The Integration of Biodiversity into National

Environmental Assessment Procedures

National Case Studies

India

September 2001

Produced
for the
Biodiversity Planning Support Programme

UNDP/UNEP/GEF
 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6 INDIA
Prepared by: Dr. Vinod Mathur and Dr. Asha Rajvanshi, Wildlife Institute of
India

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 1

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

CONTENTS
6 India...............................................................................................................................1
6.1 Introduction to biodiversity profile ..........................................................................4
6.1.1 Biogeographic Zonation.................................................................................................4
6.2 Biodiversity status........................................................................................................6
6.2.1 Species diversity...............................................................................................................6
6.2.2 Endemism in India..........................................................................................................7
6.2.3 Major Threats to Indian Biodiversity ...........................................................................7
6.3 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan......................................................8
6.3.1 Levels of Coverage..........................................................................................................9
6.3.2 Scope of Coverage ........................................................................................................10
6.3.3 Aspects of Coverage .....................................................................................................10
6.4 NBSAP Process ...........................................................................................................10
6.4.1 NBSAP Institutional Structure....................................................................................11
6.4.2 Outputs of NBSAP Process ........................................................................................12
6.5 Progress in implementation of the NBSAP ............................................................13
6.6 The EIA System ..........................................................................................................14
6.6.1 Historical Perspective ...................................................................................................14
6.6.2 Adoption of formal EIA system .................................................................................14
6.6.3 Regulatory framework for EIA ...................................................................................17
6.6.4 Application of environmental clearance process and steps involved ....................18
6.6.5 Recent Trends of Application of Environmental Assessment to Programmes and
Plans 19
6.7 EIA implementation ...................................................................................................20
6.7.1 Effectiveness of EIA Implementation.......................................................................20
6.8 Environmental Decision Making from a Biodiversity Perspective......................21
6.9 Biodiversity and EIA ..................................................................................................22
6.9.1 Consideration of Biodiversity Issues in Assessment Procedures...........................22
6.9.2 Existing sources of information and databases on biodiversity .............................24
6.9.3 Adequacy of biodiversity data for meaningful assessment and mitigation ...........27
6.9.4 Relevance of field studies in biodiversity impact assessment .................................27
6.9.5 Mitigation approaches for addressing biodiversity threats......................................28
6.10 Illustrative case studies: EIA projects.......................................................................31
6.10.1 Integration of Biodiversity Concerns in the EIA of Narmada Sagar
Multipurpose Dam Project.......................................................................................................31
6.10.2 EIA of Sankosh Multipurpose Project ..................................................................39
6.10.3 Integration of biodiversity concerns into EIA of Mumbai- Pune Expressway
Project 45
6.11 Future actions to improve effectiveness of biodiversity conservation and sustainable
use ..................................................................................................................................54
6.11.1 Conservation Awareness..........................................................................................54
6.11.2 Enhancing Capacity ..................................................................................................54
6.11.3 BIA Methodology .....................................................................................................55
6.11.4 Enabling Legislative Changes..................................................................................55
6.11.5 Accreditation of Biodiversity Impact Specialist....................................................55
6.11.6 Regional and Sectoral Assessments........................................................................55
6.11.7 Effective public hearing ...........................................................................................55
6.11.8 Independent Review .................................................................................................56

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 2

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6.12 Final Conclusions ........................................................................................................56

6.13 Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................57
6.14 References.....................................................................................................................58

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 3

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6.1 Introduction to biodiversity profile

6.1.1 Biogeographic Zonation

India is the seventh largest country in the world and Asia’s second largest nation, with an
area of 3,287,263 km2. The Indian mainland stretches from 8o4’ to 37o6’N latitude and
from 68o7’ to 97o25’ E longitude. It has a land frontier of about 15,200 km and a coastline
of 7,516 km. This massive country with varied terrain, topography, landuse, geographic and
climatic factors can be divided into ten recognizable biogeographic zones (Rodgers et al.,
2000) (Fig. 1). These zones encompass a variety of ecosystems: mountains, plateaus, rivers,
forests, wetlands, lakes, mangroves, coral reefs, coasts and islands.

Fig. 1 Biogeographic Classification of India : Zones

The Trans Himalayan region includes the high altitude cold and arid montane areas of
Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir, Lahul & Spiti areas of Himachal Pradesh and North Sikkim.
The zone has sparse vegetation and represents habitat for the biggest wild sheep and goat
communities in the world and the rare fauna that include Snow Leopard (Uncia uncia) and the
migratory Blacknecked Crane (Grus nigricollis).

The Himalaya in the far north include some of the highest peaks in the world and make
India one of the richest areas in terms of habitats and species. The alpine, sub-alpine forest
communities, large grassy meadows and moist mixed deciduous forests provide diverse
habitat for endangered species of bovids such as Bharal (Pseudois nayaur), Ibex (Capra ibex),
Markhor (Capra falconeri), Tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus), and Takin (Budorcas taxicolor). The other
highly rare and endangered species like the Hangul (Cervus eldi eldi) and Musk Deer (Moschus
moschiferus) are also restricted to this zone.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 4

The Desert zone includes the Thar desert of west Gujarat and west Rajasthan and has
large expanses of grasslands that support several endangered species of mammals such as
Wolf (Canis lupus), Caracal (Felis caracal), Desert Cat (Felis libyca) and birds of conservation
interest viz., Houbara Bustard (Chlamydotis undulata) and Great Indian Bustard (Ardeotis
nigriceps).

The Semi-Arid region is a transition zone between the desert and the dense forests of
Western Ghats. The dominant grass and palatable shrub layer in this zone support the
highest wildlife biomass. The cervid species Sambar (Cervus unicolor) and Chital (Axis axis)
are restricted to the better wooded hills and moister valley areas respectively, the Lion (Leo
persica), an endangered carnivore species (restricted to a small area in Gujarat), Caracal (Felis
caracal), Jackal (Canis aureus) and Wolf (Canis lupus) are some of the endangered species that
are characteristic of the semi-arid zone.

The Western Ghats is one of the major tropical evergreen forest regions in India. The
zone stretches from the hills south of the Tapti River in the north to Kanyakumari in the
south and in the west, this zone is bound by the coast. This zone represents one of the
biodiversity ‘hotspot’ with some 15000 species of higher plants, of which 4000 or 27% are
reported only from the Western Ghats, that form only 5% of the total land area of the
country. The Western Ghats zone has viable populations of most of the vertebrate species
found in peninsular India, plus an endemic faunal element of its own. Significant species
restricted to the Western Ghats include Nilgiri Langur (Presbytis johni) and Lion Tailed
Macaque (Macaca silenus), Grizzled Giant Squirrel (Ratufa macroura), Malabar Civet (Viverricula
megaspila), Nilgiri Tahr (Hemitragus hylocrius) and Malabar Grey Hornbill (Ocyceros griseus). The
Travancore Tortoise (Indotestudo forsteni) and Cane turtle (Heosemys silvatica) are two
endangered taxa restricted to a small area of central Western Ghats.

The Deccan Plateau is a semi-arid region that falls in the rain shadow of the Western
Ghats. This biogeographic zone of peninsular India is by far the most extensive zone,
covering India’s finest forests, particularly in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and
Orissa. The majority of the forests are of a deciduous nature but there are regions of greater
biological diversity in the hill ranges. The deccan zone comprising of “Deciduous Forests”,
“Thorn Forests” and “Degraded Scrublands” supports diverse wildlife species. Most wildlife
species such as Chital (Axis axis), Sambar (Cervus unicolor), Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus),
Chousingha (Tetracerus quadricornis) are widespread in this zone. Some species are more
frequent in, or are restricted to moister areas, but are still fairly widespread, e.g. Barking deer
(Muntiacus muntjak) and Gaur (Bos gaurus). Some species are more restricted to drier open
areas, e.g. Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra), but still have a wide distribution. Species which
have small populations include the elephant (Bihar-Orissa, and Karnataka- Tamil Nadu),
Wild buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) in a small area at the junction of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and
Maharashtra and the hard ground Swamp Deer (Cervus duvauceli), now restricted to a single
locality in Madhya Pradesh.

The Gangetic Plain is the flat alluvial region lying north and south of Ganges river and its
major tributaries in the foothills of Himalayas. The Gangetic plain is topographically
homogeneous for hundreds of kilometers. The characteristic fauna of the Gangetic plain is
Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), Elephant (Elephas maximus), Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), Swamp Deer
(Cervus duvauceli), Hog-deer (Axis porcinus) and Hispid Hare (Caprolagus hispidus). This zone

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 5

has considerable ecological significance in today’s scenario of increasing industrialization and
pollution and consequent environmental degradation and deforestation.

The North-east of India represents the transition zone between the Indian, Indo-Malayan
and Indo-Chinese biogeographical regions as well as being a meeting place of the Himalayan
mountains and peninsular India. The North-east is thus the biogeographical ‘gateway’ for
much of India’s fauna and flora and also a biodiversity ‘hotspot’. A diverse set of habitats,
coupled with long term geological stability has allowed the development of significant levels
of endemism in all animal and plant groups. Many of the species contributing to the
biological diversity of north-east India are either restricted to the region itself, or to even
smaller localized areas in the Khasi Hills.

The Island ecosystem in India is broadly of two types: coralline as that of Lakshadweep in
the Arabian Sea and submerged mountain tops harbouring tropical rainforests as in the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Bay of Bengal. These islands are centers of high
endemism and contain some of the India’s finest evergreen forests supporting a wide
diversity of corals. Of the three groups of islands, rainforests and associated endemic island
biodiversity is found only on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Indian wetland occurs in
various geographical regions such as cold arid zones of Ladakh, warm arid zones of
Rajasthan, tropical monsoonic central India, the north eastern region, the south peninsula
and the coastal wetlands.

6.2 Biodiversity status

6.2.1 Species diversity

India is one of the 12 ‘mega diverse’ countries of the world with a large array of
environmental conditions by virtue of its tropical location, varied physiographic features and
climatic types and its unique position at the junction of the Indo Malayan-Eurasian and
Afro-tropical biogeographical realms. The biological diversity in its forests, wetlands and
marine ecosystems account for 60 to 70% of the world’s biodiversity. This richness is
shown in absolute numbers of species and the proportion they represent of the world’s total
(Table 1).

Table 1 Biological diversity of India

Taxa Number of Species Percentage of India to
the World

India World
Bacteria 850 4000 21.25
Viruses Unknown 4000 -
Algae 6500 40000 16.25
Fungi 14500 72000 20.14
Lichens 2000 17000 11.80
Bryophyta 2850 16000 17.80
Pteridophyta 1100 13000 8.46
Gymnosperms 64 750 8.53
Angiosperms 17500 250000 7.00
Protista 2577 31290 8.24
Mollusca 5050 70000 7.21

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 6

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Arthropoda (Insecta, Crustacea, 60383 1065000 5.67

etc.,)
Other invertebrates 8329 87121 9.56
(including Hemichordata)
Protochordata 116 2173 5.34
Pisces 2546 21723 11.72
Amphibia 206 5145 4.00
Reptilia 485 5680 8.54
Aves 1228 9672
Mammalia 372 4629 8.03
Total 126656 1719183 7.36

Source: UNEP-GBA (1995), MoE&F (1997 and 1998)

6.2.2 Endemism in India

India has many endemic plant and vertebrate species. Among plants, species endemism is
estimated at 33% with approximately 140 endemic genera but no endemic families (Botanical
Survey of India, 1983). Areas rich in endemism are north-east India, the Western Ghats and
the north-western and eastern Himalayas. A small pocket of local endemism also occurs in
the Eastern Ghats (MacKinnon and MacKinnon, 1986). The Gangetic Plains are generally
poor in endemics, while the Andaman and Nicobar Islands contribute at least 220 species to
the endemic flora of India (Botanical Survey of India, 1983).

Endemism among mammals and birds is relatively low. Only 44 species of Indian mammals
have a range that is confined entirely to India’s territorial limits. Four endemic species of
conservation significance occur in the Western Ghats. They are the Lion Tailed Macaque
(Macaca silenus), Nilgiri Leaf Monkey (Trachypithecus johni) (locally better known as Nilgiri
Langur (Presbytis johnii), Brown Palm Civet (Paradoxurus jerdoni) and Nilgiri Tahr (Hemitragus
hylocrius).

Only 55 bird species are endemic to India, with distributions concentrated in areas of high
rainfall. In contrast, endemism in the Indian reptilian and amphibian fauna is high. There
are around 187 endemic reptiles, and 110 endemic amphibian species. Eight amphibian
genera are not found outside India. They include, among the caecilians, Indotyphlus,
Gegeneophis and Uraeotyphlus; and among the anurans, the toad Bufoides, the microhylid
Melanobatrachus, and the frogs Ranixalus, Nannobatrachus and Nyctibatrachus. Perhaps most
notable among the endemic amphibian genera is the monotypic Melanobatrachus which has a
single species known only from a few specimens collected in the Annamalai Hills in the
1870s (Groombridge, 1983).

6.2.3 Major Threats to Indian Biodiversity

India has the second highest population density among the Asian countries. It has about
16% of the total world’s population concentrated in slightly more than 2% of the world’s
land area, a population which is growing annually at a rate of 2.3% (Kothari et al., 1989).
About a third of this population subsists below the poverty line. Traditional and substantial
dependence on the biodiversity resources for fodder, fuel wood, timber and minor forest
produce has been an accepted way of life of the rural population that accounts for nearly
74% of India’s population. With the radical demographic changes, the land to man ratio and
forest to man ratio has rapidly declined. From about 20 ha in 1951, the per capita forest area

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 7

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

had been reduced to 0.11 ha in 1981 (Lal, 1989) with further trends of reductions in
subsequent years. The lifestyles and the biomass resource needs having remained
unchanged, the remnant forests have come under relentless pressures of encroachment for
cultivation, and unsustainable resource extraction rendering the very resource base,
unproductive and depleted of its biodiversity. Coupled with these incongruities and
aberrations in landuse, the unsound development strategies have led to increasing threats to
biodiversity resources by way of illegal encroachment of 0.07 million ha of forest, cultivation
of 4.37 million ha and diversion of forest for river valley projects (0.52 million ha), industries
and townships (0.14 million ha), transmission lines and roads (0.06 million ha) and an
additional 1.5 million ha for miscellaneous purposes (TERI, 1999).

The unabated pace of development of hydraulic structures to harness hydropower driven by

necessity to meet the growing requirements of water for inputs to irrigation, domestic use
and industrial purposes has led to the construction of over 4000 dams in India. The creation
of valley bottom reservoirs in wilderness areas has brought the destruction of some of the
finest forests and biodiversity-rich unique ecosystems. The biodiversity losses due to
deforestation for hydropower and mining projects are perhaps the greatest threats to
biodiversity in India.

