Jairam Ramesh says that whatever NGOs and civil society organizations say is not always true.
Environment minister Jairam Ramesh concedes he has not been consistent, but says he can't be accused of lack of clarity and transparency.
Two years as minister, what are the big ticket achievements, if any so far on forestry?
Well, I think, the game changer as far as forests are concerned is the fact that Forest Rights Act is now an integral part of the Forest Conservation Act process. I mean that something that was inevitable and had to happen but that the environment and forests ministry is talking about it and not being defensive about its historical responsibility and historical role.
You mean not being offensive against the act?
They had taken a completely different position vis-à-vis the act but right now one of the fundamental game-changer has been the recognition that one cannot move forward on sustainable forestry management without addressing the Forest Rights Act concerns.
Two, the architecture of the Green India mission put in place is another game changer in the long run as far as the forest department is concerned. What the mission envisages is the implementation of forestry programmes through gram sabha institutions and through Joint Forest management Committees - JFMCs that are legally recognized as bodies of the gram sabhas and not as stand alone creations of the forest department.
Third, the go and no go concept has been a very big game innovation.
Fourth, the operationalisation of CAMPA breaking an impasse of over six years is transforming the forestry scene. For the first time, funds are really not a constraint for states. Fresh recruitment at the cutting edge level has resumed after a gap of over ten years.
But the concept itself has been a no-go within your government...
But the fact is that the exercise was only done for Coal. But, people are now talking about it for other areas. The Ashok Chawla committee has now suggested the same for other sectors. We did it only for coal. I think so far the no go areas was only the protected area network. But to expand the no-go areas from the national parks and sanctuaries alone to a much larger area is something that has caused a lot of inconvenience for the user ministries, particularly coal. People are now beginning to recognize that there area areas of countries where densities of forests in excess of o.5 that need to be preserved.
So the notion that there are areas of rich forests that need to be protected - and these are forests that have nothing to do with tiger reserves or protected areas - that is a big change. The fact that we have rejected projects ...
How many projects in the no-go areas have been rejected?
No projects in those areas have so far been approved. Its in double digits. Couple of projects in Chhatisgarh and projects in Sasan in Mahan coalfiled area in Madhya Pradesh, then this UMPP area.
And you are not willing to relent on these you are sure?
No, we are working on them. Let's see what we can do. But, as of now, we have taken a very difficult stand.
Let me take you back to the first point.
No, let me complete. The fourth achievement related to the no-go area concept is that you can actually have rejections from the forestry end. You don't have to necessarily give clearances to all projects that are coming.
It is two years since you are the minister, the rejection rate is not any different than before...
No, no! The rejection rate is much higher, definitely. Don't look at it over a thirty year period look at it project-wise. Far more number of projects that have been rejected or suspended or sent back. Remember a number of projects are sent back and then they come back reworked.
There is no finality to those. And that has been the concern that everything gets stayed for a while and then they are given the go ahead...
No some projects have been downright rejected and some have come back. I can't tell you the exact mix of the two but I certainly think the rejection rate is significantly more today.
If I take you back to the Forest Rights Act issue, is the view you espousing (that environment ministry has accepted the Act) yours or really of the forest bureaucracy. You seem to be at loggerheads with the forest officials on this.
It takes time, it takes time. Forest department has its genuine concerns. Forest mafia will take over. One of the weakness of the Forest Rights Act is that there is no terminal date. In fact from day one I have been saying its an open ended act. I would be happier if the act said that this one time regularization based on conditions would apply till the year 2013 or 2014. As things stand right now someone can wake up in 2017 or 2018 and say that I have lived here for three generations.
Are you or the government thinking of amending the Act to bring in this change and deadline?
Well I have made this suggestion to the Saxena committee and I have told Saxena ji.
But is that an amendment the government is going to bring in?
My own recommendation would be that we should bring such a change. This would be my recommendation to the Tribal Affairs ministry. Certainly, I would say this that while we should implement the act in letter and spirit we should not keep it open ended. In my mind that remains one weakness and it remains one source of worry for the forest department.
Besides this is there any other source of concern for the forest department?
For them the concerns of honey combing is a legitimate concerns - that in some parts we are giving rights in pockets - there is honey combing taking place, we are not taking a cluster approach. It's not as if, we recognize your right but here we will settle you provide you health facilities water and education - that's not happening.
But that is not provided in the act...
No, its not. On this honey combing issue too I think the forest department has some legitimate concerns. I have seen in some states for myself. I have seen the maps, particularly Chhatisgarh.
What are the illegitimate concerns of the forest department about the Act?
