Test on Environment - wwfenvis.nic.inwwfenvis.nic.in/files/Environment in the Indian Parliament Lok Sabha... · Dasgupta Guidelines for Tourist Activities Environment and Forest Trade

Environment and Forests on Environment: Rajya Sabha 2012-13 (Winter Session) – PART-III

Q. No. Q. Type Date Ans by Ministry Members Title of the Questions Subject

SpecificPolitical Party

State Representative

*42 Starred 26-Nov-12 Environment and Forests

Shri Manicka Tagore Check on Felling of Trees

Forest Conservation

INC Tamil Nadu

Shri Kameshwar Baitha

JMM Jharkhand


Dr. Mahesh Joshi Environment Clearances to Projects

EIA INC Rajasthan

Shri A.T. (Nana) Patil Forest Conservation

BJP Maharashtra


Smt. Maneka Gandhi Solid Waste Management

Pollution BJP Uttar Pradesh


Shri C. Rajendran Conservation of Forests Forest Conservation

AIADMK Tamil Nadu

Shri Ravneet Singh INC Punjab *59 Starred 26-Nov-12 Environment and

Forests Smt. Davidson J. Helen

Pollution in Metropolitan Cities

Health and Sanitation

DMK Tamil Nadu

Dr. Baliram Pollution BSP Uttar Pradesh 465 Unstarred 26-Nov-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Vikrambhai Arjanbhai Maadam

Disposal of Wastes in Urban Areas

Pollution INC Gujarat

477 Unstarred 26-Nov-12 Environment and Forests

Shri Jayant Chaudhary

Promotion of Bio-Diversity

Environmental Conservation

RLD Uttar Pradesh


Shri Murarilal Singh Ban on Clearances of Mining of Bauxite


BJP Chhattisgarh

EIA 484 Unstarred 26-Nov-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Maulana Badruddin Ajmal

Ban on Mining Activities Near National Park

EIA AIUDF Assam

Pollution 489 Unstarred 26-Nov-12 Environment and

Forests Smt. Priya Sunil Dutt Afforestation Projects Environmental

Education, NGOs and Media

INC Maharashtra

Forest Conservation


Shri N. Chaluvaraya Swamy

Creation of New Forest Area

Forest Conservation

JD(S) Karnataka


Shri Marotrao Sainuji Kowase

Clearance to Sea Link Project

EIA INC Maharashtra


Smt. Annu Tandon Check on Receding Coastline


INC Uttar Pradesh


Shri Bhoopendra Singh

Pollution in Lakha Banjara Pond

Freshwater and Marine Conservation

BJP Madhya Pradesh


Forests Smt. Kamla Devi Patle

Installation of Pollution Control Equipment

Pollution BJP Chhattisgarh


Shri Jose K. Mani National Bio-Diversity Authority


KC(M) Kerala


Shri Rajendra Agrawal

Polluting Industries Pollution BJP Uttar Pradesh


Dr. Kirodilal Meena Check on Expansion of Desert

Disaster Management

IND. Rajasthan

Forest Conservation

Water Management


Shri Hemanand Biswal

Impact of Mining on Environment


INC Odisha

EIA Forest

Conservation

Wildlife Management


Smt. Jayshreeben Patel

Environmental Protection and Afforestation


BJP Gujarat

Forest Conservation

Water Management


Shri Chandrakant Bhaurao Khaire

Funds to Check Poaching Activities

Wildlife Management

SS Maharashtra


Shri Ramesh Vishwanath Katti

Major Polluters of Various Rivers


BJP Karnataka

Shri Bhudeo Choudhary


JD(U) Bihar

Shri Yogi Adityanath Pollution BJP Uttar Pradesh 537 Unstarred 26-Nov-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Gajanan Dharmshi Babar

Environmental Guidelines for Width of Roads

Disaster Management

SS Maharashtra

Shri Shivaji Adhalrao Patil


SS Maharashtra

Shri Dharmendra Yadav

SP Uttar Pradesh

Shri Anandrao Adsul SS Maharashtra 546 Unstarred 26-Nov-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Suresh Kalmadi Clearance to Project Agriculture INC Maharashtra

EIA Forest

Conservation

Water Management


Shri Basudeb Acharia Protection of Wild Animals

Wildlife Management

CPI(M) West Bengal

Shri P. Karunakaran CPI(M) Kerala Dr. Mahendrasinh

Pruthvisinh Chauhan BJP Gujarat

Prof. Ranjan Prasad Yadav

JD(U) Bihar

Dr. Munisamy Thambidurai

AIADMK Tamil Nadu


Shri Pradeep Majhi Mission Clean Ganga Freshwater and Marine Conservation

INC Odisha

Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab

BJD Odisha

Shri Anand Prakash SS Maharashtra

Paranjpe Shri Kishanbhai

Vestabhai Patel INC Gujarat

Shri E.G. Sugavanam DMK Tamil Nadu 561 Unstarred 26-Nov-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Jagdish Sharma Pollution Caused by

Steel Industries Environmental Conservation

JD(U) Bihar

Shri Baijayant "Jay" Panda

EIA BJD Odisha


Forests Shri Prataprao Ganpatrao Jadhav

Conservation of Lakes Freshwater and Marine Conservation

SS Maharashtra

Shri Ratan Singh INC Rajasthan 581 Unstarred 26-Nov-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Adagooru Huchegowda Vishwanath

Funds for Development of Sanctuaries

Wildlife Management

INC Karnataka

Smt. Jyoti Dhurve BJP Madhya Pradesh 582 Unstarred 26-Nov-12 Environment and

Forests Shri P. Lingam Ban on Trials of GM

Crops Agriculture CPI Tamil Nadu

Shri Gurudas Dasgupta

Biosafety CPI West Bengal


Shri Anto Antony Western Ghats Ecology Authority


INC Kerala

Shri Baijayant "Jay" Panda

BJD Odisha


Shri Jagadanand Singh

National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board

Forest Conservation

RJD Bihar



Shri Jai Prakash Agarwal

Check the Rising Level of Mercury

Pollution INC Delhi


Dr. Munisamy Thambidurai

Elephant Conservation Parks

Wildlife Management

AIADMK Tamil Nadu


Shri Gurudas Dasgupta

Guidelines for Tourist Activities

Environment and Forest Trade

CPI West Bengal

Shri Manicka Tagore Wildlife INC Tamil Nadu

Management Shri P. Lingam CPI Tamil Nadu Shri Annayyagari Sai

Prathap INC Andhra Pradesh



Clearances to Power Projects

Energy Studies

SP Uttar Pradesh

Shri Gajanan Dharmshi Babar

EIA SS Maharashtra

Shri Anandrao Adsul SS Maharashtra Shri Shivaji Adhalrao

Patil SS Maharashtra


Shri Harish Choudhary

Encroachments on National Parks

Forest Conservation

INC Rajasthan

Shri Mansukhbhai D. Vasava

Wildlife Management

BJP Gujarat


Shri Sanjay Dina Patil Protection of Tigers Wildlife Management

NCP Maharashtra

Dr. Sanjeev Ganesh Naik

NCP Maharashtra

Dr. Virendra Kumar BJP Madhya Pradesh Shri Arjun Ram

Meghwal BJP Rajasthan

Shri Shivaramagouda BJP Karnataka Shri C. Rajendran AIADMK Tamil Nadu 637 Unstarred 26-Nov-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Mahendra Kumar Roy

Cleaning of Yamuna River


CPI(M) West Bengal

Shri Radha Mohan Singh

Pollution BJP Bihar

Shri Rudra Madhab Ray

BJD Odisha


Shri Ponnam Prabhakar

Check on Coastal Pollution

Pollution INC Andhra Pradesh

Shri Rajaiah Siricilla INC Andhra Pradesh Shri Rayapati

Sambasiva Rao INC Andhra Pradesh

Shri Suresh Kumar Shetkar

INC Andhra Pradesh


Shri Kapil Muni Karwariya

Centre for Integrated Mountain Development


BSP Uttar Pradesh

Shri Ram Sundar Das Environment and Forest Trade

JD(U) Bihar


Shri Jayant Chaudhary

Sewage Treatment Plants

Pollution RLD Uttar Pradesh


Shri S.S. Ramasubbu Expedition in Clearance Process

EIA INC Tamil Nadu


Maulana Badruddin Ajmal

Kaziranga National Park

Wildlife Management

AIUDF Assam

Shri Somendra Nath Mitra

AITC West Bengal


Shri Hansraj Gangaram Ahir

Ban on Smuggling of Teakwood Trees


BJP Maharashtra


Shri Gopinath Pandurang Munde

Community Ownership of Forests


BJP Maharashtra

Forest Conservation

*127 Starred 3-Dec-12 Environment and Forests

Shri Chandre D.B. Gowda

Sewage Treatment Plants


BJP Karnataka

Shri Nikhil Kumar Choudhary

BJP Bihar



National Green Tribunal

Forest Conservation

BJP Gujarat

Shri Laxman Tudu BJD Odisha *133 Starred 3-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri S.S. Ramasubbu Protection to

Environment Agriculture INC Tamil Nadu

Shri Nalin Kumar Kateel


BJP Karnataka


Dr. Ponnusamy Venugopal

Environmental Policy for Himalayan Region


AIADMK Tamil Nadu

1381 Unstarred 3-Dec-12 Environment and Forests

Smt. Kamla Devi Patle

Damage to Crops Agriculture BJP Chhattisgarh

Wildlife Management


Shri E.G. Sugavanam Violation of Clearance Norms

EIA DMK Tamil Nadu

Pollution 1400 Unstarred 3-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Nityananda Pradhan

River Pollution by Thermal Plants


BJD Odisha

Shri Sameer Magan Bhujbal

Pollution NCP Maharashtra


Shri P.L. Punia Funds for Safety of Lions

Wildlife Management

INC Uttar Pradesh


Shri S. Pakkirappa Use of Plastic Products Pollution BJP Karnataka


Shri Ponnam Prabhakar

Ban on Use of Plastic Bags



Shri Sambandam Keerapalayam Alagiri

Funds for Wildlife Habitats

Wildlife Management

INC Tamil Nadu

Shri Gorakh Prasad Jaiswal

BSP Uttar Pradesh


Shri Rayapati Sambasiva Rao

Impacts of GM Organisms

Agriculture INC Andhra Pradesh

Biosafety 1413 Unstarred 3-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Prataprao Ganpatrao Jadhav

Funds Released to Maharashtra for Pollution Control

Pollution SS Maharashtra


Shri Ashok Kumar Rawat

Clearance to Power Project

EIA BSP Uttar Pradesh


Shri Sameer Magan Bhujbal

Disposal of e-waste Pollution NCP Maharashtra


Shri Madhu Kora River Pollution Due to Mining


IND. Jharkhand


Forests Shri Lal Ji Tandon National Plan on

Climate Change Climate Change and Meteorology

BJP Uttar Pradesh


Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal

Utilisation of 'Fly Ash' Pollution BJP Rajasthan

1448 Unstarred 3-Dec-12 Environment and Shri K. P. Clearance to National EIA INC Kerala

Forests Dhanapalan Investment and Manufacturing Centre


Shri Raghavendra Yeddyurappa

Status of 'World Heritage'


BJP Karnataka

Forest Conservation

Wildlife Management



Declaration of Bio-Diversity Sites


JD(S) Karnataka


Shri Vikrambhai Arjanbhai Maadam

Funds for Afforestation Projects

Forest Conservation

INC Gujarat



Setting up of Cow-sheds

Agriculture INC Delhi

Wildlife Management


Shri Kalikesh Narayan Singh Deo

Environment Friendly Projects

Climate Change and Meteorology

BJD Odisha

Energy Studies


Shri Bhakta Charan Das

Check on Deaths of Wild Animals

Wildlife Management

INC Odisha

Smt. Maneka Gandhi BJP Uttar Pradesh Smt. Sumitra

Mahajan BJP Madhya Pradesh

Shri Hamdullah Sayeed

INC Lakshadweep


AIADMK Tamil Nadu


Shri Sudarshan Bhagat

Industries in Residential Areas

Pollution BJP Jharkhand

Shri Prataprao Ganpatrao Jadhav

SS Maharashtra

Smt. Rama Devi BJP Bihar Shri Kadir Rana BSP Uttar Pradesh 1496 Unstarred 3-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Radha Mohan Singh

Check on Felling of Trees

Disaster Management

BJP Bihar


EIA Forest

Conservation


Dr. Sanjay Jaiswal Delay in Cadre Review of IFS

Forest Conservation

BJP Bihar


Shri Bhudeo Choudhary

Protection to Environment


JD(U) Bihar


Forests Shri Mahabal Mishra Disposal of Plastic

Wastes Pollution INC Delhi


Shri Kaushalendra Kumar

Provision of Funds to Eco-clubs


JD(U) Bihar

Shri Ramkishun Environmental Education, NGOs and Media

SP Uttar Pradesh


Shri Suresh Chanabasappa Angadi

Noise Pollution by Fire Crackers

Pollution BJP Karnataka

Shri K. Murugesan Anandan

AIADMK Tamil Nadu


Shri Suresh Kashinath Taware

Acquisition of Forest Land

Forest Conservation

INC Maharashtra


Shri Bhismshankar Alias Kushal Tiwari

Check on Sea Erosion Climate Change and Meteorology

BSP Uttar Pradesh



Forests Shri Jayaprakash Korgi Hegde

Tiger Reserve Wildlife Management

INC Karnataka


Dr. Mahesh Joshi Conservation of Green Areas


INC Rajasthan

Forest Conservation


Shri Kunwarjibhai Mohanbhai Bavaliya

Diversion of Forest Land

Forest Conservation

INC Gujarat

Shri Nishikant Dubey BJP Jharkhand Shri Chandrakant

Bhaurao Khaire SS Maharashtra


Smt. Rajkumari Ratna Effect of e-Waste on Human Life

Pollution INC Uttar Pradesh

Shri Prataprao Ganpatrao Jadhav

SS Maharashtra


Shri Narahari Mahato Area under Forest Cover

Forest Conservation

AIFB West Bengal

Shri Nripendra Nath Roy

AIFB West Bengal

Shri Hemanand Biswal

INC Odisha


BJP Madhya Pradesh

Shri Mahabal Mishra INC Delhi Shri Devji

Mansingram Patel BJP Rajasthan

Km. Saroj Pandey BJP Chhattisgarh 1581 Unstarred 3-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Harish Choudhary

Check on Illegal Felling of Trees

Forest Conservation

INC Rajasthan

Shri Ijyaraj Singh INC Rajasthan 1585 Unstarred 3-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Somendra Nath Mitra

Diseases due to Pollution

Alternative Technologies

AITC West Bengal

Shri Surendra Singh Nagar

EIA BSP Uttar Pradesh

Shri Ratan Singh Pollution INC Rajasthan Smt. Rajkumari Ratna

Singh INC Uttar Pradesh


Shri Narayan Singh Amlabe

Impact of Global Warming

Agriculture INC Madhya Pradesh



BSP Uttar Pradesh

Shri Bhausaheb Wakchaure


SS Maharashtra



INC Delhi

Forest Conservation


Water Management


Shri S.S. Ramasubbu Insecticides in Yamuna Water


INC Tamil Nadu


Forests Shri P.L. Punia Enhanced Central

Contribution towards NGRBA


INC Uttar Pradesh


Sardar Partap Singh Bajwa

Projects under NGRBA Freshwater and Marine Conservation

INC Punjab

Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab

Pollution BJD Odisha


Shri Harischandra Deoram Chavan

Setting up of CAMPA Forest Conservation

BJP Maharashtra


Smt. Jyoti Dhurve Pollutants in Ganga Pollution BJP Madhya Pradesh


Shri Kamal Kishor Check on EMRs from Mobile Towers


INC Uttar Pradesh

Shri Suvendu Adhikari

Pollution AITC West Bengal

Wildlife Management


Shri Sudarshan Bhagat

Conservation of Sea Coasts


BJP Jharkhand


Forests Shri Suresh Kumar Shetkar

Protection to Rhinos Wildlife Management

INC Andhra Pradesh

Shri Rajaiah Siricilla INC Andhra Pradesh


Shri C. Rajendran Global Warming Environmental Education, NGOs and Media

AIADMK Tamil Nadu




Pollution of Rivers Freshwater and Marine Conservation

BJP Karnataka


Pollution BJP Karnataka



Check on Extraction of Sand from River Bed


BJP Karnataka


EIA BJP Karnataka



Emission of Toxic Gases by Industries

Pollution JD(S) Karnataka


Shri E.G. Sugavanam Completion of Developmental Projects

Forest Conservation

DMK Tamil Nadu


Shri P.L. Punia World Heritage Freshwater and Marine Conservation

INC Uttar Pradesh


Shri Raju alias Devappa Anna Shett

Violation of Clearance Norms

EIA SWP Maharashtra


Shri S. R. Jeyadurai Clearances to Projects EIA DMK Tamil Nadu

Shri Abdul Rahman DMK Tamil Nadu 2559 Unstarred 10-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Sambandam Keerapalayam Alagiri

Check on Quantum of e-Waste

Pollution INC Tamil Nadu

Shri M. Anjan Kumar Yadav

INC Andhra Pradesh


Shri A. Ganeshamurthi Marumalarchi

Industrialisation Zone Around National Park

Wildlife Management

DMK Tamil Nadu


Shri Vikrambhai Arjanbhai Maadam

Area under No-Go Policy

EIA INC Gujarat

Forest Conservation


Shri Bishnu Pada Ray Restructuring of Cadre Environmental Conservation

BJP Andaman and Nicobar Islands


Shri Ramkishun Setting up of Plant-Near Sanctuary

Wildlife Management

SP Uttar Pradesh


JD(U) Bihar


Shri Madhu Kora Provision of Land for Afforestation Purposes

Forest Conservation

IND. Jharkhand


Shri Hansraj Gangaram Ahir

Production of Forest Products

Agriculture BJP Maharashtra



Shri K.C. Singh Baba Rise in Water Borne Diseases


INC Uttarakhand


Forests Smt. Jayshreeben Patel

Cleaning up of Coast in Gujarat


BJP Gujarat


Forests Shri Ravindra Kumar Pandey

Processing of Herbal Products

Agriculture BJP Jharkhand


Shri Mahabali Singh Climate Change Vulnerability Index


JD(U) Bihar

Disaster Management



Smt. Kamla Devi Patle

Conservation of Medicinal Plants

Medicinal Plants

BJP Chhattisgarh


Smt. Darshana Vikram Jardosh

Projects under National River Conservation Plan


BJP Gujarat


Shri Kadir Rana Cleaning of Kali River Pollution BSP Uttar Pradesh


Km. Saroj Pandey Check on Environmental Balance

Pollution BJP Chhattisgarh


Shri Dilip Kumar Mansukhlal Gandhi

Diseases Caused by Godavari River


BJP Maharashtra


Forests Shri Chandrakant Raghunath Patil

Nagoya Protocol Environmental Conservation

BJP Gujarat

Shri Pradeep Majhi Environmental Education, NGOs and Media

INC Odisha

Shri Abdul Rahman DMK Tamil Nadu Shri Kishanbhai

Vestabhai Patel INC Gujarat


Shri Chandre D.B. Gowda

Strengthening of Monitoring Process


BJP Karnataka

Shri S. R. Jeyadurai EIA DMK Tamil Nadu Shri Adhi Sankar DMK Tamil Nadu Shri Abdul Rahman DMK Tamil Nadu 2613 Unstarred 10-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Surendra Singh Nagar

Beautification of Banks of River Ganga


BSP Uttar Pradesh



Forests Shri P. T. Thomas Pollution of Rivers Freshwater

and Marine Conservation

INC Kerala

Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh

Pollution BJP Bihar


Shri Makhansingh Solanki

Titles on Forest Land Forest Conservation

BJP Madhya Pradesh


Shri Zafar Ali Naqvi National Parks/Bird Sanctuaries

Wildlife Management

INC Uttar Pradesh


Shri S. Semmalai Check on Poaching of Rhinos

Wildlife Management

AIADMK Tamil Nadu

Shri Tarachand Bhagora

INC Rajasthan

Shri Baijayant "Jay" BJD Odisha

Panda Shri Ramen Deka BJP Assam 2629 Unstarred 10-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Yashbant Narayan Singh Laguri

Clearance to Projects Near Tribal Areas

EIA BJD Odisha


Forest Conservation

BJP Gujarat

Wildlife Management


Shri Kameshwar Baitha

Destruction of Forests Forest Conservation

JMM Jharkhand


Shri Ghanshyam Anuragi

Migratory Birds Wildlife Management

SP Uttar Pradesh

Shri Mangani Lal Mandal

JD(U) Bihar


NCP Maharashtra

Smt. Supriya Sadanand Sule

NCP Maharashtra


Shri Tufani Saroj Setting up of Resorts Around Tiger Reserves

Wildlife Management

SP Uttar Pradesh


Shri Takam Sanjoy Management of Bio-Diversity


INC Arunachal Pradesh


Shri Kabindra Purkayastha

Level of Mono-Oxide Gas

Pollution BJP Assam


Shri Mangani Mandal Lal

Ban on use of Polythene Bags

Pollution JD(U) Bihar


BJP Rajasthan


Dr. Charles Dias Relaxation in CRZ Regulations


INC Kerala



Shri Dhananjay Singh Check on Deaths of Wild Life

Wildlife Management

BSP Uttar Pradesh

Smt. Sumitra Mahajan

BJP Madhya Pradesh

Shri P.L. Punia INC Uttar Pradesh


Shri Madhu Goud Yaskhi

Environment Ministers' Meeting


INC Andhra Pradesh

Shri Kishanbhai Vestabhai Patel

Environmental Education, NGOs and Media

INC Gujarat

Shri Pradeep Majhi INC Odisha 2712 Unstarred 10-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Gajanan Dharmshi Babar

Clearance Norms for Oil and Gas Pipelines

Energy Studies

SS Maharashtra

Shri Adhalrao Patil Shivaji

EIA SS Maharashtra

Shri Anandrao Adsul Pollution SS Maharashtra Shri Madhu Goud

Yaskhi INC Andhra Pradesh

Shri Tarachand Bhagora

INC Rajasthan



Pollution Norms for Industries


Shri Ramkishun SP Uttar Pradesh 2728 Unstarred 10-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Dr. Pulin Bihari Baske

River Pollution by Industrial Discharge


CPI(M) West Bengal


Pollution BSP Uttar Pradesh



Polluted Industrial Cluster

EIA BJP Karnataka


Forests Shri Jayant Chaudhary

Tax on Heavy Vehicles to reduce Pollution


RLD Uttar Pradesh



Clearance for Construction of an Airport

EIA INC Lakshadweep


Shri Ravneet Singh Air Quality Index Pollution INC Punjab


Shri Maheshwar Hazari

Ban on Sale of Diesel Vehicles


Shri Harsh Vardhan INC Uttar Pradesh



Diversion of Forests Forest Conservation

SP Uttar Pradesh

Shri Nityananda Pradhan

BJD Odisha


Shri Sanjay Nirupam Conservation of Mangroves


INC Maharashtra


Dr. Kirit Premjibhai Solanki

New CRZ Notification Environmental Conservation

BJP Gujarat

EIA 3681 Unstarred 17-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Chandrakant Raghunath Patil

Coastal Zone Management Authority


BJP Gujarat



Shri K.C. Singh Baba Check on Destruction of Biosphere Reserve

Energy Studies

INC Uttarakhand


EIA Forest

Conservation

Wildlife Management


Shri Chandrakant Bhaurao Khaire

River Regulatory Zone Freshwater and Marine Conservation

SS Maharashtra



Importance to Environmental Related Issues


AIADMK Tamil Nadu


Forest Conservation


Pollution Water

Management 3695 Unstarred 17-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Rayapati Sambasiva Rao

Ozone Depleting Substances


INC Andhra Pradesh

Energy Studies



Forests Shri Suvendu Adhikari

Eco-Management and Audit System


AITC West Bengal


Forests Dr. Mahendrasinh Pruthvisinh Chauhan

Number of National Parks

Wildlife Management

BJP Gujarat


Shri A. Sai Pratap Delay in Clearances of Mining Leases

EIA INC Andhra Pradesh


Shri Ganesh Singh Conservation of White Lions

Wildlife Management

BJP Madhya Pradesh



World Forestry Day Environmental Education, NGOs and Media

JD(U) Bihar

Forest Conservation


Sardar Partap Singh Bajwa

Action Plan on Pollution

Pollution INC Punjab

EIA 3717 Unstarred 17-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Bhoopendra Singh

Villages under Conserved Forest Area

Forest Conservation

BJP Madhya Pradesh

Wildlife Management


Shri Bishnu Pada Ray Lifting of Ban on Fishing

Wildlife Management



Km. Saroj Pandey Promotion of Forest Produces


BJP Chhattisgarh



Conservation of Bio-Diversity


BJP Rajasthan



Shri Bhausaheb Wakchaure

Pollution by Sugar Mills

Pollution SS Maharashtra



Nitrogen Leakage Pollution INC Lakshadweep


Smt. Jayshreeben Patel

Construction of Ring Road

EIA BJP Gujarat

Forest Conservation

Wildlife Management


Shri A.K.S. Vijayan Check of Soil Erosion Freshwater and Marine Conservation

DMK Tamil Nadu


Forests Shri Manicka Tagore National Zoological

Park Wildlife Management

INC Tamil Nadu


Shri Tufani Saroj Check on Displacement of Tribals

Forest Conservation

SS Uttar Pradesh

Water Management

Wildlife Management


Shri Suresh Kalmadi Clearance to IPWTWC EIA INC Maharashtra


Shri Jose K. Mani Safety of GM Technology

Agriculture KC(M) Kerala

Biosafety Health and

Sanitation


Shri M. K. Raghavan Condition of Rivers Freshwater and Marine Conservation

INC Kerala


Forests Shri Parvatagouda Chandanagouda Gaddigoudar

Mining Reserves in Western Ghats


BJP Karnataka

EIA Environmental



Shri Kunwar Rewati Raman Singh

Check on Soil Erosion Disaster Management

SP Uttar Pradesh

Forest Conservation

Pollution Wildlife

Management


Shri P.C. Chacko Ban on Excavation of Brick Earth


INC Kerala


Shri Bibhu Prasad Tarai

Use of Ground Water for Industrial Purposes


CPI Odisha

Shri Prabodh Panda Water Management

CPI West Bengal


Shri Shafiqur Rahman Barq

Spreading of Pollution by Chemical Factories

Pollution BSP Uttar Pradesh


Shri Nama Nageswara Rao

Common Bio-medical Wastage Treatment

Pollution TDP Andhra Pradesh



Shri Sultan Ahmed Pollution by Brick Industries

Pollution AITC West Bengal


Shri Zafar Ali Naqvi Amendment in Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

Forest Conservation

INC Uttar Pradesh

Shri M. B. Rajesh CPI(M) Kerala Shri Chandrakant

Raghunath Patil BJP Gujarat

3795 Unstarred 17-Dec-12 Environment and Shri Yogi Adityanath Beautification of Agriculture BJP Uttar Pradesh

Forests Natural Ponds Freshwater

and Marine Conservation

Water Management


Shri Francisco Sardinha

Water Pollution Pollution INC Goa


Shri Ananth Kumar National Investment Board for Clearances

EIA BJP Karnataka


Shri Sambandam Keerapalayam Alagiri

Classification of Eco-Sensitive Zone


INC Tamil Nadu

Pollution BJP Gujarat 3808 Unstarred 17-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Nishikant Dubey Check on Import of e-

Waste Pollution BJP Jharkhand

Shri Nityananda Pradhan

BJD Odisha

Shri S. Pakkirappa BJP Karnataka 3813 Unstarred 17-Dec-12 Environment and

Forests Shri Brijbhushan Sharan Singh

Water Quality Monitoring Stations


SP Uttar Pradesh

Pollution Water

Management


Shri Ramkishun Check on Illegal Construction around Sea


SP Uttar Pradesh


Forests Dr. Bhola Singh Global Warming Agriculture BJP Bihar



Shri Datta Raghobaji Meghe

Extraction and Selling of Snake Venom

Wildlife Management

INC Maharashtra


Shri Anandrao Adsul Re-drafting of Report on Climate Change

Climate Change and

SS Maharashtra

Meteorology Shri Gajanan

Dharmshi Babar Environmental


SS Maharashtra


Shri Sansuma Khunggur Bwiswmuthiary

Check on Encroachment on Forest Land

Forest Conservation

BPFK Assam


Shri Gopinath Pandurang Munde

Distribution of Titles to Tribals

Forest Conservation

BJP Maharashtra

Shri Marotrao Sainuji Kowase

INC Maharashtra


Shri Prem Das Rai Non-timber Forest Produce Policy


SDF Sikkim


Shri Gajanan Dharmshi Babar

Clearances to Projects EIA SS Maharashtra


SP Uttar Pradesh

Shri Anandrao Adsul SS Maharashtra Shri Shivaji

Adhalrao Patil SS Maharashtra



Re-location of Villagers in Tiger Reserves

Wildlife Management

NCP Maharashtra

Smt. Supriya Sadanand Sule

NCP Maharashtra


JD(U) Bihar

Shri Ramkishun SP Uttar Pradesh Shri Baidyanath

Prasad Mahto JD(U) Bihar


Shri Ramashankar Rajbhar

Impact of Climate Change

Energy Studies

BSP Uttar Pradesh

Shri Prem Das Rai Climate Change and Meteorology

SDF Sikkim


Shri K.C. Singh Baba Protection to Tigers Wildlife Management

INC Uttarakhand


Dr. Kirodilal Meena Receding of Glaciers Climate Change and Meteorology

IND. Rajasthan



Shri K. Sugumar Bamboo as MFP Environment and Forest Trade

AIADMK Tamil Nadu


Dr. Mahendrasinh Pruthvisinh Chauhan

Funds Allocated under NRCP


BJP Gujarat



Expenditure on Harit Bharat Mission

Forest Conservation

BJP Madhya Pradesh


Smt. Annu Tandon Funds to Promote Green Products


INC Uttar Pradesh


Shri Bishnu Pada Ray Restructuring of Pay Structure

Forest Conservation



Shri E.G. Sugavanam Conservation of Tiger Population

Wildlife Management

DMK Tamil Nadu


Shri Suresh Kumar Shetkar

Management of Solid Waste




Pollution By MNCs Pollution INC Lakshadweep

CHECK ON FELLING OF TREES 26th November, 2012 LSQ *42 SHRI MANICKA TAGORE SHRI KAMESHWAR BAITHA

Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether indiscriminate felling of trees is being done for development of infrastructural projects

without permission in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof along with the number of trees cut for these projects during the last

three years and the current year, State‐wise; (c) whether any adverse impact on environment has been noticed due to such felling of trees; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the corrective steps taken/being taken by the Government to check felling of trees?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) A Statement is laid on the Table of the House. STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a) TO (e) OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. 42 ON “CHECK ON FELLING OF TREES” ASKED BY SHRI MANICKA TAGORE AND SHRI KAMESHWAR BAITHA FOR REPLY ON 26.11.2012 (a) Prevention of felling of trees for development of infrastructural projects without requisite permission relevant laws is the responsibility of the concerned State/Union Territory Governments in accordance with the laws applicable therein. The information regarding such felling of trees is not available with the Central Government. (b) to (d) Does not arise in view of the reply to part (a) above. (e)The Central Government provides financial assistance under various centrally sponsored schemes to strengthen and upgrade the forest protection machinery of the State/Union Territory Forest Departments to prevent illegal felling of trees. ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCES TO PROJECTS 26th November, 2012 LSQ *45 DR. MAHESH JOSHI: SHRI A.T. NANA PATIL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the details of the proposals received from various States for environmental and forest clearances of the projects viz. irrigation dam, power, mining, highways and infrastructure, etc. and are pending with the Ministry for clearance, State and Union Territory‐wise;

(b) the reasons for the pendency along with the period since when they are pending. State/year and project‐wise;

(c) the number of projects cleared during each of the last three years and the current year, State and Union Territory‐wise;

(d) the number of projects rejected during the said period, State and Union Territory‐wise along with the reasons therefor; and

(e) the steps taken/strategy proposed by the Government for an early clearance of pending projects in the country and formulation of a viable policy for clearing such proposals?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e): A statement is laid on the Table of the House.

STATEMENT IN REPLY TO PARTS (a), (b), (c), (d) AND (e) OF LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. *45 FOR ANSWER ON 26/11/2012 REGARDING ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCES TO PROJECTS (a) and (b): The State‐wise details of project proposals pending for environment and forest clearance in the Ministry are at Annexure‐1 and 2 respectively. The reasons for pendency of environment clearances include non submission of requisite information by the project proponents, forestry and wildlife issues, etc. The reasons for pendency of forest clearances include site inspection of cases involving more than 100 hectares forest land, incomplete proposals, seeking information from the concerned State Governments etc. (c) and (d) : The State‐wise details of project proposals for which environment and forest clearances were issued and number of cases rejected during the last three years and the current year are at Annexure‐3 & 4 respectively. The reasons for rejection of environment clearance cases include non‐suitable sites, non‐submission of requisite information etc. The forest clearance are rejected mainly on the grounds of the forest areas required to be diverted being of high quality, support rich wildlife, biodiversity and rare/endangered or threatened species of flora and fauna and otherwise high ecological value. (e): In order to facilitate an early decision on proposal for environmental clearances, various steps have been initiated by the Ministry which include (i) continuous monitoring of the status of pending projects, (ii) regular and longer duration meeting of Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) meeting for consideration of projects in various sectors, (iii) streamlining of the procedure for appraisal of projects, and (iv) finalization of sector specific manuals in thirty nine sectors alongwith the model Terms of References (TORs), which have been uploaded on the Ministry’s website for the benefit of all stakeholders. State/UT level Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs) have been constituted in 25 States/UTs to deal with Environment Clearance cases of Category ‘B’ projects. As regards expediting the forest clearances, an elaborate institutional mechanism, both at Central as well as at the State/Union Territory Government level has been set up to facilitate scrutiny of the proposals. Further, the Ministry has initiated measures to expedite decision on proposals seeking approvals. Notable among them are the process for setting up of four new regional offices, creation of a GIS based decision support database and a web‐based online proposal monitoring system.

State‐wise details of project proposals pending for Environmental Clearance Annexure‐ 1

S.N. Name of the

State/UT Industry Thermal River valley/

Hydroelectric Infrastructure/Construction/

CRZ

Coal Mine

Non‐coal Mine

Nuclear

Total Number

of

proposals pending for ECs

1 Andhra Pradesh

25 1 ‐ 3 ‐ 8 ‐ 37

2 A & N ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 13 Arunachal

Pradesh ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

4 Assam 4 ‐ ‐ 14 ‐ ‐ ‐ 185 Bihar 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐6 Chandigarh 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17 Chhattisgarh 1 4 ‐ ‐ 13 5 ‐ 238 Dadar Nagar

Haveli 2 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3

9 Daman & Diu

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

10 Delhi ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐11 Goa ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 112 Gujarat 36 3 ‐ 12 ‐ 4 ‐ 4913 Haryana 1 ‐ ‐ 2 ‐ 1 1 514 Himachal

Pradesh ‐ ‐ 4 2 ‐ 6 ‐ 12

15 Jammu & Kashmir

‐ ‐ 2 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3

16 Jharkhand 5 ‐ 6 20 17 ‐ 4817 Karnataka 6 1 2 2 ‐ 4 ‐ 1518 Kerala 1 ‐ ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ 519 Madhya

Pradesh 2 3 1 5 4 10 ‐ 25

20 Maharashtra 10 3 2 21 5 9 ‐ 5021 Manipur ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 222 Meghalaya 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 223 Mizoram ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 124 Nagaland ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐25 Lakshdweep ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 126 Pondicherry ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 127 Orissa 10 2 ‐ 15 11 27 ‐ 6428 Punjab 6 ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1129 Rajasthan 4 ‐ ‐ 5 3 35 1 48

30 Sikkim ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 131 Tamil Nadu 7 3 ‐ 5 ‐ 2 ‐ 1732 Tripura ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐33 Uttarakhand 3 ‐ 2 16 ‐ 7 ‐ 2834 Uttar

Pradesh 3 4 ‐ 8 ‐ ‐ ‐ 15

35 West Bengal 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 Total 134 24 16 130 56 137 2 499

Annexure‐2

Details of Proposals Seeking Prior Approval of Central Government Under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for Diversion of Forest Land Required

State HYDEL IRRIGATION RAILWAY ROAD THERMAL TRANSMISSION LINE

WIND POWER

OTHERS Grand Total

A & N Island 1 1 Andhra Pradesh

3 1 1 5

Arunachal Pradesh

2 1 1 4

Bihar 10 1 11 Chhattishgarh 2 1 2 2 7

Dadar & Nagar Haveli

1 1

Gujarat 1 1 13 5 20 Haryana 2 6 7 15 Himachal Pradesh

4 1 16 1 22

Jharkhand 2 4 6 Karnataka 1 2 3 Kerala 1 1 2 Madhya Pradesh

8 1 1 2 3 15

Maharashtra 4 1 1 2 1 9 Manipur 1 1 2 Mizoram 1 1 2 Orissa 1 1 2 4 Punjab 1 7 4 12 Rajasthan 2 1 3 Sikkim 1 1 Tamil Nadu 1 1 1 3 Uttar Pradesh 2 1 19 3 25 Uttaranchal 2 1 1 4Grand Total 14 20 9 86 6 34 7 1 177

Annexure 3 State‐wise details of project proposals cleared/rejected during the last three years and the current year

Sl.No. Name of State/UT

2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012 ‐13 (upto October 2012)

Cleared Rejected Cleared Rejected Cleared Rejected Cleared Rejected

1 Andhra Pradesh

91 62 44 38

2 A & N 3 1 2 3 Arunachal

Pradesh 2 3 5 3

4 Assam 16 9 18 21 5 Bihar 7 8 18 1 4 6 Chandigarh 25 1 1 7 Chhattisgarh 20 29 23 10 8 Dadar Nagar

Haveli 1 6 1

9 Daman & Diu 5 2 1 1 10 Delhi 1 2 1 11 Goa 30 8 12 Gujarat 163 57 38 28 13 Haryana 3 3 18 7 14 Himachal

Pradesh 9 7 6 2

15 Jammu & Kashmir

4 3 3 2

16 Jharkhand 29 28 32 13 17 Karnataka 50 24 1 24 17 18 Kerala 6 29 18 12 19 Madhya

Pradesh 34 16 21 19

20 Maharashtra 103 46 34 1 13 221 Manipur 1 22 Meghalaya 4 4 3 1 23 Mizoram 1 24 Nagaland 25 Lakshdweep ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 26 Pondicherry 1 1 2

27 Orissa 55 36 30 33 28 Punjab 7 18 17 13 29 Rajasthan 48 36 18 18 30 Sikkim 1 1 1 31 Tamil Nadu 28 30 36 25 32 Tripura 1 1 33 Uttarakhand 12 5 1 16 4 34 Uttar

Pradesh 12 2 10 27

35 West Bengal 37 21 19 16 Others 8 2 2 4

Total 812 ‐ 496 2 466 2 338 2

Annexure 4

Statement Showing Cases(State wise and Year wise)For Diversion Of Forest Land Under FC Act 1980

2009

State / UT APPROVED IN‐PRINCIPLE REJECTED

No. of Cases Area Diverted No. of Cases Area Diverted No. of Cases

A & N Island 2 0.186 0 0 0Andhra Pradesh 24 741.948 12 3,599.65 6Arunachal Pradesh 15 1,106.26 2 5.56 0Assam 10 290.67 7 16.315 0Bihar 2 23.09 11 89.849 0Chandigarh 0 0 0 0 1Chhattishgarh 21 1,233.18 5 444.887 3D & N Haveli 2 0.015 0 0 1Daman & Diu 0 0 0 0 0Delhi 0 0 0 0 0Goa 13 640.805 0 0 0Gujarat 102 3,171.67 29 119.669 1Haryana 137 545.022 56 195.516 0Himachal Pradesh 69 709.294 12 172.462 3Jammu & Kashmir 0 0 0 0 0Jharkhand 22 869.892 2 137.066 3Karnataka 23 961.713 8 168.263 6Kerala 5 14.246 1 1 1Lakshdeep 0 0 0 0 0Madhya Pradesh 46 2,296.72 20 1,027.42 5Maharashtra 37 906.913 26 1,784.67 7Manipur 0 0 0 0 0Meghalaya 3 4.874 0 0 0Mizoram 0 0 0 0 0Nagaland 0 0 0 0 0Orissa 20 3,315.83 5 429.453 0Pondichery 0 0 0 0 0Punjab 119 56,246.68 54 30.464 5Rajasthan 40 715.447 16 91.42 1Sikkim 16 730.117 8 43.156 0Tamil Nadu 14 15.815 7 9.762 3Tripura 19 24.853 1 0.085 0Uttar Pradesh 72 308.606 14 53.481 2Uttaranchal 399 2,863.25 43 160.365 43West Bengal 6 21.808 0 0 0

Total 1238 77,758.89 339 8,580.50 91

2010



A & N Island 0 0 0 0 0Andhra Pradesh 17 4,121.95 10 1,548.68 0

Arunachal Pradesh 19 497.23 25 934 0Assam 4 210 1 98.25 0Bihar 26 659.45 5 114.05 0Chandigarh 2 0.1 0 0 1Chhattishgarh 19 740.1 12 3,916.34 1D & N Haveli 5 1.99 0 0 1Daman & Diu 0 0 0 0 0Delhi 1 0.94 0 0 0Goa 6 222.56 2 17.38 2Gujarat 93 931.7 41 411.07 0Haryana 244 328.93 55 66.4 1Himachal Pradesh 118 1,228.45 29 48.93 3Jammu & Kashmir 0 0 0 0 0Jharkhand 38 3,298.60 20 1,622.23 3Karnataka 18 968.67 7 332.91 3Kerala 2 0.08 2 1.11 1Lakshdeep 0 0 0 0 0Madhya Pradesh 34 2,053.28 21 644.73 5Maharashtra 44 1,552.57 21 890.8 7Manipur 0 0 4 691.79 0Meghalaya 0 0 0 0 0Mizoram 0 0 0 0 0Nagaland 0 0 0 0 0Orissa 11 910.35 9 1,766.70 2Pondichery 0 0 0 0 0Punjab 196 250.17 48 84.92 1Rajasthan 25 1,827.24 7 813.07 0Sikkim 3 143.22 8 242.01 0Tamil Nadu 13 27.74 5 405.46 1Tripura 15 19.85 0 0 0Uttar Pradesh 67 396.01 40 32.99 1Uttaranchal 344 1,243.04 91 546.28 48West Bengal 9 190.48 1 0.17 0

Total 1373 21,824.70 464 15,230.26 81

2011



A & N Island 0 0 2 0.225 3Andhra Pradesh 19 905.835 21 1,143.35 1Arunachal Pradesh 3 286.465 14 576.929 0Assam 4 4.4 3 2.139 0Bihar 16 2,352.40 20 757.108 0Chandigarh 2 0.142 1 0.07 2Chhattishgarh 13 2,470.10 8 1,109.21 2D & N Haveli 5 1.505 4 1.372 1Daman & Diu 1 3.95 0 0 0Delhi 1 2.8 1 13 0Goa 1 11.1 1 81.4 0Gujarat 22 278.406 50 1,528.94 0Haryana 217 140.165 72 31.268 0Himachal Pradesh 87 309.888 75 360.875 2Jammu & Kashmir 0 0 0 0 0Jharkhand 33 1,562.85 11 1,681.19 4Karnataka 10 49.648 19 184.296 3Kerala 3 11.582 1 2.064 1Lakshdeep 0 0 0 0 0Madhya Pradesh 38 1,582.61 14 192.037 3Maharashtra 29 632.157 34 710.962 6Manipur 0 0 1 223.5 0Meghalaya 2 0.161 1 7.28 0

Mizoram 0 0 2 253.383 0Nagaland 0 0 0 0 0Orissa 15 1,143.10 13 2,678.65 0Pondichery 0 0 0 0 0Punjab 149 123.102 147 71.85 4Rajasthan 16 114.049 21 1,014.95 2Sikkim 16 20.143 9 83.449 0Tamil Nadu 7 21.931 6 3.136 2Tripura 10 24.581 3 11.628 0Uttar Pradesh 135 246.124 56 82.395 1Uttaranchal 119 367.672 117 1,621.35 27West Bengal 9 52.198 3 14.967 1

Total 982 12,719.07 730 14,442.97 65

2011



A & N Island 1 1.005 4 15.98 0Andhra Pradesh 16 435.454 13 285.249 0Arunachal Pradesh 6 424.815 6 1,764.51 0Assam 2 179.15 0 0 0Bihar 9 48.521 16 288.599 0Chandigarh 1 0.1 0 0 1Chhattishgarh 4 1,924.35 9 721.947 1D & N Haveli 0 0 4 1.552 1Daman & Diu 0 0 0 0 0Delhi 0 0 0 0 0Goa 0 0 0 0 0Gujarat 19 325.982 49 685.471 0Haryana 120 38.362 79 415.442 1Himachal Pradesh 38 553.181 44 516.097 0Jammu & Kashmir 0 0 0 0 0Jharkhand 12 1,906.56 24 1,736.26 2Karnataka 11 203.313 10 25.285 11Kerala 6 0.576 1 4.33 1Lakshdeep 0 0 0 0 0Madhya Pradesh 15 1,106.24 20 2,466.53 2Maharashtra 23 1,059.12 23 385.2 7Manipur 0 0 1 135.82 0Meghalaya 2 230.605 0 0 0Mizoram 0 0 1 384.031 0Nagaland 0 0 0 0 0Orissa 6 442.068 11 1,360.52 0Pondichery 0 0 0 0 0Punjab 57 431.208 48 139.112 1Rajasthan 5 30.741 5 74.696 0Sikkim 0 0 0 0 0Tamil Nadu 5 39.87 5 2.353 1Tripura 1 3.298 1 34 0Uttar Pradesh 30 328.122 19 583.544 2Uttaranchal 53 214.155 21 111.916 15West Bengal 2 14.068 2 5.85 0

Total 444 9,940.86 416 12,144.30 46

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 26th November, 2012

LSQ * 52 SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI


(a) the present status of the implementation of Solid Waste Management policy in the country; (b) whether the Government has initiated any projects in this regard; (c) if so, the details thereof, State‐wise; and (d) the steps taken/being taken by the Government for effective implementation of Solid Waste

Management policy in the country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d): A Statement is laid on the Table of the House. STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (A) TO (D) OF LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. 52 FOR ANSWER ON 26.11.2012 REGARDING “SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT”. (a) to (d) Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has notified the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules in 2000 wherein every municipal authority is responsible for collection, segregation, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste in the country. Municipal authorities are also required to set up waste processing and disposal facilities. State Pollution Control Boards/Committees are responsible for giving authorization for storage, treatment and disposal facilities for municipal solid waste and monitoring of environmental standards around such facilities. Municipal solid waste management is a State subject and it is the responsibility of the State Government/ Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) to plan, design, implement, operate and maintain the solid waste management (SWM) system in the urban areas. The Ministry of Urban Development is providing financial assistance to some extent to the State Governments for proper management of the municipal solid waste. Under Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG) Sub‐Mission and Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), SWM is one of the admissible components for grant of Additional Central Assistance (ACA). So far, 44 SWM Projects under UIG have been approved with an approved cost of Rs. 1972.86 crore and 56 SWM projects under UIDSSMT have been approved with an approved cost of Rs. 342.02 crore. So far an amount of Rs. 633.13 crore has been released for 44 SWM projects under UIG and Rs. 208.53 crore for 56 SWM projects under UIDSSMT. These projects have integrated approaches that include segregation at source, collection, transportation, processing and treatment and disposal of municipal solid waste. The State‐wise details of projects under UIG and UIDSSMT are given at Annexure I and Annexure II respectively. Ministry of Environment and Forests has provided financial assistance to State Pollution Control Boards/Committees to conduct training workshops and group meetings with local bodies in order to create awareness about the provisions of the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000.

Annexure‐I

State‐wise list of solid waste management projects sanctioned under Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG) of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM)

S. No. States/UTs Number of Projects

Approved Cost(Rs. in lakhs)

Amount Released (Rs. in Lakhs)

1 Andhra Pradesh 2 8134.00 2351.10

2 Arunachal Pradesh 1 1194.38 967.463 Assam 1 3516.71 2057.284 Bihar 2 4851.21 606.415 Gujarat 4 21101.10 6425.206 Haryana 1 7351.9 3308.357 Himachal Pradesh 2 2654.2 530.938 Jharkhand 3 14061.57 2143.169 Karnataka 1 2985.00 955.2010 Kerala 2 11268.00 4140.5211 Madhya Pradesh 1 4324.66 1946.0912 Maharashtra 4 35340.31 11793.4913 Manipur 1 2580.71 929.0614 Puducherry 1 4966.00 993.2015 Punjab 1 7249.00 906.1216 Rajasthan 1 1319.74 494.9117 Tamil Nadu 4 25148.83 8625.2718 Uttarakhand 3 5062.53 1307.7019 Uttar Pradesh 7 24160.37 9712.4820 West Bengal 2 10015.80 3119.34

Total 44 197,286.02 633,13.27

Annexure‐II State‐wise list of solid waste management projects sanctioned under Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) S. No. States/UTs Number of Projects Approved Cost

(Rs. in lakhs) Amount Released (Rs. in Lakhs)

1 Andhra Pradesh 1 361.00 294.222 Arunachal Pradesh 3 866.73 780.063 Bihar 1 983.99 393.604 Haryana 3 5520.33 3703.815 Jharkhand 3 1584.59 657.606 J & K 12 2533.77 1345.727 Kerala 11 3657.00 1499.248 Tamil Nadu 1 358.25 286.609 Uttar Pradesh 19 16903.12 11247.1410 Meghalaya 2 1433.26 644.97

Total 56 34,202.04 208,52.96

CONSERVATION OF FORESTS 26th November, 2012 LSQ *56

SHRI C. RAJENDRAN: SHRI RAVNEET SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the total area of forest cover in hectares along with the total geographical area as well as percentage of forest cover in the country, State‐wise;

(b) whether the Government proposes to launch a new initiative to expand forest cover in the country;

(c) if so, the details thereof, State‐wise; and (d) the scheme‐wise details of the funds provided by the Government for conservation, development

and promotion of forests in the States including Tamil Nadu during the last three years and the current year, State and year‐wise?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) A statement is laid on the Table of the House. Statement referred to in reply to part (a) to (d) of Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 56 by SHRI C. RAJENDRAN: SHRI RAVNEET SINGH due for reply on 26.11.2012

(a) The details of total area of forest cover in hectare along with total geographical area as well as percentage of forest cover in the country, State‐wise is given in Annexure‐I.

(b) & (c) Yes, Sir. Under the National Action Plan on Climate Change, a National Mission for a ‘Green India’ has been mooted with major objectives to increase forests/tree cover on 5 million hectare of forest/non-forest lands and also to improve the quality of the forest cover on another 5 million hectare. In addition to the above, the following initiatives have also been taken by the Government to expand forest cover in the country:‐

(d) The details of funds released under Intensification of Forest Management Scheme (IFMS) and National Afforestation Programme (NAP) for Conservation, development and promotion of forests in the States including Tamil Nadu during the last three years and current year is given in Annexure‐II and Annexure‐III respectively. (i) The Ministry of Environment and Forests is implementing a Centrally Sponsored Scheme of National Afforestation Programme (NAP) for regeneration of degraded forests and adjoining areas in the country. The Scheme is implemented through a decentralized mechanism of State Forest Development Agency (SFDA) at State level, Forest Development Agency (FDA) at Forest Division level and Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) at Village levels. As on 31‐03‐2012, 800 FDA projects have been approved in 28 States in the country to treat an area of 18.86 lakh hectares since inception of the Scheme in 2002. (ii) The Ministry release funds to the states under the Intensification of Forest Management Scheme (IFMS), for strengthening of forest protection such as infrastructure, fire protection, demarcation of forest boundaries, construction of facilities for frontline staff and communication which also contributed towards increase in the forest cover.

(iii) Under the award of 13th Finance Commission, a grant of Rs.5000 crores has been allocated as “Forest Grants” to the states on the basis of their forest cover in the State in relation to the national average. It has been further weighted by the quality of the forests in each state as measured by density. (iv) Afforestation activities are also undertaken under various External Aided Projects by Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh, Tripura, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Sikkim and Rajasthan. Annexure‐1 referred to in reply to part (a) of the Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 56 due for answer on 26‐11‐2012 regarding ‘Conservation of Forests’

Forest cover in States/UTs in India as per India State of Forest Report, 2011

(area in hectares) State/UT Geog.

Area Forest Cover in 2011

% of GA Very Dense Forest

Open Forest

Total

Andhra Pradesh 27506900 85000 2624200 1929700 4638900 16.86Arunachal Pradesh 8374300 2086800 3151900 1502300 6741000 80.50Assam 7843800 144400 1140400 1482500 2767300 35.28Bihar 9416300 23100 328000 333400 684500 7.27 Chhattisgarh 13519100 416300 3491100 1660000 5567400 41.18Delhi 148300 700 4900 12000 17600 11.88Goa 370200 54300 58500 109100 221900 59.94Gujarat 19602200 37600 523100 901200 1461900 7.46 Haryana 4421200 2700 45700 112400 160800 3.64 Himachal Pradesh 5567300 322400 638100 507400 1467900 26.37Jammu & Kashmir 22223600 414000 876000 963900 2253900 10.14Jharkhand 7971400 259000 991700 1047000 2297700 28.82Karnataka 19179100 177700 2017900 1423800 3619400 18.87Kerala 3886300 144200 939400 646400 1730000 44.52Madhya Pradesh 30824500 664000 3498600 3607400 7770000 25.21Maharashtra 30771300 873600 2081500 2109500 5064600 16.46Manipur 2232700 73000 615100 1020900 1709000 76.54Meghalaya 2242900 43300 977500 706700 1727500 77.02Mizoram 2108100 13400 608600 1289700 1911700 90.68Nagaland 1657900 129300 493100 709400 1331800 80.33Orissa 15570700 706000 2136600 2047700 4890300 31.41Punjab 5036200 0 73600 102800 176400 3.50 Rajasthan 34223900 7200 444800 1156700 1608700 4.70 Sikkim 709600 50000 216100 69800 335900 47.34Tamil Nadu 13005800 294800 1032100 1035600 2362500 18.16Tripura 1048600 10900 468600 318200 797700 76.04Uttar Pradesh 24092800 162600 455900 815300 1433800 5.95 Uttarakhand 5348300 476200 1416700 556700 2449600 45.80West Bengal 8875200 298400 464600 536500 1299500 14.64A&N Islands 824900 376100 241600 54700 672400 81.51Chandigarh 11400 100 1000 600 1700 14.72Dadra & Nagar Haveli 49100 0 11400 9700 21100 42.97Daman & Diu 11200 0 62 553 600 5.49 Lakshadweep 3200 0 1718 988 2700 84.56Puducherry 48000 0 3537 1469 5000 10.43Grand Total 328726300 8347100 32073600 28782000 69202700 21.05

* The change in the above table refers to change in the area with respect to 2009 assessment after incorporation interpretational changes

Annexure‐II referred to in reply to part (d) of the Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 56 due for answer on 26‐11‐2012 regarding ‘Conservation of Forests’

Funds released under Intensification of Forest Management Scheme for Conservation, development and promotion of forests in the States including Tamil Nadu

(Rs. in Lakhs)

S.No. States 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 ( as on 21.11.2012) Total

Released Released Released Released Released

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Andhra Pradesh 0.00 136.94 0.00 0.00 136.94

2 Bihar 117.45 118.77 82.41 0.00 318.63

3 Chhattisgarh 460.07 368.33 430.41 398.03 1656.84 4 Goa 24.57 25.00 10.97 7.51 68.055 Gujarat 501.81 429.83 348.23 164.12 1443.996 Haryana 69.56 101.70 75.72 75.10 322.087 Himachal Pradesh 282.00 287.71 246.49 226.12 1042.328 Jammu & Kashmir 135.00 0.00 0.00 209.86 344.869 Jharkhand 260.14 150.95 341.00 80.71 832.8010 Karnataka 252.15 205.61 348.64 281.60 1088.0011 Kerala 490.99 257.16 144.64 40.98 933.7712 Madhya Pradesh 715.03 379.69 697.65 709.21 2501.5813 Maharashtra 459.20 262.38 373.51 0.00 1095.0914 Orissa 122.46 229.54 133.03 149.79 634.8215 Punjab 74.13 76.49 0.00 0.00 150.6216 Rajasthan 149.98 103.76 161.15 184.30 599.1917 Tamil Nadu 0.00 143.99 245.48 141.00 530.4718 Uttar Pradesh 181.92 213.72 140.00 99.93 635.5719 Uttarakhand 317.20 134.57 229.95 342.62 1024.3420 West Bengal 262.36 173.12 50.86 71.09 557.43

Total 4876.00 3799.26 4060.14 3181.97 15917.37

NE & Sikkim 1 Assam 360.02 202.65 246.64 0 809.312 Arunachal Pradesh 314.40 325.67 261.15 0 901.223 Manipur 198.42 168.21 328.58 117.51 812.724 Meghalaya 165.62 121.64 161.26 144.64 593.16 5 Mizoram 300.63 349.79 253.17 213.11 1116.706 Nagaland 274.05 183.51 346.97 0 804.537 Sikkim 286.43 259.33 288.61 0 834.378 Tripura 138.15 188.81 60.59 323.88 711.43

Total 2037.72 1799.61 1946.97 799.14 6583.44

Union Territories 1 A & N Islands 12.00 26.22 30.36 5.49 74.072 Chandigarh 0.00 60.26 34.46 0 94.723 D&N Haveli 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.004 Daman & Diu 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 8.005 Lakshadweep 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.006 New Delhi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.007 Pondicherry 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00

Total 20.00 86.48 64.82 5.49 176.79

Grand Total 6933.72 5685.35 6071.930 3986.60 22677.60

Annexure‐III referred to in reply to part (d) of the Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 56 due for answer on 26‐11‐2012 regarding ‘Conservation of Forests’ Funds released under National Afforestation Programme for Conservation, development and promotion of forests in the States including Tamil Nadu

(Rs. in crore)

S. No. State 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12

2012‐13 (till 1/10/12)

1 Andhra Pradesh 11.03 10.48 15.15 2.71 2 Bihar 7.74 5.48 6.92 0.00

3 Chhattisgarh 25.12 33.25 24.74 6.17 4 Goa 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 5 Gujarat 24.44 29.43 27.00 10.51 6 Haryana 20.57 24.20 12.28 3.84 7 Himachal Pradesh 3.59 3.45 3.50 1.72 8 Jammu & Kashmir 9.81 3.99 6.89 0.00 9 Jharkhand 21.06 8.73 10.42 4.69 10 Karnataka 11.95 8.12 12.92 4.81 11 Kerala 4.02 7.54 2.04 5.64 12 Madhya Pradesh 22.53 30.39 21.43 0.00 13 Maharashtra 20.53 16.17 28.51 9.12 14 Orissa 8.82 11.20 7.30 3.10 15 Punjab 3.01 0 0.46 0.76 16 Rajasthan 10.67 4.94 6.23 1.88 17 Tamil Nadu 7.98 7.21 3.08 1.70 18 Uttar Pradesh 30.20 21.33 26.23 6.81 19 Uttarakhand 7.00 4.47 6.61 0.00 20 West Bengal 3.11 4.12 6.29 1.87 Total (Other States) 253.17 234.50 228.00 65.33

21 Arunachal Pradesh 2.37 5.52 0.00 1.66 22 Assam 14.48 6.08 7.95 1.47 23 Manipur 5.93 10.37 12.74 2.60 24 Meghalaya 2.21 8.79 4.31 1.94 25 Mizoram 17.27 12.21 13.44 3.22 26 Nagaland 10.67 10.11 11.69 4.46 27 Sikkim 8.86 11.99 11.18 0.00 28 Tripura 3.20 10.43 13.69 2.46 Total (NE States) 65.00 75.49 75.00 17.81

G. Total 318.17 309.99 303.00 83.14

POLLUTION IN METROPOLITAN CITIES 26th November, 2012 LSQ *59 SHRIMATI J. HELEN DAVIDSON

DR. BALIRAM Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has conducted any study to assess the impact of growing air

pollution/smog in metropolitan and urban areas including Delhi; (b) if so, the reasons for the persistent smog/pollution in these areas; (c) the number of persons suffering from respiratory disorders due to air pollution/smog; (d) whether the Government has formulated any scheme to check the situation; and (e) if so, the details thereof including the action taken by the Government to improve the air quality?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e): A Statement is laid on the Table of the House.

