30k acres dropped from wildlife sanctuary due to 'encroachments'

Encroachments and illegal grants have been cited as reasons for dropping a shocking 30,000 acres (121.37 sq km) of forests from the Shettihalli Wildlife Sanctuary, with documents showing that the needs of the wildlife took a backseat as officials sought to brush the problems under the carpet.

DH had on July 21 reported that the state government’s decision to shrink the sanctuary from 695.60 sq km to 395.60 sq km violated the Wildlife (Protection) Act as well as Supreme Court orders. As per the boundary marked under Section 18 of the Act, the original extent of the sanctuary was 824 sq km.

Over the last 20 years, the government has been trying to shrink the extent of the sanctuary. Recently, the state and the national wildlife boards gave their respective nod to shrink the boundary following which the state Cabinet on July 17 approved it.

Now, documents accessed by DH show that a rationalisation committee headed by the then chief conservator of forest, Srinivasulu, decided to exclude 30,000 acres of notified forests. Worryingly, the committee comprising Nagesh, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests (Working Plan and Survey), Shivamogga and I M Nagaraj, DCF, Shivamogga Wildlife Division cited encroachment as a major reason for its decision.

Proceedings of the committee dated November 27, 2019 show that the members looked into the matter clinically. First, the committee dropped the deemed forest area belonging to the revenue department and private lands. The members then looked into the notified forests.
“It was decided to exclude a total of 30 notified forests measuring 12137.75 hectare from the sanctuary due to partial encroachment, land grants and grants made for rehabilitation of farmers,” the committee’s proceedings say.

Of the 30 notified forest areas excluded from the sanctuary, 21 were notified as forests prior to 1940, with the Puradalu state forest notified as far back as 1895. The remaining ones were notified in the 1980s and 90s.

Seeking a response, DH submitted a copy of the proceedings to the Forest, Ecology and Environment Minister Eshwar Khandre. The minister said he will seek an explanation from the officials. “I have asked them for an explanation. We will have a meeting to discuss the matter in detail,” he said.

On July 22, the minister had issued written directions to the department to issue a clarification to the DH report or resubmit the proposal to the Cabinet with necessary corrections. DH could not get a response from the department.

Veeresh, a conservationist working in the landscape for over 10 years, said the act was actually denotification of a big chunk of sanctuary in the guise of boundary rationalisation.

“This is a clear violation of the Wildlife Protection Act and Supreme Court order dated November 13, 2000. We strongly urge the government to compensate equal extent to the sanctuary network of Karnataka before this denotification,” he said.

Another activist noted that if dropping of forests from sanctuary by citing encroachment is seen as a precedent, even the tiger reserves will face a threat. “There are vested interests encroaching upon forests in the name of displaced persons. It’s the mandate of the department to remove  encroachments and create a safe space for wildlife. Else, all the protected areas will be lost,” he added.