Latest news with #MoEF&CC
Deccan Herald
2 days ago
- Deccan Herald
Sharavathi pumped storage project: Karnataka mum on KPCL 'violations'
Documents show that the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) nodal officer last month raised a specific question on any violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
New Indian Express
3 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Telangana asks Centre to direct AP to restore RLIS site to pre-DPR stage
HYDERABAD: Telangana irrigation officials on Sunday urged the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to direct the Andhra Pradesh government to immediately restore the Rayalaseema Lift Irrigation Scheme (RLIS) site to its pre-Detailed Project Report (DPR) stage. In a letter to the ministry, the officials also requested that either the MoEF&CC or the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) monitor daily activities at the RLIS site and submit fortnightly compliance reports to the National Green Tribunal (NGT). They pointed out that the NGT had stayed construction work on RLIS and constituted a joint committee to assess the situation. However, the Andhra Pradesh government allegedly continued construction in violation of the NGT order. The Telangana officials recalled that the joint committee, in its March 2024 report to the NGT, noted that the project proponent had undertaken works beyond DPR preparation. Excavation was reportedly completed up to 14.14% for the approach channel and 87.03% for the pump house and related works, totalling 18.18% of the proposed excavation. 'Self-certification not applicable' Since the works exceeded the scope of DPR preparation, the officials argued that self-certification by the project proponent, as discussed in the EAC's 25th meeting, was not applicable. They urged that this clause be removed from the EAC recommendations and replaced with a site inspection report by a competent authority. Reiterating their demand, the Telangana officials called for immediate restoration of the RLIS site to its pre-DPR stage to safeguard the legitimate rights of Telangana in the Krishna basin.
The Hindu
27-05-2025
- General
- The Hindu
Site inspection report disfavours Sharavathi project
A site inspection report of the controversial Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project has not recommended the proposal of the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) which seeks diversion of 54.155 hectares of forestland for the project. A detailed site inspection, conducted by Praneetha Paul, Deputy Inspector-General of Forest (DIGF) from the Regional Office, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of India (MoEF&CC), Bengaluru, has not recommended the proposal for the project citing 15 reasons including presence of Lion Tailed Macaque Wildlife Sanctuary. However, S. Senthil Kumar, Deputy Director-General of Forests, (Central) Regional Office, MoEF&CC, has recommended the proposal, while suggesting that 'revision in the design to minimise tree-felling and protect the ecological integrity of the area may be considered'. Concern about damages Ms. Paul, who was the inspecting officer, in her report, stated that the reason for not recommending the proposal include felling of more than 15,000 trees, many of which are endemic to the Western Ghats. 'Construction of new roads, widening of roads, construction of the surge shaft, adits, pot head yards, power evacuation etc would result in complete destruction of the wet evergreen forests of canopy density ranging from 0.7 to 1,' the report states as one of the reasons. It further states that the felling of 15,000 trees would result in further fragmentation and creation of isolated populations of the Lion Tailed Macaque (LTM) and other endemic species which may eventually lead to its extinction. 'Alternate CA land proposed, being a shola grassland, will not be able to compensate for the loss of habitat of the LTM,' it said. It also said that as the ecological fallout far outweighs the economic benefits that may be accrued by commissioning this project, 'it is recommended that the project should not be approved.' The inspection was conducted between May 1 and May 9, 2025. Damage acknowledged Meanwhile Mr. Kumar acknowledged that the area is home to significant endemic species, including LTM and the Malabar Pied Hornbill, both of which rely on tall, undisturbed canopy trees. 'There is no alternative alignment as the project depends on utilising reservoirs and gravity for hydroelectricity production,' he states in his recommendation. It further says the proposed project lies within the Sharavathi Valley Lion Tailed Wildlife Sanctuary which harbours the largest known population (730 individuals) of LTM and a separate proposal has been submitted for wildlife clearance which is pending. It added that the Chief Wildlife Warden had recommended modifications to design, including adopting underground structures and minimising surface openings to avoid felling approximately 518 trees in the Surge Tank area and by constructing an underground road from Nagar Basti Kere to Bagodi to preserve approximately 12,000 out of the 13,756 trees marked for removal. 'Building an overground road would disrupt the free movement of canopy dependent species such as the LTM. Revision in the design to minimise tree felling and protect the ecological integrity of the area may be considered. The proposal is recommended,' stated the DDGF .
New Indian Express
24-05-2025
- Health
- New Indian Express
Kerala to seek Centre's nod for bonnet macaque birth control programme
KOCHI: hile Kerala debates the need to control wildlife population to reduce human-wild animal conflicts, the forest department has decided to approach the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), seeking permission to launch a birth control programme to reduce monkey menace. With farmers living on forest fringes complaining about the growing monkey menace affecting their livelihood, the plan is to use artificial birth control measures to control the population of bonnet macaques. A workshop will be held on May 28 to finalise the proposal. Experts pointed out that western countries use many artificial birth control programmes like surgical sterilisation, intramuscular injection, and oral contraceptives to control wildlife population. 'We are submitting a proposal before the Centre for the artificial birth control of bonnet macaques. We have to get approval from MoEF&CC and will finalise the choice based on the ministry's guidelines,' a senior forest department official said. At the same time, he said there is no proposal to implement birth control measures for wild elephants. 'The recent enumeration has revealed that the wild elephant population is declining. India has not implemented any birth control programme for elephants. The Wildlife Institute of India (WII) is working on a project to develop immuno-contraceptive measures for population management of various species, including elephants,' he said. Meanwhile, Kerala Forest Research Institute wildlife biologist P Balakrishnan said many European countries use fertility control as an alternative to culling of wild animals in an attempt to address human-wildlife conflict. 'They mainly use immuno-contraceptive vaccines and oral contraceptives. But the question of implementing birth control programmes arise only when we have scientific evidence of an overabundance of a species. We don't have any study proving abundance of a species,' Balakrishnan said.