STATEMENT IN REPLY TO PARTS (a) TO (e) OF LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. 59 FOR ANSWER ON 26.11.2012 REGARDING POLLUTION IN METROPOLITAN CITIES BY SHRIMATI J. HELEN DAVIDSON AND DR. BALIRAM.

(a) to (e) Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), with the State Pollution Control Boards, is monitoring ambient air quality at 537 locations covering 222 cities/ towns including 53 metropolitan cities in the country. The persistence of smoggy conditions in certain areas could be attributed to meteorological factors. CPCB has not carried out any assessment of the impact of smog in metropolitan and urban areas including Delhi. Health effects such as manifestation of respiratory aliments could be associated with air pollution. No statistical data is available regarding the number of persons suffering from respiratory disorders caused due to pollution. The steps taken by the Government to control environmental pollution include formulation of a comprehensive policy for abatement of pollution, supply of improved auto-fuel, tightening of vehicular and industrial emission norms, mandatory environmental clearance for specified industries, management of municipal, hazardous & bio-medical wastes, promotion of cleaner technologies, strengthening the network of air quality monitoring stations, preparation and implementation of action plans for major cities & critically polluted areas, increasing public awareness etc. DISPOSAL OF WASTES IN URBAN AREAS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 465 SHRI AHIR VIKRAMBHAI ARJANBHAI MAADAM


(a) whether urban areas are posing big challenge of waste disposal in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof, State‐wise and the reasons therefor; (c) the steps being taken to avoid such situation in future; and (d) the details of views of each State, NGOs, public and industry in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d): Increasing urbanization, growth in population, change in life style and consumption pattern are contributing to increasing municipal solid waste generation. As per an estimate of the Ministry of Urban Development published in 2000, approximately 1,00,000 metric tonnes per day of municipal solid waste is generated in the country. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has estimated 0.573 million metric tones per day of waste generation in urban and rural areas of the country during 2008. The municipal solid waste generation in urban areas, State‐wise, is given in the annexure. Municipal authorities are required to put in place adequate systems for proper municipal solid waste management. Ministry of Environment and Forests has notified Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 and the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 to ensure proper collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of solid waste. These Rules have been notified after due consultations with various stakeholders. Ministry of Urban Development is implementing the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and the projects eligible for JNNURM assistance include environmental improvement and solid waste management.

Annexure

ESTIMATED STATE‐WISE MSW GENERATION DURING THE YEAR 2008 FOR URBAN INDIA (Source: Central Pollution Control Board) S. No. States/UTs Municipal solid waste (MSW) Generation (Tonnes Per Day)

1. Andaman & Nicobar 146.5312. Andhra Pradesh 25353.6133. Arunachal Pradesh 265.714. Assam 3794.17

5. Bihar 9408.2946. Chandigarh 1389.1597. Chattisgarh 4858.4818. Dadra Nagar Haveli 59.7049. Daman & Diu 73.9810. Delhi 22526.26511. Goa 937.52112. Gujarat 24588.12413. Haryana 7530.14114. Himachal Pradesh 642.27515. Jammu & Kashmir 3016.14116. Jharkhand 7060.14817. Karnataka 22845.62918. Kerala 9983.80119. Lakshadweep 36.55920. Madhya Pradesh 19347.07121. Maharashtra 55052.20722. Manipur 698.44323. Meghalaya 525.24324. Mizoram 616.10425. Nagaland 390.03826. Orissa 6178.86627. Pudducherry 994.04828. Punjab 10504.62729. Rajasthan 15687.0530. Sikkim 65.17331. Tamil Nadu 37167.16132. Tripura 620.23433. Uttarakhand 2626.5734. Uttar Pradesh 40281.44335. West Bengal 27445.574

PROMOTION OF BIO‐DIVERSITY 26th November, 2012 LSQ 477 SHRI JAYANT CHAUDHARY


(a) whether the funds have been allocated for the promotion of biodiversity and the specific areas

for which these funds have been implemented over the last two years; (b) if so, whether the Government proposes to receive external funding to meet the Aichi bio‐

diversity targets; and (c) if so, the details thereof ?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) This Ministry is implementing a scheme on Biodiversity Conservation with the objective to ensure coordination among various agencies dealing with issues related to conservation of biodiversity and to review, monitor and evolve adequate policy instruments for the same. In the last two years, the expenditure incurred under the scheme was Rs. 6.72 crores for 2010‐11 and Rs. 11.79 crores for 2011‐12, for National Biodiversity Authority, Biosafety and organization of meetings and workshops.

(b) & (c) Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) has accessed US$242,000 from Global Environment Facility (GEF) through a direct access project titled “Strengthening the enabling environment for biodiversity conservation and management in India”,. The objective of the project is to provide assistance in meeting national reporting requirements to CBD by India which includes development of national targets in line with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, revision of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and preparation of fifth National Report for Biodiversity. BAN ON CLEARANCES OF MINING OF BAUXITE 26th November, 2012 LSQ 482 SHRI MURARI LAL SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state: (a) whether the Government has received any request to stop granting clearances for mining of

Bauxite in Mainpat area of Chhattisgarh; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether any action has been taken by the Government in this regard; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) if not, the reasons therefor?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN):

(a) to (e) The Ministry of Environment & Forests has received a letter from Sh. Murari Lal Singh, Hon’ble M.P., Lok Sabha addressed to the Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Environment & Forests, stating inter‐alia non‐compliances of environmental clearance conditions by Bharat Aluminium Company (BALCO) and requesting to stop mining of Bauxite by BALCO. Further, it has been requested that the environmental clearance to the new lease may not be granted.

The matter is under examined. BAN ON MINING ACTIVITIES NEAR NATIONAL PARK 26th November, 2012 LSQ 484 SHRI BADRUDDIN AJMAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has noticed the illegal mining in the No-Development Zone (NDZ) near Kaziranga National Park;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor; and; (c) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN)

(a) to (c) Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has carried out a survey relating to operation of man‐made activities in No‐Development Zone (NDZ) near Kaziranga National Park. As per the survey, no mining activity has been observed in the NDZ. AFFORESTATION PROJECTS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 489 SHRIMATI PRIYA DUTT Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether a number of voluntary agencies have disappeared after receiving payments for afforestation projects in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof during the last three years and the current year; (c) whether high level committees have been constituted to look into the irregularities; (d) if so, whether the reports of these committees have been presented; (e) if so, the details thereof; and (f) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The financial assistance to the Voluntary Organizations (VOs) were provided under the Grants‐in‐Aid for Greening India scheme on the basis of recommendation of the State Governments which inter‐alia envisaged the tree planting by people’s participation. The funds were released in three installments. A total of 564 projects were sanctioned to equal number of VOs during 2003‐08. While 57 organizations availed all the three installments, 245 availed two installments and remaining 262 VOs came only for first installment. Due to non performance of the VOs, this scheme has been discontinued since 2008‐09 and no new projects have been sanctioned to VOs during the last three years.

(c) to (f) At the instance of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, high level committees have been constituted in the States to effect investigation, recovery of funds and legal action against defaulting agencies. Action Taken Reports from the States have not so far been received. CREATION OF NEW FOREST AREA 26th November, 2012 LSQ 490 SHRI N. CHALUVARAYA SWAMY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the forest area lost due to globalisation, industrialisation, urbanisation and exploitation of coal mines during the last three years and the current year, State‐wise; and

(b) the new forest area created through plantation during the last three years, and the current year, State‐wise?


(a) and (b) Year‐wise details of approvals accorded under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of forest land for non‐forest purposes, during the last three years including current year, along with the State‐wise details of the area of forest and public land covered under afforestation activities during last three years is annexed.

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN ANSWER TO PARTS (A) AND (B) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO.490 ON ‘CREATION OF NEW FOREST AREA’ ASKED BY SHRI N. CHALUVARAYA SWAMY DUE FOR REPLY ON 26.11.2012

Category-wise details of the approvals (State-I and Stage-II) accorded under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 from the date it came into force on 25.10.1980

S.No. STATE / UT 2010 2011 2012 (as on 21.11.12)

Number of Cases Approved

Total Land Diverted (Ha.)





1. Andaman & Nicobar Island

0 0 2 0.225 5 16.985

2. Andhra Pradesh 27 5670.628 40 2049.181 29 720.7033. Arunachal Pradesh 44 1431.229 17 863.394 12 2189.3214. Assam 5 308.251 7 6.539 2 179.155. Bihar 31 773.503 36 3109.511 25 337.126. Chandigarh 2 0.103 3 0.212 1 0.17. Chhattishgarh 31 4656.446 21 3579.31 13 2646.2968. Dadar & Nagar Haveli 5 1.99 9 2.877 4 1.5529. Daman & Diu 0 0 1 3.95 0 010. Delhi 1 0.94 2 15.8 0 011. Goa 8 239.937 2 92.5 0 012. Gujarat 134 1342.765 72 1807.349 68 1011.45313. Haryana 299 395.329 289 171.433 199 453.80414. Himachal Pradesh 147 1277.382 162 670.763 82 1069.27815. Jammu & Kashmir 0 0 0 0 0 016. Jharkhand 58 4920.823 44 3244.043 36 3642.81817. Karnataka 25 1301.575 29 233.944 21 228.59818. Kerala 4 1.184 4 13.646 7 4.90619. Lakshdeep 0 0 0 0 0 020. Madhya Pradesh 55 2698.017 52 1774.647 35 3572.77221. Maharashtra 65 2443.368 63 1343.119 46 1444.32322. Manipur 4 691.79 1 223.5 1 135.8223. Meghalaya 0 0 3 7.441 2 230.60524. Mizoram 0 0 2 253.383 1 384.03125. Nagaland 0 0 0 0 0 026. Orissa 20 2677.042 28 3821.749 17 1802.58627. Pondichery 0 0 0 0 0 028. Punjab 244 335.095 296 194.952 105 570.3229. Rajasthan 32 2640.317 37 1128.996 10 105.43730. Sikkim 11 385.229 25 103.592 0 031. Tamil Nadu 18 433.194 13 25.067 10 42.22332. Tripura 15 19.846 13 36.209 2 37.29833. Uttar Pradesh 107 429.003 191 328.519 49 911.66634. Uttaranchal 435 1789.323 236 1989.021 74 326.07135. West Bengal 10 190.654 12 67.165 4 19.918

TOTAL 1837 37054.96 1712 27162.03 860 22085.16

State/UT‐wise details of the area (in hectares) of plantations raised on public and forest land during last three years

Sl. No. State/ UT Area of forest and public land covered under afforestation activities in (ha.)

2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13* Total

1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 Andhra Pradesh 3,83,927 4,07,700 385400 11,77,027 2 Arunachal Pradesh 6,150 10,817 10800 27,767 3 Assam 3,509 43 5650 9,202 4 Bihar 15,378 22,796 22700 60,874 5 Chhattisgarh 58,458 50,412 50400 1,59,270 6 Goa 488 465 450 1,403 7 Gujarat 1,27,149 1,40,513 140500 4,08,162 8 Haryana 79,883 64,401 57000 2,01,284 9 Himachal Pradesh 24,710 31,938 28900 85,548 10 Jammu and Kashmir 15,453 10,466 7250 33,169 11 Jharkhand 21,914 34,214 46200 1,02,328 12 Karnataka 94,376 66,091 67000 2,27,467 13 Kerala 8,463 3,971 3950 16,384 14 Madhya Pradesh 1,68,678 1,10,702 110700 3,90,080 15 Maharashtra 1,78,498 1,22,880 122900 4,24,278 16 Manipur 10,532 17,997 18000 46,529 17 Meghalaya 654 6,840 6850 14,344 18 Mizoram 7,197 6,240 6250 19,687 19 Nagaland 4,790 1,047 10600 16,437 20 Orissa 2,42,868 1,96,671 173300 6,12,839 21 Punjab 13,711 6,965 6950 27,626 22 Rajasthan 96,356 71,301 71,300 2,38,957 23 Sikkim 2,734 6,739 7,450 16,923 24 Tamil Nadu 95,499 75,492 50,700 2,21,691 25 Tripura 16,650 25,572 27200 69,422 26 Uttarakhand 20,044 23,505 23,000 66,549 27 Uttar Pradesh 84,516 83,233 81,700 2,49,449 28 West Bengal 14,286 753 16,000 31,039 29 A & N Islands 1,377 1,583 1,600 4,560 30 Chandigarh 272 316 300 888 31 D & N Haveli 200 269 250 719 32 Daman & Diu 10 14 15 39 33 Delhi 1,496 1,239 1,150 3,885 34 Lakshadweep 27 22 20 69 35 Puducherry 33 82 35 150 Total 18,00,286 16,03,289 15,62,470 49,66,045

*: Target fixed for the year 2012‐13.

CLEARANCE TO SEA LINK PROJECT 26th November, 2012 LSQ 491 SHRI MAROTRAO SAINUJI KOWASE


(a) whether the Government has received any proposal from the Government of Maharashtra to provide environmental clearance to Bandra‐Varsova sea link project;

(b) if so, the details thereof as on date;

(c) the present status of the proposal; (d) the time by which the proposal is likely to be cleared; and (e) if not, the reasons therefor and the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) The Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) has submitted a proposal for clearance under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) to develop sea link from Versova to Bandra in the suburbs of Mumbai. The proposed sea link is about 900 m away from the Coast, 9.890 kms long with 4+ 4 lanes on both the sides and traffic dispersal points at Juhu Koliwada and Jogger’s Park. The project proposal is under consideration of the Ministry. CHECK ON RECEDING COASTLINE 26th November, 2012 LSQ 497 SHRIMATI ANNU TANDON

Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state: (a) whether the Government has evolved guidelines on making high erosion coastal stretches into 'No‐Go' areas in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government proposes to consider special measure to counter the rapidly receding coastline in the country; and (d) if so, the details thereof and the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d): The Costal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011, prohibits Port and harbour projects, except strategic and defence related, in high eroding stretches of the coast. Development of Port and Harbor projects are permitted only in Medium and Low eroding stretches with shore protection measures viz beach nourishment, sand by‐ passing and regular monitoring of shore lines etc. POLLUTION IN LAKHA BANJARA POND 26th November, 2012 LSQ 500 SHRI BHOOPENDRA SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the water of historical Lakha Banjara pond in Madhya Pradesh is getting polluted; (b) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor; (c) the steps taken by the Government in this regard; and (d) the funds sanctioned/allocated and expenditure incurred thereon during the last three years?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Sagar Lake in Madhya Pradesh (also known as Lakha Banjara Pond) was reported to be polluted due to various point and non point sources in its catchment. There being no sewerage system, waste water from adjacent residential and commercial areas, enter the water body through open drains. (c) & (d) Based on the proposal (Detailed Project Report) submitted by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, Ministry has sanctioned the project ‘Abatement of Pollution and Environmental Improvement of Sagar Lake’ in March, 2007 under the National Lake Conservation (NLCP), at a cost of Rs.21.33 crores on 70:30 funding pattern. Out of the Government of India share of Rs.14.93 crore, an amount of Rs.4.00 crore has since been released for implementation of the project. Total expenditure on the project during last three years is reported to be Rs. 1.08 crore.

INSTALLATION OF POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT 26th November, 2012 LSQ 502 SHRIMATI KAMLA DEVI PATLE Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the installation of Pollution Control Equipment is mandatory for all power plants/industries;

(b) if so, the details of authorities responsible for installation of such equipment; (c) whether the Government has issued any guidelines in this regard; (d) if so, the details thereof; (e) the details of power plants/industries which have not complied with the laid down

norms/guidelines, State‐wise including Chhattisgarh; and (f) the action taken by the Government against such units?


(a) & (b) Under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, it is mandatory for the power plants/ industries to install pollution control equipment to comply with the prescribed standards. It is the duty of the owner/ occupier of the power plants/ industries to set up requisite pollution control equipment.

(c) & (d) The Ministry of Environment and Forests has prescribed environmental standards for emission/effluent of Power Plants under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. (e) & (f) The Power Plants which have not complied with the prescribed standards have been issued Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 to ensure compliance. The State-wise list of Power Plants which have not complied with the emission/effluent standards is at Annexure-I. ANNEXURE-I REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (E)&(F) OF LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 502 DUE FOR REPLY ON 26.11.2012 REGARDING INSTALLATION OF POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT RAISED BY SHRIMATI KAMALA DEVI PATLE.

State‐wise list of power plants which have not complied with emission/effluent standards

NATIONAL BIO‐DIVERSITY AUTHORITY 26th November, 2012 LSQ 506 SHRI JOSE K. MANI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the expert Committee on Agro‐Biodiversity of National Bio‐diversity Authority has submitted its report to the Government; and

(b) if so, the details of the recommendations and the action taken by the Government in this regard? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No, Sir. (b) Does not arise. POLLUTING INDUSTRIES 26th November, 2012 LSQ 509 SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether any assessment has been made by the Government to find out the number of polluting industries in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof, industry‐wise;

S. No. State Number of Plants

1 Andhra Pradesh 012 Assam 013 Bihar 014. Jharkhand 035 Gujarat 016 Chhattisgarh 057 Maharashtra 018 Orissa 019 Rajasthan 0110 Uttar Pradesh 0311 West Bengal 02

Total 20

(c) whether any steps have been taken by the Government to check the pollution generated by these units;

(d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) if not, the reasons therefor?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHIRMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) The State Pollution Control Boards have identified the polluting industries. 17 categories of highly polluting industries have been identified. Out of 3172 industries falling under 17 categories of highly polluting industries, 2249 industries have provided requisite pollution control facilities to comply with the prescribed standards, 596 are non‐complying and 327 are closed. The Central Pollution Control Board during the last three years and in the current year has carried out inspections of 918 industries under their Environmental Surveillance Squad (ESS) programme. After the inspections, 292 Directions have been issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and 152 Directions have been issued to the State Boards under Section 18 (1) (b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of pollution) Act, 1981 Acts for securing compliance. CHECK ON EXPANSION OF DESERT 26th November, 2012 LSQ 510 DR. KIRODI LAL MEENA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has received any proposals from the State Governments including Madhya Pradesh to check the expansion of desert in the concerned States;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government has prepared any action plan to check the expansion of deserts in the

country; (d) if so, the details thereof; (e) whether the land permanently degraded due to huge piles of sand gathered by flood included in

the Anti‐Desertification Project; (f) if so, the details of areas to be included in the anti‐desertification project State‐wise; and (g) the amount sanctioned/ released by the Government to the State Governments for this

purpose, State‐wise? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN):

(a) & (b) No, Sir. (c) & (d) The steps taken to check desertification, include, implementation of following programmes in States and UTs; Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP),National Afforestation Programme (NAP),Soil Conservation in the Catchment of River Valley Project and Flood Prone River, National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA),Sustainable Land and Ecosystem Management (SLEM), Fodder and Feed Development Scheme‐ component of Grassland Development including Grass Reserves, Command Area Development and Water Management (CADWM) programme, National Rural Drinking

Water Programme (NRDWP),National Project for Repair, Renovation and Restoration (RRR) of Water Bodies, The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM),Solar Photovoltaic (SPV) Programme etc.

The Department of Land Resources has been developing an area development programme, viz. Desert Development Programme on a project mode on watershed approach with effect from 1.04.1995. The basic objective of the programme is to mitigate the adverse effects of desertification and adverse climatic conditions through rejuvenation of the natural resource base of identified desert areas. Since 1995‐96 to 2006‐07, 15746 projects covering an area of 78.73 lakh hectare have been sanctioned and Rs. 3127.67 crore has been released upto 2011‐12 to implement these projects. The Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development’s Desert Development Programme has since been consolidated along with other area development programmes namely, Drought Prone Areas Programme (DPAP) and Integrated Wastelands Development Programme (IWDP) into a single modified programme called ‘Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP) with effect from 26.02.2009. Due priority to desert areas is being given while selecting the projects under IWMP. The IWMP is being implemented under Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects, 2008. (e), (f) & (g) Does not arise, in view of (a) & (b), above. . Impact of Mining on Environment 26th November, 2012 LSQ 514 SHRI HEMANAND BISWAL

Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state: (a) whether the Government has conducted any survey to ascertain the impact of illegal mining on

Environment, Wildlife and Forests in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) if not, the reasons therefor; and (d) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) While the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) has not conducted any survey to ascertain the impact of illegal mining on environment, wildlife and forests in the country, it has put in place regulatory mechanism for the project proponents dealing with mining projects to obtain the environment, forests and/or wildlife clearance as may be required. The cases of environment clearance for mining projects are dealt with in line with the provisions under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The mining projects involving forests lands are required to obtain approval under the Forests (Conservation) Act, 1980. Similarly, some mining projects may also need approval under the Wildlife Act 1972, as per the requirement. Implementation of stipulated environment clearance conditions is monitored through the Regional Offices of MoEF. In the cases of non‐compliance, the matter is followed up with the concerned project proponent, including issuance of show‐cause notice followed by the directions under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND AFFORESTATION 26th November, 2012 LSQ 517 SHRIMATI JAYSHREEBEN PATEL


(a) whether a large hectares of land has been covered in Gujarat under Environment Protection and Afforestation;

(b) if so, the total funds have been spent on the same by the State Government of Gujarat; (c) whether the Government intends to share the expenditure incurred by Gujarat and other States; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken by the Government towards environmental protection and afforestation?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Yes Sir. As per information provided by the State Government of Gujarat, about 339382.02 ha of land has been covered under afforestation in the State during the last three years, incurring an investment of Rs. 1228.61crores.

(c) to (e) The Ministry of Environment and Forests is implementing National Afforestation Programme (NAP) which is a 100% Centrally Sponsored Scheme for tree plantation and eco‐restoration of degraded forests and adjoining areas of the country through people’s participation. During the last three years through NAP, an amount of Rs 80.87 crores have been released to Gujarat for afforestation works in 17830 hectares. Besides NAP, MoEF also is implementing the National Mission for Green India (GIM) on landscape approach with people’s participation. An amount of Rs.1.34 crores has been released to Gujarat State under GIM for addressing preparatory activities in two identified landscapes during 2011‐12. Apart from NAP, funds for afforestation are also provided to the States including Gujarat under other Centrally Sponsored Schemes like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP), National Bamboo Mission, 13th Finance Commission etc. Funds to Check Poaching Activities 26th November, 2012 LSQ 520 SHRI CHANDRAKANT KHAIRE Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has sought assistance from the World Bank to check poaching in and

around National Parks and Sanctuaries in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether any conditionalities have been laid down by World Bank in extending such assistance

to the Government; (d) if so, the details thereof; (e) whether any roadmap has been drawn on the spending of World Bank assistance; and

(f) if so, the details thereof and the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The Central Government has not sought assistance from the World Bank to check poaching in and around national parks and sanctuaries in the country. However, a project entitled “Strengthening Regional Cooperation for Wildlife Protection in Asia” with the following components has been proposed for credit of US$ 30 Million from World Bank under Third Phase of adaptable Program Lending: (i) Capacity building for wildlife conservation and cooperation for addressing the illegal trans‐boundary wildlife trade (US$20.52 million): This component aims to bring about regional harmonization and collaboration in cross‐border wildlife conservation and management , combating wildlife crime through strengthened legislative and regulatory frameworks, well‐equipped specialized agencies and systems, as well as relevant training and awareness programs for staff across the range of agencies that contribute to the enforcement of wildlife laws and regulations namely the Wildlife Division in the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Wildlife Crime Control Bureau. (ii) Promoting Wildlife Conservation in Asia (US$2.95 million): The objective of this component is to generate and share knowledge as well as technical expertise by promoting research and innovative approaches on emerging challenges in wildlife conservation. (iii) Project coordination and communication (US$5.04 million): Under this component expenditure of US$ 0.76 million is estimated for project management and monitoring. The remaining amount is to be spent on project communications, wherein a multi‐pronged approach will be adopted to communications in order to meet regional and local challenges. (c) & (d) The credit agreement has not been signed with the World Bank and negotiations have not been

held so far. (e) & (f) The yearly disbursement of the World Bank assistant of US$30 million is expected as follows:

Fiscal Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Amount US$ million

0.62 7.16 9.87 7.64 3.50 1.21

MAJOR POLLUTERS OF VARIOUS RIVERS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 534 SHRI RAMESH VISWANATH KATTI SHRI BHUDEO CHOUDHARY SHRI YOGI ADITYA NATH


(a) whether industrialization in large towns are the major cause of pollution in various rivers and lakes including Ganga and Yamuna;

(b) if so, whether the Government has conducted any survey to identify such towns in the country;

(c) if so, the details thereof and the outcome of such survey; (d) the steps taken by the Government to conserve the said rivers/lakes; (e) the details of projects sanctioned for the abatement of pollution during the last three years and

the current year, State‐wise; and (f) the funds released and utilized during the said period under each of such projects and the impact

thereof, State‐wise? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) Discharge of untreated and partially treated industrial and municipal wastewater from towns constitute major source of pollution in rivers and lakes.

CPCB is monitoring water quality of various river stretches in the country including, inter‐alia, River Ganga and Yamuna. Based on the monitoring, 150 polluted stretches have been identified along various rivers in the country. The Govt. of India through a study has identified 62 lakes across the country for conservation.

(d) Conservation of rivers and lakes is an ongoing and collective effort of the Central and State Governments and this Ministry is supplementing the efforts of the State Governments in abatement of pollution in rivers and lakes under National River Conservation Plan (NRCP) and the National Lake Conservation Plan (NLCP) respectively for implementation of projects on a cost sharing basis between the Central and State Governments. The NRCP presently covers 41 rivers in 191 towns spread over 20 States. Various pollution abatement schemes taken up under the Plan, inter‐alia, include interception and diversion of raw sewage, setting up of sewage treatment plants, creation of low cost sanitation facilities, setting up of electric/improved wood crematoria and river front development. Pollution abatement schemes of Rs.8847.22 crore have been sanctioned under the Plan including schemes under National Ganga River Basin Authority. So far, sewage treatment capacity of 4704 mld has been created under the Plan.

Under the NLCP the Ministry has sanctioned projects for conservation of 61 lakes in 14 States with a total cost of Rs.1031.18 crore. Works taken up under the Plan include; core components of interception, diversion and treatment of wastewaters before their entry into the lake, catchment area treatment, shoreline protection, in‐lake treatment such as aeration, de‐weeding, de‐siltation, bio‐remediation etc. Further, the CPCB and respective State Pollution Control Boards monitor industries for compliance with respect to effluents discharge standards and take action for non‐compliance under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. (e) & (f) Details of cost of projects sanctioned, funds released under NRCP and NLCP during the last 3 years and the current year, State‐wise, are at Annexure‐I &II.

Annexure‐I Annexure‐I referred in reply to parts (e) & (f) of Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 534 to be answered on 26th November, 2012 on ‘Major Polluters of Various Rivers’

Cost of projects sanctioned and funds released under National River Conservation Plan including National Ganga River Basin Authority during last three years and current year

(Rs. In crore)

S. No.

State Cost of new projects sanctioned

Funds Released in last three years and current year (Ongoing + new projects)

1 Andhra Pradesh ‐‐ 36.892 Bihar 441.85 35.373 Delhi 20.32 184.674 Haryana 229.70 57.105 Jharkhand ‐‐ ‐‐6 Gujarat 262.13 42.107 Goa ‐‐ ‐‐8 Karnataka 0.969 Kerala ‐‐ ‐‐10 Maharastra 74.29 24.2711 Madhya Pradesh 6.20 0.9012 Nagaland ‐‐ ‐‐13 Orissa ‐‐ 5.0014 Punjab 515.52 138.6415 Rajasthan 149.59 40.0016 Sikkim 151.69 72.0917 Tamilnadu 2.54 3.1018 Uttar Pradesh 1385.95 445.4619 Uttrakhand 135.93 49.8220 West Bengal 690.10 251.21Total 4065.81 1387.68

Annexure‐II

Annexure‐II referred in reply to parts (e) & (f) of Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 534 to be answered on 26th November, 2012 on ‘Major Polluters of Various Rivers’ Details of projects sanctioned and funds released under National Lake Conservation Plan during last three years and current year

(Rs. In crore)

S. No. State Cost of new projects Sanctioned

Funds Released in last three years and current year (Ongoing + new

projects)

1. Karnataka ‐‐ 6.502. Andhra Pradesh 4.30 1.903. Maharashtra ‐‐ 7.024. Rajasthan 25.60 40.055. Uttarakhand ‐‐ 3.006. West Bengal 12.60 11.977. J&K ‐‐ 86.288. Nagaland 25.83 5.819. Uttar Pradesh 124.32 64.43 Total 192.65 226.96

ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR WIDTH OF ROADS 26th November, 2012

LSQ 537 SHRI GAJANAN D. BABAR SHI ADHALRAO PATIL SHIVAJI SHRI DHARMENDRA YADAV SHRI ANANDRAO ADSUL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether Union Government had issued guidelines fixing the minimum width of roads between

specific high rises in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether various State Governments have requested the Union Government to review their

guidelines in this regard; and (d) if so, the response of the Union Government to the requests of the State Governments?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) This Ministry had issued Office Memorandum (OM) dated February 7, 2012 regarding Guidelines for High Rise Buildings based on the recommendation of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC). As per these guidelines, interalia the height of the proposed building should be linked with the width of the road on which the proposed building is to be located and also the distance of Fire Station from the building. (c) & (d) Ministry has received representations from the State Governments/other stake holders in this regard. Ministry is of the view that the OM would facilitate proper planning in addressing the disaster management issues including emergency and evacuation requirements for high rise buildings. CLEARANCE TO PROJECT 26th November, 2012 LSQ 546 SHRI SURESH KALMADI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state: (a) the details and latest status of Nira Deogarh Irrigation Project (NDIP) in Maharashtra; (b) the reasons for delay in according clearance to Stage‐II of the said project; and (c) the time by which it is likely to be accorded to Phase‐II of the said period?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) The Central Government received three proposals seeking its prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of forest land in Pune, Satara and Solapur districts for activities pertaining to Nira Deoghar Irrigation Project.

Approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 55.51 hectares of forest land in district Pune for Nira Deoghar Major Irrigation Project has already been accorded by the Central Government on 31.03.1999. In‐principle approvals under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 1.98 hectares of forest land in Satara district for construction of Nira Deoghar Right Bank Canal (Bholi Right Bank Open Cut Canal) and for diversion of 50.08 hectares of forest land in Pune district for Gunjavani Irrigation Project have also been accorded. Compliance to some of the conditions stipulated in these in‐principle approvals is awaited from the State Government of Maharashtra. PROTECTION OF WILD ANIMALS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 555 SHRI BASUDEB ACHARIA SHRI P. KARUNAKARAN DR. MAHENDRASINH P. CHAUHAN PROF. (DR.) RANJAN PRASAD YADAV DR. M. THAMBIDURAI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether as per the recent census of wild animals, a sharp decline has been registered in the number of Tigers, Lions, Leopards, Elephants and other animals in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof during the last three years and the current year, sanctuary‐wise; (c) whether the Government has made any effort to tackle illegal trade to check the declining

numbers of Leopards in the country; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The nationwide census of most wild animal species in the country is undertaken periodically but not on annual basis. As per the last census of the major animal species like tigers, lions and elephants in the country, no decline in the population of these animals has been reported. In fact, their population has increased. As per the latest information available in the Ministry, the estimated population of tiger increased from 1411 in 2006 to 1706 in 2010. The population of lion increased from 359+ 10 in 2005 to 411 in 2010. The population of elephant increased from 26413+10 in 2005 to 27694 in 2007‐08. The information in respect of leopard is not available in the Ministry as no nationwide census of leopard population has been undertaken in the country. The sanctuary‐wise population of these species has not been compiled in the Ministry. (c), (d) & (e) Steps taken by the Government to prevent illegal trade in wild animals including leopards include:

I. Legal protection has been provided to many species of wild animals against hunting and commercial exploitation under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. According to the conservation and threat status, wild animals are placed in different schedules of the Act. Leopard is included in Schedule I of the Act, which affords it the highest degree of protection under the Act.

II. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 has been amended and made more stringent. The punishments in cases of offences have been enhanced. The Act also provides for forfeiture of any equipment, vehicle or weapon that is used for committing wildlife offence.

III. Protected Areas, viz., National Parks, Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves have been created as per the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 covering important habitats all over the country to provide better protection to wildlife, including threatened species and their habitat.

IV. Financial and technical assistance is extended to the State Governments under various Centrally Sponsored Schemes, viz., ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats', ‘Project Tiger’ and ‘Project Elephant’ for providing better protection and conservation to wildlife.

V. The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau has been set up with a network of five regional offices, three sub‐regional offices and five border units for control of poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and its products.

VI. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been empowered under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to apprehend and prosecute wildlife offenders.

VII. The State Governments have been requested to strengthen the field formations and intensify patrolling in and around the Protected Areas.

VIII. Strict vigil is maintained through effective communication system.

MISSION CLEAN GANGA 26th November, 2012 LSQ 560 SHRI PRADEEP MAJHI SHRI BHARTRUHARI MAHTAB SHRI ANAND PRAKASH PARANJPE SHRI KISHNBHAI V. PATEL SHRI E. G. SUGAVANAM Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the increasing urbanization and industrialization is the main cause of pollution in Ganga river and also threatening its ecological and hydrological viability;

(b) if so, the details thereof: (c) whether the Government has commissioned a consortium to prepare a Comprehensive River Basin

Management Plan for the river Ganga; (d) if so, the details thereof along with the formulated plans of the authority to clean the river under

Mission Clean Ganga; (e) the extent by which the authorities have obtained their objectives; (f) the funds sanctioned by the Government in this regard; and (g) the details of the World Bank assistance approved for implementation of National Ganga River

Basin Authority programme under the said mission?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN)

(a) & (b) Yes Sir, the increasing urbanization and industrilisation is the main cause of pollution in Ganga river and also threatening its ecological and hydrological viability. The water quality of river Ganga is affected due to discharge of industrial and domestic wastes from various towns. As per the Central Pollution Control Board, nearly 2900 million litres of sewage is generated every day in the towns along

Ganga River. There are 764 Grossly Polluting Industries (GPI) in 5 States located on the main stem of Ganga and its tributaries Kali and Ramganga. (c) & (d) Government has commissioned a consortium of seven IITs for preparation of the Ganga River Basin Management Plan (GRBMP) through signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) between the Ministry and the IITs consortium on 06.07.2010. The plan would take into consideration the requirements of water and energy in the Ganga Basin, to accommodate increase population, urbanization, industrialization and agriculture while ensuring the fundamental aspects of conservation of river system. The IITs consortium has so far submitted 23 reports under the GRBMP. (e) to (g) The National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) in its first meeting has resolved that under Mission Clean Ganga it will be ensured that by 2020 no untreated municipal sewage and industrial effluents flow into Ganga and the investments required to create the necessary treatment and sewage infrastructure will be shared suitably between the Central and the State Governments. Projects amounting to Rs. 2598 crore have already been sanctioned under the NGRBA programme. An expenditure of Rs. 469.30 crore has been made so far towards sanctioned projects in the States under the Authority. Besides, a project with World Bank assistance for abatement of pollution in river Ganga at an estimated cost of Rs. 7000 crore has been approved under the NGRBA for implementation in the States. POLLUTION CAUSED BY STEEL INDUSTRIES 26th November, 2012 LSQ 561 SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA SHRI BAIJAYANT JAY PANDA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state: (a) whether according to a report by Centre for Science and Environment, the iron and steel industries are failing to meet environmental norms despite securing certification for high level of environmental and safety management systems; (b) if so, the details thereof and the action taken thereon; (c) whether the Government is considering to increase the environmental norms and standards for these industries; and (d) if so, the details thereof with the reviews on environmental clearance being given to these industries? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN)

(a) & (b) As reported by the Central Pollution Control Board, two of the twelve major integrated Iron and Steel Plants were found to be non‐compliant. Directions under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 were issued to Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro and Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were issued to Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for Indian Iron & Steel Company (IISCO) Steel Plant, Burnpur. In addition, Directions were also issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to seven sponge iron plants and under Section 18(1) (b) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to the State Boards of Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Odisha, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh to ensure compliance from sixteen sponge iron plants.

(c)&(d) The standards for iron and steel sector have been harmonized in 2012 with development / revision of standards for Blast Furnace and Basic Oxygen Furnace.

ANNEXURE-I REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (a) AND (b) OF LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 561 DUE FOR REPLY ON 26.11.2012 REGARDING POLLUTION CAUSED BY STEEL INDUSTRIES RAISED BY SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA AND SHRI BAIJAYANT JAY PANDA.

Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) of Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974 S. No. Name of the

Industry Non compliance Status

1. M/s. Tayo Rolls Ltd., Kharsawa, CG

APCD not operating Non compliance to effluent

standards Heavy fugitive emissions

Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were issued to JSPCB on November 11, 2009. JSPCB issued Directions under Section 31 of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on February 24, 2010. Industry was given three months time to upgrade the pollution control systems. MS, JSPCB wrote to regional officer, Jamshedpur to inspect the industry and provide current status of compliance. Letter received from JSPCB enclosing minutes of show cause notice hearing dated 6.12.10 due to non compliance of directions issued under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The unit was directed to comply with directions within 2 months, submit BG of Rs. 10 lacs. Follow up letter written to SPCB. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

2. M/s. Foundry Forge plant, Heavy Engineering co‐operation, Ranchi, CG

APCD not operating Non compliance to effluent

standards

Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were issued to JSPCB on Feb 09, 2010. Follow up letter written to SPCB. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

3. M/s. Usha Martin Ltd., Tatisiwai, Ranchi, CG

PM emissions from CPP, SMS, WHRB exceeding prescribed standards

Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were issued to JSPCB on July 16, 2010. The industry was again inspected jointly by ZO (K) and JSPCB in pursuant of complaint received from Shri G.S. Rajukhedi, MP Dhar. Violation are detected Directions under section 18 (1)(b) of Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974 initiated. Follow up letter written to SPCB. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

4. M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd., Siltara, Raipur, CG

Heavy fugitive emissions

Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) Of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981issued on November 16, 2009. To verify compliance status ZO(B) inspected the industry on feb 26, 2011. Industry is found to be partially complying with the directions issued by CPCB. Follow up letter written to SPCB for current compliance status. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

5. M/s. Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd., Siltara, Raigarh, CG


Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 issued on December 15, 2009. To verify compliance status ZO (B) inspected the industry on Feb 26, 2011. Major conditions in the Direction issued are found to be complying. The industry was again inspected under ESS program on March 16, 2012. Minor violations were observed. Letter was sent to SPCB communicating the same vide letter dated 12.7.12.

S. No. Name of the Industry

Non compliance Status

6. M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Raigarh, CG

PM emissions from AFBC, BF, PP, SMS, WHRB exceeding prescribed standards


Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) Of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. To verify compliance status ZO(B) inspected the industry on Feb 1, 2011. Major conditions in the Direction issued are found to be complying.

7. M/s. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd., Raipur, CG

PM emissions from kiln 3,4 & WHRB exceeding prescribed standards


Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) Of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on December 23, 2009. To verify compliance status ZO (B) inspected the industry on feb 26, 2011. Major conditions in the Direction issued are found to be complying. Unit was again inspected on January 6, 2012 under ESS program and was found to be non compliant. Modified directions under section 18 (1) (b) of The Air Act, 1981 have been issued. Follow up letter to SPCB to give current compliance status.

8. M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Baktanagar, Raniganj, WB

Heavy fugitive emissions Hazardous waste disposal facility

not adequate

Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) Of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on June 29, 2010. Follow up letter written to SPCB. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

9. M/s. Rishabh Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Bankura, WB

PM emissions from kiln exceeding prescribed standards

Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981were issued to WBPCB on December 23, 2009. Follow up letter written to SPCB. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

10. M/s. Amiya Steel Pvt Ltd, WB

Heavy fugitive emissions No authorization under the

Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules 1989

Emissions from emergency cap

Industry was inspected on June 15, 2011. Direction under Section 18 (1) (b) of the Air Act, 1981 issued to SPCB vide letter dated Sep 13, 2011. Follow up letter written to SPCB. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

11. M/s. Lloyd steel industries ltd., Wardha, Maharashtra

PM emissions from acid recovery plant exceeding prescribed standards

It was inspected during 24 June 2011. PM emissions were found to be exceeding the stipulated limits. Direction under Section 18 (1) (b) of the Air Act, 1981 is issued to SPCB. Follow up letter written to SPCB. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

12. M/s Tata metaliks Ltd., Sindhudurg, Maharashtra

Non compliance to effluent standards ESS inspection was held on 29.12.10. Direction under Section 18(1)(b) of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981and The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 issued dated 4 April 2011. Follow up letter written to SPCB. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

13. M/s. Viraj Profiles Ltd., Tarapur, Maharashtra

Heavy fugitive emissions APCD & ETP non operational

ESS inspection was held on 11.1.11. Direction under Section 18(1) (b) of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981and The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 issued dated 4 April 2011. Follow up letter written to SPCB. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

14.

M/s. Essar Steel Ltd. (formerly Hy‐ grade pellets ltd.), AP

PM emissions from indurating furnace exceeding prescribed standards

It was inspected during 27‐28 April 2011. Stack emissions and AAQ were found to be exceeding the stipulated limits. Direction under Section 18 (1) (b) is issued. Follow up letter written to SPCB. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

15. M/s. Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd., Chandil, Singbhum, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand

Emissions from emergency cap Non compliance to effluent

standards

Industry was inspected on 26 November, 2008. Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were issued to JSPCB on April 24, 2009. JSPCB issued Directions under Section 31 of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on July 16.2009. The industry was again inspected jointly by ZO (K) and JSPCB in pursuant of complaint received from Shri G.S. Rajukhedi, MP Dhar. Violation detected, Directions under section 18 (1) (b) of Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974 initiated. Industry again inspected by ZO (K) and JSPCB

S. No. Name of the Industry

Non compliance Status

jointly on 8 June 2011 and is found to be complying. 16. M/s. NTPC SAIL

Power Ltd., Rourkela, Orrisa

Consent expired PM emissions from boiler

exceeding prescribed standards

Directions under Section 18 (1) (b) of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were issued to OSPCB on September 16, 2010. Follow up letter written to SPCB. No response received. Follow up letter again to SPCB to give current compliance status.

ANNEXURE-II REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (a) AND (b) OF LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 561 DUE FOR REPLY ON 26.11.2012 REGARDING POLLUTION CAUSED BY STEEL INDUSTRIES RAISED BY SHRI JAGDISH SHARMA AND SHRI BAIJAYANT JAY PANDA.

Directions under Section 5 of E (P) Act, 1986

S. no. Name of the Industry Non compliance Present status

1. M/s Prakash Industries Ltd., Hathneora, Champa

Particulate Matter emissions from both the operational kilns and FBB exceeding the prescribed standards

Emergency cap of Kiln was open

High fugitive emissions

Directions under Section 5 of E (P) Act 1986 issued on 1.07.10. Reinspected by ZO (Bhopal) and found non compliant. Directions for closure issued on 22.03.11. Unit continued to operate. DM champa written to discontinue electricity and water supply. Petition filed by industry and stay order obtained. CPCB, CECB and MoEF made respondents. Matter pending in court for final hearing.

2. M/s. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd., Hasaud, Raipur

Particulate Matter emissions from AFBC – I & II were higher than the prescribed limits


Direction under Section 5 of E(P)Act, 1986 issued on 13.04.10 to submit BG. Reinspection by ZO (B) on 25.2.11. Found non compliant. Modified Direction issued on 20.04.11 to submit fresh BG of Rs. 10 Lacs and to ensure comply by 30.06.11. The previous BG forfeited. The Industry submitted progress report on 17.6.11. Reinspection by ZO (B). Found mostly compliant. Unit asked to submit stack and fugitive emission data fortnightly. The same is complied, data within stipulated limits. Industry freshly inspected under ESS. Minor violations found. Industry wriiten to take corrective measures by October 2012.

3. M/s. Bhushan Steel Ltd., Narendrapur, Dhenkanal

PM emissions exceeding prescribed standards for rotary kiln

Non compliance to effluent standards

Directions under section 5 of E(P) Act, issued on 04.05.11 to submit time bound action plan and BG of Rs. 10 Lacs. BG submitted. Reinspection by ZO(K) on 20‐21.09.11. Major violations found. BG forfeited. Directed on 10.01.12 to close down Kiln 8. Industry submitted reply that non compliance was due to technical problems. Reinspection by ZO during 20‐21.03.12, industry found compliant.

4. MSP Steel & Power Ltd., Jamgaon, Raigarh

PM emission for ferro alloys stack exceeding the prescribed standards

RSPM in Ambient air exceeding the standard


Notice under Sec 5 of E (P) Act issued on 19.1.12 to submit BG of Rs. 10 Lacs & ensure compliance. BG submitted

5. M/s. Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd., Siltara industrial area, Raipur

PM emissions from stack of Kiln & WHRB exceeding the prescribed standards


Notice under Section 5 of E(P) Act issued on 27.07.12 to ensure compliance & submit BG. Confirmed Direction U/S 5 of E(P) Act issued on 25.09.12. BG submitted.

6. Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Ltd., Urla industrial area, Raipur

Stack emissions from AFBC & WHRB exceeding the prescribed standards


Notice under Section 5 of E(P) Act issued on 12.7.12. Industry informed compliance. ZO requested for reinspection.

7. Sree Metaliks, Noida pada, CG

Stack emissions exceeding the prescribed standards

Notice under Section 5 of E (P)Act issued. Industry informed compliance. ZO requested for reinspection.

CONSERVATION OF LAKES 26th November, 2012 LSQ 573 SHRI PRATAPRAO GANPATRAO JADHAO SHRI RATAN SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has taken any steps for conservation and development of lakes in

the country; (b) if so, the details thereof, State‐wise and lake‐wise; and (c) the details of amount spent by the Government during the last three years, State‐wise and lake‐wise?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The Ministry is implementing the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of National Lake Conservation Plan (NLCP) for conservation and management of polluted and degraded lakes in urban and semi‐urban areas of the country on 70:30 cost sharing basis between the Central Government and the respective State Governments. Under the scheme, the Ministry has so far sanctioned 44 projects for conservation of 61 lakes in 14 States at a total cost of Rs.1031.18 crore. (c) State‐wise & Lake‐wise details of funds released during the last three years under NLCP are as follows:‐ S. No. State Lake Funds released (in Rs. crore)

2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12

1. Andhra Pradesh Banjara lake, Hyderabad ‐ ‐ 1.90 2. J&K Dal Lake, SriNagar 27.85 17.43 41.00 3. Karnataka Kote Tavarekere lake, Chikmagalur ‐ 1.50 ‐ Amanikere lake, Tumkur ‐ 5.00 ‐ 4. Maharashtra 9 lakes in Thane 0.27 ‐ ‐ Mahalaxmi lake, Vadagaon ‐ 0.29 ‐ Rankala lake, Kolhapur 1.00 2.46 ‐ Varhala Devi lake, Bhiwandi 1.00 ‐ ‐ Siddheshwar Lake, Solapur 1.50 ‐ 0.50 5. Nagaland Twin lakes in Mokokchung 5.81 ‐ ‐ 6. Rajasthan Anasagar lake, Ajmer ‐ ‐ 3.00 Pushkar sarovar, Ajmer 4.64 5.00 6.00 Fatehsagar Lake, Udaipur ‐ ‐ 5.00 Pichola Lake System, Udaipur ‐ ‐ ‐ Nakki lake, Mount Abu ‐ 1.28 ‐ 7. Uttarakhand Nainital Lake, Nainital ‐ 3.00 ‐ 8. Uttar Pradesh Mansi Ganga lake, Govardhan 2.73 4.00 1.50 Ramgarh Tal, Gorakhpur ‐ 8.70 17.50 9. West Bengal Adi Ganga, South 24 Parganas ‐ ‐ 3.50 Saheb bundh, Purulia ‐ 1.30 ‐ Total 44.80 49.96 79.90

FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SANCTUARIES 26th November, 2012 LSQ 581 SHRI ADAGOORU VISHWANATH SHRIMATI JYOTI DHURVE


(f) whether the Government has received proposals from various State Governments for development of parks/sanctuaries to international standards including Game Parks in the country;

(g) if so, the details thereof including the financial assistance sought for Ranganathittu Wildlife Sanctuary during the last three years and the current financial year, State‐wise;

(h) the time by which the proposals are likely to be cleared; (i) whether several new animals would be brought in this Park; (j) if so, the details thereof; (k) the specific funds provided to Ranganathittu Wildlife Sanctuary during each of the last three

years and the current year; and (l) the steps taken by the Government to protect the flora and fauna of the country including

said Sanctuary? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) The Ministry has received proposals from various State Governments seeking financial assistance for management of protected areas and protection of wildlife and its habitats under the Centrally Sponsored Schemes of “Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats” and “Project Tiger”. (b) &(c) The details of financial assistance sought by various State Governments under the Centrally Sponsored Schemes of “Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats” and “Project Tiger” for management of protected areas and protection of wildlife and its habitats, including in respect of Ranganathittu Wildlife Sanctuary, during the last three years and the current financial year is given in the Annexure. Financial assistance has already been released as per the availability of funds during the current financial year in respect of most of the State Governments; however, no timeline can be specified in respect of the remaining proposals. (d) & (e) There is no proposal to bring any new animals to the park. (f) The details of financial assistance released to the State Government of Karnataka under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’ for Ranganathittu Wildlife Sanctuary during the last three years and the current financial year are as given below:

Year Financial assistance released to the State Government of Karnataka for Ranganathittu Wildlife Sanctuary (Rs. in lakhs)

2009‐10 39.065 2010‐11 12.052011‐12 8.75 2012‐13 4.89

(g) The steps taken by the Government to protect the wild flora and fauna of the country, including in the Ranganathittu Wildlife Sanctuary, include:

(i) Legal protection has been provided to many species of wild animals against hunting and commercial exploitation under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. According to the conservation and threat status, wild animals are placed in different schedules of the Act. Leopard is included in Schedule I of the Act, which affords it the highest degree of protection under the Act.

(ii) The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 has been amended and made more stringent. The punishments in cases of offences have been enhanced. The Act also provides for forfeiture of any equipment, vehicle or weapon that is used for committing wildlife offence.

(iii) Protected Areas, viz., National Parks, Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves have been created as per the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

covering important habitats all over the country to provide better protection to wildlife, including threatened species and their habitat.

(iv) Financial and technical assistance is extended to the State Governments under various Centrally Sponsored Schemes, viz., ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats', ‘Project Tiger’ and ‘Project Elephant’ for providing better protection and conservation to wildlife.

(v) The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau has been set up with a network of five regional offices, three sub‐regional offices and five border units for control of poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and its products.

(vi) The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been empowered under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to apprehend and prosecute wildlife offenders.

(vii) The State Governments have been requested to strengthen the field formations and intensify patrolling in and around the Protected Areas.

(viii) Strict vigil is maintained through effective communication system.

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (b) &(c) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 581 REGARDING ‘FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SANCTUARIES’ BY SHRI ADAGOORU VISHWANATH AND SHRIMATI JYOTI DHURVE DUE FOR REPLY ON 26.11.2012. Details of financial assistance sought by the State Governments under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme “Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats” during last three years and current financial year.

(RS IN LAKHS)

Sl. No. Name of the State/UTs 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13

1. A& N Islands 279.24 235.78 207.73 277.401 2. Andhra Pradesh 234.00 156.00 185.00 361.00 3. Arunachal Pradesh 754.277 671.813 393.814 543.625 4. Assam 369.815 609.255 720.17 889.87 5. Bihar 80.102 106.186 160.06681 7. Chhattisgarh 3651.995 7047.94 993.57 2919.26 8. Chandigarh 0 125.15 22.52 00 9. Dadra & Nagar Haveli 56.295 0 0 00 10. Goa 143.3938 100.53037 222.2289 221.00

11. Gujarat 1443.70 3649.93 5856.36 3761.394

12. Haryana 156.60 315.77 59.00 64.00 13. Himachal Pradesh 356.74 618.461 332.558 405.504 14. Jammu & Kashmir 4696.68 7163.50 1328.328 550.415 15. Jharkhand 311.02 246.6543 165.45 143.858 16. Karnataka 1744.256 1814.637 571.356 492.91 17. Kerala 728.95 784.88 814.46 989.64 18. Madhya Pradesh 3716.38 3802.75 7764.64 9003.86 19. Maharashtra 414.17 599.46 512.42 623.434 20. Manipur 534.94 207.50 158.64 55.64 21. Meghalaya 140.747 123.06 131.15 22. Mizoram 591.886 2332.22 401.168 334.595 23. Nagaland 122.86 159.49 230.324 89.074 24. Odisha 1287.38 857.20 722.81 845.91225 25. Punjab 326.01 54.25 0 95.55 26. Rajasthan 1958.995 1026.17 459.24 1157.02 27. Sikkim 862.00 580.65 212.78 295.11 28. Tamil Nadu 1779.385 1994.228 893.442 651.400 29. Tripura 107.20 1077.20 0 30. Uttar Pradesh 902.77 1212.64 921.13 1226.294 31. Uttarakhand 1188.60 785.73 485.63 513.722 32. West Bengal 591.984 572.19 1237.149 833.055 33 Daman & Diu 29.05 0 0 00 TOTAL 29561.421

39031.225 26003.07 27504.61

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (b) &(c) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 581 REGARDING ‘FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SANCTUARIES’ BY SHRI ADAGOORU VISHWANATH AND SHRIMATI JYOTI DHURVE DUE FOR REPLY ON 26.11.2012. Details of financial assistance sought by the State Governments under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme “Project Tiger” during last three years and current financial year.

(RS IN LAKHS)

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (b) &(c) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 581 REGARDING ‘FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SANCTUARIES’ BY SHRI ADAGOORU VISHWANATH AND SHRIMATI JYOTI DHURVE DUE FOR REPLY ON 26.11.2012. Details of financial assistance sought for Ranganathittu Wildlife Sanctuary under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme “Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats” during last three years and current financial year.

(RS IN LAKHS)

BAN ON TRIALS OF GM CROPS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 582 SHRI P.LINGAM SHRI GURUDAS DASGUPTA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether a Technical Experts Committee (TEC) appointed by the Supreme Court of India has recommended a ban on all field trials of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the reaction of the Government thereto; and (d) the steps taken/being taken by the Government in this regard ?

Sl. No. Name of the State/UTs 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13

2. Andhra Pradesh 138.254 155.645 154.406 404.8904 3. Arunachal Pradesh 64.71 226.702 236.7857 420.0872 4. Assam 194.29 1509.4720 947.5088 123.608 5. Bihar 8.8560 158.355 172.193 247.792 7. Chhattisgarh 1383.502 1813.725 702.726 425.5284 15. Jharkhand 117.1386 130.616 156.3465 82.6878 16. Karnataka 657.062 1660.05 1830.65 708.4337 17. Kerala 311.42 323.46 429.77 411.868 18. Madhya Pradesh 2582.4762 3962.73 5352.71 5357.2446 19. Maharashtra 373.517 2789.06 3622.342 513.941 22. Mizoram 2171.00 187.69 225.288 192.9848 24. Odisha 221.74 815.29 555.0761 142.956 26. Rajasthan 10694.17 2368.925 67.21 2943.543 28. Tamil Nadu 258.3540 520.786 605.964 323.4878 30. Uttar Pradesh 431.517 407.46 446.1258 234.508 31. Uttarakhand 246.205 339.945 399.76 89.435 32. West Bengal 298.785 502.48 157.66 404.916 TOTAL 20152.997 17872.391 16062.522 13027.91

Sl. No. Name of Sanctuary 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13

1. Ranganathittu Wildlife Sanctuary

98.21 119.64 17.70 28.00

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) A Technical Expert Committee (TEC) was constituted vide Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated 10.5.2012 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260/2005 in the matter of Aruna Rodrigues & Others vs Union of India & Others to address issues related to genetically modified (GM) crop field trials. The TEC has submitted its interim report on 9.10.2012. TEC has recommended (i) 10‐year moratorium on field trials of Bt food crops used for human consumption on the basis of review of Bt cotton and Bt brinjal biosafety data; (ii) Ban on field trials of herbicide tolerant (HT) crops till an independent committee of experts has examined the potential impact of the HT technology including livelihood issues; and (iii) Ban on GM crop field trials in the centers of origin and centers of diversity. The other key recommendations of the TEC include need assessment, strengthening and restructuring of the current regulatory system, reassessment of the biosafety data on Bt cotton and other data that is generated by all field trials; ensuring there is no conflict of interest; a ban on outsourcing or subcontracting field trials; designation of sites for field trials, and requirement of preliminary bio‐safety tests etc; as a prerequisite to all GM crop field trials. (c) & (d) The Union of India is of the view that the interim report is scientifically flawed; does not address the terms of reference (TOR) and has not only exceeded the mandate assigned to TEC but are also outside the scope of the Writ Petition itself and therefore cannot be accepted. A Joint Affidavit in this regard has been filed by the Agriculture Ministry on behalf of Union of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 9.11.2012 has directed the TEC to consider the objections filed by all respondents, interested parties and the Union of India and submit its report within six weeks. The matter is subjudice.

