Rajesh, thanks. have lost your post from ml, so am
posting on previous one.
---You wrote-----
Tagging on MoEF's press release on NBSAP with
Kalpavriksh misdeeds on Lalkhet suggests that since
Kalpavriksh erred on Lalkhet, it must have done so on
NBSAP. That kind of syllogism is illogical without
going into details of NBSAP. Enemy's enemy is not
always friend, just as legal is not always legitimate.
At the very least, MoEF needs to explain how it was
monitoring its technical consultant, what it was doing
for close to 2 years after completion of the report
and make its scientific committe's findings public.
>From what I know, the NBSAP Committee included GoI
scientists and MoEF officials in their official
capacity. I would hazard a guess that this reaction by
MoEF is linked to Kalpavriksh questioning MoEF's
record of flawed EIAs and project clearances, and
MoEF's draft Environment Policy. For its Env Policy
draft and new EIA draft, MoEF has used consultants,
from my knowledge, very`market-friendly' ones.
--------------------
1. This cannot be about friends *or* enemies. MoEF &
KV are friends (KV did 3 cr job on NBdSAP) *and*
enemies (MoEF opposed Shekhar Singh on ABdP). KV is my
friend (I too bug MoEF re EIA) *and* enemy (Shekhar
singh & co SC matters messed up mpisg HC cases). MoEF
is my friend (wrote me a letter confirming IT Park has
no EIA, useful in my metroPD case) *and* enemy
(represented GoI on DUEIIP that pre-empted dmp2021,
was associated with USAID-sponsored MCD Act
amendments).
2. If it is illogical to comment on
National-Strategy-and-Action-Plan that Delhi-based KV
was paid 3cr to prescribe in context of subsequent
role of KV/shekhar singh in Aravali Bd last year, then
it is illogical to comment on all disconnect between
preaching and practicing. Legal is not always
legitimate but it is never open to anyone to presume
legitimacy about illegalities. Aravalli BD Park is
outside the legal boundary for Aravali ridge, while
GNCTD Mandi at Andheria Morh, Garden of 5 Senses, NGO
centre in Asola, etc, near-abouts are within it. KV
has been hassled about other EIA, etc, but what of
Aravali? it views Aravali illegalities as legitimate
urban Bd and ABdPark as Noah arc to save Aravali Bd
from that great flood?
3. GNCTD has to do but is delaying ridge
re-delineation. GNCTD is empowering DJB with control
over ground water (and most Aravali ridge is CGWA
notified). GNCTD has issued Public notice for EIA,
including public hearings, but has not presented any
proposals to MoEF for clearance. KV has been bugging
MoEF, but has no issues with the ecoNGO friendly
GNCTD? If GNCTD-MoEF equation is not resolved on
Aravali Bd, despite shekhar singh personal involvement
in some quasi-judicial capacity, is it not logical to
doubt the KV input-ed National Bd Strategy and Action
Plan?
4. Delhi ridge (and riverbed) had rare advantage of
DMP and CGWA notification imperatives, but these did
not feature in national policy/strategy/plan debates.
Has the KV NBdSAP discourse (plus direct interventions
like ABdPark) not pre-empted a holistic strategy /
action plan in Delhi? Who has to answer for that? MoEF
is not responsible by statute and has opposed ABdPark
in CEC matter. DDA has repeatedly written to GNCTD.
High Court passed a landmark judgment in case of
Sultangarhi and the mpisg ridge area case also
survives. CEC (and media) helped KV/Shekar Singh & ors
after the mall-plots next to ABdPArk were auctioned
for 1100 cr and foundation-stone for ABdPark belatedly
laid by LG and 4 MPs including 3 ministers
(CEC/Shekhar Singh did not even allow us a hearing in
context of our HC matter). Who has to answer for that?
I would say also KV.
5. On NBdSAP, MoEF needs to explain a lot more than
its press-note and what led to it. It needs to start
with explaining the need for a *national* strategy and
action plan when it is not sole national implementing
authority (and strategy and action planning are
implementation regimes not policy regimes). It needs
to explain how it KV came to be consultant for this by
global grant. those questioning WB interference in DJB
consultancy are prevented by friendship issues from
similar questioning about NBdSAP?
