It was only in the middle of 2001 that we were acquainted with certain facts about the proposed Lower Subansiri hydroelectric project on the Arunachal Pradesh-Assam border, which made us take notice: over 3,400 ha. of submergence in the eastern Himalayas; 42 ha. of the Tale Valley Sanctuary to be submerged; possibility of crucial elephant corridors being lost; serious legal violations by the project proponents... We have since been following this project's progress closely, and 21 months later feel even more concerned about the manner in which large developmental projects are being planned and executed in some of the most ecologically fragile areas of the country.
The Subansiri is one of the principal tributaries of the Brahmaputra river and forms one of its largest sub-basins. It is sustained by snowmelt run-off, the ablation of glaciers and monsoon rainfall. The Subansiri originates in Tibet beyond the Greater Himalayan ranges at an altitude of 5,340 m., then flows west before cutting through the Greater Himalayan ranges on the Indo-Tibet border and taking a southeasterly course as it descends along the Lesser Himalayan ranges. After traversing the Miri hills of the outer Himalayan zone (the Shivalik foothills), the Subansiri enters the Brahmaputra plains at Dulangmukh.
A major portion of the river's catchment in Tibet and some areas in India lie above the snow line. Several glaciers form part of its catchment and hydrological system. Around 60% of the catchment area lies in India and except for the upper stretches, this portion is clothed with forests. The Subansiri is Arunachal Pradesh's largest river system covering more than 19,199 sq. km. of the central part of the state. The Subansiri basin and the Dikrong river basin are usually considered together as the Subansiri-Dikrong basin. The Dikrong drains directly into the Brahmaputra and has a 1,615 sq. km. basin. The Subansiri river basin is inhabited by tribes such as the Nishis, Tagins, Apa Tanis, Hill Miris, Gallongs, Sulungs and some other small tribal groups.
According to the Central Electricity Authority's (CEA) 'Preliminary ranking study of hydroelectric schemes' in the Brahmaputra basin published in October 2001, 22 schemes (each greater than 25 MW) have been identified in the Subansiri basin with a cumulative installed capacity of 15,191 MW.
The Brahmaputra Board's earlier plans envisaged building a single dam on the Subansiri to meet an installed capacity of 4,520 MW, but this project was opposed by the Arunachal Pradesh government as it would have submerged a huge area. The project was subsequently divided into 3 stages: the Upper, Middle and Lower Subansiri projects. The planning and execution of projects in the Subansiri basin has now been transferred to the National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC).
The Lower Subansiri inter-state hydroelectric project proposes to harness the hydel potential of the lower reaches of the Subansiri river. The left bank of the dam would be in Assam and the right bank of the dam, the powerhouse – and most of the submergence – would be in Arunachal. The proposed dam site is 2.3 km. upstream of Gerukamukh village in the Dhemaji district of Assam, around 70 km. from North Lakhimpur. The 116 m. high dam would submerge 3,436 ha. of forests. The total requirement of forestland for the project is 4,039.30 ha., out of which 3,183 ha. is in Arunachal Pradesh and 856.3 ha. in Assam. Survey and investigation works have been completed and the Detailed Project Report (DPR) is presently undergoing the techno-economic clearance process by the CEA. The project is also undergoing various clearances required from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).
The dam site and submergence zone falls in the eastern Himalayas. This is an important part of the Indo-Myanmar biodiversity hotspot, one of 25 such hotspots in the world1 , and houses two Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs) identified by Birdlife International.
The 3,436 ha. of forests to be submerged comprise crucial wildlife habitats and the project also envisages building over 70 km. of roads in the region. The submergence area will include parts of Tale Valley Sanctuary, Tale Valley reserved forests (RF), Panir RF, Kamla RF and Jiadhol RF in Arunachal Pradesh and Subansiri RF in Assam. According to Dr. Anwaruddin Choudhury, well-known naturalist from the northeast, "These are all primary forests with rich wildlife. The submergence area is in the midst of a rich biodiversity zone and part of contiguous forests comprising Kakoi, Dulung and Subansiri RFs in Assam and Tale Valley Sanctuary, Tale RF and Panir RF of Arunachal Pradesh."