No, no, I wouldn't say that they are illegitimate. I would just say that they (the forest officials) have to move on. They felt that certain sections did feel that the when the Act opened the doors for regularization there would be people who would come who would not be serious claimants. Our political economy is such that we cannot rule out farzi guys getting the titles. Although there are many check and balances that are inbuilt into the act. That is history now, no use harping on what happened before the act. The act is there now, it has to be implemented. The forest conservation act is an act to protect the forests. The Forest Rights Act is a legislation to manage the forests in a sustainable manner. If there is a distinction in the two I have to draw, I would draw this. The Forest Conservation Act protects the forest area by restricting the diversion to non-forest activities, the FRA creates a new class of stakeholders who can either be seen as enemies of forests or who can be seen as partners of sustainability forest management. That is the big challenge for the entire forestry establishment to come to grips with.
But your directive of August 2009 has been the most disliked within the forest establishment...
It was to make the FRA an integral part of the Forest Advisory Committee's process (of reviewing forest diversion proposals).
Is that under review?
No, it's a non-negotiable.
Are you certain that the directive has been followed in each and every case?
If you were to ask me if we can relook at some of the provisions of the directive I would certainly say, in retrospect, that some of the provisions of the directive have centralized many processes. For example I don't see why we should get resolutions of the gram sabha (approving the diversion of forestland) to the central government. That vitiates the constitutional frame of things. You can't operate on the assumption that the central government is the only player interested in protecting the forests and the states are not.
So will you amend the directive?
Certainly I have been thinking about it. If anything, the guideline is essential, I don't think it is going to be withdrawn - that's a non-negotiable.
But the gram sabha certificate has been the most difficult bit for industry and states to get...
Yes, but to get resolutions, send copies of resolutions...and we have seen examples where sometimes resolutions can be manufactured for a project or against doctored against a project. I don't want to get into examples but we have evidences on both sides. But we have examples of match fixing on either side. If anything, the guideline could do with some review with the submission of information to the centre.
By when would that amendment be made?
I have not seriously thought about it, it's some of the concerns I have been thinking about. But there is no question on going back on the guideline.
But has this issue been raised by your colleagues in the cabinet, especially with the coal issue?
No, not at all. By the way, not a single cabinet colleague of mine has raised a concern about FRA.
It's only the forest department then?
Not one single minister has criticized me for introducing the guidelines.
Then why do you want to alter them or think there is a problem with them?
Although in their reports they keep saying FRA is one problem in getting clearances but I think FRA is a collective commitment and a parliamentary act. The only thing which I want to relook in August 2009 guideline is that I want to decentralize more but the guidelines may have ended up centralizing more than I should have actually done. I will certainly look at it from that point of view. I am in favour of decentralizing many of these activities to the state governments and putting the onus of responsibility on the states. Today it's always on the centre. Why should we do it?
But why should your actions not be in consonance with the Forest Rights Act?
I am saying that, I am saying why only the centre should have the responsibility. The centre has not taken the thekedari (contract), the states are also responsible.
So you are shunning the responsibility?
No, we have passed the law. It was our responsibility to pass the law but we can't go and do site specific GIS is true or false.
But that is exactly what you do in the environmental clearances.
No, environmental clearance is different. You are talking of 11 lakh individual titles having been given. We don't give 11 lakh environmental clearances.
But more people's stakes in environmental clearances are assessed by you.
You can't compare environmental impact assessments and FRA - the latter is for individual plots. EIA is for a lump of land for a discreet project. And the numbers of projects are limited.
Not to argue, but when a project comes to you for forestry clearance - it's also a lump of land that they are asking and just like in the case of environmental clearances it's about the people whose rights are affected.
I am talking about the Forest Rights Act.
But I was talking about the projects you clear for diverting of forests and if they are in agreement with the FRA or not
Yes that number is limited.
Why would you not retain (at the Centre) the same level of scrutiny for forest clearances as you do for environmental clearances?
Frankly, I can't ...I don't see how it's the responsibility of the centre. It's a gross subversion of the constitutional scheme of things if the government was to go and verify if the particular gram sabha has given this resolution is a proper manner or not. Ultimately that process, even assuming that we take on that responsibility, the process would still be dependent on working through the state government machinery.
We can't do a PM to DM minus CM model. That model is never going to work.
So at some point this (guideline) will get amended you believe, you will amend it.
I am thinking about it. There is no urgency to change it but I am thinking about it.
Moving on the Green India mission, it's one out of the eight which has been stuck and slowest to take off.
No, the Prime Minister's council only approved it on 22nd of February.
But within the ministry there is also a tussle between the forest officials and you.
The tussle is only in the pages of Times of India. I am sorry there is absolutely no tussle.
There is no argument between you and the DG Forests on how it should be structured?
There is a certain organizational structure that was approved by the PM and now we are going through the process of getting cabinet approval and then we have got some allocation for 2011-12 for kick-starting the mission. The mission is not going to start now. Unlike the other missions, this one is scheduled to start in 2012. The year 2011-12 was deliberately kept as a preparatory period to put in place the institutions required. Because it's too easy to start a mission with business as usual.
What's the difference between this or any other afforestation programmes of the ministry that have failed earlier?
