#dnaEdit: No shortcuts please

The Supreme Court order putting on hold the 133 clearances given by a 12-member standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) on August 12 and 13 has yet again exposed the conflicting imperatives of the government, civil society and the judiciary. In his speeches, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly emphasised the importance of expediting development while at the same time, promising to address the challenges of environmental damage and climate change. Over the years, thanks to improvements in governance and judicial interventions, procedures have been notified that have empowered the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to have a larger say in developmental projects. With land in scarce supply and most of India’s natural resources located in areas adjoining national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, the environmental clearances have become a hurdle for government’s intent on pushing road, power, mining, gas pipeline and defence projects. 

The Supreme Court has rightly taken cognisance of the petition complaining that the NBWL was constituted in violation of Section 5A of the Wildlife Protection Act. The Act mandates that the 47-member NBWL must have 10 non-official members drawn from the community of environmentalists, conservationists and ecologists. In addition, the NBWL must include five reputed non-governmental organisations working on “green” issues. In contravention of this Act, the government nominated just two non-official members and a single NGO to the NBWL. Of these, one of the non-official members is reportedly based in Gujarat. The board of the lone NGO selected is headed by the Gujarat Chief Minister. In addition, the UPA-era 12-member standing committee comprised eight non-official members, but this convention appears to have been discontinued now. As a result, the conflict of interest of bureaucrats sitting in judgment over their government’s pet projects is another glaring incongruity.

Many of the 133 projects cleared are located within the 10-km radius of national parks, designated as eco-sensitive zones, while some projects required diversion of forest land. One project was in a tiger sanctuary in Mizoram to fence and patrol the Indo-Bangladesh border, a Gujarat road project cut through the sole flamingo nest site in India, and a radar base in Andamans adjoined an endangered hornbill nesting site. Also considered were dam projects in Sikkim and Kerala, an oil exploration venture in Assam, and gas pipelines passing through sanctuaries in Andhra Pradesh. With the growth rate plunging, all these projects have enormous financial implications for India’s economy. However, the NDA government’s failure to staff the NBWL with the requisite numbers as sanctioned by Parliament cannot be condoned. Interestingly, the NBWL’s participatory composition was not a UPA initiative. The earlier NDA government, through the Wildlife Protection Amendment Act 2002, had envisaged a larger role for researchers and activists in the NBWL.

The NBWL standing committee is only a recommendatory body. Its objections and suggestions against various projects were often rejected by the NBWL, and even by former environment ministers while giving clearances. But its deliberations leave a rich trail of documentation on in-house criticism and impartial review of the projects and persuaded the former government to conduct field-visits and comprehensive studies. In the spirit of institution building, environment minister Prakash Javadekar must desist from the temptation to weaken the NBWL. He must realise the environment vs development debate predated his tenure. Criticising the judiciary for such interventions is counter-productive too. The interests of the country and inter-generation equity demand the initiation of a healthy public discourse on this issue.