Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD)
is responsible for approving Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) reports of
various development sub-projects such as road, bridge, sand gravel &
stones, land fill site received from District Development Committees (DDCs). IEE
approval process of development sub-projects were initiated by the MoFALD since
January 2005. However, to ease minimize the time interval and for the sake of
easiness, the MoFLAD has handed over the IEE approval authority of Sand, Gravel
and Stones (SG&S) to District Development Board since March 2016. The objective
of the article is to understand i) number
and types of IEE Reports approved by the MoFALD, ii) analyses month wise
approval of IEE reports, and iii) key issues in managing SG&S and prescribes
policy recommendations for effective management.
Though the database of IEE reports are maintained in the
MoFALD, no analysis as such has been carried out thus far. In order to make informed decision in the
sector of sand, gravel and stones, it was felt necessary to identify number of
IEE reports approved by the MoFALD and its implementation effectiveness. The result of the study would help
formulating informed policies in the days ahead. Towards this end, the study
was administered.
Data on number and types of IEE reports approved by
MoFALD was extracted from database of MoFALD. Information on management issues
were acquired through administering questionnaire survey at 75 District
Development Committees by the MoFALD in October 2011 and reviewing available
documents related to the policies and directives on sand gravel and stone
management. In total, out of all 75 districts, only 26 districts responded
questionnaire up to December 2011. In
addition, in 2011 the Ministry through the Poverty and Environment Initiative
(PEI) Program under the Local Governance and Community Development Program
(LGCDP) commissioned a study on Current Practices of Revenue Generation from
Natural Resources for the Local Bodies of Nepal in five districts– Kailali,
Rupandehi, Makawanpur, Dhadiing and Saptari. Likewise, to promote third party
monitoring systems, the Ministry had entrusted the Central Department of
Environmental Science of Tribhuvan University to carry out study on
effectiveness of implementation of Initial Environmental Examinations (IEEs)
reports in Dhading and Kabhre Districts in 2011.
Based on analysis of the questionnaire survey and
aforementioned two studies, and monitoring finding of Central Department of
Environmental Science, various issues in sustainable extraction of SG&S
were identified and policy recommendations have been made accordingly. Total number of IEE
reports approved by MoFALD, associated issues and policy recommendations were
felt necessary so that the SG&S can be managed more effectively and
efficiently in the days to come.
Until
March 2016, MoFALD has approved a total of 382 EE reports and equal number of
Terms of References (ToR) of sand, gravel and stones (SG&S). The first IEE
report of SG&S approved by the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local
Development was Various River from Palpa in 2007. The IEE approval process got
momentum since 2010 when the Parliamentary Committee asked local bodies to get
approval in the IEE reports while collecting and extracting SG&S. As shown in Table 1 almost 50% of the total 382
IEE reports, got approval from the MoFALD in four months i.e. June, July,
November and December. July was the busiest month for approving IEE report when
65 reports got approval. As can be seen
in table 1, 57% of the total approved 382 reports were from Churia Region
alone.
Table
1 Month wise Approved IEE Reports of SGS
Month
|
January
|
February
|
March
|
April
|
May
|
June
|
July
|
August
|
September
|
October
|
November
|
December
|
Number
|
14
|
14
|
12
|
29
|
29
|
32
|
65
|
59
|
19
|
23
|
33
|
53
|
The
detail of IEE reports that were approved annually are presented in Table 2. According
to the Table 2, there is increasing trend of preparing IEE reports over the
years. In every two years interval, the number of IEE report approved by MoFALD
has increased. As the IEE approval was for two years, District Development
Committees had to prepare and submit by the end of every second year for
another two years.
The highest number
of IEE approved reports were 29 from Dhading Districts. The other top 10
districts in terms of approving IEE reports include Nawalparasi, Morang Kapilbastu,
Arghaakhachi, Jhapa,Palpa,Kailali, Makawanpur, Sindhhuli, Sindhupalchowk,
Tanahun. The detailed of IEE approval status in terms of District is presented
in Annex 1.
Table 1. Geography
wise IEE reports approval status over the years
Geography
|
2007
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
Grand Total
|
Chure
|
|
64
|
18
|
11
|
49
|
42
|
33
|
2
|
219
|
Mid Hills
|
2
|
18
|
26
|
13
|
42
|
29
|
31
|
2
|
163
|
Grand Total
|
2
|
82
|
44
|
24
|
91
|
71
|
64
|
4
|
382
|
The following
paragraphs describes key issues in managing sand, gravel and stones in Nepal.