The other important factors that have contributed to staggering loss of biodiversity are
pollution of rivers, destruction of mangroves and fragile mountain systems, loss of wetlands
due to land reclamation, poaching and hunting. Apart from the primary loss of biodiversity
due to development, there are numerous other problems contributing to the loss and
endangered status of several floral and faunal species. These include habitat losses and
fragmentation leading to the formation of isolated scattered populations becoming
increasingly vulnerable to inbreeding depressions, high infant mortality, susceptibility to
environmental stochasticity and in the long run, possible extinction. According to the Red
list of Threatened Plants (IUCN, 1997), 19 species are already extinct and 1236 species are
threatened. Of these, threatened 41 taxa are possibly extinct in the wild, 152 are endangered,
102 are vulnerable, 251 are rare, and 690 are indeterminate. Nearly 23 animal species,
including the Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), are known to have become extinct (Table 1.2) and
many more are possibly on the verge of extinction (WCMC, 1992 and Khoshoo, 1996).
Table 2 Animal species reported to be threatened in India
Taxonomic Group Number of Threatened Species
Mammals 75
Birds 73
Reptiles 16
Amphibians 3
Fish 4
Invertebrates 22

(Source: IUCN, 1996)

6.3 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) process is one of the largest
environmental planning exercise being carried out in the world and certainly the largest ever

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 8

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

in India. Initiated by the Government of India’s Ministry of Environment & Forests, funded
by GEF through UNDP and technically executed by the NGO Kalpavriksh, the NBSAP in
India is being developed through a participatory planning process involving all major
stakeholders (Anon. 2000).

6.3.1 Levels of Coverage

The NBSAP process entails the assessment and stock taking of biodiversity related
information at various levels* including distribution of endemic and endangered species and
site specific threats and pressures with an ultimate aim to develop Strategy and Action Plans
(SAPs) at the following five levels:
Local and Regional Strategy and Action Plans (LSAP’s) for a few selected regions in the
country, e.g., Karbi-Anglong District in Assam, North Coastal Belt in Andhra Pradesh,
Vidarbha in Maharashtra.
State level Strategy and Action Plans (SSAP’s) for all Indian States and Union Territories.
Inter-state, Ecoregional Strategy and Action Plans (IESAP’s) for biological regions
cutting across States (e.g., eastern ghats, western ghats, western coast, West-himalayas)
Separate detailed Thematic Strategy and Actions Plans (TSAP’s) for major topics related
to biodiversity.
A National Strategy and Action Plan (NSAP) for the whole country which will build on
the four levels above.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 9

In addition to the above, the NBSAP will also include:
Several brief review papers on specific topics, to be integrated into relevant SAPs and/or
brought out as independent papers.
Detailed project proposals for action (including funding support) (PPs), integrated into
the above or attached with them.

6.3.2 Scope of Coverage

The term ‘biodiversity’ is being taken in its holistic sense, to encompass all levels of
biodiversity, ecological and evolutionary processes including:
Natural ecosystems: e.g., forests, grasslands, wetlands, deserts, mountain, coastal and
marine areas, including the historical changes taking place in such ecosystems.
‘Wild’ species and varieties: species of plants, animals and micro-organisms existing in
their natural states and the genetic variations within each of these species.
Agricultural ecosystems: e.g., farmlands, pastures, capture fisheries, aquaculture,
including historical changes in landuse patterns.
Domesticated species and varieties: species of crops, livestock (including poultry),
captive-bred fish, pets and micro-organism in ex-situ collections, and the genetic
variations within each of these species.

6.3.3 Aspects of Coverage

The NBSAP would cover the following aspects of biodiversity:
Conservation of biodiversity at ecosystemic, species, and genetic levels (through in-situ,
ex-situ, in-vitro, and other measures), and of the associated ecological functions with a
special focus on endemic, threatened, and otherwise critical elements;
Sustainable use of biological resources, implying their use in such a manner as will not
impair their long term existence or will not in other ways threaten biodiversity;
Social, economic, political and inter-generational equity, including in decision- making
with regard to conservation and use, in sharing of benefits, in access to and protection
of knowledge and information relevant to biodiversity, and so on.
Ethical, cultural, scientific, and economic dimensions, including:
• The right of species and ecosystems to survive;
• The primacy of survival and livelihoods based on biodiversity, and of
creating a stake for people in conservation and sustainable use;
• The implications of research and use of human genetic diversity;
• Various cultural ways of relating to nature; and
• The role of biodiversity in economics and technology.

6.4 NBSAP Process

National level policy processes in the past have often been ‘top-down’ and limited to a small
number of ‘experts’ and consultants and as a result often ended remaining on paper. The
present NBSAP process in India is reaching out to a large number of village-level
organizations, and movements, NGOs, academics and scientists, government officers from
various line agencies, the private sector, the armed forces, politicians and all those who have
a stake in biodiversity conservation.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 10

The various SAPs would :
Assess current gaps in integrating biodiversity concerns into each economic and social
sector of planning and other gaps in achieving the above mentioned aspects of
biodiversity.
Identify the major impacts of information and action gaps on how biodiversity and
related livelihoods are being negatively effected by policies and programs in each sectors.
Identify and assess the efficacy of existing measures to plug information and action gaps.
Identify specific actions needed to plug the gaps and strengthen measures already being
taken to achieve integration of biodiversity concerns in various sectors of planning.

6.4.1 NBSAP Institutional Structure

The institutional structure of the NBSAP process is shown in Fig. 2.1. There are two
significant aspects of this structure, which make it different from past such initiatives. First,
though the project direction is with the Ministry of Environment and Forests, its technical
execution has been given out to an NGO, Kalpavriksh, which has formed a Technical and
Policy Core Group (TPCG) that does the day to day planning and monitoring. A separate
agency, BCIL, is in charge of project administration. Secondly, each of the teams
coordinating the various levels of SAPs, are multi-stakeholder forums, consisting of people
from within and outside government, and from various sectors of society.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 11

 National Project Director & Team

Administrative Co-ordination Agency

Technical and Policy Core Group

Thematic
State Nodal Agencies
Working
and Steering Committees
Group
(State Thematic Working
Groups-optional)

Ecoregional
Working Groups
Local Nodal Agency and
Advisory Committee

Fig. 2.1 NBSAP Institutional Structure

6.4.2 Outputs of NBSAP Process

The NBSAP process aims to produce not just a national level action plan but a series of
other action plans at local, state, inter-state and thematic levels. These plans will also contain
integrated or attached project proposals for further action including funding support. The
NBSAP process will specifically result in the production of the following:
Local/regional (sub-state) Strategy and Action Plans
State level Strategy and Action Plans
Inter-state, Ecoregional Strategy and Action Plans
National Strategy and Action Plan
Separate, detailed Thematic Strategy and Action Plans
Several brief review papers on specific topics to be integrated into relevant SAPs and/or
brought out as independent papers.
Detailed Project Proposal (PPs) for action including funding support, integrated into the
above or attached with them.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 12

6.5 Progress in implementation of the NBSAP
The NBSAP process in India was initiated in the year 2000 and is expected to be complete
by the end of the year 2002 and hence it is not feasible to comment on the progress of its
implementation at this stage. Presently, about 25 concept note and guiding papers have
been produced. Public inputs are being achieved through a series of activities. An attractive
brochure called Call for Participation, has been printed in 16 Indian languages, and about
30,000 copies are being distributed. Anyone who responds to this is guided to relevant ways
of participating. Media coverage is being maximised. Biodiversity festivals, or participation
in existing agricultural and cultural fairs, are reaching the message out through folk media,
exhibitions, and other popular methods. All information is transparent, and is available on
request or on the website [Link]

There are a number of serious hurdles that NBSAP process has to confront (Kothari,
2000). Some State Governments have been reluctant to involve NGOs and community
representatives on their action plan committees. Many agencies do not have access to the
kind of reliable information needed to generate a credible action plan. Conflicts and
contradictions in the perceptions of different stakeholders could also undermine the
attempts to arrive at consensus recommendations. Various ministries and line agencies
which deal with biodiversity matters, may simply ignore this exercise and carry on as usual.

The critical questions that the NBSAP process faces are: will all this effort be worth it? Will
anything actually change on the ground? Will the government amend its policies to integrate
biodiversity concerns into developmental planning process? Will there be the political will
and the economic and social resources for NBSAP implementation?

As the NBSAP in India is in the process of being developed it is difficult to provide answers
to the above questions. However, there are some positive indications. One significant
breakthrough is the readiness of the National Planning Commission to set up a working
group to integrate biodiversity into the sectoral planning process in the upcoming 10th 5-
year plan. At State level too, the steering committees set up for the purpose in most States,
consist of all key departments, and they have agreed to work towards such integration.
Another positive signal is that people are building their own actions and responsibilities into
the action plans, rather than depending only on government agencies. The greatest hope is
however, generated by the process itself. It will be hard for the government or other
agencies to ignore the work, needs and aspirations of thousands of individuals and groups,
and if they still do, hopefully they would mount serious pressure to force the NBSAP
implementation. At the very least, the NBSAP process will lead to a nation-wide churning
of ideas, fresh ways to visualizing the society and its relations with nature, an in-depth
questioning of developmental and economic dogmas and most important how to transform
centralized, top-heavy planning processes into truly participatory ground-up ones.

For an update on the progress in NBSAP implementation please refer to

[Link]

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 13

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6.6 The EIA System

6.6.1 Historical Perspective

Conservation, protection and preservation of the environment and reverence for nature have
been the unifying ethical principle of Hindu religion and the cornerstone of Indian ethos,
culture and traditions. Environmental protection was enshrined in the Indian constitution
through the 42nd amendment to the constitution in 1976. Subsequently, environmental
protection and conservation of natural resources emerged as key national priorities and
found expression in subsequent documents such as National Wildlife Action Plan (1983),
National Forest Policy (1988) and the National Conservation Strategy and the Policy
Statements on Environment and Development (1992) brought out by the Ministry of
Environment & Forests (MoE&F). The first ever concrete legislative provisions for
environmental protection were made through the enactment of Environmental Protection
Act (EPA) in 1986 which came into existence in whole of India vide notification no. G.S.R.
1198(E) published in the Gazette of India No.525 on 12.11.86. This EPA came into force in
response to the need for developing legislative instruments for enforcing good
environmental management practices after the country faced a major environmental crisis
(also referred to as ‘Bhopal gas tragedy’) due to the leakage of methyl isocyanate gas from
the industrial unit of Union Carbide Corporation in the city of Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh
State. The EPA provides rules to protect the environment from pollution through planning
and execution of a nation wide programme for the prevention, control and abatement of
environmental pollution. The subsequent Notifications (Table 4.1) issued as amendments to
EPA (1986) also incorporate the provisions for the protection of ecologically sensitive and
fragile ecosystems of the country.

Until 1993, there was no formally established procedure for environmental appraisal of
development projects. The MoE&F, Government of India scrutinized the projects on the
basis of EIA reports submitted by the project proponents. A set of sector specific
environmental guidelines that were available for all key sectors by the year 1989 issued by
MoE&F (Table 4.1) specified the structure and contents of EIA reports, and the
accompanying Environmental Management Plans and determined the protocols to be
adopted for the preparation of EIA reports.

6.6.2 Adoption of formal EIA system

The notification on Environmental Impact Assessment issued on 27th January 1994 and
later amended on 4th May 1994 under the clause (a) of sub rule (3) of rule 5 of the
Environmental (Protection) Rules streamlined the EIA process in India. This notification
published in the Official Gazette of Government of India on 27th January 1994 and
amended on 4th May 1994 became the umbrella legislation for EIA. This notification
imposes restriction and prohibition on the expansion and modernisation of some select
activities or new project to be proposed in any part of India unless environmental clearance
has been accorded by the Central Government or the State Government. The salient
provisions under this notification are:
Any project proponent who desires to undertake any new project or expansion or
modernisation of existing projects listed in Schedule - I of this notification will have to
obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests,

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 14

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Government of India. The Schedule I of the EIA Notification after a recent amendment
on 27th January 2001 includes a list of 30 categories of projects in sectors as diverse as
power (hydro, thermal and nuclear), mineral extraction and processing industries,
tourism, transportation (rail, road & air), petrochemical, manufacturing and handling of
chemicals and synthetic products e.g. rubber, paint and yarn.
The project authorities will also have to obtain Site Clearance in case of site specific
projects like mining, pit head thermal power stations, hydropower and major irrigation
projects, ports and harbours and prospecting and exploration of major minerals in areas
above 500 ha in extent.
The clearance granted shall be valid for a period of 5 years from the commencement of
construction or operation of the project.
The projects listed in Schedule - I of this notification in respect of which the required
land and all relevant clearances of the State Government have been obtained before 27th
January 1994 are exempted from obtaining environmental clearance from the Impact
Assessment Agency.
The clearance can be revoked if it is established that the project authorities have either
provided false or engineered reports or have concealed the factual data.

One of the key responsibilities under the EIA Notification is to also ensure that the project
proponents fulfil other legal/statutory obligations under the earlier enacted legislations by
the Ministry of Environment & Forests from time to time and those subsequently enacted
through amendments of existing rules and notifications under EPA (1986) to strengthen the
efficacy of EIA process (Table 3).

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 15

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Table 3 Environmental Policy Documents, key EIA legislations and Guidelines issued by
MoE&F
Policy Documents
• National Wildlife Action Plan (1983).
• National Forest Policy, 1988.
• National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement on Environment and Development, June 1992.
• National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (under preparation)

Key EIA Legislations

• The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, (as amended on 4.5.1994).
• Public Hearing Notification ( 10.04.1997).

Other EIA related Environmental Legislations and Notifications

• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974,1977.
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
• Notification for Declaration of Air Pollution Control, 1989 .
• Wildlife Protection Act,1972 (Amended in 1982,1986 and 1991).
• The Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986.
• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Amended in 1992).

Environmental Legislations for Protection of Sensitive Ecosystems and Biodiversity

Resources
• Notification for declaration of ‘no development zone’ round Numaligarh (5th July 1996).
• The Eco Sensitive Zone - Pachmarhi, Notification, (17th September, 1998).
• Coastal Regulation Zone – Notifications (19th February,1991).
• Notification for restricting industrial activities, mining and other developments in Doon Valley (1st February
1989 ).
• Notification for prohibition on the location of industries in Murud - Janjira area in Raigarh ( 6th January,
1989)
• Notification for protection of Dahanu Taluka in District Thane (as amended up to 2nd August 2000).
• Notification for restricting certain activities in specified areas of Aravalli Range ( 7th May 1992).
• National Environment Appellate Authority Ordinance, 1997.
• Environment (Siting for Industrial Projects) Rules, Notification ( 21st June, 1999)
• New Biodiversity Bill – 2000 (proposed)

Environmental Guidelines
• Environmental Guidelines for Shipping and Harbours (1981).
• Environmental Guidelines for Development of Beaches (1983).
• Environmental Guidelines for Siting of Industry (1984).
• Environmental (Siting for Industrial Projects) Rules, 1999 Notification of June 1999?.
• Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment of River Valley Projects (1985).
• Environmental Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants (1987).
• Guidelines for Location of Industries, Mining Operations etc. for various Areas (1989).
• Environmental Guidelines for Rail/Road/Highway projects (1989).
• Environmental Guidelines for Communication Projects (1989).
• Guidelines and Procedures for the Environmental Appraisal of New Towns (1989).
• Environmental Guidelines for Airport Projects (1989).
• Environmental Guidelines for Airport Projects (1989).
• Guidelines for Diversion of Forests Land for Non-Forest purposes under the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980. (1998).
• Guidelines for Integrating Environmental Concerns and Exploitation of Mineral Resources.
Source References:
Website of Ministry of Environment & Forests ([Link]
Handbook of environmental procedures and guidelines,(1994). Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt.
of India.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 16

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6.6.3 Regulatory framework for EIA

The Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoE&F) is the nodal Impact Assessment
Agency responsible for the enactment of environmental legislations in the entire country.
The State Pollution Control Boards (SPCB) established in every state of the country are
responsible for implementing most of the legislations as well as for issue of notifications for
permissible emissions. In case of Union Territories (UTs), the Pollution Control Committee
(PCC) are responsible for this. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) at New Delhi,
co-ordinates the activities of SPCBs and PCCs and plays an advisory role for the
Government of India.

