Nagpur: In the type of U-turn, the permanent committee of the National Council for wildlife (NBWL) has decided that instead of collecting 2% of project costs for impact mitigation measures, the costs associated with these steps must be recommended when recommending a proposal.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Moefcc) is expected to issue an advisor in this regard immediately.
NBWL, the body of the APEX decision-making for the conservation of wildlife and its habitat, at the 64th meeting held on August 7, has decided to collect 2% of the proportional costs of the project that falls in protected areas (PAS) and the sensitive zone ( Eszs) At the user agent for impact mitigation measures, anywhere needed in the future.
This number will be spent on mitigation measures in PA, National Park, Succuaries, Eszs, Tiger reserves, and corridors.
However, in the 65th meeting held on September 24, the Committee continued to decide that steps to reduce the impact of the project in the right and ESZ must be part of the project proposal.
Moefcc officials said the service was viewed that instead of imposing uniform costs on all projects, it would be more appropriate if the mitigation measures were suggested by the Head of Wildlife Wardens (CWLWS) for each project and the costs of these steps function out.
During the meeting, Director General (Forest) Subhash Chandra said that Indian animal institutions (Wii) have provided recommendations on mitigation measures and may also be norms prescribed by the state in this matter.
Rp.
Gupta, Secretary, Moeffcc, observed that project proposals passed by US countries / unions must be accompanied by mitigation measures suggested by CWLWS.
“If a study needs to be done by the Wii on mitigation measures, the project proposal must be submitted to the ministry together with such research recommendations,” he said.
“The committee still has to check the proposed mitigation measures and should not recommend any project without mitigation measures,” Gupta said.
He added that the guidelines for mitigation measures will be difficult to prescribe because such steps will vary from one project to another project.
“If the Project Proposal is received for the consideration of the Committee to remain along with the mitigation measures and costs associated with them, monitoring the conditions imposed will be ascertained and the funds received will not be transferred for other purposes,” Gupta said.
“Moefcc needs to issue a guide because sometimes the cost of the proposed mitigation measures may be too high for small projects,” said HS Singh, Member, NBWL, as agreed to suggestion.
“Sometimes, proposals are broken down into smaller projects and mitigation measures recommended accordingly.
The cost of the actual steps needed to reduce the impact of the project in the right and ESZ must be borne by the user agent,” said Dr.
R Sukumar, member.
“The cost of animal parts must be part of a linear infrastructure project and there must be a separate fee for other mitigation measures.
If left to the CWLWS to suggest the mitigation strategy and the cost is realized from the user agent, it can cause delays in the implementation of the project.
Therefore, There must be several guidelines in this matter, “said PK Sharma, PCCF (wildlife), above.
UD Singh, Director, GEER Foundation, said, “Most projects looking for recommendations from the NBWL Permanent Committee are projects managed by countries funded through bank loans and mitigation measures to increase the costs of these projects.
There must be exact accounting from the amount What is restored from the user agent and guidelines on mitigation measures must overcome this.
“Chair of the Tetel Committee and Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav observed that the project proposal must be examined with objectivity in a strict time frame and said there must be clarity and accountability regarding the implementation of decisions.
NBWL U-Turn on 2% retribution on projects in the protected area
