 "Anil Madhav Dave")
Union environment, forests & climate change minister Anil Madhav Dave tells Nitin Sethi about the changes in green laws, policy and regulation in the pipeline and why he thinks India needs these changes. Edited excerpts:
What are the top three or four policy issues on your agenda to address now?
At present, upcoming the Montreal Protocol meeting in Kigali and the climate negotiations in Marrakesh are in front of me. They shall take away most of my time this and next month. But, I feel the execution of Paris Agreement, forests, rivers, coastal zone regulations, Western Ghats and environment clearances are those issues by which people are affected and are my priorities. In all this the ease of doing business and to ensure that no decision is kept pending unnecessarily and the environmental issues are not compromised — a structure for this needs to be established.
You think the current structure is faulty?
I won’t say there is fault. Swami Vivekananda said, things and people are good and they have to be improved upon. I would say the same for the structure. Its good but there is room for improvement.
The ministry has been working on amendment to the Wildlife Protection Act and the Indian Forest Act, 1927. What was found inadequate in these laws and what issues needed resolution?
More From This Section
That is still under thinking. But, see we are in an advanced era of technologies such as remote sensing and biotechnology. We have come far ahead in these issues compared to previous decades. Issues of keeping the genetic order of wildlife need to be addressed as well. In all these issues have to be linked to forests. A forest is not just a jungle today.
Could you explain yourself?
Today we can study even a tree with remote sensing. We do such extensive afforestation. If this afforestation had been done we would have a forest bigger than the Amazon. But, what happens to these trees and the funds utilised? Can something be done for the degraded forest lands of the country? Can’t we use forestry to increase employment in India?
Your government has been preparing a policy framework to involve the private sector for afforestation on government forest lands in PPP mode? A guideline framework was issued. Is there any progress on it?
No, right now I am talking about forest policy and forest law, these are the areas about which we need to think. What has happened earlier, how that shall get extended further we shall see. But three things are indeed essential — the forest cover should increase, wildlife should be healthy and forests should provide employment. They are not decorative or ornamental, they have to be productive. Policy shall go in that direction, this is what we are working on.
During the Campa Act, the issue of seeking consent from the village councils came up. That has not been resolved as yet though at that time you compromised with Congress.
After the Panchayati Raj law, in case of everything, not just forestry, nothing can be done without the permission of the Gram Panchayat.
During the Campa Act, the issue of seeking consent from the village councils came up. That has not been resolved as yet though at that time you compromised with Congress.
After the Panchayati Raj law, in case of everything, not just forestry, nothing can be done without the permission of the Gram Panchayat.
Sorry, but I was asking about consent specifically from gram sabha, which is required under the Forest Rights Act and not consultation with Gram Panchayat, which is sometimes required under different laws. Does the government principally accept the idea of taking consent from the gram sabha?
I feel that people who have seen a village council, its population is 500-1,000. Now, you need a quorum of 50% of them to hold a meeting. If half the people of a village don’t go to the farms but instead attend debates in a meeting then how will they earn…
You mean it’s not practicable to hold meetings of village councils to give consent?
No, it is not. I am a Member of Parliament and a minister and I go to Jahanpur, my adopted village under the Sansad Adarsh Gram Yojna and people there tell me please don’t call us for meetings, we will lose our livelihood. A gram panchayat is a symbol of the gram sabha and practically I can tell you what really happens is the sarpanch gets the signatures of people by sending the register home to each house. So, people who go to villages, live there and talk to them, they understand the problem with this (gram sabha consent) and they also understand the solution and practically how it should be done. It is easy to say these things as a principle. But, you really cannot do any work without the consent of the gram panhayat now.
The ministry had begun the exercise of defining forests but then it got embroiled in concerns about Aravalli hills and real estate in Haryana. Has it reached any resolution yet under you?
When we shall make a law and policy for the forests then this will be a part of it. The law will require a clear definition of forests.
Earlier it was being seen as a stand-alone exercise – the definition was to be prepared and also submitted to the court, if am not mistaken?
India’s constitution gives powers to the Parliament to make laws where required and there is no need to go to any court or any other body for that. There is no Parliament over and above the Parliament and we maintain its supremacy.
If I read between your lines, you are saying the definition shall come through a Parliamentary process?