The Environment Division of MoE&F also plays the pivotal role in the processing of
proposals received for environmental clearance of the projects and in the review of the
project proposals for compliance of provisions under Wildlife (Protection) Act (1972), the
Forest Conservation Act (1980), the Coastal Zone Regulation (1991) and all other legislative
provisions that safeguard the ecological and biological values of the country (Table 3). The
Forest and Wildlife Divisions of MoE&F are also consulted for the evaluation of the
projects particularly those involving diversion of forest land for projects within the wildlife
areas, viz. National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries; areas designated as Project Tiger
Reserves, Biosphere Reserves, Wildlife Corridors, World Heritage Site, and Ramsar Site;
nesting and breeding sites of endangered species; specialized habitats of rare and endangered
wildlife species and scared groves etc. The hierarchial organization of MoE&F for
environmental decision making process is presented in Figure 1.

Minister

Secretary

Director General
of Forests
Special Secretary

Joint Secretary Additional Director Additional Director

General (Forest) General (Wildlife)

Director, Impact DIG DIG

Assessment (IA) Division Forest Wildlife

IA Division Areas of Responsibility

IA-I: River Valley & Thermal Power
IA-II: Mining and Industry
IA-III: Infrastructure & Miscellaneous
Forest Wildlife
Division Division

Figure 1 Hierarchical organisation of MoE and F for environmental decision

making

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 17

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6.6.4 Application of environmental clearance process and steps involved

As per the provisions of EIA Notification (May, 1994), the process of environmental
clearance is applicable to all development projects in areas notified as ecologically
sensitive/fragile areas under the EPA (1986) and its amendments through subsequent
notifications. These include: Doon Valley, Murud-Janjira, Dahanu Taluka, Aravalli ranges of
Gurgaon in Haryana and Alwar district in Rajasthan; Identified Coastal Areas as per Coastal
Regulation Zone Notification; Forests, National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Wetlands,
Mangroves, Biosphere Reserves, Hilly & Mountain Areas, ‘No Development Zone’ around
Numaligarh, Pachmari etc.) and all projects listed in Schedule I of the EIA Notification of
1994 and its subsequent amendment through notification in January, 2000.

Proponents of all projects that have mandatory requirements for environmental assessment
based on the above two inclusion criteria are required to submit an application to the
Secretary, MoE&F in a prescribed format. The application is accompanied by an
environmental appraisal questionnaire (that is specific to a project sector) and a project
report which inter alia includes, an EIA report, an Environmental Management Plan
(EMP)and report of public hearing prepared in accordance with the environmental
guidelines of MoE&F for projects in different sectors. For projects involving clearing of
forest land, the proponent is required to obtain permission for diversion of forest for non-
forest purpose under the provisions of Forest Conservation Act (1980) from the Central
Government. The application for clearance is prepared by the proponent and submitted to
the MoE&F if the clearing area is greater than 20 ha. Permission to clear forest land is
required to be obtained before applying for environmental clearance of a project.

The documents submitted by a proponent are first reviewed by a multidisciplinary expert

group in the MoE&F (Fig. 4.2) who may undertake site visits wherever required, interact
with the proponent and hold consultations with experts and ‘other stakeholders’ on specific
issues, whenever necessary. After this preliminary internal scrutiny by the MoE&F, the
documents are placed for independent scrutiny by the Environmental Appraisal Committees
(5 in number and constituted by MoE&F) for appraisal of projects in different sectors.

Based on the technical evaluation (Fig. 4.2) of documents submitted by the proponent and
other clarifications sought by the EAC and the site visit, the committee puts forth the
recommendation to either approve, reject or approve with conditions. The
recommendations and conditions of the committee are then processed by the MoE&F. All
conditions stipulated are binding and must be dealt with by the proponent to the satisfaction
of the MoE&F before the project can ‘break ground’, or before the date specified in the
statement of conditions. Interestingly, there is no legal requirement for the submission of a
completion report in which the proponent certifies that all conditions have been met. In
other words, implementation of conditions is based on the honour system.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 18

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Whether the State-level or

Central approval process
needs to be followed,
Submission of State-level depends on nature of
Application of No-Objection
Submission of the Environmental Appriasal Questionnaire project and the source
Certificate (NOC) by Proponent to MoE&F and amount of funding

If needed Project Documents to be Submitted By

Proponent
No -EIA and EMP and Public Hearing Report
SPCB No- -Resettlement Plan
-Engineering Feasibility Study Report
Objection-
Certificate
Application Submit by proponent
State-level approval
can bypass these MoE&F assembles
applications all Information and
proceeds with
Forest Department environmental
(State) No- Clearance
Submit by proponent
Objection
Certificate
Application MoE&F Staff Scrutinize Documentation, None
for basic compliance compliant

Yes; Documentation Submitted to EAC Committee for Evaluation

Review and
Evaluation

State Level Approval Options EAC Recommendations to MoE&F

-reject -reject
-approve -approve
-approve with conditions -approve with conditions

MoE&F Evaluates may request technical

Pending rejections are assessment, more information, etc. and
transmitted to Proponent renders a decision to:
with an opportunity to correct -reject
-approve
problems if possible Usually MoE&F does not
-approve with conditions
require verification that
proponent has complied with
conditions, but reserves the
MoE&F sends Environmental Clearance to right to audit at any time
Proponent with or without conditions - Proponent
can proceed with project ground breaking

Figure 2 Steps for obtaining environmental clearance in India

The entire process, from when all relevant documentation has reached the MoE&F,
through the EAC Committee evaluation and the subsequent MoE&F decision, should take
less than 120 days. In practice, this deadline is seldom met. The involvement of several
agencies, with communication gaps between them, often results in long delays.

6.6.5 Recent Trends of Application of Environmental Assessment to

Programmes and Plans
The application of environmental assessment procedures to plans and programmes has only
recently been attempted in India. These assessments have been necessitated largely because
of the operational directives of several donor agencies for environmental review of
investments proposed for supporting civic infrastructure expansion, pollution control and
environmental improvement programmes. The India Ecodevelopment Project (1996 –
2001) of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India is a major
programme that is being supported by Global Environment Facility (GEF) and International
Development Aid (IDA) funds of the World Bank. The programme aims to conserve
biodiversity in seven select Protected Areas by implementing ecodevelopment strategies.
The Environmental Review of investments proposed under this programme is one of the
most recent initiative of applying EIA procedures to plans and programmes. There are also

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 19

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

several other World Bank assisted forestry programmes in the States of Andhra Pradesh,
West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh in which environmental reviews have been
conducted for fulfilling funding requirements.

6.7 EIA implementation

6.7.1 Effectiveness of EIA Implementation

Environmental conservation policies, legislative instruments, government machinery and
technical expertise provide the framework for EIA implementation in India. Despite this,
conflict between the objective of conserving biodiversity as an invaluable component of the
environment and harnessing natural resources for economic development in a country
supporting the world’s second largest population of over one billion, has limited the
effectiveness of EIA- implementation.

The contrasting stands taken on environmental issues by economic ministries in the

government which are responsible for promoting development and those ministries
responsible for environmental protection often results in slowing down the pace of
development projects.

Some of the other factors that influence the implementation of EIA are the poor quality of
documentation and the deficiencies of the implementation process itself.

Information contained in environmental guidelines at best serves as a guide for inclusion of

certain basic parameters in the study such as land-use, pollution loadings in air and water and
likely health impacts etc. But there is still no single set of guidelines on what constitutes a
complete EIA of a project. As a result, the EIA reports prepared by consultants with
varying levels of technical expertise differ greatly in their treatment of biodiversity impacts
and their mitigation.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the EIA is the approval process. There is thus an
obvious need for making the evaluation of EIA as competent and transparent as possible
and for ensuring that the entire process remains credible. On the contrary, the EIA reports
prepared by the consultants appointed by the project proponents create a scope for doubting
the credibility of the document because of conflicting interest. There have been enough
evidences of reports that have reflected serious distortions of facts to provide positive
reports that facilitate environmental clearance. The outcome of such actions is opposition
of the project from several forces including Project Affected Persons (PAPs), public,
environmentalists and other interest groups which ultimately lead to ‘burial’ of the EIA
application under the heap of ‘pending cases’ in the official documents in MoE&F.

Process deficiency
The Indian EIA system suffers from some major process deficiencies. These include lack of
co-ordination amongst the agencies involved, lack of efficient compliance monitoring
mechanism and an ineffective public hearing process.

The EIA and the environmental clearance procedure falls within the powers of Central
Government whereas the implementation of pollution control, co-ordination of public

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 20

hearings and grant of forest clearance under the Forest Conservation Act continues to be a
State responsibility. This creates an awkward bureaucratic muddle whereby multiple
agencies share similar responsibilities but without adequately defined roles in a single
clearance procedure. As a result the entire EIA implementation process is akin to a ‘black
box’ in which the applications are churned and clearances are granted after several weeks, if
one is fortunate!

In the present set up, the six regional offices of MoE&F covering all the 29 States are
responsible for post project monitoring of all the cleared projects in all the sectors. Limited
staffing, long distances between projects sites spanning across the boundaries of several
States covered under the single regional office and bureaucratic hurdles often affect the
functioning of these regional offices, making monitoring literally ineffective.

In the existing framework of EIA, there is an apparent dichotomy between public hearing
process conducted and coordinated at the State level and the EIA reporting by project
proponents. This excludes the incorporation of public view in various phases of EIA
including scoping, prediction and mitigation rendering the process non-transparent. There
are ample examples where conflicting public hearing reports have forced a reconsideration
of EIAs, delaying clearance procedures to an extent that substantially distorted the benefits
of the project because of the cost escalations setting in.

6.8 Environmental Decision Making from a Biodiversity Perspective

India, like many other developing nations has a mixed track record of ‘successful’ integration
of the biodiversity perspective in its decision making. In recent years their have been a few
successful examples where biodiversity considerations have positively influenced the ultimate
outcome of the EIA process leading to the shelving of some of the economically important
developmental projects. However, such successes are few and far between. The forces of
globalization, imperatives for rapid economic development, the underlying need for
improving the infrastructure (both physical and social) and alleviation of poverty are some of
the major considerations which have relegated the biodiversity perspective in the
background. However, the scenario is not dismal. India has one of the strongest
environmental legislation in place and a strong conservation ethic. Many a times when
political expediency has governed decision making, public outcry has forced a review.
Similarly, where executive has failed the judiciary has come to the rescue.

In fact some of most recent conservation initiatives have come from intervention of the
judiciary. The Indian constitution has a provision for filing a ‘Public Interest litigation’ in the
court of law whereby any concerned citizen can move the court against any developmental
project which is likely to lead to environmental degradation or loss of biodiversity. Thus,
where politician and executive fail to protect biodiversity a common citizen can seek judicial
intervention. However, the key issue remains that of inadequate awareness of biodiversity
concerns and issues. As far as integration of social concerns in environmental decision
making is concerned, it is only very recently that a clause of `Public Hearing’ has been
incorporated in the EIA process. The intent, though good, is seldom effective as ‘Public
Hearing’ is taken by the project proponents as a necessary evil for obtaining environmental
clearance.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 21

Thus to conclude one can say that integration of environmental biodiversity and social
concerns have begun to find a place in the Indian EIA system but is not strong enough to
hold ground in face of vested interests who have the capability to influence decision making.

6.9 Biodiversity and EIA

The biodiversity issues in India to some extent have been guiding the environmental
considerations of projects even in the pre-EIA era. One of the earliest development projects
to have been strongly opposed by environmentalists and conservationists was the Silent
Valley Hydroelectric Project proposed in early seventies in the State of Kerala. The key
considerations that forced the Department of Environment, Government of India to take
the decision to shelve the project in 1983 were impacts on the highly rare and endangered
biodiversity values of the tropical rainforests. Subsequent ecological movements in the
country, opposed mining in Doon valley, construction of Tehri Dam in Garhwal Himalayas
and dams on the river Narmada in Central India and demonstrated the significance attached
to ecological and biodiversity issues in developmental planning (Shiva, 1991). Similarly the
Bodhghat Hydroelectric Project, proposed in the tribal belt of Central Indian forests in the
early eighties was shelved in the early nineties after environmental studies highlighted the
proposed risk of extinction of a population of a highly endangered Wild Buffalo (Bubalus
bubalis) from its Central Indian home range (WII, 1989).

Subsequent to the establishment of some EIA process in India, biodiversity considerations

have continued to gain prominence in the environmental appraisal of development projects.

6.9.1 Consideration of Biodiversity Issues in Assessment Procedures

The legal instruments and the mechanism adopted in the EIA process ensure to some extent
only that the biodiversity concerns are integrated in the various stages of the EIA
implementation.

Initial scrutiny by MoE&F

The initial stage in EIA includes the process of scrutinizing of all documents received by
MoE&F from the project proponent as part of the application submitted for obtaining
environmental clearance.

The environmental appraisal questionnaire forms an integral part of the documents

submitted to MoE&F along with the application for seeking environmental clearance. The
format of this questionnaire provides a definite scope for seeking information on several
parameters that address biodiversity issues related to developments in different sectors
(Table 4).