Because number one, the focus is not on plantation alone. That is a very important thing. If you make only a plantation programme you know it's basically money going down the drain, you don't know what the survival rates (of the trees planted) are or whether the money has actually gone for plantation. Secondly the institutional structure is fundamentally different. Then there are a series of conditionality attached to the Green India mission. Access to Green India funds is not automatic as far as states attached. There is a reform agenda linked to states accessing the funds. So, we may end up spending less money. If you judge a mission only by the amount of funds it spends...If a state government is not willing to subscribe to the reforms...for example one of the reforms is making joint forest management committees one of the legally entitled bodies of the gram sabhas.
But the forest officials still hold the signatory powers in the JFM committees.
No, it will be a body of the gram sabha. It will be controlled by the gram sabha under an act.
So there will be no forest official in these committees?
He maybe a member or a technical advisor but it would be the gram sabha that would control the committee.
But no forest officer you are suggesting will have signatory powers?
These are matters of details for each state to work out. The states have to amend their acts. Forestry as you know is a concurrent subject.
Right now JFM is run without any legal backing.
In some states they do in most states they don't. One of the conditions of the green India missions is that the JFMC get legal sanctity, particularly in the scheduled areas, become legally identified bodies of the gram sabhas so they control the committees and the money goes into the gram sabha.
So the money will go to the gram sabha and not the forest department?
Yes, it will go to the gram sabha, that is what the Green India mission is all about, its not about taking money from the budget and giving to the forest department. We have forestry programmes doing that.
Let me just get this right, you shall give the money to the state government obviously.
Yes.
And, the state government will be stipulated that it will transfer funds only to the gram sabhas and not the forest departments...
To the institutions designated by the gram sabha.
Not the gram sabha or gram panchayats?
These are details to be worked out by the state. But, we have a certain template of a reform agenda that we have put. But if states agree to this reform agenda they get access to the green India funds. Green India funds are not automatic disbursal. Right now there is certain degree of automaticity to the money we get and transfer to the states.
I think this is a big institutional innovation.
In cases of plantations so far, what has been the plantation success rate so far?
I don't know, it's difficult to say. I have heard figures ranging from 20-70%.
There is no record with you?
It's really difficult. Yesterday (June 2) I was in Orissa and one of the criticism that my regional office was making was that they were trying to get data for... in the last 15 years something like 7 lakh hectares has come under plantation in Orissa and there is no information on where this 7 lakh hectares is or what species or survival rates. All they know is so much money was spent on 7 lakh hectares. In fact I raised that with the chief minister yesterday. Which is why even in CAMPA (compensatory funds for forest management earned from project developers who use forest land) if you notice the objectives, plantation doesn't figure anywhere, its regeneration of natural forests, preservation of biodiversity corridors, creation of infrastructure. Plantation doesn't figure in the list although some states want to use for that. It's inevitable...you can't do without plantations.
But that is the departure of the Green India mission. One of the segments of the mission is actually to improve the quality of forests not through plantations but through better managerial practices.
How much percentage from the mission would go to plantations?
Roughly today in broad terms, five million hectares is new forests - additional forests. Out of this 3 million is private agro-forestry where the survival rate is presumably and supposedly higher. Five million hectares is quality improvement.
Isn't quality improvement the same as plantation?
Absolutely not. That's not true. Plantation is one element, there are others...regeneration of existing forests...simple things.
One last thing on the same issue. You issued the two guidelines the one on critical wildlife habitat and critical tiger habitats. The latter has hit into the same criticism that they bypass of the Forest Rights Act because you distinguish claiming this is done only under the Wildlife Protection Act and not under FRA. But any wildlife area regardless whether it has tigers or not would still be governed by FRA too.
Some of these activists are creating needless controversies and confusions. They have their private agendas, I am sorry to say, and I am saying it on record. They specialize in creating controversy and confusion where none exist. And one of the controversy and confusion that has been sought to be created is that relocation is taking place coercively without respecting the Forest Rights Act.
But these were cases that the members of your National Tiger Conservation Authority also raised with you.
It's factually not true. Whatever NGOs and civil society organizations say is not always true. One of the biggest lessons I have learnt in the past two years is that civil society organizations do not play cricket with a straight bat.
They have their own agendas, some conservationists have their own agendas - they have their own tourist bungalows, for instance. They are as much into tourism as anybody else.
I am not saying that what the state government say is right all the time. We also sometimes try to varnish everything. So it's very difficult to actually get to the truth. And also, many journalists forget that their job is to be journalists and become activists.
Is this dealing with the civil society?
It's the biggest headache if you ask me.
It's the biggest headache?
It's the biggest headache if you ask me because there has been nobody who has been more open minded and more proactive with civil society than I am. You know there were rules in this ministry for defining what a civil society was. There many people of the civil society that were kept out of the consultative processes of this ministry because they didn't have a science degree or a PhD, some peculiar guidelines which have all been withdrawn for which I am not given any credit.
So you are saying in two years you are now tired of the civil society?
The guidelines were withdrawn because it determined who we will engage with and assumed only people with science degrees or engineering degrees were people competent enough to deal with environment - some really bizarre guidelines.