Definitely. Whatever powers and processes are provide by the Constitution to elected representatives, those are capable to run the country. If someone is unhappy with the workings of the system then they have the right to go to the courts against it.
Your ministry had also drafted a supplementary plan to give post-facto clearances to industries which had come up illegally? This was opposed by environmentalists. It’s been months we have not heard of it since. What is the status on it?
It is still in process. In coming time we shall clear it but at the moment it is in process.
But do you agree with the idea that industries that came up illegally without clearance should be able to secure such clearances later?
We are thinking about that exactly because there are two or three different views on it. We are thinking about what is the right way to do it, how to do it and what are our requirements. I don’t want to comment on it right now or that shall become the one policy line but there is a group thinking about it. There is no pending decision and file on my table. It can take time sometimes, but it’s the shortest time required. Similarly in this case, where industry is at fault and it has to do something, we are thinking what is required. Soon people shall come to know.
In last Parliament session on July 18, August 8 and 9 you were asked how much penalty has been imposed on violators of environmental law and if any of that has been withdrawn. You replied that you have not imposed any penalty on any project in two years, your ministry does not maintain data on any such penalties imposed and that you have no power to impose such penalties. Can you please explain these answers?
Where did I say this?
You said this in reply to three questions in the Parliament in the previous session, Question no 36 of July 18 in Rajya Sabha and then two other questions answered on eight and nine August. I have their details right here. You said you have not imposed any penalty on any industry in two years. In second you said, the ministry does not keep any record of penalties imposed and in third you said you don’t have the power to impose any penalty.
I think there must be a lack of understanding. I can only answer after seeing both the questions and answers of what the purpose was. But, it’s not so. If someone commits any violation, somewhere or the other it’s brought under the law….the Central Pollution Control Board does this too. It cannot be that everything was working so perfectly fine that…
Which is why I asked, did no industry commit any violation in last two years?
No, that’s why I am saying I shall have to check and come back to you on it.
So are you aware of any cases of violations by industry?
Yes, whatever cases there are - some 500-600 or so - I am reviewing them.
Why do you and the government have different views on the dams on Ganga, river-linking and the hydropower projects to be built on Brahmaputra? Why do you seek to protect only Ganga as a cultural heritage but not the Brahmaputra – which too has similar cultural value for people in the Northeast?
My thinking and that of the government cannot be different. I am the government. So there are no two views, there is only one view. As far as dams are concerned on Ganga and Brahmaputra: Ganga is a different river, there are no two opinions on that. It has a special position for India. But, case to case, river to river, depending upon needs of local people, agriculture, demand for power and other issues one has to decide. It cannot be a blanket clearance.
But if I tell you about Brahmaputra: it spreads so wide, it can spread as wide as 50 kilometres at times. Why? Because there are plains there. Where do you make dams? In the hills.
You mean Arunachal Pradesh?
Yes, in the hills. So the location and site decides what is to be done. If you make one in the plains then soon you shall find the river has diverted its route. You have to understand the river and then do it on a case to case basis after taking the state government in confidence.
In two instances you drew the policy line for your experts even before they had taken a decision. You said river linking should be attempted and you said we should experiment with GM food crops. Didn’t you end up dictating the policy line and pressurising the experts who were yet to make a formal assessment? In the Ken-Betwa interlinking of river case, the experts have eventually given the decision you desired.
It was not just an issue of one Ken-Betwa. It was an issue of interlinking rivers across the country. There is no issue of pressurising; each person is an individual and capable of giving their own decisions. The question was, should we do interlinking of rivers or not. The question was not whether Ken-Betwa interlinking of rivers should be done or not. I gave a statement on that. I said we are debating this for 40-50 years so let us try one and find out and we shall know in 4-5 years if we should do this or not.
In case of GM Foods, I have not said whether we should do it or not. My only view is that this is a country that experiments. Gandhi ji’s entire life was an experiment. That is why his autobiography was called, ‘The Story of My Experiments with Truth’. So, experiments should be done in a laboratory but if you do not experiment, the society will rot.
But, the decision you have to take now is on the commercialisation of GM Mustard – whether farmers show sow and sell it or not. Are you calling this an experiment with farmers?