The area is also part of an important elephant corridor. Dr. Choudhury says: "The presence of over 15,000 workers at Gerukamukh will seriously hamper elephant movement. From Dulangmukh, the animals cross the Subansiri and move along the southern edge of the Gerukamukh housing complex. In fact, the housing complex, built in the 1980s and subsequent road construction has already disturbed the elephants. This forest belt in Assam-Arunachal Pradesh has over 500 elephants and blocking this corridor through further development and disturbances will be disastrous. Other notable endangered species that I have recorded in the last decade in the vicinity of the dam site and submergence area are tiger, leopard, clouded leopard, marbled cat, golden cat, dhole (wild dog), gaur, serow, capped langur, slow loris and gharial, all listed in Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. A skin recovered from the Dirpai village in the region proved to be the world's largest known specimen of the marbled cat.2 The golden cat is often snared on the banks of the Subansiri river in the Panir RF."
The low to mid-altitudes of this region are dominated by tropical semi-evergreen and semi-evergreen forests with Terminalia myriocarpa, Duabanga grandiflora, Steriosermum chelenoides, Canarium strictum, Ailanthus grandis, Ficus spp. etc., tending towards hot sub-tropical broad-leaved forests and montane temperate broad-leaved forests at the upper reaches. The threatened plant species near the dam site include Heritiera acuminata (tree), Bambusa mastersii (bamboo) and Cyathia spinulosa (fern). Although the project talks of ex situ conservation of these species, an important in situ conservation area, particularly for Bambusa mastersii will be affected by the submergence. The area is also likely to be very rich in amphibians and reptiles. Evidence suggests that northeast India (including the parts of Arunachal that we are looking at) is very rich in amphibians and reptiles and that much of this diversity is yet undiscovered. One of us (Firoz) has carried out amphibian surveys across the northeast, leading to very interesting results: discovery of species new to science, range extensions and rediscoveries. A study supported by the Smithsonian Institution, USA, to look at nine poorly-known endemic amphibians entailed surveys in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya. This resulted in the rediscovery of five of the nine species after a gap of nearly 85 years and also the discovery of a few new species, which are in the process of description. Given this amazing diversity, imagine our shock when we learnt that the Lower Subansiri Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report had reported only three amphibians in the Tale Valley Sanctuary!
With a submergence area as large as 3,436 ha., there is a need for thorough investigation. According to Bikul Goswami, an aquaculturist and amateur naturalist based in North Lakhimpur in Assam and associated with the group Green Heritage, "The Subansiri is one of the most crucial rivers in India for the long-term conservation of the golden mahseer. The dam will permanently obstruct the migration of the three mahseer species found here, including the golden mahseer. These species undertake upstream migration during the summer and monsoon months to their feeding and breeding grounds. The proposed dam will have detrimental impacts on the riverine and beel (wetlands) fisheries downstream as the water flow regime will be affected. The seasonal inundation of the beels by the river, which helps in the nutrient cycle of the local aquatic ecosystem will be interrupted."
Dr. R.S. Lal Mohan of the Conservation of Nature Trust has been studying river dolphins Platanista gangetica in the Brahmaputra basin along with the Assam Valley Wildlife Society and the Department of Zoology, Guwahati University. They have recommended that the lower stretches of the Subansiri river be declared a dolphin sanctuary. Dr. Sujit Bairagi, part of Dr. Lal Mohan's study team, and Chairman, Dolphin Conservation Society, Assam, has also expressed concern regarding the impact of the Lower Subansiri dam on the downstream dolphin population.
The Tale Valley Sanctuary, 42 ha. of which will be submerged by the Lower Subansiri project is located in the Lower Subansiri district of Arunachal Pradesh. 337 sq. km. of the 515.875 sq. km. Tale Valley reserved forests was declared as the Tale Valley Sanctuary in 1995 on account of its rich biodiversity. A unique feature of Tale Valley is the nature of altitudinal succession of forest types. Usually the conifer type appears above the broad-leaved type, but in this area, the sequence is reversed. The conifers (tsuga, fir, etc.) appear in the valley, surrounded by broad-leaved plants at the hill-tops. A Wildlife Institute of India (WII) report by W.A. Rodgers and H.S. Panwar (1988) describes the area as “a distinctive valley swamp community not found elsewhere”. This sanctuary has also been identified as an Important Bird Area (IBA) under Birdlife International's IBA programme, being conducted by the Bombay Natural History Society in India. IBAs are sites of international significance for bird conservation and Tale Valley was chosen under two of the programme's criteria: A1 (globally threatened species) and A2 (restricted range species). The highlights of the area include orchids, conifers, black bears and the elusive clouded leopard.