So you are saying in two years you are now tired of the civil society?
No, I am not tired of them but I wish they were a little more responsible. I wish they were a little less sensationalist with what they do and little more accommodating of the other points of view. I find them as dogmatic as these chaps who say that this coal mine should be open only here or that power plant should be built only here - that is also dogma.
Which are the people you find reasonable in the civil society?
I don't want to take names. These civil society people give me bouquets and they give me brickbats. The number of brickbats far exceeds the number of bouquets. I take it as part of my job. I only wish they were a little more sensitive to the fact that this is not and cannot be a one agenda ministry. It has necessarily to balance conflicting view points. And that doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with A or B. I have said this earlier. I don't mind saying it.
If people say I have not been consistent I would agree but you can't accuse of me lack of clarity and transparency. You can accuse me...if people were to say...I am inconsistent. I would say yes I am inconsistent. Because the approach in Vedanta has to be different than in Posco. The approach in Posco has to be different than in Hasdeo Coal Block. So each of these are individual cases.
So will your approach in the go no-go issue be consistent or not?
Even in that we must have clarity and we must have transparency we may not have consistency.
Explain that please.
Consistency is...if you say no to one project you have to keep saying no to all projects
But that is the idea of having a no-go area.
No, no. I am not talking of go no go areas, I am talking generally - if you were to say that - lets take the example of the two IITs have cleared - one in Mandi and one in Indore. The Forest Advisory Council had raised some issues and I have said no, I have analysed it and I have given it my decision. You shall say I am not being consistent but you have allowed IITs which don't require forest areas specifically. But I have argued the reasons why it should be given. Here is an example where I have clarity and transparency. But there may not be consistency. I agree with that.
Some critiques would say that the final say this way or that resides with you and the rest just advise.
But that is the structure of the committees. The Forest Advisory Committee gives its recommendation to the minister. The environmental appraisal committee gives its recommendation to the minister.
Would you agree that the final call in each case has to be a political one?
But we are now floating this National Environmental Appraisal Authority where I am actually delegating, in fact I am abandoning all powers to this authority for which we are now seeking cabinet approval
So you are saying that this authority to clear projects should not lie with the minister?
I am giving it up because a hybrid solution is not possible in our system. Originally my idea was that we could have a hybrid solution. But when I thought about it I said a hybrid solution will not send the right signals. So now the proposal that we are now floating for setting up this authority (NEAMA) which is a section 3(3) authority under the Environment Protection Act envisages that all decisions of clearance vest with this authority
And will be final?
Will be final.
With no political oversight?
No will be final and where the minister disagrees with a particular decision there will be a public speaking order - why are you doing this.
It basically ends up being the same that exists right now then?
No. But ultimately I have to stand up in parliament and answer the questions, why did you give BT Brinjal clearance or when Mr Nitish Kumar says don't allow BT crop trials I cant say no no it's a decision of an independent authority.
If I agree that the ultimate decision on projects lies in the political domain then what difference does this authority or another make?
I am saying that where you disagree you come up with a speaking order why you disagree, what are the factors and you put it in the public domain. I just agreed with the Forest Advisory Committee on IIT Indore, I wrote a four page hand written note on why I disagree. Not on emotional grounds but on factual grounds.
On legal grounds?
On factual grounds.
So you are saying the law in both forestry and environment gives you enough leverage to decide either way?
Yes, it's about how you interpret it. Exactly and give the reasons why. What did I do in Maheshwar? I documented each and every conversation and every piece of correspondence I had not to tell what is what but the idea was that everything should be in public domain. I agree that on Maheshwar I went back on my original position. It took me one and a half years to do that. I had to because I had a certain technical view from the Central Water Commission, I had a certain political view so I had to change my position.
If all the projects are trade offs of benefits then why is this go and no go concept needed?
The choice unfortunately, the environmentalists are guilty of making it out to be the choice between good and bad. The choice is between two competing goods. That is the important thing.
Therefore why is a strict no-go area needed?
Both objectives are important.
But a no-go is a straight jacket approach. It says no go in a certain area at all costs, why give it in the first place because it doesn't give the option to decide between two goods.
We have a no-go today, it's not a new concept.
You mean in national parks and sanctuaries which are also overridden...
No, we don't override them in protected areas
But there are a lot of projects cleared in the national parks and sanctuaries
Those are either on-going projects or they are projects subject to...like building a road or putting an optical fibre cable ...those are allowed. They come to the standing committee on wildlife and the committee takes a view. But large projects, say coal mining in a protected area, it's a complete no-go in a protected area. That's how the coal mine near Tadoba Tiger Rserve got killed repeatedly.
Or diamond prospecting?
It's an ongoing project in Panna Tiger Reserve. I can't close that.
But no substantial project, you are saying would get clearance in a protected area on your watch
Not in a PA. A cement factory drawing water from a protected area we have rejected. We have rejected an Adani project that was going to infiltrate into a Marine protected area. New projects of a certain magnitude. But I have cleared a large number of projects of tarring or re-tarring of tarred roads, for creating gravel roads, those things one shouldn't stop.
