Controversy over Rs 426 crore transfer from KSPCB to forest dept

Bengaluru : A major controversy has erupted following the government’s order to transfer Rs 426 crore from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) to the Forest Department without the Board’s approval. This decision has raised concerns among board members, with many questioning the legality and appropriateness of such a move, given the lack of consultation or agreement within the Board.

The transfer includes Rs 300 crore for the construction of railway barricades to prevent elephant attacks, and Rs 126 crore for the K-Shore project, aimed at plastic waste management in coastal Karnataka. While the Finance Department has agreed to this move, Board members have expressed reservations about the financial implications, as the KSCPB is financially independent and depends on its own revenue to cover expenses, including staff salaries and operational costs.

During the KSCPB meeting on September 9, members raised serious objections to the transfer of such a large sum of money to the Forest Department. One of the key concerns was that the Board, which has not received government funding, must manage all of its expenditures independently, and providing Rs 300 crore for environmental conservation projects, including afforestation and elephant barrier construction, could significantly affect its financial stability.

“Even though the government has ordered the transfer, the Board’s official stance, as discussed in the meeting, was to object to any such move,” a senior Board official, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated. The official pointed out that the Board had also previously objected to a Rs 17 crore donation made to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, which they argued should not have come from the Board’s funds.

The Finance Department issued its approval on November 27, allowing the transfer of ₹200 crore at a simple interest rate of 7.5% for a period of four years to the Forest Department. Another Rs 100 crore could be transferred, provided it comes from the Pollution Control Board’s own funding, rather than from government grants.

In response to questions about the transfer, Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre defended the decision, stating, “This is an environment-friendly initiative. The funds transferred from the Pollution Control Board to the Forest Department will go towards essential activities like afforestation and mitigating human-animal conflict. This is an internal adjustment between two departments, and there is no harm to the Board’s operations.”

The 126 crore earmarked for the K-Shore project aims to address plastic waste management along the coast of Karnataka, focusing on reducing the mortality rate of marine life due to plastic pollution. The funds will also support afforestation projects in the region to combat coastal erosion. The project is backed by the World Bank, which will reimburse the Pollution Control Board for the expenses incurred.

“The funds from the Pollution Control Board will be used exclusively for plastic waste management and coastal afforestation. The money will be gradually disbursed, with the World Bank reimbursing the Board as the project progresses,” said an official from the Forest Department.

In an unrelated but controversial development, it has also been revealed that the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board used its funds to provide electronic equipment for the office of the Forest Minister. The list of items purchased includes computers, printers, TVs, UPS devices, and even a fridge, amounting to a total cost of approximately ₹72 lakh.

This expenditure was authorized by the Board’s Secretary, following a request from the Minister’s Special Duty Officer. The decision has raised eyebrows among environmental activists and opposition parties, who question the ethics of using environmental funds for the personal and office use of ministers.

On the other hand, Minister Eshwar Khandre defended the move, stating, “The funds being used by the Forest Department are meant for vital environmental projects. There is no violation of rules. The Board’s objections are purely administrative concerns, which we have addressed.”