<p>Senior forest officials who undermine the honest work of field officers and greenlight unscientifically conceived projects point to a disconcerting pattern. </p><p>At least two recent cases raise questions about their conduct. In the first, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (forest conservation), Karnataka, buried a report by a Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF) that rejected a proposal to build a mini hydel plant on the Cauvery river in Shivanasamudra. </p><p>In the second instance, the Deputy Director General of Forests at the regional office of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) ignored a subordinate officer’s report which disapproved a controversial proposal for a 2,000-MW pumped storage power project in the Sharavathi Lion Tailed Macaque Wildlife Sanctuary in the Western Ghats.</p>.<p>In the case of the Shivanasamudra plant, a report by the DCF of Male Mahadeshwara Wildlife Sanctuary pointed out that the State Board of Wildlife, headed by the chief minister, had in 2015 rejected a similar proposal at the same location citing potential disruption of elephants’ movement in the region. </p><p>The DCF was transferred and the officer who replaced him was directed to relook into the project. Soon, a favourable report was ready. At the regional office of the MoEF&CC, the Deputy Inspector General of Forests visited the site of the proposed Sharavathi plant and listed out 15 reasons for the ministry to disallow the project. She noted that the plant, during its construction and operation, would cause long-term harm to the fauna. Her superior official not only recommended a go-ahead for the project, but did not even make a reference to her report.</p>.<p>The union government acknowledges the perils of climate change by placing India seventh among the most vulnerable countries. The last two decades were characterised by extreme weather events, especially heat waves coupled with drought conditions. The United Nations says biodiversity remains the planet’s strongest defence in such circumstances. In October 2024, data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) showed that the number of threatened species in India has gone up from 461 to 762 in less than five years (2020-2024). </p><p>A report by the Karnataka Biodiversity Board notes that the number of endangered species in the state has doubled since 2010. The times call for stronger guardrails and concerted mitigation efforts. </p><p>When senior officials disregard pressing ecological concerns, even when they are highlighted within the system, they not only demoralise officers who are doing their job but also derail key pathways of climate action. It is time India developed corrective systems that take ecology-informed reports to their logical end and ensure strong and certain deterrence against the officials who look away.</p>
<p>Senior forest officials who undermine the honest work of field officers and greenlight unscientifically conceived projects point to a disconcerting pattern. </p><p>At least two recent cases raise questions about their conduct. In the first, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (forest conservation), Karnataka, buried a report by a Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF) that rejected a proposal to build a mini hydel plant on the Cauvery river in Shivanasamudra. </p><p>In the second instance, the Deputy Director General of Forests at the regional office of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) ignored a subordinate officer’s report which disapproved a controversial proposal for a 2,000-MW pumped storage power project in the Sharavathi Lion Tailed Macaque Wildlife Sanctuary in the Western Ghats.</p>.<p>In the case of the Shivanasamudra plant, a report by the DCF of Male Mahadeshwara Wildlife Sanctuary pointed out that the State Board of Wildlife, headed by the chief minister, had in 2015 rejected a similar proposal at the same location citing potential disruption of elephants’ movement in the region. </p><p>The DCF was transferred and the officer who replaced him was directed to relook into the project. Soon, a favourable report was ready. At the regional office of the MoEF&CC, the Deputy Inspector General of Forests visited the site of the proposed Sharavathi plant and listed out 15 reasons for the ministry to disallow the project. She noted that the plant, during its construction and operation, would cause long-term harm to the fauna. Her superior official not only recommended a go-ahead for the project, but did not even make a reference to her report.</p>.<p>The union government acknowledges the perils of climate change by placing India seventh among the most vulnerable countries. The last two decades were characterised by extreme weather events, especially heat waves coupled with drought conditions. The United Nations says biodiversity remains the planet’s strongest defence in such circumstances. In October 2024, data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) showed that the number of threatened species in India has gone up from 461 to 762 in less than five years (2020-2024). </p><p>A report by the Karnataka Biodiversity Board notes that the number of endangered species in the state has doubled since 2010. The times call for stronger guardrails and concerted mitigation efforts. </p><p>When senior officials disregard pressing ecological concerns, even when they are highlighted within the system, they not only demoralise officers who are doing their job but also derail key pathways of climate action. It is time India developed corrective systems that take ecology-informed reports to their logical end and ensure strong and certain deterrence against the officials who look away.</p>