3.1 Resource ownership
Box 1
Average Days of ToR Approval = 15
Average Days for Report Submission after ToR Approval
= 96
Average Days for Report Submission and Presentation =
22
Average Days for Presentation and Final Report
Submission = 41
Average Days for Final Report Submission and Approval
= 21 days
Total days required from ToR submission to IEE Report
approval = 195 (6.5 Months)
|
There is overlap, ambiguity and conflict about who owns the resource
and who is authorized to collect, extract or award contracts by levying
charges. Local Self Governance Act (LSGA), 1999 confers exclusive ownership of
district based resources including SG&S to the District Development
Committees (DDCs). On the other hand, The Forest Act, 1993 provides the same
authority to the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation for the same resource
lying within forest areas. According to the Forest Act, forest products are
defined as “boulders, soil, stones, pebbles, sand” among others. Likewise,
Security Forces, Wildlife Reserve, Custom Office and Buffer Zones are also
collecting revenues from SG&Ss. In summary, because of having different
windows for collecting revenues, conflicts amongst stakeholders are on the rise
in this sub sector. While analyzing the questionnaire survey data, it was
revealed that 28% of DDC have ongoing resource use conflicts with District
Forest Offices. Even, community forests were charging tax for SG&S. Also,
in the absence of clear administrative demarcation between forests and other
lands, inter districts revenue collection conflicts have been reported in the
border of Kapilbastu and Arghakhachi districts.
3.2 Effectiveness of IEE
As per the Environment Protection Regulations (EPR 1997),
extraction of SG&S up to 250 m3 per day requires to undertake IEE.
Out of the total 21 SG&S revenue generating survey districts, around 38%
have carried out IEEs until when the questionnaire survey was administered. It
was revealed that some districts have undergone contractual agreement even
without undertaking IEE/EIA studies. Other districts were realizing problems
with measurement of SG&S and raising questions on the cost effectiveness of
the IEE study as such. As per the mandate of the IEE report, the
excavation/collection of SG&S from different river systems has affected the
entire watershed in Dhading and the cumulative effects have been observed in
Trishuli River and Prithvi Highway. Sediment load was increased in the Trishuli
River and the highway has been badly damaged, purportedly due to the movement
of large trucks carrying SG&S. Given the complexity and integrated land use
system, extracting SG&S from different river system only based on IEE study
was in question.
3.3 Revenue sharing
Some Terai districts were generating revenue through export tax
on SG&S. Even, some of the districts were enjoying benefit of export tax
that comes from other districts. For instance, Kailali DDC administers an
export tax for SG&S that originates from Kanchanpur District. According to
LSGA, between 35 and 50 percent of DDC revenues derived from SG&S taxes are
expected to be shared with “concerned” Village Development Committees (VDCs),
Municipalities, DFOs, and where applicable, Buffer Zone Committees. Almost two
third of the entire survey districts were sharing revenues ranging from 18% in
Pyuthan to 90% in Udaipur District with an average of 42%with local bodies
including Municipalities and VDCs.
3.4 Income and expenditure
The local bodies have been able to raise significant tax and
other revenues from the SG&S subsector. However, these revenues have not
been sufficiently ploughed back into the protection of the revenue sources –
the rivers. In total, 48% of the total SG&S collecting survey districts
were investing part of their income ranging from 4% in Nuwakot to 81% in
Chitwan to environment protection. Though, the proportion figure is small,
investment trend on environment protection has been increasing. For instance,
11% of the total income of 22 districts (Rs. 15, 44, 64,073) from this
sub-sector in the country was invested in environment protection activities in
2009 while the proportion of income and investment in environment protection
increased by 1% and 2% respectively in 2011. Chitwan district has invested
mainly to undertake IEEs. Similarly, other environmental activities include
stream bank protection, plantation, awareness raising, disaster reduction and
climate change. As per the given authority, different organizations have
different tax rate for SG&S. For instance, following the LSGA, some
districts are collecting up to 50% revenue while as per the Mining Act others
are collecting only 10% revenues from SG&S sub-sector.
3.5 Monitoring and
coordination
Due to ineffective monitoring, coordination and law enforcement
mechanism, state of impunity has been occurred in managing SG&S in some
districts. In some study districts, “mafia” operations have controlled illegal
exports of SG&S products, capturing contracts, forming cartels for
contracts, not paying DDC tax as per contract (in Kailali), collecting ransom donations
from industries, transporting products without paying taxes, etc. If such a
state of impunity continues unabated, it will spread to other districts.
Sometimes SG&S were being collected from Churia Foot Hills, one of the
youngest and fragile ecosystems in Nepal. Having effective coordination amongst
stakeholders, regular monitoring and effective law enforcement in place would
help enhancing effective management of SG&S.
3.6 Priority to local use
Resource use priority should be given to local communities. For
instances the drifted wood and other SG&S products of Parsa Wildlife
Reserve has not been given priority to local development, instead they are
supplying the resources to crusher industries.
4. Policy Recommendations
·
Prevailing policy conflicts over ownership of
the SG&S sub sector should be resolved as soon as possible through adopting
one door policy. It is recommended to provide the whole sole management
authority of the SG&S sub-sector to DDCs. The upcoming revised LSGA may
need to address the issue tactfully.