Indian Express
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Why Supreme Court struck down the Centre's orders on retrospective green clearances
The Supreme Court on Friday (May 16) struck down and held illegal a 2017 notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), which introduced a regime of granting projects clearances ex-post facto – after work had already begun. The judgment followed a clutch of petitions challenging the notification. Additionally, the SC judgment set aside a 2021 office memorandum, which introduced a standard operating procedure for streamlining the grant of post facto clearances. The judgment also restrained the Centre from issuing similar notifications or office orders for regularising acts violating the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification of 2006. In March 2017, the MoEF&CC issued a notification providing a 'one-time' six-month window for industries to apply for environmental clearance. It was applicable if they had begun operations, expanded production beyond what they were permitted or changed their product mix without obtaining prior clearance. Notably, a prior clearance is mandatory under the EIA notification, 2006, to scrutinise a project's impact on the environment, natural resources, human health and social infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals). The scrutiny involves a multi-stage process that includes project screening, impact assessment, public hearing and the final recommendation of sector-specific expert appraisal committees. The environment ministry can either grant or reject a final clearance, based on the recommendations of the expert committees. The Centre's core rationale behind the 2017 notification was that rather than leaving cases of violations 'unregulated and unchecked', they should be brought under the compliance net at the earliest. Secondly, the Centre argued that making violators pay for remediation and pollution would take away the economic benefit derived from the violation of laws. The notification stated that state authorities and pollution control boards would act against the violations under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, even as the cases were taken up for clearance. It also stated that irrespective of the category (size, etc.), all cases would be appraised at the central level, and the appraisal would proceed only if the activity was permissible on the site it is situated at, or it would face closure. An expert appraisal committee was constituted under S R Wate, former director of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur, to appraise the cases of violations. The committee met 47 times between 2017 and 2021. In a July 2021 office memorandum, the Centre also issued an SOP for 'identification and handling' violation cases, in compliance with a National Green Tribunal order. Supreme Court's rationale The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjay Bhuyan rapped the Centre for issuing OMs 'to protect those who have caused harm to the environment', and questioned whether development can happen at the cost of the environment. It said that the Centre went out of its way to protect those causing harm to the environment, and that the court cannot allow such attempts, as it has the constitutional and statutory mandate to uphold Article 21 (right to protection of life and personal liberty). In the past, the apex court has broadened the scope of Article 21 to include the right to a healthy and pollution-free environment. It held the 2017 notification and 2021 OM in violation of Article 21 and Article 14 (right to equality before law), as the OM was for all project proponents who 'were fully aware' of the consequences of violations. The bench cited examples of dangerous pollution levels in Delhi to point out that there are drastic consequences of large-scale destruction of the environment on human lives. Crucially, the SC bench also reminded the Centre of the undertaking it had given during a past legal challenge to the 2017 notification before the Madras High Court. The High Court had refused to interfere with or stay the notification and noted that industries contributing to the economy could not be closed because they failed to obtain an environmental clearance. However, the HC's order was based on the Centre's undertaking that the 2017 notification was strictly a one-time measure. In fact, the SC held that even a one-time relaxation was illegal as it amounted to infringing on the right to live in a pollution-free environment. The bench cited two past judgments – Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (2020) – to reaffirm that ex-post facto clearances were alien to environmental law. It came down heavily on the Centre for violating these orders through the 2021 OM, which essentially regularised the illegality of commencing a project construction without prior clearance. This, the court said, was ex-post facto clearance in substance and a violation of the past orders. In the Alembic case, a bench of Justice Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi had said that the concept of an ex-post facto was in derogation of fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence, and an anathema to the EIA notification. The SC bench said that the Centre had attempted to bring in the ex-post facto or retrospective by 'craftily drafting the SOP'. It added that 'cleverly', the words ex-post facto were not used, but effectively it meant the same. More importantly, it had also ordered the Centre not to introduce any version of such orders in the future. An award-winning journalist with 14 years of experience, Nikhil Ghanekar is an Assistant Editor with the National Bureau [Government] of The Indian Express in New Delhi. He primarily covers environmental policy matters which involve tracking key decisions and inner workings of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. He also covers the functioning of the National Green Tribunal and writes on the impact of environmental policies on wildlife conservation, forestry issues and climate change. Nikhil joined The Indian Express in 2024. Originally from Mumbai, he has worked in publications such as Tehelka, Hindustan Times, DNA Newspaper, News18 and Indiaspend. In the past 14 years, he has written on a range of subjects such as sports, current affairs, civic issues, city centric environment news, central government policies and politics. ... Read More
