Ministry of Environment regulations state that projects must first obtain permission to cut down wildlife before permission is given to cut down forests.

Until now, development projects proposed in protected areas, such as nature reserves or national parks, could apply for forest and wildlife logging at the same time. But now they must follow a sequence: first they must apply for wildlife logging, and only then can they apply for forest logging.

The decision was announced by the Ministry of Environment through a letter on July 8, 2024.

Wildlife clearances are issued by the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife, which is responsible for guiding government decisions on matters related to wildlife conservation. Forest clearances, which must be obtained by projects in protected areas, as well as those in areas that are not protected but are forested, are issued by the Forest Appraisal Committee in a separate process.

In addition, projects must also obtain an environmental permit, which is issued by an expert assessment committee.

Environmental experts have called for some streamlining of the approval process in the past. In 2014, the Centre for Science and Environment wrote that “multiplicity in the approval process is a major problem that leads to poor decision-making and also perpetuates unscrupulous activities,” and that a “holistic system” was needed to “integrate” the permits from the pollution control commissions and the environmental, forest and coastal permits.

“In protected areas, prioritizing the removal of wildlife is the right regulatory approach,” said Arpitha Kodiveri, an environmental lawyer and assistant professor at Vassar College in New York. Kodiveri explained that because the National Board of Wildlife’s functions require it to apply the highest level of review to proposals, its findings can be instructive to other agencies as well if it fulfills its role with rigor and consistency.

But she questioned whether the new policy could “concentrate a lot of power in the hands of the wildlife councils.”

Furthermore, Kanchi Kohli, an independent legal policy researcher, noted that the move did not appear to be aimed at improving the nature of the evaluation of projects seeking to operate in protected areas, but only at improving the efficiency of the process. “It appears to be addressing the red tape for the ministry and those who want to use this land, and not the quality of the decision on a development project in a protected area,” Kohli said.

The reversal of the ministry

The recent policy is a reversal of suggestions made by the ministry earlier this year.

In January 2024, during a discussion on the construction of a road in the Rajaji Tiger Reserve in Uttarakhand, the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife suggested that “unless a project proposal is cut, it should not be placed before the Standing Committee for consideration”. At the end of this discussion, the Committee suggested suggested that the Ministry of the Environment must issue ‘policy guidelines’ on this matter.

In response, the ministry issued a letter in March implement This suggestion was that all proposals requiring approval from the Council’s Standing Committee on Wildlife would first have to apply for a logging permit.

The July 8 letter reverses the order. Experts are not sure why this change was made. Kohli suggested that the reversal may reflect the type of environmental landscape the ministry believes should be prioritized for conservation.

“Within forest conservation, protected areas have long been given the maximum protection, they have always had a higher hierarchy,” Kohli said. “The letter reflects in some ways how the ministry treats landscapes, and the most important of which are protected areas.”

A current member of the National Board of Wildlife, who asked not to be named, made the same guess about the reversal. “The decision seems to have been taken based on internal decisions of the ministry,” the member said. “Maybe it is because the ministry wants to reiterate that in the context of protected areas, the wildlife permit is the most important permit, and if you don’t get that, why bother with the rest?”

Kohli added that another reason for the ministry’s move could be that it was trying to ease parts of the approval process that it thought had the most significant “roadblocks.” The assumption, she said, is that “if that roadblock is addressed from the beginning, the rest of the process will flow.”

The letter specifies that the order it lays down is to be followed in two types of cases: first, if a project is located in a protected area, and second, if it is spread out in such a way that it is both inside and outside a protected area. If the project is located in an eco-sensitive zone, which is the area up to 10 km outside a protected area, wildlife and forest clearances can be obtained simultaneously, the letter says.

But some experts are unsure about the benefits of this sequence because of what they see as the poor service record of the National Board of Wildlife. “Prima facie, the order could make a difference if the standing committee were to do the work it is supposed to do in accordance with the Wildlife Protection Act,” said MK Ranjitsinh, a former member of the board. As indications of problems with the board’s functioning, he cited the low number of proposals it rejected, the poor representation of non-governmental conservationists on the board’s standing committee and the declining scrutiny of projects submitted to the standing committee.

“The standing committee has become a project approval committee and this order just seems to be a rubber stamp to show that a better structure is being created and to gain more acceptance in the eyes of the people,” he said.

The letter also provides guidance to avoid “fait accompli” situations – that is, situations where proponents begin work on projects without obtaining the required consents, and then argue that consents should be granted anyway because they have already made financial investments.

The letter specifically seeks to prevent such situations in projects located on both protected and non-protected land. It states that in such projects, proponents can only obtain an “in-principle” permit to use land outside the protected areas, and that the final “stage II” permit can only be granted if the Standing Committee approves the use of the protected area in question.

What happens to public consultations?

Experts are also concerned that the new order of approvals could negate the role of public consultations in the approval process.

Of the three approvals, only an environmental approval requires public consultation. Under this process, individuals affected by the proposed project are given a forum to raise concerns about the project; developers must address these concerns and submit a final environmental impact assessment to the ministry for approval.

On the other hand, before any logging is allowed, under the guidelines Under the amended Forest Conservation Act, 2023, the project developer is only required to “ensure compliance with and observance of the provisions of all other laws and rules”, including those relating to the regulation of rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

When granting permits for wild animals, there is also no need for consultation with people who may be affected by the upcoming project.

“In this new order, we don’t know when the environmental clearance will be issued,” Kodiveri said. “If the situation is that both the wildlife and forest clearances are issued, then the community is almost cornered during the environmental clearance.” She added that giving priority to the wildlife clearance could force people to approve the latter, “instead of giving them a say from the beginning of the process.”