Two years as minister, what are the big ticket achievements, if any so far on forestry?
Well, I think, the game changer as far as forests are concerned is the fact that Forest Rights Act is now an integral part of the Forest Conservation Act process. I mean that something that was inevitable and had to happen but that the environment and forests ministry is talking about it and not being defensive about its historical responsibility and historical role.
You mean not being offensive against the act?
They had taken a completely different position vis-à-vis the act but right now one of the fundamental game-changer has been the recognition that one cannot move forward on sustainable forestry management without addressing the Forest Rights Act concerns.
Two, the architecture of the Green India mission put in place is another game changer in the long run as far as the forest department is concerned. What the mission envisages is the implementation of forestry programmes through gram sabha institutions and through Joint Forest management Committees - JFMCs that are legally recognized as bodies of the gram sabhas and not as stand alone creations of the forest department.
Third, the go and no go concept has been a very big game innovation.
Fourth, the operationalisation of CAMPA breaking an impasse of over six years is transforming the forestry scene. For the first time, funds are really not a constraint for states. Fresh recruitment at the cutting edge level has resumed after a gap of over ten years.
But the concept itself has been a no-go within your government...
But the fact is that the exercise was only done for Coal. But, people are now talking about it for other areas. The Ashok Chawla committee has now suggested the same for other sectors. We did it only for coal. I think so far the no go areas was only the protected area network. But to expand the no-go areas from the national parks and sanctuaries alone to a much larger area is something that has caused a lot of inconvenience for the user ministries, particularly coal. People are now beginning to recognize that there area areas of countries where densities of forests in excess of o.5 that need to be preserved.
So the notion that there are areas of rich forests that need to be protected - and these are forests that have nothing to do with tiger reserves or protected areas - that is a big change. The fact that we have rejected projects ...
How many projects in the no-go areas have been rejected?
No projects in those areas have so far been approved. Its in double digits. Couple of projects in Chhatisgarh and projects in Sasan in Mahan coalfiled area in Madhya Pradesh, then this UMPP area.
And you are not willing to relent on these you are sure?
No, we are working on them. Let's see what we can do. But, as of now, we have taken a very difficult stand.
Let me take you back to the first point.
No, let me complete. The fourth achievement related to the no-go area concept is that you can actually have rejections from the forestry end. You don't have to necessarily give clearances to all projects that are coming.
It is two years since you are the minister, the rejection rate is not any different than before...
No, no! The rejection rate is much higher, definitely. Don't look at it over a thirty year period look at it project-wise. Far more number of projects that have been rejected or suspended or sent back. Remember a number of projects are sent back and then they come back reworked.
There is no finality to those. And that has been the concern that everything gets stayed for a while and then they are given the go ahead...
No some projects have been downright rejected and some have come back. I can't tell you the exact mix of the two but I certainly think the rejection rate is significantly more today.
If I take you back to the Forest Rights Act issue, is the view you espousing (that environment ministry has accepted the Act) yours or really of the forest bureaucracy. You seem to be at loggerheads with the forest officials on this.
It takes time, it takes time. Forest department has its genuine concerns. Forest mafia will take over. One of the weakness of the Forest Rights Act is that there is no terminal date. In fact from day one I have been saying its an open ended act. I would be happier if the act said that this one time regularization based on conditions would apply till the year 2013 or 2014. As things stand right now someone can wake up in 2017 or 2018 and say that I have lived here for three generations.
Are you or the government thinking of amending the Act to bring in this change and deadline?
Well I have made this suggestion to the Saxena committee and I have told Saxena ji.
But is that an amendment the government is going to bring in?
My own recommendation would be that we should bring such a change. This would be my recommendation to the Tribal Affairs ministry. Certainly, I would say this that while we should implement the act in letter and spirit we should not keep it open ended. In my mind that remains one weakness and it remains one source of worry for the forest department.
Besides this is there any other source of concern for the forest department?
For them the concerns of honey combing is a legitimate concerns - that in some parts we are giving rights in pockets - there is honey combing taking place, we are not taking a cluster approach. It's not as if, we recognize your right but here we will settle you provide you health facilities water and education - that's not happening.
But that is not provided in the act...
No, its not. On this honey combing issue too I think the forest department has some legitimate concerns. I have seen in some states for myself. I have seen the maps, particularly Chhatisgarh.
What are the illegitimate concerns of the forest department about the Act?
No, no, I wouldn't say that they are illegitimate. I would just say that they (the forest officials) have to move on. They felt that certain sections did feel that the when the Act opened the doors for regularization there would be people who would come who would not be serious claimants. Our political economy is such that we cannot rule out farzi guys getting the titles. Although there are many check and balances that are inbuilt into the act. That is history now, no use harping on what happened before the act. The act is there now, it has to be implemented. The forest conservation act is an act to protect the forests. The Forest Rights Act is a legislation to manage the forests in a sustainable manner. If there is a distinction in the two I have to draw, I would draw this. The Forest Conservation Act protects the forest area by restricting the diversion to non-forest activities, the FRA creates a new class of stakeholders who can either be seen as enemies of forests or who can be seen as partners of sustainability forest management. That is the big challenge for the entire forestry establishment to come to grips with.
