of Chas village close to project area, and this was made available to WGEEP. Evidently, this project should not have been cleared at all without completing the constitution of the Ecologically Sensitive Zone, as also implementation of Forests Rights Act (FRA).

It is clear from field inspection, as well as from Google Earth images, that the hills where wind mills have come up are tracts of high rainfall and biodiversity-rich evergreen forest, contiguous with that in the Bhimashankar WLS, and home to Maharashtra’s state animal, the Malabar Giant Squirrel Ratufa indica. In fact, RB noticed nests of the Giant Squirrel in the project area. The local Range Forest Officer had also clearly recorded these facts and recommended that the wind mill project should not be sanctioned. He was overruled by his superior officers who have cleared the project by patently misrepresenting the facts on ground.

Apart from substantial forest destruction (including Forest Department estimates of about 28,000 trees being cut) via wide roads cutting huge swathes through Reserve Forest, the wind mill project has triggered large scale erosion and landslides through poor construction of roads with steep gradients, and all this rubble is ending up on fertile farmland and in reservoirs of tributaries of the Krishna.

The Forest Department is colluding with wind mill project operators in also illegally denying citizens access to these hills. Boards and check-posts have been put up by the company, falsely claiming to be authorized by the Forest Department. There are many traditional forest dwellers on these hills. Not only are their rights under the Forest Rights Act not being recognized, they are being illegally restrained in their movements on hills they have inhabited for centuries.

12.2 A people-oriented process to ESZ delimitation :-

WGEEP therefore believes that it is inappropriate to depend exclusively on Government agencies for constitution and management of ESZs. Instead, WGEEP suggests that the final demarcation of the Zones (including those surrounding PAs, as also in context of the UNESCO Heritage Site proposal) taking micro-watersheds and village boundaries into account, and fine tuning of the regulatory as well as promotional regimes, must be based on extensive inputs from local communities and local bodies, namely, Gram Panchayats, Taluka Panchayats, Zilla Parishads, and Nagarpalikas, under the overall supervision of the Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA), State level Ecology Authorities and District Ecology Committees (see details of these proposed committees later). An interesting precedent for this process has been established during the preparation of the Goa Regional Plan 2021. The first step in this GRP21 planning was a compilation of a comprehensive, spatially referenced, database on land, water and other natural resources of Goa state; however, regrettably, unlike our Western Ghats database, this has not been, as yet, made available in the public domain. Yet, this information was selectively shared with all Gram Sabhas and their suggestions as to the desired pattern of land use obtained, consolidated and used as an important basis for the preparation of the final plan. Again, regrettably, the Government of Goa has not continued with the dialogue, failing to go back to the Gram Sabhas when it felt it appropriate to diverge from the Gram Sabha suggestions. Nevertheless, this is an excellent model that should be implemented in its true spirit, and WGEEP proposes that WGEA should follow it.

Another admirable model for WGEA is the formulation of ‘Conservation of biodiversity rich areas of Udumbanchola taluka’ project by Kerala State Biodiversity Board (2010) The procedure followed has been grounded in the powers and functioning of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMC) in local bodies at all levels, namely Gram Panchayats, Taluka Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats, as also Nagarpalikas and Mahanagarpalikas, linked to state level Biodiversity Boards and the National Biodiversity Authority. This institutional structure of BMCs, mandated by India’s Biological Diversity Act 2002 for the country as a whole, is potentially readily available throughout the Western Ghats region and provides a sound basis for designing a transparent, participatory system for arriving at final decisions regarding (1) delineation of ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3, and (2) the management regime to be followed in ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3, fine-tuned to local ecological and social context wherever necessary. This highly desirable participatory process will obviously take some time. Nevertheless, WGEEP strongly commends its adoption. In the meantime, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, GoI, must take immediate steps to safeguard the precious natural heritage of the Western Ghats. With this in view WGEEP strongly recommends that the Ministry of Environment and Forests immediately notifies under EPA the limits of ESZ1, ESZ2 and ESZ3 as proposed by WGEEP at taluka level, along with an appropriate regulatory regime as suggested in Table 6.

NEXT :-13. Proposed guidelines/summary recommendations for sector-wise activities

To be continued ..

JAIHIND
VANDEMATHARAM