The submergence area of the Lower Subansiri dam will extend over 70 km. upstream along the main river and also substantially along some of its tributaries such as the Kamala and Sil. Since the submergence area is a gorge with steep slopes and rugged topography, relatively few villages will be directly displaced. According to the project authorities the dam will submerge the agricultural lands of two villages, Gengi and Siberite. The 38 families to be affected belong to the Gallong tribe, a sub-group of the Adis. These are agricultural communities practising jhum (shifting) cultivation, terrace rice cultivation and wet rice cultivation near the riverbed. They also depend substantially on the forests for their livelihood. Since the two villages are losing all their agricultural land, they will be relocated to the site where alternative land is provided. However, the project documents are unclear on the nature of dependence of surrounding populations on the forests and river being submerged. The section on socio-economic aspects in the EIA report prepared by the Water and Power Consultancy Services (WAPCOS), New Delhi, for NHPC, records the landholding of 38 project affected families in Gengi and Siberite
villages as 960.11 ha. This includes jhum and rice cultivation land. The Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) plan spelt out here states that: "At the most, one hectare land to be provided to each project affected family (PAF). The PAFs will be compensated for remaining cultivable land coming under submergence." That makes it a maximum of 38 ha. of land as compensation for 960 ha. of land being lost (plus 200 sq. m. per family for homestead, animal shed and granary). It is important to note that besides using jhum lands for agriculture, the forest fallows are also important for medicinal plants, wild foods and other forest produce. All this would not be available once they are displaced. In this scenario, what kind of livelihood security is being offered to the traditional forest and agriculture-dependent communities being displaced? According to the report, the PAFs will be offered housing and homestead land, cultivable land (one hectare), civic amenities, schools and vocational training in animal husbandry, horticulture, weaving and other activities.
The report also states that during an R&R survey, 100% of the families opted for 'land for land' while only 23.7% also opted for vocational training and 21.1 % for other employment. In this light, how fair is the 'package' being offered to the people?
As pointed out earlier, the waters of the Subansiri in the lower reaches recharge wetlands. According to Bikul Goswami, "These wetlands are crucial for both fisheries and 'deep water rice' cultivation, called baodhan in Assamese. A substantial population, many of whom belong to the Mishing tribe, depend on this for their livelihoods. The project authorities say that there is hardly any displacement due to the project, but what about the downstream impacts and livelihood displacement due to the impacts on the river and beels? These communities have not been consulted or informed about the likely impacts due to the dam. A small group of the downstream affected people have come together to form the Subansiri Bachao Committee, but as of now, they have access to very little information."
The key clearances required by the Lower Subansiri project under environment, forest and wildlife laws are:
- Site clearance and environmental clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 1994, from the MoEF.
- Clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, from the MoEF (since it involves diversion of forest land for 'non-forestry' purposes).
- Permission under section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act (WLPA)3 , 1972, from the Chief Wildlife Warden of Arunachal Pradesh, as it submerges 42 ha. of the Tale Valley Sanctuary. This permission is necessary before the area being submerged is denotified from the sanctuary by a resolution passed by the state legislature as per section (26 A) (3) of the WLPA. A series of Supreme Court (SC) rulings in an ongoing litigation on protected areas (sanctuaries and national parks) has made it mandatory to seek the approval of the Indian Board for Wildlife (IBWL) before the grant of permission under section 29 and the denotification of protected areas or their parts.4
Site clearance and environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 1994, from the MoEF: All projects which are 'site-specific' require site clearance. This is given in two stages for hydel projects. The stage I site clearance for the Lower Subansiri project was granted in November 2000 and the stage II site clearance in July 2001. This site clearance was withdrawn by the MoEF in October 2001 when it came to their notice that part This site clearance was withdrawn by the MoEF in October 2001 when it came to their notice that part of the Tale Valley Sanctuary was being submerged. Under the provisions of the SC order of November 2000 in the WWF case4, a clearance from the SC became necessary. But the MoEF reissued the site clearance in December 2001 to allow investigations and other preliminary work, even as the SC clearance was pending.