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 22

Table 4 Biodiversity-related information required in environmental appraisal for
different sectors
Sector Information required
Common information • Information on forests, marshes and mangroves and the current
requested in appraisal landuse of proposed project site.
questionnaires of all sectors • Area and aerial distances of the features like National Park/Wildlife
(Industry, Thermal Power, Sanctuary, Tiger Reserve, Elephant Reserve, Turtle Nesting Ground,
Mining, River Valley and Core Zone of Biosphere Reserves, habitat for migratory birds, lakes,
Hydro Projects, Hotels and streams reservoir, estuary/sea mangroves and mountain/hills, within
Tourism in Coastal Areas, 7 km periphery of project site.
Roads and Highways) • Description of fauna within 7 km covering listing of faunal elements,
endemic faunal species, endangered species, migratory species,
route of migratory species of birds and mammals.
• Details of aquatic fauna.
• Description of flora within 7 km periphery, plantation, natural
vegetation/forest type, grasslands, endangered sp., endemic species
Specific information
requested in different
sectors
Industry • Description of forest land, river, lake, estuary, sea, green belt, fallow
and agricultural land at the point of effluent discharge
Mining • Description of land-use, river, lake, estuary and sea at the point of
final discharge of mining effluents.
• Identification of species in core and buffer zones of mining project
and consultation of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 as amended
subsequently for listing of species with common name, scientific
name and position in various Schedules of Wildlife Protection Act.
• List of flora & faunal species authenticated by Chief Wildlife Warden
of the state.
River Valley • Information on land-use at the site of main dam structure,
submergence area, canal network, township, settlement and any
other facility
• Description of fauna within 7 km periphery with additional information
on species of economic significance, species of special interests to
local population or tourists, aquatic fauna of commercial/recreational
value and migratory fish species along with their spawning ground.
Hotels, Resorts and other • Information on sand dunes and `No Developmental Zones’ under
projects in Coastal Zone different land-use.
• Categorizations of project site into Coastal Regulation Zone
categories
• Description of breeding and nesting ground of aquatic organisms.
• Information on the conservation status of the trees to be removed
and mangroves to be cleared.
• Area and aerial distance of core zone of Biosphere Reserve,
reserved forest, wildlife habitat, habitat of endangered/exotic species,
coral reef within 7 km of the periphery of the project site

For the original questionnaires, refer to MoE&F (1999). Application form and questionnaire for
environmental clearances. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New
Delhi and the website [Link]

Based on the nature of the preliminary information elicited through the questionnaires, the
importance value of biodiversity components and the requisite levels of detail required are
evaluated by MoE&F. EIA reports are then examined for their comprehensiveness in terms
of coverage of the issues flagged up by MoE&F.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 23

Some key information sources such as the National Wildlife Database on National Parks,
Wildlife Sanctuaries and Biosphere Reserves, Red Data Books on Endangered Plants and
Animals following IUCN guidelines, the IUCN listing of Threatened Species and the list of
species protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act (1972) and the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) form
important references for MoE&F during the initial phase of scrutiny. These information
sources greatly help in establishing the biological significance of the project area in terms of
its status as a biodiversity hotspot, habitats of rare and endangered species and the Protected
Area Network. They also help in evaluating the conservation status of species in the project
area in terms of rarity, threat, endangerment, restricted distribution or endemism and in
flagging up biodiversity values for consideration at the time of initial scrutiny, even in the
absence of adequate information initially put forth in environmental appraisal questionnaire.

6.9.2 Existing sources of information and databases on biodiversity

The problems of predicting impacts on biodiversity values in less well-known areas outside
the Protected Area Network that could also be critically important for conservation often
becomes evident during the initial scrutiny by MoE&F. In the absence of reliable, relevant
and comprehensive documentation on biodiversity status for the area of interest, EIA
studies become the only means to interpret the conservation significance of such areas for
consideration in the appraisal of the project. Over the years, through institutional efforts at
the country level, information on diverse aspects of biodiversity is being increasingly
generated to provide appropriate ecological reference points to initiate EIA studies. Some
of the major institutional contributions in generating key information on biodiversity aspects
that could serve both as bench marks for scoping phase of EIA and a tool kit for initiating
baseline studies are presented in Table 5.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 24

 5 Major institutions contributing to information on biodiversity
Aspect of Biodiversity Institution Significant Outputs
Species diversity, floral inventories, Botanical Survey of India with its Regional and State Flora
checklists and status surveys of the 9 regional centers Red Data Book of endangered
endangered species at a National plants
level
Taxonomic studies and status Zoological Survey of India with Faunal checklists, inventories
survey of faunal resources of the its 16 regional centers and status survey reports
country
Forest Diversity • Forest Survey of India, Forest cover maps and status
Dehradun reports, database on forests of
• Indian Institute of Remote different regions of the country,
Sensing, Dehradun forest resource maps and
• French Institute , vegetation maps, maintenance
Pondicherry of national library and
• Indian Council of Forestry information for forestry
Research and Education,
Dehradun
Forest Diversity of Eastern and • Salim Ali Institute of Status Survey Reports,
Western Ghats Ornithology and Natural Documentation of floral
History (Coimbatore) diversity of Western Ghat and
• Tropical Botanical Garden Eastern Ghat Forests,
and Research Institute Extensive database on
(TGBRI), Coimbatore distribution and conservation
• Kerala Forest Research status of floral and faunal
Institution, Peechi, Kerala species.
• Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun
• Regional centers of
Zoological and Botanical
Survey of India
• Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore
• Indian Institute of Remote
Sensing, Dehradun
• Centre of Ecological
Sciences, Bangalore
Mountain Diversity

Himalayan Diversity G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Published reports and

Environment & Development, monographs on diversity of
Almora mountains ecosystems and
status reports on mountain
North-eastern diversity Regional centers of Zoological species
Survey of India at Dehradun,
Shillong, Itanagar and Solan

Wildlife Institute of India,

Dehradun

Institute of Bioresources,
Shillong
Desert Biodiversity Central Arid Zone Research Inventories and Status reports
Institute, Jodhpur of desert flora and fauna
Wetland Diversity • Bombay Natural History Waterfowl census reports
Society, Bombay Research, monitoring and
• Salim Institute of Ornithology status report on aquatic
and Natural History, mammals, reptiles, birds and

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 25

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Coimbatore amphibians
• Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun Directory of Indian Wetlands
• World Wide Fund, New
Delhi
• Zoological Survey of India
Coastal and Marine Diversity • National Institute of Documentation of estuarine
Oceanography, Goa flora and fauna.
• Central Marine Fisheries
Institute, Barrackpur Identification and
• Zoological Survey of India, documentation of Indian coral
Port Blair, Chennai, Kolkata reef diversity.
and Digha
• Botanical Survey of India, Database on Indian
Port Blair mangroves and marine flora
• M.S. Swaminathan and fauna
Research Foundation,
Chennai
• Madras Science Foundation,
Chennai
• Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun
Island Diversity • Zoological Survey of India, Inventorying and monitoring of
Kolkata biodiversity in Andaman and
• National Institute of Nicobar Islands.
Oceanography, Goa
• Central Marine Fisheries Documentation on coral reef
Research Institute, Goa diversity

Apart from these systematic sources of information on biodiversity resources of the various
regions and ecosystems, the Forest Working Plans of the State Forest Departments and the
Management Plans of the Protected Areas provide floral and faunal inventories of the area
within their specified administrative boundaries.

In addition to this pool of information that is available on various aspects of biodiversity,

there are two important national database centers – the Indira Gandhi Conservation
Monitoring Centre, New Delhi and the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. These centers
house computerized database on India’s biodiversity resources including indigenous plants
and animals species and habitats of conservation importance and a network of protected
areas in India (these centers can be visited at [Link]
and [Link]

One of the most comprehensive initiative for collection, collation, storage and retrieval of
scientific and technical information on specific areas of environment including biodiversity
and its dissemination in the form of reports, reprints, bibliographies, abstract, databases and
periodic bulletins is the establishment of a network of 25 nodes of the Environmental
Information System (ENVIS) in select organizations and institutions under MoE&F. Of
these, Zoological and Botanical Surveys, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Bombay Natural
History Society, Forest Research Institute, Wildlife Institute of India and G.B. Pant Institute
of Himalayan Environmental & Development represent some of the ENVIS centers that are
exclusively dedicated to the dissemination of biodiversity related information.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 26

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6.9.3 Adequacy of biodiversity data for meaningful assessment and mitigation

The existing information sources and data banks on various aspects of biodiversity are of
immense help in developing a broad framework for conducting EIA studies. Beyond this,
the disparate nature of information collected at various spatial scales using contrasting
approaches and methodologies in different time spans with wide variability both in terms of
seasons and actual locations cannot really substitute the need for a detailed study.

Existing floral and faunal inventories and status survey reports generally provide snap shots
of biological richness for areas at much larger scales than usually required for individual
projects and therefore have limited use in meaningful interpretation for project EIA.
Possible exceptions are hydro projects in larger river valleys and mineral exploration projects
in large forested tracts. At the same time status survey reports, resource maps, vegetation
profiles, animal census data, population estimates, species distribution records and floral
inventories provide some clues in selection of sites for conducting reconnaissance to define
study limits and determine the scope of studies for generating ecological baselines.

The secondary information sources certainly guide in selection of valued ecosystem

components within the project area. This becomes all the more useful for achieving a better
characterization of baseline conditions within limited time and funds available for field
studies. In some cases good, consistent and reliable secondary data sources are extremely
helpful in narrowing down the scope of work to accomplish more focused studies that help
in prediction of some key impacts on indicator species or valued ecosystems. Examples of
data sources that have been helpful in planning systematic baseline surveys are remotely
sensed data for detecting trends in forest cover extent, changing profiles of biotic and
anthropogenic pressures and vegetation and land-cover maps.

6.9.4 Relevance of field studies in biodiversity impact assessment

Consistent and regularly updated meta data on regional and local taxonomy and floristic and
faunal diversity of areas for country as big as and as diverse as India are almost non existent
to aid in the instant plugging of information on biodiversity profiles required almost
universally as part of baseline studies for EIA. In such a situation, though good baseline
studies are essential pre-requisites for ensuring reliability of primary data, yet most EIAs
reflect that the baseline information has been generally deficient because of lack of adequate
data inputs from field studies. Such EIAs defeat their basic purpose of ensuring informed
decision making . The professional ethics of the EIA practitioners, their will and the skill to
conduct field surveys, accessibility of key information sources and the availability of the
technological resources for undertaking EIAs primarily govern the levels of coverage of
biodiversity issues in EIA in India. This however is not a rule and extensive biodiversity
surveys have been an integral part of some good EIA studies in India. The results of these
biodiversity surveys have also effectively contributed to enriching the existing pool of
knowledge of the biodiversity of the country. These contributions are sometimes recognised
in the actual value additions in terms of new records or a new database but are more often
recognized in the validation and updating of the existing information base.

An EIA for the proposed 560 km long Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Project of the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. was conducted by a team of Wildlife Institute of India scientists in 1994.
As part of the ecological impact assessment, baseline studies were conducted to evaluate the

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 27

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

biodiversity values of key wildlife habitats within the pipeline route corridor. Based on the
macro level assessment six rivers, four marshes and three forest areas were identified for
ecological surveys within the pipeline corridor. The results of the ecological survey of the
Rupnarayan river in West Bengal confirmed the occurrence of river dolphin (WII, 1994).
The present distribution range of river dolphin in tributaries of river Ganges did not include
this river. This value addition to the existing biodiversity data was significant with respect to
river dolphin distribution in Asia and was of immense interest to IUCN’s Cetacean Group
for updating information on river Dolphin Status in India and Asia .

The EIA-studies conducted for Sardar Sarovar Project in Gujarat (Sabins & Amin, 1992),
Tehri Hydroelectric Project in Uttranchal (BSI, 1990), Pipeline Project in Madhya Pradesh
(WII, 1993), Narmadasagar Project in Madhya Pradesh (WII, 1994) and Airport Project in
Mizoram (WII, 1997) have contributed in the development of biological resource inventories
and in the enhancement of ethnobotanical knowledge of various regions. While some of
these field studies have also helped in the standardization of modern computer aided
techniques like the habitat evaluation procedures developed by US Fish and Wildlife Service,
others have been significant in prioritizing areas to be recommended for upgrading to
Protected Area-Status (WII, 1993 and 1994).

It thus becomes increasingly important to ensure that the collection of baseline information
for prediction of impacts is adequately supported by scientific information generated
through systematic and well planned field studies in areas prioritized through a good scoping
exercise. This focus on the field component of EIA studies can be made more binding
through specific provisions of field studies in the ToR for EIA practitioners opting to
conduct Biodiversity Impact Assessment as part of the comprehensive EIA of the projects.
These ToRs should also qualify the expected outputs for better incorporation of desired
levels of biodiversity issues (gene, species and ecosystems) that are also in accordance with
their relevance in the impact statement of a given project.

6.9.5 Mitigation approaches for addressing biodiversity threats

The significance of biodiversity impacts as established through spatial and temporal
dimensions of impacts and the conservation values of the biodiversity resources of the
receiving environment have determined to a large extent the choice of mitigation
approaches. Some flexible approaches have been adopted to rationalize the criteria for
determining the conservation significance of biodiversity resources in India but all of these
essentially incorporate the rationale behind the already laid down criteria (Ratcliffe, 1977 and
Margules and Usher, 1981) being globally adopted. The mitigatory approaches generally
adopted are guided by the considerations of significance of impacts and may include
preventing, and ameliorative strategies demanding a ban on the proposed activity,
replacement/restoration of values likely to be lost and ecological compensations, by way of
creating new Protected Areas. The incorporation of mitigation measures recommended for
implementation of projects in India as part of EIA have met with varying degrees of success.
The key factor that has influenced the successful implementation of mitigatory measures is
the lack of assessment of the technological, ecological, financial, operational and
administrative feasibility of recommended mitigation measures.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 28

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

In such a situation the projects that are cleared with specific conditions stipulated for
mitigation of biodiversity impacts are actually implemented with either no mitigation
measures incorporated or with mitigation of impacts attempted only partially. The projects
that have adequately addressed the biodiversity issues through sound mitigation planning are
only few.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 29

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Table 6 summarizes the evaluation of EIA system with respect to integration of biodiversity
concerns. The subsequent section provides illustrative examples of contrasting scenarios of
biodiversity integration in the Indian EIA system.
Table 6 Evaluation of the EIA System from a Biodiversity perspective
EIA Process Evaluation Criteria Current practice
Application To plan, policy & programs x
To projects
As mandatory requirement
As funding requirement ∅
Provision for EIA Legal instruments
Policy recommendations
Sectoral environmental guidelines
Category of Projects All x
Select (based on legal provisions)
Coverage of all projects with significant impact
potential
Scrutiny/Screening Legal instruments
Requirement under process ∅
Availability of expertise
Public involvement x
Scoping Legal instruments x
Availability of documentation ∅
Based on secondary information
Based on primary information ∅
Availability of expertise & experience ∅
Public involvement x
Impact Prediction At gene level x
At species level ∅
At ecosystem level ∅
Adequacy of primary data ∅
Adequacy of secondary data
Availability of methodology ∅
Public involvement ∅
Mitigation Adequacy of mitigation measures ∅
Conduct of feasibility analysis ∅
Status of ecological feasibility ∅
Status of technological feasibility ∅
Status of financial feasibility ∅
Status of operation feasibility ∅
Public support in mitigation planning
∅
Review of EIA At state level ∅
At federal level x
Independent process x
Decision Making Incorporation of biodiversity conservation ∅
Final Outcome Implementation of mitigation ∅
Monitoring Local x
State ∅
Regional ∅
Monthly x
½ yearly
Incorporation of corrective measures ∅
Post Project Review Mandatory x
Forced by public invention ∅
Forced judicial intervention ∅
Environmental Auditing Legal requirement x

( - Yes x - No ∅ - Partial)

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 30

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6.10 Illustrative case studies: EIA projects

6.10.1 Integration of Biodiversity Concerns in the EIA of Narmada Sagar

Multipurpose Dam Project

This case study demonstrates a good example of integration

of biodiversity concerns through the development of
appropriate, effective and feasible mitigation measures.
This case study is based on detailed EIA study conducted by
the authors who were the Principal Investigators of this study.