Further steps will be taken after the final decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

WESTERN GHATS ECOLOGY AUTHORITY 26

th November, 2012

LSQ 588 SHRI ANTO ANTONY SHRI BAIJAYANT JAY PANDA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has received any proposal to set up Western Ghats & Ecology Authority (WGEA) in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof, and the response of the Government thereto; (c) whether the Government has received complaints from any State Government, including

Kerala, regarding the setting up of WGEA; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) (b) (c) (d) & (e) The Ministry of Environment & Forests had constituted the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) under the Chairmanship of Prof Madhav Gadgil on 4th March 2010 to, inter alia, (i) demarcate ecologically sensitive areas in Western Ghats, (ii) recommend measures for management of these ecologically sensitive areas, (iii) recommend measures for preservation, conservation and rejuvenation of this environmentally sensitive and ecologically significant region and (iv) recommend modalities for the establishment Western Ghats Ecology Authority under the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Panel has since submitted its report to the Ministry and the Ministry has initiated further consultations on the same. The Ministry of Environment and Forests initiated a formal consultative process with the concerned State Governments and Central Ministries by seeking their comments/views on the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report. In response to that detailed comments have been received from State Governments of Kerala, Goa and Maharashtra but not from the three other states concerned. All states who replied objected strongly to the Madhav Gadgil Report on the ground that it will affect development in the states. The Ministry has since constituted a High Level Working Group under the Chairmanship of Dr. K Kasturirangan, Member, Planning Commission vide office order dated 17.8.2012 to inter alia examine the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report in a holistic and multidisciplinary fashion keeping in view the comments received from the concerned State Governments/Central Ministries/Stakeholders and other related important aspects such as preservation of precious biodiversity, needs and aspirations of the local and indigenous people, sustainable development and environmental integrity of the region, climate change and constitutional implications of centre‐state relations and to recommend further course of action to the Government with respect to the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report. NATIONAL AFFORESTATION AND ECO‐DEVELOPMENT BOARD 26th November, 2012 LSQ 589 SHRI JAGADANAND SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether National Afforestation and Eco‐development Board has been set up in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Board was contributed by making huge investment in the Environment and

Forest area in the States during the last three years and the current year; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the outcomes of eco‐development programmes in the country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) and (b) Yes, Sir. The National Afforestation and Eco‐ Development Board (NAEB) has been set up in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for promoting afforestation, tree planting, ecological restoration and eco‐development activities in the country. (c), (d) & (e) NAEB is implementing an afforestation scheme namely National Afforestation Programme (NAP) since 2000‐01 under which a total of 18.88 lakh hectares has been approved so far for treatment with a total investment of Rs.2933.50 crores. The funds released during the last three years and the current year under the scheme is given below:

S. No. Year Amount Released (Rs. in crores)

1 2009‐10 318.17 2 2010‐11 309.99 3 2011‐12 303.004 2012‐13

(till 31.10.2012) 83.14

CHECK THE RISING LEVEL OF MERCURY

26th November, 2012 LSQ 593 SHRI JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the level of mercury is rising dangerously in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government has any policy to check the rising mercury levels in the country; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken by the Government to check the rising level of mercury in the country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), with State Pollution Control Boards, is monitoring ambient air quality in the country. Mercury is not included in the notified ambient air quality standards.

CPCB has prepared draft Guidelines on “Environmentally Sound Management of Mercury Waste in Health Care Facilities” which specify mercury spill collection procedure, storage and disposal options as well as alternatives to mercury based medical instruments. These guidelines have been widely circulated and also placed on CPCB’s website for general public. Central Pollution Control Board has asked all State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs)/ Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) to take necessary action for safe management of mercury spillages/losses in healthcare facilities, collection of spilled mercury, its storage and sending it back to the manufacturers. They have been asked to ensure that the spilled mercury does not become part of bio‐medical or other solid wastes generated from the healthcare facilities. Further, mercury bearing waste containing equal to or greater than 50 mg/kg of mercury is required to be disposed of as per the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. CPCB has also organized awareness workshops for various stakeholders on bio‐medical waste management in general and specifically on mercury spill collection, handling and disposal by Health Care Facilities (HCFs). The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare have issued guidelines in March 2010 to reduce environmental pollution due to mercury in Central Government Hospitals and Health Centres. Under these Guidelines, all Central Government Hospitals and health centers have been asked to gradually phase out mercury containing equipments (thermometer, BP Instruments etc.) and replace them with good quality non‐mercury equipments. The guidelines also require that a mercury phase‐out plan be developed and procurement of mercury‐free equipment may be started. The hospitals have also been given detailed guidelines regarding proper management of mercury waste and mercury spills. Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) has directed hospitals in Delhi having 50 beds or more to phase out mercury based equipments. DPCC has directed all Health Care Facilities (HCFs) to dispose of mercury waste only through agencies notified by DPCC. ELEPHANT CONSERVATION PARKS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 603 DR. M. THAMBIDURAI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government proposes to establish Elephant Conservation Parks in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof, Location‐wise and State‐wise including Tamil Nadu;

(c) the funds allocated or proposed to be allocated to the said parks; and (d) the time by which these parks are likely to be established?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN): (a) No, Sir. (b) to (d) Does not arise in view of the reply to part (a) of the question. GUIDELINES FOR TOURIST ACTIVITIES 26th November, 2012 LSQ 613 SHRI GURUDAS DASGUPTA SHRI MANICKA TAGORE SHRI P. LINGAM SHRI A. SAI PRATAP Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has formulated any fresh guidelines on tourist activities in core

areas of tiger reserve forests in the country as per the directives of Supreme Court; (b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) the impact of the guidelines on tourist activities in such areas?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Yes Sir. A set of comprehensive guidelines, under section 38-O (1)(c) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 for Project Tiger and Tourism in tiger reserves, interalia, including regulated tourism in core and buffer areas, keeping in mind the ecological concerns relating to tiger and its habitat, has been framed and notified by the National Tiger Conservation Authority on 15th October, 2012, which is available in the public domain at www.projecttiger.nic.in. (c) In the core areas of tiger reserves, non-consumptive tourist visitation has been allowed upto 20% of the area or present area under tourism, whichever is less, to minimize adverse impact, if any, on tiger conservation.

CLEARANCES TO POWER PROJECTS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 623 SHRI DHARMENDRA YADAV: SHRI GAJANAN D. BABAR: SHRI ANANDRAO ADSUL: SHRI ADHALRAO PATIL SHIVAJI:


(a) whether the Group of Ministers (GoM) had recommended environmental and forest

clearances to Power Projects in the country with some riders;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the names of the projects to whom the clearances were recommended;

(c) whether his Ministry has imposed terms and conditions for granting clearances in the country;

(d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) Group of Ministers (GoM) to consider the environmental and developmental issues relating to coal mining and other development projects did not recommend environment and forest clearance to Power Projects. However, the said GoM in its seventh meeting held on 30th May 2012 recommended that forest clearance be accorded to Mahan and Chhatrasal coal blocks on the conditions stipulated by an Expert Committee constituted under Chairmanship of the Addl. Director General of Forests (Forest Conservation) in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), except the condition relating to amount to be spent on CSR activities. On CSR activities, GoM deliberated and recommended that expenditure on CSR activities should meet the entire cost of rehabilitation of the project affected families. The MoEF vide letter dated 30.10.2012 accorded stage-I approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 967. 65 hectares of forest land in favour of M/s. Mahan Coal Limited for mining of coal in Mahan Coal block located in Singrauli Coalfield in Singrauli district of Madhya Pradesh, subject to fulfillment of the general conditions, standard conditions applicable to mining projects and the additional conditions stipulated by the GoM. Similarly, as recommended by the GoM, stage-I approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 965.40 hectares of forest land located in Chhatrasal coal block in favour of M/s. Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project subject to fulfillment of the similar conditions has also been approved. ENCROACHMENTS ON NATIONAL PARKS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 625 SHRI HARISH CHAUDHARY SHRI MANSUKH BHAI D. VASAVA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(m) whether the reports regarding encroachments of National Parks in the country have come to the notice of the Government;

(n) if so, the details thereof for the last three years and the current year; (o) the agencies or persons found involved in the said illegal occupations; and (p) the steps taken/being taken by the Government to get the said illegally occupied National

Parks vacated? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a),(b), (c) & (d) Yes, Sir. There have been reports regarding encroachments of National Parks in the country from time to time. However, the details of such cases are generally not compiled at the level of Central Government. Management of Protected Areas is primarily the responsibility of the concerned State/UT Governments. Encroachments in Protected Areas are prohibited under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and under the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court issued from time to time. The Central Government has also

issued advisories to the State/UT Governments for eviction of the encroachments from the forest lands. Moreover, under the Centrally Sponsored Schemes ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’, ‘Project Tiger’ and ‘Project Elephant’, the Government of India provides technical and financial assistance to the State Governments for undertaking various activities in Protected Areas including those aimed at the prevention of encroachments. PROTECTION OF TIGERS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 628 SHRI SANJAY DINA PATIL DR. SANJEEV GANESH NAIK SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR SHRI ARJUN MEGHWAL SHRI SHIVARAMA GOUDA SHRI C. RAJENDRAN Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the National Tiger Conservative Authority has failed in its mission; (b) if so, the reasons therefor; (c) the steps taken/being taken to increase the number of Tigers in the country along with

the existing number of Tigers in the country during the last three years and the current year, State‐wise; and

(d) the steps taken by the Government for the safety of Tigers in the country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No Sir. Due to concerted efforts, monitoring and milestone initiatives of the National Tiger Conservation Authority, the country level tiger population, estimated once in every four years using the refined methodology, has shown an increasing trend with a population estimate of 1706, lower and upper limits being 1520 and 1909 respectively in the recent all India estimation (2010), as compared to the last country level estimation of 2006, with an estimate of 1411, lower and upper limits being 1165 and 1657 respectively. (b) Question does not arise. (c) & (d) The details of tiger population in the country for the years 2006 and 2010 are at Annexure-I. The milestone initiatives taken by the Government of India for protection and conservation of tigers are at Annexure-II.

Annexure‐I

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (c) & (d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 628 ON PROTECTION OF TIGERS DUE FOR REPLY ON 26.11.2012.

Details of tiger population for the years 2006 and 2010

State Tiger Population

2006 2010 Increase/Decrease/ Stable

Estimate (Number)

Statistical Lower Limit

Statistical Upper Limit

Estimate(Number)



Shivalik‐Gangetic Plain Landscape Complex

Uttarakhand 178 161 195 227 199 256 IncreaseUttar Pradesh 109 91 127 118 113 124 Stable Bihar 10 7 13 8 (‐)*** (‐)*** (‐)*** Stable Shivalik‐Gangetic landscape

297 259 335 353

320 388 Stable

Central Indian Landscape Complex and Eastern Ghats Landscape Complex

Andhra Pradesh 95 84 107 72 65 79 Decrease Chhattisgarh 26 23 28 26 24 27 Stable Madhya Pradesh 300 236 364 257 213 301 Stable Maharashtra 103 76 131 169 155 183 Increase Odisha 45 37 53 32 20 44 Stable Rajasthan 32 30 35 36 35 37 StableJharkhand Not

assessed 10 6 14 Could not

be compared since it was not assessed in 2006.

Central Indian landscape

601 486 718 601 518 685 Stable

Western Ghats Landscape Complex

Karnataka 290 241 339 300 280 320 Stable

Kerala 46 39 53 71 67 75 Increase Tamil Nadu 76 56 95 163 153 173 Increase Western Ghats landscape

402 336 487 534 500 568 Increase

North Eastern Hills and Brahmaputra Flood Plains

Assam 70 60 80 143 113 173 Increase

Arunachal Pradesh 14

12 18 Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed Could not be compared since it was not assessed in 2010.

Mizoram 6 4 8 5 (‐)*** (‐)*** (‐)*** Stable Northern West Bengal

10 8 12 Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed Could not be compared since it was not assessed in 2010.

North East Hills, and Brahmaputra landscape

100

84 118 148

118 178 Increase

Sundarbans Not assessed

Not assessed

Not assessed 70

64 90 Could not be compared since it was not assessed in 2006.

TOTAL 1411 1165 1657 1706 1520 1909

*** Statistical lower / upper limits could not be ascertained owing to small size of the population.

Annexure‐II

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (c) & (d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 628 ON PROTECTION OF TIGERS DUE FOR REPLY ON 26.11.2012. Milestone initiatives taken by the Government of India for protection and conservation of tigers Legal steps 1. Amendment of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 making enabling provisions for constituting the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Tiger and Other Endangered Species Crime Control Bureau. 2. Enhancement of punishment for offence in relation to the core area of a tiger reserve or where the offence relate to hunting in the tiger reserves or altering the boundaries of tiger reserves, etc. Administrative steps 3. Strengthening of antipoaching activities, including special strategy for monsoon patrolling, by providing funding support to tiger reserve States, as proposed by them, for deployment of antipoaching squads involving ex-army personnel or home guards, apart from workforce comprising of local people, in addition to strengthening of communication and wireless facilities. 4. Constitution of the National Tiger Conservation Authority with effect from the 4th September, 2006, for strengthening tiger conservation by, inter alia, ensuring normative standards in tiger reserve management, preparation of reserve specific tiger conservation plan, laying down annual audit report before Parliament, constituting State level Steering Committees under the Chairmanship of Chief Ministers and establishment of Tiger Conservation Foundation. 5. Constitution of a multidisciplinary Tiger and Other Endangered Species Crime Control Bureau (Wildlife Crime Control Bureau) with effect from the 6th June, 2007 to effectively control illegal trade in wildlife. 6. The in‐principle approval has been accorded by the National Tiger Conservation Authority for creation of five new tiger reserves, and the sites are:, Pilibhit (Uttar Pradesh), Ratapani (Madhya Pradesh), Sunabeda (Odisha), Mukundara Hills (including Darrah, Jawahar Sagar and Chambal Wildlife Sanctuaries) (Rajasthan) and Satyamangalam (Tamil Nadu). Final approval has been accorded to Kudremukh (Karnataka) for declaring as a tiger reserve. The State Governments have been advised to send proposals for declaring the following areas as tiger reserves: (i) Bor (Maharashtra), (ii) Suhelwa (Uttar Pradesh), (iii) Nagzira‐Navegaon (Maharashtra), (iv) Guru Ghasidas National Park (Chhattisgarh), (v) Mhadei Sanctuary (Goa) and (vi) Srivilliputhur Grizzled Giant Squirrel / Megamalai Wildlife Sanctuaries / Varushanadu Valley (Tamil Nadu). 7. The revised Project Tiger guidelines have been issued to State Governments for strengthening tiger conservation, which apart from ongoing activities, inter alia, include financial support to States for enhanced village relocation or rehabilitation package for people living in core or critical tiger habitats (from Rs. 1 lakh per family to Rs. 10 lakhs per family), rehabilitation or resettlement of communities involved in traditional hunting, mainstreaming livelihood and wildlife concerns in forests outside tiger reserves and fostering corridor conservation through restorative strategy to arrest habitat fragmentation. 8. A scientific methodology for estimating tiger (including co‐predators, prey animals and assessment of habitat status) has been evolved and mainstreamed. The findings of this estimation and assessment are bench marks for future tiger conservation strategy.

9. The 17 tiger States have notified the core/critical tiger habitat (35123.9547 sq. km.), and the buffer/peripheral area (28750.73421 sq.km.) of all the 41 tiger reserves in the country, under section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended in 2006. Financial steps 10. Financial and technical help is provided to the State Governments under various Centrally Sponsored Schemes, such as Project Tiger and Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats for enhancing the capacity and infrastructure of the State Governments for providing effective protection to wild animals. International Cooperation 11. India has a bilateral understanding with Nepal on controlling trans‐boundary illegal trade in wildlife and conservation, apart from a protocol on tiger conservation with China.

12. A protocol has been signed in September, 2011 with Bangladesh for conservation of the Royal Bengal Tiger of the Sunderban.

13. A sub-group on tiger and leopard conservation has been constituted for cooperation with the Russian Federation.

14. A Global Tiger Forum of Tiger Range Countries has been created for addressing international issues related to tiger conservation. 15. During the 14th meeting of the Conference of Parties to CITES, which was held from 3rd to 15th June, 2007 at The Hague, India introduced a resolution along with China, Nepal and the Russian Federation, with direction to Parties with operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale, for restricting such captive populations to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers. The resolution was adopted as a decision with minor amendments. Further, India made an intervention appealing to China to phase out tiger farming and eliminate stockpiles of Asian big cats body parts and derivatives. The importance of continuing the ban on trade of body parts of tigers was emphasized. 16. Based on India’s strong intervention during the 62nd meeting of the Standing Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) at Geneva from 23-27 July, 2012, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Secretariat has issued a notification No. 2012/054 dated the 3rd September, 2012 to Parties to fully implement Decision 14.69 and report to the Secretariat by 25 September, 2012 (Progress made on restricting captive breeding operations of tigers etc.). 17. As a part of active management to rebuild Sariska and Panna Tiger Reserves where tigers have become locally extinct, reintroduction of tigers and tigresses have been done. 18. Special advisories issued for in-situ build up of prey base and tiger population through active management in tiger reserves having low population status of tiger and its prey. Creation of Special Tiger Protection Force (STPF) 19. The policy initiatives announced by the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech of the 29th February, 2008, inter alia, contains action points relating to tiger protection. Based on the one time grant of Rs. 50.00 crore provided to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) for raising, arming and deploying a Special Tiger Protection Force (STPF), the proposal for the said force has been approved by the competent authority for 13 tiger reserves. The States of Karnataka and Maharashtra have already created and deployed the STPF.

20. In collaboration with TRAFFIC‐INDIA, an online tiger crime data base has been launched, and Generic Guidelines for preparation of reserve specific Security Plan has been evolved. Recent initiatives 21. Implementing a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with tiger States, linked to fund flows for effective implementation of tiger conservation initiatives. 22. Rapid assessment of tiger reserves done. 23. Special crack teams sent to tiger reserves affected by left wing extremism and low population status of tiger and its prey. 24. Chief Ministers of States having tiger reserves affected by left wing extremism and low population status of tiger and its prey addressed for taking special initiatives. 25. Steps taken for modernizing the infrastructure and field protection, besides launching ‘Monitoring system for Tigers’ Intensive Protection and Ecological Status (M-STrIPES)’ for effective field patrolling and monitoring. 26. Steps taken for involvement of Non-Governmental Experts in the ongoing all India tiger estimation. 27. Initiatives taken for improving the field delivery through capacity building of field officials, apart from providing incentives. 28. Action initiated for using Information Technology to strengthen surveillance in tiger reserves. 29. The second round of country level tiger status assessment completed in 2010, with the findings indicating an increase with a tiger population estimate of 1706, lower and upper limits being 1520 and 1909 respectively, as compared to the last country level estimation of 2006, with an estimate of 1411, lower and upper limits being 1165 and 1657, respectively. 30. The second round of independent assessment of Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Tiger Reserves done in 2010-2011 for 39 tiger reserves based on globally used framework. 31. Increase in the allocation for Project Tiger with additional components. 32. Providing special assistance for mitigation of human-tiger conflicts in problematic areas. 33. As an outcome of the fourth Trans-border Consultative Group Meeting held in New Delhi, a joint resolution has been signed with Nepal for biodiversity and tiger conservation.

34. Regional Offices of the National Tiger Conservation Authority sanctioned at Nagpur, Bengaluru and Guwahati. 35. Launching of Phase‐IV tiger reserve level monitoring. CLEANING OF YAMUNA RIVER 26th November, 2012 LSQ 637 SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR ROY SHRI RADHA MOHAN SINGH SHRI RUDRA MADHAB RAY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Yamuna River is still polluted despite spending heavy amount on the cleaning of the river;

(b) if so, the details thereof along with the reaction of the Government thereto; (c) whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the State Governments of Haryana, Uttar

Pradesh and Delhi to specify the exact amount spent so far under Phase I & II of Yamuna Action Plan;

(d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken by the Government to keep check on proper utilization of funds?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) As per the river water quality monitoring carried out by Central Pollution Control Board from time to time, the water quality in the stretch of the river Yamuna from Hathnikund to Palla is found to be within the prescribed limits in terms of Bio‐chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). However, the stretch of the river in the vicinity of Delhi (downstream of Wazirabad barrage to upstream of Okhla barrage) and in parts of Uttar Pradesh does not meet the standards in terms of BOD. The water quality of Yamuna has not shown the desired improvement owing to a large gap between the demand and availability of sewage treatment capacity and lack of fresh water in the river. Conservation of rivers is an ongoing and collective effort of the Central and State Governments. This Ministry is supplementing the efforts of the State Governments in addressing the problem of pollution of river Yamuna by providing financial assistance to UP, Delhi and Haryana under Yamuna Action Plan (YAP) in a phased manner since 1993. The works taken up under YAP relate to sewerage/interception and diversion of drains, sewage treatment plants (STPs), low cost sanitation/community toilet complexes, electric/improved wood crematoria, etc. Under Phase‐I and II of YAP, a total of 296 schemes, including 40 sewage treatment plants, have been completed in 21 towns of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi and expenditure of Rs. 1438.34 crore (including State share) has been incurred till end of June, 2012. Sewage treatment capacity of 902.25 million litres per day (mld) has been created under these two phases of YAP. Further, the YAP Phase ‐ III project for Delhi has been approved by the Ministry in December, 2011 at an estimated cost of Rs 1656 crore. Besides this, two projects have also been sanctioned by the Ministry in July, 2012 at an estimated cost of Rs. 217.87 crore for taking up works for pollution abatement of river Yamuna in towns of Sonepat and Panipat in Haryana. In addition, State Governments, apart from their own budgetary allocations, are also accessing financial assistance for creation of sewerage infrastructure, including

setting up of sewage treatment plants, in various towns under other Central sector schemes like JNNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission) and UIDSSMT (Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns) of Ministry of Urban Development. (c) & (d) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘And Quiet Flows the Maily Yamuna’ WP(C) 725/1994 in its order dated 10.10.2012 directed Secretaries of Ministry of Urban Development and Ministry of Irrigation and Power, Chief Secretaries of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, Vice‐Chairman of Delhi Development Authority, Commissioners of the respective Corporations and the Chief Executive Officer of Delhi Jal Board to file affidavits indicating details of the amount spent project wise on preventing and controlling pollution in river Yamuna under various programmes. (e) Funds for implementation of schemes under Yamuna Action Plan are released by this Ministry in a periodic manner to the concerned State implementing agencies based on progress of work and on receipt of Utilization Certificates as well as Physical and Financial Progress Reports from the States.

CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT 26th November, 2012 LSQ 646 SHRI KAPIL MUNI KARWARIYA SHRI RAM SUNDER DAS Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development has been established to promote sustainable livelihood for people living in hilly and extended Himalayan areas of the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the total grants released/likely to be released to the said Centre by the Government during

the last three years and current year; and (d) the main features of the achievements made by the Centre till date?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) Yes, Sir. (b) International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), with its headquarters at Kathmandu, Nepal, was set up in 1983. It is an intergovernmental but independent organization with objective of promoting the development of an economically and environmentally sound mountain ecosystem in the extended Himalayan region (Hindu Kush Himalaya), and to improve the living standards of its mountain communities. ICIMOD is an independent ‘Mountain Learning and Knowledge Centre’ serving the eight countries of the Hindu Kush –Himalayas; Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Mayanmar, Nepal and Pakistan (Regional Member Countries)‐ and the global mountain community. ICIMOD aims to assist mountain people to understand ongoing environmental changes, adapt to them, and make the most of new opportunities. Three key strategic areas – water, environmental services, and livelihoods – have been identified through intensive consultations with the member countries, and the stakeholders. The strategic area of work of ICIMOD are: (i) integrated water and hazard management, (ii) environmental change and ecosystem services, and (iii) sustainable livelihoods and poverty reduction. (c) Grants in the form of annual membership contribution are released to ICIMOD on calendar year basis. The amount of grants released against the last 3 years contribution is as follows:

Calendar year for which grants released Amount of Grants released

2009 Rs. 60,49,900/‐2010 Rs. 71,70,000/‐2011 Rs. 89,31,441/‐2012 Rs. 1.59 crore (Sanction issued, money yet to be

transferred)

In addition to the above, one time grant of USD 1 million (Rs. 4.5 crore approximately) was also approved for sanction to ICIMOD Foundation in addition to usual annual contribution, out of which an amount of Rs. 2.25 crore and Rs. 1.07 crores were sanctioned on 30th January, 2012 and 30th March, 2012 respectively. It has been further proposed to sanction/ release the balance amount of Rs. 1.18 crore to ICIMOD Foundation in the current financial year.

(a) ICIMOD’s main achievements in India have been in the following realms:

1. Linking natural reasource management to local livelihoods. 2. Integrated Landscape Management for conservation of natural resources. 3. Kailash Sacred Transboundary Landscape Management. 4. Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment on Climate Change. 5. Improving land‐based livelihood options 6. Sustainable Mountain Tourism 7. Labour Migration 8. Value chain development for enhancing livelihood options to local people. 9. Integrated Water and Hazard Management 10. Environmental change and ecosystem services 11. Sustainable livelihoods and poverty reduction

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 651 SHRI JAYANT CHAUDHARY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) in various States are functioning properly in order

to control the discharge of sewage into the rivers Yamuna; (b) if so, the details thereof, State‐wise; (c) the funds spent on STPs in addition to Yamuna Action Plan for the Yamuna river during the

last three years; and (d) the steps being taken to upgrade the STP capacity to improve the river water quality?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) In the catchment of river Yamuna, so far, 60 Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) have been installed through various schemes, with a treatment capacity of 3024 million liters per day (mld). The installed capacity of sewage treatment in Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh is 2330 mld, 333 mld and 361 mld respectively. Out of these, 5 STPs in Delhi, 14 in Haryana and 10 in Uttar Pradesh do not meet the Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD/COD) norms laid down in the General Standards for discharge of environmental pollutants under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. (c) Conservation of rivers is an ongoing and collective effort of Central and State Governments. Besides the state government’s own budgetary allocation, creation of sewerage infrastructure

including the setting up of STPs, has also been achieved under the Government of India’s schemes like Yamuna Action Plan, Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission and Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns. This Ministry is implementing Yamuna Action Plan (YAP) since 1993 in a phased manner, on a cost sharing basis between Central Government and the respective State Governments. Under YAP‐I and II, with assistance from Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), an expenditure of Rs. 494.73 crore (including state share) has been incurred during the last three years on works relating to sewerage/interception & diversion of drains, low cost sanitation/community toilet complexes, electric/improved wood crematoria and construction of STPs. The expenditure incurred on setting up of STPs during the last three years is Rs. 216.09 crore. (d) The steps taken to improve the water quality of river Yamuna include initiating the YAP Phase ‐ III project for Delhi, at an estimated cost of Rs 1656 crore with assistance from JICA. The YAP‐III involves rehabilitation of damaged trunk sewers, modernization of STPs to equip them with tertiary level treatment facilities and construction of new ones in the identified areas of Delhi. EXPEDITION IN CLEARANCE PROCESS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 657 SHRI S.S. RAMASUBBU Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has given clearance to large number of companies to extract several million tonnes of coal in the country;

(b) if so, the details of clearances made and the projects which are underway; (c) whether the projects which were cleared have started their operations or facing further

hurdles; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken by the Government to strengthen the monitoring process and to expedite

the clearance process in the country? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e): The Ministry of Environment and Forests has granted Environment Clearance to 182 coal mining projects during past five years which are at various stages of operation .The Ministry of Environment and Forests, through its Regional Offices, monitors the implementation and compliance of conditions stipulated in the Environment Clearances. The steps taken to expedite the environment clearance process include continuous monitoring of status of the pending projects, regular and longer duration of Expert Appraisal Committee meetings, streamlining of the procedure for appraisal of projects, etc. KAZIRANGA NATIONAL PARK 26th November, 2012 LSQ 658 SHRI BADRUDDIN AJMAL SHRI SOMEN MITRA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has any proposal regarding operation of pilotless aircraft to

keep a vigil on the Kaziranga National Park in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) the time by which it is likely to be made operational?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a), (b) & (c) Action has been initiated towards supporting the State under the ongoing Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Project Tiger for a pilot initiative to use unmanned, small aircraft for surveillance in the Kaziranga Tiger Reserve. BAN ON SMUGGLING OF TEAKWOOD TREES 26th November, 2012 LSQ 661 SHRI HANSRAJ G. AHIR

Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to State:

(a) whether the Government has noticed the cutting and smuggling of Teakwood trees on large scale the naxal affected in border areas of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government proposes to constitute Special Task Force to check in increasing

incidents of cutting and smuggling of Teakwood trees in the country; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) There is information from the State Government of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh regarding some illicit felling of Teakwood in the inter State border areas of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. Details of forest offence in Sironcha Division of Gadchiroli District of Maharashtra is annexed. (c), (d) & (e) No. The Government does not propose to constitute a Special Task Force to check in increasing incidents of cutting and smuggling of Teakwood trees in the country. However, the steps being taken by the State Governments of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh to control illegal felling are as follows: (i) Establishment of Control room with adequate staff headed by Range Officer at strategic locations on both sides of border Tekada in Maharashtra side and Neelwai in Andhra Pradesh side. (ii) Joint patrolling after consultation at local level. (iii) Exchange of Telephone numbers for co‐ordination of protection between concerned officers of the two states. (iv) Inter State Co‐ordination has been improved by the organising meetings between the Forest Department of two States to take joint action to control this illegal activity. Co‐ordination meeting is being held regularly.

(v) Establishment of control room at Mahadevpur with staff and vehicles on Andhra Pradesh Side and strengthening of control room at Sironcha. (vi) Placement of extra staff at Lenkalagadda adjacent to Nadikuda village and armed staff from Sironcha division to camp at Lenkalagadda along with Andhra Pradesh State. In addition, Government of India is supporting Forest Protection activities in two States by providing funds under Centrally Sponosored Scheme Intensification of Forest Management Scheme, for protection including protection against illicit felling. STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (a) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 661 DUE FOR REPLY ON 26.11.2012 REGARDING BAN ON SMUGGLING OF TEAKWOOD TREES Details of Forest Offences in Sironcha Division, Gadchiroli District of Maharashtra Year Forest offence booked Seized material in Cubic

meter Value in lakhs

No. of offender arrested

Vehicle seized

Type No.

2009 549 750 231.58 135 Bullock cart 32Bullocks 213

2010 916 904 278.38 109 Bullock cart 174 Bullocks 248

COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP OF FORESTS 26th November, 2012 LSQ 690 SHRI GOPINATH MUNDE Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has any proposal to make community ownership of forests available to the people in tribal areas of the country;

(b) if so, the details of forest community ownership given to tribals living in forest areas, of the country;

(c) whether the Government has issued any guidelines to the State Governments related to making forest community ownership available to tribals living in forest areas of the country; and

(d) if so, the details of States which are following guidelines by taking action for making community ownership available in forest areas of the country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 seeks to recognize and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded. One of the forest rights recognized under the Act relates to the right of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community forest resource which they have been traditionally protected and conserving for sustainable use. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs has recently notified the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Amendment Rules, 2012 on 6.9.2012, laying down the process for recognition of this right. The Act does not envisage making community ownership of forest available to the people in tribal areas of the country.

(b) to (d) In view of the reply to part (a) above, Questions do not arise.

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ *127 SHRI D.B. CHANDREGOWDA SHRI NIKHIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the total number of sewage treatment plants to be constructed under the Ganga Action Plan and the actual number of plants established so far;

(b) whether the treatment capacity of the present treatment plants is not sufficient; (c) if so, the details of the total estimated sewage generated and treated per day in Class

I cities and class II towns in each State; (d) the steps taken by the Government to upgrade/construct new treatment plants and

the funds provided for the purpose; and (e) the time by which the treatment plants are likely to be upgraded?


(a) to (e) A statement is laid on the Table of the House.

Statement referred to in reply to parts ( a) to (e) of Lok Sabha Starred Question No.127 to be answered on Monday, the 3rd December, 2012 on “Sewage Treatment Plants” by Shri D.B. Chandregowda and Shri Nikhil Kumar Choudhary. (a) Under Ganga Action Plan a total of 83 sewage treatment plants have been sanctioned since 1985 for undertaking pollution abatement activities in the identified polluted stretches of the river Ganga. Of which 69 sewage treatment plants are completed. (b) & (c) As per present estimates, nearly 2723 million litres of sewage is generated every day from Class I cities and Class II towns along Ganga River. So far, a capacity to treat 1091 million litres per day (mld) has been created in these towns under Ganga Action Plan. The complete state-wise treatment capacity, as indicated below, includes the assets created under both GAP and State-fund schemes.

State Class-I cities Class-II cities Sewage Generation

(MLD) Treatment Capacity

(MLD) Sewage Generation

(MLD) Treatment Capacity

(MLD) Uttarakhand 39.60 18 21.70 6.30 Uttar Pradesh 873.90 460.80 63.50 8.10 Bihar 376.50 165.20 30.70 4.20 West Bengal 1311.30 548.40 6.0 - Total 2601.30 1192.40 122.00 16.40 (d) & (e) The National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) has decided under Mission Clean Ganga that that no untreated municipal sewage and industrial effluents should flow into Ganga by 2020. In order to meet the shortfall in the sewage treatment infrastructure, projects amounting to nearly Rs. 2600 crore have been sanctioned under the NGRBA for development of sewer networks, sewage treatment plants, electric crematoria, community toilets, development of river fronts etc. The newly sanctioned projects in 19 cities will create an additional capacity to treat 470 mld. This will also supplement the sewage treatment capacity being created under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM). The States are also in the

process of preparing new project proposals for taking up pollution abatement works including creation of new STPs and renovation/up gradation of existing STPs in various Ganga basin towns. A World Bank assisted project to be implemented over a period of 8 years at an estimated cost of Rs 7000 crore has been approved for conservation and restoration of water quality of the river Ganga and the States have been asked to send appropriate proposals for creation of sewage treatment capacity under this project also.

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL 3rd December, 2012 LSQ *132 SHRI MANSUKH BHAI D. VASAVA SHRI LAXMAN TUDU Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has established the National Green Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environment protection and conservation of forests in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the total number of cases received in the National Green Tribunal since its inception; (d) the total number of cases cleared and the number of cases pending as on date; and (e) the time by which the pending cases are likely to be cleared?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) A Statement is laid on the Table of the House. Statement referred to in reply to parts (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Lok Sabha Starred Question No.132 for reply on 3.12.2012 raised by Shri Mansukh Bhai D. Vasva and Shri Laxman Tudu regarding National Green Tribunal (a) and (b) The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has been established under NGT Act, 2010 on 18.10.2010 for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. (c) As on 23.11.2012, a total of 569 cases (including appeals, applications, M.A. and transferred cases) have been filed in the NGT. (d) As on 23.11.2012, a total of 290 cases have been disposed off and 279 cases are pending. (e) All endeavours are made for disposal of a case within the statutory period to be calculated from the date of filing of the case as provided in the NGT Act. The trial and pendency of cases in NGT is a continuous process. PROTECTION TO ENVIRONMENT 3rd December, 2012 LSQ *133 SHRI S.S. RAMASUBBU: SHRI NALIN KUMAR KATEEL:


(a) whether the Western Ghat's Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) has recommended banning of mining and industrial growth in various States to protect the environment and have also suggested several ways and means for promotion of agriculture in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) the action being taken by the Government to implement the

recommendations/suggestions made by the panel? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) (b) & (c) A Statement is laid on the Table of the House. Statement in reply to Parts (a), (b) & (c) of Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 133 for reply on 3.12.2012 regarding Protection of Environment raised by Shri S.S. Ramasubbu and Shri Nalin Kumar Kateel. (a) & (b)The Ministry of Environment & Forests had constituted the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) under the Chairmanship of Prof Madhav Gadgil on 4th March 2010 to, inter alia, (i) demarcate ecologically sensitive areas in Western Ghats, (ii) recommend measures for management of these ecologically sensitive areas, (iii) recommend measures for preservation, conservation and rejuvenation of this environmentally sensitive and ecologically significant region and (iv) recommend modalities for the establishment Western Ghats Ecology Authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Panel has since submitted its report to the Ministry. The WGEEP has recommended broad sectoral guidelines for the different proposed ecosensitive zones in the Western Ghats region spread across Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Goa, Maharashtra, Gujarat as demarcated by the Panel. These Guidelines cover important sectors such as agriculture, land use, mining, industry, tourism, water resources, power, roads and railways.

(c) The Ministry of Environment and Forests initiated a formal consultative process with the concerned State Governments and Central Ministries by seeking their comments/views on the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report. In response to that detailed comments have been received from State Governments of Kerala, Goa and Maharashtra but not from the three other State Governments of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat. All states who replied objected strongly to the WGEEP Report on the ground that it will affect development in the states. Some central Ministries have also provided their detailed comments on the WGEEP report. The Ministry had also uploaded the WGEEP report on its website for seeking comments/views of stakeholders on 23rd May 2012 within a period of 45 days. The time period for which has already expired on 6th July 2012. The Ministry has received large number of comments from stakeholders The Ministry has since constituted a High Level Working Group under the Chairmanship of Dr. K Kasturirangan, Member, Planning Commission vide office order dated 17.8.2012 to inter alia examine the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report in a holistic and multidisciplinary fashion keeping in view the comments received from the concerned State Governments/Central Ministries/Stakeholders and other related important aspects such as preservation of precious biodiversity, needs and aspirations of the local and indigenous people, sustainable development and environmental integrity of the region, climate change and constitutional implications of centre‐state relations and to recommend further course of action to the Government with respect to the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel Report. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOR HIMALAYAN REGION

3rd December, 2012 LSQ *140 DR. P. VENUGOPAL: Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Himalayan Environmental Studies and Conservation Organization has expressed the view that the eco‐system of the Himalayas is in danger due to the developmental activities in the region;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether several voluntary organizations and activists have raised the demand for a viable

environmental policy for the Himalayan region; and (d) if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government thereto?


(a) to (d): A Statement is laid on the Table of the House. Statement referred to in reply to parts (a) to (d) of Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 140 for reply on 3.12.2012 raised by Dr. P. Venugopal regarding Environmental Policy for Himalayan Region. (a) to (d) Ministry of Environment and Forests has been receiving references from some quarters that there is a need to formulate a viable environmental policy for Himalayan region in view of the fact that global warming and climate change is negatively impacting the mountain eco‐system, forests and glaciers. The Ministry is also conscious to this aspect. In this direction, the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment & Development (GBPIHED) was established in 1988 as an autonomous research and development organization to look into the region‐specific environmental & developmental issues and concerns and provide their location specific solutions. In addition, for the developmental projects, environmental impact assessment (EIA) is conducted by the Ministry of Environment & Forests and Environmental Management Plans are prepared to address various environmental concerns. Action Plan for Himalaya (1988) and Governance for Sustaining Himalayan Eco‐systems – Guidelines and Best Practices (2009) are two major documents brought out by GBPIHED dealing with viable environmental policy of the Himalaya. DAMAGE TO CROPS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1381 SHRIMATI KAMLA DEVI PATLE Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the incidents of killing and damage to crops and human lives by wild animals including elephants, bears have been reported from various States of the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof during the last three years and the current year, State‐wise; (c) whether the Government has made any provision for providing compensation for loss of

human lives and crops; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the corrective steps taken/proposed to be taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Reports about incidents of damage to crops and human lives by wild animals like bears, blue bulls, elephants, leopards, monkeys, tigers, wild boars, etc. in various States/Union Territories of the country are received in the Ministry from time to time. However, the State/Union Territory‐wise details of such incidents are not collated in the Ministry. (c) & (d) The Central Government provides financial assistance to the States/ Union Territory Governments under the Centrally Sponsored Schemes of 'Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats', 'Project Tiger' and 'Project Elephant' to, inter alia, make payment of ex‐gratia relief in respect of damage to crops and loss of human lives suffered by the victims of depredations/attacks by wild animals. The Ministry has increased the amount of ex‐gratia relief payable to the victims of predation/depredation by wild animals, as follows: Sl. No. Nature of damage caused by wild animals Amount of ex‐gratia relief

(a) Death or permanent incapacitation Rs.200,000/‐(b) Grievous injury 30% of (a) (c) Minor injury Cost of treatment(d) Loss of property Value of loss/damage as assessed by

authorized officer (e) The following steps have been taken by the Central Government to mitigate the human‐wildlife conflict:

1. Financial assistance is provided by the Ministry to the State Governments under the Centrally Sponsored Schemes of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’, ‘Project Tiger’ and ‘Project Elephant’ inter alia for the following activities:

a. Improvement of the habitat of wild animals by augmenting the availability of food and water in forest areas to reduce the migration of animals from forests to habitations.

b. Construction of physical barriers like boundary walls and solar‐powered electric fences in sensitive areas to prevent wild animal attacks.

c. Payment of ex‐gratia relief to the victims of wild animal attacks and depredation. d. Development of necessary infrastructure and support facilities for tranquilization of

the identified problematic animals and their relocation to the natural habitat or rehabilitation in rescue centers.

e. Setting up of anti‐depredation squads to drive away problematic animals. f. Setting up of patrolling squads to track the movement of wild animals especially

elephants and to inform the local residents about their presence. 2. The Chief Wildlife Wardens of the States/Union Territories are empowered to permit hunting

of identified problematic animals under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, if required.

3. Assistance can also be used to launch programmes to sensitize people and create awareness about the Do's and Don’ts in case of incidents of wild animals scare and attacks.

4. Eco‐development activities are undertaken in villages around Protected Areas to elicit the cooperation of communities in management of the Protected Areas, which includes actions to address the grievances of people regarding human‐wildlife conflicts.

5. Training programmes are conducted for forest and police staff to address the problems of human‐wildlife conflict.

VIOLATION OF CLEARANCE NORMS 3rd December, 2012

LSQ 1391 SHRI E.G. SUGAVANAM Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has noticed the increasing violation of clearance norms in the country;

(b) if so, whether the Government has proposed to bring in stringent rules to stop the violation and to entrust the State Government with adequate powers;

(c) if so, the details thereof; (d) if not, the reasons therefor; and (e) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) The Ministry of Environment and Forests accords environmental clearance for the developmental projects after following due procedures and suggesting various safeguard measures. The compliance of stipulated environmental clearance conditions is monitored by the six Regional Offices of Ministry of Environment and Forests, Central Pollution Control Board and also State Pollution Control Boards / UT Pollution Control Committees. No such trend of increasing violation of clearance norms has been noticed. However, if any violation is observed during site inspection, appropriate action is initiated against the defaulting Units. Necessary powers under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 have been delegated to the State Governments and State Pollution Control Boards / Committees for taking action against violation of environmental clearance norms.

RIVER POLLUTION BY THERMAL PLANTS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1400 SHRI NITYANANDA PRADHAN SHRI SAMEER BHUJBAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the thermal plants are polluting the lakes, streams, wells, rivers and water bodies all around their sites;

(b) if so, the details thereof, along with the steps taken by the Government to clean the surrounding areas of such power plants;

(c) whether the Government has received any complaints in this regard; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the action taken by the Government in this regard?


(a) to (e) During 2010‐2012, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), under its Environment Surveillance Squad Programme, inspected Thermal Power Plants and found eight of them violating the effluent discharge limits. Directions were issued by CPCB under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to the eight power plants to ensure compliance of effluent discharge limits in a time bound manner. The details of the Power Plants are given at Annexure.

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (A) TO (E) OF LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1400 DUE FOR REPLY ON 3.12.2012 REGARDING RIVER POLLUTION BY THERMAL PLANTS RAISED BY SHRI NITYANANDA PRADHAN AND SHRI SAMEER BHUJBAL. Power plants not complying with effluent discharge limits as per inspection conducted by CPCB under Environment Surveillance Squad (ESS) Programme during 2010‐12.

FUNDS FOR SAFETY OF LIONS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1402 SHRI P. L. PUNIA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the Sanctuary‐wise/Zoo‐wise details of the amount spent by the Government for safety of lions during the last three years and the current year;

(b) whether the Government has noticed any information regarding misuse of funds; and (c) if so, the details thereof and the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) The Asiatic lions are found in wild only in Gir forests in the State of Gujarat. The Ministry provides financial assistance to the State Government of Gujarat for the protection and conservation of lion and its habitats under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’. The sanctuary‐wise details of funds released under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’ for protection and conservation of lions and their habitat during the last three years are at Annexure‐I. No financial assistance for protection and conservation of lions in Gir forests has been released to the State Government of Gujarat under the scheme during the current financial year. Zoo‐wise details of funds released for feed and upkeep of lions, including those received from circuses and housed in Rescue Centers, during the last three years and the current year are at Annexure‐II. Besides, the Central Zoo Authority provides supplemental financial assistance to recognized zoos on receipt of requests from them in this regard, which are utilized towards the upkeep of animals kept in the zoo including lions. (b) No, Sir. (c) Does not arise.

S. No. Name of the Power plant

1 Parichha Thermal Power Station, UPRVUNL, UP2 Obra, Uttar Pradesh Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd, ( UPRVUNL) UP3 Amarkantak Thermal power Station, ( ATPS) Lanco Power, Chhattisgarh 4 Muzaffarpur Thermal Power station, KantiBijiliUtapadan Nigam Ltd.,

Bihar 5 Kolaghat Thermal Power Station, West Bengal Power Development

Corporation Ltd., WB 6 Tenughat Thermal Power Plant, TVUNL, Jharkhand7 Chandrapura Thermal Power Plant, DVC, Jharkhand8 Talcher Thermal Power Plant, NTPC, Angul, Orissa

ANNEXURE‐I

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (a) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1402 REGARDING ‘FUNDS FOR SAFETY OF LIONS’ BY SHRI P. L. PUNIA DUE FOR REPLY ON 3.12.2012. The sanctuary‐wise details of funds released under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’ for the protection of lion and its habitats during the last three years

S. No Name of the Sanctuary Amount Released (Rs. in lakhs)

2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12

1 Gir Wildlife Sanctuary 78.46 64.48 00 2 Paniya Wildlife Sanctuary 11.45 5.76 00 3 Mitiyala Wildlife Sanctuary 18.61 5.76 00 4 Girnar Wildlife Sanctuary 00 14.00 00 Project Lion 00 674.541 675.859 Total 108.52 764.541 675.859

ANNEXURE‐II

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (a) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1402 REGARDING ‘FUNDS FOR SAFETY OF LIONS’ BY SHRI P. L. PUNIA DUE FOR REPLY ON 3.12.2012. The Zoo‐wise details of funds released for the safety of lion in zoos during the last three years and the current year

Financial Year Name of The Zoo Location State Purpose Amount (Rs)

2009‐2010 Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan Zoo

Solapur Maharashtra Construction Of Lion Enclosure

4684000

Indira Gandhi Zoological Park Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam Maintenance of Rescue Centre etc.

4000000

Sri Venkateswara Zoological Gardens

Andhra Pradesh Tirupati Maintenance of Rescue Centre etc.

7900000

Rescue Centre, Argnar Anna Zoological Park

Tamilnadu Vandalur, Chennai

Maintenance of Rescue Centre etc.

202000

Rescue Centre, Bannerghatta Karnataka Bangalore Maintenance of Rescue Centre etc.

9550000

South Khairbari Leopard Safari West Bengal Madarihat Maintenance of Rescue Centre etc.

3100000

Van Vihar National Park Zoo Madhya Pradesh Bhopal Maintenance of Rescue Centre etc.

2500000

Nahargarh Biological Park Rajasthan Jaipur Maintenance of Rescue Centre etc.

7800000

Total

39736000

2009‐2010 Total 39736000

2010‐2011 Indira Gandhi Zoological Park Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh

Feeding Cost Of Rescued Animals

9055000

Nahargarh Biological Park Jaipur Rajasthan Feeding Cost Of Rescued Animals

6400000

Rescue Centre, Arignar Anna Zoological Park

Vandalur, Chennai Tamil Nadu Feeding Cost Of Rescued Animals

7122000

Rescue Centre, Bannerghatta Bangalore Karnataka Feeding Cost Of Rescued Animals

16375000

South Khairbari Leopard Safari And Rehabilitation Centre

Madarihat West Bengal Feeding Cost Of Rescued Animals

2800000

Sri Venkateswara Zoological Park

Tirupati Andhra Pradesh


4900000

Financial Year Name of The Zoo Location State Purpose Amount (Rs)

Van Vihar National Park Zoo Bhopal Madhya Pradesh


2300000

2010‐2011 Total 48952000

2011‐2012 Indira Gandhi Zoological Park Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh

Feed/Upkeep Of Lion,Tiger & Bear

2903000


3086000

Jaipur Zoo Jaipur Rajasthan Cost Of Feed & Supplement For The Rescued Animals

3370000

Feeding Of Rescued Animal

3370000

Nehru Zoological Park Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh


291000

Rescue Centre, Arignar Anna Zoological Park

Vandalur, Chennai Tamil Nadu Feeding Cost Of Rescued Animals

2452000

Rescue Centre, Bannerghatta Bangalore Karnataka Feed/Upkeep Of Lion,Tiger & Bear

9650000

South Khairbari Leopard Safari And Rehabilitation Centre

Madarihat West Bengal Cost Of Feed & Supplement For The Rescued Animals

1985000

Sri Venkateswara Zoological Park

Tirupati Andhra Pradesh


3096000

Feeding Of Rescued Animal

2930200

Van Vihar National Park Zoo Bhopal Madhya Pradesh


2386000

2011‐2012 Total 35519200

2012‐2013 Nahargarh Rescue Centre Jaipur Rajasthan Feed/ Upkeep Of Lion, Tiger & Bear

2000000

Arignar Anna Zoological Park Vandalur Tamil Nadu Feed/ Upkeep Of Lion, Tiger & Bear

2172000

Rescue Centre, Bannerghatta Bangalore Karnataka Feed/ Upkeep Of Lion, Tiger & Bear

3676000

Indira Gandhi Zoological Park Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh

Feed/ Upkeep Of Lion, Tiger & Bear

1331000

Van Vihar National Park Bhopal Madhya Pradesh

Feed/ Upkeep Of Lion, Tiger & Bear

725000

2012‐2013 Total 9904000

Grand Total

134111200

USE OF PLASTIC PRODUCTS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1405 SHRI S. PAKKIRAPPA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has estimated the use of plastic

products in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof annually; and (c) the steps taken by the Government to reduce the use in future in coordination with the State

Governments?


(a) to (c) Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has not estimated the use of plastic products in the country. However, as per the information available in the Report of Central Institute of Plastics and Engineering and Technology (CIPET) (2008), approximately 8 million tonnes of plastic products are consumed per annum in India. The major plastic products include plastic packaging films, carry bags, containers, cups, plates, spoons, trays etc. Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has notified the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. These Rules have provisions for plastic waste management, wherein municipal authorities are responsible for setting up, operationalisation and coordination of the waste management system and for performing the associated functions such as collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of plastic waste. State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees are responsible for enforcement of provisions related to registration, manufacture and recycling. The Rules, inter-alia, have the provisions for pricing of carry bags i.e. The municipal authority may determine the minimum price for plastic carry bags and that no carry bags shall be made available free of cost to consumers. MoEF has written to the State Governments/Union Territories, Ministry of Urban Development, Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Boards/ Pollution Control Committees to ensure implementation of the Rules.

BAN ON USE OF PLASTIC BAGS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1408 SHRI PONNAM PRABHAKAR Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether some States like Delhi have banned the use of plastic bags in their States; (b) if so, the details thereof, State-wise and its implementation status thereof; and (c) the extent to which its impact has been noticed in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c): As per the notification dated October 23, 2012 of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, no person shall manufacture, import, store, sell or transport any kind of plastic carry bags (including that of polypropylene non‐woven fabric type carry bags) in the whole of National Capital Territory of Delhi. As per the information provided by Central Pollution Control Board, use of plastic carry bags has been completely banned in the States of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, and Union Territories of Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh, Delhi and Lakshadweep Islands. Use of plastic carry bags has also been banned in some pilgrimage centres, tourist, historical places and eco‐sensitive areas located in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Odhisa, Gujarat, Kerala, Mizoram, Goa, Karnataka, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh. Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has notified the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. These Rules have specified, inter‐alia, that plastic carry bags should have a minimum thickness of 40 microns, food stuffs cannot be packed in recycled plastics or compostable plastics and no carry bags shall be made available free of cost to consumers. Under these Rules, municipal authorities are responsible for setting up, operationalisation and coordination of the waste management system including collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of plastic waste. State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees are responsible for enforcement of provisions related to registration, manufacture and recycling. MoEF has written to the State Governments/Union Territories, Ministry of Urban Development, Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Boards/ Pollution Control Committees to ensure implementation of the Rules. MoEF is also providing financial assistance for conducting training and awareness programs for various stakeholders pertaining to municipal solid waste including plastic waste management.

FUNDS FOR WILDLIFE HABITATS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1410 SHRI S. ALAGIRI SHRI GORAKH PRASAD JAISWAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has reduced the allocation of funds under Centrally Sponsored Scheme of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’ in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the manner to which the protecting the tigers likely to be checked on the situation of

reducing fund for above scheme; and (d) the corrective steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No, Sir. Budget of Rs. 73.50 crore has been allocated under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of “Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats” during the financial year 2012‐13 as compared to the budgetary allocation of Rs.70.00 crore during the financial year 2011‐12. (b) to (d) Does not arise. IMPACTS OF GM ORGANISMS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1412 SHRI RAYAPATI SAMBASIVA RAO Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has noticed the long‐term impact of Genetically Modified (GM) Organisms in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the research made so far in this direction by the Government;

(c) if not, the reasons therefor; and (d) the steps taken by the Government in this regard ?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) The Government of India is following a policy of case by case assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops. In view of various concerns related to the safety, efficacy and agronomic performance of GM seeds, extensive evaluation and regulatory approval process takes place before any GM plant is approved for commercial cultivation. Accordingly Bt cotton, the only GM crop approved for commercial cultivation has been developed in full compliance with the existing regulatory framework and biosafety guidelines which are at par with international norms. This

includes generation of relevant biosafety information and its elaborate analysis to ensure food, feed and environmental safety. The environmental safety assessment includes studies on pollen escape out‐crossing, aggressiveness and weediness, effect of the gene on non‐target organisms, presence of protein in soil and its effect on soil micro‐flora, confirmation of the absence of terminator gene and baseline susceptibility studies. The food and feed safety studies include assessment on composition analysis, allergenicity and toxicological studies and feeding studies on fish, chicken, cows and buffaloes. Bt cotton has a history of safe use as it is cultivated in several countries for nearly two decades; and was released globally even before it was released in India in 2002. There is no scientific evidence to conclude that Bt cotton has adversely impacted the environment or health.

FUNDS RELEASED TO MAHARASHTRA FOR POLLUTION CONTROL 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1413 SHRI PRATAPRAO GANPATRAO JADHAO Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Ministry has released any funds to Maharashtra for checking pollution; (b) if so, the details thereof during the last three years; and (c) the details of work done from these funds during the last three years?


(a) Yes, Sir The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) had released funds to Maharashtra to prevent and control of pollution. These funds are provided under the various schemes for industrial as well as environmental pollution abatement to implementing agencies. (b) & (c) The funds released by the Ministry of Environment & Forests have been utilized for strengthening of Laboratories purchase of equipments by the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs). Work related to setting up of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs), Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) and Common Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)were also funded during the last three years. During the period, capacities of the SPCBs and common treatment facilities have been augmented to contain the pollution in the States. Details of funds released under various schemes and the work done are provided in an annexure. ANNEXURE REFERRED IN PARTS (b) & (c) LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1413 DUE FOR REPLY ON 3.12.2012 REGARDING FUNDS RELEASED TO MAHARASHTRA FOR POLLUTION CONTROL BY SHRI PRATAPRAO GANPATRAO JADHAO. Details of fund releases and work done, scheme‐wise (Rs.Crore)

Sl. No State/Scheme

2009‐10

2010‐11

2011‐12

Work done

Release Release Release ‐

1 Assistance for Abatement of Pollution

Nil

0.21 Nil

Procurement of laboratory equipments for Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.

2 Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs)

0.50

1.51

0.70

Financial assistance provided to 4 Nos. of CETPs for establishment/up‐gradation of capacity to treat wastewater.

3 National River Conservation Plan

7.38

11.82

nil

Financial assistance provided for creation of 155 million litres per day capacity to treat the sewage.

4 National Lake Conservation Plan

3.77 2.75

0.50

Financial assistance provided to 14 Nos. of lakes for restoring and conservation of water quality.

5. Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)

2.40

0.04

1.20

Financial assistance provided to 3 Nos. of TSDFs to treat the hazardous wastes.

CLEARANCE TO POWER PROJECT 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1416 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR RAWAT Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Ministry has received any request to give clearance to NTPC project at Bilhaur in Uttar Pradesh;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the estimated capacity of the project; and (c) the action taken /likely to be taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No proposal for environmental clearance for power project at Bilhaur in Uttar Pradesh by M/s NTPC Ltd. has been received in the Ministry of Environment & Forests. (b) & (c) Does not arise, in view of reply to (a) above. DISPOSAL OF E‐WASTE 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1424 SHRI SAMEER BHUJBAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the quantum of waste emitted by electrical and electronic appliances in the country; (b) the names of States which are the major generators of e‐waste in the country; and (c) the details of rules framed by the Government to dispose‐off e‐waste in the (d) country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) : Based on a survey carried out by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in the year 2005, it was estimated that 1.47 lakh MT per annum of e-waste was generated in the country. This is expected to increase to about 8.0 lakh MT by 2012. Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Delhi, Karnataka, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab are among the top ten states generating about 70% of the total e-waste.