But your directive of August 2009 has been the most disliked within the forest establishment...
It was to make the FRA an integral part of the Forest Advisory Committee's process (of reviewing forest diversion proposals).
Is that under review?
No, it's a non-negotiable.
Are you certain that the directive has been followed in each and every case?
If you were to ask me if we can relook at some of the provisions of the directive I would certainly say, in retrospect, that some of the provisions of the directive have centralized many processes. For example I don't see why we should get resolutions of the gram sabha (approving the diversion of forestland) to the central government. That vitiates the constitutional frame of things. You can't operate on the assumption that the central government is the only player interested in protecting the forests and the states are not.
So will you amend the directive?
Certainly I have been thinking about it. If anything, the guideline is essential, I don't think it is going to be withdrawn - that's a non-negotiable.
But the gram sabha certificate has been the most difficult bit for industry and states to get...
Yes, but to get resolutions, send copies of resolutions...and we have seen examples where sometimes resolutions can be manufactured for a project or against doctored against a project. I don't want to get into examples but we have evidences on both sides. But we have examples of match fixing on either side. If anything, the guideline could do with some review with the submission of information to the centre.
By when would that amendment be made?
I have not seriously thought about it, it's some of the concerns I have been thinking about. But there is no question on going back on the guideline.
But has this issue been raised by your colleagues in the cabinet, especially with the coal issue?
No, not at all. By the way, not a single cabinet colleague of mine has raised a concern about FRA.
It's only the forest department then?
Not one single minister has criticized me for introducing the guidelines.
Then why do you want to alter them or think there is a problem with them?
Although in their reports they keep saying FRA is one problem in getting clearances but I think FRA is a collective commitment and a parliamentary act. The only thing which I want to relook in August 2009 guideline is that I want to decentralize more but the guidelines may have ended up centralizing more than I should have actually done. I will certainly look at it from that point of view. I am in favour of decentralizing many of these activities to the state governments and putting the onus of responsibility on the states. Today it's always on the centre. Why should we do it?
But why should your actions not be in consonance with the Forest Rights Act?
I am saying that, I am saying why only the centre should have the responsibility. The centre has not taken the thekedari (contract), the states are also responsible.
So you are shunning the responsibility?
No, we have passed the law. It was our responsibility to pass the law but we can't go and do site specific GIS is true or false.
But that is exactly what you do in the environmental clearances.
No, environmental clearance is different. You are talking of 11 lakh individual titles having been given. We don't give 11 lakh environmental clearances.
But more people's stakes in environmental clearances are assessed by you.
You can't compare environmental impact assessments and FRA - the latter is for individual plots. EIA is for a lump of land for a discreet project. And the numbers of projects are limited.
Not to argue, but when a project comes to you for forestry clearance - it's also a lump of land that they are asking and just like in the case of environmental clearances it's about the people whose rights are affected.
I am talking about the Forest Rights Act.
But I was talking about the projects you clear for diverting of forests and if they are in agreement with the FRA or not
Yes that number is limited.
Why would you not retain (at the Centre) the same level of scrutiny for forest clearances as you do for environmental clearances?
Frankly, I can't ...I don't see how it's the responsibility of the centre. It's a gross subversion of the constitutional scheme of things if the government was to go and verify if the particular gram sabha has given this resolution is a proper manner or not. Ultimately that process, even assuming that we take on that responsibility, the process would still be dependent on working through the state government machinery.
We can't do a PM to DM minus CM model. That model is never going to work.
So at some point this (guideline) will get amended you believe, you will amend it.
I am thinking about it. There is no urgency to change it but I am thinking about it.
Moving on the Green India mission, it's one out of the eight which has been stuck and slowest to take off.
No, the Prime Minister's council only approved it on 22nd of February.
But within the ministry there is also a tussle between the forest officials and you.
The tussle is only in the pages of Times of India. I am sorry there is absolutely no tussle.
There is no argument between you and the DG Forests on how it should be structured?
There is a certain organizational structure that was approved by the PM and now we are going through the process of getting cabinet approval and then we have got some allocation for 2011-12 for kick-starting the mission. The mission is not going to start now. Unlike the other missions, this one is scheduled to start in 2012. The year 2011-12 was deliberately kept as a preparatory period to put in place the institutions required. Because it's too easy to start a mission with business as usual.
What's the difference between this or any other afforestation programmes of the ministry that have failed earlier?