Project location
The Narmada Sagar Multipurpose Dam Project is one of the series of projects in the
Narmada Valley. It is located across river Narmada near Punasa village (latitude 220 17’ N
and longitude 760 28’ E) in Khandwa district of Madhya Pradesh State Figure 3).

3 Location of Narmada Sagar Project

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 31

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Project proponent
The Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA), a wholly owned subsidiary of the
State Government of Madhya Pradesh was appointed as the project implementation agency.
Narmada Control Authority, a statutory body under the Central Government was entrusted
with the responsibility of planning, implementation and monitoring of environmental
safeguards.

Project proposal
The Narmada Valley Project is the single largest river valley development project that
envisages the construction of 30 major dams on river Narmada and its tributaries.

Of these, the Narmada Sagar Project (NSP) is one of the two large dam projects on river
Narmada. The project involves construction of a 91.4 m high concrete dam. It will have an
installed capacity of 1000 MW and an irrigation potential of 1,23,758 ha. The project will
submerge 91,348 ha of land of which 40,332 ha is forested land and the remaining 44,363 ha
is cultivable land. The project also involves a displacement of 1,50,000 people living in 254
villages in the submergence area. The total cost of NSP was estimated to be Rs. 25,000
crores or US$ 5435 million.

Project alternatives
Initially, the project proposal was conceived on the basis of the Master Plan for water
resources in the Narmada Basin, developed by a Committee appointed by Government of
India. This Master Plan could not be accepted as it failed to resolve the conflict on sharing
of waters between the different States involved. Finally, the Narmada Water Dispute
Tribunal (NWDT) was set up in 1969 to develop the integrated project plan for harnessing
the waters of Narmada. The NWDT award fixed the location of the dam, its height and
other parameters with major considerations of optimizing the benefits of (power and
irrigation potential) from the project. In the location of the project, biodiversity issues and
the social economic consideration found no place . Consequently, this project has been
mired by the controversy of ‘Large Dams v/s Small Dams’ on account of large scale
environmental, ecological and social impacts and has been quoted as the `world’s greatest
planned disaster’ (Goldsmith & Hildyard, 1984). Following this, the issue of alternatives to
this mega dam project became more contentious than the design alternatives.

Characteristics of the development area in terms of biodiversity

The Narmada and its forests are a unique river system in the Central Indian highlands.
Originating on the plateau of Amarkantak in Shahdol district of Madhya Pradesh, the river
Narmada winds its 1,312 km long way to the Arabian sea through forested hills, agriculture
plains and narrow rocky gorges. Its countless tributaries, and a basin bounded by mountain
ranges (Satpura, Vindhyan and Maikal ranges) have shaped the river valley that is a home to
over 20 million people, mostly tribals with forested habitats for many aquatic, riparian and
terrestrial plant and animal communities.

The floristic and faunistic values of the project area are characteristic of the typical Central
Indian well-drained forest ecosystem in the Vindhyan and Satpura Ranges. The forests in
this biogeographic zone comprise of dry deciduous teak (Tectona grandis) dominated forest

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 32

with miscellaneous forest species forming several distinct vegetation associations in the
project area.

The flora of the Narmada Sagar Project area comprises nearly 400 species of plant
representing 76 families of Angiosperms (WII, 1994). The vegetation displays a wide variety
of diversity in terms of structure, functions and associations. Though none of plant species
are listed as threatened or rare in the Indian Plant Red Data Book (Nayar and Sastry, 1987,
1988, 1990), almost all species have established ethnobotanical values and form an extremely
important resource base for tribal communities residing in the project area (WII, 1994). The
forests of the project area offer excellent habitats for a variety of Central Indian fauna. These
include herbivores such as Sambar, Chital, Nilgai, Chousingha and Barking Deer and
carnivorous species such as Tiger, Leopard, Wolf, Hyena, Jungle Cat, Fishing Cat and Indian
Fox. The other mammalian species found in the project area are Giant Squirrel, Common
Langur, Rhesus Macaque, Mongoose and Indian Civet. The Indian Otter represents that
only aquatic mammal of conservation significance. Fresh Water Turtles and Mugger
Crocodile represent the major reptilian species. The avian diversity is represented by 209
birds recorded from the project area (WII, 1994).

Availability of biodiversity information

This EIA study was perhaps the first of its kind in India to have been undertaken as a long
term study for generating a systematic, comprehensive and precise baseline for evaluation of
biodiversity impacts of the project. Over 200 references on various aspects of biodiversity
including detailed methodologies for inventorying, monitoring, modelling of biodiversity,
study of biological communities and records of distribution, abundance and status of species
were available to provide secondary information for planning a field based study. Some of
key information sources that were of particular relevance for floristic and vegetation studies
in the project area included the classic works of Champion and Seth (1968); Gaussen et al.
(1970), Brandis (1972) and Puri et al. (1983). Ethnobotanical information was available from
studies of Jain (1963a; 1963b; 1964; 1965a; 1965b; 1981a; and 1981b), Caius (1986),
Oommachan et al. (1987, 1988 and 1989), Prasad and Pandey, 1987 and Prasad et al. (1988).
Site-specific information on terrestrial wild mammals, aquatic vertebrates and avifauna was
available from the working plan records of the State Forest Deparment and from several
checklists of animals, birds, reptiles and fishes (Daniel, 1983; Ali and Ripley, 1986;
Jhingaran, 1991). Habitat Suitability Index Models developed for a wide range of species by
USFWS and the Habitat Evaluation Procedures developed by USDI, (1980a & b) were
particularly relevant and important sources for developing similar approaches for the
baseline studies.

EIA process
The EIA practice adopted for this project was a deviation from the EIA process that was
in place since the promulgation of EIA Notification. This deviation was on two counts –

1. The environmental clearance to this project was granted in 1987, without an

EIA. Following this, Planning Commission also granted the investment
clearance in 1988, paving way for the implementation of the project.

2. As per the conditions stipulated at the time of grant of environmental

clearance the environmental impact assessment studies were required to be

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 33

 accomplished to implement the environmental safeguards pari-passu (i.e.,
conducting environmental assessment studies concurrently with construction
work on dam).

With this condition, the role of EIA shifted from that of aiding in decision making to that of
aiding in environmental planning of the development project. Narmada Control Authority,
a statutory body of the Central Government, which was made responsible for the
implementation of the safeguards, identified the major parameters for environmental impact
assessment of this project.

The study of the flora and fauna of the area was one of the directives of Narmada Control
Authority to incorporate the safeguards for the protection of biodiversity resources of the
project area. This floral, faunal study along with attendant human aspects was undertaken by
a team of scientists from Wildlife Institute of India, as a three-year project supported by
funds from Narmada Valley Development Authority. The following were the specific stages
in the EIA study conducted:

Scoping: Based on the scope of work defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the
study, reconnaissance studies were undertaken in the project area to determine the
boundaries for the biodiversity surveys and scope of detailed field investigations. Finally, the
following areas were defined for inclusion in the study area:

(i) Forest area under submergence

(ii) Forest area outside submergence
(iii) Islands under proposed submergence
(iv) Randomly selected villages from within the different clusters identified on the basis
of socioeconomic parameters

The scope of the baseline studies in these areas included (i) study of plant communities
(floristic, phyto-sociology and ethnobotany) (ii) evaluation of the wildlife habitat quality (iii)
distribution and status of major faunal components in the project area and (iv) socio-
economic profile of the local communities as determined by their dependence on
biodiversity resources.

Impact Evaluation: This aspect of EIA was accomplished by conducting extensive field
studies spanning over three years and adopting a blend of robust and well established field
techniques, and computer based predictive techniques involving the use of Remote Sensing,
Habitat Evaluation Procedures and GIS applications.

On the basis of the baseline information generated from field studies the following impacts
on biodiversity were considered significant:
Submergence of 175 species of plants belonging to 138 genera and 65 families recorded
during the floristic survey of the Narmada Sagar Project.
The submergence of 403.32 km2 of wildlife habitat leading to a direct loss of 99 habitat
units of Chital and 80 Habitat Units of Sambar.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 34

 Reduction in home ranges of ungulates species such as Chital, Sambar, Nilgai, Chinkara,
Chausingha, Barking deer and Wild boar and changes in the territory size of Tiger and
Leopard due to submergence of wildlife habitats.
Direct impacts on food availability and feeding ecology of Primates and Giant Squirrels
due to clearance of vegetation in the submergence zone.
Direct and irreversible loss in the avian diversity of the area currently represented by 209
bird species belonging to 53 families due to submergence of woodland habitat and
inundation of small rivers & streams.
Loss of habitats of Fishing Cat due to the submergence of Kitti group of islands.
Changes in migration patterns, home range, breeding and denning sites of Otter due to
fluctuations of water levels downstream of dam, habitations in the upstream habitats and
disturbance in draw down areas of the reservoir.
Overall decline in biodiversity resources due to increased biotic pressures and physical
disturbances associated with peripheral developments outside the submergence zone and
the consequently lowered biodiversity value.
From the results of the social survey it become evident that irrespective of caste,
landholding size and occupation pattern, the project affected people would suffer a
substantial drop in their income.

Mitigation: considering that the wildlife species (floral and faunal) and vegetation
associations found in submergence area are not unique to the project area, compensatory
and restorative approaches were recommended for restoration of the lost biological values
and their habitats. These included :
Creation of three new Protected Areas – Narmada National Park (496.70 km2),
Surmanya Sanctuary (126.67 km2) and Omkareshwar Sanctuary (119.96 km2)
comprising of a total area of 788.57 km2 has been recommended to fulfil the twin
objectives of conserving wildlife in remnant areas and providing sustenance to forest
dependent communities. The recommended alignment of the proposed PA boundaries
that included a part of the reservoir ecosystem, the largest forest island, the draw down
areas and contiguous forests provided some special features to the PAs along with a
good mix of habitats with concomitant floral and faunal values. Appropriate
management interventions in the fringe forests and the draw down areas were suggested
to enhance the overall habitat values over a period of time.
Restoration and translocation of the otter and aquatic reptiles to several vacant niches in
Central Indian river or within the suitable stretches of Narmada both upstream and
downstream was also included in the mitigation plan.
For ensuring the sustained use of biological resources by the local people, measures for
the enhancement of existing biodiversity resource base for the local people were
suggested. These involved viable rehabilitation and resettlement packages alongwith
implementation of ecodevelopment strategies and Joint Forest Management (JFM)
initiatives for mitigation planning.

Monitoring: The Government of India constituted a Narmada Control Authority (NCA),

a statutory body comprising of State representatives and other government departments and
scientific institutions for monitoring the progress in implementation and compliance of
environmental safeguards included in the Action Plans for mitigation of environmental,
social and biodiversity impacts of the project.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 35

The mitigation plan suggested by the Wildlife Institute of India to address the biodiversity
impacts has been accepted by the project proponent and accordingly, the State Forest
Department is in the process of notifying the three new Protected Areas. The State Forest
Department has also got prepared a ‘Forest Harvesting’ plan which ensures that wild animals
would be provided a safe passage through a corridor when the actual submergence takes
place.

The legal framework governing settlement in the State of Madhya Pradesh clearly stipulates
that the land lost to submergence must be compensated by grant of land. As on today
project authorities have not been able to identify the land. Instead the project authorities
have tried to influence people to accept cash compensation in lieu of land. In this scenario,
large populations have been uprooted from their homesteads and have been deprived of the
cultivable lands and the resources that sustained their basic socio-economic needs. The
reduction in their income is substantial, notwithstanding the commitment of the project
authorities to provide economic benefits to the project affected people of the dam.

The other significant flaw in the consideration of environmental safeguards of NSP was the
isolated approach to view impacts of individual projects in a single basin. This approach has
clearly neglected the consideration of chain of impacts that affect the economic viability of
multiple projects, the ecological integrity of the river valley ecosystem and the survival of
wildlife species in a completely altered habitat, modified by pressure of displaced and
resettled population within the same valley.

Final outcome and lessons learned

The project area is a part of the large Central Indian landscape dominated by dry deciduous
forests and characterized by the presence of tribal communities directly dependent on the
natural resources for food, shelter and employment. A major conflict arises between
development and biodiversity conservation when development projects are located in the
wilderness areas because such projects impact upon prevailing patterns of allocation of land
and resources to people and interfere with various forestry and wildlife conservation
objectives. The lifestyles of the people living in forested regions, however, continue to be
substantially dependent upon forest biomass resources. Usually, therefore, when sizeable
further diversion of forest result from the implementation of such projects, the residual
forest area in the tract comes under even greater pressure, compounding the impacts. The
river valley projects invariably alter the social fabric of local communities, affecting their
indigenous lifestyles and culture and accelerate the transition to a market economy centred in
big towns.

This case study has shown that mitigation has to be a continuing obligation to be carried out
during the implementation of the project and not a post facto token acknowledgement of
some ‘unfortunate disruption’. It is also to be acknowledged that while it may be possible to
mitigate some losses relating to species and habitats, mitigation of the social impacts on the
‘Project Affected Persons (PAPs) is complex and difficult especially in view of the very
number of people who would be displaced. The poor track record of the planning and
implementation of the Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R and R) packages in development
project also needs to be seriously considered. Thus on account of the large scale ‘social

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 36

disruption’ involved in river valley project including this one, the approach towards
construction of large dams needs to be carefully reviewed.

The efforts towards development of this dam have stirred the people’s movements against
dams in India and in other parts of the world. The controversies that now surround these
dams on Narmada have challenged the dominant model of development that holds
chimerical promises of economic prosperity but perpetuates an inequitous distribution of
resources and portends irreplaceable social, environmental impacts in which the biodiversity
concerns find a much lower priority. Despite this, in the present case, the acceptance of the
range of suggested mitigation measures to minimise biodiversity losses and their progress on
ground is a major positive fallout of this project.

References
Ali, S. and S.D. Ripley (1986). Compact Handbook of Birds of India & Pakistan. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.

Anon., (1994). Impact assessment studies of Narmada Sagar and Omkareshwar Projects on flora and
fauna with attendant human aspects. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

Brandis, D. (1972). Forest Flora of North West and Central India. Bishen Pal Singh and
Mahendra Pal Singh Publishing Co., Dehra Dun.

Caius, J.F. (1986). The Medicinal and Poisonous Plants of India. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur,
India.

Champion, H.G. and S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India. New Delhi.
Pp.404.

Gaussen, H, P. Legris, F. Blasco, V.M. Meher-Homji and J.P. Troy (1970). Notice de la Fenille.
Satpura Mountains. De L’institut Francais de Pondichery.

Goldsmith, E. and N. Hildyard (1984). Social and Environmental Effects of Large Dams, Vol. I.
Ecosystems Ltd., Camelford, U.K.

Jain, S.K. (1963a). Observation on the ethnobotany of the tribals of Madhya Pradesh,
Vanyajati : 177-183.

Jain, S.K. (1963b). The origin and utilization of vernacular plant names. Proc. Not. Aca. Sci.
33B: 525-530.

Jain, S.K.(1964). Wild plantfoods of the tribals of Bastar (Madhya Pradesh). Proc. Nat. Inst. of
Sci. 30: 56-80.

Jain, S.K.(1965a). On the prospects of some new and less common medicinal plant
resources. Indian Med. J. 59: 270-272.