·
There is a need to avail simple, cost effective
and user friendly IEE/EIA study guidelines and formats for DDCs and
Municipalities. The revised guidelines and formats need to include simple
technology to measure SG&S. Decentralizing approval authority of IEE of
SG&S to DDCs with a provision of constituting a technical review team
comprising of Local Development Officer, District Technical Officer, District
Forest Officer, District Soil Conservation Officer and District Environment
Focal Person would help improve the quality of IEE reports.
·
In line with the existing Regulations, DDCs
should be reminded that the collection and extraction of SG&S resources
within their jurisdictions is subject to IEE / EIAs study being conducted.
·
Considering the cumulative and integrated
effects of interconnected river system and the sensitive nature of the river
ecosystems,
·
Based upon the proposed scale of the extraction,
the environmental sensitivity of the area and river, plus the environmental
heritage of other activities in the area there should also be a clear guide for
SGS extraction EIAs and IEEs.
·
DDCs should be encouraged to plough back at
least 20 percent of their SG&S revenue earnings from each river where
extraction takes place, for river protection works such as embankments, placing
concrete slabs to demarcate depths up to where the extraction can take place.
·
A more stringent Act should be formulated,
promulgated and effectively enforced for punishing and sanctioning illegal
extraction to end the current state of impunity. The revenue management,
including taxation and revenue sharing system needs be made more transparent so
that it helps minimizing state of impunity.
·
Identify environmentally sensitive areas and
prohibit collecting SG&S from such sites and adopt site specific policies,
especially resource extraction from foot hills of Chure should be strictly
controlled.
·
Effective monitoring and feedback mechanism
should be established and strengthened from central to district level.
Annex 1: District
wise IEE approval status
S.No
|
Districts
|
Grand Total
|
1
|
Dhading
|
29
|
2
|
Nawalparasi
|
26
|
3
|
Morang
|
21
|
4
|
Kapilbastu
|
20
|
5
|
Arghaakhachi
|
16
|
6
|
Jhapa
|
14
|
7
|
Palpa
|
14
|
8
|
Kailali
|
13
|
9
|
Makawanpur
|
13
|
10
|
Sindhhuli
|
11
|
11
|
Sindhupalchowk
|
11
|
12
|
Tanahun
|
10
|
13
|
Banke
|
9
|
14
|
Kaski
|
9
|
15
|
Mahottari
|
9
|
16
|
Siraha
|
9
|
17
|
Bara
|
8
|
18
|
Bardia
|
8
|
19
|
Chitawan
|
8
|
20
|
Rautahat
|
7
|
21
|
Saptari
|
7
|
22
|
Sunsari
|
7
|
23
|
Dang
|
6
|
24
|
Ilam
|
6
|
25
|
Kabhrepalanchowk
|
6
|
26
|
Kanchanpur
|
6
|
27
|
Nuwakot
|
6
|
28
|
Gorkha
|
5
|
29
|
Ramechap
|
5
|
30
|
Sankhuwasabhaa
|
5
|
31
|
Sarlahi
|
5
|
32
|
Dhankuta
|
4
|
33
|
Dhanusa
|
4
|
34
|
Lamjung
|
4
|
35
|
Shyangja
|
4
|
36
|
Dailekh
|
3
|
37
|
Pyuthan
|
3
|
38
|
Udayapur
|
3
|
39
|
Baglung
|
2
|
40
|
Dolakha
|
2
|
41
|
Gulmi
|
2
|
42
|
Khotang
|
2
|
43
|
Panchthar
|
2
|
44
|
Parbat
|
2
|
45
|
Rukum
|
2
|
46
|
Baitadi
|
1
|
47
|
Bajhang
|
1
|
48
|
Bajura
|
1
|
49
|
Bhojpur
|
1
|
50
|
Jajarkot
|
1
|
51
|
Mustang
|
1
|
52
|
Myagdi
|
1
|
53
|
Okhaldhunga
|
1
|
54
|
Rasuwa
|
1
|
55
|
Rupandehi
|
1
|
56
|
Salyan
|
1
|
57
|
Solukhumbu
|
1
|
58
|
Surkhet
|
1
|
59
|
Taplejung
|
1
|
References
·
A Review of
Current Practices of Revenue Generation from Natural Resources for the Local
Bodies of Nepal, a report prepared by MLD in 2011
·
Central level
Environmental Monitoring of Sustainable Collection/extraction of Sand, Gravel
and Boulders from rivers of Dhading and Kavre district, Nepal. A Study carried
out by Central Department of Environmental Science, TU in 2011
2 Comments:
Ekraj Bhai, is this document published one? if so then can you send me the PDF
September 11, 2017 at 5:38 PM
Dear Purna Dai, I often publish my articles in my blog spot only. This is also published only in this blog. I will send you the word version of the article.
September 11, 2017 at 8:38 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home