Because number one, the focus is not on plantation alone. That is a very important thing. If you make only a plantation programme you know it's basically money going down the drain, you don't know what the survival rates (of the trees planted) are or whether the money has actually gone for plantation. Secondly the institutional structure is fundamentally different. Then there are a series of conditionality attached to the Green India mission. Access to Green India funds is not automatic as far as states attached. There is a reform agenda linked to states accessing the funds. So, we may end up spending less money. If you judge a mission only by the amount of funds it spends...If a state government is not willing to subscribe to the reforms...for example one of the reforms is making joint forest management committees one of the legally entitled bodies of the gram sabhas.
But the forest officials still hold the signatory powers in the JFM committees.
No, it will be a body of the gram sabha. It will be controlled by the gram sabha under an act.
So there will be no forest official in these committees?
He maybe a member or a technical advisor but it would be the gram sabha that would control the committee.
But no forest officer you are suggesting will have signatory powers?
These are matters of details for each state to work out. The states have to amend their acts. Forestry as you know is a concurrent subject.
Right now JFM is run without any legal backing.
In some states they do in most states they don't. One of the conditions of the green India missions is that the JFMC get legal sanctity, particularly in the scheduled areas, become legally identified bodies of the gram sabhas so they control the committees and the money goes into the gram sabha.
So the money will go to the gram sabha and not the forest department?
Yes, it will go to the gram sabha, that is what the Green India mission is all about, its not about taking money from the budget and giving to the forest department. We have forestry programmes doing that.
Let me just get this right, you shall give the money to the state government obviously.
Yes.
And, the state government will be stipulated that it will transfer funds only to the gram sabhas and not the forest departments...
To the institutions designated by the gram sabha.
Not the gram sabha or gram panchayats?
These are details to be worked out by the state. But, we have a certain template of a reform agenda that we have put. But if states agree to this reform agenda they get access to the green India funds. Green India funds are not automatic disbursal. Right now there is certain degree of automaticity to the money we get and transfer to the states.
I think this is a big institutional innovation.
In cases of plantations so far, what has been the plantation success rate so far?
I don't know, it's difficult to say. I have heard figures ranging from 20-70%.
There is no record with you?
It's really difficult. Yesterday (June 2) I was in Orissa and one of the criticism that my regional office was making was that they were trying to get data for... in the last 15 years something like 7 lakh hectares has come under plantation in Orissa and there is no information on where this 7 lakh hectares is or what species or survival rates. All they know is so much money was spent on 7 lakh hectares. In fact I raised that with the chief minister yesterday. Which is why even in CAMPA (compensatory funds for forest management earned from project developers who use forest land) if you notice the objectives, plantation doesn't figure anywhere, its regeneration of natural forests, preservation of biodiversity corridors, creation of infrastructure. Plantation doesn't figure in the list although some states want to use for that. It's inevitable...you can't do without plantations.
But that is the departure of the Green India mission. One of the segments of the mission is actually to improve the quality of forests not through plantations but through better managerial practices.
How much percentage from the mission would go to plantations?
Roughly today in broad terms, five million hectares is new forests - additional forests. Out of this 3 million is private agro-forestry where the survival rate is presumably and supposedly higher. Five million hectares is quality improvement.
Isn't quality improvement the same as plantation?
Absolutely not. That's not true. Plantation is one element, there are others...regeneration of existing forests...simple things.
One last thing on the same issue. You issued the two guidelines the one on critical wildlife habitat and critical tiger habitats. The latter has hit into the same criticism that they bypass of the Forest Rights Act because you distinguish claiming this is done only under the Wildlife Protection Act and not under FRA. But any wildlife area regardless whether it has tigers or not would still be governed by FRA too.
Some of these activists are creating needless controversies and confusions. They have their private agendas, I am sorry to say, and I am saying it on record. They specialize in creating controversy and confusion where none exist. And one of the controversy and confusion that has been sought to be created is that relocation is taking place coercively without respecting the Forest Rights Act.
But these were cases that the members of your National Tiger Conservation Authority also raised with you.
It's factually not true. Whatever NGOs and civil society organizations say is not always true. One of the biggest lessons I have learnt in the past two years is that civil society organizations do not play cricket with a straight bat.
They have their own agendas, some conservationists have their own agendas - they have their own tourist bungalows, for instance. They are as much into tourism as anybody else.
I am not saying that what the state government say is right all the time. We also sometimes try to varnish everything. So it's very difficult to actually get to the truth. And also, many journalists forget that their job is to be journalists and become activists.
Is this dealing with the civil society?
It's the biggest headache if you ask me.
It's the biggest headache?
It's the biggest headache if you ask me because there has been nobody who has been more open minded and more proactive with civil society than I am. You know there were rules in this ministry for defining what a civil society was. There many people of the civil society that were kept out of the consultative processes of this ministry because they didn't have a science degree or a PhD, some peculiar guidelines which have all been withdrawn for which I am not given any credit.
So you are saying in two years you are now tired of the civil society?
The guidelines were withdrawn because it determined who we will engage with and assumed only people with science degrees or engineering degrees were people competent enough to deal with environment - some really bizarre guidelines.
So you are saying in two years you are now tired of the civil society?