(c) The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests has notified the E‐Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011. These Rules have come into effect from 1st May 2012. The salient features of these Rules are as follows:‐ (i) These Rules are applicable to the e‐waste generated from IT and telecommunication

equipment and Consumer electrical and electronics i.e. Television sets (including LCD & LED), Refrigerator, Washing Machine and Air‐conditioners.

(ii) The concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has been enshrined in these rules to make EPR a mandatory activity associated with the production of electronic and electrical equipments. This means that the producers will be responsible for collection of e‐waste generated from the end of life of their products by setting up collection centers or take back systems either individually or collectively.

(iii) Producers are required to finance, and organize a system to meet the costs involved in the environmentally sound management of e‐waste generated from the ‘ end of life’ of their own products and the historical waste available on the date from which these rules came in to force. The producer may choose to establish such a system either individually or by joining a collective scheme.

(iv) Collection Centers can be set up by producer or by any person or agency or association for the purpose of collecting e‐waste. These centers will have to obtain authorization from SPCBs/ PCCs and file annual returns with regards to e‐waste collected and its disposal.

(v) Based on the globally accepted standard, the rules prescribe threshold limits for six hazardous substances used in manufacture of electrical and electronics components. Producers are expected to achieve reduction in use of the hazardous substance to the prescribed limit within a period of two years from the date of commencement of these rules.

(vi) Urban Local Bodies (Municipal Committees/ Councils/ Corporations) are required to ensure that e‐waste, if found to be mixed with municipal solid waste, is properly segregated, collected and channelized to either authorized collection centers or dismantlers or recyclers. These agencies are also required to collect e‐waste generated from orphan products.

(vii) Registration of Dismantlers and Recyclers with State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) has been made mandatory. SPCBs, on being satisfied that the applicant is utilizing environmentally sound technologies to reprocess e‐waste, may grant registration initially for two years and thereafter depending upon the performance, it may be renewed further for a period of five years.

(viii) To restrict hoarding of certain components of e‐waste, the maximum storage period for e‐waste has been restricted to 180 days.

(ix) These Rules empower Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), SPCBs and PCCs to control, supervise and regulate the relevant activities connected with e‐waste management such as collection, segregation, dismantling and recycling.

(x) Producers, collection centers, dismantlers and recyclers are required to submit annual returns to the SPCB concerned. Subsequently, SPCBs/ PCCs are to submit annual reports to CPCB.

RIVER POLLUTION DUE TO MINING 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1439

SHRI MADHU KODA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether due to mining and unplanned industrialization pollution has increased in Karo, Koena and Koel rivers of Jharkhand during the last few years;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor; (c) whether these rivers are on the verge of extinction; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the action taken by the Government in this regard?


(a) to (e) As reported by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB), the pollution level of rivers Karo, Koena and Koel has not increased due to discharge of uncontrolled mining and industrial effluents. The JSPCB is undertaking the water quality monitoring of these rivers at different locations for their physico‐chemical examination.

NATIONAL PLAN ON CLIMATE CHANGE 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1445 SHRI LALJI TANDON Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state: (a) whether the Government has formulated any National Action Plan on climate change; (b) if so, the details thereof along with the details of States including Uttar Pradesh where the

action plan is likely to be implemented; and (c) the time by which the work under this plan is likely to be started?


(a) Government of India has released National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) on June 30, 2008.

(b) The NAPCC comprises of eight National Missions and other initiatives. Eight National Missions are in specific areas of Solar Energy, Enhanced Energy Efficiency, Sustainable Habitat, Water, Sustaining the Himalayan Eco‐system, Green India, Sustainable Agriculture and Strategic knowledge for Climate Change. States Governments have taken steps to prepare State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCC) in line with the objectives of the NAPCC. So far, 21 States have prepared the SAPCC and submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests. However, Uttar Pradesh has not yet submitted its SAPCC.

(c) Implementation of National Missions under NAPCC has started in the Eleventh Five Year Plan. The Twelfth Five Year includes provision for implementation of SAPCC.

UTILISATION OF 'FLY ASH'

3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1446 SHRI ARJUN MEGHWAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Ministry had formulated a technical project on utilization of 'fly ash' emanating out of Thermal Power Plants in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government issuing a notification had made it binding upon all construction

works to use fly ash; (d) if so, the details of the above notifications; (e) whether the project has been successful; and (f) if so, the details thereof?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) and (b) The Ministry of Environment and Forests has not formulated any project on utilization of fly ash. (c) and (d) The Ministry has issued a notification and subsequent amendments under sub‐section (1), clause (v) of sub‐section (2) of section 3 and section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) for fly ash utilization. As per the amendment notification issued vide S.O. 2804 (E) of 3rd November 2009, every construction agency engaged in the construction of buildings within a radius of hundred kilometres from a coal or lignite based thermal power plant shall use only fly ash based products for construction. The targets for fly ash utilization by thermal power stations, in phased manner, are also defined in the notification. (e) and (f) Does not arise, in view of response to parts (a) and (b) above.

CLEARANCE TO NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND MANUFACTURING CENTRE 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1448 SHRI K.P. DHANAPALAN Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has received any request from the State Government of Kerala for

granting of environmental clearance to set up a National Investment and Manufacturing Centre in the State;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the salient feature of the said Centre; and (c) the time by which it is likely to be set up?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No such proposal for Environmental Clearance has been received by the Ministry of Environment and Forests from the State Government of Kerala. (b) & (c) Do not arise in view of reply to (a) above

STATUS OF ‘WORLD HERITAGE’ 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1456 SHRI B. Y. RAGHAVENDRA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state: (a) whether the Western Ghats sites are declared as “World Heritage” in the country; (b) if so, whether some States have raised objections in this regard; (c) if so, the details thereof; and (d) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) Yes, Sir. The World Heritage Committee has inscribed the Western Ghats on the World Heritage List during July, 2012. 39 Sites in the Western Ghats situated in the States of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra have been included in the UNESCO World Heritage List the details of which are at Annexure – I. (b) & (c) The Government of Karnataka had requested this Ministry for deletion of Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuary, Brahmagiri Wildlife Sanctuary, Talacauvery Wildlife Sanctuary, Padinalknad Reserve Forests, Kudremukh National Park, Someshwara Wildlife Sanctuary, Someshwara Reserve Forests Agumbe Reserve Forests and Balahalli Reserve forests from the list of ‘World Heritage Sites’, and for withdrawing the nomination submitted to UNESCO in respect of these sites. In its response, the Government of India has clarified to the Government of Karnataka that the State Government of Karnataka was kept informed at each stage, viz., identification of the 39 sites and submission of the proposal to UNESCO. It has further been clarified to the State Government that the designation of Western Ghats sites of Karnataka as World Heritage Site is to give due recognition to the efforts of the local communities and the State Government of Karnataka in protecting and saving these pristine landscapes, and is in no way intended or expected to affect the implementation of our State policies or legislative framework. The UNESCO‐ World Heritage Convention gives due respect to the sovereignty of the State on whose territory the heritage site is situated, without prejudicing the property rights determined by the respective national legislations. The State Government has also been assured that the proposed sites will receive the co‐operation of the international community, particularly in respect of financial, scientific and technical support. (d) This Ministry has constituted ‘Western Ghats Natural Heritage Management Committee’ for effective conservation, protection and management of natural heritage sites of Western Ghats and also constituted ‘High Level Working Group’ to study the preservation of the ecology, environmental integrity and holistic development of the Western Ghats in view of their rich and unique biodiversity and also implication of recognition of Western Ghats in the UNESCO Heritage list. ANNEXURE‐I REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (a) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1456 REGARDING ‘STATUS OF ‘WORLD HERITAGE’ ’ BY SHRI B. Y. RAGHAVENDRA DUE FOR REPLY ON 3.12.2012.

Sites in the Western Ghats included in the UNESCO World Heritage List S.No. Site Name Area (km2) State 1. Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve 895.00 Tamil Nadu 2. Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary 171.00 Kerala

3. Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary 128.00 Kerala 4. Peppara Wildlife Sanctuary 53.00 Kerala 5. Kulathupuzha Range 200.00 Kerala 6. Palode Range 165.00 Kerala 7. Periyar Tiger Reserve 777.00 Kerala 8. Ranni Forest Division 828.53 Kerala 9. Konni Forest Division 261.43 Kerala 10. Achankovil Forest Division 219.90 Kerala 11. Srivilliputtur Wildlife Sanctuary 485.00 Tamil Nadu 12. Tirunelveli (North) Forest Division (part) 234.67 Tamil Nadu 13. Eravikulam National Park (and proposed extension) 127.00 Kerala 14. Grass Hills National Park 31.23 Tamil Nadu 15. Karian Shola National Park 5.03 Tamil Nadu 16. Karian Shola (part of Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary) 3.77 Kerala 17. Mankulam Range 52.84 Kerala 18. Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary 90.44 Kerala 19. Mannavan Shola 11.26 Kerala 20. Silent Valley National Park 89.52 Kerala 21. New Amarambalam Reserved Forest 246.97 Kerala 22. Mukurti National Park 78.50 Tamil Nadu 23. Kalikavu Range 117.05 Kerala 24. Attapadi Reserved Forest 65.75 Kerala 25. Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuary 102.59 Karnataka 26. Brahmagiri Wildlife Sanctuary 181.29 Karnataka 27. Talacauvery Wildlife Sanctuary 105.00 Karnataka 28. Padinalknad Reserved Forest 184.76 Karnataka 29. Kerti Reserved Forest 79.04 Karnataka 30. Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary 55.00 Kerala 31. Kudremukh National Park 600.32 Karnataka 32. Someshwara Wildlife Sanctuary 88.40 Karnataka 33. Someshwara Reserved Forest 112.92 Karnataka 34. Agumbe Reserved Forest 57.09 Karnataka 35. Balahalli Reserved Forest 22.63 Karnataka 36. Kas Plateau 11.42 Maharashtra 37. Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary 423.55 Maharashtra 38. Chandoli National Park 308.90 Maharashtra 39. Radhanagari Wildlife Sanctuary 282.35 Maharashtra GRAND-TOTAL 7,953.15 DECLARATION OF BIO‐DIVERSITY SITES 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1459 SHRI N. CHALUVARAYA SWAMY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has received any proposal from the State Governments for declaration of Bio‐diversity Heritage Sites (BHSs) in the States;

(b) if so, the details thereof, State‐wise, location‐wise; (c) the action taken by the Government in this regard; (d) whether the Government has received any proposal from the experts for a bio‐diversity

literacy movement initiation to educate people regarding the importance of genetic resources; and

(e) if so, the details thereof and the action taken by the Government in this regard, State‐wise?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) As per the provisions of Section 37 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (B.D. Act), the State Governments, may, in consultation with the local bodies, notify areas of biodiversity importance as biodiversity heritage sites under this Act; in consultation with the Central Government frame rules for the management and conservation of these sites; and also frame schemes for compensating or rehabilitating people economically affected by such notification. Thus, the onus of notifying areas of biodiversity importance as Biodiversity Heritage Sites is with the State Governments. The Government has accordingly written to all State Government for identification of areas as Biodiversity Sites in their States. Guidelines for identification, selection and management of Biodiversity Heritage Sites have also been posted on the website of National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), a statutory and autonomous organization under the Ministry of Environment and Forests. (d) & (e) A proposal on “Bio literacy for Biodiversity Conservation” was submitted by M/s Centre for Ecological and Research, Thanjavur to the NBA. The proposal was considered by the NBA and forwarded to the Tamil Nadu State Biodiversity Board for action, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the B.D. Act.

FUNDS FOR AFFORESTATION PROJECTS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1468 SHRI AHIR VIKRAMBHAI ARJANBHAI MAADAM Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the World Bank has provided any assistance for the afforestation projects in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) the physical and financial targets fixed and achieved in this regard?


(a) No, Sir. None of the ongoing externally aided afforestation projects in the country has been assisted by the World Bank.

(b) & (c) does not arise.

SETTING UP OF COW-SHEDS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1473 SHRI JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS be pleased to state;

(a) whether the Government has any proposal to set up cow-sheds in the country; and (b) if so, the details thereof and the steps taken by the Government for providing Grants-in-aid

especially in backward and rural areas of the country?


(a) No, Sir. However, the Government is providing financial assistance for setting up of Shelter Houses for stray / ownerless animals including cows in the country. About 600 organisations have set up Shelter Houses under this scheme. (b) Does not arise.

ENVIRONMENT FRIENDLY PROJECTS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1478 SHRI KALIKESH N. SINGH DEO

Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state: (a) whether the Government has set up the National Clean Energy Fund for mission projects

identified in the National Action Plan on Climate Change and projects relating to Research and Development to replace existing technologies with more environment friendly ones in the country;

(b) if so, the details along with the criteria for the setting up of the said fund; (c) the total revenue collected under the said fund, as on date; (d) the disbursements made during the last three years and the current year under the said

scheme; (e) the total number of projects that have been approved by the Inter‐Ministerial Group (IMG) and

the current stages in their implementation; and (f) the details of allocations made towards clean‐energy related Research and Development

Schemes in the country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (f) Information is being collected.

CHECK ON DEATHS OF WILD ANIMALS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1485 SHRI BHAKTA CHARAN DAS SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI SHRIMATI SUMITRA MAHAJAN SHRI HAMDULLAH SAYEED DR. P.VENUGOPAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has maintained any data regarding the numbers of Lions, Tigers, Elephants and Rhinos in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government has any records of unnatural deaths/killings of wild animals in

the country; and

(d) if so, the details thereof during the last three years and the current year sanctuary‐wise and animal‐wise and the steps taken by the Government for the protection of wild animals in the country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) As per the information available in the Ministry, the population of Lions, Tigers, Elephants and Rhinos estimated in the last census operation undertaken in respect of such species is as follows: Species Population estimate as per the last

census The last Census operation undertaken during the year

Tiger 1706 2010Lion 411 2010Rhinoceros 2414 2009Elephant 27694 2007‐08 c) &(d) The State‐wise details of mortality of tiger, elephant, lion and rhino during the last three years and the current year, as per the information available in the Ministry, are at Annexures‐I(a), I(b), I(c) & I(d) respectively. Sanctuary‐wise details of the same are not collated in the Ministry. The steps taken by the Government for protection of wild animals in the country include:

i. Legal protection has been provided to wild animals against hunting and commercial

exploitation under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

ii. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, has been amended and made more stringent. The punishments for offences have been enhanced. The Act also provides for forfeiture of any equipment, vehicle or weapon that is used for committing wildlife offence(s).

iii. Protected Areas, viz., National Parks, Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves covering important wildlife habitats have been created all over the country under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to conserve wild animals and their habitats.

iv. Financial and technical assistance is provided to the State/ Union Territory Governments under the Centrally Sponsored Schemes of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats', ‘Project Tiger’ and ‘Project Elephant’ for providing better protection to wildlife, and improvement of its habitat.

v. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been empowered under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to apprehend and prosecute wildlife offenders.

vi. The State/Union Territory Governments have been requested to strengthen the field formations and intensify patrolling in and around the Protected Areas.

vii. The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau has been set up to strengthen the enforcement of law for control of poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and its products.

Strict vigil is maintained by the officials of State Departments of Forests and Wildlife.

ANNEXURE‐Ia

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (c) & (d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1485 REGARDING ‘CHECK ON DEATHS OF WILD ANIMALS’ BY SHRI BHAKTA CHARAN DAS, SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI, SHRIMATI SUMITRA MAHAJAN, SHRI HAMDULLAH SAYEED AND DR. P.VENUGOPAL DUE FOR REPLY ON 3.12.2012.

Details of tiger mortality, as reported by States, during the last three years and current year Sl. No. State 2009

2010 2011 2012

(as on 22.11.2012)

Poaching including seizure

Natural & other causes







1 Andhra Pradesh

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 Arunachal Pradesh

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 Assam 1 9 2 6 3 3 1 34 Bihar 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 15 Chhattisgarh 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 06 Jharkhand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Karnataka 2 9 5 2 3 3 9 4 8 Kerala 0 1 2 1 1 3 3 0 9 Madhya

Pradesh 4 11 3 5 0 5 8 5

10 Maharashtra 4 1 5 3 4 2 10 4 11 Mizoram 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Orissa 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 13 Rajasthan 0 3 3 1 0 1 0 014 Tamil Nadu 1 0 2 2 0 3 4 215 Uttarakhand 1 8 1 4 2 0 6 616 Uttar

Pradesh 1 2 1 1 1 15 5 1

17 West Bengal 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 18 Haryana 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 019 Delhi 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 Goa 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 21 45 28 25 16 40 50 28

ANNEXURE‐Ib

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (c) & (d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1485 REGARDING ‘CHECK ON DEATHS OF WILD ANIMALS’ BY SHRI BHAKTA CHARAN DAS, SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI, SHRIMATI SUMITRA MAHAJAN, SHRI HAMDULLAH SAYEED AND DR. P.VENUGOPAL DUE FOR REPLY ON 3.12.2012. Details of elephant mortality for the last three years and current year, as reported by States Elephant casualties in train accidents S. No. State 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12

1. Assam 8 2 02. West Bengal 1 13 23. Tamil Nadu 1 0 04. Jharkhand 0 1 1 5. Kerala 3 0 06. Odisha 0 0 1 7. Tripura 0 1 0 TOTAL 13 17 4

Elephant death due to poaching S. No. State 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12

1. Andhra Pradesh 0 0 0 2. Arunachal Pradesh 0 0 0

3. Assam 4 2 0 4. West Bengal 1 0 0 5. Uttarakhand 0 0 0 6. Uttar Pradesh 0 0 0 7. Tamil Nadu 3 0 1 8. Jharkhand 0 0 1 9. Kerala 4 0 0 10. Odisha 3 17 8 11. Karnataka 3 7 3 12. Nagaland 0 0 0 13. Meghalaya ‐ 0 0

TOTAL 18 26 13

Note: Details of elephant casualties in train accident and poaching deaths have not been collated for 2012‐13.

ANNEXURE‐Ic

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (c) & (d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1485 REGARDING ‘CHECK ON DEATHS OF WILD ANIMALS’ BY SHRI BHAKTA CHARAN DAS, SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI, SHRIMATI SUMITRA MAHAJAN, SHRI HAMDULLAH SAYEED AND DR. P.VENUGOPAL DUE FOR REPLY ON 3.12.2012. Details of lion mortality for the last three years and current year, as reported by the State (Gujarat) Year Natural

death Accidental Electrocution Poaching Falling in

well Self defence Total

2009‐10 42 2 1 0 1 2 48 2010‐11 37 0 1 0 4 0 42 2011‐12 41 0 2 0 3 0 46 2012‐13 (up to October)

34 1 1 1 1 0 38

ANNEXURE‐Id

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (c) & (d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1485 REGARDING ‘CHECK ON DEATHS OF WILD ANIMALS’ BY SHRI BHAKTA CHARAN DAS, SHRIMATI MANEKA GANDHI, SHRIMATI SUMITRA MAHAJAN, SHRI HAMDULLAH SAYEED AND DR. P.VENUGOPAL DUE FOR REPLY ON 3.12.2012.

Details of rhino mortality for the last three years and current year, as reported by States Sl. No.

State 2009 2010 2011 2012 (as on 22.11.2012)


Poaching Natural & other causes



Poaching

1. Assam 64 14 75 8 69 7 96 13 2. West

Bengal 3 1 2 0 7 0 1 0

3. Uttar Pradesh

Nil Nil Nil Nil 3 0 Nil Nil

CHECK ON FELLING OF TREES 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1496

SHRI RADHA MOHAN SINGH


(a) whether the dense forests adjoining hilly regions are being cut down in the name of development leading to environmental imbalances in the country;

(b) if so, the reaction of the Government thereto; (c) whether the Government has conducted any study by environmental experts in the near

future with a view to preventing environmental disasters and stopping deforestation in the country;


MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) There are no reports in the Ministry regarding dense forests adjoining hilly regions being cut down in the name of development. (c) to (f) Government has not conducted a nation wide study recently by environmental experts for preventing environmental disasters and stopping deforestation. However, projects specific studies are generally conducted in cases of forest diversion under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and those requiring environment clearances under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which study the environment impact and suggest mitigation measures.

DELAY IN CADRE REVIEW OF IFS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1505 DR. SANJAY JAISWAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether there has been delay in the periodic cadre review of the Indian Forest Service (IFS) in

some States leading to serious stagnation in the Indian Forest Service in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof State-wise during the last three years and the current year; (c) whether some State have not filled the vacancies in the higher grades even after six months of

fixation of revised cadre strengths by the Government; (d) if so, the details thereof, State-wise; and (e) the remedial steps taken by the Government under the powers vested in them as per IFS

Cadre rules and instructions issued by the Government?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Cadre reviews are undertaken, under Rule 4(2) of Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966, after the proposal is received from State Government. There has been no delay on the part of Ministry of Environment & Forest in processing these proposals. (c) & (d) No such instaces have come to the notice of the Ministry. (e) Does not arise in view of (c) & (d) above.

PROTECTION TO ENVIRONMENT 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1518 SHRI BHUDEO CHOUDHARY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has any proposal to check the global arms industry for protecting environment in the country; and

(b) if so, the steps proposed to be taken by the Government to prevent loss of lives and property due to use of arms, for maintaining environmental balance and preventing several diseases caused by pollution due to use of arms in the country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The information is being collected. DISPOSAL OF PLASTIC WASTES 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1527 SHRI MAHABAL MISHRA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether plastic waste is dumped in huge quantities in various parts of the country including Delhi;

(b) if so, the reasons therefor; (c) whether the Central Pollution Control Board has conducted any study on dumping of plastic

wastes at Railway Stations and Airports particularly in Delhi; and (d) if so, the outcome thereof and the shortcomings mentioned in the said study?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d): Based on an estimation by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), it has been observed that approximately 15,722 tonnes of plastic waste is generated in the country per day. Plastic waste is littered/ visible quite often in cities/towns including Delhi due to improper collection, segregation, transportation and disposal of such waste. Central Pollution Control Board has conducted a study and reported the same in 2010 titled “Assessment of Plastic Waste and its Management at Airports and Railway Stations in Delhi”. The study has brought out the following: i) The quantity of plastic waste generation in three major railway stations in Delhi is 6758

kilograms per day. The quantity of plastic waste generation from domestic and international airports in Delhi is 4130 kilograms per day.

ii) The per capita plastic waste generation is approximately 9 gm/day in the railway stations and 69 gm/day in the airports.

iii) While collection of solid waste, including plastic waste, at the airports in Delhi is being organized through a private contractor, only the value added plastic wastes such as PET bottles, plates, spoons, tumbler etc. are being collected by unorganized sector at the

railway stations. The non‐recyclable plastic waste such as multi‐layered and metalized pouches which are not collected at the railway stations, remain littered.

CPCB has communicated the findings and recommendations of the study to Railways and Airport Authorities for better management of plastic waste at Railway Stations and Airports in Delhi.

PROVISION OF FUNDS TO ECO‐CLUBS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1536 SHRI KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR SHRI RAMKISHUN Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Eco‐clubs are functioning in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof, State‐wise and location‐wise; (c) whether any financial assistance has been granted to these clubs under National Green

Club Programme or under any other scheme/programme; and (d) if so, the details thereof?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a)Yes, Sir. (b)A list showing state‐wise number of Eco clubs is placed at Annexure ‐I and location‐wise is placed at Annexure ‐II. (c)Yes, Sir. The financial assistance has been granted to these Eco clubs under National Green Corps Programme of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. (d) The details of the financial assistance provided under National Green Corps Programme is placed at Annexure III.

Annexure‐I showing state‐wise numbers of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of state‐wise number of Eco‐clubs.

Sl. No. STATE

Eco‐Clubs

1 Andhra Pradesh 5750

2 Assam (NE) 52073 Bihar 88714 Chhattisgarh 40005 Delhi (NCT) 17966 Haryana 5250

7 Himachal Pradesh 3000

8 Jharkhand 28429 Kerala 3500

10 Madhya Pradesh 12500

11 Maharashtra 8905

12 Manipur (NE) 1750

13 Mizoram (NE) 1235

14 Nagaland (NE) 2280

15 Orissa 750016 Punjab 500017 Rajasthan 825018 Tamil Nadu 800019 Tripura (NE) 75020 West Bengal 3912 Total 100298

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐Andhra Pradesh S. No. Name of District No. of Eco‐clubs proposed by State Nodal Agency

1 Adilabad 2502 Nizamabad 2503 Medak 2504 Karimnagar 2505 Warangal 2506 Nalgonda 2507 Hyderabad 2508 Ranga Reddy 2509 Khammam 25010 Mahbubnagar 25011 Kurnool 25012 Ananthapur 25013 Kadapa 25014 Chittor 25015 Nellore 25016 Prakasam 25017 Guntur 25018 Krishna 25019 West Godavari 25020 East Godavari 25021 Visakapattanam 25022 Vizianagaram 25023 Srkakulam 250 Total 5750

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Assam

S. No. Name of District No. of Eco‐clubs proposed by the State Nodal Agency

1 Kokrajhar 100

2 Barpeta 2503 Kamrup (Metro) 2504 Morigaon 2505 Nagaon 1006 Jorhat 2507 Golaghat 2508 Tinsukia 2489 Dibrugarh 25010 Darrang 25011 Sonitpur 25012 Dhemaji 25013 Hailakandi 25014 n.C. Hills 25015 Karbi‐anglong 25016 Goalpara 10017 Karimganj 12618 Dhubri 10219 Lakhimpur 25020 Nalbari 25021 Sivasagar 14022 Bongaigaon 14123 Cachar 25024 Kamrup (Rural) 10025 Udalguri 10026 Baksa 10027 Chirag 100 Total 5207

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Bihar

S. No. Name of District No. of Eco‐clubs proposed by MoEF

1 Patna 2502 Nalanda 2503 Baksar 2504 Kaimur 2505 Rohtas 2506 Bhojpur 1517 Gaya 2508 Jahanabad 2509 Nabada 20310 Arval 25011 Aurangabad 25012 Shekhpura 10113 Munger 25014 Lakhisarai 25015 Jamui 25016 Begusarai 25017 Khagdia 25018 Bhagalpur 25019 Banka 250

20 Purnia 25021 Katihar 25022 Araria 21323 Kishanganj 25024 Saharsha 15025 Supaula 25026 Madhepura 25027 Madhubani 25028 Shivhar 25029 Darbhanga 25030 Samastipur 15131 Mujaphharpur 25032 Sitamadi 25033 East Champaran 25034 West Champaran 25035 Vaishali 25036 Sivaan 25037 Golpalganj 25038 Saran 152 Total 8871

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Chhattishgarh


1 Raipur 2502 Durg 2503 Kabirdham 2504 Rajnandgaon 2505 Korba 2506 Janjgir Champa 2507 Raigarh 2508 Ambikapur 2509 Koria 25010 Jashpur 25011 Dhamtri 25012 Mahasamund 25013 Bilaspur 25014 Jagdalpur 25015 South Bastar Dantewada 25016 North Bastar Kankor 250 Total 4000

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Delhi S. No. Name of District No. of Eco‐clubs proposed by the State Nodal Agency 1 East 2002 North East 175

3 North 1484 North West 2435 West 2476 South 2307 South West 2208 New Delhi 1929 Central 141 Total 1796

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Haryana S. No. Name of District No. of Eco‐clubs proposed by the State Nodal Agency 1 Ambala 2502 Bhiwani 2503 Faridabad 2504 Fatehabad 2505 Gurgaon 2506 Hisar 2507 Jhajjar 2508 Jind 2509 Karnal 25010 Kaithal 25011 Kurukshetra 25012 Mohindergarh 25013 Mewat 25014 Panipat 25015 Palwal 25016 Panchkula 25017 Rohtak 25018 Rewari 25019 Sonipat 25020 Sirsa 25021 Yamunanagar 250 Total 5250

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Himanchal Pradesh S.No Name of District No. of Eco‐clubs proposed by the State Nodal Agency 1 Bilaspur 2502 Chamba 2503 Hamirpur 2504 Kangra 2505 Kullu 2506 L & S 2507 Mand 2508 Sirmour 250

9 Solan 25010 Una 25011 Kinnaur 25012 Shimla 250 Total 3000

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Jharkhand


1 Ranchi 1502 West Singhbhum 1503 Chatra 1004 Dhanbad 1425 Jamtara 1506 Pakur 1007 Dumka 1508 Gumla 1509 Saraikela Kharasawan List not Recovered10 Latehar 10011 Bokaro 15012 Doeghar 10013 Palamu 15014 Sahibganj 15015 Hazaribagh 15016 Godda 15017 Simdega 10018 Garhwa 15019 Giridih 15020 East Singhbhum 15021 Koderma 15022 Lohardaga 10023 Ramgarh New District24 Khunti New District Total 2842

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Kerala


1 Thiruvananthapuram 2502 Kollam 2503 Kottayam 2504 Alappuzha 2505 Pathanamthitta 2506 Ernakulam 2507 Idukki 2508 Thrissur 250

9 Palakkad 25010 Kozhikode 25011 Wayanad 25012 Malappuram 25013 Kannur 25014 Kasaragod 250 Total 3500

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State ‐ Madhya Pradesh


1 Anooppur 2502 Alirajpur 2503 Ashok Nagar 2504 Badwani 2505 Balaghat 2506 Betul 2507 Bhind 2508 Bhopal 2509 Burhanpur 25010 Chhatarpur 25011 Chhindwara 25012 Damoh 25013 Datia 25014 Dewas 25015 Dhar 25016 Dindori 25017 Gwalior 25018 Guna 25019 Harda 25020 Hoshangabad 25021 Indore 25022 Jabalpur 25023 Jhabua 25024 Katni 25025 Khandwa 25026 Khargone 25027 Mandia 25028 Mandsaur 25029 Morena 25030 Narsinghpur 25031 Neemuch 25032 Panna 25033 Raisen 25034 Rajgarh 25035 Ratlam 25036 Rewa 25037 Sagar 25038 Satna 25039 Sehore 25040 Seoni 250

41 Shahdol 25042 Shajapur 25043 Sheopur 25044 Shivpuri 25045 Sidhi 25046 Singrauli 25047 Tikamgarh 25048 Ujjain 25049 Umaria 25050 Vidisha 250 Total 12500

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Maharashtra


1 Nagpur 2502 Wardha 2503 Chandrapur 2504 Bhadara 2505 Gadchiroli 2506 Gondia 2507 Amaravati 2508 Akola 2509 Yavatmari 25010 Buldhana 25011 Washim 25012 Aurangabad 25013 Jalna 25014 Hingoli 19615 Beed 25016 Parbhani 25017 Latur 25018 Osmanabad 25019 Nanded 25020 Nashik 25021 Jalgaon 25022 Dhule 25023 Nandurbar 25024 Pune 25025 Ahmednagar 25026 Solapur 25027 Kolahpur 25028 Sangli 25029 Satara 25030 Ratanagiri 25031 Sindhudurga 20932 Mumbai (N) 25033 Mumbai (S) 25034 Mumbai (W) 25035 Thane 25036 Raigad 250

Total 8905

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Manipur


1 Bishnupur 2002 Chandel 2003 Churachandpur 2004 Imphal West 2005 Imphal East 2006 Tamenglong 2007 Ukhrul 2008 Thoubal 2009 Senapati 150 Total 1750

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State ‐ Mizoram S. No. Name of District No. of Eco‐clubs proposed by State Nodal Agency

1 Serchhip 902 Champhai 1213 Lawangtlai 1534 Mamit 925 Kolaish 1786 Lunglei 1697 Saiha 798 Aizawl 353 Total 1235

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Nagaland

S. No. Name of District No. of Eco‐clubs proposed by State Nodal Agency

1 Dimapur 2502 Peren 1743 Kohima 2274 Phek 1935 Zunheboto 2386 Mokokchung 2507 Longleng 1488 Kiphire 2189 Wokha 176

10 Mon 20111 Tuesang 205 Total 2280

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State – Orissa


1 Angul 2502 Balasore 2503 Bhadrakh 2504 Bargarh 2505 Bulangir 2506 Boudh 2507 Cuttack 2508 Deogarh 2509 Dhenkanal 25010 Ganjam 25011 Gajapati 25012 Jagatsinghpur 25013 Jharsugada 25014 Jajpur 25015 Kandhamal 25016 Kalahandi 25017 Khurda 25018 Koraput 25019 Kendrapara 25020 Keonjhar 25021 Malkagiri 25022 Mayurbhanj 25023 Naupada 25024 Nayagarh 25025 Nabarangpur 25026 Puri 25027 Rayagarh 25028 Sambalpur 25029 Sonepur 25030 Sundergarh 250 Total 7500

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Punjab


1 Amritsar 2502 Barnala 2503 Bathinda 2504 Faridkot 250

5 Fatehgarh Sahib 2506 Ferozepur 2507 Gurdaspur 2508 Hoshiarpur 2509 Jalandhar 25010 Kapurthala 25011 Mansa 25012 Moga 25013 Muktsar 25014 Nawashahr 25015 Patiala 25016 Ropar 25017 Sangrur 25018 Sas Nagar 25019 Tarn Taran 250 Total 5000

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Rajasthan S. No. Name of District No. of Eco‐clubs proposed by State Nodal Agency

1 Ajmer 2502 Bhilwana 2503 Nagour 2504 Tonk 2505 Bikaner 2506 Churu 2507 Hanumangarh 2508 Jhunjhunu 2509 Shri Ganganagar 25010 Bharatpur 25011 Dholpur 25012 Karouli 25013 Sawai Madhopur 25014 Alwar 25015 Dausa 25016 Jaipur 25017 Sikar 25018 Barmer 25019 Jaisalmer 25020 Jalore 25021 Jodhpur 25022 Pali 25023 Sirohi 25024 Baran 25025 Bundi 25026 Jhalwar 25027 Kota 25028 Banswara 25029 Chittorgarh 25030 Pratapgarh 25031 Dungarpur 250

32 Rajsamand 25033 Udaipur 250 8250

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Tamilnadu


1 Chennai 2502 Cuddalore 2503 Coimbatore 2504 Dharmapuri 2505 Dindigul 2506 Erode 2506 Karur 2507 Kanchipuram 2508 Kanyakumari 2509 Krishnagiri 25010 Madurai 25011 Nagappattinam 25012 Namakkal 25013 Niligiris 25014 Pudukkottai 25015 Perambalur 25016 Ramanathapuram 25018 Salem 25019 Sivagangai 25020 Thanjavur 25021 Thiruvallur 25022 Thirunelveli 25023 Thoothukudi 25024 Theni 25025 Thiruvarur 2506 Trichy 25027 Thiruvannamalai 25028 Vellore 25029 Villupuram 25030 Virudhunagar 250 Total 7500

Newly formed Districts 1 Ariyalur 2502 Tiruppur 250 Total 500

Annexure‐II showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ Tripura A.

S. No. Name of District District‐wise Eco‐clubs

1 West Tripura 2502 South Tripura 1413 Dhalai District 664 North Tripura 143 Total 600

B.

S. No. Name of District No. of Eco‐clubs proposed for new Schools

1 South Tripura 592 Dhalai Tripura 343 North Tripura 57 Total 150

(A+B)=750

Annexure showing location wise number of Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(b) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of location wise number of Eco‐clubs. State‐ West Bengal S. No. Name of District No. of Eco‐clubs proposed by

State Nodal Agency N. of Eco‐clubs proposed by MoEF

1 Bankura 248 2482 Birbhum 240 2403 Burdwan 413 2504 Cooch Behar 138 1385 Dakshin Dinajpur 141 1416 Darjeeling 171 1717 Hoogly 336 2508 Howrah 231 2319 Jalpaiguri 150 15010 Kolkata 364 25011 Malda 153 15312 Murshidabad 236 23613 Nadia 213 21314 North 24 Parganas 540 25015 Paschim Medinipur 319 25016 Purba Medinipur 286 25017 Purulia 130 13018 South 24 Parganas 330 25019 Uttar Dinajpur 111 111 Total 4750 3912

ANNEXURE‐III

Annexure showing financial assistance granted to Eco‐ clubs in reply to Para‐(d) of the Lok Sabha unstarred question no.1536 due for reply on 3/12/2012 asked by Shri Kaushalendra Kumar and Shri Ramkishun regarding detalils of financial assistance under NGC Programme.

Sl. No. STATE Amount (Rs.)

1 Andhra Pradesh 15697500 2 Assam (NE) 14102125 3 Bihar 24283875 4 Chhattisgarh 10911500 5 Delhi (NCT) 4950750 6 Haryana 14300000 7 Himachal Pradesh 8107976 8 Jharkhand 3507481 9 Kerala 9555000 10 Madhya Pradesh 34125000 11 Maharashtra 23714781 12 Manipur (NE) 4780000 13 Mizoram (NE) 3451875 14 Nagaland (NE) 6273125 15 Orissa 20193734 16 Punjab 13650000 17 Rajasthan 22522154 18 Tamil Nadu 21744654 19 Tripura (NE) 2055000 20 West Bengal 10767750 Total 268694280

NOISE POLLUTION BY FIRE CRACKERS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1540 SHRI SURESH ANGADI SHRI M. ANANDAN Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government undertook any survey to assess the fire crackers available in the country regarding their noise level limits;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the outcome thereof; and (c) the steps taken/being taken by the Central Government for strict compliance of noise level

limits by the fire cracker manufacturers in the country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Boards have carried out monitoring of noise levels of firecrackers. As per the reports, during 2010‐2011, some of the fire cracker manufacturers failed to meet the noise level standards prescribed for the firecrackers’ manufacturing level in different States including Delhi, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. The Government has notified the noise standards for fire crackers and theCentral Pollution Control Board & State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees are monitoring the noise levels of fire crackers.

ACQUISITION OF FOREST LAND 3rd December, 2012

LSQ 1545 SHRI SURESH KASHINATH TAWARE


(a) whether the Government proposes to amend the law related to acquisition of Forest Land in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the cultivable lands of farmers adjacent to forests are being acquired by the

Government as a result of which there is much resentment among farmers in the country; and

(d) if so, the time by which the said law is likely to be amended?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) No, Sir. There is no such proposal in this regard.

(c) & (d) The Ministry of Environment & Forests has no role in acquisition of the cultivable lands of farmers which comes under the purview of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and dealt with by the Ministry of Rural Development.

CHECK ON SEA EROSION 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1547 SHRI BHISHMASHANKER ALIAS KUSHAL TIWARI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENTAND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the coastal areas have become more insecure in terms of erosion of sea/sea coasts, as a result of global warming in the country;

(b) if so, the reaction of the Government thereto; (c) whether any study is being conducted in this regard; (d) if so, the details thereof; (e) whether any scheme has been introduced to control the erosion; and (f) if so, the details thereof ?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) Scientific studies and relevant assessments recognize possible threats to coastline and beaches from global warming and likely impacts of sea level rise. The key impacts of sea level rise include coastal erosion, saline intrusion into freshwater lanes, and increased flooding from the sea. (b) Vulnerability of Coastal areas in India has been engaging the attention of Government. Government has been attempting to address this issue through science‐based assessments of the vulnerability, while coordinating adaptation actions at the national and state level. (c) & (d) Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment (INCCA) launched by Ministry of Environment and Forests in 2009 undertook a scientific assessment of this problem through a ‘4x4 Assessment – A

Sectoral and Regional Analysis for 2030s’. The report analyses inter‐alia, the impacts of projected rise in temperature, pattern of precipitation, cyclone, storm surges and sea level rise on the coastal regions. As per the report, a variation of precipitation in the coastal belt is indicated from 6‐8% with respect to 1970. Assessments based on existing data indicate that the sea level along the Indian coast has been rising at the rate of about 1.3 mm/year on an average. (e)& (f) The Government of India has notified the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification in 2011 with an aim of protecting livelihoods of fisher folk communities, preservation of ecology and promotion of economic activity in coastal areas. Further, the Government has initiated, with the assistance of the World Bank, a project on ‘Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan’ for mapping of a hazard line along the coastal areas of the country taking into account the sea level rise and other parameters such as, shoreline change, tides and wave.Government of India is also implementing the National Mission on Sustainable Habitat under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) which includes activities for managing the coastal zone.

TIGER RESERVE 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1553 SHRI K. JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE: Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the State Government of Karnataka has sent any proposal to the Union Government

for declaring ‘Kudremukh National Park’ and ‘Bhadra’ as a ‘Tiger Reserve’ in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) the steps taken/being taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a), (b) & (c) Based on a proposal received from the State Government, approval has been accorded by the National Tiger Conservation Authority for notifying the Kudremukh National Park as a tiger reserve, under section 38V of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The State Government of Karnataka has already notified the Bhadra Tiger Reserve during the year 2007.

CONSERVATION OF GREEN AREAS 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1554 DR. MAHESH JOSHI


(a) whether the Government has received any proposal from the Government of Rajasthan

regarding ‘Harit Rin Yojana’ for environment conservation and expansion of green areas in the State;

(b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No Sir.

(b) & (c) Question does not arise. DIVERSION OF FOREST LAND 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1567 SHRI KUNVARJIBHAI M. BAVALIYA SHRI NISHIKANT DUBEY SHRI CHANDRAKANT KHAIRE


(a) whether the diversion of forest land for developmental activities require prior approval of

the Government; (b) if so, the details thereof along with the number of such proposals received by the

Government during the last three years and the current year, State‐wise; (c) the number of proposals approved and rejected during the said period and the details of the

pending projects alongwith the reasons therefor; and (d) the time by which all the proposals are likely to be cleared?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) The diversion of forest land for non‐forestry purposes including developmental purposes require prior approval of the Central Government under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. (b) & (c) The details of proposals received by the Central Government in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 along with details of projects approved/ rejected by and under consideration of the Central Government is given in Annexure: Detailed site inspection is required in proposals involving more than 100 ha of forest land. Quite often the proposals received are not complete in all respects and the Central Government has to seek further details/ documents from the concerned State Governments. These are the main reasons of pendency of the proposals. (d) The proposals for diversion of forest land are processed in the Ministry of Environment & Forests and then considered by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Ministry takes a decision after considering the recommendations of the Committee. Proposals involving 100 ha or more forest land are also inspected in detail by the officers of the concerned Regional Office of the Ministry. The Ministry takes prompt action to consider the projects for forest clearance when projects complete in all respects are received. STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (b) AND (c) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1567 BY SHRI KUNVARJIBHAI M. BAVALIYA, SHRI NISHIKANT DUBEY AND SHRI CHANDRAKANT KHAIRE REGARDING ‘DIVERSION OF FOREST LAND’ DUE FOR REPLY ON 03.12.2012. Sl. No. States/Union

Territories No. of proposals approved

Under consideration of Government of

Pending due to non‐receipt of information sought

Closed/ Rejected/ Returned/ Withdrawn

Total Number of Proposals

India from the State/ UT Govt.

Year 2010

1 Andaman & Nicobar Island 1 2 1 4

2 Andhra Pradesh 25 2 6 1 343 Arunachal Pradesh 14 2 3 194 Bihar 12 1 1 14 5 Chandigarh 1 2 3 6 Chhattisgarh 17 2 1 20 7 Dadar & Nagar Haveli 1 2 3 8 Delhi 2 1 3 9 Goa 3 2 510 Gujarat 75 1 12 8811 Haryana 236 10 45 29112 Himachal Pradesh 144 4 44 4 19613 Jharkhand 38 3 15 56 14 Karnataka 22 2 4 9 37 15 Kerala 2 1 1 4 16 Madhya Pradesh 28 1 14 3 4617 Maharashtra 37 2 9 2 5018 Manipur 4 4 819 Meghalaya 2 220 Mizoram 1 1 221 Orissa 19 1 2 2 24 22 Punjab 254 9 67 5 335 23 Rajasthan 22 5 4 31 24 Sikkim 21 21 25 Tamil Nadu 10 1 2 1326 Tripura 6 5 1127 Uttar Pradesh 143 5 6 7 16128 Uttarakhand 242 3 4 84 33329 West Bengal 9 2 11 Total 1390 48 258 129 1825

Sl. No. States/Union


Under consideration of Government of India

Pending due to non‐receipt of information sought from the State/ UT Govt.



Year 2011

1 Andaman & Nicobar Island 3 3

2 Andhra Pradesh 24 6 10 5 45 3 Arunachal Pradesh 13 2 5 204 Assam 2 2 45 Bihar 26 7 8 1 426 Chandigarh 4 1 57 Chhattisgarh 7 7 9 2 25 8 Dadar & Nagar Haveli 7 3 1 11 9 Delhi 1 1 10 Goa 1 111 Gujarat 83 20 31 13412 Haryana 295 17 97 1 41013 Himachal Pradesh 84 7 64 3 15814 Jharkhand 8 3 4 2 1715 Karnataka 14 11 4 6 35 16 Kerala 4 1 3 8 17 Madhya Pradesh 32 9 26 3 70 18 Maharashtra 57 4 14 2 77 19 Manipur 2 2 20 Mizoram 1 1 221 Orissa 16 4 3 2322 Punjab 253 10 119 38223 Rajasthan 14 2 5 3 24

24 Sikkim 9 1 1025 Tamil Nadu 7 1 1 9 26 Tripura 1 1 27 Uttar Pradesh 114 6 11 6 137 28 Uttarakhand 94 5 8 101 20829 West Bengal 4 4Total 1177 129 426 136 1868







Year 2012

1 Andaman & Nicobar Island 2 1 1 4

2 Andhra Pradesh 7 8 10 1 253 Arunachal Pradesh 4 5 94 Assam 1 1 5 Bihar 7 3 9 19 6 Chhattisgarh 3 14 1 18 7 Dadar & Nagar Haveli 1 2 3 8 Gujarat 17 42 5 649 Haryana 46 21 15 10210 Himachal Pradesh 20 24 30 7411 Jharkhand 14 5 7 2612 Karnataka 7 4 9 20 13 Kerala 2 2 14 Madhya Pradesh 2 18 10 30 15 Maharashtra 13 22 3 38 16 Manipur 1 117 Meghalaya 1 118 Mizoram 2 1 319 Orissa 2 7 920 Punjab 16 23 14 53 21 Rajasthan 3 4 2 9 22 Tamil Nadu 3 4 7 23 Uttar Pradesh 8 15 9 32 24 Uttarakhand 2 3 7 6 1825 West Bengal 1 1 2Total 193 227 144 6 570

EFFECT OF E‐WASTE ON HUMAN LIFE 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1573 SHRIMATI RAJKUMARI RATNA SINGH SHRI PRATAPRAO GANPATRAO JADHAO Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the increasing quantum of e‐waste is causing immense damage to the environment and human life in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the steps taken/being taken by the Government to check the hazardous effect of e‐waste on

human life in the country; and (d) the extent to which success has been achieved as a result thereof?


(a) to (d) E-wastes are known to contain certain toxic constituents in their components, which if not handled properly, can pose risks to human health and the environment. The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests has notified the E-Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 for proper management and handling of e- waste. These Rules have come into force from 1st May 2012. These Rules prescribe threshold limits for six hazardous substances used in manufacture of electrical and electronics components. Producers are expected to achieve the reduction in use of the hazardous substances to the prescribed limit within a period of two years from the date of commencement of these rules. The concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has been enshrined in these rules. The producers of electrical and electronic equipments covered under the Rules are required to collect e-waste generated from the end of life of their products by setting up collection centers or take back systems either individually or collectively. E-waste is required to be sent or sold to a registered or authorized recycler or re-processor having environmentally sound facilities. E-waste recycling can be undertaken only in facilities authorized and registered with State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs)/Pollution Control Committees (PCCs). After the rules have become effective from 1st May 2012, 77 e-waste dismantling/recycling facilities have been granted registration by different SPCBs/PCCs. AREA UNDER FOREST COVER 3rd December, 2012

LSQ 1577 SHRI NARAHARI MAHATO SHRI NRIPENDRA NATH ROY SHRI HEMANAND BISWAL SHRI BHOOPENDRA SINGH SHRI MAHABAL MISHRA SHRI DEVJI M. PATEL KUMARI SAROJ PANDEY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has released ‘India State of Forest Report’ in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government has conducted any study in regard to forest cover in the country; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the details of funds provided and expenditure incurred for the conservation of forests in the

country during the last three years and the current year, State‐wise? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) Yes, Sir. The latest report ‘India State of Forest Report 2011’ (ISFR, 2011) was released on 7th February, 2012. (b) The salient features of the India State of Forest Report 2011 are as follows:-

Forest and tree cover of the country is 78.29 million hectares, which is 23.81% of the geographical area. This includes 2.76% of tree cover.

The forest and tree cover is 25.22% after exclusion of 183135 square kilometers area above the altitude 4,000 meters from the total geographical area of the country as these areas do not support tree growth.

In the hill and tribal districts of the country, a decrease in forest cover of 548 square kilometers and 679 square kilometers respectively has been reported as compared to the previous assessment.

The north eastern States of the India account for one-fourth of the country’s forest cover. There is a net decline of 549 square kilometers in forest cover as compared to the previous assessment.

Mangrove cover has increased by 23.34 square kilometers during the same period. The total growing stock of India’s forest and tree outside forests is estimated as 6047.15

million cubicmeters which comprises 4498.73 million cubicmeters inside the forests and 1548.42 million cubicmeters outside the forests.

The total bamboo bearing area in the country is estimated to be 13.96 million hectares. The total carbon stock in the country’s forests is estimated to be 6663 million tonnes.

(c) Yes, Sir. (d) The scientific system of periodic Forest Cover assessment of the country is made by Forest Survey of India on biennial basis since 1987. The current report, India State of Forest Report 2011, pertains to Twelfth cycle of Forest Cover mapping. As per ISFR-2011, the forest cover is 21.05% of geographical area and is 692,027 square kilometers. The details of forest cover, class wise and state wise is given in Annexure I. (a) The details of funds released and expenditure incurred under Intensification of Forest Management Scheme (IFMS), National Afforestation Programme (NAP) and Green India Mission (GIM) for the conservation of forests in the country during the last three years and the current year, State-wise is given in Annexure-II, Annexure-III and Annexure-IV respectively.

Annexure‐I referred to in reply to part (d) of the Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1577 due for answer on 03‐12‐2012 regarding ‘Area Under Forest Cover’

Forest cover in States/UTs in India as per India State of Forest Report, 2011

(area in sq km)

State/UT Geog. Area

Forest Cover in 2011 Real change* From SFR 09 Very Dense

Forest Mod. Dense Forest

Open Forest

Total

Andhra Pradesh 275069 850 26242 19297 46389 ‐281Arunachal Pradesh 83743 20868 31519 15023 67410 ‐74 Assam 78438 1444 11404 14825 27673 ‐19 Bihar 94163 231 3280 3334 6845 41 Chhattisgarh 135191 4163 34911 16600 55674 ‐4 Delhi 1483 7 49 120 176 0Goa 3702 543 585 1091 2219 7Gujarat 196022 376 5231 9012 14619 ‐1Haryana 44212 27 457 1124 1608 14Himachal Pradesh 55673 3224 6381 5074 14679 11 Jammu & Kashmir 222236 4140 8760 9639 22539 2 Jharkhand 79714 2590 9917 10470 22977 83 Karnataka 191791 1777 20179 14238 36194 4 Kerala 38863 1442 9394 6464 17300 ‐24 Madhya Pradesh 308245 6640 34986 36074 77700 0Maharashtra 307713 8736 20815 21095 50646 ‐4Manipur 22327 730 6151 10209 17090 ‐190Meghalaya 22429 433 9775 7067 17275 ‐46 Mizoram 21081 134 6086 12897 19117 ‐66 Nagaland 16579 1293 4931 7094 13318 ‐146 Orissa 155707 7060 21366 20477 48903 48 Punjab 50362 0 736 1028 1764 100 Rajasthan 342239 72 4448 11567 16087 51

Sikkim 7096 500 2161 698 3359 0Tamil Nadu 130058 2948 10321 10356 23625 74 Tripura 10486 109 4686 3182 7977 ‐8 Uttar Pradesh 240928 1626 4559 8153 14338 ‐3 Uttarakhand 53483 4762 14167 5567 24496 1West Bengal 88752 2984 4646 5365 12995 1A&N Islands 8249 3761 2416 547 6724 62Chandigarh 114 1 10 6 17 0Dadra & Nagar Haveli 491 0 114 97 211 0Daman & Diu 112 0 0.62 5.53 6 0 Lakshadweep 32 0 17.18 9.88 27 1 Puducherry 480 0 35.37 14.69 50 0 Grand Total 3287263 83471 320736 287820 692027 ‐367

* The change in the above table refers to change in the area with respect to 2009 assessment after incorporation interpretational changes

Annexure‐II referred to in reply to part (e) of the Lok Sabha Unstarred Unstarred Question No. 1577 due for answer on 03‐12‐2012 regarding ‘Area Under Forest Cover’

Funds provided under ‘National Afforestation Programme’ and expenditure incurred for the conservation of forests in the country, State‐wise

S. No. State (Rs. in crore)

2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 (till 1/10/12)

1 Andhra Pradesh 11.03 10.48 15.15 2.71 2 Bihar 7.74 5.48 6.92 0.00 3 Chhattisgarh 25.12 33.25 24.74 6.17 4 Goa 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 5 Gujarat 24.44 29.43 27.00 10.51 6 Haryana 20.57 24.20 12.28 3.84 7 Himachal Pradesh 3.59 3.45 3.50 1.72 8 Jammu & Kashmir 9.81 3.99 6.89 0.00 9 Jharkhand 21.06 8.73 10.42 4.69 10 Karnataka 11.95 8.12 12.92 4.81 11 Kerala 4.02 7.54 2.04 5.64 12 Madhya Pradesh 22.53 30.39 21.43 0.00 13 Maharashtra 20.53 16.17 28.51 9.12 14 Orissa 8.82 11.20 7.30 3.10 15 Punjab 3.01 0 0.46 0.76 16 Rajasthan 10.67 4.94 6.23 1.88 17 Tamil Nadu 7.98 7.21 3.08 1.70 18 Uttar Pradesh 30.20 21.33 26.23 6.81 19 Uttarakhand 7.00 4.47 6.61 0.00 20 West Bengal 3.11 4.12 6.29 1.87 Total (Other States) 253.17 234.50 228.00 65.33

21 Arunachal Pradesh 2.37 5.52 0.00 1.66 22 Assam 14.48 6.08 7.95 1.47 23 Manipur 5.93 10.37 12.74 2.60 24 Meghalaya 2.21 8.79 4.31 1.94 25 Mizoram 17.27 12.21 13.44 3.22 26 Nagaland 10.67 10.11 11.69 4.46 27 Sikkim 8.86 11.99 11.18 0.00 28 Tripura 3.20 10.43 13.69 2.46 Total (NE States) 65.00 75.49 75.00 17.81

G. Total 318.17 309.99 303.00 83.14

Annexure‐III referred to in reply to part (e) of the Lok Sabha Unstarred Unstarred Question No. 1577 due for answer on 03‐12‐2012 regarding ‘Area Under Forest Cover’ Funds provided under Intensification of Forest Management Scheme and expenditure incurred for the conservation of forests in the country, State‐wise

(Rs. in Lakhs)

S.No. States 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 ( as on 21.11.2012) Total

Released Released Released Released Released

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Andhra Pradesh 0.00 136.94 0.00 0.00 136.94 2 Bihar 117.45 118.77 82.41 0.00 318.63 3 Chhattisgarh 460.07 368.33 430.41 398.03 1656.84 4 Goa 24.57 25.00 10.97 7.51 68.05 5 Gujarat 501.81 429.83 348.23 164.12 1443.99 6 Haryana 69.56 101.70 75.72 75.10 322.08 7 Himachal Pradesh 282.00 287.71 246.49 226.12 1042.32 8 Jammu & Kashmir 135.00 0.00 0.00 209.86 344.869 Jharkhand 260.14 150.95 341.00 80.71 832.8010 Karnataka 252.15 205.61 348.64 281.60 1088.0011 Kerala 490.99 257.16 144.64 40.98 933.77 12 Madhya Pradesh 715.03 379.69 697.65 709.21 2501.58 13 Maharashtra 459.20 262.38 373.51 0.00 1095.09 14 Orissa 122.46 229.54 133.03 149.79 634.82 15 Punjab 74.13 76.49 0.00 0.00 150.62 16 Rajasthan 149.98 103.76 161.15 184.30 599.1917 Tamil Nadu 0.00 143.99 245.48 141.00 530.4718 Uttar Pradesh 181.92 213.72 140.00 99.93 635.5719 Uttarakhand 317.20 134.57 229.95 342.62 1024.3420 West Bengal 262.36 173.12 50.86 71.09 557.43 Total 4876.00 3799.26 4060.14 3181.97 15917.37

NE & Sikkim 1 Assam 360.02 202.65 246.64 0 809.31 2 Arunachal Pradesh 314.40 325.67 261.15 0 901.223 Manipur 198.42 168.21 328.58 117.51 812.724 Meghalaya 165.62 121.64 161.26 144.64 593.16 5 Mizoram 300.63 349.79 253.17 213.11 1116.706 Nagaland 274.05 183.51 346.97 0 804.53 7 Sikkim 286.43 259.33 288.61 0 834.37 8 Tripura 138.15 188.81 60.59 323.88 711.43 Total 2037.72 1799.61 1946.97 799.14 6583.44

Union Territories 1 A & N Islands 12.00 26.22 30.36 5.49 74.072 Chandigarh 0.00 60.26 34.46 0 94.723 D&N Haveli 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.004 Daman & Diu 8.00 0.00 0.00 0 8.00 5 Lakshadweep 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 6 New Delhi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 7 Pondicherry 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 Total 20.00 86.48 64.82 5.49 176.79

Grand Total 6933.72 5685.35 6071.930 3986.60 22677.60

Annexure‐IV referred to in reply to part (e) of the Lok Sabha Unstarred Unstarred Question No. 1577 due for answer on 03‐12‐2012 regarding ‘Area Under Forest Cover’

Funds provided under ‘Green India Mission’ and expenditure incurred for the conservation of forests in the country, State‐wise

(Rupees In Lakhs)

S.No. State Funds proposed by the state Funds released

1 Maharashtra 730.20 405.77 2 Jharkhand 156.50 147.00 3 Kerala 300.00 194.60 4 Tamil Nadu 98.15 72.15 5 Gujarat 178.67 133.80 6 Rajasthan 770.00 275.25 7 Himachal Pradesh 600.00 126.50 8 Jammu & Kashmir 66.00 64.00 9 Orissa 245.50 107.50 10 Punjab 185.00 125.50 11 Haryana 517.00 357.00

12 Chhattisgarh 3902.00 972.00 13 Assam 580.00 130.00 14 Andhra Pradesh 1488.00 89.53 15 Manipur 80.00 40.50 16 Nagaland 185.00 141.50 17 Tripura 475.00 350.50 18 Karnataka 267.00 267.45 19 Madhya Pradesh 19208.00 823.50 20 Uttar Pradesh 375.50 119.50 21 Uttarakhand 813.75 51.00 Total 31221.27 4994.55

CHECK ON ILLEGAL FELLING OF TREES 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1581 SHRI HARISH CHAUDHARY SHRI IJYARAJ SINGH


(a) whether the Government has laid down any provision in regard to cutting of trees in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the number of violations made under the above provisions during the last three years and

the current years State‐wise; (d) the action taken by the Government on these violations during the last three years and the

current year, State‐wise; (e) whether the Government has reviewed the compliance of these rules; and (f) if so, the details thereof?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Cutting of trees in forest areas is done in accordance with approved management/working plans as per Government policy. Unauthorised cutting of trees in forest areas in the country is regulated by the Indian Forest Act, 1927(with State Amendments) and rules made thereunder. Cutting of trees from non‐forest areas are regulated by separate state Acts promulgated for the purpose. (c)The number of Trees illegally felled in forest areas of the country in the last three years, and the current year, State‐wise is annexed. (d) to (f) Action is taken for violation under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and relevant State Acts which includes prosecution and compounding of offence, seizure of illegally felled material and vehicles, tools and other articles used to commit the offence. Forest being a concurrent subject, management of forests lies with the State Government, details of action taken in cases of violation is not collected at the level of the Ministry. Information about violations of tree cutting regulations in non‐forest area is also not collected at the level of the Ministry. ANNEXURE REFFERED TO PART (c) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1581 REGARDING CHECK ON ILLEGAL FELLING OF TREES ASKED BY SHRI HARISH CHAUDHARY, SHRI IJYARAJ SINGH DUE FOR REPLY ON 03.12.2012 NUMBER OF ILLEGAL FELLING OF TREES

S. No. 2009 2010 2011 2012

1 Andhra Pradesh 0 0 0 02 Goa 237 207 ‐ 3 Gujarat 39771 38207 29221 243074 Haryana 0 0 0 05 Himachal Pradesh 2168 2691 1781 6 Jharkhand 192 114 ‐ 7 Karnataka 4077 2301 ‐ 8 Madhya Pradesh 363731 326282 220355 198599 Maharashtra 186189 201144 166359 10722810 Orissa 65221 ‐ ‐ 11 Rajasthan 11662 9879 8930 6994

12 Uttarakhand 1380 1736 1282 1726

Total 674391 582561 427928 160114

North Eastern States 13 Arunachal Pradesh 0 0 0 014 Assam 0 0 0 015 Meghalaya 798 614 ‐ 16 Mizoram 0 0 0 017 Sikkim 0 0 0 0Total 798 614 0 0

Union Territories 18 A & N Island 620 602 357 33919 Chandigarh 0 0 0 020 D & N Haveli 0 0 0 021 Lakshadweep 0 0 0 022 Puducherry 0 0 0 0Total 620 602 357 339

Grand Total 675809 583777 428285 160453

DISEASES DUE TO POLLUTION 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1585 SHRI SOMEN MITRA SHRI SURENDRA SINGH NAGAR SHRI RATAN SINGH SHRIMATI RAJKUMARI RATNA SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether vehicular pollution is the main cause of increasing pollution in Delhi and other metropolitan cities;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government has conducted any study to ascertain the various diseases caused

by air pollution; (d) if so, the estimated percentage of people getting ill due to air pollution; and (e) the action taken by the Government to check the pollution and prevention of diseases

caused thereby?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) Vehicular pollution is one of the sources of air pollution in Delhi and other metropolitan cities. According to some epidemiological studies, health effects such as manifestation of respiratory and cardiovascular aliments etc. could be associated with air pollution. No statistical data is available regarding the number of persons suffering from respiratory disorders caused due to pollution in various cities. Steps taken by the Government to control environmental pollution include formulation of a comprehensive policy for abatement of pollution, supply of improved auto‐fuel, tightening of vehicular and industrial emission norms, mandatory environmental clearance for specified industries, management of municipal, hazardous & bio‐medical wastes, promotion of cleaner technologies, strengthening the network of air quality monitoring stations, preparation and implementation of action plans for major cities & critically polluted areas, public awareness etc. IMPACT OF GLOBAL WARMING 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1586 SHRI NARAYANSINGH AMLABE SHRI SURENDRA SINGH NAGAR SHRI WAKCHAURE BHAUSAHEB RAJARAM SHRI JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENTAND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) Whether India is likely to be affected most adversely by global warming; (b) If so, the details thereof; (c) Whether the Government proposes to constitute any Expert Advisory Committee on global

warming; (d) If so, the details thereof; (e) Whether the Government has made any survey or assessment and identified the places

which are likely to be affected alongwith its impact on agricultural sector; (f) If so, the details thereof; and (g) The steps taken by the Government to keep check on global warming?


