To promote development in hilly states, a committee recommends
dilution of forest clearance rules, reward for setting up projects
June
2013 floods in Uttarakhand washed away a portion of the fragile
Himalayan range, killing over 5,000 people (Photo: INDRESH MAIKHURI)It
seems policymakers have failed to learn from the floods that hit
Uttarakhand in June 2013. At a time when environmentalists are talking
about how unplanned development and deforestation in the fragile
Himalayan state made the disaster ferocious, a
high-level committee set
up by the prime minister has recommended relaxing forest diversion rules
for development projects in all the five Himalayan states and adjoining
states in the Northeast.
These forest-rich hilly states, known for poor infrastructure, have
long been demanding such relaxation saying that existing forest
diversion rules hinder development. They have also been asking for
financial compensation for preserving forests, and thereby the health of
biodiversity, at the cost of infrastructure development.
To look into these concerns, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in
November 2011 constituted a 10-member committee under Planning
Commission member B K Chaturvedi. Its report, made public in February
this year, recommends that projects requiring up to 10 hectares (ha) of
forest land need not seek clearance from the Union Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF). At present, development and public
utility projects require MoEF clearance for felling forests beyond 1 ha
and 5 ha, respectively. The committee also allows Border Road
Organisation to lay wide roads—widen existing roads from the current 24
metres to 60 metres and build new roads of 100 metres width.
“Thousands
of small projects are being delayed because of forest land diversion
rules,” says Yogesh Suri, adviser to the Planning Commission on
development policy, who was part of the committee. “We increased the
area on the basis of feedback received from various sectors.” To ensure
speedy and transparent clearance, the committee has recommended setting
up MoEF offices in each state. “The current process of seeking
environment and forest clearances is centralised. Since hilly states
have rich forest cover, they require clearance even for a small project.
This causes inordinate delay,” says another Planning Commission
official.
To ensure time-bound clearance, the committee has recommended
amending forest clearance rules for hilly states in line with those
applicable in Naxal-affected areas. MoEF clears all projects in
Naxal-affected areas, which are among the poorest in the country, in
three to six months.
Money to keep or fell forests?
Acceding to a long-standing demand of hilly states, the committee
recommends compensation—2 per cent of the budget set aside for Central
schemes—for maintaining high forest cover. This works out to be Rs
10,000 crore in 2013-14 alone. By contrast, the 12th and 13th finance
commissions paid Rs 1,000 crore and Rs 5,000 crore respectively to
Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir for standing
forests.
Justifying the compensation, a committee member says, “These states
fail to use forest resources to generate revenue and at the same time
incur significant expenditure for maintaining the vast swathe of
forest.” Due to lack of barren land, they also fail to use the funds
under Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority
(CAMPA)—cost paid by the project proponent for diversion of forest land.
According to the report, forest cover in the 11 hilly states increased
from 31.8 per cent in 1991 to 34 per cent in 2011. The national forest
cover increased from 19.49 per cent to 21.05 per cent during the period.
The committee has devised two mechanisms, called development
disability indices (DDI), for allocating the compensation. “Instead of
social indicators, these indices are based on factors that hinder
development and cause economic loss,” informs an official. He explains
the reason behind the mechanism: Himalayan states fare better on social
indicators such as per capita income, infant mortality rate and access
to safe drinking water. But difficult terrain and inadequate
infrastructure, especially connectivity, increases the cost of service
delivery. All the 11 hilly states top the DDI, indicating their
disadvantageous condition (see ‘Forest-rich hilly states...’). The
compensation will, however, be linked to development projects. “It is
like a carrot and stick policy. The performing states would benefit
more,” says the official. This means states will be rewarded for
diverting forests for non-forest uses.
Suicidal proposition
“It is a way of licensing to destroy the fragile forest area,” says
Bharat Jhunjhunwala, environment activist in Uttarakhand. “The report
talks about development but is silent on environmental parameters. It
proposes small benefit at a high cost of biodiversity.” Guman Singh of
non-profit Himalaya Niti Abhiyan says, the recommendations will change
the landscape by expediting projects at a faster pace.
Anil Joshi, environment activist in Uttarakhand, says, the
recommendations will speed up setting up infrastructures. But at the
same time, it will open up opportunities for greedy businessmen to
collude with corrupt officials and divert large swathes of forests in
their own interest, he adds.
