Burning Issues

Burning Issues Tragedy of Tigress of Jhurjhura ...Comments Non Sequiturs… These comments arise from reading The Jhurjhura Paradigm : Lessons from an absolute tragedy written by Russell Crisante Fernandes, who is one of many journalists both in India and abroad who have pegged stories about tiger tourism to the recent death of a tigress in Bandhavarh. While I would agree that this event is an “absolute” – and, I might add, unnecessary – “tragedy” I do not understand the use of the term “paradigm” in this context. Furthermore to use this death to discuss tourism issues actually obscures the possibility of learning useful lessons. It is not only journalists who are creating this smokescreen. The director of India’s National Tiger Conservation Authority somewhat ingeniously commented in a recent interview “In Bandhavgarh, tiger tourism was seen at its extreme when a tigress was recently killed by a vehicle. Shamefully, forest staff and local administration is involved. This when his own report of the incident says “there are enough arguments/evidences which strongly indicate” that two government vehicles were involved in the accident. It is well known that the final deathblow was accidentally delivered the following morning by a forest department vehicle that had gone to check on the injured tigress. So am I missing something here? Forest officials in a protected area at night count as ‘tiger tourism’….! So why does this shocking incident generate so many articles about wildlife/tiger tourism? Tourism is an issue that certainly requires better management in some places but in relation to this event it is a complete red herring; it has eclipsed more serious issues raised by the tragic consequences of inappropriate - and illegal - behaviour by members of the forest department and other officials. Too many journalists have jumped on this story to write about the problems of tourism as though tourist behaviour had a bearing on the tigress’ death. Indeed if it were not for tourism, this would probably have been yet another death that the Forest department managed to hide from public view. This exposure is perhaps the reason why some members of the forest department sound as thought they wish to ban tourism in some of our National Parks? In most cases the journalists also seem to be writing without full information: for example, Bandhavgarh now has restricted routes so a rush to the meadows is much less of an issue. The Field Director also closely interacts with responsible tour operators there and things are working better. In another article an entry ticketing system is suggested; this is already in place for most areas. As with Panna, where department officials blamed researchers and everything other than themselves for the loss of over 40 tigers, forest officers in Bandhavgarh tried to pin the blame on tourism rather than examine their own failings. Fortunately the truth came out, thanks largely to an exceptional Field Director and local support and interest. But why are so many conservationists, journalists and sympathisers only looking at this tragic incident through tourism glasses. This misses the far deeper and more worrying aspects of the way our wildlife is managed. The security of large animals like the tiger is almost entirely in the hands of the forest department; they alone have control of wildlife protection and refuse to share responsibility; they are reluctant to even beneficially use expertise from outside the system. But when things go wrong they are neither accountable nor do they accept responsibility! This one-model-for-all – and the model itself – need to be seriously re-evaluated and we should be reading articles that debate these pertinent questions raised by death of the Jhujhura female, not more comments on tourist behaviour. It was, after all, quickly established that this death was not tourism related. The inability to stem the tiger's slide to extinction is a far more complicated, profound problem; it is in large part systemic and therefore much harder to correct. An event such as this, where the forest department have directly – if accidentally - killed one of the few remaining breeding females, could have provided the opportunity to raise and discuss these issues. This would be far more appropriate and useful than the endless tourism debates that deflect us from more creative conservation thinking. Unless we come up with some solutions soon and force changes into the system, tiger tourism debates will anyway be a moot point. Joanna Van Gruisen Baavan – bagh aap aur van
Burning Issues Coal based Thermal Power Project vs Wetland Coal based Thermal Power Project vs Wetland -Dr. Susan Sharma (with inputs from Saraswati Kavula and Internet news) The people of Sompeta villages, in Srikakulam Disrict of AP State have been agitating against the proposed coal based Thermal Power project of Nagarjuna Construction Company (NCC), right from the day of the proposal and there was an overwhelming majority opposing the project coming up in a WETLAND area, at Environmental Public Hearing. The villagers have been making it clear that the thermal power project would fill the neighbouring fields and villages with ash and would also displace several fishermen families. The petitioners from Sompeta pointed out that despite India being a signatory to the Ramsar International Convention on wetlands and the protection of wetlands comes under the ministry of environment and forests, the same ministry had cleared the project. By claiming that three lift irrigation schemes survive on the water from these wetlands, they urged the court to quash the environmental permission given. Social activist E.A.S. Sarma, former Union Power Secretary, said there was ample evidence to prove that the project site was in swamp land as several water courses passed through the site drawing into the sea. There were mudflats and tidal action within the definition of Coastal Regulation Zone. Telineelapuram bird nesting and feeding habitat was located in the vicinity of the project area. Dr. Asad R. Rahmani of Bombay Natural History Society and Asha Rajvanshi of Wild Life Institute, after visiting Bhavanapadu and Sompeta, said the sites were located in ecologically sensitive areas due to several wetland systems. The local people managed obtaining an Injunction order from the High Court in July 2010. The District and State administration along with NCC have been trying to forcefully start the work in the area since April 2010. Large scale picketing by local people had been a deterrent, so when the Court Injunction came, the local struggle was vindicated. However, things went terribly wrong in July, when the police resorted to firing, provoked by, hired hooligans. The ensuing violence made the Central Government review the Environment Clearance granted to the project, which was revoked. Finally, the National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA) quashed the environmental clearance granted to the Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd by the ministry of environment and forests to set up a thermal power plant at Sompeta village in Srikakulam district. The Centre had earlier cleared the NCC thermal plant along with three other plants that are to be set up in an area of 10,000 acres to generate 10,000 MW of power. The NEAA faulted the Centre and said that the environmental clearance accorded by the ministry to the project was based on wrong information and was thus liable to be quashed. “It is relevant to mention here that the...authority has no doubt that the area is a typical wetland of great ecological significance,” said NEAA, and added that it should not be used to set up a power plant. NCC has been making arrangements for setting up a 2,640 mw thermal power project in Sompeta with an outlay of Rs 12,000 crore. Sources: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/sunita-narain-seelight/402879/ see a video at http://interceder.net/i/Sompeta