(a) & (b) Scientific studies in regard to the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change for the Indian context have been made under the India’s National Communication submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in May 2012. The studies project changes in temperature, sea level and precipitation patterns due to climate change which is likely to have adverse impacts on various sectors such as water resources, agriculture, forests, natural eco‐systems, coastal zones, health, energy and infrastructure.

(c) & (d)An expert committee has been set up in 2007 under the Chairmanship of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India to assess the impacts of climate change on various sectors e.g. agriculture, methane emissions from livestock, coastal zone, health, water resources, forests and natural ecosystem.

(e) & (f) A study to assess the impact of climate change on four key sectors of Indian economy, namely Agriculture, Natural Ecosystems & Biodiversity,Water and Human Health in four climate sensitive regions of India namely the Himalayan region, the Western Ghat, the Coastal Area and the North‐East

region, has been undertaken and a report titled “Climate Change and India: 4X4 Assessment ‐ A Sectoral and Regional Analysis for 2030s” was published in 2010 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. The report has assessed impacts of climate change on four sectors including Agriculture, and projects a variable rate of change in agriculture production including losses in some crops such as mustard, peas, tomatoes, onion, wheat, sorghum, rice and garlic.

(g) The Government has released National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) on June 30, 2008 that outlines eight missions in specific areas of solar energy, enhanced energy efficiency, sustainable habitat, water, sustaining Himalayan ecosystems, green India, sustainable agriculture and strategic knowledge for climate change. INSECTICIDES IN YAMUNA WATER 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1589 SHRI S.S. RAMASUBBU Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has conducted any study in association with the National Reference Trace Organics Laboratory and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) that high dose of harmful insecticides used in mosquito (Lindane) repellents contains in Yamuna river water;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government has taken any steps to stop the pollution and to protect the

people living along the river side; (d) if so, the details thereof along with the amount spent thereon; and (e) if not, the reasons therefor ?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (b) Information is being collected and will be laid on the Table of the House. (c) to (e) Conservation of rivers is an ongoing and collective effort of the Central and State Governments. This Ministry is supplementing the efforts of the State Governments in addressing the problem of pollution of river Yamuna by providing financial assistance to UP, Delhi and Haryana under Yamuna Action Plan (YAP) in a phased manner since 1993. The works taken up under YAP relate to sewerage/interception and diversion of drains, sewage treatment plants (STPs), low cost sanitation/community toilet complexes, electric/improved wood crematoria, etc. Under Phase‐I and II of YAP, a total of 296 schemes, including 40 sewage treatment plants, have been completed in 21 towns of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi and expenditure of Rs. 1438.34 crore (including State share) has been incurred till end of June, 2012. Sewage treatment capacity of 902.25 million litres per day (mld) has been created under these two phases of YAP. Further, the YAP Phase ‐ III project for Delhi has been approved by the Ministry in December, 2011 at an estimated cost of Rs 1656 crore. Besides this, two projects have also been sanctioned by the Ministry in July, 2012 at an estimated cost of Rs. 217.87 crore for taking up works for pollution abatement of river Yamuna in towns of Sonepat and Panipat in Haryana. In addition, State Governments, apart from their own budgetary allocations, are also accessing financial assistance for creation of sewerage infrastructure, including setting up of sewage treatment plants, in various towns under other Central sector schemes like JNNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission) and UIDSSMT (Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns) of Ministry of Urban Development.

ENHANCED CENTRAL CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS NGRBA 3rd December, 2012 LSQ 1599 SHRI P.L. PUNIA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has received any proposal to increase central contribution on the various proposals proposed by Ganga River Basin Authority; and

(b) if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government in this regard?


(a) & (b) The Ganga basin States have proposed to increase central contribution on the various proposals under National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA). In the meetings of the NGRBA chaired by the Prime Minister, it was decided that the cost of projects will be shared in the ratio of 70:30 between the Centre and the States. In addition, the operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of assets created under NGRBA will be shared in the same ratio between the Centre and the States for five years, with a review at the end of three years.

PROJECTS UNDER NGRBA 10th December, 2012 LSQ *226 SHRI PARTAP SINGH BAJWA

SHRI BHARTRUHARI MAHTAB Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the total number of projects undertaken by the National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) in various towns and cities since its inception and the present status thereof;

(b) whether a large number of projects have not even started till date; (c) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor; (d) whether any studies have been conducted to assess the impact of NGRBA projects on the

pollution levels; and (e) if so, the details thereof?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) A statement is laid on the Table of the House. Statement referred to in reply to parts (a) to (e) of Lok Sabha Starred Question No.226 to be answered on Monday, the 10th December, 2012 on “Projects under NGRBA” by Shri Partap Singh Bajwa & Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab. (a) Since inception of the National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) programme, 53 schemes in 43 towns in Ganga States have been sanctioned at a total cost of Rs. 2600 crore. Against this, Rs. 779 crore have been released by the Centre including the matching share of the States so far and a total expenditure of Rs. 506 crore has been incurred till October, 2012 for implementation of the projects. The present status is as below:

Rs. in crore S. No. State Total Sanctioned costs STP capacity

(in mld) Total release of fund (GoI & State) till Nov, 12

Total Expenditure till October, 12

1 Uttarakhand (15 projects in 11 towns) 155.6 31.3 43.43 22.39

2 Uttar Pradesh (7 projects in 5 towns) 1341.6 313 447.18 321.61

3 Bihar(4 projects in 4 towns) 441.86 82 50.52 33.46

4 West Bengal (27 projects in 23 towns) 659.41 44.23 237.84 128.10

TOTAL 2598.47 Say, 2600.00

470.53 778.97 Say, 779.00

505.56 Say, 506.00

(b) & (c) Out of 53 sanctioned projects, 7 have been completed, 40 are in different stages of implementation and remaining 6 projects are yet to be started as on October 2012. Of these 6 projects, 4 (1 in Uttar Pradesh and 3 in West Bengal) are in bidding stages and 2 projects in Uttarakhand have not been commenced due to land related problems. The implementation of these projects is done by the concerned State Governments.

(d) & (e) Since NGRBA projects have been sanctioned recently and most of them are in progress, their impact cannot be assessed. However, regular monitoring of water quality in Ganga river is being done by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). It has been seen that inspite of increase in population, there is a general improvement in water quality in terms of Bio‐chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) after completion of the projects under Ganga Action Plan (GAP).

SETTING UP OF CAMPA 10th December, 2012 LSQ *229 SHRI HARISHCHANDRA CHAVAN


(a) the current arrangements made for compensatory afforestation in the country; (b) whether the Government has set up a Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and

Planning Authority (CAMPA) in the country; and (c) if so, the details of the funds available in ad‐hoc CAMPA and the quantum of funds released

to State CAMPAs, State‐wise along with the purpose thereof? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) A statement is laid on the Table of the House. STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a) TO (c) OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. 229 BY SHRI HARISHCHANDRA CHAVAN REGARDING ‘SETTING UP OF CAMPA’ DUE FOR REPLY ON 10.12.2012. (a) The Central Government while according approvals under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of forest land for non‐forest purpose inter alia stipulates a condition that the State/Union Territory Government concerned shall realize funds from the user agency for creation and maintenance of compensatory afforestation and transfer the same to the ad‐hoc CAMPA.

(b) The Hon’ble Supreme Court by their Order dated 29th October 2002 in Interlocutory Application (IA) No. 566 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995 in the matter of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union of India and others directed inter‐alia that a ‘Compensatory Afforestation Fund’ shall be created in which all the monies received from the user‐agencies towards compensatory afforestation, additional compensatory afforestation, penal compensatory afforestation, net present value of forest land, Catchment Area Treatment Plan Funds, etc. shall be deposited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in their said order also directed that Union of India shall frame comprehensive rules with regard to the constitution of a body and management of the compensatory afforestation fund. Accordingly, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub‐section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and in pursuance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s said order dated 29th October 2002 constituted Compensatory Afforestataion Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) vide order dated 23rd April, 2004. Taking note that the CAMPA had still not become operational, the Supreme Court of India, vide their Order dated 5th May, 2006 in IA No.1337 with IA Nos. 827, 1122, 1216, 1473 in the above writ petition, ordered, inter‐alia, the constitution of the ad‐hoc body, viz., the ad‐hoc CAMPA till CAMPA becomes operational, and directed that all the State Governments/ Union Territories shall account for and pay the amount collected with effect from 30th October, 2002, in conformity with the order dated 29th October 2002 to the said ad‐hoc body. Following persistent requests from State/ Union Territory Governments and public representatives for release of funds from ad‐hoc CAMPA for carrying out compensatory afforestation activities, MoEF in consultation with the State/ UT Governments formulated Guidelines on State CAMPA. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in their order dated 10th July 2009 in I.A. No. 2143 in the above writ petition inter alia directed that the guidelines and the structures of the State CAMPA as prepared by the MoEF may be notified/ implemented. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in their said order dated 10th July 2009 also permitted the ad‐hoc CAMPA to release, the sum of about Rs.1,000 crore per year, for the next 5 years, in proportion of 10% of the principal amount pertaining to the respective State/UT. Accordingly, State CAMPAs have been constituted in all concerned State/ Union Territories. (c) As on 4.12.2012, approx. Rs. 23,930 crore (excluding the interest accrued on the existing/un‐matured FDRs) is available with the ad‐hoc CAMPA. Funds are released to the State CAMPAs on the basis of the Annual Plans of Operation, and in terms of the State CAMPA Guidelines and the Order dated 10th July 2009 of the Supreme Court of India in IA No. 2143 in the above‐mentioned writ petition State/ UT – wise details of the quantum of funds released to State CAMPAs is annexed. Annexure referred to in answer to part (c) of the Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 229 on ‘Setting up of CAMPA’ asked by Shri Harishchandra Chavan for reply on 10.012.2012 State/ UTs details of the quantum of funds (in rupees) released to State CAMPAs Sl. No.

State/UT Year for the Annual Plan of Operations

2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Andaman & Nicobar Islands 10,990,000 7,869,000 5,779,000

2 Andhra Pradesh 897,832,000 1,207,444,000 1,185,700,000 1,196,039,000 3 Arunachal Pradesh 163,676,000 177,882,000 411,900,000 4 Assam 67,174,000 104,487,000 ‐ ‐5 Bihar 77,300,000 86,674,000 80,400,000 ‐6 Chandigarh 1,765,000 1,296,000 ‐ ‐7 Chhattisgarh 1,232,135,000 1,341,066,000 995,439,000 1,143,800,000 8 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1,682,000 ‐ 1,536,000 ‐ 9 Daman & Diu ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 Delhi 18,471,000 13,991,000 ‐ ‐ 11 Goa 121,197,000 102,468,000 ‐ ‐ 12 Gujarat 249,647,000 291,568,000 263,000,000 324,117,000

Sl. No.

State/UT Year for the Annual Plan of Operations

2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13

1 2 3 4 5 6 13 Haryana 191,141,000 188,909,000 164,500,000 ‐ 14 Himachal Pradesh 366,771,000 421,656,000 571,262,400 ‐15 Jammu & Kashmir ‐ ‐ ‐ 237,835,000 16 Jharkhand 950,028,000 1,031,622,000 624,989,300 ‐17 Karnataka 585,573,000 509,160,000 415,700,000 437,200,000 18 Kerala 17,509,000 ‐ ‐ ‐19 Lakshadweep ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 Madhya Pradesh 530,482,000 509,656,000 535,209,000 ‐ 21 Maharashtra 893,549,000 854,893,000 826,300,000 782,123,000 22 Manipur 7,456,000 13,350,000 19,134,000 ‐ 23 Meghalaya 967,000 ‐ ‐ ‐24 Mizoram ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐25 Nagaland ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐26 Orissa 1,310,618,000 1,401,753,000 1,668,510,050 2,058,244,000 27 Pondicherry ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 28 Punjab 330,547,000 265,215,000 200,200,000 193,118,000 29 Rajasthan 325,908,000 420,698,000 318,913,000 30 Sikkim 80,092,000 102,334,000 90,400,000 8,75,23,000 31 Tamil Nadu 19,713,000 17,032,000 13,830,000 32 Tripura 35,418,000 25,848,000 ‐ ‐33 Uttar Pradesh 470,962,000 353,505,000 ‐ ‐34 Uttarakhand 816,532,000 827,488,000 653,160,000 ‐35 West Bengal 52,957,000 62,760,000 48,436,000 ‐ Total 9,828,092,000 10,340,624,000 9,094,297,750 6,372,476,000

POLLUTANTS IN GANGA 10th December, 2012 LSQ *230 SHRIMITI JYOTI DHURVE Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the National Cancer Registry Programme has recently submitted a report to the Government regarding the level of pollutants in the river Ganga;

(b) if so, the findings thereof and the reaction of the Government thereto; (c) whether gall bladder cancer has been found to be the second highest in the world and

prostate cancer as the highest in the country along the course of the river Ganga due to the presence of heavy metals in the river water;

(d) if so, the facts and the details thereof; and (e) the steps being taken by the Government to control the pollution level in the river Ganga?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) A statement is laid on the Table of the House. Statement referred to in reply to parts ( a) to (e) of Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 230 to be answered on Monday, the 10th December, 2012 on “Pollutants in Ganga” by Shrimiti Jyoti Dhurve. (a) No Sir. (b) Does not arise. (c) & (d) As per the information received from National Centre for Disease Information and Research (ICMR), the National Cancer Registry Programme (NCRP), Bangaluru does not have any Population Based Cancer Registries along the course of the Ganga. The NCRP has also informed that it is not

possible for them to say whether incidence of cancer (including cancer of gallbladder and prostate) is highest in the country along the course of Ganga (e) Ganga Action Plan (GAP) is being implemented since 1985 for undertaking pollution abatement activities in the identified polluted stretches of the river Ganga through implementation of works like interception and diversion of sewage, setting up of sewage treatment plants, low cost sanitation works, crematoria works etc. Under GAP, a total of 83 sewage treatment plants have been sanctioned for undertaking pollution abatement activities in the identified polluted stretches of the river Ganga, of which 69 sewage treatment plants with a capacity to treat 1091 million litres per day (mld) have been created.

Further, National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) has been constituted as an empowered, planning, financing, monitoring and coordinating authority with the objective to ensure effective abatement of pollution and conservation of the river Ganga by adopting a holistic river basin approach. Implementation of river pollution abatement works is an ongoing and collective effort of the Central and State Governments under which various schemes of pollution abatement are implemented by the Government. The NGRBA has also resolved that under Mission Clean Ganga, no untreated municipal sewage and industrial effluents shall flow into Ganga by 2020. CHECK ON EMRS FROM MOBILE TOWERS 10th December, 2012 LSQ *235 SHRI KAMAL KISHOR “ COMMANDO” SHRI SUVENDU ADHIKARI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(g) whether the Government has noticed that the Electro‐Magnetic Radiations (EMRs) emitted

by the mobile towers also affect the wildlife animals, birds etc. in the country; (h) if so, the details thereof; (i) whether any advisory has been issued by the Government in this regard; (j) if so, the details thereof; and (k) the action taken/being taken by the Government to address the issue?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) A Statement is laid on the Table of the House. STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a), (b), (c), (d) AND (e) OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO *235 REGARDING ‘CHECK ON EMRs FROM MOBILE TOWERS’ BY SHRI KAMAL KISHOR “ COMMANDO” AND SHRI SUVENDU ADHIKARI DUE FOR REPLY ON 10.12.2012. (a) and (b) As per the report of the ‘Expert committee to Study the possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife including Birds and Bees’, constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 30th August 2010, there are indications that the Electromagnetic Radiations affects biological systems of animals, birds and insects. (c), (d) and (e) The Ministry has issued an advisory on use of Mobile Towers to minimize their impact on wildlife including birds and bees. The contents of the advisory are given in the Annexure. The advisory has been circulated by the Ministry to the concerned organizations including the States for

the Forest and Wildlife Departments, and local bodies, Ministry of Panchayati Raj and the Department of Telecommunications, for their information and requisite action. ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (c), (d) AND (e) OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO *235 REGARDING ‘CHECK ON EMRs FROM MOBILE TOWERS’ BY SHRI KAMAL KISHOR “ COMMANDO” AND SHRI SUVENDU ADHIKARI DUE FOR REPLY ON 10.12.2012.

Advisory on use of Mobile Towers in a way to minimize their impacts on Wildlife including Birds and Bees An ‘Expert committee to Study the possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife including Birds and Bees’ was constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India on 30th August 2010. The report of the expert committee has been submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

The review of the available scientific information by the Expert Committee in the report indicates that the Electro‐Magnetic Radiations (EMR) interfere with the biological systems. On the basis of the report of the Expert Committee and subsequent deliberations with the stakeholders, a list of actions to be undertaken by various agencies involved in providing, regulating, and dealing in any other manner with, the EMR based services, has been prepared. Main objective of the listed actions is to avoid and mitigate the impacts of EMR. The Ministry of Environment and Forests accordingly requests the concerned Departments, State Governments, user agencies, and the public at large to take following actions:

I. Ministry of Environment and Forests: 1. The Electro Magnetic Radiations from the communication towers may have varying negative

impacts on wildlife especially birds and bees. Accordingly, the information on the impacts related to different forms of wildlife as well as humans, should be provided to the concerned agencies for regulating the norms for notification of standards for safe limits of EMR taking into consideration the impacts on living beings.

II. State/Local Bodies:

1. Regular auditing and monitoring of EMR should be conducted in urban localities/ educational/hospital/industrial/residential/recreational premises and especially around the Protected Areas (PAs) and ecologically sensitive areas w.r.t. notified norms of Department of Telecommunications. Problematic towers from EMR point of view should be got suitably relocated/removed.

2. Bold signs and messages on the dangers of cell phone towers and associated radiations are displayed in and around the structures of the towers. In addition to these signs, use of visual daytime markers in areas of high diurnal raptor or waterfowl movements, should also be promoted.

3. Before according permission for construction of towers, ecological impact assessment and review of installation sites will be essential in wildlife and/or ecologically important areas. The Forest Department should be consulted before installation of cell phone towers in and around PAs and zoos.

III. State Environment and Forest Departments: 1. Regular awareness drive with high level of visibility through all forms of media, and in

regional languages should be undertaken by the State Governments and concerned Departments to make people aware about various norms and standards with regard to cell phone towers and dangers of EMR from the same. Such notices should also be placed in all wildlife protected areas and zoos by the Forest Department.

IV. Department of Telecommunications:

1. To prevent overlapping of high radiation fields, new towers should not be permitted within a radius of one kilometre of the existing towers. Sharing of passive infrastructure if made mandatory for Telecom Service Providers can minimize need of having additional towers. If

new towers must be built, these should be constructed with utmost care and precautions so as not to obstruct flight path of birds, and also not to increase the combined radiations from all towers in the area.

2. The location and frequencies of cell phone towers and other towers emitting EMR, should be

made available in public domain. This can be at city/ district/ village level. Location‐wise GIS mapping of all cell phone towers should be maintained which would, inter alia, help in monitoring the population of birds and bees in and around the mobile towers and also in and/or around wildlife protected areas.

3. There is an urgent need to refine the Indian standard on safe limits of exposure to EMR,

keeping in view the available literature on impacts on various life forms. Till such time the Indian standards are reformed, a precautionary approach shall be preferred to minimize the exposure levels and adopt stricter norms possible, without compromising on optimum performance of the networks.

V. All concerned agencies:

1. Security lighting for on‐ground facilities should be minimized, and as far as possible, point downwards or be down‐shielded to avoid bird hits.

2. Any study conducted on impact of EMF radiation on wildlife needs to be shared with Forest Department and Department of Telecommunications to facilitate appropriate policy formulations.

CONSERVATION OF SEA COASTS 10th December, 2012 LSQ *236 SHRI SUDARSHAN BHAGAT: Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether it has come to the notice of the Government that the sea‐coasts near the tourist spots are getting polluted continuously;

(b) if so, the facts and the findings in this regard; (c) whether the Government proposes to work out any action plan to preserve the sea‐coasts

and control the pollution near tourist spots; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken/being taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) A Statement is laid on the Table of the House. STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARAS (A) to (E) OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. 236 FOR 10.12.2012 REGARDING CONSERVATION OF SEA COASTS BY SHRI SUDARSHAN BHAGAT. (a) & (b) As reported by the Central Pollution Control Board, it has been observed that the sea coasts at the tourist locations are exposed to the disposal of sewage and garbage. Pollution along the Indian coasts is caused chiefly due to industrial effluents discharge, disposal of untreated sewage,

agricultural runoff, operation of fertilizer plants near coastal cities, towns and handling of fertilizers in the ports and harbors. However, the increase in coastal pollution is specific to a few locations and localized in nature. (c) to (e) To assess the status of coastal pollution, Ministry of Earth Sciences has been implementing a nationally coordinated monitoring programme on "Coastal Ocean Monitoring and Prediction System (COMAPS)". About 20 locations of the coastal States/ Union Territories are being monitored to understand trends of pollution level. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has laid down effluent standards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 in order to ensure that the industries comply with the prescribed standards. The coastal stretches have also been declared as Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) imposing restriction on industries, operations and process in the CRZ. The Central and the State Pollution Control Boards are regulating water pollution under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to restore coastal water quality. The following steps have been taken to prevent and control coastal pollution;

i. Control of Industrial pollution under the provision of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

ii. Ensuring pollution control compliance in 17 categories of highly polluting industries. iii. Urban centres discharging wastewater in aquatic resources and having no treatment facilities

have been identified for suitable action. iv. With respect to industrial effluents, consent management for compliance of standards is being

enforced by State Pollution Control Boards / Pollution Control Committees to improve the water quality.

PROTECTION TO RHINOS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2532 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHETKAR SHRI RAJAIAH SIRICILLA


(a) whether the Indian Air Force has agreed to the request of State Government of Assam to provide a Chopper to airlift a Rhino which strayed from the flooded Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuary in the country;


MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No report has been received in this Ministry about any request made by the State Government of Assam to the Indian Air Force for providing a Chopper to airlift a Rhino which strayed from the flooded Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuary. (b) & (c) Does not arise. GLOBAL WARMING 10th December, 2012

LSQ 2536 SHRI C. RAJENDRAN Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the abnormal weather conditions resulting in tsunami, excessive rains and drought

in various parts of the country are the impact of global warming; (b) if so, the details thereof along with the names of the regions most affected by climate

change; (c) the scientific study conducted on the climatic changes caused by global warming and its

adverse impact on the country; (d) whether the Government has convened a meeting/discussion with International Forums; and (e) if so, the issues discussed thereon along with the plan of the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) There is no direct and clearly established cause and effect relationship between global warming on the one hand and natural phenomenon like tsunami, and extreme weather events such as excessive rains and drought on the other. While a degree of variability in extreme weather phenomena including rainfall has been noticed, these phenomena cannot always be related to climate change. (c) Government has conducted a scientific study to assess the impact of climate change on four key sectors of Indian economy, namely Agriculture, Natural Ecosystems & Biodiversity, Water and Human Health in four climate sensitive regions of India namely the Himalayan region, the Western Ghat, the Coastal Area and the North-East region and has published the report titled “Climate Change and India: 4X4 Assessment - A Sectoral and Regional Analysis for 2030s” in 2010. (d) & (e) India is a Party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and regularly participates in the discussions and negotiations conducted under the aegis of UNFCCC with a view to address adverse effects of climate change through appropriate institutional arrangements under the Convention.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS 10th December, 2012

LSQ 2538 SHRI NALIN KUMAR KATEEL SHRI B.Y. RAGHAVENDRA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the rivers like Cauvery and Tungabhadra continue to be polluted as ever;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government has taken any steps to reduce pollution in these rivers; and (d) if so, the details thereof and the measures taken in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Based on the water quality monitoring of various rivers in the country carried out by the Central Pollution Control Board, 150 polluted stretches have been identified. These include two stretches along river Cauvery and three along Tungabhadra river. (c) & (d) The National River Conservation Plan presently covers 41 rivers in 191 towns spread over 20 States, including Cauvery and Tungabhadra. Various pollution abatement schemes taken up under the Plan, inter‐alia, include interception and diversion of raw sewage, setting up of sewage treatment plants, creation of low cost sanitation facilities, setting up of electric/improved wood crematoria and river front development. For river Cauvery and Tungabhadra; treatment capacity of 156 and 25 million litres per day (mld) have been created respectively. CHECK ON EXTRACTION OF SAND FROM RIVER BED 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2544 SHRI B.Y.RAGHAVENDRA SHRI NALIN KUMAR KATEEL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has noticed that sand mining is rampant in the country; (b) if so, whether over extraction of sand would badly impact on ecology in the country; (c) if so, whether the Government is taking any measures to study the impact on the ecology

and if so, the details thereof; (d) whether the Government has received any suggestions in this regard; (e) if so, the details thereof; and (f) the steps taken by the Government to check over extraction of sand from river bed?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Sand mining is regulated in terms of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the rules framed therein. All mining activities of minor minerals, including sand, require prior environment clearance. This is with a view to ensuring that the mining is done in a scientific and sustainable manner. (c) to (f) The Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) had constituted on 24.03.2009 a group under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (Environment & Forests) to look into the environmental aspects associated with mining of minor minerals. The group submitted its report in March 2010 and made several recommendations relating to definition of minor mineral, size of mine lease, period of mine lease, cluster of mine approach for small sized mines, requirement of mine plan for minor minerals, river bed mining etc. MoEF have asked the States to examine the report and to issue necessary instructions for incorporating the recommendations made in the report in the Mineral Concession Rules for mining of minor minerals under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 27.02.2012 in IA No.12‐13 of 2011 in SLP(C) No.19628‐19629 of 2009 in the matter of “Deepak Kumar etc. vs. State of Haryana and Ors.” has ordered that the State Governments and UTs should take immediate steps to frame

necessary rules under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 taking, inter‐alia, into consideration the recommendations of MoEF in its report of March, 2010.

EMISSION OF TOXIC GASES BY INDUSTRIES 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2547 SHRI N. CHALUVARAYA SWAMY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the emission of toxic gases as a result of industrial development is playing a major role in polluting environment;

(b) if so, the reaction of the Government thereto; (c) the details of industries identified for emission of toxic gases in the country by

Government; and (d) the details of annual growth rate of these industries?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (b) Yes, Sir. The emission of toxic gases due to industrial development is adversely impacting the quality of environment. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), with the State Pollution Control Boards, is monitoring ambient air quality at 537 locations covering 222 cities/ towns including 53 metropolitan cities in the country. The steps taken by the Government to prevent and control environmental pollution include formulation of policies for abatement of pollution, supply of improved auto-fuel, tightening of vehicular and industrial emission norms, mandatory environmental clearance for specified industries, management of municipal, hazardous & bio-medical wastes, promotion of cleaner technologies, strengthening the network of air quality monitoring stations, preparation and implementation of action plans for major cities & critically polluted areas, increasing public awareness etc. (c) to (d) Emissions from highly polluted 17-categories of industries such as Iron and Steel, Cement, Thermal Power Plant, Copper and Lead Smelters, Aluminum, Fertilizer, Oil Refinery, Petro-Chemicals, etc. play a significant role in polluting the ambient environment. To control air emissions from these industries, Government has notified standards for gaseous pollutants released from such types of industries. Emission standards have been notified for 59 category of industries besides notifying standards for the gensets and the ambient air quality. Further, these industries are required to comply with the notified standards. According to the report of the Planning Commission, during the 10th Five Year Plan, the trends in the Performance of Industrial Sub-Sectors- Annual Growth Rate was 8.7 %.

COMPLETION OF DEVELOPMENTAL PROJECTS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2548 SHRI E.G. SUGAVANAM Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased be state:

(a) whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) is facing a lot of problems due to shortage of strength of its members which has resulted in delay in completion of developmental projects in the country;

(b) if so, the details of vacancies in NGT including its benches; and

(c) the time by which all vacant positions in NGT are likely to be filled up? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) Section 4 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010 provides, inter alia, for a minimum of 10 and subject to a maximum of 20 Judicial Members and equal number of Expert Members in the NGT. At present, the Tribunal has 3 Judicial Members and 6 Expert Members. The proposal for appointment of 6 Judicial Members and 4 Expert Members in the NGT has been sent to Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for approval.

WORLD HERITAGE 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2549 SHRI P.L.PUNIA


(a) whether the Government proposes to declare river Ganga as a ‘World Heritage’; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the time by which it is likely to be declared; (d) if not, the reasons therefor; and (e) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS

(SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN)

(a) to (e) There is no proposal with the Government to declare river Ganga as World Heritage. However, while recognizing that river Ganga is of unique importance ascribed to reasons that are geographical, historical, socio-cultural and economic giving it the status of a national river, the Government of India has constituted the National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) in February 2009 under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. VIOLATION OF CLEARANCE NORMS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2550 SHRI RAJU SHETTI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has taken any action against Lavasa project on the issues raised in the report submitted by the Expert Committee under chairmanship of Shri Naresh Dayal;

(b) if so, the details thereof and if not, the reasons therefor; and (c) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) Based on the Report of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Naresh Dayal and hearings undertaken, the Ministry issued final directions to M/s Lavasa Corporation Ltd (LCL) on 17th

January, 2011 to maintain status quo, not to undertake any construction work and to submit the project details to consider it on merit. Accordingly, M/s LCL submitted proposal for the first phase (2000 ha.) for development of hill station project at village Mulshi and Velhe Talukas, District Pune, Maharashtra. The project was examined by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) as per the provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. The EAC recommended the project for the issue of Environmental Clearance (EC) subject to various conditions, including five pre‐ conditions. As per a pre‐ condition, Secretary (Environment), Government of Maharashtra was requested to take action for violation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 against the project proponent. Accordingly, a complaint was filed on 4.11.2011 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pune vide RCC No.4671/2011.

The Environment Clearance to this project was granted on 9th November, 2011, stipulating various environmental safeguards after following the due procedure, considering the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee and the compliance status of the five pre‐conditions, including the action initiated by the Government of Maharashtra with regard to violation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

CLEARANCES TO PROJECTS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2552 SHRI S.R. JEYADURAI SHRI ABDUL RAHMAN


(a) whether the Government proposes to set up a separate machinery to immediately respond to appeals of small entrepreneurs at the highest levels to get environmental clearances;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the manner in which the Government proposes to address the clearance problem and make

the system more responsive; and (d) the action taken by the Government against the officials who delay the matters ?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The Government has no proposal to set up separate machinery to get environmental clearances since the same already exists. The cases for environmental clearances are processed in line with the provisions under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. (c) & (d) The steps taken for expediting appraisal of proposals for grant of environmental clearance include:

(i) Regular meetings of the Expert Appraisal Committees covering the various sectors. (ii) Regular updation of project status on Ministry’s website for the information of all

stakeholders. (iii) Sector specific manuals have been prepared and uploaded on the Ministry website to

facilitate better preparation of EIA reports by the project proponents. CHECK ON QUANTUM OF E‐WASTE

10th December, 2012 LSQ 2559 SHRI S. ALAGIRI SHRI ANJAN KUMAR M. YADAV Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the loading of e‐waste hasincreasing trends in the ports areas of thecountry; (b) if so, the details thereof during eachof the last three years and the current year, (c) port‐wise; (d) the manner in which load of e‐wasteis likely to be solved in future in thesituation of

increasing trends of e‐waste;and (e) the reaction of the Governmentthereto and the remedial steps taken by the (f) Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has notified the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, for regulating the import and export of hazardous wastes including e-waste. Import of e- wastes for disposal is not permitted. Import is permitted only for recycling or recovery or reuse with the permission of MoEF. As per these Rules, permission for import and export of e-waste can be considered only by those recycling units, which have environmentally sound recycling facilities and are registered with State Pollution Control Board/ Pollution Control Committee concerned. The Ministry has in the past given permission for export of e-waste by the registered recycling units and import to only one such unit for recycling. (c) & (d) MoEF has taken a number of steps to ensure environmentally sound management of e-waste in the country. These include:

(i) For effective implementation of provisions related to import and export, a co-ordination committee including representatives from the Ministry of Finance (Department. of Revenue), the Ministry of Commerce and Industries (DGFT), the Ministry of Shipping (Department. of Ports), the Central Pollution Control Board and select State Pollution Control Boards has been constituted.

(ii) Separate E-Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 have been notified.The producers

of electrical and electronic equipments covered under the Rules are required to collect e-waste generated from the end of life of their products by setting up collection centers or take back systems either individually or collectively.

(iii) E-waste recycling can be undertaken only in facilities authorized and registered with State

Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees. Waste generated is required to be sent or sold to a registered or authorized recycler or re-processor having environmentally sound facilities.

(iv) Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management of e-waste, published by Central

Pollution Control Board, provide approach and methodology for environmentally sound management of e-waste.

INDUSTRIALISATION ZONE AROUND NATIONAL PARK 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2562

SHRI A.GANESHAMURTHI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Ministry has opposed the recommendations of the Centrally Empowered

Committee suggesting that the ring of limited industralisation zone around the 600 plus National Parks and Sanctuaries be diminished;

(b) if so, the reasons therefor; and (c) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) The Ministry of Environment and Forests has decided to adhere to the decision of the National Board for Wildlife taken in its Meeting held on 17th March 2005 under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, to have site specific proposals for declaration of eco‐sensitive zones around National Parks and Sanctuaries. An affidavit to this extent has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The matter is sub‐judice. AREA UNDER NO‐GO POLICY 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2567 SHRI AHIR VIKRAMBHAI ARJANBHAI MAADAM

Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state: the details of extent of area in coal region under ‘No‐ Go’ policy and the percentage it constitutes of total forest cover in the country? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) The Group of Ministers (GoM) constituted by the Cabinet Secretariat to consider the environmental and developmental issues relating to coal mining and other development projects in their fifth meeting held on 20.09.2011 inter‐alia decided that concept of Go/ No‐Go should be done away with and each of the proposals seeking diversion of forest land for coal mining be processed and considered by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) on their merit. Accordingly, the MoEF vide their letter dated 30.08.2012 informed the concerned State Governments that they may process the proposals seeking prior approval of Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of forest land for coal mining projects in accordance with the said decision of GoM and send these proposals to the MoEF for further necessary action to consider these proposals on case to case basis and on merit.

RESTRUCTURING OF CADRE 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2570 SHRI BISHNU PADA RAY


(a) whether the issue of Restructuring of Ministerial Cadre was placed before the IDA meeting;

(b) if so, the financial implication in the proposal; (c) the time since which the proposal is pending before the Administration; and (d) the time by which the case is likely to be settled and the benefits extended?


(a) No Sir.

(b) to (d) Does not arise. SETTING UP OF PLANT‐NEAR SANCTUARY 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2572 SHRI RAMKISHUN SHRI KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Standing Committee on National Board for Wildlife has given approval for setting up of ‘Dead Burnt Magnesia Plant’ near a sanctuary in Jammu which is home to many endangered species;

(b) if so, whether any representations have been received regarding the area being environmentally fragile;

(c) if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government thereto; and (d) the details of remedial measures taken by the Government to protect the environment

in the said area?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) The proposal involving extraction of 1240000 TPA High Grade Magnasite deposit at Chipprian Hills and setting up 30000 TPA of dead burnt Magnesia plant at village Panthal, Katra Reasi, falling within 10 kms from the boundary of Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary, Jammu and Kashmir, was considered by the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife in its Meeting held on 14th October 2011 and was recommended with certain conditions. (b) to (d) Two Public Interest Litigations (PIL), viz., WPPIL No. 02/2012 by Shri Rinku Sharma, Jammu versus Ministry of Environment and Forests & others and WPPIL No.03/2012 by Ms. Vilakshana Singh, Jammu and Shri Dewakar Sharma, Jammu versus Ministry of Environment and Forests and others have been filed before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu, inter alia, challenging the decision of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife and praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife for extraction of 1240000 TPA High Grade Magnasite deposit at Chipprian Hills and setting up 30000 TPA of dead burnt Magnesia plant at village Panthal and also for denotification of the Trikuta Wildlife Sanctuary.

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, while hearing the two PIL’s had, vide their order dated 10th July 2012, dismissed the two petitions indicating that the two petitions were pre‐mature on all counts as the denotification of the Trikuta Sanctuary as well as the environmental clearance was subject to the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and without waiting for such orders, the petitioners had filed the petitions.

PROVISION OF LAND FOR AFFORESTATION PURPOSES 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2573 SHRI MADHU KODA


(e) whether the Government has any provision for the lease holders of industry and mining

works on forest land area to make equal land available at some other place for afforestation to the Ministry vis‐a‐vis the land provided to them for nonforest area related work in the country;

(f) if so, whether a number of companies belonging to the private and public sectors are engaged in industrial and mining works in Jharkhand;

(g) if so, the details of the forest land area being used for non‐forest activities; and (h) the number of leasing holder companies in Jharkhand which have made available equal land

to the Ministry against the land provided to them for non‐forest area related work? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) The Ministry while granting approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of forest land for non‐forestry purposes stipulates condition of compensatory afforestation over non‐forest land in accordance with the Act, Rules and Guidelines made thereunder. However, the compensatory afforestation is permitted over degraded forest area double in extent to the diverted forest land in case of Central Sector projects executed by Central Government/ Central Government Undertakings. The compensatory afforestation is not insisted in certain other cases like underground mining below 3 meters and projects involving upto 1 ha forest land. (b) & (c) The details of industrial and mining projects in Jharkhand in respect of which approval for diversion of forest land has been granted is attached in the Annexure. The State Government is required to obtain non‐forest land, afforest and notify the same as reserved forest in accordance with the conditions stipulated by the Ministry. (d) The condition stipulated regarding compensatory afforestation does not require the non‐forest land to be made available to the Ministry of Environment & Forests. The details of non‐forest land made available for afforestation to the State/Union Territory Governments are not compiled in the Ministry. ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (b) AND (c) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 2573 BY SHRI MADHU KODA REGARDING ‘PROVISION OF LAND FOR AFFORESTATION PURPOSES’ DUE FOR REPLY ON 10.12.2012. Statement showing forest area diverted for industrial and mining activities in the State of Jharkhand since enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

Sl. No. Category of project No. of proposals approved Area Diverted

1 Hydro‐electric 3 22 2 Mining 106 11755 3 Thermal 5 1139 4 Transmission Line 91 2325 Total 292 15241

PRODUCTION OF FOREST PRODUCTS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2576 SHRI HANSRAJ G.AHIR Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the forest produces like Moha, Karanji are being used as alcohol in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government proposes to produce petroleum products from Moha and

Karanji in view of their availability in ample quantity in forests of the country; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) there is no report regarding production of alcohol from Karnaji in the country. However, Mahua is known to be occasionally used by certain tribes to produce liquor at household level.

(c) to (e) There is no specific programme for cultivation of plants for production of biodiesel in Ministry. An advisory was issued on 22‐7‐2003 under NAP scheme to take up 10% of project area for plantation of Jatropha species, only on highly degraded area devoid of vegetation (with less than 10% tree cover). As per the clarification issued on 5th September 2005, it is stated that Plantation of oil‐bearing plants on forest land is a non‐forestry activity to be regulated under the provision of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. However, if the oil‐bearing plant is indigenous to the area in question and its plantation is part of the overall afforestation programme for the forest area concerned prior approval of the Central Government under the Act is not required.

RISE IN WATER BORNE DISEASES 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2578 SHRI K.C. SINGH 'BABA' Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the pollution level of water in the major rivers of the country is very high resulting in rise in water borne diseases and deaths therefrom;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the steps taken/being taken by the Government in this regard; and

(c) the funds spent thereon during the last three years?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) According to the Central Pollution Control Board, the downstream of rivers of the cities and towns located at the banks of the rivers are showing water quality deterioration with reference to Dissolved Oxygen, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and coliform bacteria. The prime cause of such deterioration is on account of disposal of sewage. Health effects could be associated with water pollution. However, there is no conclusive data available to confirm these figures. Ministry of Environment and Forests is supplementing the efforts of the State Governments in abatement of pollution in rivers through the centrally sponsored National River Conservation Plan (NRCP), which presently covers 41 rivers in 191 towns spread over 20 States. Pollution abatement schemes implemented under the Plan include interception, diversion and treatment of sewage; low cost sanitation works on river banks; electric/improved wood based crematoria etc. Sewage treatment capacity of 4704 mld (million litres per day) has been created under this scheme. (c) An amount of Rs.1387.68 crore has been released under NRCP to various State implementing agencies during the last 3 years and current year. CLEANING UP OF COAST IN GUJARAT 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2580 SHRIMATI JAYASHREEBEN PATEL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has reimbursed the expenditure incurred for cleaning up of the

coast to the State of Gujarat; (b) if not, the reasons therefor; and (c) the action taken by the Government against the companies operating their facilities at

Mukta‐Panna basin and responsible for Oil Spillage?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) As per Government of Gujarat, tar balls were seen on the South Gujarat coast line during July ‐ August, 2009. An oil spill had reportedly occurred from the pipeline carrying crude oil at Mutka‐Panna field resulting in formation of tar balls. The Gujarat Pollution Control Board and Gujarat Maritime Board have reportedly spent Rs. 38,11,968/‐ during 2009 towards cleaning up of the oil spill at Coast. The Government of Gujarat has requested the Ministry of Environment and Forests for reimbursement of the amount spent for clean‐up operations.

As per the Director General of Hydrocarbons, the only oil leakage reported in 2009 from Mukta‐Panna basin was 3.8 barrels which was dispersed due to natural weathering process. This amount of oil spilled was minimal and did not require any compensation. PROCESSING OF HERBAL PRODUCTS 10th December, 2012

LSQ 2587 SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has received any proposal from the State Government of

Jharkhand regarding plantation and setting up of plant for the processing and distillation of herbal and scented plants in the State;


MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No, Sir. The Ministry has not received any proposal from the State Government of Jharkhand regarding plantation and setting up of plant for the processing and distillation of herbal and scented plants in the State. (b) & (c) Does not arise in view of (a) above.

CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY INDEX 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2590 SHRI MAHABALI SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENTAND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether as per the fifth Annual Report of the Maple Craft Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI), some of the major cities of India are listed among the top 20 are going to be effected in future with dangers such as droughts, cyclones, water crises etc.;

(b) if so, the details thereof including the reaction of the Government thereto; and (c) the action plan being chalked out by the Government in this regard?


(a) and (b) As per the Maplecroft Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI) developed under a private initiative, Kolkata is ranked 7th amongst the seven cities regarded as being exposed to extreme risk of changing temperatures and weather systems. Mumbai and Delhi are ranked 8th and 20th respectively amongst 19 high risk cities wherein pressure on country’s water resources is likely to increase posing risks of drought and water crisis. (c) Government of India is aware of the implications of climate change and vulnerability of various regions and communities to its adverse effects. Government has implemented the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) which includes National Missions in several areas including Water, Sustainable Agriculture and Sustainable Habitat. The National Water Mission aims at conserving water, minimizing wastage and ensuring its more equitable distribution. The National Mission on Sustainable

Agriculture aims at protecting water resources for sustainable production of food. The National Mission on Sustainable Habitat includes, inter alia, activities for managing coastal zone. NAPCC also includes initiatives for Disaster Management Response to Extreme Climate Events and Protection of Coastal Areas. The Coastal Regulation Zone Notification was published in 2011 with an aim of protecting livelihoods of fisher folk communities, preservation of ecology and promotion of economic activity in coastal areas. Further, Government has initiated, with the assistance of the World Bank, a project on ‘Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan’ for mapping of a hazard line along the coastal areas of the country taking into account the sea level rise due to climate change and other parameters such as, shoreline change, tides and wave.

CONSERVATION OF MEDICINAL PLANTS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2592 SHRIMATI KAMLA DEVI PATLE Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether any special action plan has been formulated by the Government for development and conservation of rare medicinal plants in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof, State‐wise including Chhattisgarh; and (c) the steps taken by the Government to check extinction/smuggling of the said plants?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Yes. The Government has taken a number of steps for the development and conservation of

medicinal plants (including rare ones), which inter‐alia include, the following:

(i) With a purpose of conservation and management of medicinal plants, the Government has set up a National Medicinal Plants Board vide Resolution notified on 24th November, 2000 under Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Important functions of the Board include Co‐ordination with Ministries / Departments / Organizations / States / Union Territories (UT) for the development of the medicinal plant sector. At the State / UT level, State Medicinal Plants Boards (SMPBs) have also been constituted by the States.

(ii) The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has established a Centre of Excellence

on Medicinal Plants and Traditional Knowledge at Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions, Bengaluru since October 2002. The Ministry has so far provided approximately Rs.8.0 crore to this Centre to generate and disseminate knowledge related to conservation of medicinal plants and traditional knowledge.

(iii) Operationalizing the Global Environment Facility (GEF) – Government of India (GoI) ‐

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Project entitled ‘Mainstreaming Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants Diversity in three Indian States’ which is being implemented in Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand.

(iv) To conserve plant diversity in general and protect the rare species in particular, habitat

improvement is the primary measure. For this purpose, Protected Area Network that include 102 National Parks, 515 Wildlife Sanctuaries, 47 Conservation Reserves and 4 Community Reserves have been established. These areas receive additional protection

under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Further, 18 Biosphere Reserves have also been established for landscape conservation.

(v) Establishing a network of 108 Medicinal Plant Conservation Areas (MPCAs) focused on

conservation of prioritized wild medicinal plants occurring in different regions of the country across 12 States with technical support from FRLHT. The State‐wise list of MPCAs, including 7 MPCAs in Chhattisgarh, is given in the Annexure.

(vi) BSI has brought a number of threatened plants including rare medicinal plants under

cultivation in its Acharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Indian Botanic Garden at Howrah, Botanic Garden of Indian Republic, Noida and associated botanic gardens of its regional centers for their ex‐situ conservation. In addition to these, a number of Botanic Gardens associated with Universities/Institutes have also successfully conserved/multiplied several threatened plants with the help of the ministry under its “Assistance to Botanic Gardens” scheme.

(c) Prevention of smuggling of medicinal plants and their protection are done through enforcement of the Indian Forest Act, 1927; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the rules under these Acts. A Wildlife Crime Control Bureau has since been established to check illegal trade and smuggling in wildlife including medicinal plants. ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN ANSWER TO PART (a & b) IN RESPECT OF LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION No. 2592 DUE FOR ANSWER ON 10.12.2012 REGARDING ‘CONSERVATION OF MEDICINAL PLANTS’ State‐Wise List of Medicinal Plant Conservation Areas (MPCA) Network in India:

Sl. No State Name of MPCA District

1.

Karnataka

BRT Hills Chamrajnagar 2. Talacauvery Kodagu 3. Savandurga Ramanagara 4. Subramanya Dakshina Kannada 5. Charmadi Dakshina Kannada6. Devrayandurga Tumkur7. Kudermukh Chikmagalur8. Kemmangundi Chikmagalur 9. Agumbe Shimoga 10. Devimane Uttara Kannada 11. Sandur Bellary 12. Karpakapalli Bidar 13. Kollur Udupi14.

Kerala

Agasthiarmala Thiruvananthapuram15. Triveni Pathanamthitta16. Eravikulam Idukki17. Peechi Trissur 18. Athirappally Trissur 19. Silent Valley Palakkadu 20. Wayanad Wayanad 21. Kulamavu Idukki22. Anapadi Palakkadu23.

Tamil nadu

Petchiparai Nagarkovil24. Mundanthurai Tirunelveli25. Kutrallum Tirunelveli 26. Thaniparai Tirunelveli 27. Alagarkovil Madurai 28. Kodaikanal Madurai29. Kodikkarai Nagapattanam30. Topslip Coimbatore31. Kollihills Namakkal32. Kurumbaram Kanchipuram33. Thenmalai Thiruvannamalai

34. Nambikovil Tirunelveli35.

Maharashtra

Amba Raigad 36. Amboli Sindhudurg 37. Gadmauli Gadchiroli 38. Gullarghat Amravati39. Honya Koli Pune40. Legapani Nandurbar41. Nagzira Gondia42. Navaja Satara43. Patanadevi Jalgaon 44. Sawarna Nasik 45. SGNP, Borivali Thane 46. Ukalapani Nandurbar 47. Yedshi Ramling Osmanabad48.

Andhra pradesh

Mallur Warangal49. Sukkumamidi Khammam50. Talakona Tirupati51. Maredumilli East Godavari 52. Lankapakalu Visakhapatnam 53. Coringa East Godavari 54. Peddacheruvu Kurnool 55. K.Kuntalapalli Anantapur 56.

Orissa

Kapilash Dhenkanal57. Tamna Khurda58. Gurudongar Nuapada59. Satkosia Mayurbhanj 60. Pradhanpat Deogarh 61.

Madhya pradesh

Bhundakona Anuppur 62. Latri Bithli North Balaghat 63. Parcha Sehore 64. Kapoornala Chhindwara65. Hinota Panna66. Kupi Jatashankar Chattarpur67. Bhagpura Khandwa68. Chapparisotia Mandla 69. Nawali & Sawad Mandsaur 70. Narsimhpur Narsimhpur 71. Narayanpur Sagar 72. Shyamagiri Panna73. Panarpani Hoshangabad74.

Rajashtan

Ramkunda Udaipur75. Bada bhakar Jodhpur76. Bhanwarkot Banswara 77. Gajroop Sagar Jaisalmer 78. Badkochara Ajmer 79. Sitamata Chittaurgarh80. Kumbalgarh Rajsamand81.

West bengal

Garhpanchkot Purulia82. Dhotrey Darjeeling83. Tonglu Darjeeling84. Sursuti Jalpaiguri 85. North Sevoke Jalpaiguri 86. NRVK Jalpaiguri 87. Bony Camp South 24 Parganas 88.

Uttarakhand

Kandara Uttarkashi 89. Khaliya Pithoragarh90. Jhuni Bageshwar91. Gangi Tehri‐Garhwal 92. Bastiya Champawat93. Mohan Almora94. Mandal Chamoli95.

Chhattisgarh

Amadob Marwahi 96. Jabarra Dhamtari 97. Tiriya Bastar 98. Bhatwa South Kondagaon99. Ghatpendari North Surguja100 Patiya Jashpur

101 Bandhatola Rajnandgaon 102

Arunachal pradesh

Lumla ‐ Lumla Tawang 103 Selari ‐ Bomdila West kameng 104 Mayodia Dibang vallwy 105 Parasuramkhund Lohit106 Wang (Longiding) Tirap107 Hake – Tari (Hapoli) Lower subansiri108 Dakpe (Daporijo) Upper Subansiri

PROJECTS UNDER NATIONAL RIVER CONSERVATION PLAN 10th December, 2012

LSQ 2595 SHRIMATI DARSHANA JARDOSH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the number and details of the river projects under the National River Conservation Plan during the last three years, State‐wise;

(b) the funds allocated/released in this regard; (c) whether the Government intends to approve such schemes for Daman Ganga river of

Daman (Union Territory); and (d) if so, the details thereof?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) During the last three years and current year, various pollution abatement schemes in identified rivers stretches have been sanctioned by the this Ministry under National River Conservation Plan (NRCP). Further, in February 2009, National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) has been constituted, as an empowered, planning, financing, monitoring and coordinating authority with the objective to ensure effective abatement of pollution and conservation of the river Ganga by adopting a holistic river basin approach. Projects amounting to nearly Rs. 2600 crore have been sanctioned so far under the NGRBA. Details of cost of projects sanctioned, funds released under NRCP during the last 3 years and current year, State‐wise, are at Annexure.

(c) & (d) The pollution abatement schemes for conservation of rivers are sanctioned from time to time on the basis of proposals received from the State Governments. No proposal for abatement of pollution in river Daman Ganga at Daman has been received in this Ministry for consideration.

Annexure referred in reply to parts (a) & (b) of Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2595 to be answered on 10th December, 2012 on ‘Projects under National River Conservation Plan’.