Preparation of the EIA report, appraisal of the project by a committee of experts appointed by the MoEF and the environmental public hearing are crucial parts of the environmental clearance process. On July 28, 2001, the Assam Pollution Control Board (APCB) ran an advertisement in local newspapers announcing the environmental public hearing for the Lower Subansiri project at the dam site, Gerukamukh, on September 4, 2001. On obtaining the Executive Summary from the APCB office in Guwahati, we discovered that it was faulty. The Executive Summary of the project is supposed to incorporate the essence of project details and findings of the EIA study (as per the explanatory note for the EIA Notification). However, the Executive Summary of the Lower Subansiri project was a four-page document with information only on the physical dimensions of the project and numerical figures related to the engineering aspects. It had no mention of environmental impacts. How can an environmental public hearing serve its purpose if people have not had access to adequate information on the impacts of the project? We asked the APCB if we could refer to the EIA report itself, but were not given an opportunity to do so and were able to obtain a copy only in November 2001!
We sent our written submissions to the APCB within the prescribed period. Concerns raised included the likely impacts on biodiversity, fragmentation of elephant habitat, impacts on the Tale Valley Sanctuary, faulty Executive Summary, data discrepancies, violations of the law by the NHPC and the dangers of a dam-break.
An important concern highlighted was legal violations by the project proponent. NHPC had already gone ahead with massive construction of project housing on the left bank of the Subansiri river on 131 ha. of forestland illegally occupied by them. Since they neither had (nor have) forest or environmental clearance, this is a clear violation of both the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA), 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act (EPA), 1986. The EIA notification issued under the EPA clearly says that: "No construction, preliminary or otherwise, relating to the setting up of the project may be undertaken till the environmental and site clearance is obtained."
The Assam government has repeatedly raised the issue of FCA violations with NHPC citing the housing colony as well as the illegal collection of boulders, stone, gravel, sand and earth from the riverbed (Letter No. FRS.2/2001 dated May 5, 2001 from Principal Secretary (Forests), Assam, to the Chairman and Managing Director, NHPC). The MoEF has also brought to the company's notice the FCA and EPA violations, but the violations continue not only in this project but also in other projects in the Subansiri and Siang basins, where preliminary work is already underway!
It was only at the public hearing at Gerukamukh on September 4, 2001 that we learnt that two public hearings in Arunachal Pradesh had already been held for the project. The proposal for environmental clearance was submitted by the authorities in March 2002. The proposal for environmental clearance was considered by the Expert Committee (EC) on August 8, 2002. The committee asked for more information on the calculation of Silt Yield Index, a detailed survey for the conservation of biodiversity and a joint survey report to identify villages being submerged. The information was reconsidered by the EC on November 29, 2002, and it has recommended the project for environmental clearance subject to submission of additional information on biodiversity conservation plans, forest clearance, etc. This recommendation is surprising as a September 2002 report of the Indian Board for Wildlife clearly states that the current studies are absolutely inadequate. It is not enough to ask for 'biodiversity conservation plans' while simultaneously giving projects a green signal. The information generated by a thorough biodiversity investigation will be crucial to decide whether the project is viable at all. The EC has subsequently met on January 16, 2003 but information is not available on this.
Clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: As mentioned earlier, the project involves the total diversion of 4,039.3 ha. of forestland, 3,183 ha. in Arunachal Pradesh and 856.3 ha. in Assam. The project authorities have already obtained forest clearance for 4.8 ha. on the right bank of the river in Arunachal Pradesh for the construction of a road. But substantive forest clearances both in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam are still pending.
On August 9, 2002, the MoEF had sought a site inspection report and some information is awaited from Assam. According to the latest information from the MoEF website, the proposal for forest clearance will now be pursued only after the mandatory approval of the IBWL is obtained.
Permission under section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and approval of the IBWL: As mentioned earlier, it became clear in October 2001 that it was necessary to get clearance from the Supreme Court and seek the approval of the IBWL since the project involved submergence of a part of the Tale Valley Sanctuary. In December 2001, the Wildlife Wing of Arunachal Pradesh along with the Systematic Botanist of the State Forest Research Institute (SFRI), Itanagar and NHPC authorities did an aerial survey of the portion of Tale Valley being submerged and submitted a two-page report to the IBWL in February 2002. The report stated that the area being submerged is insignificant from the point of view of wildlife.
