Going through environmental assessment impact (EIA) reports, especially from Nepal, provides exciting information albeit much fabricated ones more often than not. This is a general perception among people who are related to this field however there are some specific EIA reports that would strike our mind if gone through properly, not for good reasons though. Recently I came across one such report from Sagu Khola Hydroelectric Project in Dolakha district which lie north-east of Kathmandu. The report states that Fishing Cat was recorded during the field survey which is a good news for wildlife enthusiasts though digging a little deep into the species' status and habitat would be enough to refute that finding. Fig. 1 presents the image file of the table from the report that makes the claim of fishing cat from the project area.
Fig. 2: Mammal reporting from Sagu Khola hydroper project EIA report
Fishing cat prefers slow moving rivers and stagnant lakes that have good fish abundance. Despite possessing wetlands, hilly areas lack habitats that are more suitable for Fishing Cat to occur there as rivers are fast moving making it difficult for these magnificent creatures to fish. Smaller areas with suitable parameters for fishing cats do exist there however these areas are presumably much smaller for fishing cat to survive and flourish.
"A total of 140 bird species were observed in the West Seti valley project area, including 11 species of conservation significance, but only the yellow-cheeked tit is listed as endangered. Although this species is considered endangered, it is a common resident in Nepal between 915 and 2,300 m". This excerpt is from the EIA report of West Seti hydropower project. No doubt this is an interesting finding but even more interesting is the fact that yellow-cheeked tit is an eastern species meaning there has been no documented evidence of this species west of Arun river over the entire history of bird research in Nepal.
EIA report of Budi Gandaki Hydropower Project is relatively much better using distribution maps of the mammal species to describe their distribution and status. However they have used distribution maps from Jnawali et al. (2011). While it is a comprehensive report on status of Nepal’s mammals, a lot has been done on many species of mammals since then updating our knowledge on these mammals' status and distribution. For eg. During the time of the assessment of status of mammals in 2010 most team members were not sure about the occurrence of wild yak from Nepal and opted to declare it as regionally extinct. But a detailed assessment of Limi valley in upper Humla recorded the species. Furthermore the report provides information about the presence of smooth-coated otter from the survey which is a highly endangered species and has been wiped out from many of its previous habitats. Furthermore the species is believed to be occurring mostly in the lowland Nepal. The reporting is encouraging provided the information is trustworthy but the track record of EIA reports in Nepal often makes us believe that the information is still doubtful. The survey also confirmed the presence of Darter which is not impossible but the rarity of this bird in Nepal will put this record in doubt. There is a good chance that the team members might have come across a large cormorant and mistook it for a darter.
Now let’s turn our attention to the EIA report of possibly the most talked about project in Nepal I.e. Nijgadh International Airport. The report says there are two species of langurs in the project area I.e. common langur and langur monkey. Interesting thing is that both these species have the same scientific name Presbytis entellus. Even interesting is the fact that the zoological name used for the species has ceased to exist at present as the species is called Semnopithecus entellus and more interestingly the species is only found in India at present. The langur species found in the project area should be, as per current knowledge, Semnopithecus hector or Terai grey langur. Fig. 2 presents wildlife reportings from the EIA report of the proposed Nijgadh international airport.
Fig. 2: Mammal reporting from Nijgadh international airport EIA report
Furthermore the area also seem to possess both wild cat Felis lybica ornata and jungle cat Felis chaus. Wild cat has no authentic record yet in Nepal however the assessment team somehow recorded the species but as with other species assigned the wrong scientific name I.e. Felis chaus to it. This scientific name has been assigned to both wild cat and jungle cat. The report also uses the word Hapsilo for jungle cat which is actually the vernacular name of rock eagle owl Bubo bubo. The report also confirms a hare but wrongly reports as a pika Ochotons sp which is a strictly highland species. Another highland species too I.e. a goral Naemorhaedus goral though the area which is assessed for the airport is a lowland with no hills nearby which puts this record in doubt.
Some EIA reports come up with species that are not even recorded in Nepal. One such report is of Isuwa Cascade hydropower project. The report mentions three interesting observations which include Salak, vernacular name (Nepali) for pangolin. There is good possibility of Pangolin being found in the area however the scientific name used in the report is Salacca zalacca which is actually a species of palm tree found in Indonesia. This is not what we expect in the faunal listing of an EIA report. The report also states the existence of Mustela nivalis which is also absurd as it has never been recorded in Nepal. Interestingly the species is reported as Himalayan weasel where it should be least weasel. Another interesting but weird report is that of lesser florican from the area which is actually a grassland species and is one of the rarest bird species in Nepal. Fig. 3 is the screenshot of the table listing the mammals stated by EIA report of Isuwa cascade hydropower project.
Fig. 3: Mammal reporting from Isuwa cascade hydropower project EIA report
Many other interesting albeit doubtful observations can be found in EIA reports from across Nepal including striped hyena and yellow monitor lizard from Likhu Hydropower project area and Kabeli Hydropower project respectively. Both species are known to occur in the lowlands. While striped hyena has also been reported from higher altitude there have been very little information on its occurrence in the eastern Nepal and thus without proper validation there is very little room for getting that record confirmed. EIA report of Kabeli hydropower project goes on to state that rhesus macaque is a vulnerable species while it does not specify any threat categories to Chinese pangolin which is actually one of the most threatened species in the planet. If we are to believe EIA report of Solu Dudhkosi hydropower project, Rato Salak (Indian Pangolin) is found in the project area. As the distribution of Indian pangolin has only been reported from a few lowland districts, its presence in the project area is highly doubtful. The report also claims the presence of Nubra Pika which is a highland species and seems to contradict the report’s earlier finding of Indian Pangolin.
Going through EIA reports of hydropower projects as well as other infrastructures in Nepal gets extremely frustrating for various reasons. The most important being the lack of seriousness by both consultants as well as proponents. Consultants have been found to focus mostly on the engineering aspect of the project and totally neglecting the environmental facets. Many EIA reports have been found to have been copy pasted from some other similar reports leading to many mistakes, some major ones like earlier examples. Secondly, the consultants often do not validate the reporting that they make with experts of the concerned field.
EIA reports are cornerstone of any project that needs to be implemented with minimum environmental damages. Careful assessments results in more precise presentation of reality which in turn will provide an excellent base for carrying out both future assessments in the area as well as solid baseline for any preventive or mitigative measures required in the future. However if these assessments are done haphazardly without proper framework and not validated with related experts then we can only be mute spectators while results arising out of irregular assessments would take hold leading to wrong preventive and mitigating measures.
Comments