An initiative of Gawda, Kunbi, Velip and Dhangar Federation (GAKUVED)
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Fundraising has begins for defamation case...
Contribution of Rs. 5014/- from Venantius J Pinto is the first to deposit in the GAKUVED bank account till today. GAKUVED gratefully aknowledges the contribution to this cause.
Minutes of the 13th Meeting of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife held on 12th December, 2008 in Paryavaran Bhavan under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister of State(Forests and Wildlife.)
Agenda Item No.5: Proposals pursuant to directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court pertaining to Eco-Sensitive Zones While introducing the agenda, Member Secretary informed that Hon’ble Supreme Court while hearing the Writ Petition (Civil) No.460/2004 had directed the applicants (in IA Nos.170- 175) to approach the Standing Committee of NBWL for consideration of the feasibility of mining operations near the Sanctuary area. In this connection, three proposals from the State of Goa have been received for consideration of the Standing Committee of NBWL. These proposals are as follows :- (i) Renewal of mining operation in the vicinity of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary by M/s V.M. Salgaocar and Bro. Pvt. Ltd. (ii) Mining operation in the vicinity of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary and Mollen National Park by Dr. Prafulla R. Hede; 24 (iii) Renewal of mining lease No.29/55 in the vicinity of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary by M/s Achuta V.S. Velingkar, Goa. (included in the additional agenda items) Member Secretary also apprised the Committee that, Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. No.202/1995 has issued directions to stop mining operations within 1 km. from the boundary of the Protected Areas. But in the instant cases, matter has been referred to the Standing Committee of NBWL to consider the feasibility of mining operations closer to the Sanctuary area and the Committee may discuss the matter. He also informed that CWLW, Goa has recommended the proposal. It was further informed that: • In case of M/s V.M. Salgaocar & Bro Pvt. Ltd., the mining is 550 meters away from the boundary of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary. It has about 49.735 ha of forest land partly broken for mining. It has been proposed to break further 8.627 ha of area for iron ore mining. • In case of second proposal, the mining is about 650 meters away from the boundary of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary and Mollem National Park. It involves felling of 2128 trees of different species in 9 ha of land which is proposed to be broken for mining. • In the third case, the mining site is at a distance of 160-400 meters from the boundary of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary. In this case, already opened area has been proposed for mining and no fresh breaking of land for mining has been proposed. CWLW, Goa informed that all these proposals were old leases of the Portuguese time. In all these three cases, mining operators have taken all due care in past not to cause any negative impact on the environment and presently their operations were closed. He had recommended these proposals with certain conditions. 25 The Non official Members were of the opinion that no mining in such a close vicinity of Protected Area should be permitted. Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh suggested to reject all the proposal, as mining in vicinity of the Protected Area should not be permitted because of its ill affects on the environment. Dr. Rehmani and Dr. B. Talukdar also opined against the considerations of the proposals, as it will have great impact all over the country. CWLW, Goa observed that irrespective of their order of not permitting any mining operation within 1 km from the boundary of Protected Area, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the instant case has referred it for consideration of the Standing Committee of NBWL and mining has been going on in these areas for a long time. Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh, Dr. Asad Rehamani and Dr. B.K. Talukdar conveyed their strong opposition to and with disagreement with the permission to allow mining within a radius of 1 kilometer of the Sanctuary. It was pointed out by them that mining constitutes a major source of disturbance and has deleterious impacts upon . protected areas and its fauna. The Supreme Court itself had not permitted mining within 1 kilometer of Protected Areas and though the apex court itself has referred the matter to the Standing Committee, the Committee should not give clearance to such mining because of the adverse impact, and that it would be a very dangerous precedent and opening of a “Pandora’s box” of such applications close to other protected areas. To the argument of the Chief Wildlife Warden of Goa that these mines existed before the declaration of the sanctuary in question, Dr. Ranjitsinh argued that a number of activities which had occurred in areas before they become parks and sanctuaries including utilization of forest produce by neighboring peoples and which had been curtailed or abolished following the establishment of Protected Areas, why cannot a destructive practice like mining, therefore, be stopped after the establishment of a Protected Area?. After deliberations and considering the recommendation of CWLW, Goa, the Committee took a majority view to recommend the mining on the already broken land for mining in all the three proposals without breaking any new land within 1 km from the boundary of Protected Area. However, the foresaid three Non official members did not agree to this recommendation of the Committee.
