Nagpur: In a sort of U-turn, the Standing Committee of national board for wildlife (NBWL) has decided that instead of earmarking 2% of the project cost for impact mitigation measures, the cost associated with such measures should be earmarked while recommending proposals.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) is expected to issue an advisory in this regard soon.
NBWL, the apex decision making body for conservation of wildlife and its habitat, in its 64th meeting held on 7th August, decided to impose 2% of the proportionate cost of projects falling within Protected Areas (PAs) and Environment Sensitive Areas (PAs). was decided. ESZ) on user agencies for impact mitigation measures wherever necessary in future. This amount will be spent on mitigation measures within the same PA, National Parks, Sanctuaries, ESZs, Tiger Reserves and Corridors.
However, the Standing Committee in its 65th meeting held on 24 September decided that measures to reduce the impact of projects in PAs and ESZs should be part of the project proposals. MoEFCC officials said that the ministry was of the view that instead of imposing uniform cost on all projects, it would be more appropriate if mitigation measures are suggested by the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) for each project and the cost of these measures will be worked out. to be done. Outside.
During the meeting, Director General (Forests) Subhash Chandra mentioned that the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) has given recommendations regarding mitigation measures and there may be norms set by the states in this regard.
RP Gupta, Secretary, MoEFCC observed that the project proposals forwarded by the States/UTs should be accompanied by the mitigation measures suggested by the CWLWs. “If there is a need to conduct a study by WII regarding mitigation measures, the project proposals along with the recommendations of such study should be submitted to the ministry,” he said.
“The Standing Committee should examine the reasonableness of the proposed mitigation measures and should not recommend any project without mitigation measures,” Gupta said.
He said it would be difficult to lay down guidelines on mitigation measures as such measures would differ from project to project. Gupta said, “If project proposals are received for consideration of the Standing Committee along with mitigation measures and costs associated with them, monitoring of the conditions imposed would be ensured and funds so received would not be diverted for any other purpose.” ”
Agreeing with the suggestion, NBWL member HS Singh said, “MoEFCC needs to issue guidelines as sometimes the cost of proposed mitigation measures can be very high for small projects.”
“Sometimes, proposals are broken down into smaller projects and mitigation measures are recommended accordingly. The cost of actual measures required to reduce the impact of projects inside PAs and ESZs should be borne by the user agencies, Said Dr R Sukumar, Member.
“The cost of livestock route should be part of the linear infrastructure projects and separate costs for other mitigation measures. If it is left to the CWLW to suggest mitigation strategies and the cost is recovered from the user agencies, it may lead to a cost overrun of the projects. There may be delay in implementation. Hence, there should be some guidelines in this regard,” said PK Sharma, PCCF (Wildlife), UP.
UD Singh, Director, Geer Foundation said, “Most of the projects that seek recommendations of the NBWL Standing Committee are state-run projects funded through bank loans and mitigation measures which add to the cost of these projects. Users There should be proper accounting of the amount recovered from the agencies and the guidelines on mitigation measures should take this into account.
Chairman of the Standing Committee and Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav said that project proposals should be scrutinized with fairness within strict time limits and added that there should be clarity and accountability with respect to the implementation of the decisions.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) is expected to issue an advisory in this regard soon.
NBWL, the apex decision making body for conservation of wildlife and its habitat, in its 64th meeting held on 7th August, decided to impose 2% of the proportionate cost of projects falling within Protected Areas (PAs) and Environment Sensitive Areas (PAs). was decided. ESZ) on user agencies for impact mitigation measures wherever necessary in future. This amount will be spent on mitigation measures within the same PA, National Parks, Sanctuaries, ESZs, Tiger Reserves and Corridors.
However, the Standing Committee in its 65th meeting held on 24 September decided that measures to reduce the impact of projects in PAs and ESZs should be part of the project proposals. MoEFCC officials said that the ministry was of the view that instead of imposing uniform cost on all projects, it would be more appropriate if mitigation measures are suggested by the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) for each project and the cost of these measures will be worked out. to be done. Outside.
During the meeting, Director General (Forests) Subhash Chandra mentioned that the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) has given recommendations regarding mitigation measures and there may be norms set by the states in this regard.
RP Gupta, Secretary, MoEFCC observed that the project proposals forwarded by the States/UTs should be accompanied by the mitigation measures suggested by the CWLWs. “If there is a need to conduct a study by WII regarding mitigation measures, the project proposals along with the recommendations of such study should be submitted to the ministry,” he said.
“The Standing Committee should examine the reasonableness of the proposed mitigation measures and should not recommend any project without mitigation measures,” Gupta said.
He said it would be difficult to lay down guidelines on mitigation measures as such measures would differ from project to project. Gupta said, “If project proposals are received for consideration of the Standing Committee along with mitigation measures and costs associated with them, monitoring of the conditions imposed would be ensured and funds so received would not be diverted for any other purpose.” ”
Agreeing with the suggestion, NBWL member HS Singh said, “MoEFCC needs to issue guidelines as sometimes the cost of proposed mitigation measures can be very high for small projects.”
“Sometimes, proposals are broken down into smaller projects and mitigation measures are recommended accordingly. The cost of actual measures required to reduce the impact of projects inside PAs and ESZs should be borne by the user agencies, Said Dr R Sukumar, Member.
“The cost of livestock route should be part of the linear infrastructure projects and separate costs for other mitigation measures. If it is left to the CWLW to suggest mitigation strategies and the cost is recovered from the user agencies, it may lead to a cost overrun of the projects. There may be delay in implementation. Hence, there should be some guidelines in this regard,” said PK Sharma, PCCF (Wildlife), UP.
UD Singh, Director, Geer Foundation said, “Most of the projects that seek recommendations of the NBWL Standing Committee are state-run projects funded through bank loans and mitigation measures which add to the cost of these projects. Users There should be proper accounting of the amount recovered from the agencies and the guidelines on mitigation measures should take this into account.
Chairman of the Standing Committee and Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav said that project proposals should be scrutinized with fairness within strict time limits and added that there should be clarity and accountability with respect to the implementation of the decisions.
.