A subsequent communication from the Department of Environment and Forests, Itanagar, to the MoEF stated that the impact on "wildlife will be insignificant and on the contrary, the presence of water in the reservoir may facilitate avifauna". The Arunachal Pradesh forest department contended that the area of the sanctuary being submerged need not be denotified from the sanctuary and could continue to remain part of the protected area. If this was the case, it would mean that the approval of the IBWL would not be required. But in the meanwhile, NHPC and the Arunachal state government had filed their Interlocutary Applications (IA)5 in the WWF case in the Supreme Court. The main prayer of the NHPC IA was to "grant permission to the applicants to implement the Subansiri Lower project by submerging 42 ha. of land on the boundary of the Tale Valley Sanctuary along the existing water course of the Sipu river and permit dereservation, if necessary, to the limited extent of 0.1% of the area of the sanctuary." In response, on May 9, 2002, the SC granted an exemption to the project from its interim stay of November 2000, restricting dereservation of protected areas. But the SC also said that no permission under section 29 (of the WLPA) should be granted without getting the 'approval' of the Standing Committee of the IBWL. Following the Supreme Court exemption to the project, one of us (Firoz) wrote to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court bringing to the court's notice serious problems with respect to legal violations, poor EIA, faulty public hearing, etc. The letter ended by raising fundamental concerns regarding developmental planning in the northeast.
On July 12, 2002, the IBWL discussed the Lower Subansiri project in its meeting. When the extreme ecological fragility of the area and its biodiversity value was highlighted by members, the Minister of Environment and Forests, Mr. T. R. Baalu immediately agreed that project clearance would be subject to a site visit by Mr. S.C. Sharma, Additional Inspector General of Forests (IGF), Wildlife and Mr. Bittu Sahgal, Member, IBWL. They made their field visit from August 31 – September 1, 2002. Their report submitted in September 2002 noted the richness of the biodiversity of the area and said: "The EIA and project documents reveal several shortcomings in the analysis of the project's impacts on biodiversity. Before taking a decision of such magnitude, it is essential that we are provided with accurate, detailed, scientific information from reputed sources.
A detailed study on the impacts of biodiversity on both Tale Valley Sanctuary and the surrounding areas should be commissioned." It further recommended that "further clearance to the Lower Subansiri project be withheld pending a detailed biodiversity impact study to be conducted by a reputed scientific organisation". In its meeting on November 8, 2002, the IBWL recommended that detailed EIA studies are required. Apparently the MoEF (as per information on its website) has asked the Botanical Survey of India and the Zoological Survey of India to do this study within four months! A detailed biodiversity assessment as asked for by the Sharma-Sahgal report cannot be done in such a short period and will defeat the purpose of the exercise!
The EIA report is a vital document in the process of environmental decision-making. There are several mentions earlier in this piece about the deficiencies in the EIA report. It is ironical that for a project in one of the world's most crucial biodiversity hotspots, one of the weakest links in the EIA report is the biodiversity aspect! There are several serious anomalies that have come to light based on inputs from natural history experts such as Dr. Anwaruddin Choudhury and our own reading. Some examples of the bloopers on biodiversity aspects include:
- Only 10 species of mammals have been listed in the submergence area and 20 in Tale Valley Sanctuary, even though naturalists have recorded over 50 in the region, e.g. the Himalayan or Asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus, which is common in that area, does not find mention. In the list of endangered animals, Manis crassicaudata has been listed although it is not found in the area. A report here mentions an arboreal mammal called 'mastheis', when no such species exists.
- The consultants list 13 species of birds in an area which has over 200 and there are serious mistakes in this listing too, e.g. the scientific name of the Common Sandpiper has been given as Accipiter spp. – a small docile wader has been converted into a bird of prey! In the section on animal-plant relationships, the report mentions a bird called 'nutchh' when no such species exists.
- The EIA report also makes careless statements such as the one on page 87, that "the animals in the sanctuary (Tale Valley) are not dependent on the river Sipu and no animal is reported to come down to the banks of the river Sipu to drink water". Such rash generalisations bring into question the credibility of the entire report. Local hunters often snare a variety of mammals when they come to the river to drink.
The NHPC's EIA consultants state that the animals are not dependent on the river since "several perennial springs and small streams in the Tale Valley meet the drinking water requirements", while, their Interlocutory Application in the Supreme Court says: "rise in water level in the river on the boundary 'wall' of the sanctuary will be beneficial to the wildlife due to availability of drinking water"!
There are several more fundamental problems with the EIA. It lacks a comprehensive look at aspects such as downstream ecological, social and livelihood impacts, the possibility of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs – a particularly serious threat to dams in the Himalayas in the context of global warming), the impact on viability of the dam in the light of hydrological impacts of earthquakes on the river system, etc.