Minutes of the 13th Meeting of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife held
ReplyDeleteon 12th December, 2008 in Paryavaran Bhavan under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble
Minister of State(Forests and Wildlife.)
Agenda Item No.5: Proposals pursuant to directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court
pertaining to Eco-Sensitive Zones
While introducing the agenda, Member Secretary informed that Hon’ble Supreme Court
while hearing the Writ Petition (Civil) No.460/2004 had directed the applicants (in IA Nos.170-
175) to approach the Standing Committee of NBWL for consideration of the feasibility of
mining operations near the Sanctuary area. In this connection, three proposals from the State of
Goa have been received for consideration of the Standing Committee of NBWL. These
proposals are as follows :-
(i) Renewal of mining operation in the vicinity of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife
Sanctuary by M/s V.M. Salgaocar and Bro. Pvt. Ltd.
(ii) Mining operation in the vicinity of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary and
Mollen National Park by Dr. Prafulla R. Hede;
24
(iii) Renewal of mining lease No.29/55 in the vicinity of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife
Sanctuary by M/s Achuta V.S. Velingkar, Goa. (included in the additional agenda
items)
Member Secretary also apprised the Committee that, Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.
No.202/1995 has issued directions to stop mining operations within 1 km. from the boundary of
the Protected Areas. But in the instant cases, matter has been referred to the Standing Committee
of NBWL to consider the feasibility of mining operations closer to the Sanctuary area and the
Committee may discuss the matter.
He also informed that CWLW, Goa has recommended the proposal. It was further
informed that:
• In case of M/s V.M. Salgaocar & Bro Pvt. Ltd., the mining is 550 meters away
from the boundary of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary. It has about 49.735
ha of forest land partly broken for mining. It has been proposed to break further
8.627 ha of area for iron ore mining.
• In case of second proposal, the mining is about 650 meters away from the
boundary of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary and Mollem National Park. It
involves felling of 2128 trees of different species in 9 ha of land which is
proposed to be broken for mining.
• In the third case, the mining site is at a distance of 160-400 meters from the
boundary of Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary. In this case, already opened
area has been proposed for mining and no fresh breaking of land for mining has
been proposed.
CWLW, Goa informed that all these proposals were old leases of the Portuguese time. In
all these three cases, mining operators have taken all due care in past not to cause any negative
impact on the environment and presently their operations were closed. He had recommended
these proposals with certain conditions.
25
The Non official Members were of the opinion that no mining in such a close vicinity of
Protected Area should be permitted. Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh suggested to reject all the proposal, as
mining in vicinity of the Protected Area should not be permitted because of its ill affects on the
environment. Dr. Rehmani and Dr. B. Talukdar also opined against the considerations of the
proposals, as it will have great impact all over the country.
CWLW, Goa observed that irrespective of their order of not permitting any mining
operation within 1 km from the boundary of Protected Area, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
instant case has referred it for consideration of the Standing Committee of NBWL and mining
has been going on in these areas for a long time. Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh, Dr. Asad Rehamani and
Dr. B.K. Talukdar conveyed their strong opposition to and with disagreement with the
permission to allow mining within a radius of 1 kilometer of the Sanctuary. It was pointed out
by them that mining constitutes a major source of disturbance and has deleterious impacts upon .
protected areas and its fauna. The Supreme Court itself had not permitted mining within 1
kilometer of Protected Areas and though the apex court itself has referred the matter to the
Standing Committee, the Committee should not give clearance to such mining because of the
adverse impact, and that it would be a very dangerous precedent and opening of a “Pandora’s
box” of such applications close to other protected areas. To the argument of the Chief Wildlife
Warden of Goa that these mines existed before the declaration of the sanctuary in question, Dr.
Ranjitsinh argued that a number of activities which had occurred in areas before they become
parks and sanctuaries including utilization of forest produce by neighboring peoples and which
had been curtailed or abolished following the establishment of Protected Areas, why cannot a
destructive practice like mining, therefore, be stopped after the establishment of a Protected
Area?.
After deliberations and considering the recommendation of CWLW, Goa, the Committee
took a majority view to recommend the mining on the already broken land for mining in all the
three proposals without breaking any new land within 1 km from the boundary of Protected
Area. However, the foresaid three Non official members did not agree to this recommendation
of the Committee.