Tragedy of Tigress of Jhurjhura ...Comments

Non Sequiturs…

These comments arise from reading The Jhurjhura Paradigm : Lessons from an absolute tragedy written by Russell Crisante Fernandes, who is one of many journalists both in India and abroad who have pegged stories about tiger tourism to the recent death of a tigress in Bandhavarh. While I would agree that this event is an “absolute” – and, I might add, unnecessary – “tragedy” I do not understand the use of the term “paradigm” in this context. Furthermore to use this death to discuss tourism issues actually obscures the possibility of learning useful lessons.

It is not only journalists who are creating this smokescreen. The director of India’s National Tiger Conservation Authority somewhat ingeniously commented in a recent interview “In Bandhavgarh, tiger tourism was seen at its extreme when a tigress was recently killed by a vehicle. Shamefully, forest staff and local administration is involved. This when his own report of the incident says “there are enough arguments/evidences which strongly indicate” that two government vehicles were involved in the accident. It is well known that the final deathblow was accidentally delivered the following morning by a forest department vehicle that had gone to check on the injured tigress. So am I missing something here? Forest officials in a protected area at night count as ‘tiger tourism’….!

So why does this shocking incident generate so many articles about wildlife/tiger tourism? Tourism is an issue that certainly requires better management in some places but in relation to this event it is a complete red herring; it has eclipsed more serious issues raised by the tragic consequences of inappropriate - and illegal - behaviour by members of the forest department and other officials.

Too many journalists have jumped on this story to write about the problems of tourism as though tourist behaviour had a bearing on the tigress’ death. Indeed if it were not for tourism, this would probably have been yet another death that the Forest department managed to hide from public view. This exposure is perhaps the reason why some members of the forest department sound as thought they wish to ban tourism in some of our National Parks?

In most cases the journalists also seem to be writing without full information: for example, Bandhavgarh now has restricted routes so a rush to the meadows is much less of an issue. The Field Director also closely interacts with responsible tour operators there and things are working better. In another article an entry ticketing system is suggested; this is already in place for most areas.

As with Panna, where department officials blamed researchers and everything other than themselves for the loss of over 40 tigers, forest officers in Bandhavgarh tried to pin the blame on tourism rather than examine their own failings. Fortunately the truth came out, thanks largely to an exceptional Field Director and local support and interest.