6. About the murky business of private consultancies
on national policy, etc, government and consultants
must both answer. Those who presume to be wiser than
government must answer even more. I have no doubt
that govt-NGO joint ventures for public policy are
full of intrigue and not even remotely driven by need
for policy. The MoEF press-note is unusual admittance
of goof-up and, with the Aravali case, allows a
logical demand that MoEF ditch NBdSAP till it is able
to justify need and not award any further
policy-consultancies till full details of the 3 cr
mess-up are made public along with consultancy norms
for future. I would sign up if anyone makes this
logical demand, but I have the feeling that no one
will make it.
The ABdPark usurps DMP residential land that is enough
for the mandatory EWS plots that that slum families in
the area have been demanding here since 2000, and
since 2004 with specific reference to the site in view
of ABdPark, also as suggestion in response to DMP2021
Public Notice. And, unlike the 3 cr endowment for
NBdSAP, it is not quite open to anyone to write-off
the damage in Lalkhet on account of ABdPark. As
chronicler, at least, i have cause to celebrate the
MoEF press-note, to remember Lalkhet and feel good
about the crumbs that fall my way when big guys fall
out. I have no cause to fret about details of their
petty fight over a so-called NBdSAP. And my interest
in the so-called NBdSAP is limited to the question (or
at least predicated upon the answer thereto): does not
the decision to re-do NBdSAP logically call for
re-doing Lalkhet?
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> NATIONAL BIO-DIVERSITY STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN
> SUBMITTED BY THE NGO ? KALPAVRIKSHA HAS BEEN
> REJECTED
> ? MINISTRY OF E&F - PRESS NOTE
>
> Ministry of Environment & Forests has clarified that
> the Consultant?s report, ?National Bio-diversity
> Strategy and Action Plan? submitted by an NGO ?
> KALPAVRIKSHA has been reviewed by a group of
> scientists appointed by the Ministry. They have
> concluded that the report is for the major part
> scientifically invalid. Hence, the Ministry has
> rejected the report and has started the process of
> developing the National Bio-diversity Action Plan,
> afresh.
> KALPAVRIKSHA was paid more than Rs. 3.00 crore as
> consultancy fees by the Global Environment Facility
> for preparation of this report. Unfortunately, this
> international assistance to India has not yielded
> the
> expected benefits.
> http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=12522
>
> ---Remembering Lalkhet---
>
> 2004:
> kalpvriksh shekhar singh, as SC empowered CEC,
> *approved* in june-july our Aravali Biodiversity
> Park
> -- outside designated Aravali ridge and while the
> proposal, usurping DMP housing land, was sub-judice
> in
> mpisg ridge area case. within the week pushta-like
> war
> was waged on 1000+ families in old communities in
> Lalkhet that had been seeking lawful relocation in
> spirit of NCMP besides DMP.
>
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/dmp2021/ncmp/h/n05s1a
> In their World Habitat Day celebrations in October
> sanjhaNGOs claimed evictions had stopped under UPA
> and
> demanded, in name of its NCMP, the DfID/NDA slum
> policy of in-situ upgradation.
>
> 2005:
> In june-july sanjhaNGOs were getting people in slums
> situated exactly on sites planned for low income
> housing to demand relocation to flats in small part
> of
> builder scheme on nearly 20 Ha of District Park near
> Tughlakabad (for which Public Notice was issued on
> 31.08.05, on eve of millennium-development-goals
> Poverty Concert of sanjhaNGOs and scheme start by
> December assured by Secy MoUD to SC Green Bench
> within
> the week, in the Yamuna matter). A larger
> identically
> illegal scheme of 21000 flats on land acquired in
> 2003
> in contempt of court was announced by GNCTD-MCD and
> around WHD 05, CM urged builders to chalk out a code
> of conduct for themselves -- at a FICCI do. Also
> gracing that was MoS for Urban Employment & Poverty
> Alleviation (the ministry for slum policy), while
> Left
> parties sought Sonia Gandhi?s intervention for a
> slum
> policy / law for in-situ, in name of NCMP (that
> promised no such thing) and in time for the
> sanjhaNGOs
> protest against DDA for not letting them be on its
> Board for the DMP2021 Public Notice.
>
> And the Aravalli Biodiversity Park is helping
> sell-well illegal VK malls and being used to
> discharge
> VK sewerage. The green is just the green of money
> that
> some make to give the city shit, and the great law
> of
> shit is the more you take the more you get.
>
> ---
>
> Celebrate tonight. by tomorrow sanjhaNGOs will be
> badmouthing MoEF for rejecting their *model* for
> shit
> in name of green while other sanjhaNGOs bad-mouth
> DDA
> to demand their slum policy in name of poor.