Jain, S.K.(1965b). Medicinal plants of the tribals of Bastar. Economic Botany 19:236-250.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 37

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Jain, S.K.(1981a). Ethnobotanical research unfolds new vistas of traditional medicine. In:
Glimpses of Indian Ethnobotany, (ed. S.K. Jain), Oxford & IBH Publ., New Delhi.13-36.

Jain, S.K.(1981b). Observations on ethnobotany of the tribals of Central India. In: Glimpses
of Indian Ethnobotany, (ed. S.K. Jain), Oxford & IBH Publ., New Delhi. Pp. 191-198.

Jhingran, V.G. (1985). Fish and Fisheries of India. Hindustan Publishing Corporation (India),
Delhi. Pp.666.

Nayar, M.P and A.R.K. Sastry (eds.) (1987). Red Data Book of Indian Plants. Vol. 1. Botanical
Survey of India, Calcutta.

Nayar, M.P and A.R.K. Sastry (eds.) (1988). Red Data Book of Indian Plants. Vol. 2. Botanical
Survey of India, Calcutta.

Nayar, M.P and A.R.K. Sastry (eds.) (1990). Red Data Book of Indian Plants. Vol. 3. Botanical
Survey of India, Calcutta.

Oommachan, M., S.K. Masih (1987). Multifarious uses of plants by tribals of M.P. I -
Medicinal Plants. Indian J. Appl. and Pure Biol. 1: 23-27.

Oommachan, M., S.K. Masih (1988). Multifarious uses of plants by tribals of M.P. II-Wild
edible plants. J. Trop. For. 4: 163-169.

Oommachan, M., S.K. Masih and J.L. Shrivastava (1989). Ethnobotanical studies in certain
forest areas of Madhya Pradesh. J. Trop. For. 5: 182-196.

Prasad, R. and R.K. Pandey (1987). Survey of medicinal wealth of Central India. I - Potential
of indigenous medicinal plants in natural forest of eastern Madhya Pradesh. J. Trop. For. 3:
287-297.

Prasad, R., R.K. Pandey and S.P. Singh (1988). Survey of medicinal wealth of Central India.
II-Ethnobotanical studies of indigenous plants used by local tribals. J. Trop. For. 4: 236-241.

Puri, G.S, V.M. Meher-Homji, R.K. Gupta, and S. Puri (1983). Forest Ecology Vol. I & II.
Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi.

USDI (1980a) Habitat as a Basis for Environmental Assessment. United States Department of the
Interior, Division of Ecological Services, Ecological Service Manual, 101, Washington, D.C.

USDI (1980b) Habitat Evaluation Procedures. United States Department of the Interior,
Division of Ecological Services, Ecological Service Manual, 102, Washington, D.C.

WII (1994). Impact Assessment Studies of Narmada Sagar and Omkareshwar Projects on Flora and
Fauna with Attendant Human Aspects. WII-EIA Technical Report 9. Wildlife Institute of India

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 38

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6.10.2 EIA of Sankosh Multipurpose Project

This case example demonstrates one of the best examples of

integration of biodiversity concerns in development planning
through the application of timely corrective measures,
suggested after an independent review of an EIA that had
failed to capture the significant impacts of the projects on the
unique biodiversity values.

This case study is based on the review of the EIA of this project by
one of the authors (Dr. Asha Rajvanshi) who was a member of the
independent review committee of Government of India for this project.

The main rockfill dam under the Sankosh Multi-purpose Project is proposed to be located
on river Sankosh, 13 km from the Indo – Bhutan border near Kerabari in Sarbang
subdivision in southern Bhutan at a latitude 26o41’4”N and a longitude 89o55’55”E. The
left dam is located near Kalikhola at Indo – Bhutan border at a latitude 26o44’09”N and a
longitude 89o51’42”E. The canal proposed under this project will take off from the right
bank of the river at the lift dam and would traverse a distance of 13 km in Bhutan before
entering India (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Location of Sankosh multi-purpose project and the canal alignment

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 39

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

The Government of India and Royal Government of Bhutan conceived the Sankosh Project
after conducting the pre-feasibility studies in 1983 and entrusted the preparation of Detailed
Project Report (DPR) to Central Water Commission (CWC), Ministry of Water Resources,
Government of India in 1993 who in turn associated Water and Power Consultancy Services
Limited (WAPCOS), India to carry out the environmental impact assessment.

The project has been conceived as a multipurpose project with two distinct components viz.
(i) The storage project with a 265m high dam on river Sankosh along with a downstream lift
dam of 62.5m height with power generation capacities of 4000 MW and 60 MW respectively.
The storage reservoir with a water spread area of 6178 ha at Full Reservoir Level (FRL)
would have a gross storage capacity of 632.5 mm3 and live storage of 4456 m3. The lift dam
pond will have a gross storage capacity of 144 mm3 and would have a water spread area of
821 ha at FRL and (ii) The canal component of the project includes a 141.7 km of canal
that would take off from the right bank of the river at the lift dam for utilization of 348.3
cusec of water for irrigation of 0.4 million ha of land in India.

The reconnaissance studies conducted in 1983 by the Indo-Bhutan joint reconnaissance

team led to the preparation of the pre-feasibility report of Sankosh Project. After an in-
depth study of the regional, topographic, geological conditions and water availability, the
above project was conceived and the development of Detailed Project Report (DPR) was
recommended. Subsequently, the task of preparation of DPR was entrusted to CWC in
1993 and the DPR was prepared in 1997 after considering the best design alternatives and
maximum economic benefits in terms of both, power generation and irrigation potential.

Characteristics of proposed development in terms of biodiversity: Bhutan

Bhutan is a land locked mountainous country situated at the confluence of the major
biogeographical regions i.e. the Palaearctic and Indo-Malayan and is endowed with extensive
pristine forests harbouring a wide variety of floral and faunal species unique to this biological
‘hotspot’ of the world.

Of the total 7000 ha of forest land under submergence, approximately 5400 ha (77%)
comprise of sub-montane, temperate and sub – alpine forest. The semi evergreen forests in
the submergence area have dense tall canopy forests harbouring a wide variety of rare,
endangered and endemic species that characterize the ecology of the area. Around 1830 ha
of Phibsoo Wildlife Sanctuary fall under the submergence area which represents nearly 6.6%
of the total area of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary is a home to several species of threatened
fauna including the Elephant (Elephas maximus), Gaur (Bos gaurus), and Golden Langur
(Trachypithecus geei). The results of fish surveys conducted upstream of the main dam site
identified 21 species of fishes of which Tor tor is a Schedule I species under the Forest and
Nature Conservation Act 1995 of Royal

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 40

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Characteristics of proposed development in terms of biodiversity: India

The proposed 141.7 km canal will enter India after traversing 13 km length in Bhutan. In
India, the proposed canal would traverse through 14.5 km of core and 9.35 km of buffer
areas of Buxa Tiger Reserve (BTR). The canal would also traverse through Gorumara
National Park, Jaldapara and Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuaries covering 55.25 km of total
stretch of forests in North Bengal (Figure 4). The wildlife habitats enroute the canal represent
a composite stronghold for Elephant, Tiger, Rhinoceros and also serve as a vital corridor for
movement of animals between them and also between West Bengal, Assam and Bhutan.
The Elephant population of the wildlife habitats enroute the canal is a part of the four major
geographical zones of discontinuously distributed populations of Asian elephant.

Availability of biodiversity data and its use in impact prediction

Considering that the areas falling under the storage project and along the canal route
represent important biogeographic zone and include parts of Protected Areas in Bhutan and
India, their biological values are fairly well documented. The recent Management Plan of
Buxa Tiger Reserve and the National Wildlife Database on Protected Areas in India that is
housed in Wildlife Institute of India are the most important data sources that could have
greatly assisted in developing the biodiversity profile and ascertaining the conservation
significance of these habitats and the species in the corridor area. These references or the
list of any other documents consulted in the EIA study were ‘however’ not referred in the
EIA report.

The EA process adopted

Screening:This major water resource project with financial outlay of over US$ 10.86
million required mandatory EIA for obtaining environmental clearance. Also, since the
project involved two countries, an assessment of trans-boundary impacts became a major
requirement for obtaining clearance of the Government of India for implementation of this
joint venture.

Scoping: a preliminary scoping exercise was attempted by the EIA-consultants appointed

by CWC for the EIA of this project. This involved developing an exhaustive list of all likely
impacts based on as many sources as possible. The various disciplines of environment and
the likely impacts were drawn into matrix to identify critically important parameters for
developing the scope of the study. Since this matrix was not included in the report, it was
difficult to comment on the rationale and logic adopted for weighing the importance of
parameters selected for the study.

Impact assessment: the assessment of impacts was based on very broad understanding
of issues ascertained through the documentation of information on various parameters to
develop impact prediction. The assessment results not only failed to capture significant
biodiversity impacts but also clouded the judgement of significance of impacts by
hypothesizing post-project scenarios through ‘prophetic’ statements with little regard to
ecological concepts. Few examples of impact statement made in the EIA document are as
follows:
“Since the area falling in the submergence area is small and is the outer peripheral rim of
the sanctuary, the impact of reduction of animal habitat is likely to be insignificant.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 41

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Moreover, the primary animals are basically herbivores and do not have a strict territorial
dominance. Under these circumstances it is rather apparent that the shrinkage of the
sanctuary by about 6.6% will have no adverse impact on wildlife. However, the receding
of water will create mud flats which may provide suitable feeding sites for migratory
birds in autumn and spring”.
“The movement of elephants across the canal can be restored by seven bridges (50
meter wide and 200 m long) on identified location with appropriate measures to
camouflage the structures by giving earth cushion and growing vegetation so that these
bear close resemblance with natural corridors”.
“Tor tor, a migratory fish species may find it difficult to survive as their migratory route
will be blocked. But in the new ecological environment, fresh spout of species will be
witnessed. The lacustrine environment is also likely to be rich in biodiversity and quite a
few useful varieties of fish will evolve.”
Similarly, the assessment of the impacts of the canal through the forested area failed to
recognize the significant ecological impacts beyond those associated with physical activities
in the canal route, vegetation clearing and peripheral developments in the construction
phase.

Mitigation: The mitigation approach adopted was based on poor conceptualization of the
impact significance and therefore offered too simplistic options for mitigating a few of the
identified impacts on biodiversity. Some of the proposed mitigation measures included (i)
protection of the catchment area and the maintenance of its integrity through better
organization of the protection force (ii) development of the parts of catchment area into a
Wildlife Sanctuary for mitigation of biodiversity losses in the submergence area and (iii)
construction of bridges across the canal for mitigating the barrier impacts of the canal and
for maintaining the elephant movements along their identified migratory routes.

These mitigation measures have been suggested without any prior efforts of evaluating the
technical, physical, financial and operational feasibility of the measures proposed.

Acceptability of biodiversity survey techniques

Although the methodological approach adopted for the EIA study indicated that some
attempts were made to collect primary information by undertaking field based studies, the
report was silent on field techniques adopted and the time schedule, duration and locations
of the surveys.

Obvious omissions in terms of biodiversity impacts

The EIA of Sankosh Multipurpose Project failed to capture some of the most significant
threats and their long term implications on conservation of biodiversity resources. Some of
these include:
Destruction and spatial reduction of available habitat for unique & endangered wildlife
species within the submergence area would have direct implications on conservation of
biodiversity resulting from immediate loss of habitats of some of the unique and
representative species (elephants, rhino, gaur, hog deer and hispid hare) of this
biogeographic zone and the long term threats of their extinction.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 42

 The bisection of the forest corridor by the proposed canal would have serious
implications on the viability of populations of endangered species like elephant affecting
their long term conservation.
The 200 m wide canal through 55 km length of elephant habitats would pose a most
formidable barrier to the movement of elephants along their traditional routes leading to
manifold increase in man-animal conflicts.
Mortality due to accidental falls of elephants and other animals in open canals proposed
for alignment through natural habitat could be a direct threat to its population structure.
The canal would redefine the spatial distribution of tiger and its prey species and may
lead to increased incidence of tigers straying in surrounding villages for livestock
predation.
Population of rhinoceros and gaur would be adversely affected due to fragmentation and
reduction in their habitat by the canal network.

Final analysis of impacts and the environmental decision on this project

The biodiversity conservation issues linked to this project were so serious that the EIA
report prepared by the Water and Power Consultancy Services (WAPCOS) on behalf of
Central Water Commission in 1997 was subjected to strict scrutiny by an Expert Committee
constituted by MoE&F in 1997 specially for the environmental appraisal of the project in the
light of findings of EIA. The Committee met twice in the year 1997 to review the EIA
report and the DPR of the project and subsequently undertook site visit in 1998 to review
the project in the light of efficacy of the mitigation measures proposed to maintain the
contiguity of wildlife habitats. Based on their observations in the field and consultations
with wildlife experts and the past record of poor acceptability of artificial structures by
elephants for crossing over of water channels, the efficacy of bridges as crossing over
structures was not found to be convincing. Reported mortality of large numbers of species
due to accidental falls into canals and similar anecdotal incidences reported from canals in
other project areas (Sukumar, 1989; Johnsingh and Joshua, 1994) became other supportive
reasons for reconsidering the efficacy of proposed mitigation measures to overcome the
biodiversity impacts. In the final project analysis, the Committee felt that exploring an
alternative route for canal component of the project would perhaps be the only preventive
strategy for mitigating significant biodiversity losses. The CWC, the agency appointed for
implementation of the project reviewed the alternatives and confirmed that no other
technologically feasible and economically viable alternatives were available for route
alignment.

With only 342 MW of hydropower potential tapped of the estimated 20000 MW potential of
the water resources of the country, the Royal Government of Bhutan expressed keen
interest in the implementation of proposed dam component of the project and made a firm
commitment to effectively mitigate the project induced biodiversity impacts by enhancing
protection in remnant forest areas. Since the project would also have intended benefits to
India through reduction in power deficit, the MoE&F finally took the decision to
recommend the construction of the dam in Bhutan and reject the canal component in
August 1999. Such a trade off between biodiversity losses and economic benefits accruing
from multipurpose project demonstrated one of the best example of integrating biodiversity
concerns in development planning.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 43

References
CWC (1997). Detailed Project Report, Sankosh Multipurpose Project. Vol. XVII(A), Central Water
Commission, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India.

GOI, (1998). Field visit Report of Sankosh Multipurpose Project Ministry of Environment and
Forest, Government of India.

GOI, (1999). Minutes of the Final Meeting of the Expert Committee for Sankosh Multipurpose Project
held on 27th August 1999, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 44

6.10.3 Integration of biodiversity concerns into EIA of Mumbai- Pune Expressway
Project

This case highlights how environmental safeguards through

carefully developed mitigative measures for integrating biodiversity
concerns have been grossly violated during the implementation
phase of a major expressway project.
This case study is based on EIA study conducted by the authors who
were the Principal Investigators.

Project location
The Mumbai-Pune Expressway is aligned to connect Mumbai, which is the largest
commercial town in the State of Maharashtra with Pune, a nodal township also located in
the same State of India (Figure 5).