All the fields of the large agricultural universities are like a laboratory – those are not fields. Fields would be if I said let us start cultivating the crop in thousands of acres across all states. Here I mean, laboratories, and the land inside the boundaries of agricultural universities. This experiment, research, error, discovery of good and bad we should continue to happen. This should not be stopped because our country cannot go forward with fundamentalism. But, before we ask the society to take up something we should study its impacts on health, on water, on markets – the policymakers and decision-makers have to study and guide the society in the right direction. There can be difference of opinion on these decisions but whoever is heading the system has to take a call.
Do you think the decision on GM crops can be taken for this sowing season?
The decision cannot be taken keeping in mind one cropping season. The decision will be taken keeping the long-term in mind.
So you are not in a hurry?
No, it is not like that. The decision cannot be taken for one crop for one month under pressure. Decision has to be taken independently and neutrally after considering what impacts it will have over long term.
The inviolate area policy meant to protect dense forest from mining has been in works for years since UPA days while mining clearances are being given on piece meal basis. Will that policy ever see the light of the day? Have you come to know about that policy since you took over as minister?
I think I need to take a look at the policy. But I have seen the issue of coal closely. I was the chairman of the select committee of Parliament on Coal Mines bill. So the work is being done under existing laws keeping the issue of forests also in mind. But if any new policy is coming and if some work has been done on this policy then I shall have to revise and look at it.
Will it take time?
No it will not take time once I see it?
It’s not come before you till date?
It has not come in such detail.
There has been a long running argument within the NDA government on whether consent of gram sabha’s should be retained as mandatory to build projects in forests. Is the issue over or is the debate still going on in the government and what has been decided?
Forest Rights Act and Panchayati Raj provisions are both in their place and work is done only after consent under them. During conversations one can talk about something that is classified etc but so far what the law is saying that before going ahead with any project consent should be taken under both.
Have you seen that the consent from gram sabha creates difficulties for projects on ground?
More than the difficulties for projects it is important to think of the benefit of the people where the project is coming up. Do they want it or not. I don’t think there any problem for industry if consultations are held with Panchayats. Holding wide consultations with stakeholders before moving ahead is good for the health of the projects.
You are speaking of consultations with panchayats. But I asked about consent from Gram Sabhas as required under Forest Rights Act. These are two different things.
No, consultation and consent has to be. Tell me is anything happening without the consent of gram panchayat. But, if you ask them a question of biotechnology about which they are not competent then how shall a gram panchayat decide over it? For it you shall need very high-end technical people would be required. In such cases they shall just say fine, you do it sir. If you are doing this you must be doing it after due deliberation and thinking it out. But more or less, their consent is required.
We also have to work on increasing the capacity of Panchayats to take such decisions. But this much is certain that if a dam is to be built or water is to be impounded in a Panchayat and farmers say make it at this specific point in the village, eventually the drawing and design of this project will have to be made by an engineer. Nobody there can check if he has made it right or wrong, he would have made it correctly. So in this way on technical issues the Panchayat has to trust the government departments. So such work is to be done together with trust.
What has happened is that our thought process has always pitted people against each other – don’t trust the other, always be cautious, they want to rob you. All these people who hang a bag on their shoulder and go there from cities, these people are unable to explain that forests, the wildlife and the tribals have been coexisting not just from after August 15, 1947 but for thousands of years. And they are living so not because of your great knowledge of forests. They are just living there. Those who have gone to them have caused them harm instead of bringing benefit to them because they have created this rebellious feeling in them and talked about improving them.
This is something the industries talk about - improving the tribals lives etc with their projects
Well it is not as if the companies are any better. They are there for their profits. It is not as if they are there to improve society. And, these guys have to run their NGOs. I meant wherever you go create coexistence and peace. If you see any point of dispute try to find out how one can develop agreement over it and not add more fuel to the fire. I am firmly of the view that Panchayat, forest dwellers and industries can work together because ultimately they also want employment. But the rights of the people and their lands should not be ruined in a fashion that they don’t get jobs and instead return to living like orphans. India’s democracy has a good basis for doing things correctly but we have to implement it well.
Do you think the courts have played a good role on environmental issues in India?
A good indication of the health of a system is that the courts intervene the least possible.