Usually, when seismicity is discussed in relation to dams, the only factors discussed are reservoir-induced seismicity and direct damage to the dam structure due to an earthquake. Civil engineers are quick to point out that a dam will survive up to 9 or 10 on the Richter scale. However, seismic activity may cause changes in the geophysical environment and the river system, which may have a serious impact on the viability of a project as several basic parameters vis-à-vis the regime of rivers and the morphology and behaviour of channels may change.
The last two major earthquakes in the region (1897 and 1950) caused landslides on the hill slopes including the blockage of river courses, flash floods due to sudden bursting of landslide-induced temporary dams, raising of riverbeds due to heavy siltation, fissuring and sand venting, subsidence or elevation of existing river and lake bottoms and margins and creation of new water bodies and waterfalls due to faulting. After the 1950 earthquake, extensive landslides blocked the Subansiri and the bursting of this natural dam after several days caused devastating floods downstream. A large amount of sediment generated by the landslides was brought downstream, raising the riverbed considerably. The Subansiri and several of its tributaries changed their course at several places, forming new channels.6 It is vital that all these aspects are looked at thoroughly to decide if this project is viable.
The Lower Subansiri project is being pushed hard by the government, being a part of the Prime Minister's 'package' for the northeast. But the IBWL recommendations for further studies mean that the clearances from the MoEF will be pending for some time, provided of course that comprehensive studies as asked for by the Sharma-Sahgal report are carried out and a mere rapid assessment is not commissioned as a formality. The IBWL came into the picture because a part of the Tale Valley Sanctuary was being submerged.
It is important to state here that it is not just a question of 42 ha. of Tale Valley, which is dismissed as being just 0.1% of the sanctuary area by the project authorities. It is a question of deciding the fate of 3,436 ha. of contiguous habitat upstream and downstream, a question of incorrect and inadequate data being used for environmental decision-making and about finding answers to all the concerns raised with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Legitimate questioning of faulty project planning is usually countered with allegations of being 'anti-development'. The northeast does need to move towards becoming a self-reliant economy and the country does need to meet its legitimate power needs. But these arguments cannot be used as a garb to allow corporations to violate laws and remain unaccountable or decide the ecological, social and economic viability of projects based on shoddy studies. We want real answers to our questions before deciding whether the Lower Subansiri project can be sanctioned and 'dedicated to the nation'. Skirting important questions with the rhetoric and symbolism that goes with large development projects is unacceptable.
Neeraj Vagholikar is a member of Kalpavriksh, a group working on environmental issues. M. Firoz Ahmed is a wildlife biologist and the Programme Secretary of Aaranyak, a society for biodiversity conservation in northeast India.
- Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. and Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, pp. 853-858.
- Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 93, pp. 583-84.
- "(29) Destruction, etc., in a sanctuary prohibited without a permit – No person shall destroy, exploit or remove any wildlife from a sanctuary or destroy or damage the habitat of any wild animal or deprive any wild animal of its habitat within such sanctuary except under and in accordance with a permit granted by the Chief Wildlife Warden and no such permit shall be granted unless the State Government being satisfied that such destruction, exploitation or removal of wildlife form the sanctuary is necessary for the improvement and better management of wildlife therein authorises the issue of such permit." The Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill 2002, passed by Parliament in December 2002 but still awaiting Presidential sanction, makes minor changes in this section, but the basic thrust remains the same.
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995, Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India vs. Union of India & Ors., hereafter referred to as the WWF case. In August 1997, the SC ruled that no denotifications could take place without the IBWL's opinion. But several states continued deleting portions of protected areas under the pretext of the settlement of rights process. In response, the SC ruled in November 2000 that "pending further orders, no dereservation of forests/sanctuaries/national parks shall be effected". Subsequently state governments have had to go to the SC with proposals for deletions from PAs and the opinion of the IBWL is being sought on these proposals. The SC has further passed orders in 2002 that "no permission under section 29 of the Wildlife Act should be granted without getting approval of the Standing Committee (of the IBWL)". Importantly, this approval is required irrespective of whether the area will be denotified eventually or remain part of the protected area. It is an approval for the use of section 29.
- An 'Interlocutary Application', referred to as 'IA' is an application for relief pending the final decision of a case.
- Goswami, D.C., Das, Partha, 2002. Hydrological impact of earthquakes on the Brahmaputra river regime, Assam: A study in exploring some evidences, Proceedings of the 18th National Convention of Civil Engineers.