(A long version of the article is available at this link)
Avoiding fait accompli situations
One of the chronic problems for the Forest
Advisory Committee (and the MoEF) has been that proposals usually come up at
the fag end of the project cycle, when massive investments have already been
made in plant and machinery, roads and other infrastructure, and so on. Thus
the FAC and MoEF can easily be made to appear as the ‘villain’ of the play, and
the very fact that all other clearances have been already given, private and public
investments already secured, bank clearances given, and production about to
start, makes it almost impossible for the forest clearance to be denied. The user
industry and the other ministries, imminent visits of national and international
figures and international agencies are also there to bring some sort of
pressure, moral if not direct, for acquiescence to the situation. Moreover, the
project entities are usually willing to agree to any ameliorative or mitigative
measures imaginable, at any cost, to get the project going, which makes the
grounds for refusal of forest clearance appear trivial and specious, in
comparison with the enormous gains to be made from commissioning the project;
These are termed fait accompli situations, and there are explicit exhortations in
the FCA Guidelines to avoid, or obviate,
them. In para 4.4, for instance, on “Projects Involving
Forest as well as Non-forest Lands ”,
it is pointed out (disapprovingly) that work is often started on the non-forest
components “in anticipation of the approval of the Central Government for
release of the forest lands required…” (Handbook,
p.36). In this context,
“Though the provisions of the Act may
not have technically been violated, by
starting of work on non-forest lands, expenditure incurred on works on non-forest
lands may prove to be infructuous if diversion of forest land involved is not
approved. It has, therefore, been
decided that if a project involves forest as well as non-forest land, work
should not be started on non-forest land till approval of the Central
Government for release of forest land under the Act has been given. (Handbook, p.36-37, emphasis
in original).
It is not very clear what statutory force
this “decision” has, as the Guidelines are usually considered to be of an
advisory, rather than a binding, nature. In the real world, of course, almost
no state government or, for that matter, project proponent, actually follows
this advice, well aware that the best bet for getting forest clearance is to
create as huge a fait accompli as
funds will permit. Desperate ends, in other words, call for desperate measures,
and the price to be paid will be only the odd project here and there suspended
for making a moral example by (rarely) the ministry, or more usually by the
courts in response to public interest litigation (PIL).
References
Government of India .
2004. Handbook of
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (with Amendments made in 1988), Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 (with
Amendments made in 2004), Guidelines & Clarifications (Up to June, 2004).
Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi .
No comments:
Post a Comment