-53-

vulnerable areas at a division level so that effective planning can be done to take care
of forest fire vulnerability of these areas.

115. MOE&F provided funds for forest fire control and management mainly through
Intensification of Forest Management Scheme (IFMS). MoEF did not ascertain the gaps
between existing infrastructure and ideal requirement of State Governments for which
these funds were released. MoEF was to arrange for periodic monitoring and
evaluation of the scheme. However, no such monitoring and evaluation was done.
Replying to a query of the Committee regarding mechanism to ascertain the gaps
between existing infrastructure and requirements by State Government and its
efficiency in achieving the targeted goals, the MHA furnished as under:
"The State Forest Departments submit annual plan proposal under IFMS to the
Ministry. These proposals are considered by the Screening Committee
appointed for the scrutiny and review of the proposals in the Ministry. The
Screening Committee is chaired by Additional Director General of Forest (Forest
Conservation). The other members of the Committee are Deputy Inspector
General of Forests NAEB, Deputy Inspector General of Forests (Research &
Training), Deputy Inspector General of Forests (Wildlife), Deputy Inspector
General of Forests (forest Protection), Director (Finance) and Representative of
Civil Construction Unit.
After discussion with the representatives of the States / UTs who are also invited
to the meeting of the Screening Committee, the Committee recommends the
annual plans for the States / UTs under the scheme."
116. When asked to give reasons for not doing monitoring and evaluation of IFMS by
MOEF, the Ministry replied as under:
"The scheme is being implemented by the State Forest Departments and as such
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is responsible for the implementation
of the scheme. The scheme is being monitored at the level of the PCCF of the
States / UTs. The Ministry had issued specific instruction for monitoring of the
implementation of the scheme and reports have been received so far from the
States of Gujarat, Goa, Haryana, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil
Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Mizoram, Sikkim, Tripura, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and
Dadra & Nagar Haveli. A third party monitoring of the scheme is under process."
(vi) Chemical Disaster
117. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is the nodal Ministry for
chemical disaster as per Crisis Management Plan (CMP), 2007 of GoI. MoEF had
notified two sets of rules namely: The Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous
 -54-

Chemicals Rules, 1989 and the amendment (MSIHC Rules), and the Chemical
Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules 1996 [CA (EPPR)
Rules]. The MSIHC rules prescribed preparation of on-site emergency plan by the
occupier and off-site emergency plan by the District Authority. The Committee desired
to know whether off-site and on-site emergency plan of all the districts have been
prepared. The MHA informed that as per the available information the total number of
district is 301 and Major Accident Hazard (MAH) units in these districts are 1861. The
on-site plan of 1814 MAH units have been prepared and 1664 mock drills were
conducted. As regard off-line plans 200 districts have prepared their plans and plans of
42 districts were under preparation. The Audit has also pointed out non coordination of
central and State Crisis Group.

118. The Committee were informed that a draft National Action Plan (NAP) on
Chemical (Industrial) Disaster Management (CIDM) was submitted by Disaster
Management Institute (DMI) Bhopal. The draft NAP is being revised in consultation with
National Management Authority and DMI as advised by NDMA.

119. The Committee were also informed that eight emergency Response Centres
have been funded by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, -five in Andhra Pradesh
(Vishakhapatnam, Hyderabad, Kurnool, Vijayawada, and Kakinada), one in Kerala
(Ernakulam), one in Madhya Pradesh (Bhopal) and one in Maharashtra (Mahad).

120. The Audit had found that only 12 Chemical incidents reported since 2009. The
authorities were not reporting all the chemical accidents even those reported in the
National Chemical Disaster Database published by MOEF, to Chemical Accidents
Information and Regulating System (CAIRS). In reply to a query of the Committee the
MHA informed as under:
"According to NIC, based on the chemical accident information available with
Ministry of Environment & Forests, their NIC team had updated the information
into Chemical Accident Information and Reporting System (CAIRS), a software
developed by NIC. At present CAIRS is functioning."