Pune Expressway Project

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 45

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

The Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC), a wholly owned

subsidiary of the State Government of Maharashtra were the project proponent. Funding
support for this project was obtained through loans from the State Government and other
financial institutions including international bank. The total cost of the project was Indian
Rs. 1600 crores or US $ 347 million.

The Mumbai-Pune Expressway Project was conceived to provide a major road alignment to
divert 60% of the total existing traffic of 13748 Passenger Car Unit (PCU) and a total of
43414 PCU of the projected traffic between Mumbai and Pune for the year 2020 for (a)
improving inter-urban transportation facilities; (b) boosting the economy of the state; and (c)
ensuring safe travel. The 87 km long expressway is the country’s first venture into the
development and operation of an international standard expressway on a ‘Build-Operate-
Transfer’ (BOT) basis. It has been aligned to provide 3 lanes in each direction with a 7m
wide road divider with 6 interchanges, 4 major bridges, 10 minor bridges, 15 viaducts, 21
subways, 19 underpasses and 9 tunnels. The route of the proposed project is aligned through
several ecologically important areas having significant biodiversity values (Figure 5).

Alternative expressway alignments

Several expressway alignment alternatives were explored by M/s Rail India Traffic and
Economic Services (RITES), the Transportation Consultants and Engineers for the project
to arrive at the most feasible route. Eight expressway routes and 3 transport corridors were
investigated in terms of lengths of tunnels and viaducts, steepness and length of grades,
construction costs and environmental considerations such as length passing through forested
areas, impacts on wildlife and proximity to human settlements. The option of widening the
existing National Highway (NH-4) between the two cities, Mumbai and Pune was also
considered. Finally, the alignment starting from Panvel bypass near Mumbai and running
almost parallel to the NH-4 and bypassing Khopoli, Khandala, Lonavala and reaching its
endpoint near Dehu Road, Pune was selected (Figure 5).

Characteristics of the development area in terms of biodiversity values

The most important ecological unit traversed by the alignment is the Borghat region of the
Western Ghats, which has received international recognition as one of the world’s 18
hotspots of biological diversity. This zone representing the Borghat region of the project is
a unique repository of gene pool and the cradle of evolution of taxa. The zone has unique
characteristics of the flora of Western Ghats. Besides this there are also present species of
Himalayan and Australian families (Jayaraman and Shanmugasundram, 1991).

Moist Deciduous Forests along high elevation in the valley, Semi Evergreen Forests along
the higher elevation and crestline, Grasslands and scrublands on the plateau and the coastal
belt in the expressway route offer a diversity of natural ecosystems and wildlife habitats. The
crestline forests consist of rare subtropical evergreen broad-leaved forests. The semi-
evergreen moist deciduous forests, and the high elevation dry deciduous communities on the
gentle slopes, support a very diverse assemblage of plant species. Nearly 9% of the 4500
species of flowering plants known from the Western Ghats are represented in the Borghat
region. The flowering plants of Khandala sub-region alone include 150 trees, 77 shrubs, 95

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 46

climbers and 434 herbs (Santapau, 1967). Several of these plants species are endemic (Nayar
and Sastry 1987 and Sanjappa 1991).

The project area is home to a large number of animals such as leopards, wild dogs, gaur,
Malabar Giant Squirrel, Bonnet Macaque, Common Langur and Palm Civet which are
amongst the significant mammals reported from the Ghat region. In addition, smaller
mammals like the Barking Deer, Mouse Deer, Common Mongoose, Black-naped Hare and
Pangolin also occur in the Ghat region. In the Western Ghats, 5 species of non-human
primates and 5 species of squirrels are represented. Of these, Slender Loris and Bonnet
Macaque found throughout the Western Ghat range and are also represented in Borghat.
Many of the species recorded from this region are highly endangered and are listed in
Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act of India. Two species that demand greater
conservation are the Malabar Giant Squirrel and the Mouse Deer, which inhabit specialized
habitats in the forested pockets of Borghat.

Conservation significance of Malabar Giant Squirrel is realised in the fact that it is an

indicator of habitat quality and because of their variable pelage colors Giant Squirrels can be
valuable indicator of genetically distinct populations of arboreal mammals. From the survey
reports that are available (Borges, 1992) the distribution of Malabar Giant Squirrel has been
established in the project corridor. Records of its distribution in the Borghat region of the
Western Ghats of Maharashtra, in Ulhas and Amba valley and Rajmachi foot hills have been
established.

The riverine forest along the water courses and the hill forests have diverse avifauna and
herpetofauna. A part of the study area also supports a variety of indigenous grasses and is
home to several species of reptiles, scrubland birds and smaller mammals.

Availability of biodiversity information

The floristic richness of the northern Western Ghats has attracted the attention of plant
taxonomists and ecologists for a long time. As a result of this, this region has become
perhaps one of the best studied regions of the country. With several institutions dedicated
to the studies of floral, faunal and ecological aspects of the region, the database on this
region is fairly comprehensive. Floral inventory of the Khandala area in the Western Ghats
(Santapau, 1967), research findings on plant wealth of Western Ghats (Abraham, 1986),
plant uniqueness (Jayaram and Shanmugasundram, 1991), endemic orchids (Kumar, 1986),
endemic trees (Nair, 1991), endemic legumes (Sanjuappa, 1991), endemic herbs (Sule, 1991),
endemism in Western Ghats (Nair, 1991), rare and medicinal plants of Western Ghats
(Sadhale, 1991) conservation significance plants of Western Ghats (Sastry and Sharma, 1991)
and Red Data Book of Indian Plants (Nayar and Shastry, 1987) are valuable sources of
information on plant biodiversity. The faunal wealth of the Western Ghats area of the
Maharashtra State has also been extensively documented by Jagtap, 1997. Extensive studies
on Indian Giant Squirrel (Abudulali and Daniel, 1952; Borges 1992), lizard diversity
(Murthy, 1983), amphibian diversity (Daniels, 1992) and bird diversity (Gole, 1997), are some
of the other key resources on biodiversity values of the project area.

All these studies above studies provided valuable biodiversity data and information for the
scoping and impact assessment process.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 47

EA process
The comprehensive environmental impact assessment for this project was undertaken by the
project proponents in 1996. Based on this EIA, the MoE&F conducted its first evaluation
of this project and turned it down citing the need to furnish additional information on the
feasibility of widening the sections of existing National Highway (NH4) in some sections in
lieu of additional land requirements and the feasibility of realignment to exclude areas of
conservation importance from the proposed route corridor. The clarifications submitted by
project proponents were reconsidered by MoE&F in 1997. One of the recommendations
following this review by MoE&F was the need to conduct an independent biohabitat
evaluation of the project area in view of the high conservation significance of the area
through which the proposed expressway was aligned. The biodiversity impact assessment of
this project was necessitated as an outcome of rigorous scrutiny of the initial project
proposal by MoE&F in two phases and to ensure the integration of the biodiversity
concerns in EIA.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 48

Scoping: The landuse features of the proposed expressway corridor are provided in Table
7

7 Land use and environmental features along the route alignment

S. No. Environmental Features Section I & II Section III & IV Section V & VI
and (27.57 km) (15.13 km) (43.74 km)
1 Length passing through types Panvel bypass to Sanjagaon to Kurwanda to
of terrain (km) Sanjagaon Kurwanda Pune bypass (W)

- Plain 25.50 2.10 36.49

- Hilly 2.24 13.03 7.25
2. Length passing through
various areas (km)
- Forest - 7.53 0.30
- Agricultural and grazing lands - 7.60 42.44
- Residential - - -
- Industrial (Isolated Unit) - (Isolated Unit)
3. Number of human settlements
- Towns - 2 1
- Villages 39 5 19
4. Industrial areas (within 10 km) Panvel, Rasayanj, Telegaon Pimpri-
Khopoli - Chinchwada
5. Water Bodies (within 10 km) Panvel and Lonavale Lake, None identified
Patalganga Rivers. Valvan dam,
Indrayani River.
6. River Basins through which the Patalganga river Indrayani, Ulhas, None identified
alignment passes Pauna, Amba
7. Ecologically sensitive areas None identified
- Mangrove wetlands Panvel-Khopali
- Fisheries Pauna lake
- Forest (diverse habitats) Western
- Endangered species Ghats(Giant
squirrel, mouse
- Biodiversity hotspots deer)
Amba Valley
- National Park Karnala (8 km
- Sanctuaries away from express Proposed Father
way) Santapau
sanctuary
8. Places of importance
- Tourist centre Madh temple Duke’s nose, Karla caves,
Rajamachi point. Lohgad Fort
Lonavale
- Hill and health resorts
9. Defence Installations - INS Shivaji (Naval -
Base)
10. Geologically sensitive areas Panvel flexure Prone to landslides -
(Source: RITES & SWK, 1995)

Based on the ecological features of the proposed expressway public consultation and
interpretation of conservation importance of the areas enroute, the following distinct areas
were recognized for assessment of impacts of the expressway on biodiversity values of the
region
1. A coastal ecosystem consisting of a mosaic of mudflats, mangroves and coastal
marshes in the intertidal zone and a chain of wetlands in the Panvel-Khopoli section

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 49

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

2. The Western Ghats in the Borghat region between Sanjgaon and Kurwanda,
comprising of hill forests and riverine forests along the water courses.
3. The Amba, Ulhas, and Rajmachi valleys that represent the areas under proposed
Father Santapau Sanctuary.
4. The Deccan plateau, grasslands and scrubland ecosystems between Lonavale and
Dehu Road.

Impact assessment
The following is a summary of the impacts predicted on biodiversity resources in the route
of the expressway:
The increased stress on the ecologically fragile landscape features would affect
biodiversity values
Lonavala Lake, a major water body in Lonavala township would become degraded due
to increased silt load
The proposed expressway route is likely to bissect the proposed Father Santapau
Sanctuary, which lies within the loop of the expressway southwest of Kandala Township
Landtake, clearfelling and deforestation activities would have a direct bearing on wildlife
habitat size and characteristics
The project would seriously degrade the habitats and disrupt migratory routes of a
variety of bird species such as thrushes, flycatchers, wood peckers and bulbuls.
The loss of critically important tall trees would result in the destruction of nesting sites
for a large number of birds of prey
The expressway would completely cut off the local people from the resource areas on
the opposite side of the carriage way.
The Amba Valley, along with some pockets of the Rajmachi Valley, is a repository of
rich and diverse floral and faunal species, many of which are endemic to this region. The
expressway, along the proposed alignment, would inevitably destroy the unique plant
resources of the valley, especially in the area designated as the proposed Father Santapau
Sanctuary.

Mitigation: The approaches adopted for the mitigation of the biodiversity impacts of this
project included the following strategies:
Design Modification
The predicted impacts were examined and two key mitigative measures were proposed. First,
the Ghat section of the alignment, which would have passed through the Amba Valley and
the Borghat Forests, was redesigned, such that the existing National Highway –NH4 would
be improved through that area, and construction would be restricted to the existing Right of
Way (RoW). Secondly, the road would also be realigned through the Lonavala lake area,
where it was originally designed to pass over the lake on piers, it would now skirt around it.
In the Western Ghat section, where the expressway alignment may lead to major impacts of
clearing of crestline forests and the grasslands of the Deccan plateau, tunnels will be used to
align the expressway so as to skirt the forests and prevent the fragmentation of the
landscape. The constructions of tunnels at locations in Santapau, Ulhas and Amba Valleys
will be effective in reducing the direct physical destruction of the ecological values of the
valley ecosystems, provided the secondary impacts of tunneling especially the disposal of
excavated rocky material on the downslope in the valley is kept in check and careful
identification and use of dumping sites for excavated material is made.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 50

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Enhancement of conservation status by establishing a wildlife sanctuary

Wilderness areas have traditionally been a resource base for subsistence based economy of
rural communities. Though as a result of continuous removal of resource base from the
natural stocks, these forests cannot be compared in their richness with the Protected Area
systems which have specially been designated to provide adequate protection for the
conservation of wildlife, they certainly represent the elements of a biogeographic zone that
are unique in rarity and endemism.

From the account of ecological importance of the natural systems en route the project and the
conservation significance that these areas command, the establishment of atleast one
conservation unit – a wildlife sanctuary, representative of the values of Western Ghat
systems in the Borghat area would go a long way in conserving the biological diversity of the
area. With the enhancement of its conservation status, the Ghat region will serves as an
important wildlife corridor connecting the Bhimashanker Wildlife Sanctuary in the north and
Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary in the south.

Monitoring: Given the political expediency in matters of large scale, high cost
development projects, the series of environmental safeguards and mitigative measures
proposed by the team of scientists and considered by the Ministry of Environment &
Forests and the State Government of Maharashtra at the time of granting the ‘environmental
clearance’ were given a ‘go-by’ during the implementation phase of the project. The
mitigative measures regarding construction materials handling, work camp operation and
similar other measures though defined in the contract terms and conditions/specifications
were not adhered to in practice and no compliance monitoring by the government agency
responsible for it was carried out. Thus, the provisions of the Environmental Management
Plan never got implemented.

Review and follow-up: despite the condition imposed by the MoE&F that construction
in the Ghat section of the Mumbai-Pune Expressway would be considered as a “new stand-
alone project as and when a biohabitat study is completed and submitted” the project
proponents started construction in the Ghat section. The conditional environmental
clearance also stated that `as part of the existing project, no new alignment will be
undertaken in the Ghat section’. Violating this condition the expressway has been
constructed along a new alignment. Another condition of the environmental clearance
which has been violated is that of use of forest land for dumping of over burden. The
dumping of rock and rubble excavated from the tunnel has been carreid out on forest lands
and in Amba Valley. The dumping of waste consisting of lakhs of cubic meters of earth has
been on pristine forest land and natural water drainage pathways and in a manner that would
result in its washing off into the forests during monsoons. Further, while the environmental
clearance stated that “adequate provision for infrastructures facilities i.e., water supply, fuel,
sanitation etc must be ensured for labourers during construction period in order to avoid
damage to the environment” labour camps have been actually constructed in forest areas.

Final outcome and lessons learned

This case study is a clear example of the utter disregard of the established EIA process.
Environmental safeguards suggested through carefully developed mitigative measures for
integrating biodiversity concerns have been grossly violated. This project which could have

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 51

been a ‘good example’ of the application of good conservation science backed by modern
construction technology and innovative approaches for incorporating the biodiversity
concerns in development project has been just the contrary. At the time of writing of this
case study the Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG), a Non-Governmental
Organization (NGO) has filed a writ petition in the High Court at Mumbai against the
blatantly unauthorized, unlawful and illegal activities of the project proponents seeking an
appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the permission for construction in the Ghat
section and removal of debris dumped on forest lands. The Hon’ble Court has appointed
the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur to conduct a
post-project EIA, perhaps the first one in India. The Hon’ble Court has however not
stopped the construction work. Much therefore depends on the NEERI’s report.

References
Abraham, A. (1986). Plant Wealth of the Western Ghats and the Need for its Conservation.
Proceedings of Seminar on Ecodevelopment of Western Ghats held during 17th to 18th
October, 1984 at Peechi, Kerala, KFRI Publication, 32-35.