Cost of projects sanctioned and funds released under National River Conservation Plan including National Ganga River Basin Authority during last three years and current year

(Rs. In crore)

S. No.

State Cost of new projects sanctioned Funds Released in last three years and current year (Ongoing + new projects)

1 Andhra Pradesh ‐‐ 36.892 Bihar 441.85 35.373 Delhi 20.32 184.674 Haryana 229.70 57.10 5 Jharkhand ‐‐ ‐‐

6 Gujarat 262.13 42.107 Goa ‐‐ ‐‐ 8 Karnataka 0.96 9 Kerala ‐‐ ‐‐ 10 Maharastra 74.29 24.2711 Madhya Pradesh 6.20 0.9012 Nagaland ‐‐ ‐‐13 Orissa ‐‐ 5.0014 Punjab 515.52 138.6415 Rajasthan 149.59 40.00 16 Sikkim 151.69 72.09 17 Tamilnadu 2.54 3.10 18 Uttar Pradesh 1385.95 445.46 19 Uttrakhand 135.93 49.8220 West Bengal 690.10 251.21Total 4065.81 1387.68

CLEANING OF KALI RIVER 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2600 SHRI KADIR RANA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Kali river of Uttar Pradesh is polluted; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the steps taken by the Government for cleaning of this river; and (d) if not, the reasons therefor?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) As per information received from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Uttar Pradesh (UP) Jal Nigam, the water quality of river Kali is deteriorated due to discharge of industrial and domestic wastes from various towns such as Meerut, Modi Nagar, Modipuram, Hapur, Bulandshahr, Khatauli, Daurala, Gulaothi and Kannauj. (c) & (d) A sewerage project for Meerut town, which includes setting up of a sewage treatment plant of 145 million litres per day (mld) capacity, has been sanctioned under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission scheme of Ministry of Urban Development. For treating the sewage generated in Kannauj town, two sewerage projects with a total sewage treatment capacity of 13 mld have been sanctioned under Uttar Pradesh Government and National Ganga River Basin Authority programme. CHECK ON ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2602 KUMARI SAROJ PANDEY


(a) whether rampant industrialisation has adversely affected the environmental balance in the country;

(b) if so, the most such affected areas of the country; and (c) the steps taken by the Government to tackle the situation?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SMT JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) Yes, rampant industrialisation and consequent discharge of gaseous and liquid effluents by the large categories of industries and by the industrial clusters is impacting environmental balance in the country. (b) & (c) The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in collaboration with Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi had conducted a survey based on Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI) criteria in 2009 for assessment of pollution load of industrial areas in 88 major industrial clusters in the country. Out of these, 43 industrial clusters having CEPI score more than 70 have been identified as Critically Polluted Areas (CPAs). The State‐wise list of critically polluted clusters /areas is enclosed at Annexure. The Ministry of Environment & Forests has imposed a moratorium on 13.01.2010 on grant of environmental clearances for developmental projects in these 43 critically polluted industrial clusters. For restoration of environmental quality in these polluted clusters, State Pollution Control Board (SPCBs) were asked to prepare Action Plans. The Action Plans prepared by SPCBs have been reviewed by CPCB. Based on Action Plans and the initiation of implementation measures the moratorium has been lifted by the Ministry in 26 industrial clusters/areas. ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (b) & (c) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 2602 TO BE ANSWERED ON 10.12.2012 0N ‘CHECK ON ENVIRONMENTAL BALANCE’ State-wise distribution of Critically Polluted Industrial clusters / areas (CEPI Scores >70) identified based on CEPI criteria State No. of clusters Industrial clusters / areas CEPI

Andhra Pradesh 2 Vishakha patnam Patancheru‐Bollaram

70.82 70.07

Chhatisgarh 1 Korba 83.00 Delhi 1 Nazafgarh drain basin 79.54 Gujarat 6 Ankaleshwar

Vapi Ahmedabad Vatva Bhavnagar Junagarh

88.50 88.09 75.28 74.77 70.99 70.82

Haryana 2 Faridabad Panipat

77.07 71.91

Jharkhand 1 Dhanbad 78.63 Karnataka 2 Mangalore

Bhadravati 73.68 72.33

Kerala 1 Greater Kochin 75.08 Madhya Pradesh 1 Indore 71.26 Maharashtra 5 Chandrapur

Dombivalli Aurangabad Navi Mumbai Tarapur

83.88 78.41 77.44 73.77 72.01

Orissa 3 Angul Talchar Ib valley Jharsuguda

82.09 74.00 73.34

Punjab 2 Ludhiana Mandi Gobind Garh

81.66 75.08

Rajasthan 3 Bhiwadi Jodhpur Pali

82.91 75.19 73.73

Tamil Nadu 4 Vellore Cuddalore

81.79 77.45

Manali Coimbatore

76.32 72.38

Uttar Pradesh 6 Ghaziabad Singrauli Noida Kanpur Agra Varanasi‐Mirzapur

87.37 81.73 78.90 78.09 76.48 73.79

West Bengal 3 Haldia Howrah Asansole

75.43 74.84 70.20

DISEASES CAUSED BY GODAVARI RIVER 10

th December, 2012

LSQ 2603 SHRI DILIPKUMAR MANSUKHLAL GANDHI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the ground water of Nasik is being polluted due to the pollution in Godavari

river; (b) if so, the details thereof and the danger of outbreak of diseases due to it; (c) the details of the amount spent on the cleaning of Godavari river; and (d) the action taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS HRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in coordination with Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board (MPCB) is monitoring ground water quality at Pathardi Nashik. The ground water quality results indicate that the values of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) are exceeding water quality criteria and this has been attributed due to disposal of Municipal Solid Waste. A special study on Groundwater Quality Assessment in Metropolitan cities of India taken up CPCB revealed that total Hardness, Calcium and Nitrate concentration in groundwater samples of Nashik city exceeded the maximum permissible limit prescribed for drinking water. Though no fecal contamination was observed in ground water, but at some locations bacterial contamination was noted. Further, no report of danger of outbreak of diseases due to water contamination is reported by CPCB. (c) & (d) Conservation of rivers is an ongoing and collective effort of the Central and State Governments. This Ministry is supplementing the efforts of the State Governments in abatement of pollution in rivers under National River Conservation Plan (NRCP) for implementation of projects on a cost sharing basis between the Central and State Governments. Pollution abatement schemes of Rs.118.97 crore have been sanctioned for river Godavari in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. So far, an expenditure of Rs. 112.82 crore has been incurred and sewage treatment capacity of 185.46 mld has been created under the Plan. NAGOYA PROTOCOL 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2608 SHRI C.R. PATIL

SHRI PRADEEP MAJHI SHRI ABDUL RAHMAN SHRI KISHANBHAI V. PATEL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit‐Sharing by the country has been finalized by the Government in the recent past;

(b) if so, the details and salient features thereof; (c) the names of the countries which have so far ratified the protocol; (d) whether the country has been a victim of misappropriation or bio‐piracy of our genetic

resources and associated traditional knowledge; (e) if so, the extent to which such victimization would be checked after ratification of Nagoya

Protocol by the country; (f) whether there is ongoing controversy between the approaches of the Planning

Commission Dy. Chairman and the Ministries of External Affairs and the Ministry on the question of Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit‐Sharing; and

(g) if so, the details thereof and the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND` FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) agoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) is a new international treaty adopted under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan in October, 2010, after six years of intense negotiations. As a megadiverse country rich in biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge, and with a rapidly advancing biotechnology industry, India has contributed effectively in ABS negotiations. The objective of the Nagoya Protocol is the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies. The Nagoya Protocol provides a transparent legal framework on how researchers and companies can obtain access to genetic resources, and how benefits arising from the use of such material or knowledge will be shared. India has signed the Nagoya Protocol on 11.5.2011 and ratified it on 09.10.2012. The number of signatories to the Protocol is 92, and so far nine countries have ratified the Protocol. These are Seychelles, Rwanda, Gabon, Jordan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mexico, India, Fiji and Ethiopia. (d) & (e) There have been several instances of misappropriation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge from the country, despite having taken necessary action at the national level. Once the Nagoya Protocol enters into force, the user country measures enshrined in it would oblige all Parties to provide that users of genetic resources within their jurisdiction respect the domestic regulatory framework of Parties from where genetic resources have been accessed, thereby addressing the concerns of misappropriation. (f) & (g) No, Sir. The draft Note for Cabinet seeking approval for ratification of Nagoya Protocol was circulated to all the concerned Ministries and Departments, including the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Planning Commission. Both the MEA and the Planning Commission had concurred with the proposal. STRENGTHENING OF MONITORING PROCESS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2609 SHRI D.B. CHANDRE GOWDA SHRI S.R. JEYADURAI SHRI ADHI SANKAR SHRI ABDUL RAHMAN


(a) whether the Government has set up an expert Committee to find out the mining companies including coal sector, who have failed to start mining despite giving clearances and to strengthen the monitoring process in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the number of proposals that are pending with the Committee, State‐wise, company‐wise; and

(c) the time by which the said proposals are likely to be cleared? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has notified EIA Notification 2006 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which deals with the process to grant environmental clearances. Expert Appraisal Committees for different sectors have been constituted for appraisal of sector specific projects. Based on the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee, the environmental clearance is accorded subject to various conditions and environmental safeguards to be implemented by the project proponent. The implementation of the stipulated conditions is monitored through the six Regional Offices of MoEF located at Bangalore, Bhubaneswar, Bhopal, Chandigarh, Lucknow and Shillong. The State-wise details of project proposals, relating to coal mining sector and non-coal mining sector, pending for environmental clearance are annexed as Annexure – I.

Annexure‐ I

State‐wise details of project proposals pending for Environmental Clearance S.No. Name of the State/UT Coal Mine Non‐coal Mine

1 Andhra Pradesh ‐ 8 2 A & N ‐ ‐ 3 Arunachal Pradesh ‐ ‐ 4 Assam ‐ ‐ 5 Bihar ‐ ‐ 6 Chandigarh ‐ ‐7 Chhattisgarh 13 58 Dadar Nagar Haveli ‐ ‐9 Daman & Diu ‐ ‐ 10 Delhi ‐ ‐ 11 Goa ‐ 1 12 Gujarat ‐ 4 13 Haryana ‐ 1 14 Himachal Pradesh ‐ 615 Jammu & Kashmir ‐ ‐16 Jharkhand 20 1717 Karnataka ‐ 4 18 Kerala ‐ ‐ 19 Madhya Pradesh 4 10 20 Maharashtra 5 9 21 Manipur ‐ ‐ 22 Meghalaya ‐ 123 Mizoram ‐ ‐24 Nagaland ‐ ‐25 Lakshdweep ‐ ‐ 26 Pondicherry ‐ ‐ 27 Orissa 11 27 28 Punjab ‐ ‐

29 Rajasthan 3 35

30 Sikkim ‐ ‐

31 Tamil Nadu ‐ 2

32 Tripura ‐ ‐

33 Uttarakhand ‐ 7

34 Uttar Pradesh ‐ ‐

35 West Bengal ‐ ‐

Total 56 137

BEAUTIFICATION OF BANKS OF RIVER GANGA 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2613 SHRI SURENDRA SINGH NAGAR Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has formulated a scheme for beautification of the banks of river Ganga in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the amount of funds likely to be spent thereon by the Government in the regard; and (d) the benefits likely to accrue to the Government and the people therefrom?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) As per the National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) framework, the States can take up river front management projects for integrated area development along the banks of river Ganga. (b) These projects can be taken up by the States with 70% central share on long stretches of ghats along the river Ganga. These should take into account all facets of area development including urban planning, architecture, culture and heritage, religious practices, etc. including environmental improvements and development of ghats for bathing and religious rites. (c) The Government has approved a project for conservation and restoration of water quality of river Ganga with World Bank assistance to be implemented over a period of 8 years under NGRBA framework. As part of this project, Rs. 500 crores have been earmarked for river front management with 30% share coming from the States. (d) The river front management schemes comprising of area development plans will help in mitigating point source pollution including solid waste dumping and improve the places along the ghats on Ganga river. Under these schemes, specific stretches of ghats can be improved by providing public toilets, facilities for solid waste management and development of ghats for bathing and religious rites, recreational uses and local economic development for the benefit of local residents and users of the river POLLUTION OF RIVERS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2619 SHRI P.T. THOMAS SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH

Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state: (a) whether the Government has taken note of the increasing pollution of rivers in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof and the action taken by the Government in this regard; (c) whether the Government has any plan to clean rivers with Public Participation;

(d) if so, the details thereof; (e) whether the Government has sought assistance from the World Bank/International Agency for

cleaning of rivers; and (f) if so, the details thereof?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The pollution load in rivers is increasing due to discharge of partially treated and untreated municipal and industrial waste. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) along with State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), is monitoring water quality of rivers in terms of Dissolved Oxygen, Bio‐chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Fecal Coliforms etc. Based on BOD levels, 150 polluted stretches have been identified along various rivers in the country. This Ministry is supplementing the efforts of the State Governments in abatement of pollution in rivers under the National River Conservation Plan (NRCP) for implementation of projects on a cost sharing basis between the Central and State Governments. The NRCP presently covers 41 rivers in 191 towns spread over 20 States. Various pollution abatement schemes taken up under the Plan, inter‐alia, include interception and diversion of raw sewage, setting up of sewage treatment plants, creation of low cost sanitation facilities, setting up of electric/improved wood crematoria and river front development. (c) & (d) Public Participation & Awareness (PP&A) is one of the components under NRCP for creating awareness among general public and stakeholders regarding the need to conserve the rivers. (e) & (f) External assistance from bilateral/ multilateral agencies is availed of from time to time by the Government for conservation of rivers. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has extended loan assistance for implementation of Yamuna Action Plan & Ganga Action Plan (exclusive for Varanasi). World Bank has extended loan assistance for abatement of pollution of river Ganga under National Ganga River Basin Authority.

TITLES ON FOREST LAND 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2623 SHRI MAKAN SINGH SOLANKI


(a) whether the Government has fixed any norms for distribution of titles on the forest land

in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether titles have been/are being distributed to the farmers of other bordering States

also; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) if not, the reasons therefor?


(a) & (b) The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA, 2006) seeks to recognize and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such

forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded. The claims filed by the forest dwelling scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers for recognition of rights under the Act are adjudicated at three levels, namely, the Gram Sabha, the Sub‐Divisional Level Committee and the District Level committee. The District Level Committee is the final authority for approving the record of forest rights and its decision is final and binding. On approval of a claim by the District Level Committee, the title deed under the Act is issued to the concerned claimant and the Gram Sabha, as prescribed in the Rules framed under the Act. In respect of rights recognised under Section 3(1) (a) of the Act, the area shall be restricted to area under actual occupational and in no case shall exceed four hectares. (c) & (d) The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 does not envisage distribution of title deeds to the farmers of other bordering States. (e) Does not arise, in view of the reply to parts (c) & (d) above. NATIONAL PARKS/BIRD SANCTUARIES 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2624 SHRI AFAR ALI NAQVI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state: (a) the number of National Parks and Bird Sanctuaries in the country at present State/UT‐wise

including Uttar Pradesh; (b) whether the population of animals such as tigers, lions, deer has increased in the said

Parks/Sanctuaries and if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government has formulated any scheme for grant of a special package for the

maintenance and development of Dudhwa National Park in Uttar Pradesh; and (d) if so, the details thereof?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) National Parks and Sanctuaries are notified under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by concerned State/Union Territory Governments in the country. As per the information available in the Ministry, 102 National Parks and 516 Wildlife Sanctuaries including Bird Sanctuaries have been notified presently in the country. State/Union Territory‐wise number of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries is at Annexure. (b) As per the latest information available in the Ministry, the estimated population of tiger has increased from 1411 in 2006 to 1706 in 2010. The population of lion has increased from 359+ 10 in 2005 to 411 in 2010. The information in respect of deer is not available in the Ministry as no nationwide census of deer population has been undertaken in the country. The sanctuary‐wise population of these species has not been collated in the Ministry. (c) & (d) Under the ongoing Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Project Tiger, funding assistance is provided to designated Tiger Reserves in the country, inter alia, including the Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, to foster tiger conservation. ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 2624 REGARDING ‘NATIONAL PARKS/BIRD SANCTUARIES’ BY SHRI ZAFAR ALI NAQVI DUE FOR REPLY ON 10.12.2012.

State/Union Territory‐wise number of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries

CHECK ON POACHING OF RHINOS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2628 SHRI S. SEMMALAI SHRI TARACHAND BHAGORA SHRI BAIJAYANT JAY PANDA SHRI RAMEN DEKA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has taken note of the increasing instances of poaching of one‐horned Rhinoceros and wild elephants in Assam and Odisha;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the number of instances of poaching of Rhinoceros and elephants during the last three years and the current year;

(c) whether the seized carcasses of the poached animals are disposed off by the forest officials or used for other purposes;

(d) if so, the details thereof; and

States/UTs No of National Parks No. of Wildlife Sanctuaries

Andhra Pradesh 6 21 Arunachal Pradesh 2 11 Assam 5 18Bihar 1 12Chhattisgarh 3 11Goa 1 6Gujarat 4 23Haryana 2 8 Himachal Pradesh 5 32 Jammu & Kashmir 4 15 Jharkhand 1 11 Karnataka 5 22Kerala 6 17Madhya Pradesh 9 25Maharashtra 6 35Manipur 1 1 Meghalaya 2 3 Mizoram 2 8 Nagaland 1 3 Orissa 2 18 Punjab 0 12Rajasthan 5 25Sikkim 1 7Tamil Nadu 5 21 Tripura 2 4 Uttar Pradesh 1 23 Uttarakhand 6 6 West Bengal 5 15 Andaman & Nicobar 9 96Chandigarh 0 2Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0 1Daman & Diu 0 1Delhi 0 1 Lakshadweep 0 1 Pondicherry 0 1 Total 102 516

(e) the steps initiated by the Government to prevent poaching in the country including Assam and Odisha?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Incidents of poaching of one‐horned rhinoceros and wild elephants in Assam and Odisha come to the notice of the Ministry from time to time. As per the information received from the Chief Wildlife Wardens in the State Governments of Assam and Odisha, the details of poaching of one‐horned rhinoceros and wild elephants in Assam and Odisha during the last three years and the current year are as follows: Name of the State Year No. of rhinoceros poached No. of elephant poached

Assam 2009 14 4 (2009‐10)2010 8 2 (2010‐11)2011 7 0 (2011‐12) 2012(as on 22.11.2012) 13 *

Odisha 2009‐10 ‐ 5 2010‐11 ‐ 182011‐12 ‐ 82012(as on 20.11.2012) ‐ 5

* Details of elephant deaths due to poaching have not yet been collated for 2012. (c) & (d) The carcasses of the poached animals are disposed off by the forest officials by burial or incineration of the dead body. Details are not collated in the Ministry. (e) The steps taken by the Government to prevent poaching of wild animals in the country including Assam and Odisha include: viii. Legal protection has been provided to wild animals against hunting and commercial

exploitation under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. ix. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, has been amended and made more stringent. The

punishments for offences have been enhanced. The Act also provides for forfeiture of any equipment, vehicle or weapon that is used for committing wildlife offence(s).

x. Protected Areas, viz., National Parks, Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves covering important wildlife habitats have been created all over the country under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to conserve wild animals and their habitats.

xi. Financial and technical assistance is provided to the State/ Union Territory Governments under the Centrally Sponsored Schemes of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats', ‘Project Tiger’ and ‘Project Elephant’ for providing better protection to wildlife and improvement of its habitat.

xii. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been empowered under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to apprehend and prosecute wildlife offenders.

xiii. The State/Union Territory Governments have been requested to strengthen the field formations and intensify patrolling in and around the Protected Areas.

xiv. The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau has been set up to strengthen the enforcement of law for control of poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and its products.

xv. Strict vigil is maintained by the officials of State Departments of Forests and Wildlife. CLEARANCE TO PROJECTS NEAR TRIBAL AREAS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2629 SHRI YASHBANT N.S. LAGURI: SHRI MANSUKH BHAI D. VASAVA: Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(i) whether the Government has received any proposal from the State Government for

providing basic amenities, roads, irrigation facilities, schools etc. in the tribal dominated areas near Reserves and Sanctuaries;

(j) if so, the details thereof during the last three years and the current year, State‐wise; (k) the present status of the said proposal; (l) the steps taken by the Government to minimise the delay taking place in according to

sanction in the said areas; and (m) the extent to which success has been achieved by the Government as a result thereof?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) The details of proposals seeking diversion of forest land for various basic amenities including roads, irrigation and schools received in the years 2010 to 2012 and their present status is attached in the Annexure. (e) and (e) The proposals seeking prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of forest land are examined in accordance with the provisions of the above Act and the Rules and Guidelines framed thereunder. However, to minimise the delay in execution of certain categories of public utility infrastructure involving small extent of the forest land, the Government has granted certain exemptions and has prescribed simplified procedures to seek approvals in many others matters. They are as below:

1. The Government has granted general approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of upto 1 ha in each case for specified activities including schools, dispensaries, minor irrigation canals, rural roads and laying of underground drinking water pipe supply pipelines subject to certain conditions.

2. The above general approval has been relaxed to 2 ha in case of Left Wing Extremism affected districts and further to 5 ha in each case in respect of 60 Left Wing Extremism affected districts identified by Planning Commission and Ministry of Home Affairs.

3. The Government has also laid down the procedure for diversion of forest land for certain activities as specified in the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 like schools, dispensaries, minor irrigation canals and tanks, roads and community centres. Decisions for diversion of forest land for these facilities in this regard can be taken at the District level itself.

4. All the proposals seeking diversion of forest land for non forestry purposes upto 5ha, other than mining, and not covered by general approvals, are decided at the Regional Office of the Ministry level and need not be submitted for the approval of the Minister of Environment and Forests.

5. The Ministry has also permitted upgradation of Kuchcha roads constructed on forest land prior to 1980 to pucca roads without seeking approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 subject to certain conditions.

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN ANSWER TO PARTS (a) TO (c) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO.2629 ON ‘CLEARANCE TO PROJECTS NEAR TRIBAL AREAS’ ASKED BY SHRI YASHBANT N.S. LAGURI AND SHRI MANSUKH BHAI D. VASAVA DUE FOR REPLY ON 10.12.2012 Details of proposals seeking approval of Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of forest land required for Drinking Water, Dispensaries/Hospitals, Roads, Schools, Viilage Electrification and Irrigation facilities. Sl. No. States/Union Territories No. of

proposals approved





Year 2009

1 Andaman & Nicobar Island 1 1 2 Andhra Pradesh 8 1 2 4 15 3 Arunachal Pradesh 37 1 38 4 Assam 1 1 5 Bihar 23 1 1 1 26 6 Chhattisgarh 1 1 7 Dadar & Nagar Haveli 2 2 8 Goa 1 1 9 Gujarat 65 9 11 85 10 Haryana 49 14 9 72 11 Himachal Pradesh 29 21 50 12 Jharkhand 7 1 8 13 Karnataka 11 2 1 14 14 Kerala 2 2 15 Madhya Pradesh 22 3 1 26 16 Maharashtra 25 1 1 27 17 Manipur 18 Meghalaya 19 Mizoram 1 1 20 Orissa 21 Punjab 25 1 1 2 29 22 Rajasthan 19 1 2 22 23 Sikkim 3 3 24 Tamil Nadu 7 1 5 13 25 Uttar Pradesh 35 1 6 42 26 Uttarakhand 256 6 43 305 27 West Bengal 1 1 Total 630 5 64 86 785







Year 2011

1 Andaman & Nicobar Island 1 1

2 Andhra Pradesh 13 1 5 4 23 3 Arunachal Pradesh 3 12 4 Assam 5 Bihar 18 7 4 3 30 6 Chhattisgarh 1 1 1 3 7 Chandigarh 1 1 8 Delhi 1 1 9 Dadar & Nagar Haveli 10 Goa 11 Gujarat 28 3 23 54 12 Haryana 28 11 39 13 Himachal Pradesh 30 2 42 1 75

14 Jharkhand 1 1 2 15 Karnataka 9 1 10 16 Kerala 2 1 3 17 Madhya Pradesh 16 8 24 18 Maharashtra 15 1 6 2 24 19 Manipur 1 1 20 Meghalaya 21 Mizoram 1 22 Orissa 3 3 23 Punjab 25 3 23 51 24 Rajasthan 7 2 1 10 25 Sikkim 5 5 26 Tamil Nadu 4 1 5 27 Tripura 28 Uttar Pradesh 54 3 6 3 66 29 Uttarakhand 66 8 89 163 30 West Bengal 2 2 Total 337 24 145 103 609







Year 2010

1 Andaman & Nicobar Island

2 Andhra Pradesh 8 4 12 3 Arunachal Pradesh 10 3 13 4 Assam 5 Bihar 9 1 10 6 Chhattisgarh 2 2 7 Chandigarh 1 1 8 Delhi 1 1 9 Dadar & Nagar Haveli 10 Goa 1 2 3 11 Gujarat 46 8 54 12 Haryana 56 2 20 78 13 Himachal Pradesh 74 2 31 1 108 14 Jharkhand 3 1 1 1 6 15 Karnataka 7 1 8 16 Kerala 1 1 17 Madhya Pradesh 5 2 1 8 18 Maharashtra 11 2 13 19 Manipur 1 3 4 20 Meghalaya 1 1 21 Mizoram 1 1 2 22 Orissa 1 1 23 Punjab 48 1 3 52 24 Rajasthan 14 2 3 19 25 Sikkim 8 8 26 Tamil Nadu 6 1 7 27 Tripura 1 3 4 28 Uttar Pradesh 91 5 3 3 104 29 Uttarakhand 124 3 63 257 30 West Bengal 7 2 9 Total 604 12 92 76 784

Sl. No. States/Union Territories

No. of proposals approved




Total Numberof Proposals

Year 2012

1 Andaman & Nicobar Island 1 1 2

2 Andhra Pradesh 4 1 4 9 3 Arunachal Pradesh 1 4 5 4 Assam 5 Bihar 3 2 3 8 6 Chhattisgarh 1 7 Chandigarh 8 Delhi 9 Dadar & Nagar Haveli 2 2 10 Goa 11 Gujarat 7 11 3 21 12 Haryana 8 3 1 12 13 Himachal Pradesh 4 12 18 34 14 Jharkhand 1 1 2 15 Karnataka 6 1 2 9 16 Kerala 2 2 17 Madhya Pradesh 1 9 6 16 18 Maharashtra 1 4 2 7 19 Manipur 20 Meghalaya 21 Mizoram 22 Orissa 23 Punjab 1 1 5 7 24 Rajasthan 1 3 1 5 25 Sikkim 26 Tamil Nadu 2 2 4 27 Tripura 28 Uttar Pradesh 5 14 5 24 29 Uttarakhand 2 1 4 4 11 30 West Bengal 1 1 Total 49 66 63 4 182

DESTRUCTION OF FORESTS 10

th December, 2012

LSQ 2644 SHRI KAMESHWAR BAITHA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the vast forest areas in Himalayan Region have been destroyed during the last two years;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the States which have suffered maximum loss of forest areas as per the report prepared by

the Forest Survey of India, Dehradun with the help of remote sensing technology; and (d) the steps taken/being taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) No, Sir. As per the physiographic zones given in India State of Forest Report‐2011, the

Himalayan region can be divided broadly into Western and Eastern Himalayas.

Western Himalayas:‐ These comprise of all districts of Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir (all districts), Uttrakhand (11 out of 13 districts), Punjab (3 out of 17 districts) Eastern Himalayas:‐Arunachal Pradesh (10 out of 12 districts), Sikkim (all 4 districts) and West Bengal (1 out of 17 districts) Of these Himalayan States only Arunachal Pradesh has reported a decline of 74 Square km. (as per the India State of Forest Report‐2011) in forest cover as compared to the last assessment i.e. India State of Forest Report‐2009. (c) The details of States showing a decline in forest cover is given in the Annexure‐I. (d) The following initiatives have been taken by the Government to expand forest cover in the country:‐

(i) The Ministry of Environment and Forests is implementing a Centrally Sponsored Scheme of National Afforestation Programme (NAP) for regeneration of degraded forests and adjoining areas in the country. The Scheme is implemented through a decentralized mechanism of State Forest Development Agency (SFDA) at State level, Forest Development Agency (FDA) at Forest Division level and Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) at Village levels. As on 31‐03‐2012, 800 FDA projects have been approved in 28 States in the country to treat an area of 18.86 lakh hectares since inception of the Scheme in 2002.

(ii) The Ministry release funds under the Intensification of Forest Management Scheme (IFMS),

for strengthening of forest protection such as infrastructure, fire protection, demarcation of forest boundaries, construction of facilities for frontline staff and communication which also contributed towards increase in the forest cover.

(iii) Under the National Action Plan on Climate Change announced by the Central Government, a

National Mission for a ‘Green India’ has been mooted with major objectives to increase forests/tree cover on 5 million ha. of forest/non‐forest lands and also to improve the quality of the forest cover on another 5 million ha.

(iv) Under the award of 13th Finance Commission, a grant of Rs.5000 crores has been allocated as

“Forest Grants” to the states on the basis of their forest cover in the State in relation to the national average. It has been further weighted by the quality of the forests in each state as measured by density.

(v) Afforestation activities are undertaken under various External Aided Projects in Haryana,

Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh, Tripura, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Sikkim and Rajasthan.

Annexure‐I referred to in reply to part (c) of the Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2644 due for answer on 10‐12‐2012 regarding ‘Destruction of Forest ’

States showing decline in forest cover as per India State of Forest Report‐2011

S. No States Area in square Km. Reasons for decline

1 Andhra Pradesh ‐281 Management interventions like harvesting of short rotation crops followed by new regeneration / plantations, forest clearance in some encroached areas.

2. Manipur ‐190 Decrease in forest cover in the State is due to shortening of shifting cultivation cycle and biotic pressure.

3. Nagaland ‐146 Decrease in forest cover in the State is due to shortening of shifting cultivation cycle and biotic pressure.

4. Arunachal Pradesh ‐74 Change in forest cover in the state is because of shifting cultivation and biotic pressure.

5. Mizoram ‐66 Decrease in forest cover in the State is due to shortening of shifting cultivation cycle and biotic pressure.

6. Meghalaya ‐46 Decrease in forest cover in the State is due to shortening of shifting

cultivation cycle and biotic pressure.7. Kerala ‐24 Decrease in forest cover in the state is due to rotational felling of

Eucalyptus, Teak, Acacia mangium, rubber and shade bearing trees in the gardens.

8. Assam ‐19 Decrease in forest cover is mainly attributed to illicit felling, encroachments in insurgency affected areas and shifting cultivation practices.

9. Tripura ‐8 Decrease in forest cover in the state is due to clearings for rubber plantations and shifting cultivations practices.

10. Maharashtra ‐4 ‐11. Chhattisgarh ‐4 Submergence of forest areas in catchments of the dams. 12. Uttar Pradesh ‐3 ‐13. Gujarat ‐1 Decrease in forest cover in the state is due to private felling in the

Tree Outside Forests areas. Total ‐866.00

MIGRATORY BIRDS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2647 SHRI GHANSHYAM ANURAGI SHRI MANGANI LAL MANDAL DR. SANJEEV GANESH NAIK SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SULE Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether some endangered species of birds including Vultures are disappearing in the country;

(b) if so, the details of species of birds declared endangered, their existing number and plan for their protection;

(c) whether the Government has allocated any funds for their protection during the last three years and the current year, species‐wise; and

(d) if so, the details thereof along with the places in the country normally visited by the migratory birds in the country during the last three years and the current year species‐wise?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) As per IUCN Red List version 2010.1, about 87 bird species in India are listed as globally threatened, which are on the verge of extinction. Details of bird species which are globally threatened are listed in Annexure‐I. The details about their existing number are not collated in the Ministry. Government has taken the following steps to protect the endangered species of birds:

i. The Ministry of Environment and Forests provides financial assistance for conservation wildlife including birds, both inside as well as outside Protected Areas, under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme ‐‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats' (CSS‐IDWH). Under the component “Recovery Programmes for Critically Endangered Species” of CSS‐IDWH, Bustards including Floricans, Edible nest Swiftlets, Nicobar Megapode, Vultures and Jerdon’s Courser have been identified for priority support.

ii. The Ministry supports research projects aimed at conservation of wildlife including threatened species of birds.

iii. The National Board for Wildlife under the Chairmanship of the Hon’ble Prime Minister constituted two Sub‐Committees comprising conservation experts for recovery of threatened terrestrial and aquatic species in India. These Committees have already developed guidelines for “Threatened Species Recovery Plan” and selected certain threatened bird species to be considered on priority basis which include Great Indian Bustard, Jerdon’s Courser and Nicobar Megapode.

iv. The Ministry has finalized “Guidelines for Preparation of State Action Plan for Bustards’ Recovery Programme” in consultation with the Bombay Natural History Society and Wildlife Institute of India, and other experts and stakeholders.

v. The use of diclofenac for veterinary purposes, which was ascertained to be the reason for the decline in the population of Vultures in the country, has been prohibited.

(c) &(d) The details of funds released for conservation of specific bird species during the last three years and the current year are as follows: Year State/Union

Territory Species Amount (Rs. in

lakhs) 2009‐10 Andman & Nicobar

Islands Edible Nest Swiftlets

30.99

2010‐11 Punjab Vultures 2.40 Andman & Nicobar

Islands Edible Nest Swiftlets

24.672

2011‐12 Andman & Nicobar Islands

Edible Nest Swiftlets

18.61

Haryana Vultures 5.602012‐13 (upto 30.11.2012)

Andman & Nicobar Islands

Edible Nest Swiftlets

17.54

The Union Government also provides financial and technical assistance to the State/Union Territory Governments for protection of wildlife including birds, both residential and migratory, and their habitats in the country under the Centrally Sponsored Schemes of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’, ‘Project Tiger’ and ‘Project Elephant’. Funds released to the State / Union Territory Governments under these schemes during the last three years and the current year is given in the Annexure‐II. Migratory birds visit most part of the country and are not confined to a few areas. However, some of the important areas visited by migratory birds in the country, which includes some wetlands and areas notified as wildlife sanctuaries, are given in the Annexure‐III. Species‐wise details of places visited by the migratory birds have not been collated in the Ministry.

ANNEXURE‐I REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (a) & (b) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 2647 REGARDING ‘MIGRATORY BIRDS’ BY SHRI GHANSHYAM ANURAGI, SHRI MANGANI LAL MANDAL, DR. SANJEEV GANESH NAIK AND SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SULE DUE FOR REPLY ON 10.12.2012. List of Threatened Birds in India (IUCN 2010)

Sl. No.

Common Name Scientific Name Family Threat_2010 (IUCN)

1 White‐rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis Accipitridae CR

2 Indian Vulture Gyps indicus Accipitridae CR

3 Slender‐billed Vulture Gyps tenuirostris Accipitridae CR

4 Red‐headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus Accipitridae CR

5 Pink‐headed Duck Rhodonessa caryophyllacea Anatidae CR

6 White‐bellied Heron Ardea insignis Ardeidae CR

7 Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarious Charadriidae CR

8 Christmas Frigatebird Fregata andrewsi Fregatidae CR

9 Jerdon's Courser Rhinoptilus bitorquatus Glareolidae CR

10 Siberian Crane Grus leucogeranus Gruidae CR

11 Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis Otididae CR

12 Himalayan Quail Ophrysia superciliosa Phasianidae CR

13 Spoon‐billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus Scolopacidae CR

14 Forest Owlet Heteroglaux blewitti Strigidae CR

15 Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus Accipitridae EN

16 Red‐breasted Goose Branta ruficollis Anatidae EN

17 White‐winged Duck Cairina scutulata Anatidae EN

18 Baer's Pochard Aythya baeri Anatidae EN

19 White‐headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala Anatidae EN

20 Narcondam Hornbill Aceros narcondami Bucerotidae EN

21 Oriental Stork Ciconia boyciana Ciconiidae EN

22 Greater Adjutant Leptoptilos dubius Ciconiidae EN

23 Masked Finfoot Heliopais personatus Heliornithidae

EN

24 White‐bellied Blue Robin Myiomela albiventris Muscicapidae EN

25 Nilgiri Blue Robin [White‐bellied Shortwing]

Myiomela major [Brachypteryx major]

Muscicapidae EN

26 Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps Otididae EN

27 Lesser Florican Sypheotides indicus Otididae EN

28 Green Peafowl Pavo muticus Phasianidae EN

29 Barau's Petrel Pterodroma baraui Procellariidae EN

30 Spotted Greenshank Tringa guttifer Scolopacidae EN

31 Black‐chinned Laughingthrush Strophocincla cachinnans Timaliidae EN

32 Pallas's Fish‐eagle Haliaeetus leucoryphus Accipitridae VU

33 Nicobar Sparrowhawk Accipiter butleri Accipitridae VU

34 Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hastate Accipitridae VU

35 Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga Accipitridae VU

36 Eastern Imperial Eagle Aquila heliacal Accipitridae VU

37 Lesser White‐fronted Goose Anser erythropus Anatidae VU

38 Baikal Teal Anas Formosa Anatidae VU

39 Marbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostris Anatidae VU

40 Dark‐rumped Swift Apus acuticauda Apodidae VU

41 Rufous‐necked Hornbill Aceros nipalensis Bucerotidae VU

42 Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus Ciconiidae VU

43 Grey‐crowned Prinia Prinia cinereocapilla Cisticolidae VU

44 Pale‐backed Pigeon Columba eversmanni Columbidae VU

45 Nilgiri Wood‐pigeon Columba elphinstonii Columbidae VU

46 Pale‐capped Pigeon Columba punicea Columbidae VU

47 Yellow‐breasted Bunting Emberiza aureola Emberizidae VU

48 Green Avadavat Amandava Formosa Estrildidae VU

49 Java Sparrow Padda oryzivora Estrildidae VU

50 Saker Falcon Falco cherrug Falconidae VU

51 Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni Falconidae VU

52 Sarus Crane Grus antigone Gruidae VU

53 Hooded Crane Grus monacha Gruidae VU

54 Black‐necked Crane Grus nigricollis Gruidae VU

55 Indian Skimmer Rynchops albicollis Laridae VU

56 Nicobar Megapode Megapodius nicobariensis Megapodiidae

VU

57 White‐browed Bushchat Saxicola macrorhynchus Muscicapidae VU

58 White‐throated Bushchat Saxicola insignis Muscicapidae VU

59 Nicobar [Brown‐chested] Jungle‐flycatcher Rhinomyias [brunneatus] nicobaricus Muscicapidae VU

60 Kashmir Flycatcher Ficedula subrubra Muscicapidae VU

61 Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata Otididae VU

62 White‐naped Tit Parus nuchalis Paridae VU

63 Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus Pelecanidae VU

64 Swamp Francolin Francolinus gularis Phasianidae VU

65 Manipur Bush‐quail Perdicula manipurensis Phasianidae VU

66 Chestnut‐breasted Partridge Arborophila mandellii Phasianidae VU

67 Western Tragopan Tragopan melanocephalus Phasianidae VU

68 Blyth's Tragopan Tragopan blythii Phasianidae VU

69 Sclater's Monal Lophophorus sclateri Phasianidae VU

70 Cheer Pheasant Catreus wallichi Phasianidae VU

71 Great Slaty Woodpecker Mulleripicus pulverulentus Picidae VU

72 Yellow Weaver Ploceus megarhynchus Ploceidae VU

73 Yellow‐throated Bulbul Pycnonotus xantholaemus Pycnonotidae VU

74 Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola Scolopacidae VU

75 Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris Scolopacidae VU

76 Beautiful Nuthatch Sitta Formosa Sittidae VU

77 Bristled Grassbird Chaetornis striata Sylviidae VU

78 Broad‐tailed Grassbird Schoenicola platyurus Sylviidae VU

79 Marsh Babbler Pellorneum palustre Timaliidae VU

80 Rusty‐throated Wren‐babbler Spelaeornis badeigularis Timaliidae VU

81 Tawny‐breasted Wren‐babbler Spelaeornis longicaudatus Timaliidae VU

82 Snowy‐throated Babbler Stachyris oglei Timaliidae VU

83 Jerdon's Babbler Chrysomma altirostre Timaliidae VU

84 Slender‐billed Babbler Turdoides longirostris Timaliidae VU

85 Bugun Liocichla Liocichla bugunorum Timaliidae VU

86 Black‐breasted Parrotbill Paradoxornis flavirostris Timaliidae VU

87 Grey‐sided Thrush Turdus feae Turdidae VU

ANNEXURE‐II REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (c) & (d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 2647 REGARDING ‘MIGRATORY BIRDS’ BY SHRI GHANSHYAM ANURAGI, SHRI MANGANI LAL MANDAL, DR. SANJEEV GANESH NAIK AND SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SULE DUE FOR REPLY ON 10.12.2012. Details of funds released under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme “Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats” during last three years and current financial year.

(Rupees in Lakhs)

Details of funds released under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme “Project Elephant” during last three years and current financial year.

(Rupees in Lakhs)

Sl. No. Name of the State/UTs 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 (upto 20.11.2012)

1. A& N Islands 85.91 87.872 127.06 109.50 2. Andhra Pradesh 102.02 64.341 71.50 00 3. Arunachal Pradesh 193.14 213.197 168.11 00 4. Assam 114.79 186.63 234.17 146.00 5. Bihar 42.29 19.889 00 64.685 7. Chhattisgarh 851.15 281.966 241.783 348.63 8. Chandigarh 00 12.29 19.98 00 9. Dadra & Nagar Haveli 14.88 00 00 00 10. Goa 71.03 32.879 21.458 148.12 11. Gujarat 426.10 1106.749 1126.589 517.926 12. Haryana 17.22 15.114 28.70 37.60 13. Himachal Pradesh 265.92 253.80 242.1104 318.9688 14. Jammu & Kashmir 375.397 537.336 445.085 426.077 15. Jharkhand 80.267 63.64 64.2615 81.6195 16. Karnataka 566.71 412.252 335.851 309.5835 17. Kerala 432.48 366.786 941.79 330.36 18. Madhya Pradesh 541.98 635.366 506.164 467.707 19. Maharashtra 273.679 343.32 322.391 353.601 20. Manipur 118.31 88.316 86.65 22.41 21. Meghalaya 59.75 58.03 43.80 00 22. Mizoram 186.85 707.763 153.445 00 23. Nagaland 34.115 33.595 30.333 25.855 24. Odisha 390.95 315.331 331.2651 368.2084 25. Punjab 36.26 25.12 00 00 26. Rajasthan 496.746 348.068 291.387 413.00 27. Sikkim 240.93 183.78 131.793 177.579 28. Tamil Nadu 518.67 334.449 256.027 237.66 29. Tripura 13.00 2.84 00 00 30. Uttar Pradesh 274.45 296.179 204.371 263.78 31. Uttarakhand 145.08 134.90 201.144 00 32. West Bengal 381.318 276.385 246.425 164.135 33 Daman & Diu 6.05 00 00 00 TOTAL 7357.442 7438.183 6873.643 5333.005

STATES 2009‐10

2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13

Andhra Pradesh 17.85 15.00 00 11.28 Arunachal Pradesh 60.00 10.00 55.00Assam 160.26 139.55 200.00 250.00 Bihar 00 00 00 Chhatisgarh 111.22 75.00 145.57 48.00 Haryana 00 100.00 00 Jharkhand 80.00 80.00 105.87 59.512 Karnataka 247.16 300.76 261.83 192.00 Kerala 286.70 265.39 282.55 236.00 Maharashtra 49.18 29.00 20.29 16.00 Manipur 00 00 00Meghalaya 80.483 103.838 128.52 Mizoram 00 00 00 Nagaland 50.00 41.30 25.00 15.00 Orissa 100.00 113.50 214.60 168.00 Tamil Nadu 358.58 226.879 228.49 200.00 Tripura 14.80 0 6.00 5.77 Uttar Pradesh 38.45 80.15 49.30 7.27 Uttarakhand 221.55 206.82 141.99 125.98 West Bengal 207.06 410.406 224.50 66.455 Total 2083.293 2197.593 2089.51 1401.267

Details of funds released under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme “Project Tiger ” during last three years and current financial year.

(Rupees in Lakhs) 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13

Sl. No. States Released Released Released Released

1 Andhra Pradesh 138.2540 155.6450 154.406 404.8904 2 Arunachal Pradesh 64.7100 226.7020 236.7857 420.0872 3 Assam 194.2900 1509.4720 947.5088 123.608 4 Bihar 8.8560 158.3550 172.193 247.792 5 Chhattisgarh 1383.5020 1813.7250 702.726 425.5284 6 Jharkhand 117.1386 130.6160 156.3465 82.6878 7 Karnataka 657.0620 1660.0500 1830.65 708.4337 8 Kerala 311.4200 323.4600 429.77 411.868 9 Madhya Pradesh ,582.4762 3962.730 5352.71 5357.245 10 Maharashtra 373.5170 2789.0600 3622.342 513.941 11 Mizoram 2171.0000 187.6900 225.288 192.9848 12 Orissa 221.7400 815.2900 555.0761 142.956 13 Rajasthan 10694.1700 2368.925 67.21 2943.543 14 Tamil Nadu 258.3540 520.7860 605.964 323.4878 15 Uttaranchal 246.2050 339.9450 399.76 89.435 16 U.P 431.5170 407.4600 446.1258 234.508 17 West Bengal 298.7850 502.4800 157.66 404.916 Total 20,152.997 17,872.391 16,062.522 13,027.91

ANNEXURE‐III

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (c) & (d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 2647 REGARDING ‘MIGRATORY BIRDS’ BY SHRI GHANSHYAM ANURAGI, SHRI MANGANI LAL MANDAL, DR. SANJEEV GANESH NAIK AND SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SULE DUE FOR REPLY ON 10.12.2012. Details regarding Wetlands identified under Protected Area and Wetland Conservation Programme

S. No.

State/UT

S.No. Name of Wetlands Identification under

1. Andhra Pradesh 1. Kolleru Wetland & Wild life Sanctuary

2. Assam

2. Deepar Beel Wetland

3. Urpad Beel Wetland

3. Bihar

4. Kabar Wetland & Wild life Sanctuary

5. Barilla Wetland & Wild life Sanctuary

6. Kusheshwar Asthan Wetland & Wild life Sanctuary

4. Gujarat

7. Nalsarovar Wetland & Bird Sanctuary

8. Great Rann of Kachh Wetland & National Park

9. Thol Bird Sanctuary Wetland & Bird Sanctuary

10. Khijadiya Bird Sanctuary Wetland & Bird Sanctuary

11. Little Rann of Kachh Wetland & National Park

12. Pariej Wetland

13. Wadhwana Wetland

14. Nanikakrad Wetland

5. Haryana 15. Sultanpur Wetland & Wild life Sanctuary

16. Bhindawas Wetland & Wild life Sanctuary

6. Himachal Pradesh

17. Renuka Wetland

18. Pong Dam Wetland & Bird Sanctuary 19. Chandratal Wetland 20. Rewalsar Wetland

21. Khajjiar Wetland

7. Jammu & Kashmir

22. Wullar Wetland

23. Tso Morari wetland 24. Tisgul Tso &

Chisul Marshes Wetland

25. Hokersar Wetland

26. Mansar‐Surinsar Wetland

27. Ranjitsagar Wetland

28. Pangong Tsar Wetland

8. Jharkhand 29. Udhwa Wetland

30. Tilaiya Dam Wetland

9. Karnataka 31. Magadhi Wetland

32. Gudavi Bird Sanctuary Wetland & Bird Sanctuary

33. Bonal Wetland

34. Hidkal & Ghataprabha Wetland & Bird Sanctuary

35. Heggeri Wetland

36. Ranganthittu Wetland & Bird Sanctuary

37. K.G. Koppa wetland Wetland

10. Kerala 38. Ashtamudi Wetland

39. Sasthamkotta Wetland

40. Kottuli Wetland

41. Kadulandi Wetland

42. Vembnad Kol Wetland

11. Madhya Pradesh 43. Barna Wetland

44. Yashwant Sagar Wetland

45. Wetland of Ken River Wetland

46. National Chambal Sanct. Wetland & Wild life Sanctuary

47. Ghatigaon Wetland & Bird Sanctuary

48. Ratapani Wetland & Bird Sanctuary

49. Denwa Tawa wetland Wetland & Tiger Reserve

50. Kanha Tiger Reserve Wetland & Tiger Reserve

51. Pench Tiger Reserve Wetland & Tiger Reserve

52. Sakhyasagar Wetland

53. Dihaila Wetland & Bird Sanctuary

54. Govindsagar Wetland

12. Maharashtra 55. Ujni Wetland

56. Jayakawadi Wetland

57. Nalganga wetland Wetland

13. Manipur 58. Loktak Wetland

14. Mizoram 59. Tamdil Wetland

60. Palak Wetland

15. Orissa 61. Chilka Wetland & Bird Sanctuary 62. Kuanria wetland Wetland

63. Kanjia wetland

Wetland & National Park

64. Daha wetland Wetland

16. Punjab 65. Harike Wetland & Bird Sanctuary

66. Ropar Wetland 67. Kanjli Wetland 17. Rajasthan 68. Sambhar Wetland 18. Sikkim 69. Khechuperi

Holy LakeWetland

70. Tamze Wetland Wetland

71. Tembao Wetland Complex Wetland

72. Phendang Wetland Complex Wetland

73. Gurudokmar Wetland Wetland

74. Tsomgo wetland Wetland

19. Tamil Nadu 75. Point Calimer Wetland & wild life Sanctuary

76. Kaliveli Wetland

77. Pallaikarni Wetland

20. Tripura 78. Rudrasagar Wetland

21. Uttar Prdaesh. 79. Nawabganj Wetland & wild life Sanctuary

80. Sandi Wetland & wild life Sanctuary

81. Lakh Bahoshi Wetland & wild life Sanctuary 82. Samaspur Wetland & wild life Sanctuary 83. Alwara Wetland Wetland 84. Semarai Lake‐Nagaria lake

Complex Wetland

85. Keetham Lake

Wetland & wild life Sanctuary

86. Shekha wetland

Wetland

87. Saman Bird Sanctuary & Sarsai Nawar Complex

Wetland & Bird Sanctuary

22. Uttaranchal 88. Ban Ganga Jhilmil Tal Wetland 23. West Bengal 89. East Calcutta Wetland Wetland 90. Sunderbans Wetland & BR 91. Ahiron Beel Wetland 92. Rasik Beel Wetland 93. Santragachi Wetland 24. UT (Chandigarh) 94. Sukhna Wetland

List of Bird Sanctuaries compiled as per information available with the Ministry

ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS

S. No. Name District Area (Sq.Km.)

1 Battimalve Nicobar 2.23 2 Mahatama Gandhi marine NP Andamans 281.5 3 Megapode Nicobar 0.12 4 Narcondum Nicobar 6.812 5 North Reef Nicobar 3.484 6 Mount Harriett NP Andaman 46.62 7 Rani Jhansi NP Andaman 256.14 8 Saddle Peak NP Andaman 32.54 9 Landfall Island WLS Andaman 29.48 10 Interview Island WLS Andaman 133.87 11 South Sentinel Sanctuary Andaman 48.61 12 Tillanchong WLS Andaman 16.83

ANDHRA PRADESH 1 Coringa East Godavari 235.7 2 Kolleru West Godavari 673.00 3 Manjira Medak 20.00 4 Nelapattu Nellore 4.59 5 Pulicat Nellore 600.00 6 Rollapadu Kurnool/Prakashamll 614.19 7 Sri Lankamalleswara Cuddapah 464.42 8 Telineelapuram Srikakulam 4.6

ARUNACHAL PRADESH 1 Eagle’s Nest West Kamang 217.00 2 Seesa Orchid Sanctuary West Kamang 100.00 3 Kane WLS West Siang 55.00

ASSAM 1 Barodebum Beelmukh Laksmipur/Deemaji 11.248 2 Deepar Beel Kamrup 4.14 3 Panidihing Shivsagar 33.93 4 Bherjan‐Borjan‐Podumoni WLS Tinsukia 7.74 5 Chakrashila WLS Dhubri and Kokrajhar 53.00

BIHAR 1 Bareila Jheel Bird Sanctuary 1.95 2 Kanwar Lake Begusarai 63.11 3 Nagi Dam Monghyr 1.91 4 Nakti Dam Monghyr 3.32 5 Udaipur Champaran 8.87 6 Vikramsila Bhagalpur 0.5

CHANDIGARH 1 Chandigarh city Bird Chandigarh 0.029

GOA 1 Chorao (Dr Salim Ali) Goa 1.78

GUJARAT 1 Gaga(GIB) Jamnagar 3.33 2 Khijadiya Jamnagar 6.05 3 Kutch Bustard Kutch 2.03 4 Marine NP Jamnagar 162.89 5 Marine WLS Jamnagar 457.93 6 Nalsarovar Ahmedabad & Surendranagar 120.82 7 Ratanmahal Panch‐Mahal 55.65 8 Thol Mehsana 6.99 9 Velvadar Black Buck Sanctuary Bhavnagar 34.08 10 Lala Bustard WLS Kutch 500.00

HARYANA 1 Bhindwas Rohtak 4.12 2 Sultanpur Gurgoan 1.43

HIMACHAL 1 Bandli Mandi 41.32

2 Pong Dam Lake Kangra 307.29 3 Renuka Sirmaur 4.02 4 Churdhar WLS Sirmaur 56.15 5 Gobind Sagar Bilaspur 223.34

JAMMU&KASHMIR

1 Baltal(Thajwas) Srinagar 203.00

2 Hokersar Srinagar 10.00

3 Overa – Aru Anantnag 32.00

4 Surinsar Mansar Jammu 39.13 JHARKHAND

1 Udhwa Sahebganj 5.65 KARNATAKA

1 Adichunchunagiri Mandi 0.84 2 Arabithittu Mysore, 13.5 3 Attiveri Uttar Kanada & Dharwad 2.226 4 Ghataprabha Belgaum 29.78 5 Gudavi Shimoga 0.73 6 Ranebennur Dharwad 119 7 Ranganthittu Mysore 0.67 8 Talakaveri Kodagu 105.59 KERALA

1 Thattkkad Idukki 25.16 2 Chimmony Wildlife Sanctuary Trichur 90.00 3 Choolannur Peacock Sanctuary

MADHYA PRADESH 1 Gandhi Sagar Mandasaur 368.62 2 Ghatigaon Great Indian Bustard Gwalior 512.33 3 Karera Great Indian Bustard Shivpuri 202.21 4 Ken gharial Panna Chattarpur 45.2

MAHARASHTRA 1 Great Indian Bustard (Nanag) Solapur/Ahmednagar 8496.44 2 Karnala Rajgarh 4.48 3 Koyna Satara 423.55 4 Naigaon Mayur WLS 29.89

MANIPUR 1 Keibul Lamjo Imphal/Bishanpur 40

ORISSA 1 Chilka (Nalban) Puri 15.53 2 Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary Kendrapara 672.00 3 Bhitarkanika National Park Kendrapara 145.00 4 Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary Kendrapara 1,435.00

PUNJAB 1 Harike Lake Ferozepur 86

RAJASTHAN 1 Desert National Park Jaisalmer 3162 2 Keoladeo national Park Bharatpur 28.73 3 Jawahar Sagar Kota 153.41

TAMIL NADU 1 Chitrangudi Ramanathapuram 0.47 2 Gulf of Mannar Marine Tuticorin &Ramnathanpur 6.23 3 Kanjirankulam Chengai Anna 1.04 4 Karikili Chengalpattu 0.61 5

Koonthankulam/Kandankulam Bird Tirunelveli 1.29

6

Melasanuvannoor‐Kilaselvanoor Bird Ramanathapuram

5.93 7 Point Calimere Nagapattinam 17.26 8 Pulicat Bird Tiruvellore 153.67 9

Udayamarthandapuram Bird B326 Tiruvarur 0.45

10 Vaduvoor Tiruvarur 1.28 11 Vedanthangal Bird Chengalpattu 0.3

12 Vellode Bird WLS Erode 0.77

13 Vettangudi Sivaganga 0.38

UTTRA PRADESH 1 Bakhira Basti 29 2 Lakh Bahosi Farukhbad 80 3 Nawabganj Unnao 2 4 Okhla Ghaziabad 4 5 Parvatiarga Gonda 10.84 6 Patna Eta 1.09 7 Saman Mainpuri 5 8 Samaspur Rae Bareily 8 9 Sandi Gardiu 3 10 Surahatal Balia 0.32 11 Sursarovar Agra 4.03 12 Vijay Sagar Hamirpur 2.62

WEST BENGAL 1 Halliday 24‐Parganas 5.95

2 Lothian Island 24 Parganas 38 3 Narendrapur 24 Parganas 0.1 4 Raiganj West Dinapur 1.3

5 Sajnakhali 24 Parganas 362.4 Total 23720.699

SETTING UP OF RESORTS AROUND TIGER RESERVES 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2655 SHRI TUFANI SAROJ Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the number of tiger reserves in the country and the places where these reserves are

situated; (b) the distance from tiger reserves from which resorts are allowed to be constructed; (c) whether dozens of resorts are operating from the areas adjacent to Corbett, Rajaji and

other reserves and at river sides; and (d) if so, whether any action has been taken against the resorts constructed illegally?


(a) There are 41 tiger reserves located in 17 States within the country. The details of tiger reserves are at Annexure-I. (b), (c) & (d) Construction of resorts is not allowed inside the core/critical tiger habitat of a tiger reserve. However, as per the “Comprehensive Guidelines for Tiger Conservation and Tourism” issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority under section 38O (1)(c) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, construction of resorts is allowed outside the core/critical tiger habitat, with due permission / clearance from the competent authority. The State Governments are mandated to take action against illegal construction, if any.

ANNEXURE-I REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (a) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 2655 ON SETTING UP OF RESORTS AROUND TIGER RESERVES DUE FOR REPLY ON 10.12.2012.

List of Tiger Reserves in India

Sl. No. Name of Tiger Reserve State

1 Bandipur Karnataka2 Corbett Uttarakhand3 Kanha Madhya Pradesh4 Manas Assam5 Melghat Maharashtra6 Palamau Jharkhand7 Ranthambore Rajasthan8 Similipal Orissa9 Sunderbans West Bengal10 Periyar Kerala11 Sariska Rajasthan12 Buxa West Bengal13 Indravati Chhattisgarh14 Nagarjunsagar Andhra Pradesh15 Namdapha Arunachal Pradesh16 Dudhwa Uttar Pradesh17 Kalakad‐Mundanthurai Tamil Nadu18 Valmiki Bihar19 Pench Madhya Pradesh20 Tadoba‐Andhari Maharashtra21 Bandhavgarh Madhya Pradesh22 Panna Madhya Pradesh23 Dampa Mizoram24 Bhadra Karnataka25 Pench Maharashtra26 Pakke Arunachal Pradesh27 Nameri Assam28 Satpura Madhya Pradesh 29 Anamalai Tamil Nadu 30 Udanti-Sitanadi Chattisgarh31 Satkosia Orissa32 Kaziranga Assam33 Achanakmar Chattisgarh34 Dandeli-Anshi Karnataka35 Sanjay-Dubri Madhya Pradesh36 Mudumalai Tamil Nadu37 Nagarahole Karnataka38 Parambikulam Kerala39 Sahyadri Maharashtra40 Biligiri Ranganatha Temple Karnataka41. Kawal Andhra Pradesh

MANAGEMENT OF BIO‐DIVERSITY 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2659 SHRI TAKAM SANJOY


(a) the steps taken to conserve bio‐diversity in North‐Eastern States including Arunachal Pradesh and information on bio‐diversity mapping in the State and the region;

(b) whether any funds were provided to carry out research on bio‐diversity in the North‐Eastern States and Arunachal Pradesh in particular;

(c) if so, the details thereof during each of the last three years and the current year; and (d) the steps taken by the Government for involvement of communities in the management

of bio‐diversity issues? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) The Government has taken a number of measures to conserve biodiversity including biodiversity mapping in the North‐Eastern States including Arunachal Pradesh. These inter alia include the following:

Documentation of plant and animal diversity of the North‐Eastern States by the regional centres of the Botanical Survey of India and the Zoological Survey of India, respectively.