But why are so many conservationists, journalists and sympathisers only looking at this tragic incident through tourism glasses. This misses the far deeper and more worrying aspects of the way our wildlife is managed. The security of large animals like the tiger is almost entirely in the hands of the forest department; they alone have control of wildlife protection and refuse to share responsibility; they are reluctant to even beneficially use expertise from outside the system. But when things go wrong they are neither accountable nor do they accept responsibility!

This one-model-for-all – and the model itself – need to be seriously re-evaluated and we should be reading articles that debate these pertinent questions raised by death of the Jhujhura female, not more comments on tourist behaviour. It was, after all, quickly established that this death was not tourism related.

The inability to stem the tiger's slide to extinction is a far more complicated, profound problem; it is in large part systemic and therefore much harder to correct. An event such as this, where the forest department have directly – if accidentally - killed one of the few remaining breeding females, could have provided the opportunity to raise and discuss these issues. This would be far more appropriate and useful than the endless tourism debates that deflect us from more creative conservation thinking.

Unless we come up with some solutions soon and force changes into the system, tiger tourism debates will anyway be a moot point.

Joanna Van Gruisen
Baavan – bagh aap aur van

Burning Issues

Coal based Thermal Power Project vs Wetland

-Dr. Susan Sharma

(with inputs from Saraswati Kavula and Internet news)

    The people of Sompeta villages, in Srikakulam Disrict of AP State have been agitating against the proposed coal based Thermal Power project of Nagarjuna Construction Company (NCC), right from the day of the proposal and there was an overwhelming majority opposing the project coming up in a WETLAND area, at Environmental Public Hearing.

The villagers have been making it clear that the thermal power project would fill the neighbouring fields and villages with ash and would also displace several fishermen families.
The petitioners from Sompeta pointed out that despite India being a signatory to the Ramsar International Convention on wetlands and the protection of wetlands comes under the ministry of environment and forests, the same ministry had cleared the project. By claiming that three lift irrigation schemes survive on the water from these wetlands, they urged the court to quash the environmental permission given.

Social activist E.A.S. Sarma, former Union Power Secretary, said there was ample evidence to prove that the project site was in swamp land as several water courses passed through the site drawing into the sea.

There were mudflats and tidal action within the definition of Coastal Regulation Zone.
Telineelapuram bird nesting and feeding habitat was located in the vicinity of the project area.

Dr. Asad R. Rahmani of Bombay Natural History Society and Asha Rajvanshi of Wild Life Institute, after visiting Bhavanapadu and Sompeta, said the sites were located in ecologically sensitive areas due to several wetland systems.

The local people managed obtaining an Injunction order from the High Court in July 2010.

The District and State administration along with NCC have been trying to forcefully start the work in the area since April 2010. Large scale picketing by local people had been a deterrent, so when the Court Injunction came, the local struggle was vindicated. However, things went terribly wrong in July, when the police resorted to firing, provoked by, hired hooligans. The ensuing violence made the Central Government review the Environment Clearance granted to the project, which was revoked.


Finally, the National Environmental Appellate Authority (NEAA) quashed the environmental clearance granted to the Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd by the ministry of environment and forests to set up a thermal power plant at Sompeta village in Srikakulam district.

The Centre had earlier cleared the NCC thermal plant along with three other plants that are to be set up in an area of 10,000 acres to generate 10,000 MW of power.

The NEAA faulted the Centre and said that the environmental clearance accorded by the ministry to the project was based on wrong information and was thus liable to be quashed.

“It is relevant to mention here that the...authority has no doubt that the area is a typical wetland of great ecological significance,” said NEAA, and added that it should not be used to set up a power plant.

NCC has been making arrangements for setting up a 2,640 mw thermal power project in Sompeta with an outlay of Rs 12,000 crore.

Sources:

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/sunita-narain-seelight/402879/

see a video at

http://interceder.net/i/Sompeta

Indian Wildlife Club Ezine (July, 2010)

Burning Issues

Tragedy of Tigress of Jhurjhura ...Comments

Burning Issues

Coal based Thermal Power Project vs Wetland