BENGALURU: Days after the chief minister headed Karnataka State Board for Wildlife (SBWL) gave ‘conditional approval’ for the controversial Sharavathy pumped storage project in the Sharavathy Valley of the Western Ghats, objections began to pour in from conservationists. Pointing out legal defects in the SBWL decision, Bengaluru-based Wildlife First argued that the conditional clearance is riddled with legal defects and deviations and appealed to the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) headed by the Prime Minister to take note of these legal glitches.
As the project area falls within the protected area of the endangered Lion Tailed Macaque (LTM) sanctuary of the Sharavathy Valley, Wildlife First trustee Praveen Bhargav said that the decision violates section 33 of the Wildlife Protection Act, which ensures protection to wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary.
Referring to Karnataka chief wildlife warden’s remark that the work shall be taken up only under the close supervision of the jurisdictional forest officials and staff to avoid any damage to the flora and fauna, Bhargav said: “From the remarks of the chief wildlife warden, it is obvious that the project does not even remotely benefit wildlife, and the recommendation of the wildlife warden, notwithstanding some conditions imposed, is not in consonance with the law. These recommendations are not in compliance with section 33, which is to ensure protection to wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary.”
With the user agency not including the power transmission lines or upgradation of existing lines in the proposal, Bhargav said, “The user agency has clearly attempted to force a fait accompli that would lead to an ex-post facto clearance of the power line later. Both the chief wildlife warden and SBWL are under directions of the Supreme Court to prevent recurrence of any fait accompli situation and are bound to ensure compliance with the SC guidelines as stated in the Lafarge judgement.”
Pointing towards the requirement for a new road involving axing over 8,000 trees, even after taking it underground, Bhargav said, “As per the Supreme Court order, only non-tarred forest roads, not exceeding 3 metres in width, are permissible provided that it is undertaken as per the management plan of the sanctuary duly approved by the competent authority. Both the wildlife warden and SBWL have ignored the prevailing policy decision of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MOEF&CC) that new roads shall not be proposed inside national parks and sanctuaries.”