Abudulali, H. and J.C. Daniel (1952). Races of the Indian Giant Squirrel (Ratufa indica).
Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, : 469-474.

Borges, Renee M (1992). The Status, Ecology and Conservation of the Indian Giant
Squirrel (Ratufa Indica). Draft Technical Report No. 1. INDO - US Project. U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, Wildlife Institute of India.

Daniels, Ranjit R.J. (1992). Habitat selection in Western Ghat amphibians: Implications for
species conservation. Proceedings of the First International Conference of the IUCN/SSC -
ISRAG . Zoo’s Print Issue XI Nov. 1992.

Gole, P. (1997): Birds. In: Biodiversity of the Western Ghats of Maharashtra- Current
Knowledge (ed. Ajit P. Jagtap). 122-130.

Jagtap, Ajit P. (ed.) (1997). Biodiversity of The Western Ghats of Maharashtra: Current
Knowledge. World Wide Fund for Nature - India. Pune.

Jayaraman, V. and S. Shanmugasundram (1991). An Overview on Perceptions and Practices

of Conservation with Special Reference to Western Ghats of Tamil Nadu. Kerala Forest
Department Publication, 300-313.

Kumar, C. Sathish (1986). Endemic Orchids of Western Ghats. Proceedings of Seminar on

Ecodevelopment of Western Ghats, KFRI Publications. 51-54.

Murthy, T.S.N. (1983): Recent records of some Lizards from Western Ghats, India.
Records of Zoological Survey India 80: 413-419.

Nair, N.C. (1991). Endemism on the Western Ghats with Special Reference to Impatiens L.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Rare, Endangered, Endemic Plants of Western Ghats,
No. 3. Kerala Forest Department Publication. 93-102.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 52

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Nayar, M.P and A.R.K. Sastry (eds) (1987). Red Data Book of Indian Plants, Vol. I, II &
III. Botanical Survey of India Publication, Calcutta.

Prater, S.H. (1980). The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay Natural History Society, Oxford
University Press, Bombay.

RITES & Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick, Consulting Engineers. (1995). Feasibility Study for
Bombay - Pune Expressway, Vol. - I, 2, 3 & 4. Government of Maharashtra Public Works
Department. Final report,.

Sadhale, A (1991). Studies on some Rare and Endangered Medicinal Plants of Western
Ghats of Maharashtra. Proceedings of the Symposium on Rare, Endangered, Endemic
Plants of Western Ghats, No. 3, Kerala Forest Department Publication. 237-245.

Sanjappa, M (1991). Endemic Legumes of Western Ghats. Proceedings of the Symposium

on Rare/Endangered/Endemic Plants of Western Ghats, No. 3. Kerala Forest Department
Publication. 30-43.

Santapau, H. (1967). The Flora of Khandala on the Western Ghats of India, Botanical
Survey of India, XVI (1).

Sastry, A.R.K. and B.D. Sharma (1991). The Significance of Western Ghats in Plant
Conservation. Proceedings of the Symposium on Rare/Endangered/Endemic Plants of
Western Ghats, No. 3.. Kerala Forest Derpartment Publication. 270-274.

Sule, R. (1991). Rare Endemic Herbs of Western Ghats with Reference to Kolhapur Forest
Circle. Proceedings of the Symposium on Rare/Endangered/Endemic Plants of Western
Ghats, No. 3. Kerala Forest Department Publication. 77-92.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 53

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6.11 Future actions to improve effectiveness of biodiversity conservation and

sustainable use
The merits and potential benefits of including Biodiversity Impact Assessment at the
conceptual stage of a project, programme and a policy development are perhaps more
appreciated by conservation community than others. However, the ground realities in most
developing countries which are currently struggling to develop economically, pre-empt the
mainstreaming of biodiversity issues in development planning. This has been aptly
demonstrated in the preceding case studies. At the same time most countries, including
developing ones, are also committed to conserve biodiversity and to adopt appropriate
policies for sustainable development. Urgent efforts and actions are therefore needed in
several articulating segments to make development truly sustainable. Some of the priority
actions in this regard are discussed below:

6.11.1 Conservation Awareness

Lack of conservation awareness about the need to conserve biodiversity values and the
necessity to pursue a path of rapid economic development is a dilemma faced by most South
Asian nations – India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh to name a few. The linkages between
biodiversity conservation and the sustained well-being of human societies needs to be made
more explicit to the industrialist, planner, politician and the likes in order to imbibe in reality
the fact that ‘biodiversity is a futuristic economic resource’. Thus, an awareness campaign
based on good science of conservation delivered through a variety of multi-media options
would have to be developed.

6.11.2 Enhancing Capacity

Capacity building through training, education and research for project managers, technical
specialists, reviewers and decision makers involved in the EIA process is an effective method
of increasing the standard of practice. However, presently such opportunities not high in
the agenda of most training and research institutions in India. Considering the increasing
importance of BIA for ensuring sustainable development, systematic efforts are needed to
develop a pool of competent scientists and professionals in the field of biodiversity
assessment and evaluation techniques with skills and capability for impact identification and
mitigation planning. A “Training of Trainers” programme for professionals in scientific
institutions and organisations is also needed. Sharing of expertise and best practices through
networking amongst individuals and institutions is a priority action. Further, despite the fact
that a large number of scientific institutions and organizations are engaged in the field of
biodiversity conservation in India, the availability of site-specific biodiversity information,
which could be accessed by EIA practitioners, project proponents while conceptualizing the
scope of EIA study is very limited. The decline in the number of ‘taxonomists’ is a
worldwide phenomenon and India is no exception. There are many plant and animal taxa
on which just a handful of taxonomists are available. The above situation needs to be
addressed through a variety of capacity-building measures. Setting up of biodiversity
databases and strengthening the ones which exist will serve to enhance the biodiversity
information base.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 54

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6.11.3 BIA Methodology

Though a few guiding principles which govern the development of methodologies for BIA
are in place, easy to use methodologies with clear guidelines and conceptual framework are
needed to firmly integrate biodiversity in impact assessment. This would demand new
initiatives in field research to attempt development of new methodologies for BIA and to
also tailor the existing methodologies available world wide for application in India.

6.11.4 Enabling Legislative Changes

At the international level, the need for Biodiversity Impact Assessment as a means of
integrating biodiversity issues into the early stages of planning process has been endorsed by
the Convention on Biodiversity Diversity (CBD), enabling provisions have to be made in the
country legislations so that they meet CBD mandates. However, before this happens, the
BIA methodology will have to developed, tested and refined to meet country specific
requirements.

6.11.5 Accreditation of Biodiversity Impact Specialist

One of the pre-requisite of ensuring the integration of biodiversity concerns in the EIA
process is the ‘selection of an EIA team which has appropriate technical and managerial
capabilities’. The involvement of suitably qualified and experienced biodiversity specialists
can have a significant positive influence on the coverage of biodiversity issues. Presently, in
India as also in most other developing countries there is no system of accrediting qualified
biodiversity specialists and institutions. As a result, EIAs are conducted by all and sundry,
invariably leading to a poor quality report in which biodiversity issues are either absent or
inadequately covered. One way to address this issue is to develop a system of accredition of
individual biodiversity specialists and institution for conducting EIAs. National EIA
Associations can play a vital role in planning, developing and implementing the Biodiversity
Specialist Accredition System. The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)
and the IUCN commissions (Special Survival Commission, World Commission on Protected
Areas, Commission on Ecosystem Management) can also provide valuable guidance in this
matter.

6.11.6 Regional and Sectoral Assessments

Developmental projects especially water resources and transportation projects which are
implemented at very large scales when subjected to a project level EIA can at best address
the mitigation of project impacts but options for avoidance through relocation or redesign
cannot be exercised. There is therefore a need to apply EIA tools at the sectoral and regional
level so that consideration of cumulative impacts on biodiversity that may be missed by
stand-alone project level EIA can be effectively addressed.

6.11.7 Effective public hearing

Public involvement in EIA has been introduced in India since 1997 only through enactment
of a Public Hearing Notification. The formal public participation currently in place in Indian
EIA system is in a rudimentary stage and requires substantial improvements. To make public
participation truly effective, it should be extended to all phases of EIA, from project
planning to final decision making and not be limited to just a one time exercise in the EIA
process, as is presently the case (Rajvanshi, 2000). Local community groups are invariably
users of biodiversity resources and so are knowledgeable about the status and trends of the

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 55

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

biodiversity resources, pressures on them and measures required for the conservation and
sustainable use these resources. Changes in the existing framework of public participation
are necessary to bring about the change from ‘ceremonial’ nature of public hearing to a more
‘meaningful’ contribution towards biodiversity conservation.

6.11.8 Independent Review

The EIA process in India has no provision for an independent review of projects which may
have significant impacts on biodiversity. Currently the expert committee appointed by
MoE&F is only a reviewing body whose consultation is contingent upon the felt need for
consultation by MoE&F. It would be better if a provision for a constitution of an
independent review committee is incorporated in the EIA process for review of all project
impacts. This will greatly help in strengthening the scoping phase by offering timely
suggestions in the planning stage of EIA. If this review is conducted at the policy/project
conceptualization stage, as is proposed in the BIA methodology, then it would be possible to
filter at the initial stage those projects which may have significant impacts on biodiversity
values.

6.12 Final Conclusions

The three case studies presented in this document have amply demonstrated the range of
variations which exist in the incorporation of biodiversity concerns in the development
planning and EIA system currently in place in India. The Sankosh Project is the best
example where biodiversity conservation issues have prevailed over the economic
development considerations. On the other hand, the Mumbai-Pune Expressway Project
highlights how even well conceived mitigatory measures and other environmental safeguards
incorporated in the environmental clearance document have been ignored during the
implementation phase of the project. The Narmadasagar Project demonstrates the balance
which can be achieved between the economic goals of development and the urgency to
protect biodiversity resources through the recommendation of effective mitigation measures
emanating from a well planned and scientifically conducted EIA study.

The key questions that remain central in drawing a futuristic plan for biodiversity
conservation are – How to ensure the incorporation of biodiversity concerns in the EIA
process in a sustainable way? How to prevent the violations of environmental safeguards by
project proponents? How to address the issue of capacity building for BIA?

Promotion of greater awareness, ensuring transparency in EIA process through information

disclosure to affected groups, enhancing local ownership and systematic development of
scientific capacities to conduct BIA are some of the important means of ensuring integration
of biodiversity concerns. Pressures from vested groups, political expediency, inadequate
appreciation of the biodiversity conservation values and the need for rapid economic
development will however always influence the incorporation of biodiversity concerns in the
EIA process. The best recourse is to bring in greater transparency and higher accountability
along with enhanced public participation in the decision-making process. Documenting and
disseminating successes and failures would also be helpful.

Most countries including India have taken the few initial and mandatory steps for protecting
biodiversity by ratifying the Article 14 of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 56

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

are also in the process of introducing appropriate procedures and arrangements for
conserving biodiversity but a long and arduous journey has to be accomplished for rooting
and institutionalizing the process of firmly integrating biodiversity concerns in the
development planning and environmental decision-making process.

6.13 Acknowledgements
We are grateful to [Link] Duthie, Task Manager for the Biodiversity Support Planning
Programme(BSIP), United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Nairobi and Dr.
Joanna. Treweek, Komex Clark Bond Limited, United Kingdom for providing us an
opportunity to work on this assignment. We are thankful to Mr. S.K. Mukherjee, Director,
Wildlife Institute of India for granting us necessary permission to participate in this global
endeavor of UNEP.

We appreciate Mr. Narinder Singh Bist, Mr. Mukesh Arora, Mr. Panna Lal, Mr. Rajeev
Thapa and Mr. G.S. Patial for rendering assistance in completing this assignment.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 57

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

6.14 References
BSI, (1990). Floristic Diversity and Conservation Strategies. Botanical Survey of India Publication.

Groombridge, B. (ed.) (1993). The 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 1vi +286Pp.

IUCN, (1996). Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN, (1997). Red List of Threatened Plants. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland.

Johnsingh, A.J.T. and Justus Joshua (1994). Conserving Rajaji and Corbett National Parks –
the elephant as a flagship species. ORYX 28(2).

Khoshoo, T.N. (1996). Biodiversity in the Indian Himalayas: Conservation and utilization.
In: Banking on Biodiversity, Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ed.
P. Sheggi).

Kothari, A. (2000). Planning for the future. India’s biggest environment and development
planning exercise. Frontline, December 2000.

Kothari, A., P. Pandey., S. Singh and D. Variava. (1989). Management of National Park and
Sanctuaries in India: Status Report. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

Lal, J. B. (1989). India’s Forests, Myth and Reality. Natraj Publishers, Dehradun, India.

Margules, C and M.B. Usher (1981). Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation
potential: A review. Biological Conservation 21:79-109.

MacKinnon, J and K. Mackinnon (1986). Review of the Protected Areas System in the Indo-
Malayan Realm. International Union for the conservation of nature and natural resources,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. Pp 284.

MoE&F, (1997). Draft National Action Plan on Biodiversity, Government of India, New Delhi.

MOE&F (1998). Implementation of Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity in India -

National Report, Government of India, New Delhi. Pp 60.

MoE&F (2000). National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan – India. Guidelines and Concept
Papers. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, October 2000.

Nayar, M.P. and A.R.K. Sastry (eds) (1987). Red Data Book of Indian Plants, Vol. 1. Botanical
Survey of India, Calcutta. Pp 367.

Rodgers, W.A., H.S. Panwar., H. S and Mathur, V. B. (2000). Wildlife Protected Area Network
in India: A Review (Executive Summary). Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 58

 CASE STUDY 6 INDIA

Ratcliffe, D. A. (ed.). (1977). A Nature Conservation Review. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Sabins, S.D. and J.V. Amin (1992). Eco Environmental Studies of Sardar Sarovar Environs. M.S.
University, 1992. Pp. 279.

Shiva, V. (1991). Ecology and the Politics of Survival: Conflicts over Natural Resources in India. United
Nations University Press and Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd. Pp. 365.

Sukumar, R. (1989). The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management. Cambridge University Press.
Pp. 251.

TERI (1999). TERI Energy Data Directory & Yearbook 1999/2000. Tata Energy Research
Institute, New Delhi.

UNEP (1995) Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme,

Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

WCMC (1992). Global Biodiversity. World Conservation Monitoring Centre London:

Chapman and Hall.

WII (1989). A Study of Impacts of Bodhghat Hydel Project Upon Wildlife and Related Human Aspects
with Special Reference to Wild Buffalo Conservation in Bastar. WII – EIA Technical Report 1.
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun.

WII (1994). Impact Assessment Studies of Narmada Sagar and Omkareshwar Projects on Flora and
Fauna with Attendant Human Aspects. WII – EIA Technical report 9, Wildlife Institute of
India, Dehradun. Pp. 213.

WII (1993). Impact Assessment of Haldia – Barauni Pipeline Project on Wildlife Values. Wildlife
Institute of India. Pp. 34.

WII (1997). Ecological Assessment of the Proposed Airport Site at Lengpui, Mizoram. WII – EIA
Technical Report 20. Wildlife Institute of India. Pp. 42.

UNDP/UNEP/GEF BPSP- Komex, September 2001 59