New Delhi, Aug 23 (IANS): Environ-legal activists have demanded the removal of a National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) member, who suggested charging 2 per cent proportionate cost for a project passing through protected areas even as the member himself said that it is an unnecessary controversy over an old issue.
During a recent standing committee meeting of the NBWL, the issue of cost of mitigation measures due to impact of developmental activities in protected areas was discussed.
The meeting was informed that different states and UTs imposed different cost (percentage rate) as the cost for mitigation of the project's impact on the environment.
The minutes of the meeting have recorded that board member Sukumar R, a veteran elephant ecologist, suggested that the cost, if any, imposed for the mitigation measures should be 2 per cent of the proportionate cost of the projects falling with the protected areas of the ecologically sensitive zones (ESZ).
He also suggested that mitigation measures be taken based on the experience of the states.
"Is this expected from a wildlife scientist? Hope the institution of which he is a part of, the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, and the Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) take note of this," environment lawyer Ritwik Dutta said.
Sukumar has been a trustee of the WTI for many years.
The Delhi-based lawyer added, "It is time for all those concerned about wildlife to seek removal of Sukumar from the NBWL. Can Sukumar state on what scientific basis did he come to this magic figure of 2 per cent?"
Former forester, environmentalist and river conservationist Manoj Mishra said, "He (Sukumar) has been in the NBWL as a member for 15 years now. There were allegations of conflict of interest against him earlier. Basically, each committee should get fresh blood and he needs to be replaced. We have a new Environment Minister and he should start with a fresh slate."
Mishra was also critical that the NBWL has become just a "clearing house" for projects running through protected areas.
The economical justifications arrive with so called compensation, climate activist from Bengaluru, Rajani Rao Santosh, said and termed Sukumar as a "criminal" for putting a cost on to the mitigation effort.
"He is harboured by IISc to do exactly the opposite of ecological protection services," Santosh said.
The CEO and Chief of Conservation, WTI, Rahul Kaul, sought to clarify at the outset that Sukumar, whom he called as a respected elephant ecologist of the country, is a member of NBWL individually and not because of WTI.
"We have no idea as to how he has come to the conclusion, so it is very difficult to comment weather it is correct," he said.
"Inviolate areas mean inviolate areas. If you add a cost factor to it, it undervalues the inviolate. This becomes blood money," he said, adding, "Diverting forest areas for infrastructure projects is happening with increasing regularity. WTI, as an organisation, is part of several state wildlife boards and we try and avoid as and when possible. One can understand that the security concerns overarch everything (in case of projects in border areas)."
When IANS reached out to Bengaluru-based Sukumar over phone, he upfront denied that there is any controversy.
"This (imposing 2 per cent mitigation cost) was decided at some meeting of the NBWL at least 5-6 years ago. There was some ambiguity whether it should be total cost of the project or proportionate cost of the project that falls within the protected area or ecologically sensitive zone (ESZ). So it came for discussion.
"Do you impose a percentage of the total cost of the project on the project proponent when only a small percentage of that project falls in that particular protected area? Not just I, everybody felt this should be 2 per cent of the proportionate cost. This percentage is over and above the net present value (NPV) of the forest. This is in addition only for wildlife management," he said.
NPV is imposed by the Forest Appraisal Committee that is under the Forest Conservation Act. The decision to impose 2 per cent cost was taken in 2015 by the NBWL.
Clarifying his position, Sukumar said that rejecting or accepting a proposal is an altogether different matter.
"I said 2 per cent of 'whatever' cost and the minutes of the meeting incorrectly said 'if any'. The context of the whole discussion was - if they say in some cases 2 per cent cannot solve the problem, give 5 per cent. And we are talking only of those projects that are cleared," he said.
Sukumar also lamented that his second sentence was completely missed out in this unnecessary controversy.
"The second point that I mentioned and I still hold on to very strongly is that hundreds and thousands of rupees have come to the forest departments and state governments from the imposition of this and the question is, so far there has not been a single report on what has been done and what mitigation measures the money has been used for," the elephant expert added.