Biodiversity characterization at the landscape level using satellite remote sensing in parts of North‐Eastern India jointly by the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Space in order to comprehensively map the bioresources, including providing population status of more than 1000 species.

Documentation of the bio‐resources and associated traditional knowledge in the form of People’s Biodiversity Registers, by the Biodiversity Management Committees with technical and financial assistance from the State Biodiversity Boards and National Biodiversity Authority.

Establishment of the Institute of Bioresources and Sustainable Development in Imphal, Manipur in 2001 by Department of Biotechnology for development and sustainable utilization of bioresources through biotechnological interventions for socio‐economic growth of the North‐Eastern region.

Setting up of the North‐Eastern Region‐Biotechnology Programme Management Cell by Department of Biotechnology to effectively coordinate various programmes implemented in the region.

Research, development, documentation, conservation of wild edible, aromatic and medicinal plants of Arunachal Pradesh and adjoining States of the region.

Studies on Diversity Taxonomy and Population Status of Endemic & Rare Medicinal Plants For Promotion of Conservation In Arunachal Pradesh

Developmental Planning and Application of Space Technology for Agro‐horticulture and Medicinals in Arunachal Pradesh

Mapping Management & Analysis of Medical and Aromatic Plants in Arunachal Pradesh Using Geographic Information System (GIS) and Phyto Chemical & Molecular Technique.

Mapping and Monitoring of Shifting Cultivation areas in Arunachal Pradesh for Sustainable Development using Remote Sensing & GIS Technique, State Remote Sensing Application Centre, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

GIS Biodiversity & Vegetation Mapping Assessment of Endemic and Threatened Species of Nagaland.

North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project (NERCORMP), a joint project of North East Council, Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER) and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), with a component on biodiversity conservation and environmental protection, is operating in three North‐Eastern States, Assam, Manipur and Meghalaya.

Biodiversity conservation of Basistha Bahini Watershed, Guwahati, Assam.

(b) & (c) Funds are provided to carry out research in North‐Eastern States. The details of release of funds to North‐East States to carry out research on Environment for the last three years (2009‐10, 2010‐11 & 2011‐12) and the current year by the Ministry of Environment and Forests are as under:

Sl. No.

State/UT Amount released in 2009-10

Amount released in 2010-11



1. Arunachal Pradesh 6,28,400/- 23,61,800/- 18,92,200/- 3,32,512/- 2. Assam 13,91,146/- 10,99,460/- 5,71,868/- 3,08,690/- 3. Manipur 3,85,560/- 7,51,400/- 16,37,700/- - 4. Meghalaya - 20,02,800/- 24,07,280/- 9,31,200/- 5. Mizoram 4,98,753/- 6,93,872/- 3,25,298/- 2,32,650/- 6. Nagaland 3,05,000/- 16,61,540/- 3,19,000/- 5,60,000/- 7. Tripura 4,35,000/- - - 22,117/-

The details of the ongoing research projects relating to biodiversity in the North‐Eastern States implemented by Ministry of DoNER are given below:

Rs. Lakhs Project name Implementing

Agency Approved cost Released

During 2009-10 Released

During 2010-11 Released During 2011-12

(i) Research, Development, Documentation, Conservation of wild edible, Aromatic and medicinal Plants of Arunachal Pradesh and adjoining State of the region

Dept. of Forestry, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST), Nirjuli, Arunachal Pradesh

24.12 -

10.00 1st Installment

-

(ii) Studies on Diversity Taxonomy and Population Status of Endemic & Rare Medicinal Plants For Promotion Of Conservation In Arunachal Pradesh

Dept. of Forestry, NERIST, Nirjuli,Arunachal Pradesh

26.5 -


10.00 2nd Installment

(iii) Mapping Management & Analysis of Medical and Aromatic Plants in Arunachal Pradesh Using GIS and Phyto Chemical & Molecular Technique

Dept. of Forestry, NERIST, Nirjuli, Arunachal Pradesh

212 -

-


(iv) Mapping Management & Analysis of Medical and Aromatic Plants in Arunachal Pradesh Using GIS and Phyto Chemical & Molecular Technique

Dept. of Forest and Environment, Government of Nagaland

345.59 94.41 1st Installment

100.00 2nd Installment

100.00 3rd Installment

(v) Biodiversity conservation of Basistha Bahini Watershed., Guwahati, Assam

Soil Conservation Department, Government of Assam

496.76 40.00 100.00 -

(d) The Government has taken several steps for involvement of communities in the management of biodiversity. Some of these are given in below:

In pursuance of the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, local bodies are required to constitute Biodiversity Management Committee (BMC) within their areas for the purpose of promoting conservation, sustainable use and documentation of biodiversities. The number of BMCs constituted in the North Eastern State is as follows: 20 in Arunachal Pradesh, 31 in Assam, 40 in Manipur, 234 in Mizoram, 68 in Tripura,10 in Nagaland and 4 in Sikkim.

The Department of Biotechnology established Rural Bio‐resource Complex (RBC) at North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Shillong in Meghalya in 2009 being implemented jointly by NEHU and Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), Barapani. One of the objectives of the RBC in North East is to upgrade the skill of farmers for technology adoption through training programmes. Training and orientation programme for farmers has so far been conducted on cultivation of turmeric and orchids, rice germplasm conservation, agro‐processing of turmeric and ginger.

Under the project funded by the NEC, Ministry of DoNER, Natural Resource Management Groups and Self Help Groups have been established in the project villages. The group/ communities are the beneficiaries of the project as well as the advocacy and developmental body in the project area. Hence, the initiatives under biodiversity conservation/ environmental protection activities are facilitated by the project‐team and collectively managed by the communities of the project.

LEVEL OF MONO-OXIDE GAS 10th December, 2012 LSQ 2663 SHRI KABINDRA PURKAYASTHA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the level of mono-oxide gas has reached at a dangerous level in the various parts of the country including Silchar (Assam);

(b) if so, the steps taken by the Government in this regard; (c) whether the Government has proposed to enact a law for making provision of punishment

for persons who have burned kachra (garbage) in the whole country on the lines of NCT of Delhi; and

(d) if so, the time by which the said bill will be introduced in the Parliament? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is monitoring Carbon Mono‐oxide (CO) at 14 stations under Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations (CAAQMS) programme. The annual average data of CO (8 hourly basis) during 2009‐2010 revealed that the concentration was within the specified ambient air quality standard except at few parts of Delhi and Chennai. However it is within the limit during 2011. Presently, no monitoring is being done for mono‐oxide gas at Silchar(Assam). Municipal Solid Wastes (Management & Handing) Rules, 2000, and Plastic Wastes (Management & Handing) Rules, 2011, have prohibited burning of garbage. BAN ON SALE OF DIESEL VEHICLES 17th December, 2012 LSQ *322 SHRI MAHESHWAR HAZARI

SHRI HARSH VARDHAN


(a) whether the Government has made any assessment regarding the adverse impact of the increasing number of diesel vehicles on the air quality of various cities in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the outcome thereof; (c) whether the Environmental Pollution Control Authority or any other Expert Committee has

suggested to discourage the sale of diesel vehicles; (d) if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government thereto; and (e) the action taken/proposed to be taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) A Statement is laid on the Table of the House. STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARAS (a) to (e) OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. 322 FOR 17.12.2012 REGARDING BAN ON SALE OF DIESEL VEHICLES BY SHRI MAHESHWAR HAZARI AND SHRI HARSH VARDHAN

(a) to (d) The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had carried out source apportionment studies in the year 2007 in six cities namely Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kanpur, Mumbai and Pune. As per the studies, the ambient air quality data of these cities in respect of Particulate Matter (PM10 ) revealed that contribution due to all vehicles is ranging from 2% to 48% (Bangalore : 11‐23%, Chennai : 35‐48%, Delhi : 9‐21%, Kanpur : 15‐17%, Mumbai : 8‐26%, and Pune : 2‐10%). The Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) for the National Capital Region (NCR) in the year 2007 filed a detailed report titled “Controlling Pollution from the Growing Number of Diesel Cars in Delhi” in the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) 13029/1985. In the report, EPCA has recommended to the Hon’ble Court that there is a need to ban the use of diesel in cars in Delhi. The EPCA in another report in 2012 has stated that the benefits of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) transition are not visible due to growth in diesel vehicles, because diesel vehicles are known to emit higher smoke, particles and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) than petrol fuelled cars. The EPCA has also observed that in Delhi the growing number of vehicles particularly the diesel vehicles is negating all efforts made to reduce air pollution by phasing out diesel buses and converting them to CNG mode. (e) The Government has taken several steps to curb vehicular pollution which inter alia include:

i. Bharat Stage IV emission standards have been implemented for all categories of new vehicles (except two and three wheelers) in 13 mega cities namely Delhi (NCR), Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Ahemdabad, Pune, Surat, Kanpur, Agra, Lucknow & Sholapur from the year 2010.

ii. Sulphur content in diesel and petrol reduced further to 0.005 % (50 mg/kg) in the 13 mega cities by 01.04.2010. The amount of sulphur in diesel and petrol is 0.035% (350 mg/kg) and 0.015 % (150 mg/kg) respectively rest of the country.

iii. The Bharat Stage III standards have been implemented for all categories of two and three wheelers all over the country.

iv. Auto‐Fuels compliant to B.S III (whole country) and B.S IV (for 13 cities) specifications are made available in the respective cities.

v. Pollution Under Control (PUC) norms have been implemented for both gasoline and diesel vehicles.

vi. Alternate clean fuels like CNG, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Electric vehicles, bio-diesel etc have been promoted/encouraged and incentivised.

vii. Bye-passes have been constructed to avoid unnecessary entry into the city of heavy duty vehicles and other vehicles carrying cargo for other destinations.

viii. Mass transport system has been strengthened to discourage use of private vehicles (including diesel cars).

DIVERSION OF FORESTS 17th December, 2012 LSQ *329 SHRI DHARMENDRA YADAV SHRI NITYANANDA PRADHAN Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has decided not to allow diversion of degraded forests land for commercial purposes in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the committee on allocation of natural resources has made certain

recommendations including suggestions to seek permission of the Supreme Court to evolve guidelines for de‐reservation of such forest land and if so, the details thereof;

(d) whether the Government has accepted all the recommendations of the said Committee and if so, the details thereof; and

(e) if not, the reasons therefor and the time by which all the recommendations are likely to be accepted and implemented by the Government?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) A statement is laid on the Table of the House. STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a) TO (e) OF THE LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. 329 BY SHRI DHARMENDRA YADAV AND SHRI NITYANANDA PRADHAN REGARDING ‘DIVERSION OF FORESTS’ DUE FOR REPLY ON 17.12.2012. (a) to (b) Use of forest land for commercial and other non‐forest purposes requires prior approval of Central Government under Section‐2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. (c) The Committee on Allocation of Natural Resources (CANR) made the following recommendations on Forests: Reco. No. Recommendation

49 The Committee recommends evolving a scheme for reform linked capacity building of state forest departments with a view to improving accessibility of information, improving the predictability and reducing the time taken for clearances.

50 The Committee suggests establishing an ab‐initio classification of forest based on ecological value that would be open for discussion by various stakeholders with a view to improving the predictability of clearances for diversion of forest land. In this exercise, the Committee is aware that some parts of forest may become inviolate. Even this would be helpful in improving the predictability of clearances.

51 In the Committee’s view, it is essential to ensure that all Form A/B submissions should be made available on the website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the respective state forest departments so that stakeholder comments can be received early in the process.

52 The Committee also suggests that all Minutes of the meetings of the SAGs should be made available on the website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the respective state forest departments to provide a sounder and more public basis for understanding and communicating the allocation decision.

53 The Committee recommends seeking the permission of the Supreme Court to evolve

guidelines for de‐reservation of such land urgently classified as forest, which is not and conceivably cannot be reclaimed as forest.

54 The Committee advises project‐wise amounts paid under various mandates like NPV, compensatory afforestation, catchment area treatment, biodiversity conservation, etc., and evolve guidelines like NPV for other payments.

55 The Committee recommends suitably re‐adjusting payments under NPV and above schemes. Forest land has value over and above the value of land itself. This re‐adjustment should achieve comparability with guidelines of land valuation for other purposes, e.g. acquisition

(d) to (e) Recommendations Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52 and 55 have been accepted. The recommendation No. 54 has been accepted in the following amended formulation: “The Committee advises project‐wise amounts paid under various mandates like NPV, compensatory afforestation, catchment area treatment, biodiversity conservation, etc. to be published and to evolve guidelines like NPV for other payments.” The Ministry of Environment and Forests is taking appropriate measures to implement the accepted recommendations. However, keeping in view that many areas which look barren are important/unique wildlife habitats and also keeping in view that with adequate and appropriate efforts and funds, any degraded area can be reclaimed to support vegetation, the recommendation No. 53 has not been accepted.

CONSERVATION OF MANGROVES 17th December, 2012 LSQ *334 SHRI SANJAY BRIJKISHORLAL NIRUPAM Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the total mangroves cover in the country especially in Mumbai; (b) whether the Government has issued instructions to various States including (c) Maharashtra to protect the mangroves in their States; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken/being taken by the Government to ensure implementation of (f) instructions issued by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) A statement is laid on the Table of the House. Statement referred to in reply to parts (a) to (d) of the Lok Sabha Starred Question Number 334 scheduled for answer on 17.12.2012 regarding Conservation of Mangroves. (a) According to Forest Survey of India (FSI) Report titled ‘India State of Forest Report (2011)’, the mangrove cover in the country is 4,662.56 km2. The mangrove cover in Mumbai City is 2 km2 and Mumbai suburb is 43 km2. The mangrove cover in other districts of Maharashtra such as Thane, Raigarh, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg is 53 km2, 62 km2, 23 km2 and 3 km2 respectively. The table below presents State/Union Territory (UT)‐wise status of the mangrove cover as estimated in the aforesaid 2011 assessment and also the change with respect to the previous assessment.

(Area in km2)

S. No.

State/UT

Assessment Year

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2009 2011 Change w.r.t. 2009

1 Andhra Pradesh

495 405 399 378 383 383 397 333 329 354 353 352 ‐1

2 Goa 0 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 16 16 17 22 53 Gujarat 427 412 397 419 689 901 1031 911 916 991 1,04

6 1058 12

4 Karnataka 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 05 Kerala 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 5 6 1 6 Maharashtr

a 140 114 113 155 155 124 108 118 158 186 186 186 0

7 Orissa 199 192 195 195 195 211 215 219 203 217 221 222 1 8 Tamil Nadu 23 47 47 21 21 21 21 23 35 36 39 39 09 West Bengal 2,07

6 2,10

9 2,11

9 2,11

9 2,11

9 2,12

3 2,12

5 2,08

1 2,12

0 2,13

6 2,15

2 2155 3

10 A&N Islands 686 973 971 966 966 966 966 789 658 635 615 617 2 11 Daman& Diu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1.56 0.5612 Puducherry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Total 4,04

6 4,25

5 4,24

4 4,25

6 4,53

3 4,73

7 4,87

1 4,48

2 4,44

8 4,58

1 4,63

9 4662.5

6 23.56

As would be noted from above table, there has been a net increase of 23.56 km2 of mangrove cover in the country in the year 2011 compared with the 2009 assessment. This can be attributed to increased plantations and also the regeneration of natural mangrove areas. (b), (c) and (d) The Government seeks to protect, sustain and augment mangroves in the country by both regulatory and promotional measures. Under the regulatory measures, the Government has issued the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification (2011) and the Island Protection Zone (IPZ) Notification 2011. These Notifications recognize the mangrove areas as ecologically sensitive and categorize them as CRZ‐I which implies that these areas are accorded protection of the highest order. To enforce and implement the CRZ and IPZ Notifications, the Ministry of Environment and Forests has constituted the National and State/UT level Coastal Zone Management Authorities. The Coastal States/UTs are also involving departments of forests, revenue and police for taking steps to evict unauthorized land grabbers from mangrove areas. As per the Bombay High Court order dated 06/10/2005, 5469 ha. of mangroves from Mumbai, Mumbai suburb and Thane districts, on government land has been notified as “Protected Forest” and has been taken into possession by the Forest Department and its protection is being done as per the existing forest law. The State Government of Maharashtra has further informed that it has created a separate Mangrove Cell, headed by a Chief Conservator of Forests, for conservation and management of the mangrove areas in the State. The headquarter of the Cell is at Mumbai, with jurisdiction along the coast of Maharashtra. The Ministry also provides financial assistance to Coastal States/Union Territories, who so request, under its Centrally Sponsored Scheme for conservation and management of mangroves. Further, under the World Bank assisted Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Project, the mapping of Ecologically Sensitive Areas, including mangroves, is undertaken and for this activity an amount of Rs 24 crore has been earmarked. The plantation of mangroves is also undertaken in three States namely Gujarat, Odisha and West Bengal over an area of approximately 15400 ha for which an amount of approximately Rs 32 crore has been earmarked.

NEW CRZ NOTIFICATION 17th December, 2012 LSQ *339

DR. KIRIT PREMJIBHAI SOLANKI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has announced the Clearance Issuance Mechanism in the new Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification;

(b) if so, the basic features thereof along with the mechanism available for the projects which have low pollution potential and do not attract provisions of Environment Impact Assessment Notifications;

(c) whether some State Governments have taken up the issue of revising issuance process for the projects which attract provisions of CRZ Notification 2011;


MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e): A Statement is laid on the Table of the House.

Statement referred to in reply to parts (a) to (e) of Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 339 on New CRZ Notification raised by Dr. Kirit Premjibhai Solanki to be answered on 17.12.2012 (a) & (b) Ministry had issued Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification on 6th January, 2011. The Notification provides the clearance procedure, including details of documents required to be submitted by the project proponent, for obtaining clearance from Government of India/State Governments/Union Territories (UTs) for projects located in CRZ area and/or not covered under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. (c) to (e) A meeting was convened with the State /UT Coastal Zone Management Authorities to discuss and clarify the various provisions w.r.t. the implementation of CRZ Notification, 2011. Subsequently, Office Memorandums were issued to facilitate them in decision making. No request has been received from the State Governments/UTs for revision of the clearance procedure.

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3681 SHRI C.R. PATIL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government proposes to grant Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL); (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether any new conditions prescribed by the Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority;

and (d) if so, the details thereof and the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) submitted a proposal for clearance under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2011 for construction of a 6 lane Road Bridge across the Mumbai harbor. The Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, while

recommending the proposal has stipulated various conditions, including submission of CRZ map demarcated by the authorized agency on 1: 4000 scale indicating the High Tide Line, Low Tide Line, eco‐sensitive zones viz. mangroves, mudflats and project layout by the MMRDA. The proposal is under consideration of the Ministry.

CHECK ON DESTRUCTION OF BIOSPHERE RESERVE 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3683 SHRI K. C. SINGH ‘BABA’ Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has noticed that the Alaknanda‐Badrinath Hydro Electric Project has destroyed part of buffer of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve which comprises two core zones i.e. the Nanda Devi National Park and the Valley of Flowers National Park;

(b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) the steps taken by the Government to prevent severe fragmentation and de‐gradation of important

wildlife habitats harbor and endangered species and also hamper the movement of wildlife?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) Alaknanda Hydroelectric Power project of 300 megawatt capacity was appraised by the Expert Appraisal Committee meeting for River Valley & Hydroelectric projects held on 17.1.2008. As per the reports of environment impact assessment (EIA) and environmental management plan (EMP) and their appraisal, the project is located within the buffer zone of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve near its north‐western boundary. The Ministry has awarded environmental clearance to this project in March, 2008 as per the provisions of Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994 & 2006, subject to strict compliance of specific and general conditions.

To mitigate impact of the project on wildlife and their habitat, the Central Government while according approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of the 60.513 hectares of forest land for construction of this Project, stipulated inter alia the condition that the State Government shall constitute a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Wildlife Warden to monitor construction of project to avoid disturbance, if any, to wildlife from the project. Representative of the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun, may also be included in the Committee as its member. The Committee may suggest appropriate measures to ameliorate impacts of the project.

RIVER REGULATORY ZONE 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3688 SHRI CHANDRAKANT KHAIRE Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government proposes to formulate any law to save the river bed area like Coastal Regulatory Zone in the name of River Regulatory Zone;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the River Bed of Yamuna River near Noida in Uttar Pradesh was sold out as Farm house/Farm

land by the land mafias and farm houses was developed illegally; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the action taken/being taken by the Government against the guilty persons?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The Ministry of Environment and Forests has constituted an Expert Group for formulation of guidelines for management of river fronts through the River Regulation Zone.

(c) to (e) As per information provided by the Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh, some temporary hutments have been constructed by private land owners on their own land in the flood plain of river Yamuna. It has also been informed that the State Government issues Notifications/Notices from time to time to not take up construction in the river flood plain. IMPORTANCE TO ENVIRONMENTAL RELATED ISSUES 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3690 DR. P. VENUGOPAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has undertaken a survey to assess the States which gave much importance to

environmental well being; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether it is also true that the Government has asked the States to give importance to environmental

related issues much importance; and (d) if so, the details thereof?


(a) & (b) An Environmental Performance Index to recognize environmental performance of States has been undertaken by the Planning Commission. The composite index comprises of 16 indicators under 5 criteria viz., Air Pollution, Water Quality, Forest Management, Waste Management and Climate Change on the basis of which performance of a State would be assessed.

(c) & (d) The Government has interacted with States to take up important environment related issues. The important / key issues being co‐ordinated with States include:

(i) Restoration of environmental quality in 43 critically polluted industrial clusters. (ii) Water and ambient air quality monitoring in the States. (iii) Monitoring of pollution control compliance in 17 categories of highly polluting industries and for those

industries discharging waste water into rivers and lakes. (iv) Establishing common waste management facilities like Common Effluent Treatment Plants for industrial

waste water and Treatment, Storage and Disposal facilities for hazardous waste. OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3695 SHRI RAYAPATI SAMBASIVA RAO Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has formulated any policy and regulatory mechanism for reduction of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) including nitrous oxide;

(b) if so, the details thereof along with the salient features of the policy; (c) the steps taken by the Government for reduction of ODSs and the target achieved so far; (d) whether Government proposes to review its fertilizer subsidy policy to address the issue; and (e) if so, the details thereof and action taken in this regard so far?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e)India is a party to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Nitrous oxide is not a controlled substance under the Montreal Protocol as it is not an Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS). India has prepared a country program in 1993 to phase‐out the ODSs and has taken, measures which include, inter alia, notification of the Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 , grant of fiscal incentives by way of exemption from payment of Customs and Excise Duties for goods required for non‐ODS technology, supporting 302 projects with estimated funding of about Rs. 1500 crores for phasing out 58,980 Ozone Depleting Potential (ODP) tonne in production and consumption sectors of the ODSs and, awareness campaigns. As on January 1, 2010, India has successfully phased out the production and consumption of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons and Carbon Tetrachloride (CTC) except for some essential and critical uses. The use of methyl bromide has been allowed upto 1st January, 2015. Since Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are used as interim substitute to replace CFCs, their production and consumption is allowed upto 1st January, 2030. So far, India has met all its international commitments in phasing out of the ODSs. ECO-MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT SYSTEM 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3702 SHRI SUVENDU ADHIKARI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government proposes to introduce a new scheme named Eco-management and Audit System (EMAS) in the country;


MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) The Government, at present, has no proposal to introduce a new scheme named Eco-management and Audit System (EMAS) in the country. However, a notification under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 has been issued on 22nd April, 1993 regarding submission of an annual environment statement for the financial year ending on 31st March in the form V to the concerned SPCB on or before 30th September. NUMBER OF NATIONAL PARKS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3706 DR. MAHENDRASINH P. CHAUHAN Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(q) the details of National Parks and Sanctuaries in the country, State‐wise; (r) whether some of them have been accorded with best category; and (s) if so, the details of such parks in the country including Gujarat?


(a) National Parks and Sanctuaries under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are notified by concerned State/Union Territory Governments in the country. As per the information available in the Ministry, presently 102 National Parks and 516 Wildlife Sanctuaries have been notified in the country. State/Union Territory‐wise number of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries is at Annexure. (b) No such categorization has been done by the Ministry. (c) Does not arise DELAY IN CLEARANCES OF MINING LEASES 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3708 SHRI A. SAI PRATAP


(a) whether there is inordinate delay in the clearances of mining leases by the Ministry; (b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) the remedial measures being taken by the Government for their early clearances?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No, Sir. (b) Does not arise in view of reply to (a) above. (c) The proposals for the grant of environmental clearance for mining projects are dealt with as per the procedure prescribed under Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. In order to facilitate an early decision on the proposals for environmental clearances, various steps have been initiated by the Ministry which include continuous monitoring of the status of pending projects, regular and longer duration meetings of Expert Appraisal Committee and streamlining of the procedure for appraisal of projects.

CONSERVATION OF WHITE LIONS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3710 SHRI GANESH SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(t) whether the Government has noticed that the Supreme Court has made a mention of the desirability of having a favourable environment for rearing of white lions in the forest of Mod in Madhya Pradesh;

(u) if so, whether the Ministry has noticed that large number of white lions roamed in the forests of Mukandpur and Bandhvgarh in Rewa area long time back;

(v) if so, whether the Government has formulated any new strategy for protection of white lions; (w) if so, the details thereof; (x) the present number of white lions in the country so far in the Sanctuaries; (y) whether the Government has formulated any scheme for protection of white lions in Mod forest of

Mukandpur, in Madhya Pradesh; and (z) if so, the details thereof?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No, Sir. (b) There is no report with the Ministry that large number of white lions roamed in the forests of Mukandpur and Bandhavgarh in Rewa area long time back. (c) & (d) Does not arise. (e)There is no record of presence of white lions in wild in the country at present. (f) & (g) Presently no such scheme for protection of white lions has been formulated by the Government. WORLD FORESTRY DAY 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3711 SHRI KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR

Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state

(a) whether the Government has observed ‘World Forestry Day’ recently in the country; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Government has fixed any targets under the said scheme; (d) if so, the details thereof, State‐wise; and (e) the steps taken/being taken by the Government to achieve the targets?


(a) to (e) Yes, Sir. The Ministry of Environment & Forests has observed World Forestry Day on 21.3.2012 at New Delhi. On the occasion a function was organised at India International Centre, New Delhi with the objective to create awareness among public about the importance of forests as life sustaining system and its critical role in human well being. No specific targets are fixed by the Government of India, however, the World Forestry Day is observed throughout the Country by State Forest Departments on the summer solstice day on 21st March every year during which various activities to create awareness about the importance of forests in ecological security and livelihood support are taken up.

ACTION PLAN ON POLLUTION 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3715 SHRI PARTAP SINGH BAJWA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Central Pollution Control Board has performed an Assessment and development studies in 2010;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the outcome thereof along with the recommendations of the Board; (c) whether the Government has formulated any action plan as per the recommendations of the Board; and (d) if so, the details thereof and if not, the reasons therefor?


(a) & (b) During the year 2010, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has published two assessment reports viz. Report on Pollution Problem of River Ghaggar and Water Quality in the River Ganga and Yamuna. In addition, CPCB has also published reports titled 1) Comprehensive Environmental Assessment of Industrial Clusters and 2) Criteria for Environmental Assessment of Industrial Clusters. These reports are concerned with the evolving of Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI) in respect of 88 industrial clusters in the country. Based on the studies carried out by the CPCB, 43 industrial clusters having the CEPI score 70 and above were considered as critically polluted and 32 industrial clusters with CEPI score between 60 and 70 have been considered as severely polluted. Ministry of Environment and Forest has imposed a moratorium on 13.01.2010 on the grant of environmental clearance for developmental projects in 43 Critically Polluted Areas. Based on the recommendations of CPCB and considering the actions taken by the State agencies, moratorium imposed has been lifted in respect of 26 industrial clusters. (c) & (d) The CPCB alongwith the State Pollution Control Boards has formulated action plans in respect of 39 industrial clusters and the same are at various stages of implementation.

VILLAGES UNDER CONSERVED FOREST AREA 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3717 SHRI BHOOPENDRA SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the number of villages situated in the conserved forest areas of the country, State/Union Territory‐wise; (b) whether the Government has formulated any scheme for relocation of these villages outside the

conserved forest areas; (c) if so, the details of the said scheme; (d) the number of villages relocated outside the conserved areas so far in the country, State/Union Territory‐

wise; (e) whether the State Government of Madhya Pradesh has sent any proposal to the Ministry for the said

purpose; (f) if so, the details of the said proposal; and (g) the reasons for not according approval to the said proposal so far?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) The term ‘conserved forest area’ is not in use in this Ministry. However, Protected Areas including sanctuaries, national parks, conservation reserves and community reserves are notified by the concerned Governments in accordance with the provisions contained under Chapter IV of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. In addition, the term ‘protected areas’ is also understood to include ‘tiger reserves’ notified as such under section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The details of number of villages situated in forest areas, including the protected areas, are not generally collated in the Ministry. However, the details of villages located inside the core/critical tiger habitat of tiger reserves, as reported by States, are at Annexure-I.

(b),(c)&(d) The Ministry supplements the efforts of State/Union Territory Governments through financial assistance for voluntary relocation of villages from the Protected Areas. Subject to the availability of budgetary allocation under the ongoing Centrally Sponsored Schemes of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’ and ‘Project Tiger’, funding support is provided to States for voluntary relocation of villages on mutually agreed terms and conditions, as per the provisions contained in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, read with the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The number of families, for whose relocation from National Parks and Sanctuaries, financial assistance has been provided by the Ministry during the last three years under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’ are at Annexure-II. The status of village relocation from tiger reserves, as reported by State Governments, under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of ‘Project Tiger’ is at Annexure-III. (e)&(f) During the financial year 2012‐13, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh had submitted proposals for relocation of 169 families from Orchha Sanctuary and 9 villages from Ratapani Sanctuary under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’. As the proposal for relocation of families was not in accordance with the provisions contained under the scheme, it has not been considered by the Ministry. ANNEXURE‐I REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (a) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3717 REGARDING ‘VILLAGES UNDER CONSERVED FOREST AREA’ BY SHRI BHOOPENDRA SINGH DUE FOR REPLY ON 17.12.2012.

Details of villages located inside the core/critical tiger habitat of tiger reserves

(as reported by States) (As on 30.6.2012)

S. No.

Name of the Tiger Reserve Name of the State No. of Villages remaining inside the core (CTH) area

No. of Families remaining inside the core (CTH) area

1 2 3 4 5

1 Achanakmar Chattisgarh 19 3304 2 Anamalai Tamil Nadu 33 1532 3 Bandhavgarh Madhya Pradesh 13 2352 4 Bandipur Karnataka 0 0 5 Bhadra Karnataka 5 316 6 BRT Karnataka 34 * 7 Buxa West Bengal 7 1229 8 Corbett Uttarakhand ** 181 9 Dampa Mizoram 0 0 10 Dandeli‐Anshi Karnataka 13 629 11 Dudhwa Uttar Pradesh 0 0 12 Indravati Chattisgarh 56 1300 13 Kanha Madhya Pradesh 7 1092 14 Kawal Andhra Pradesh 37 2064 15 Kaziranga Assam 8 270 16 Kalakad‐Mundanthurai Tamil Nadu 8 223 17 Manas Assam 31 912 18 Melghat Maharashtra 24 4269 19 Mudumalai Tamil Nadu 30 430 20 Nagarjunsagar‐Srisailam Andhra Pradesh 28 1731 21 Nagarhole Karnataka 31 1330 22 Namdapha Arunachal Pradesh 3 77 23 Nameri Assam 0 0 24 Pakke Arunachal Pradesh 0 0 25 Palamau Jharkhand 3 633 26 Panna Madhya Pradesh 4 1673 27 Parambikulam Kerala 6 318 28 Pench Maharashtra 1 107 29 Pench MP 0 0 30 Periyar Kerala 0 0 31 Ranthambore Rajasthan 63 894 32 Sahayadri Maharashtra 15 1004 33 Sanjay‐Sidhi Madhya Pradesh 40 4967 34 Sariska Rajasthan 26 1974 35 Satkosia Odisha 5 129 36 Satpura Madhya Pradesh 38 3779

37 Similipal Odisha 3 122 38 Sunderbans West Bengal 0 0 39 Tadoba‐Andhari Maharashtra 5 905 40 Udanti‐Sitanadi Chattisgarh 50 3712 41 Valmiki Bihar 0 0

TOTAL 646 43458

* Not enumerated. ** Scattered Gujjar settlements exist, which have not been counted as villages.

ANNEXURE‐II REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (b),(c)&(d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3717 REGARDING ‘VILLAGES UNDER CONSERVED FOREST AREA’ BY SHRI BHOOPENDRA SINGH DUE FOR REPLY ON

17.12.2012.

The number of families for whose relocation from National Parks and Sanctuaries financial assistance has been provided by the Ministry during the last three year under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of

‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’

S.No Name of National Parks/Sanctuaries

Year No. of families relocated

1. Chhattisgarh 2009‐10 1352. Mizoram 2010‐11 613. Kerala 2010‐11 3 4. Kerala 2011‐12 55

ANNEXURE‐III REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (b),(c)&(d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO.

3717 REGARDING ‘VILLAGES UNDER CONSERVED FOREST AREA’ BY SHRI BHOOPENDRA SINGH DUE FOR REPLY ON 17.12.2012.

Status of village relocation from Tiger Reserves

(as reported by States) (As on 30.6.2012)

S. No.

Name of the Tiger Reserve

Name of the State No. of Villages relocated from the notified Core (CTH) since the inception of the Project Tiger

No. of Families relocated from the notified Core (CTH) since the inception of the Project Tiger

1 2 3 4 5

1 Achanakmar Chattisgarh 6 249 2 Anamalai Tamil Nadu 0 0 3 Bandhavgarh Madhya Pradesh 1 149 4 Bandipur Karnataka 0 0 5 Bhadra Karnataka 11 420 6 BRT Karnataka 0 0 7 Buxa West Bengal 0 0 8 Corbett Uttarakhand 0 0 9 Dampa Mizoram 1 227 10 Dandeli‐Anshi Karnataka 0 0 11 Dudhwa Uttar Pradesh 0 0 12 Indravati Chattisgarh 0 0 13 Kanha Madhya Pradesh 27 821 14 Kawal Andhra Pradesh 0 0 15 Kaziranga Assam 0 0

16 Kalakad‐Mundanthurai Tamil Nadu 0 0

17 Manas Assam 0 0 18 Melghat Maharashtra 6 589 19 Mudumalai Tamil Nadu 0 19

20 Nagarjunsagar‐Srisailam Andhra Pradesh 0 0

21 Nagarhole Karnataka 6 496 22 Namdapha Arunachal Pradesh 0 0 23 Nameri Assam 0 0 24 Pakke Arunachal Pradesh 0 0

25 Palamau Jharkhand 0 0 26 Panna Madhya Pradesh 9 738 27 Parambikulam Kerala 0 0 28 Pench Maharashtra 0 0 29 Pench MP 8 281 30 Periyar Kerala 0 0 31 Ranthambore Rajasthan 15 1250 32 Sahayadri Maharashtra 43 1582 33 Sanjay‐Sidhi Madhya Pradesh 0 0 34 Sariska Rajasthan 2 435 35 Satkosia Odisha 0 0 36 Satpura Madhya Pradesh 4 318 37 Similipal Odisha 1 133 38 Sunderbans West Bengal 0 0 39 Tadoba‐Andhari Maharashtra 1 164 40 Udanti‐Sitanadi Chattisgarh 0 0 41 Valmiki Bihar 0 0

TOTAL 141 7871

LIFTING OF BAN ON FISHING 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3722 SHRI BISHNU PADA RAY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(d) whether Geological Survey of India in their report recommended to lift Ban on Fishing Gastropod

Species for three years on temporary basis for rational exploitation of the Shellfish resources in Andaman and Nicobar (A&N) Islands;

(e) if so, the details thereof; (f) whether the State Board of Wildlife of A&N Islands approved for de‐listing the species for the period of

three years in A&N Islands and sent to the Ministry on 11th May, 2011; (g) if so, the details thereof; (h) whether the L.G., A&N Islands made a special request for expediting decision of Ministry to safeguard

interest of Artisans of the Islands; and (i) if so, the likely date of conveying such decisions by the Ministry?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (f) The Ministry of Environment and Forests has received a D.O. letter from the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Island Administration in October 2012 regarding the issue of de‐listing of Trochus niloticus from the Schedule‐IV of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The said letter, inter alia, also mentions about the recommendations by the Zoological Survey of India for temporary delisting of the Trochus species as well as the fact that the proposal had been recommended by the State Board for Wildlife of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. However, in pursuance to the decision of the 13th Meeting of the Island Development Authority under the chairmanship of Hon’ble Prime Minister, a Committee had been constituted to holistically address the issue of poaching in the Andaman and Nicobar Island and the said Committee in its report, had recommended that the Zoological Survey of India carry out a scientific studies on Trochus and Sea Cucumbers with specific focus on the population status, incidental catch, biomass assessment, standing stock assessment, illegal fishing and trading of the two species. The Andaman and Nicobar Island Administration has already been informed of the recommendation.

PROMOTION OF FOREST PRODUCES 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3723 KUMARI SAROJ PANDEY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has formulated any action plan to promote forest produces and to develop their

collection and distribution system in newly created States such as Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand; (b) if so, the total financial allocation made for these States under this plan during the last three years, State‐

wise; (c) if not, whether the Government proposes to make any such plan as may promote economic

development of tribal persons living in these areas; and (d) if so, the details thereof and the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) The Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) deals with the Central Sector Scheme ‘Grants‐in‐Aid to STDCCs etc for MFP Operations’ which was launched during 1992‐93. Under this scheme, MoTA extends Grants‐in‐Aid to the State Tribal Development Cooperative Corporations (STDCCs)/Forest Development Corporations (FDCs) etc. through their respective State Governments for :‐ (i) increasing the quantum of MFP handled by setting off operational losses, if need be; (ii) strengthening the share capital base of the Corporation for undertaking MFP operations thereby increasing

the quantum of MFP presently handled; (iii) setting up of scientific ware housing facilities, wherever necessary; (iv) establishing processing industries for value addition with the objective of ensuring maximum returns on the

MFPs for the tribals; (v) giving consumption loans to the tribals; and (vi) supplementing Research and Development (R&D) efforts. The details of funds allocated state‐wise under the above scheme for the last three years is as follows:‐

(Rs. In lakhs) Sl.No. State 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12

1. Andhra Pradesh 158.00 158.00 194.002. Assam 65.00 ‐‐ ‐‐3. Chhattisgarh 87.00 ‐‐ 200.004. Gujarat 146.00 130.00 150.005. Himachal Pradesh 5.00 35.00 10.006. Kerala 7.00 58.00 14.00 7. Madhya Pradesh ‐‐ 312.00 472.00 8. Maharashtra 168.00 234.00 330.72 9. Meghalaya 39.00 92.00 77.00 10. Orissa 219.00 225.00 315.0011. Rajasthan ‐‐ 42.00 29.2812 Tripura 20.00 71.00 38.0013. West Bengal 86.00 145.00 170.00 Total 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00

CONSERVATION OF BIO‐DIVERSITY 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3726

SHRI ARJUN MEGHWAL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has fixed any targets regarding bio‐diversity during the year, 2010 in the country;

(b) whether the Government has achieved impact related to bio‐diversity; (c) whether the Government has resolved to provide any financial assistance to strengthen the institutional

set up for the conservation of bio‐diversity in the country; and (d) if so, the Organisation‐wise details of the financial assistance going to be made available to the various

Organisations?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND` FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The tenth Conference of Parties (CoP‐10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in Nagoya in October 2010 adopted Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011‐2020 with five goals and 20 targets. The Strategic Plan is a ten‐year framework for action by all countries and stakeholders to save biodiversity and enhance its benefits for people, and India is a Party to the CBD. The Vision of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity is that by 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential to all people. The Mission of the Strategic Plan is to take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential services, thereby securing the planet’s variety of life, and contributing to human well‐being, and poverty eradication. (c) & (d) India hosted the CoP‐11 to the CBD in Hyderabad in October 2012. The Prime Minister during the opening of the High Level Segment of CoP‐11 announced that the Government of India has decided to earmark a sum of US $ 50 million during India’s Presidency of CoP to strengthen institutional mechanism, enhance the technical and human capabilities for biodiversity conservation in India, and to promote similar capacity building in other developing countries. Out of Rs. 216 crores already approved for the 12th Five Year Plan for Biodiversity Conservation Scheme, Rs. 46 crores are for National Biodiversity Authority, Rs. 12.50 crores are for strengthening of State Biodiversity Boards, Rs. 50 crores are for People’s Biodiversity Registers, Rs. 12.50 crores are for Biosafety, Rs. 45 crores are for CoP‐11 and India’s Presidency of CoP‐11, and Rs. 50 crores are for South‐South cooperation.

POLLUTION BY SUGAR MILLS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3727 SHRI WAKCHAURE BHAUSAHEB RAJARAM Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has received complaints regarding air pollution/water pollution caused by sugar mills and other operational factories in the State of Maharashtra;

(b) if so, the details of the erring mills/ factories along with the details of the pollution caused by them; and (c) the punitive action taken by the Government against such erring mills/ factories?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) As reported by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), it has received two complaints relating to pollution caused by sugar mills of Maharashtra viz. (i) M/s Nira‐Bhima Sugar Factory, Indapur Taluk, Pune ‐ regarding percolation of effluent into drinking water well and (ii) M/s Vitthal Distillery and Sugar, Solapur District, Maharashtra ‐ regarding disposal of effluent. Besides these, the CPCB has received 19 other complaints of the

industries operating in the State of Maharashtra. The complaints received by CPCB were referred to the Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board for necessary action.

In addition, the CPCB on random basis has inspected 11 sugar mills in Maharashtra and has issued one direction directly to the industry under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and directed Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board to take action against remaining ten erring mills under Section 18 (1) (b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

NITROGEN LEAKAGE 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3735 SHRI HAMDULLAH SAYEED Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has conducted a comprehensive study to analyze the reasons for increase in the Nitrogen level in the big cities of the country including the National Capital Territory of Delhi;

(b) if so, the details thereof along with the effects on human health; (c) the details of the cities facing this problem; and (d) the action taken/proposed to be taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) are monitoring ambient air quality including levels of oxides of nitrogen in the country. The levels of oxides of nitrogen, have exceeded the standard of 40 Mg/m3 during 2011 in Delhi, Faridabad, Jamshedpur, Kolkata, Meerut, Pune, Asansol and Raipur. According to some epidemiological studies, health effects are associated with air pollution. However, due to various confounding factors, no conclusive data could be established indicating correlationship between air pollution and consequential health impacts. The steps taken to control increasing level of nitrogen vis‐à‐vis air pollution include formulation of a comprehensive policy for abatement of pollution, supply of improved auto‐fuel, tightening of vehicular and industrial emission norms, mandatory environmental clearance for specified industries, management of municipal, hazardous & bio‐medical wastes, promotion of cleaner technologies, strengthening the network of air quality monitoring stations, preparation and implementation of action plans for major cities & critically polluted areas, increasing public awareness etc.

CONSTRUCTION OF RING ROAD 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3748 SHRIMATI JAYSHREEBEN PATEL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Union Government has received any project for construction of ring road around Gir forest area in the State of Gujarat;

(b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) whether the said project is being considered for approval by Ministry of Environment and Forests?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a), (b) & (c) he State Government of Gujarat had submitted a proposal for conservation of Asiatic Lion and construction of Ring Road around the Gir Protected Area System (Gir National Park and Gir, Paniya, Mitiyala and Girnar sanctuaries) in 2009. Subsequently, after a high level meeting in the Ministry of Environment and Forests with the State Government officers, the State Government had submitted a revised proposal for Gir Protected Area System indicating details of Central and State funding for biodiversity conservation and infrastructure development for Rs 262.36 crores. The revised proposal did not include construction of a Ring road around the Gir Protected Area System. No proposal has been received subsequently in the Ministry from the State Government of Gujarat regarding construction of ring road around Gir forest area. Accordingly, no further action is pending with the Ministry of Environment and Forests in this regard.

CHECK OF SOIL EROSION 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3749 SHRI A.K.S. VIJAYAN Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether any study has been conducted to know the quantum of coastline subjected to soil erosion in Tamil Nadu;

(b) if so, whether the Government has received any proposal from the State Government to stop soil erosion on coastline;

(c) if so, the details thereof; (d) the steps taken by the Government to manage and stop soil erosion across the coastline of the State; and (e) the estimated cost and the budgetary allocation and the present status?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) Under the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project, National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, Chennai has been assigned the work of mapping erosion line all along the coast of the country, including Tamil Nadu. (b) No Sir. (c) to (e) Does not arise in view of the reply to part (b) above.

NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL PARK 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3751 SHRI MANICKA TAGORE Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has noticed that the Advisory Panel of National Zoological Park headed by

Additional Director‐General of the Ministry has not met more than one year after the reconstitution of the panel;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor; and (c) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a), (b) & (c) There was delay in holding the first meeting of the Advisory Committee of the National Zoological Park, reconstituted vide Office Memorandum dated 29‐08‐2011, due to non‐finalisation of its agenda until June, 2012. The meeting scheduled to be held on 04‐07‐2012 could not be held due to non‐availability of the Chairman on that day. The first meeting of the Committee has since been held on 05‐12‐2012.

CHECK ON DISPLACEMENT OF TRIBALS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3752 SHRI TUFANI SAROJ


(a) whether any policy has been formulated regarding the issues related to water, forest and land; (b) if so, the provisions made in the said policy to check the forcible displacement of Adiwasis and Van

Gujjars on the forests where they have been residing for ages, in the name of protected forest in the country;

(c) the number of incidents of displacing Adiwasis settled down in forests and handing over forests to the corporate sector during the last ten years, State‐wise; and

(d) the facilities provided to the displaced for their rehabilitation?


(a) The Ministry of Environment & Forests is implementing National Forest Policy, 1988, which has the principal objective of maintaining environmental stability and ecological security of the nation including water cycle, biodiversity conservation, land productivity, etc. (b) Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal Ministry for implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Section 4 of the Act provides for the procedure of recognition, restoration and vesting of forest rights and related matters and the sub section (5) of the Section‐4 specifically mentions that no member of a forest dwelling scheduled tribe or a traditional forest dweller shall be evicted or removed from forest under his occupation till the recognition and verification procedure is complete. This is also a safeguard to check the forcible displacement of Adiwasis and Van Gujjars. Voluntary rehabilitation of Adiwasis from Protected areas such as National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries is done as per the guidelines of the Government of India. (c) & (d) Diversion of forest land including for corporate sector is being regulated under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to check the indiscriminate diversion of forest land. It is also ensured that no forcible eviction of Adiwasis settled in forest areas takes place for handing over the forest land to the corporate sector. Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plans, wherever applicable, are in‐built components of the proposals for diversion of forest land including those to the corporate sector and details of the number of families rehabilitated elsewhere while handing over the forest land to the corporate sector is not compiled at the level of the Central Government. However, the Ministry supplements the efforts of State/UT Government through financial assistance for relocation of villages outside the Project Tiger/Protected Areas subject to the provisions of Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972 and Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

CLEARANCE TO IPWTWC 17

th December, 2012

LSQ 3753 SHRI SURESH KALMADI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the environmental clearance accorded to the project pertaining to Inland Passenger Water Transport on West Coast, Mumbai (IPWTWC) envisaging development of transport terminals at Nariman Point, Bandra, Varsova, Juhu, Marve and Boravali near existing jetties had expired in May, 2011 and therefore Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation has requested to the Government for extension of clearance of IPWTWC;

(b) if so, the complete details in this regard, indicating the reasons for delay in granting extension; and (c) the time by which it is likely to be provided?


(a) to (c) The clearance for the Inland Passenger Water Transport on West Coast, Mumbai (IPWTWC) was granted on 15.05.2006 under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991. Its validity had expired in May, 2011. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation has submitted a fresh proposal for clearance in August, 2012. It was noted that the project involves capital dredging and breakwaters. Hence, both Environment Clearance under Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 as well as clearance under Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 are required for the project. Accordingly, after examination, Terms of Reference have been granted for Environment Impact Assessment Report/Environment Management Plan by the proponent as required under the EIA Notification, 2006.

SAFETY OF GM TECHNOLOGY 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3758 SHRI JOSE K. MANI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether India’s hesitation to adopt GM technology is devoid of any rationale given the scientific consensus that has now framed even in Europe over the safety of the GM technology; and

(b) if so, the Government’s comments thereon? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) There is no ambiguity in adoption of GM technology by India. The Government of India is of the view that use of genetically modified (GM) technology offers the potential for increased agricultural productivity and improved nutritional value which may contribute directly to enhancing food security and human health. Simultaneously, it is also recognized that the use of GM technology in agriculture may involve potential risk to human health and environment. Accordingly, Government of India is following a policy of case by case event based

assessment of GM technology in accordance with ‘Rules for the Manufacture, Use/Import/Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms/ Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989’ of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and following international norms prescribed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).

CONDITION OF RIVERS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3764 SHRI M.K. RAGHAVAN Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has conducted any study on the condition of major rivers like Periyar, Bharatha

Puzha and Chaliyar Puzha in Kerala; (b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the oxygen level in these rivers is decreasing annually; (d) if so, the details thereof; (e) whether the Government has any proposal to revive these rivers under Ganga Action Plan; and (f) if so, the details thereof and if not, the reasons therefor?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) The water quality is monitored at 8 locations along the river Periyar, 2 locations along river Bharata Puzha and 3 locations along the river Chaliyar in Kerala. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) level meets the criteria, however at some locations in River Periyar DO level is below the norms (e) & (f) Conservation of rivers is an ongoing and collective effort of the Central and State Governments. This Ministry is supplementing the efforts of the State Governments including the state of Kerala in abatement of pollution in rivers under National River Conservation Plan (NRCP). The assistance is provided for works relating to sewerage works, interception and diversion of drains, low cost sanitation/community toilet complexes, including construction of sewage treatment plants (STPs).The projects are implemented on a cost sharing basis between the Central and State Governments.

MINING RESERVES IN WESTERN GHATS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3765 SHRI P. C. GADDIGOUDAR Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education’s (ICFRE) has given any suggestion to exploit mining reserves in the Western Ghats of the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) whether the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) has accepted the suggestion in its report submitted to

the Court; (d) if not, the reasons therefor; and (e) the steps taken/being taken by the Government in this regard?


(a) & (b) The Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), Dehradun in the Macro level Environmental Impact Assessment Study Report of Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga districts, Karnataka submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia recommended as below: “There is a need to commission a feasibility study in order to bring in superior underground mining technology which is more environmental friendly in the Western Ghats to extract 10 billion tonnes of Magnetite (iron ore) available in the country. Out of this 8 billion ton is in Karnataka.” (c) to (e) The Central Empowered Committee in their report dated 3rd February 2012 submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia recommended as below: “After considering that (a) the Western Ghats is one of the identified biodiversity hot spot of the world and wherein mining operation is presently not being permitted and (b) the above said observation of the ICFRE is totally out of context and beyond its TOR, the CEC is of the view that it would be appropriate that the above said observation of the ICFRE should be treated as “deleted” from the EIA‐Study Report so as to avoid any possibility in the future of opening of mining operation in the areas falling in the ecologically sensitive and fragile Western Ghats.”

CHECK ON SOIL EROSION 17

th December, 2012

LSQ 3766 SHRI KUNWAR REWATI RAMAN SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether river Ganga is causing soil erosion from Anandotsava Ashram to Saptrishi Ashram in Motichur of

Dehradun district of Uttranchal which is increasing every year due to which thousand of trees from the dense forest of Rajaji National Park are getting uprooted and flow of river Ganga is increasing towards residential areas posing a threat to them and 25-30 Ashram situated in the area including the forest cover;

(b) if so, the steps taken by the Government to check the soil erosion and destruction of forest due to river Ganga and save the residential areas and the Ashrams;

(c) if not, whether the Government proposes to take any action in this regard; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No Sir. According to Government of Uttarakhand the river Ganga cuts across the Shivaliks to reach the plains. During rainy season the flow of the river increases and causes flooding of the areas where it enters the plains and cause siltation in some places and cutting of stream banks in certain other places. This is a completely natural process and so far no cases of damage to private land or property or large scale uprooting of trees have been reported. (b) to (e) Does not arise.

BAN ON EXCAVATION OF BRICK EARTH 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3770 SHRI P.C. CHACKO


(a) whether it is true that the Supreme Court has put a blanket ban on the excavation of brick earth for brick moulding;

(b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) the details of action taken/propose to be taken by the Government to create alternate source to

augment supply of basic raw material to brick‐kiln industry? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) Hon’ble Supreme Court has not put a blanket ban on the excavation of brick earth for brick moulding.

(b) & (c) Do not arise in view of reply to (a) above.

USE OF GROUND WATER FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3771 SHRI BIBHU PRASAD TARAI: SHRI PRABODH PANDA: Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Wildlife Society of Odisha (WSO) has lodged any complaint to the Government asking of an enquiry into the alleged abuse of ground water for industrial use by some private company including Jindal Steel and Power Limited in Odisha for its projects in Angual and Berbil; and

(b) if so, the details thereof and the action taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The Ministry of Environment and Forests received a complaint from the Wildlife Society of Odisha (WSO) in November 2010 regarding violation by M/s Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. (JSPL) for drawl of huge quantity of ground water by digging bore wells for construction of 6 Million Tonnes per Annum of Integrated Steel Plant and 1000 MW Captive Power Plant at Kerjang in District Angul in Orissa. The complainant had also alleged that the environmental clearance granted to M/s JSPL on 22.2.2007 stipulates that the water would be obtained from the Brahmani River/ Samal Barrage.

The matter was investigated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and it was found that M/s JSPL has obtained permission on 5th October, 2007 from the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA), Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India for withdrawal of 5,000 m3/day of ground water besides obtaining permission for drawl of 95.16 cusecs (9,700 m3/hr) of water from River Brahmani on 26th August, 2008 from Department of Water Resources, Government of Odisha.

SPREADING OF POLLUTION BY CHEMICAL FACTORIES 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3776 DR. SHAFIQUR RAHMAN BARQ Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has taken note of some major chemical factories at Gajraula in Uttar Pradesh which

are spreading too much pollution; (b) if so, the details and number of such factories; and (c) the action taken/proposed to be taken by the Government against such factories? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN)

(a) to (c) There are seven chemical factories located at Gajraula in Uttar Pradesh, which are as under:

1. M/s Jubiliant Life Science Ltd. 2. M/s TEVA (API) India (p) Ltd. 3. M/s Crop Health Products. 4. M/s IRA Chem Ltd. 5. M/s Chadha Rubber Pvt Ltd. 6. M/s Insilico Ltd. 7. M/s Jubiliant Industries Ltd. (Fertilizer Plant).

As reported by the Central Pollution Control Board, all these industrial units have installed the necessary pollution control systems.

COMMON BIO‐MEDICAL WASTAGE TREATMENT 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3777 SHRI NAMA NAGESWARA RAO Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether as per the guidelines of Central Pollution Control Board, installation of individual incinerators by

a health care unit is to be discouraged as far as possible and it shall be allowed only at common bio‐medical waste treatment facility;

(b) if so, the details of common biomedical waste treatment facility available in various states, State‐wise; (c) whether routine checks are conducted by the authorities to ensure the untreated medical waste are not

dumped by the hospital; (d) if not, the reasons therefor; and (e) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (e) According to guidelines of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for Design and Construction of Bio-medical Waste Incinerator, as far as possible, installation of individual incinerator by a healthcare unit is to be discouraged and incinerators are to be allowed only at Common Bio-medical Waste Treatment and Disposal Facility (CBMWTDF). However, permission can be granted in certain inevitable situations where no other option is available. As per the information provided by the State Pollution Control Boards and Directorate General of Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS), there are 188 CBMWTDFs in operation in the country. State-wise details of CBMWTDFs in operation are given in the Annexure. The Ministry of Environment and Forests have notified the Bio‐Medical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. As per these Rules, State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) in their respective States and Pollution Control Committees (PCCs) in their respective Union Territories are the ‘Prescribed Authorities’ for ensuring compliance to the aforesaid Rules. SPCBs, PCCs and CPCB conduct visits to CBMWTDFs and health care establishments in order to verify status of compliance to these Rules.

Annexure

State-wise details of Common Bio-medical waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities

Sr. No. State/ Union Territory No. of CBMWTDF

1 Andaman & Nicobar 02 Andhra Pradesh 16 3 Arunachal Pradesh 0 4 Assam 5 5 Bihar 1 6 Chandigarh 17 Chhattisgarh 68 Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli 19 Delhi 310 Goa 0 11 Gujarat 13 12 Haryana 6 13 Himachal Pradesh 314 Jharkhand 315 J&K 316 Karnataka 1417 Kerala 118 Lakshadweep 0 19 Madhya Pradesh 14 20 Maharashtra 35 21 Manipur 0 22 Meghalaya 123 Mizoram 024 Nagaland 025 Orissa 626 Pudducherry 0 27 Punjab 5 28 Rajasthan 12 29 Sikkim ‐ 30 Tamilnadu 1031 Tripura 032 Uttarakhand 233 Uttar Pradesh 1434 West Bengal 7 35 DGAFMS 6 Total 188

POLLUTION BY BRICK INDUSTRIES 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3782 SHRI SULTAN AHMED Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the brick industries led to increase Air and soil pollution in rural areas of the country; (b) if so, whether any study has been conducted regarding the impact to agriculture due to Air and Soil

pollution caused by brick industries in rural areas of the country; (c) if so, the details thereof; and (d) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?