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
posting on previous one.
---You wrote-----
Tagging on MoEF's press release on NBSAP with
Kalpavriksh misdeeds on Lalkhet suggests that since
Kalpavriksh erred on Lalkhet, it must have done so on
NBSAP. That kind of syllogism is illogical without
going into details of NBSAP. Enemy's enemy is not
always friend, just as legal is not always legitimate.
At the very least, MoEF needs to explain how it was
monitoring its technical consultant, what it was doing
for close to 2 years after completion of the report
and make its scientific committe's findings public.
>From what I know, the NBSAP Committee included GoI
scientists and MoEF officials in their official
capacity. I would hazard a guess that this reaction by
MoEF is linked to Kalpavriksh questioning MoEF's
record of flawed EIAs and project clearances, and
MoEF's draft Environment Policy. For its Env Policy
draft and new EIA draft, MoEF has used consultants,
from my knowledge, very`market-friendly' ones.
--------------------
1. This cannot be about friends *or* enemies. MoEF &
KV are friends (KV did 3 cr job on NBdSAP) *and*
enemies (MoEF opposed Shekhar Singh on ABdP). KV is my
friend (I too bug MoEF re EIA) *and* enemy (Shekhar
singh & co SC matters messed up mpisg HC cases). MoEF
is my friend (wrote me a letter confirming IT Park has
no EIA, useful in my metroPD case) *and* enemy
(represented GoI on DUEIIP that pre-empted dmp2021,
was associated with USAID-sponsored MCD Act
amendments).
2. If it is illogical to comment on
National-Strategy-and-Action-Plan that Delhi-based KV
was paid 3cr to prescribe in context of subsequent
role of KV/shekhar singh in Aravali Bd last year, then
it is illogical to comment on all disconnect between
preaching and practicing. Legal is not always
legitimate but it is never open to anyone to presume
legitimacy about illegalities. Aravalli BD Park is
outside the legal boundary for Aravali ridge, while
GNCTD Mandi at Andheria Morh, Garden of 5 Senses, NGO
centre in Asola, etc, near-abouts are within it. KV
has been hassled about other EIA, etc, but what of
Aravali? it views Aravali illegalities as legitimate
urban Bd and ABdPark as Noah arc to save Aravali Bd
from that great flood?
3. GNCTD has to do but is delaying ridge
re-delineation. GNCTD is empowering DJB with control
over ground water (and most Aravali ridge is CGWA
notified). GNCTD has issued Public notice for EIA,
including public hearings, but has not presented any
proposals to MoEF for clearance. KV has been bugging
MoEF, but has no issues with the ecoNGO friendly
GNCTD? If GNCTD-MoEF equation is not resolved on
Aravali Bd, despite shekhar singh personal involvement
in some quasi-judicial capacity, is it not logical to
doubt the KV input-ed National Bd Strategy and Action
Plan?
4. Delhi ridge (and riverbed) had rare advantage of
DMP and CGWA notification imperatives, but these did
not feature in national policy/strategy/plan debates.
Has the KV NBdSAP discourse (plus direct interventions
like ABdPark) not pre-empted a holistic strategy /
action plan in Delhi? Who has to answer for that? MoEF
is not responsible by statute and has opposed ABdPark
in CEC matter. DDA has repeatedly written to GNCTD.
High Court passed a landmark judgment in case of
Sultangarhi and the mpisg ridge area case also
survives. CEC (and media) helped KV/Shekar Singh & ors
after the mall-plots next to ABdPArk were auctioned
for 1100 cr and foundation-stone for ABdPark belatedly
laid by LG and 4 MPs including 3 ministers
(CEC/Shekhar Singh did not even allow us a hearing in
context of our HC matter). Who has to answer for that?
I would say also KV.
5. On NBdSAP, MoEF needs to explain a lot more than
its press-note and what led to it. It needs to start
with explaining the need for a *national* strategy and
action plan when it is not sole national implementing
authority (and strategy and action planning are
implementation regimes not policy regimes). It needs
to explain how it KV came to be consultant for this by
global grant. those questioning WB interference in DJB
consultancy are prevented by friendship issues from
similar questioning about NBdSAP?
