 "Environmentalists say the move could vitiate the intent of Forest (Conservation) Rules, which require state governments to certify that compensatory afforestation land is available")
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has, through a notification issued on January 2, given project proponents its permission to delay the official classification of ‘reserve forest’ or ‘protected forest’. The proponents can now notify the land before a final (Stage-II) approval of their project.
The move is aimed at aiding projects’ progress while also addressing developers’ concern that declaring compensatory afforestation land earlier might lead to disputes with landowners in instances where projects face rejection or encounter legal obstacles.
Environmentalists, however, argue that the move could vitiate the intent of Forest (Conservation) Rules, which require state governments to certify that compensatory afforestation land is available. “Instead of fixing the flaws in how the identification of this land is being done, the problem has simply been postponed until after Stage-II, when the forest clearance becomes a fait accompli, and the pressure to somehow facilitate the land 'grab' increases, even on the state government,” says Sharachchandra Lele, distinguished fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment.
“Forest-dependent and common-land-dependent communities are already suffering because their consent is not being sought when land over which they have rights is being identified (and eventually taken up) for compensatory afforestation (CA),” he adds.
Debadityo Sinha, lead, climate & ecosystems, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, says that the notification of land for CA should not happen post-facto as that will encourage a fait accompli situation. “The move will create pressure on state governments as they will be obliged to provide land for the approved projects.
As non-forest land rates are not so easily available and expensive, developers and state governments may end up conducting industrial-scale plantations on grasslands and scrub forests within the existing forest, affecting local biodiversity and soil characteristics and disrupting the ecological balance of that area."
As non-forest land rates are not so easily available and expensive, developers and state governments may end up conducting industrial-scale plantations on grasslands and scrub forests within the existing forest, affecting local biodiversity and soil characteristics and disrupting the ecological balance of that area."
Lele says CA should be on public forest or non-forest land.
“There is no need to 'acquire' land; the proponents simply have to enter into memorandums of understandings (MoUs) with primary users and managers of lands (which should be the Gram Sabha established under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, or the Gram Panchayat. The MoUs can outline the nature of compensation that the proponent will pay to the user community that may lose access. Then, if the forest clearance application is rejected, there is no harm done,” Lele suggests.
The ministry’s notification also clarifies the interest rate and timeframe for penalising user agencies for delay in paying the net present value (NPV) for diverted forest land.
According to the notification, the user agencies will have to pay an annual penalty of 20 per cent of NPV for each year of delay, starting from the expiry of the original lease period. This penalty can accumulate up to five times the original NPV, with an additional 12 per cent simple interest on the total amount until it is paid.