(a) to (c)Brick kilns emit smoke and gaseous emissions from their chimneys due to burning of coal and agro‐residue. Such emissions result in air pollution and may affect agriculture and plants. Though brick kilns do not dispose any harmful pollutants on soil but brick‐soil excavation causes loss of fertile top soil and affects the soil integrity. As

reported by the Central Pollution Control Board, no specific study has been carried out to see the impact to agriculture due to air and soil pollution caused by brick kilns in rural areas of the country. (d) The following steps have been taken by the Government in this regard:

Emission quality and chimney height standards have been stipulated to minimize the impact of air

pollution caused by coal consumption in brick kilns in the surrounding areas. State Governments allow brick kilns to establish at a certain distance from mango orchards as specified in

the prescribed sitting criteria / bylaws to protect the mango orchards from the impact of air pollution caused by coal combustion in brick kiln.

State Governments have to frame proper rules in accordance with the recommendations under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as per Honorable Supreme Court Order dated 27.2.2012.

AMENDMENT IN FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3788 SHRI ZAFAR ALI NAQVI SHRI M.B. RAJESH SHRI C.R. PATIL Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the approach roads of the villages, main district roads, and the trees planted along with the roads of Nagar and Zila Panchayats in the cities fall under the definition of protection of forest area in the country;

(b) if not, the limit and definition of the protection of forest area; (c) whether the Government has any proposal to make amendment in Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to

make the rules under this Act lenient for those who have a very genuine reason to fell the tree; (d) if so, the details thereof; (e) whether the State Forest Departments have been counted in this regard and if so, the details thereof;

and (f) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in their Judgment dated 12.12.1996 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union and Others inter alia directed as below: “The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description cover all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of section 2 (i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in Government record irrespective of the ownership.” I The Central Government does not have any proposal to make amendment in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. (d) to (f) In view of reply to part I above, reply to parts (d) to (f) does not arise.

BEAUTIFICATION OF NATURAL PONDS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3795 SHRI YOGI ADITYA NATH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has formulated any scheme for maintenance and beautification of natural ponds in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof, State‐wise including Uttar Pradesh; and (c) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) The Central Government had approved a State Sector scheme for Repair, Renovation and Restoration of water bodies with two components, one with external assistance with an outlay of Rs.1500 crore, and another with domestic support being implemented by Ministry of Water Resources with an outlay of Rs.1250 crore during XI Five Year Plan period. The scheme aims at improving catchment areas of tank commands, increase in storage capacity, ground water recharge, improvement in agriculture and increased availability of drinking water. Under the scheme covered by external assistance, States may take up projects for funding with 75% loan from the World Bank to be repaid by the States, whereas, the balance 25% is contributed by Government of India as central assistance. The appraisal process for the scheme is co‐ordinated by Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The World Bank Loan Agreement has been signed with States namely Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Orissa for restoration of 10887 water bodies in these States. Under the scheme with domestic support, 3341 water bodies including 28 in Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh, have been taken up. So far, a sum of Rs.852.29 crore has been released under the scheme and works have been completed in 1546 water bodies.

WATER POLLUTION 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3802 SHRI FRANCISCO SARDINHA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the water quality in the National Capital Territory is worst according to the World Development Report by an international agency as well as Central Pollution Control Boards; and

(b) if so, the details thereof along with the steps taken by the Government in this regard? MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN)

(a) & (b) The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is monitoring water quality of aquatic sources at 2500 stations located in 28 States and 6 Union Territories including National Capital Territory of Delhi. There are 4 stations on river Yamuna starting from Palla (upstream at Delhi‐Haryana Border) to downstream Okhla in Delhi. The observed water quality data (for last 10 years) indicate that Bio‐chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) exceeded at 3 stations namely Nizamuddin Bridge, Agra Canal and Okhla downstream. However, BOD is within the prescribed limits at Palla. The water quality of river Yamuna is deteriorated after confluence of Nazafgarh Drain (downstream Wazirabad Barrage), which discharges about 2064 Million Litres/Day (MLD) of partially treated

waste water into river Yamuna. Further, the total generation of sewage in Delhi is 3800 MLD, of which only 63% of the installed capacity of 2460 MLD is being treated due to inadequate collection system. The steps taken to check pollution in river Yamuna include:

Industries and sewage treatment plants are required to take consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and ensure compliance of prescribed standards before discharging treated water into drain/river Yamuna.

Exploring the possibility of reuse/recycling of the treated effluent having BOD around 30 mg/l and utilize treated waste water in industries as a promotional measure.

Ensure compliance of prescribed standards by common effluent treatment plants before discharging treated water into drain leading to river Yamuna.

Exploring the possibility of bioremediation of treated waste water to improve its quality. An action plan to further augment the existing treatment capacity to a level of BOD less than 10 mg/l.

NATIONAL INVESTMENT BOARD FOR CLEARANCES 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3803 SHRI ANANTH KUMAR Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Ministry has expressed reservations regarding the proposed establishment of the National Investment Board to grant environmental clearances for large investment projects in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government thereto; (c) whether the Ministry proposes to amend the existing procedure for clearances for large infrastructure

projects; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken/being taken by the Government in this regard?


(a) & (b): Ministry of Finance had circulated a Draft Cabinet Note for inter‐Ministerial consultations, proposing for constitution of National Investment Board. Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) has forwarded their comments on the proposal to the Ministry of Finance. (c) to (e): Various statutory clearance cases being dealt by MoEF are processed as per the provisions under the respective statutes. Appropriate procedures for dealing with clearance cases, including those for large infrastructure projects under different statutes already exist.

CLASSIFICATION OF ECO‐SENSITIVE ZONE 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3806 SHRI S. ALAGIRI SHRI MANSUKH BHAI D.VASAVA


(a) whether the Government has prohibited certain class of industries in Eco‐sensitive areas/Critically Polluted Areas/Other Notified Areas in the country;

(b) if so, the details during each of the last three years and the current year, Area‐wise; and (c) the guidelines to classify the Eco‐sensitive areas/Critically Polluted Areas and Other Notified Areas in the

country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) and (b) The Ministry of Environment and Forests has notified site specific Eco‐sensitive Zones to prohibit, regulate and permit certain activities under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. List of notified Eco‐sensitive Zones during the last three years and the current year is given at Annexure I. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has also imposed a moratorium on 13.01.2010 on grant of environmental clearances for development projects in 43 identified critically polluted industrial clusters. The list of identified critically polluted industrial clusters with Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI) is given at Annexure II. (c) The Eco‐sensitive zones are notified based on the identified environmental resources having incomparable values requiring special attention for their conservation. As such there are no guidelines to classify Eco‐sensitive Zones. The critically polluted areas are identified with Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI) greater than 70 based on the parameters related to incidence of pollution in water, land and air. Annexure‐I referred to in reply to part (a) and (b) of the Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 3806 Due for Reply on 17.12.2012 Raised by Shri S. Alagiri and Shri Mansukh Bhai D.Vasava Regarding Classification of Eco‐Sensitive Zone List of notified Eco‐sensitive Zones during the last three years and the current year Rajasthan

1. Mount Abu and surrounding region as Eco‐sensitive Zone, S.O. 1545(E) dated 25th June, 2009. Haryana

2. Eco‐sensitive Zone around Sultanpur National Park, S.O. 191(E) dated 27th January, 2010. Jharkhand

3. Eco‐sensitive Zone around Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary, S.O. 680(E) dated 29th March, 2012. Gujarat

4. Eco‐sensitive Zone around Narayan Sarovar Wildlife Sanctuary, S.O. 1257(E) dated 31st May, 2012. 5. Eco‐sensitive Zone around Vansda National Park, S.O. 1258(E) dated 31st May, 2012. 6. Eco‐sensitive Zone around Purna Wildlife Sanctuary, S.O. 1259(E) dated 31st May, 2012. 7. Eco‐sensitive Zone around Girnar Wildlife Sanctuary, S.O. 1260(E) dated 31st May, 2012.

Karnataka 8. Eco‐sensitive Zone around Bandipur National Park, S.O. 2364(E) dated 4th October, 2012.

Annexure‐II referred to in reply to part (a) and (b) of the Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 3806 Due for Reply on 17.12.2012 Raised by Shri S. Alagiri and Shri Mansukh Bhai D.Vasava Regarding Classification of Eco‐Sensitive Zone

List of Critically Polluted Industrial clusters/areas (CEPI Scores>70) S. NO. State No. of clusters Industrial clusters/areas CEPI

1. Andhra Pradesh 2 Vishakha patnam Patancheru‐Bollaram

70.82 70.07

2. Chhattisgarh 1 Korba 83.00 3. Delhi 1 Nazafgarh drain basin 79.54 4. Gujarat 6 Ankaleshwar

Vapi Ahmedabad Vatva Bhavanagar Junagarh

88.50 88.09 75.28 74.77 70.99 70.82

5. Haryana 2 FaridabadPanipat

77.0771.91

6. Jharkhand 1 Dhanbad 78.63 7. Karnataka 2 Mangalore

Bhadravati 73.6872.33

8. Kerala 1 Cochin 75.089. Madhya Pradesh 1 Indore 71.2610. Maharashtra 5 Chandrapur

Dombivalli Aurangabad Navi Mumbai Tarapur

83.8878.41 77.44 73.77 72.01

11. Orissa 3 Angul TalcharIb valley Jharsuguda

82.0974.00 73.34

12. Punjab 2 LudhianaMandi Gobind Garh

81.6675.08

13. Rajasthan 3 BhiwadiJodhpur Pali

82.9175.19 73.73

14. Tamil Nadu 4 Vellore Cuddalore Manali Coimbatore

81.79 77.45 76.32 72.38

15. Uttar Pradesh 6 Ghaziabad Singrauli Noida Kanpur Agra Varanasi‐Mirzapur

87.37 81.73 78.90 78.09 76.48 73.79

16. West Bengal 3 Haldia Howrah Asansole

75.43 74.84 70.20

CHECK ON IMPORT OF E-WASTE 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3808 SHRI NISHIKANT DUBEY SHRI NITYANANDA PRADHAN SHRI S. PAKKIRAPPA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has decided to ban import of used computers and other electronic waste (e‐waste) from other countries;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the amount of e‐waste generated within the country and the amount being re‐cycled every year, State‐

wise; and (d) the steps taken by the Government to regulate the recycling and disposal of (e) hazardous waste in the country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has notified the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, for proper management and handling of hazardous wastes including e-waste. Import of e-waste are regulated as per these rules. Import of such wastes for disposal is not permitted. Import is permitted only for recycling or recovery or reuse with the permission of MoEF. (c) Based on a survey carried out by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in the year 2005, approximately 1.47 lakh MT per annum of e-waste was generated in the country. Ten states generate 70% of the total e-waste generated in the country. Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Delhi, Karnataka, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab are among top ten states generating e-waste. There are 23 e-waste recycling units having the recycling capacity of 90,000 MTA.

(d) The Ministry has taken a number of steps to regulate the recycling and disposal of hazardous waste in the country. These include: (i) MoEF has notified the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, for proper management and handling of hazardous wastes. As per these rules, the State Governments have the responsibility for identifying sites for setting-up Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) for disposal of hazardous waste in an environmentally sound manner. The non-recyclable hazardous waste is being disposed of scientifically in the TSDFs. This Ministry provides financial assistance on a cost sharing basis for setting-up of TSDFs. The functioning of TSDFs is monitored by State Pollution Control Boards concerned. Guidelines have been published by the Central Pollution Control Board on various aspects of hazardous waste management for ensuring compliance of the aforesaid Rules. (ii) Separate E-Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 have been notified.The producers of electrical and electronic equipments covered under the Rules are required to collect e-waste generated from the end of life of their products by setting up collection centers or take back systems either individually or collectively. E-waste recycling can be undertaken only in facilities authorized and registered with State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees. Waste generated is required to be sent or sold to a registered or authorized recycler or re-processor having environmentally sound facilities. Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management of e-waste, published by Central Pollution Control Board, provide approach and methodology for environmentally sound management of e-waste.

WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3813 SHRI BRIJBHUSHAN SHARAN SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether any scheme for setting up of Real Time Water Quality Monitoring Stations for measuring the

level of pollution in Yamuna and Ganga rivers is under consideration of the Government; (b) if so, the names of the locations where these stations are proposed to be set up and the time by which this

work is likely to be completed; and (c) the total amount of funds likely to be spent on this scheme and the extent to which it will prove helpful in

reducing pollution in these rivers?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) The Empowered Steering Committee in its meeting held on 20.11.2012 has decided to establish 113 continuous Real Time Water Quality Monitoring Stations (RTWQMS) along river Ganga under National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) in next 5 years. Presently Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is monitoring water quality of river Yamuna at 27 locations. The identified locations of these stations are, 8 in Uttarakhand, 57 in Uttar Pradesh, 13 in Bihar and 35 in West Bengal. Presently manual Water Quality Monitoring Stations are under operation along river Ganga and Yamuna which includes 134 stations in the states of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar and West Bengal. (c) Amounts of Rs. 94.45 crore and Rs. 5.62 Crore are earmarked for RTWQMS under NGRBA and World Bank Hydrology Project for river Ganga and Yamuna. CHECK ON ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AROUND SEA 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3823 SHRI RAMKISHUN


(a) whether the airport, township, Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone have been developed near the sea without obtaining permission of the Ministry;

(b) if so, the reasons therefor; (c) whether the Ministry has sent any written order to the State Government of Gujarat to demolish these

illegal construction areas; (d) if not, the reasons therefor; and (e) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) Environment and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance for the Port Development and Environment clearance for Township of M/s Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Limited [now named M/s Adani Port and SEZ Limited ] have been granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and State Environment Impact Assessment Authority respectively. The Gujarat State Pollution Control Board has granted No Objection Certificate for the Airstrip at Mundra. Environment clearance for the SEZ at Mundra has not been granted. (c) to (e) Based on the complaints alleging destruction of mangroves by M/s Adani Port and SEZ Limited, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 15.12.2010 to them. The Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) was asked to examine and remove/dismantle the structures which are constructed in violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 forthwith, following the due process. GCZMA informed that the location of the Township and Airstrip is beyond the CRZ area and the project proponent has obtained the requisite clearances, hence there is no violation of CRZ Notification, 1991.

GLOBAL WARMING 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3825 DR. BHOLA SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides is the main cause of global warming; (b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) the action taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) and (b) Chemical fertilizers and pesticides which produce Nitrous Oxide (N2O), a Greenhouse Gas (GHG), are not the main cause of Global Warming. The use of synthetic fertilizers is one among the many sources of N2O emissions. As per the fourth Assessment Report (AR‐4) of Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) published in 2007, N2O concentration is 7.9% of the total global emissions of GHG. India’s emission of N2O is 0.24 million tons from all sources including agriculture, out of the total 1727.71 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. (c) National Action Plan on Climate Change includes a specific Mission on Sustainable Agriculture which, inter alia, includes actions for promoting efficiency in water and fertiliser use. Government of India is also implementing various Centrally Sponsored Schemes/ Programmes in this regard, namely; National Project on Organic Farming (NPOF), National Project on Management of Soil Health & Fertility (NPMSH&F), National Food Security Mission (NFSM), Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) and Macro Management of Agriculture (MMA).

EXTRACTION AND SELLING OF SNAKE VENOM 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3831 SHRI DATTA MEGHE Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the task of extraction and selling of snake venom is under consideration of the Ministry; (b) if so, whether there is any regulation governing the extraction and selling of snake venom in the

country; (c) if so, whether the Ministry has granted any permission to extract snake venoms in the country; and (d) if so, the number of persons to whom licenses has been provided in the country?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No Sir. (b), (c) and (d) Section 12 (d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, empowers the State Chief Wildlife Warden, with the previous permission of the concerned State Government, to grant a permit, by an order in writing stating the reasons therefor, to any person, on payment of such fees for the derivation, collection or preparation of snake‐venom for the manufacture of life‐saving drugs. The details of licences granted for extraction of snake venom are not collated at the level of Central Government. RE‐DRAFTING OF REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3833 SHRI ANANDRAO ADSUL SHRI GAJANAN D. BABAR SHRI DHARMENDRA YADAV SHRI ADHALRAO PATIL SHIVAJI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Ministry of Environment has asked the Planning Commission to re‐write the entire chapter on climate change in the Twelfth Five Year Plan through the Prime Minister's council on climate change;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the reasons there for along with the reaction of the Government in this regard;

(c) whether the Ministry has raised objection on draft report on 'Funds Proposal for Climate Change' of Planning Commission panel;

(d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the steps taken by the Government to resolve these differences?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) Ministry of Environment & Forests has suggested some modifications in the Chapter on ‘Climate Change’ of the draft Twelfth Five Year Plan document under preparation in the Planning Commission. The suggestions include, inter alia, the need to adopt a comprehensive strategy for adaptation in various sectors; implement a balanced mitigation strategy based on full assessment of policy choices and relevant financial burden; initiate

specific programmes for long term institutional arrangements for delivering the objectives; restructure or reorganize missions under National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) under the guidance and approval of Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change; avoid specific sectoral and prescriptive interventions of market based nature; assess financing needs of all sectors affected by climate change; and launch programmes and initiatives for effective implementation, coordination and review of NAPCC. (e) The revised draft Chapter on ‘Climate Change’ of the Plan document includes the suggested modifications.

CHECK ON ENCROACHMENT ON FOREST LAND 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3834 SHRI SANSUMA KHUNGGUR BWISWMUTHIARY

Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to State:

(a) whether there is large scale encroachment of tribal land/forest land in the State of Assam by people from other States; and

(b) if so, the details thereof and steps being taken to address the issue, measures to stop migration and encroachment of tribal land/forest land in the State of Assam?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) As per information received from the State Government of Assam, some forest areas in borders with the adjoining states of Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur have been encroached by people from other states. The approximate area under encroachment in the border areas of Assam is as follows:‐ Sl. No. Area of Assam near border of Extent of Encroachment (Sq. Km.)

(i) Nagaland 1100(ii) Meghalaya 45(iii) Mizoram 230(iv) Manipur 15(v) Arunachal Pradesh 910

The State of Assam has convened meetings at the level of Chief Minister and Chief Secretary from time to time to coordinate action to check encroachments in the border regions of the State. In addition, action against encroachments is also being taken as per law.

DISTRIBUTION OF TITLES TO TRIBALS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3836 SHRI GOPINATH MUNDE SHRI MAROTRAO SAINUJI KOWASE


(a) the dates on which proposal regarding settlement of people belonging to Tribal community and Scheduled Castes (SCs) on forest land in the State of Maharashtra has sent to the Government;

(b) the action taken by the Government on this proposal;

(c) the number of such proposals received from various States including Madhya Pradesh pending with the

Government as on date; and (d) the efforts being made by the Government in this regard and the time by which the process of

settlement is likely to be completed?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d)As per the procedure established under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA, 2006) the rights of Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers are adjudicated at three levels, namely, the Gram Sabha, the Sub‐Divisional Level Committee and the District Level committee. The District Level Committee is the final authority for approving the record of forest rights and its decision is final and binding. On approval of a claim by the District Level Committee, the title deed under the Act is issued to the concerned claimant and the Gram Sabha, as prescribed in the Rules framed under the Act. In respect of rights recognised under Section 3(1) (a) of the Act, the area shall be restricted to area under actual occupational and in no case shall exceed four hectares. Proposal for recognising and vesting of rights are not received in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal Ministry for the implementation of FRA, 2006 which is implemented by respective State Governments. In the State of Maharashtra up to the end of October, 2012, 98803 no. of titles in individual rights have been given which involve 2,18,950 Acres of forest land and 1,571 titles in community forest rights have been given which involve 4,77,336 Acres of forest land. In the State of Madhya Pradesh as on 31.10.2012, 1,70,910 no. of claims have been distributed and 7,592 are ready for distribution.

NON‐TIMBER FOREST PRODUCE POLICY 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3838 SHRI PREM DAS RAI


(a) whether there is existence of Non‐Timber Forest Produce (NTFP) policy at the national level; (b) if so, the details and the salient features thereof; (c) whether the Government has identified any concern areas in the said policy; (d) if so, the details thereof ; and (e) the steps taken/being taken by the Government in this regard?


(a) & (e) No, Sir. There is no specific policy for Non‐Timber Forest Produce (Minor Forest Produce) at the National level. However, National Forest Policy,1988 emphasises the importance of Minor Forest Produce in providing sustenance to tribal population and to other communities residing in and around the forests, which should be protected, improved and their production enhanced with due regard to generation of employment and income. The major areas with respect to NTFPs which need focus include sustainable harvesting of NTFPs, its proper processing for value addition and adequate payment to primary collectors. Many States have Forest Development Corporations and Minor Forest Produce Federations which work for collection, processing, value addition and marketing of various NTFPs with the aim to enhance livelihood support of primary collectors. Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) are also working towards sustainable harvesting and value addition of NTFPs in various States of the country.

CLEARANCES TO PROJECTS 17th December, 2012

LSQ 3855 SHRI GAJANAN D. BABAR DHARMENDRA YADAV ANANDRAO ADSUL ADHALRAO PATIL SHIVAJI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government is aware that there is a strong resentment among experts since the views of

the experts are being ignored in clearing projects by obfuscating their dissents in official records; (b) if so, the facts and details thereof and the response of the Government thereto; (c) whether the Non‐Governmental wildlife experts are planning to make their resentments in this regard; (d) if so, the details thereof, and (e) the steps taken/being taken by the Government to prevent such situation in future?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No, Sir. (b) Does not arise in view of reply to (a) above. (c) to (e) The regulatory authority for considering non‐forestry project proposals pertaining to Protected Areas and Eco‐sensitive Zones is the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), under the Chairpersonship of Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Environment and Forests. The Standing Committee of NBWL comprises both official and non‐official experts. There has been no instance where any member expressed resentment or raised allegation of ignoring his / her views in the Standing Committee of NBWL in consideration of project proposals during the meetings. The minutes of the meeting of Standing Committee of NBWL also encompass the dissent notes, if any, by the members.

RE‐LOCATION OF VILLAGERS IN TIGER RESERVES 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3859 DR. SANJEEV GANESH NAIK SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SULE SHRI KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR SHRI RAMKISHUN SHRI B.N. PRASAD MAHATO Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) the number of inhabitated villagers in various tiger reserves in the country, State‐wise including

Maharashtra; (b) whether these villagers are being re‐located in the country; (c) if so, the number of villagers re‐located and the various packages given to dwellers of these villages for

re‐location; and (d) the time by which all the villagers would be re‐located out of various tiger reserves in the country?


(a) As reported by States, details of villages located inside the core/critical tiger habitat of tiger reserves, are at Annexure-I.

(b), (c) & (d)Subject to the availability of budgetary allocation under the ongoing Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Project Tiger, funding support is provided to States for voluntary village relocation on mutually agreed terms and conditions, as per the provisions contained in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, read with the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, with an enhanced package of Rs. 10 lakhs / family. Status of relocation, as reported by States is at Annexure-II.

ANNEXURE-I RFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (a) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3859 ON RE-LOCATION OF VILLAGERS IN TIGER RESERVES DUE FOR REPLY ON 17.12.2012.

Details of villages located inside the core/critical tiger habitat of tiger reserves (as reported by States)

(As on 30.6.2012)

S. No.

Name of the Tiger Reserve Name of the State No. of Villages remaining inside the core (CTH) area

No. of Families remaining inside the core (CTH) area

1 2 3 4 5

1 Achanakmar Chattisgarh 19 3304 2 Anamalai Tamil Nadu 33 1532 3 Bandhavgarh Madhya Pradesh 13 2352 4 Bandipur Karnataka 0 0 5 Bhadra Karnataka 5 316 6 BRT Karnataka 34 * 7 Buxa West Bengal 7 1229 8 Corbett Uttarakhand ** 181 9 Dampa Mizoram 0 0 10 Dandeli‐Anshi Karnataka 13 629 11 Dudhwa Uttar Pradesh 0 0 12 Indravati Chattisgarh 56 1300 13 Kanha Madhya Pradesh 7 1092 14 Kawal Andhra Pradesh 37 2064 15 Kaziranga Assam 8 270 16 Kalakad‐Mundanthurai Tamil Nadu 8 223 17 Manas Assam 31 912 18 Melghat Maharashtra 24 4269 19 Mudumalai Tamil Nadu 30 430 20 Nagarjunsagar‐Srisailam Andhra Pradesh 28 1731 21 Nagarhole Karnataka 31 1330 22 Namdapha Arunachal Pradesh 3 77 23 Nameri Assam 0 0 24 Pakke Arunachal Pradesh 0 0 25 Palamau Jharkhand 3 633 26 Panna Madhya Pradesh 4 1673 27 Parambikulam Kerala 6 318 28 Pench Maharashtra 1 107 29 Pench MP 0 0 30 Periyar Kerala 0 0 31 Ranthambore Rajasthan 63 894 32 Sahayadri Maharashtra 15 1004 33 Sanjay‐Sidhi Madhya Pradesh 40 4967 34 Sariska Rajasthan 26 1974 35 Satkosia Odisha 5 129 36 Satpura Madhya Pradesh 38 3779 37 Similipal Odisha 3 122 38 Sunderbans West Bengal 0 0 39 Tadoba‐Andhari Maharashtra 5 905 40 Udanti‐Sitanadi Chattisgarh 50 3712 41 Valmiki Bihar 0 0

TOTAL 646 43458

* Not enumerated. ** Scattered Gujjar settlements exist, which have not been counted as villages.

ANNEXURE-II REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (b), (c) & (d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3859 ON RE-LOCATION OF VILLAGERS IN TIGER RESERVES DUE FOR REPLY ON 17.12.2012.

Status of village relocation from Tiger Reserves (as reported by States)

(As on 30.6.2012)

S. No.

Name of the Tiger Reserve Name of the State No. of Villages relocated from the notified Core (CTH) since the inception of the Project Tiger

No. of Families relocated from the notified Core (CTH) since the inception of the Project Tiger

1 2 3 4 5

1 Achanakmar Chattisgarh 6 249 2 Anamalai Tamil Nadu 0 0 3 Bandhavgarh Madhya Pradesh 1 149 4 Bandipur Karnataka 0 0 5 Bhadra Karnataka 11 420 6 BRT Karnataka 0 0 7 Buxa West Bengal 0 0 8 Corbett Uttarakhand 0 0 9 Dampa Mizoram 1 227 10 Dandeli‐Anshi Karnataka 0 0 11 Dudhwa Uttar Pradesh 0 0 12 Indravati Chattisgarh 0 0 13 Kanha Madhya Pradesh 27 821 14 Kawal Andhra Pradesh 0 0 15 Kaziranga Assam 0 0 16 Kalakad‐Mundanthurai Tamil Nadu 0 0 17 Manas Assam 0 0 18 Melghat Maharashtra 6 589 19 Mudumalai Tamil Nadu 0 19 20 Nagarjunsagar‐Srisailam Andhra Pradesh 0 0 21 Nagarhole Karnataka 6 496 22 Namdapha Arunachal Pradesh 0 0 23 Nameri Assam 0 0 24 Pakke Arunachal Pradesh 0 0 25 Palamau Jharkhand 0 0 26 Panna Madhya Pradesh 9 738 27 Parambikulam Kerala 0 0 28 Pench Maharashtra 0 0 29 Pench MP 8 281 30 Periyar Kerala 0 0 31 Ranthambore Rajasthan 15 1250 32 Sahayadri Maharashtra 43 1582 33 Sanjay‐Sidhi Madhya Pradesh 0 0 34 Sariska Rajasthan 2 435 35 Satkosia Odisha 0 0 36 Satpura Madhya Pradesh 4 318 37 Similipal Odisha 1 133 38 Sunderbans West Bengal 0 0 39 Tadoba‐Andhari Maharashtra 1 164 40 Udanti‐Sitanadi Chattisgarh 0 0 41 Valmiki Bihar 0 0

TOTAL 141 7871

IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3870 SHRI RAMASHANKER RAJBHAR SHRI PREM DAS RAI Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether a recent study by the Indian Institute of Science has projected a temperature increase in the country by 2080;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government thereto along with the impact of climate change on human beings;

(c) whether renewable energy generation is the only alternative for limiting carbon dioxide and control the temperature rise;

(d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) the action taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) and (b) Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, has conducted a scientific study and published a research paper titled “Multi-model climate change projections for India under representative concentration pathways” in Current Science journal in October 2012. According to the paper, mean warming in India is likely to be in the range 1.7–2°C by 2030s and 3.3–4.8°C by 2080s relative to pre-industrial times, if business-as-usual scenario is considered. The paper indicates increased risk of more consistent increase in the number of extreme rainfall days over the long term which is likely to cause adverse impacts on human beings. (c) to (e) Renewable energy generation is one amongst many options to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions and control of temperature rise. The National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) implemented by the Government includes eight National Missions in specific areas of Solar Energy, Enhanced Energy Efficiency, Sustainable Habitat, Water, Sustaining the Himalayan Eco-system, Green India, Sustainable Agriculture and Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change. These missions and other initiatives include activities such as promotion of energy efficiency, promotion of appropriate mix of fuels and primary energy sources including nuclear, hydro and renewable sources, energy pricing, pollution abatement, afforestation, mass transport etc.

PROTECTION TO TIGERS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3872 SHRI K.C. SINGH ‘BABA’ Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has noticed that time is running out for the tigers to survive in the wild forests

despite the claims that tiger numbers have risen; (b) if so, whether roughly half of all its tiger forests lost in the past four decades and with intensified

poaching, human encroachment, miners or dam builders whose combined effect has reversed most of Project Tiger’s early successes;

(c) if so, the details thereof; and (d) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?


(a), (b), (c) The country level assessment of the status of tiger, co-predators, prey and its habitat, done once in every four years using the refined methodology, has shown an increasing trend with a population estimate of 1706, lower and upper limits being 1520 and 1909 respectively in the recent all India tiger estimation (2010), as compared to the last such country level estimation of 2006, with an estimate of 1411, lower and upper limits being 1165 and 1657 respectively. The said findings indicate a poor status of tiger population in areas outside tiger reserves and protected areas. The tiger population, by and large, in tiger reserves and protected areas are viable, while requiring ongoing conservation efforts. The Project Tiger has brought endangered tiger on assured path of recovery. (d) The milestone initiatives taken by the Government of India for protection of tigers are at Annexure-I.

Annexure‐I

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (d) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3872 ON PROTECTION TO TIGERS DUE FOR REPLY ON 17.12.2012. Milestone initiatives taken by the Government of India for protection of tigers Legal steps 1. Amendment of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 making enabling provisions for constituting the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Tiger and Other Endangered Species Crime Control Bureau.

2. Enhancement of punishment for offence in relation to the core area of a tiger reserve or where the offence relate to hunting in the tiger reserves or altering the boundaries of tiger reserves, etc. Administrative steps 3. Strengthening of antipoaching activities, including special strategy for monsoon patrolling, by providing funding support to tiger reserve States, as proposed by them, for deployment of antipoaching squads involving ex-army personnel or home guards, apart from workforce comprising of local people, in addition to strengthening of communication and wireless facilities. 4. Constitution of the National Tiger Conservation Authority with effect from the 4th September, 2006, for strengthening tiger conservation by, inter alia, ensuring normative standards in tiger reserve management, preparation of reserve specific tiger conservation plan, laying down annual audit report before Parliament, constituting State level Steering Committees under the Chairmanship of Chief Ministers and establishment of Tiger Conservation Foundation. 5. Constitution of a multidisciplinary Tiger and Other Endangered Species Crime Control Bureau (Wildlife Crime Control Bureau) with effect from the 6th June, 2007 to effectively control illegal trade in wildlife. 6. The in‐principle approval has been accorded by the National Tiger Conservation Authority for creation of five new tiger reserves, and the sites are:, Pilibhit (Uttar Pradesh), Ratapani (Madhya Pradesh), Sunabeda (Odisha), Mukundara Hills (including Darrah, Jawahar Sagar and Chambal Wildlife Sanctuaries) (Rajasthan) and Satyamangalam (Tamil Nadu). Final approval has been accorded to Kudremukh (Karnataka) for declaring as a tiger reserve. The State Governments have been advised to send proposals for declaring the following areas as tiger reserves: (i) Bor (Maharashtra), (ii) Suhelwa (Uttar Pradesh), (iii) Nagzira‐Navegaon (Maharashtra), (iv) Guru Ghasidas National Park (Chhattisgarh), (v) Mhadei Sanctuary (Goa) and (vi) Srivilliputhur Grizzled Giant Squirrel / Megamalai Wildlife Sanctuaries / Varushanadu Valley (Tamil Nadu). 7. The revised Project Tiger guidelines have been issued to State Governments for strengthening tiger conservation, which apart from ongoing activities, inter alia, include financial support to States for enhanced

village relocation or rehabilitation package for people living in core or critical tiger habitats (from Rs. 1 lakh per family to Rs. 10 lakhs per family), rehabilitation or resettlement of communities involved in traditional hunting, mainstreaming livelihood and wildlife concerns in forests outside tiger reserves and fostering corridor conservation through restorative strategy to arrest habitat fragmentation. 8. A scientific methodology for estimating tiger (including co‐predators, prey animals and assessment of habitat status) has been evolved and mainstreamed. The findings of this estimation and assessment are bench marks for future tiger conservation strategy. 9. The 17 tiger States have notified the core/critical tiger habitat (35123.9547 sq. km.), and the buffer/peripheral area (28750.73421 sq.km.) of all the 41 tiger reserves in the country, under section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended in 2006. Financial steps 10. Financial and technical help is provided to the State Governments under various Centrally Sponsored Schemes, such as Project Tiger and Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats for enhancing the capacity and infrastructure of the State Governments for providing effective protection to wild animals. International Cooperation 11. India has a bilateral understanding with Nepal on controlling trans‐boundary illegal trade in wildlife and conservation, apart from a protocol on tiger conservation with China.



14. A Global Tiger Forum of Tiger Range Countries has been created for addressing international issues related to tiger conservation. 15. During the 14th meeting of the Conference of Parties to CITES, which was held from 3rd to 15th June, 2007 at The Hague, India introduced a resolution along with China, Nepal and the Russian Federation, with direction to Parties with operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale, for restricting such captive populations to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers. The resolution was adopted as a decision with minor amendments. Further, India made an intervention appealing to China to phase out tiger farming and eliminate stockpiles of Asian big cats body parts and derivatives. The importance of continuing the ban on trade of body parts of tigers was emphasized. 16. Based on India’s strong intervention during the 62nd meeting of the Standing Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) at Geneva from 23-27 July, 2012, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Secretariat has issued a notification No. 2012/054 dated the 3rd September, 2012 to Parties to fully implement Decision 14.69 and report to the Secretariat by 25 September, 2012 (Progress made on restricting captive breeding operations of tigers etc.). 17. As a part of active management to rebuild Sariska and Panna Tiger Reserves where tigers have become locally extinct, reintroduction of tigers and tigresses have been done. 18. Special advisories issued for in-situ build up of prey base and tiger population through active management in tiger reserves having low population status of tiger and its prey. Creation of Special Tiger Protection Force (STPF) 19. The policy initiatives announced by the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech of the 29th February, 2008, inter alia, contains action points relating to tiger protection. Based on the one time grant of Rs. 50.00 crore provided to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) for raising, arming and deploying a Special Tiger Protection

Force (STPF), the proposal for the said force has been approved by the competent authority for 13 tiger reserves. The States of Karnataka and Maharashtra have already created and deployed the STPF. 20. In collaboration with TRAFFIC‐INDIA, an online tiger crime data base has been launched, and Generic Guidelines for preparation of reserve specific Security Plan has been evolved. Recent initiatives 21. Implementing a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with tiger States, linked to fund flows for effective implementation of tiger conservation initiatives. 22. Rapid assessment of tiger reserves done. 23. Special crack teams sent to tiger reserves affected by left wing extremism and low population status of tiger and its prey. 24. Chief Ministers of States having tiger reserves affected by left wing extremism and low population status of tiger and its prey addressed for taking special initiatives. 25. Steps taken for modernizing the infrastructure and field protection, besides launching ‘Monitoring system for Tigers’ Intensive Protection and Ecological Status (M-STrIPES)’ for effective field patrolling and monitoring. 26. Steps taken for involvement of Non-Governmental Experts in the ongoing all India tiger estimation. 27. Initiatives taken for improving the field delivery through capacity building of field officials, apart from providing incentives. 28. Action initiated for using Information Technology to strengthen surveillance in tiger reserves. 29. The second round of country level tiger status assessment completed in 2010, with the findings indicating an increase with a tiger population estimate of 1706, lower and upper limits being 1520 and 1909 respectively, as compared to the last country level estimation of 2006, with an estimate of 1411, lower and upper limits being 1165 and 1657, respectively. 30. The second round of independent assessment of Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Tiger Reserves done in 2010-2011 for 39 tiger reserves based on globally used framework. 31. Increase in the allocation for Project Tiger with additional components. 32. Providing special assistance for mitigation of human-tiger conflicts in problematic areas. 33. As an outcome of the fourth Trans-border Consultative Group Meeting held in New Delhi, a joint resolution has been signed with Nepal for biodiversity and tiger conservation.

34. Regional Offices of the National Tiger Conservation Authority sanctioned at Nagpur, Bengaluru and Guwahati. 35. Launching of Phase‐IV tiger reserve level monitoring. RECEDING OF GLACIERS 17

th December, 2012

LSQ 3878 DR. KIRODI LAL MEENA Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether as per the report of the Inter‐Governmental Panel on Climate Change the Himalayan Glaciers are melting more rapidly in comparison to glaciers in any other part of the world and will become completely extinct by the year 2035;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) the reaction of the Government thereto; (d) whether the Government has conducted any independent scientific study in regard to pace of melting

of Himalayan glaciers and its immediate effect on the ecosystem; (e) if so, the outcome thereof; and (f) the remedial measures taken by the Government for resolving this problem?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) and (b) The Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that the Himalayan Glaciers are receding faster than in any part of the world and has projected the likelihood of their disappearance by 2035. However, IPCC has clarified subsequently that the conclusion contained in the Fourth Assessment Report was based on poorly substantiated estimates of recession. IPCC has further stated that clear and well established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures were not applied properly in drafting the paragraph on the subject in question. (c) to (e) Government of India has encouraged and supported discussions based on scientific findings on the relevant issues. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has conducted a scientific study and published a discussion paper titled “Himalayan Glaciers: A state–of‐Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change” authored by Shri V.K. Raina, Ex. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, which revealed that the recession of glaciers is a part of the natural cyclic process of changes in size and other attributes of the glaciers. These changes could be attributed to various reasons including global warming. No studies have been conducted on immediate impact of recession of glaciers on the ecosystem.

(f) The National Action Plan on Climate Change implemented by the Government includes the National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Eco‐system amongst its eight national missions. This Mission seeks to understand whether and the extent to which the Himalayan glaciers are in recession and how the problem including the effects on ecosystem can be addressed. A research centre on Himalayan Glaciology has been established at Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehradun. Government has also prepared guidelines and best practices for sustaining Himalayan eco‐system and has shared it with all State Governments in the Himalayan region.

BAMBOO AS MFP 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3881

SHRI SUGUMAR K.


(a) whether the Government has declared Bamboo as Minor Forest Produce (MFP) instead of tree in the

country; (b) if so, the details thereof; and (c) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (c) Bamboo has been defined as Minor Forest Produce (MFP) under Section 2(i) of “the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006”.

FUNDS ALLOCATED UNDER NRCP 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3882 DR. MAHENDRASINH P. CHAUHAN Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government has received any proposal for grants from Gujarat Government regarding the conservation of rivers under National River Conservation Plan (NRCP);

(b) if so, the details thereof along with the details of funds allocated/sanctioned by the Government; (c) whether some proposals are pending with the Government; and (d) if so, the time by which the pending proposals are likely to be cleared?


(a) & (b) The Government of Gujarat submitted the proposals for conservation of Mindhola River at Surat and phase‐II of conservation of Sabarmati River at Ahmedabad for approval under the National River Conservation Plan (NRCP) during last 3 years. The proposal for conservation of Mindhola River at Surat has been sanctioned at an estimated cost of Rs. 262.13 crore under the NRCP in August 2012. Funds of Rs. 41.70 crore have been released to Surat Municipal Corporation, implementing agency for implementation of the said project so far.

(c) & (d) The proposal of phase‐II of conservation of Sabarmati River at Ahmedabad was examined and the final proposal, incorporating the comments and suggestions from the independent expert institute, is awaited from the State Government.

EXPENDITURE ON HARIT BHARAT MISSION 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3889 SHRI BHOOPENDRA SINGH Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(f) the state‐wise details of the total funds spent out of the fund released for initial activities in identified

land escapes under the Green India Mission; (g) the State‐wise details of the activities carried out so far out of the funds released for the said purpose;

(h) whether any provision has been made for monitoring of released funds for the initial activities; (i) if so, the details in this regard; (j) whether the Government has received complaints of corruption and irregularities in the implementation

of initial activities; and (k) if so, the details in this regard, and the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) and (b) Under Green India Mission, an amount of Rs.49.95 crores has been released during 2011‐12 to 21 States for carrying out preparatory activities in 71 identified landscapes. As per the progress reports, a number of workshops for sensitization and capacity building of the stakeholders have been conducted along with the works taken up for nursery development, micro‐planning, landscape survey, soil moisture conservation etc. The State‐wise details are given in Annexure. (c) and (d) The State Forest Development Agency (SFDA) is responsible for guidance, coordination, supervision, periodical reporting and monitoring the implementation of the project. Ministry of Environment & Forests also does monitoring of released funds by obtaining utilization certificate and periodical progress report from the States. (e) No such complaint has been received by the Ministry. (f) Does not arise. ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (a) and (b) OF LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION No. 3889 DUE FOR ANSWER ON 17.12.2012

REGARDING EXPENDITURE ON HARIT BHARAT MISSION

Statement of funds released to 21 states for preparatory activities during 2011‐12 under Green India Mission Rs. in Lakh

Name of State

State GIM cell and support at landscape

Workshops at State level

JFMC outreach Activities @0.2 lakh per J

Micro planning @ 0.25 per JFMC

Nursery development @ 5 lakhs per landscape

Landscape survey @ Rs 6 lakhs per landsc

EPA and SMC work @ 10 lakhs per JFMCs

Total

FMC

ape

Maharashtra

11 4

16.4

13.55

25

30

305.82

405.77

Jharkhand

11 4

2.5

14.5

0 30

85

147.00

Kerala

11 4

7.6

7 15

18

132

194.60

Tamail Nadu

11 4 2 1

4 5 6

30.15

72.15

Gujarat

11 4

6.8

0 0 12

100

133.80

Rajasthan

11 4 5

8.25

10

12

225

275.25

Himachal Pradesh

11 4

7.5

10 0 2

4 70

126.50

Jammu & Kas

11 4 8 1

025 6 0 6

4.00

hmir

Orrisa

11 4 1

0

12.5

0 30

40

107.50

Punjab

11 4 2

2.5

0 6 100

125.50

Haryana

11 4 8 1

020

24

280

357.00

Chhattisgarh

11 4 1

620

55

66

800

972.00

Assam

11 4 4 5 0 6

100

130.00

Andhra Pradesh

11 4

2.6

2 5 6

58.93 8

9.53

Manipur

11 4 2

2.5

5 6 10

40.50

Nagaland

11 4 2

2.5

10

12

100

141.50

Tripura

11 4 6

7.5

10

12

300

350.50

Kar

11 4

4.2

5.2

15

18

210

267

nataka

5 .45

Madhya Pradesh

11 4 1

4

17.5

35

42

700 8

23.50

Uttar Pradesh

11 4 2

2.5

0 0 100

119.50

Uttarakhand

11 4 0 0 0 3

6 051.00

Total

231

84

128.6

167.05

235

402

3746.9

4994.55

FUNDS TO PROMOTE GREEN PRODUCTS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3890 SHRIMATI ANNU TANDON Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government is considering to set up a special fund to promote the manufacture and utilization of green products in the county;

(b) if so, the details there of; (c) whether the Government is planning an international trade fair to showcase green products; (d) if so, the details thereof and (e) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) & (b) At present there is no proposal to set up a special fund to promote the manufacture and utilization of Green Products in the country. However MoEF, is organising Green Haat at Dilli Haat near INA, New Delhi, since 2011. Green Haat is organised once in a year and funds of Media Cell are utilized for this purpose. The NGO’s working closely with forest dependent communities, the state federations/corporations of Non Timber Forest Product (NTFP) /medicinal plants collectors are invited to showcase there product so as to create awareness about NTFP/medicinal and organic products and facilitate there marketing. (c) & (d) No (e) Question does not arise.

RESTRUCTURING OF PAY STRUCTURE 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3891 SHRI BISHNU PADA RAY Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the issue of restructuring of Pay structure of ACF and Forest Ranger of the Ministry has been placed before IDA meeting;

(b) if so, for the time since when the issue pending before the administration; (c) whether any anomaly committee has been constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests; (d) if so, whether the committee meeting was convened; and (e) if so, date by which the case shall be settled and the benefits would be extended?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) No, Sir. (b) Does not arise. (c) to (e) The Departmental Anomaly Committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment & Forests has submitted its report which has been sent to Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure for consideration. CONSERVATION OF TIGER POPULATION 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3893 SHRI E.G. SUGAVANAM Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether various national parks in the country including Kaziranga losing their tiger populations; (b) if so, the number of tigers available in all the national parks in the country; (c) whether the Government has taken any steps to improve its strength and to conserve them; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) if not, the reasons therefor and the steps taken by the Government in this regard?


(a) & (b) The landscape‐wise country level tiger population, which also includes the National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries within such tiger landscapes including Kaziranga, is assessed once in every four years using the refined

methodology. The said assessment has shown an increasing trend with a population estimate of 1706, lower and upper limits being 1520 and 1909 respectively in the recent all India tiger estimation (2010), as compared to the last such country level estimation of 2006, with an estimate of 1411, lower and upper limits being 1165 and 1657 respectively. The details of tiger estimation for the year 2006 and 2010 are at Annexure‐I. (c), (d) & (e) The milestone initiatives taken by the Government of India to foster tiger conservation are at Annexure-II.

ANNEXURE-I REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a) & (b) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3893 ON CONSERVATION OF TIGER POPULATION DUE FOR REPLY ON 17.12.2012.

Details of tiger estimation for the year 2006 and 2010

State Tiger Population

2006 2010 Increase/ Decrease/ Stable

Estimate (Number)



Estimate (Number)



Shivalik‐Gangetic Plain Landscape Complex

Uttarakhand 178 161 195 227 199 256 Increase Uttar Pradesh 109 91 127 118 113 124 Stable Bihar 10 7 13 8 (‐)*** (‐)*** (‐)*** Stable Shivalik‐Gangetic landscape

297 259 335 353

320 388 Stable

Central Indian Landscape Complex and Eastern Ghats Landscape Complex

Andhra Pradesh 95 84 107 72 65 79 Decrease Chhattisgarh 26 23 28 26 24 27 Stable Madhya Pradesh 300 236 364 257 213 301 Stable Maharashtra 103 76 131 169 155 183 Increase Odisha 45 37 53 32 20 44 Stable Rajasthan 32 30 35 36 35 37 Stable Jharkhand Not

assessed 10 6 14 Could not be

compared since it was not assessed in 2006.

Central Indian landscape

601 486 718 601 518 685 Stable

Western Ghats Landscape Complex

Karnataka 290 241 339 300 280 320 Stable

Kerala 46 39 53 71 67 75 Increase Tamil Nadu 76 56 95 163 153 173 Increase Western Ghats landscape

402 336 487 534 500 568 Increase

North Eastern Hills and Brahmaputra Flood Plains

Assam 70 60 80 143 113 173 Increase

Arunachal Pradesh

14

12 18 Not assessed

Not assessed Not assessed

Could not be compared since it was not assessed in 2010.

Mizoram 6 4 8 5 (‐)*** (‐)*** (‐)***

Stable

Northern West Bengal

10 8 12 Not assessed

Not assessed Not assessed

Could not be compared since it was not assessed in 2010.

North East Hills, and Brahmaputra landscape

100

84 118 148

118 178 Increase

Sundarbans Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed 70

64 90 Could not be compared since it was not assessed

in 2006.

TOTAL 1411 1165 1657 1706 1520 1909

*** Statistical lower / upper limits could not be ascertained owing to small size of the population.

Annexure‐II

ANNEXURE REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (c), (d) & (e) OF THE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3893 ON CONSERVATION OF TIGER POPULATION DUE FOR REPLY ON 17.12.2012. Milestone initiatives taken by the Government of India to foster tiger conservation Legal steps 1. Amendment of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 making enabling provisions for constituting the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Tiger and Other Endangered Species Crime Control Bureau.

2. Enhancement of punishment for offence in relation to the core area of a tiger reserve or where the offence relate to hunting in the tiger reserves or altering the boundaries of tiger reserves, etc. Administrative steps 3. Strengthening of antipoaching activities, including special strategy for monsoon patrolling, by providing funding support to tiger reserve States, as proposed by them, for deployment of antipoaching squads involving ex-army personnel or home guards, apart from workforce comprising of local people, in addition to strengthening of communication and wireless facilities. 4. Constitution of the National Tiger Conservation Authority with effect from the 4th September, 2006, for strengthening tiger conservation by, inter alia, ensuring normative standards in tiger reserve management, preparation of reserve specific tiger conservation plan, laying down annual audit report before Parliament, constituting State level Steering Committees under the Chairmanship of Chief Ministers and establishment of Tiger Conservation Foundation. 5. Constitution of a multidisciplinary Tiger and Other Endangered Species Crime Control Bureau (Wildlife Crime Control Bureau) with effect from the 6th June, 2007 to effectively control illegal trade in wildlife. 6. The in‐principle approval has been accorded by the National Tiger Conservation Authority for creation of five new tiger reserves, and the sites are:, Pilibhit (Uttar Pradesh), Ratapani (Madhya Pradesh), Sunabeda (Odisha), Mukundara Hills (including Darrah, Jawahar Sagar and Chambal Wildlife Sanctuaries) (Rajasthan) and Satyamangalam (Tamil Nadu). Final approval has been accorded to Kudremukh (Karnataka) for declaring as a tiger reserve. The State Governments have been advised to send proposals for declaring the following areas as tiger reserves: (i) Bor (Maharashtra), (ii) Suhelwa (Uttar Pradesh), (iii) Nagzira‐Navegaon (Maharashtra), (iv) Guru Ghasidas National Park (Chhattisgarh), (v) Mhadei Sanctuary (Goa) and (vi) Srivilliputhur Grizzled Giant Squirrel / Megamalai Wildlife Sanctuaries / Varushanadu Valley (Tamil Nadu). 7. The revised Project Tiger guidelines have been issued to State Governments for strengthening tiger conservation, which apart from ongoing activities, inter alia, include financial support to States for enhanced village relocation or rehabilitation package for people living in core or critical tiger habitats (from Rs. 1 lakh per family to Rs. 10 lakhs per family), rehabilitation or resettlement of communities involved in traditional hunting, mainstreaming livelihood and wildlife concerns in forests outside tiger reserves and fostering corridor conservation through restorative strategy to arrest habitat fragmentation.

8. A scientific methodology for estimating tiger (including co‐predators, prey animals and assessment of habitat status) has been evolved and mainstreamed. The findings of this estimation and assessment are bench marks for future tiger conservation strategy. 9. The 17 tiger States have notified the core/critical tiger habitat (35123.9547 sq. km.), and the buffer/peripheral area (28750.73421 sq.km.) of all the 41 tiger reserves in the country, under section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended in 2006. Financial steps 10. Financial and technical help is provided to the State Governments under various Centrally Sponsored Schemes, such as Project Tiger and Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats for enhancing the capacity and infrastructure of the State Governments for providing effective protection to wild animals. International Cooperation 11. India has a bilateral understanding with Nepal on controlling trans‐boundary illegal trade in wildlife and conservation, apart from a protocol on tiger conservation with China.



14. A Global Tiger Forum of Tiger Range Countries has been created for addressing international issues related to tiger conservation. 15. During the 14th meeting of the Conference of Parties to CITES, which was held from 3rd to 15th June, 2007 at The Hague, India introduced a resolution along with China, Nepal and the Russian Federation, with direction to Parties with operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale, for restricting such captive populations to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers. The resolution was adopted as a decision with minor amendments. Further, India made an intervention appealing to China to phase out tiger farming and eliminate stockpiles of Asian big cats body parts and derivatives. The importance of continuing the ban on trade of body parts of tigers was emphasized. 16. Based on India’s strong intervention during the 62nd meeting of the Standing Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) at Geneva from 23-27 July, 2012, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Secretariat has issued a notification No. 2012/054 dated the 3rd September, 2012 to Parties to fully implement Decision 14.69 and report to the Secretariat by 25 September, 2012 (Progress made on restricting captive breeding operations of tigers etc.). 17. As a part of active management to rebuild Sariska and Panna Tiger Reserves where tigers have become locally extinct, reintroduction of tigers and tigresses have been done. 18. Special advisories issued for in-situ build up of prey base and tiger population through active management in tiger reserves having low population status of tiger and its prey. Creation of Special Tiger Protection Force (STPF) 19. The policy initiatives announced by the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech of the 29th February, 2008, inter alia, contains action points relating to tiger protection. Based on the one time grant of Rs. 50.00 crore provided to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) for raising, arming and deploying a Special Tiger Protection Force (STPF), the proposal for the said force has been approved by the competent authority for 13 tiger reserves. The States of Karnataka and Maharashtra have already created and deployed the STPF. 20. In collaboration with TRAFFIC‐INDIA, an online tiger crime data base has been launched, and Generic Guidelines for preparation of reserve specific Security Plan has been evolved. Recent initiatives

21. Implementing a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with tiger States, linked to fund flows for effective implementation of tiger conservation initiatives. 22. Rapid assessment of tiger reserves done. 23. Special crack teams sent to tiger reserves affected by left wing extremism and low population status of tiger and its prey. 24. Chief Ministers of States having tiger reserves affected by left wing extremism and low population status of tiger and its prey addressed for taking special initiatives. 25. Steps taken for modernizing the infrastructure and field protection, besides launching ‘Monitoring system for Tigers’ Intensive Protection and Ecological Status (M-STrIPES)’ for effective field patrolling and monitoring. 26. Steps taken for involvement of Non-Governmental Experts in the ongoing all India tiger estimation. 27. Initiatives taken for improving the field delivery through capacity building of field officials, apart from providing incentives. 28. Action initiated for using Information Technology to strengthen surveillance in tiger reserves. 29. The second round of country level tiger status assessment completed in 2010, with the findings indicating an increase with a tiger population estimate of 1706, lower and upper limits being 1520 and 1909 respectively, as compared to the last country level estimation of 2006, with an estimate of 1411, lower and upper limits being 1165 and 1657, respectively. 30. The second round of independent assessment of Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Tiger Reserves done in 2010-2011 for 39 tiger reserves based on globally used framework. 31. Increase in the allocation for Project Tiger with additional components. 32. Providing special assistance for mitigation of human-tiger conflicts in problematic areas. 33. As an outcome of the fourth Trans-border Consultative Group Meeting held in New Delhi, a joint resolution has been signed with Nepal for biodiversity and tiger conservation. 34. Regional Offices of the National Tiger Conservation Authority sanctioned at Nagpur, Bengaluru and Guwahati. 35. Launching of Phase‐IV tiger reserve level monitoring. MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE 17th December, 2012

LSQ 3894 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHETKAR Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the Government is implementing the rules strictly with manufacturing units and other industries in paying penalties who failed to manage solid waste generated by them at source;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) if not, the reasons therefor; and (d) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) The Ministry of Environment and Forests has notified the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. As per these Rules, the occupier, importer, transporter and operator of the facility are liable for all damages caused to the environment or third party due to improper handling of the hazardous wastes or disposal of the hazardous wastes. The occupier and the operator of the facility shall be liable to pay financial penalties as levied for any violation of the provisions under these rules by the State Pollution Control Board with the prior approval of the Central Pollution Control Board. The State Pollution Control Boards / Pollution Control Committees are required to take action against violations of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. CPCB, till the year 2008, has approved seven proposals of State Pollution Control Boards, imposing financial penalties against 138 industries for improper disposal or non‐compliance to the provisions of Hazardous Rules, 2008.

POLLUTION BY MNCS 17th December, 2012 LSQ 3896 SHRI HAMDULLAH SAYEED Will the Minister of ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS be pleased to state:

(a) whether the MNCs are playing a major role in polluting the environment and (b) water in the country; (c) if so, the details thereof; (d) whether any inquiry has been conducted into this matter; (e) if so, the result thereof; and (f) the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) FOR ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS (SHRIMATI JAYANTHI NATARAJAN) (a) to (d) All the industries including MNCs are required to comply with pollution control norms as prescribed by State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) / Pollution Control Committees (PCCs). The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) under 17 categories of highly polluting industries identified 3 MNCs in cement sector, which were non‐complying. Accordingly, CPCB has issued directions under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to M/s ACC Limited Jamul Cement Works, Durg (Chattisgarh) and also issued directions under section 18 (1) (b) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board for taking appropriate action against 2 cement units namely (i) M/s ACC Ltd, Kymore Cement Works and (ii) M/s Heidelberg Cement India Ltd (Diamond Cement), Damoh of Madhya Pradesh.

(e) The steps taken by the Government to contain pollution from industries including MNCs are as under:

Industries, including MNCs are required to take consent from respective SPCBs/PCCs to ensure

compliance of standards prescribed under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

A mutually agreed time‐targeted programme is implemented under Corporate Responsibility for Environmental Protection (CREP) with a bank guarantee on various commitments

Promotion of low waste and no waste technology; Under Environment Surveillance Squad (ESS) programme, CPCB undertakes random inspection of 17

categories of highly polluting industries including MNCs to verify compliance.

Documents

Test on Environment - wwfenvis.nic.inwwfenvis.nic.in/files/Environment in the Indian Parliament Lok Sabha... · Dasgupta Guidelines for Tourist Activities Environment and Forest Trade