Nature versus nurture — both in all their various manifestations — is one of the oldest unresolved debates in the history of humanity. In a country like India, where population pressures push against fragile forest ecosystems, finding a balance between ecological needs and development imperatives requires careful deliberation. To deal with this complexity, critical functions were vested with the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) in 2003. Projects proposed in protected forest areas were supposed to be vetted scientifically — pitting
Nature versus nurture — both in all their various manifestations — is one of the oldest unresolved debates in the history of humanity. In a country like India, where population pressures push against fragile forest ecosystems, finding a balance between ecological needs and development imperatives requires careful deliberation. To deal with this complexity, critical functions were vested with the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) in 2003. Projects proposed in protected forest areas were supposed to be vetted scientifically — pitting them against the scale and nature of potential ecological harm — and then approved, deferred, or rejected. The Standing Committee of the Board (SC-NBWL) is mandated to meet frequently to scrutinise project proposals and the promised harm-mitigation steps before deciding their fate. This assumes a certain diligence. Protected areas in India aggregate to just over 5% of the country’s geographical area, compared to 21% of the global area similarly classified or recognised.
It is against this backdrop that the committee’s record of approving 96.5% of total projects that came up before it over the last decade merits scrutiny. Did the committee approve 1,810 of the 1,876 projects it took up for consideration between 2016 and 2026, after spending adequate time examining reports, expert testimony, and other evidence? Probably not. As Hindustan Times reported on Sunday, experts have pointed to the speed with which projects were cleared to question if due rigour was applied in the assessment. At the latest committee meeting, one expert said, over 100 projects were cleared within an hour or so. This raises serious concerns about the quality of appraisal, leading to a high approval rate.
The Delhi High Court has rightly taken cognisance of a petition filed by a group of conservationists and activists who claim the committee was “recklessly clearing projects”. The court’s pointed questions to the government about the composition of the board and the standing committee also bring attention to the true nature of their independence. NBWL’s decisions need to be grounded in weighing potential ecological harm against the impact of offset measures, not on infrastructure imperatives of the government or other project proponents. India’s ecological needs — against the backdrop of deadly climate-crisis impacts and serious species loss — cannot afford to surrender to its developmental prerogatives.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website