6. About the murky business of private consultancies
on national policy, etc, government and consultants
must both answer. Those who presume to be wiser than
government must answer even more. I have no doubt
that govt-NGO joint ventures for public policy are
full of intrigue and not even remotely driven by need
for policy. The MoEF press-note is unusual admittance
of goof-up and, with the Aravali case, allows a
logical demand that MoEF ditch NBdSAP till it is able
to justify need and not award any further
policy-consultancies till full details of the 3 cr
mess-up are made public along with consultancy norms
for future. I would sign up if anyone makes this
logical demand, but I have the feeling that no one
will make it.
The ABdPark usurps DMP residential land that is enough
for the mandatory EWS plots that that slum families in
the area have been demanding here since 2000, and
since 2004 with specific reference to the site in view
of ABdPark, also as suggestion in response to DMP2021
Public Notice. And, unlike the 3 cr endowment for
NBdSAP, it is not quite open to anyone to write-off
the damage in Lalkhet on account of ABdPark. As
chronicler, at least, i have cause to celebrate the
MoEF press-note, to remember Lalkhet and feel good
about the crumbs that fall my way when big guys fall
out. I have no cause to fret about details of their
petty fight over a so-called NBdSAP. And my interest
in the so-called NBdSAP is limited to the question (or
at least predicated upon the answer thereto): does not
the decision to re-do NBdSAP logically call for
re-doing Lalkhet?
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> NATIONAL BIO-DIVERSITY STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN
> SUBMITTED BY THE NGO ? KALPAVRIKSHA HAS BEEN
> REJECTED
> ? MINISTRY OF E&F - PRESS NOTE
>
> Ministry of Environment & Forests has clarified that
> the Consultant?s report, ?National Bio-diversity
> Strategy and Action Plan? submitted by an NGO ?
> KALPAVRIKSHA has been reviewed by a group of
> scientists appointed by the Ministry. They have
> concluded that the report is for the major part
> scientifically invalid. Hence, the Ministry has
> rejected the report and has started the process of
> developing the National Bio-diversity Action Plan,
> afresh.
> KALPAVRIKSHA was paid more than Rs. 3.00 crore as
> consultancy fees by the Global Environment Facility
> for preparation of this report. Unfortunately, this
> international assistance to India has not yielded
> the
> expected benefits.
> http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=12522
>
> ---Remembering Lalkhet---
>
> 2004:
> kalpvriksh shekhar singh, as SC empowered CEC,
> *approved* in june-july our Aravali Biodiversity
> Park
> -- outside designated Aravali ridge and while the
> proposal, usurping DMP housing land, was sub-judice
> in
> mpisg ridge area case. within the week pushta-like
> war
> was waged on 1000+ families in old communities in
> Lalkhet that had been seeking lawful relocation in
> spirit of NCMP besides DMP.
>
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/dmp2021/ncmp/h/n05s1a
> In their World Habitat Day celebrations in October
> sanjhaNGOs claimed evictions had stopped under UPA
> and
> demanded, in name of its NCMP, the DfID/NDA slum
> policy of in-situ upgradation.
>
> 2005:
> In june-july sanjhaNGOs were getting people in slums
> situated exactly on sites planned for low income
> housing to demand relocation to flats in small part
> of
> builder scheme on nearly 20 Ha of District Park near
> Tughlakabad (for which Public Notice was issued on
> 31.08.05, on eve of millennium-development-goals
> Poverty Concert of sanjhaNGOs and scheme start by
> December assured by Secy MoUD to SC Green Bench
> within
> the week, in the Yamuna matter). A larger
> identically
> illegal scheme of 21000 flats on land acquired in
> 2003
> in contempt of court was announced by GNCTD-MCD and
> around WHD 05, CM urged builders to chalk out a code
> of conduct for themselves -- at a FICCI do. Also
> gracing that was MoS for Urban Employment & Poverty
> Alleviation (the ministry for slum policy), while
> Left
> parties sought Sonia Gandhi?s intervention for a
> slum
> policy / law for in-situ, in name of NCMP (that
> promised no such thing) and in time for the
> sanjhaNGOs
> protest against DDA for not letting them be on its
> Board for the DMP2021 Public Notice.
>
> And the Aravalli Biodiversity Park is helping
> sell-well illegal VK malls and being used to
> discharge
> VK sewerage. The green is just the green of money
> that
> some make to give the city shit, and the great law
> of
> shit is the more you take the more you get.
>
> ---
>
> Celebrate tonight. by tomorrow sanjhaNGOs will be
> badmouthing MoEF for rejecting their *model* for
> shit
> in name of green while other sanjhaNGOs bad-mouth
> DDA
> to demand their slum policy in name of poor.
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com