No, I am not tired of them but I wish they were a little more responsible. I wish they were a little less sensationalist with what they do and little more accommodating of the other points of view. I find them as dogmatic as these chaps who say that this coal mine should be open only here or that power plant should be built only here - that is also dogma.
Which are the people you find reasonable in the civil society?
I don't want to take names. These civil society people give me bouquets and they give me brickbats. The number of brickbats far exceeds the number of bouquets. I take it as part of my job. I only wish they were a little more sensitive to the fact that this is not and cannot be a one agenda ministry. It has necessarily to balance conflicting view points. And that doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with A or B. I have said this earlier. I don't mind saying it.
If people say I have not been consistent I would agree but you can't accuse of me lack of clarity and transparency. You can accuse me...if people were to say...I am inconsistent. I would say yes I am inconsistent. Because the approach in Vedanta has to be different than in Posco. The approach in Posco has to be different than in Hasdeo Coal Block. So each of these are individual cases.
So will your approach in the go no-go issue be consistent or not?
Even in that we must have clarity and we must have transparency we may not have consistency.
Explain that please.
Consistency is...if you say no to one project you have to keep saying no to all projects
But that is the idea of having a no-go area.
No, no. I am not talking of go no go areas, I am talking generally - if you were to say that - lets take the example of the two IITs have cleared - one in Mandi and one in Indore. The Forest Advisory Council had raised some issues and I have said no, I have analysed it and I have given it my decision. You shall say I am not being consistent but you have allowed IITs which don't require forest areas specifically. But I have argued the reasons why it should be given. Here is an example where I have clarity and transparency. But there may not be consistency. I agree with that.
Some critiques would say that the final say this way or that resides with you and the rest just advise.
But that is the structure of the committees. The Forest Advisory Committee gives its recommendation to the minister. The environmental appraisal committee gives its recommendation to the minister.
Would you agree that the final call in each case has to be a political one?
But we are now floating this National Environmental Appraisal Authority where I am actually delegating, in fact I am abandoning all powers to this authority for which we are now seeking cabinet approval
So you are saying that this authority to clear projects should not lie with the minister?
I am giving it up because a hybrid solution is not possible in our system. Originally my idea was that we could have a hybrid solution. But when I thought about it I said a hybrid solution will not send the right signals. So now the proposal that we are now floating for setting up this authority (NEAMA) which is a section 3(3) authority under the Environment Protection Act envisages that all decisions of clearance vest with this authority
And will be final?
Will be final.
With no political oversight?
No will be final and where the minister disagrees with a particular decision there will be a public speaking order - why are you doing this.
It basically ends up being the same that exists right now then?
No. But ultimately I have to stand up in parliament and answer the questions, why did you give BT Brinjal clearance or when Mr Nitish Kumar says don't allow BT crop trials I cant say no no it's a decision of an independent authority.
If I agree that the ultimate decision on projects lies in the political domain then what difference does this authority or another make?
I am saying that where you disagree you come up with a speaking order why you disagree, what are the factors and you put it in the public domain. I just agreed with the Forest Advisory Committee on IIT Indore, I wrote a four page hand written note on why I disagree. Not on emotional grounds but on factual grounds.
On legal grounds?
On factual grounds.
So you are saying the law in both forestry and environment gives you enough leverage to decide either way?
Yes, it's about how you interpret it. Exactly and give the reasons why. What did I do in Maheshwar? I documented each and every conversation and every piece of correspondence I had not to tell what is what but the idea was that everything should be in public domain. I agree that on Maheshwar I went back on my original position. It took me one and a half years to do that. I had to because I had a certain technical view from the Central Water Commission, I had a certain political view so I had to change my position.
If all the projects are trade offs of benefits then why is this go and no go concept needed?
The choice unfortunately, the environmentalists are guilty of making it out to be the choice between good and bad. The choice is between two competing goods. That is the important thing.
Therefore why is a strict no-go area needed?
Both objectives are important.
But a no-go is a straight jacket approach. It says no go in a certain area at all costs, why give it in the first place because it doesn't give the option to decide between two goods.
We have a no-go today, it's not a new concept.
You mean in national parks and sanctuaries which are also overridden...
No, we don't override them in protected areas
But there are a lot of projects cleared in the national parks and sanctuaries
Those are either on-going projects or they are projects subject to...like building a road or putting an optical fibre cable ...those are allowed. They come to the standing committee on wildlife and the committee takes a view. But large projects, say coal mining in a protected area, it's a complete no-go in a protected area. That's how the coal mine near Tadoba Tiger Rserve got killed repeatedly.
Or diamond prospecting?
It's an ongoing project in Panna Tiger Reserve. I can't close that.
But no substantial project, you are saying would get clearance in a protected area on your watch
Not in a PA. A cement factory drawing water from a protected area we have rejected. We have rejected an Adani project that was going to infiltrate into a Marine protected area. New projects of a certain magnitude. But I have cleared a large number of projects of tarring or re-tarring of tarred roads, for creating gravel roads, those things one shouldn't stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment