The Green Tech Foundation (GTF), Meghalaya has reiterated that any attempt to legitimise environmental destruction of the Nongkhyllem Wildlife Sanctuary in Ri Bhoi will be met with unwavering resistance.
“We are well-versed in the law and will not hesitate to utilise it in full force. This is not a trivial matter—the future of this sanctuary and its inhabitants is at stake. We will fight tooth and nail to protect it, leveraging every statute and legal precedent at our disposal. We stand firm on legitimate grounds in our opposition,” GTF Chairman HB Nonglang stated.
“We understand how statutes bring the law into action, and we have not raised this issue lightly. If you seek to justify Section 33 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, we must also examine the rulings from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in several significant cases, such as M.C. Mehta, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, and those involving Devinder and the Wildlife Society of Orissa. Furthermore, we have the notifications and guidelines from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), as well as guidelines issued by environmental committees constituted by the Supreme Court of India and various other key environmental statutes,” he said.
The GTF feels that the E-Factor, a design, wedding and event management firm, cannot be trusted with environmental and eco-sensitive projects since their areas of expertise are vastly different.
Nonglang pointed out that the Nongkhyllem Wildlife Sanctuary covers an area of about 29 square kilometers, which is relatively small and thus unsuited for any infrastructure aimed at attracting tourism. “A small area under pressure from tourist inflow and infrastructure may lead to wildlife displacement, adverse biotic interactions, land pressure, noise pollution, and other non-forest detrimental practices,” he justified.
He stated that eco-tourism should not be understood as the conversion of forest land for non-forest purposes or large-scale deforestation. The chalet-styled hotels or resorts are permanent structures that contradict the essence of sustainability, as they would reduce the available forest area within the sanctuary, he said.
Nonglang argued that staying in a sanctuary or forested area for study or tourism should involve temporary structures such as tents. He added that a canopy-based skywalk is yet another non-forest activity that could cause irreparable damage to pristine forests and their biodiversity. It would introduce noise pollution and disturbance from the transportation of materials, disrupting the natural ecosystem of the sanctuary.
“An Interpretation Centre is speculated to be permanent in nature and will consume a significant area for its construction, reducing the habitat available for wildlife. A water sports arena within a wildlife sanctuary is a misguided and ignorant conception. The use of motorboats would introduce noise pollution, and the inevitable tourist influx would turn the sanctuary into a circus rather than a safe haven for wildlife,” Nonglang said.
Recent data reveals a significant loss of forest cover between 2021 and 2023, underscoring the urgency for conservation efforts. Nonglang questioned whether the Rs. 23.60 crore project has met its legal obligations, including obtaining forest clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, permits and clearances under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, approval from the National Board for Wildlife, and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), Site Impact Assessments (SIA), and Environmental Clearances from the relevant authorities under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
He sought answers if local communities or use of indigenous knowledge for creating household articles, as per the MoEF&CC directive dated September 19, 2018, regarding policy for eco-tourism in forest and wildlife areas have been considered.
