Forest clearance for infra projects in extremism affected, border areas eased

The guidelines were issued in a letter to principal secretaries (forests) of states and Union Territories following requests from the ministries of defence and home affairs for special provisions to further reduce the time taken for obtaining approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act for such projects

The Union environment ministry’s regional offices will now consider and expedite forest clearances for “critical infrastructure projects” in Left-wing extremism (LWE)-hit districts and those related to defence and security in border areas instead of the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC), according to new guidelines issued on May 10. FAC normally assesses projects involving the diversion of forest land.

Representational Image. (Shutterstock)

The guidelines were issued in a letter to principal secretaries (forests) of states and Union Territories following requests from the ministries of defence and home affairs for special provisions to further reduce the time taken for obtaining approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act for such projects. HT has seen a copy of the letter.

According to the guidelines, decisions on stage one, or initial approval for forest diversion, for such a “critical public infrastructure” involving forest land up to five ha will have to be taken within 15 days of the receipt of the proposal. Proposals involving forest land of more than five ha will have to be placed before a regional empowered committee within 15 days of receiving the proposal. Decision on final approval for such projects will have to be taken within a week of receiving compliance of conditions suggested during stage one approval.

The letter said the existing guidelines for projects in LWE-affected districts and border areas stipulated in the Handbook of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, have been withdrawn. The handbook referred to 14 categories of public infrastructure works related to schools, dispensaries, drinking water, public roads, etc in LWE affected districts. They were given general approval in forest land up to 40 ha if they did not fall in protected areas. The approval was applicable till December 31, 2020.

General approval was also accorded for diversion of forest land for construction and widening of roads falling within 100 km of aerial distance from the Line of Actual Control, the de facto border with China, army, security and surveillance infrastructure. This was also applicable till December 31, 2020.

The ministry has also laid down some standard conditions for the state government to consider for such proposals. A proposal has to be site-specific; the requirement of forest land has to be unavoidable and bare minimum. The conditions say three alternatives should have been examined and details of the same made part of the proposal. Forest areas proposed for diversion should also be not within any national park, wildlife sanctuary, and tiger reserve.

An official from the ministry’s forest conservation division, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was a lot of confusion earlier on whether public infrastructure projects in these areas involving forest diversion should come to the ministry or just go to the regional office. “Earlier guidelines said any project up to 40 ha can go to the regional office for clearance. Now we have made it more comprehensive and said that all linear infrastructure projects irrespective of the forest area involved can be considered by the regional office and cleared at the earliest.”

Independent experts said the exemptions for any public infrastructure project in border or LWE areas could have serious implications for local people and ecology. “Defence projects have always been exempted from environment clearances, giving priority to them from the beginning. Further leeway to defence projects could lead to giving green signal to a lot of projects that may be tangentially connected to defence but mainly of some other requirement. Giving environmental exemptions in the name of defence is setting a very bad precedence and can have disastrous repercussions,” said Mallika Bhanot of Uttarakhand’s Ganga Ahvaan, an NGO.

Kanchi Kohli, a legal researcher at New Delhi’s Centre for Policy Research, said this brings a large number of projects irrespective of the amount of forest land involved under the jurisdiction of the ministry’s regional offices. “The hastening up of approvals can severely compromise the quality of scrutiny required to assess forest diversion proposals which need to be assessed on multiple parameters including the existence of prevailing use rights and ecological risks.” Kohli said many of these projects are not just located in sensitive geopolitical areas, but also in regions that are at high risk of potential climate catastrophes. “The frequency of climate change-induced glacial outbreaks, flooding, earthquakes, and cyclones have impacted border areas both in the Himalayas and on the coast. This should make us more cautious than callous as land-use change and forest degradation can even put the investments into public infrastructure and defence facilities at risk.”