Tishyarakshit Chatterjee Committee

The Tishyarakshit Chatterjee Committee was an expert panel established by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of India, in March 2012. The committee was chaired by Dr. Tishyarakshit Chatterjee, then Secretary of the Environment Ministry, and was tasked with formulating a scientific framework for identifying “inviolate forest areas” — forest regions that should remain free from mining and other large-scale industrial or extractive activities due to their ecological importance.

Background

The formation of the committee followed the controversy surrounding the identification of “no-go” areas for coal and mineral mining, which had been criticised for lacking transparency and uniform criteria. The government sought to establish an objective, scientifically based system for determining which forest tracts must be preserved from mining. The Chatterjee Committee was therefore mandated to define clear parameters for identifying inviolate areas, ensuring that decisions would balance developmental needs and environmental protection.

Terms of Reference and Objectives

The Committee’s key objective was to develop measurable criteria that could be applied across all forest regions of India to identify areas that should not be opened for mining or similar activities. The focus was on creating a uniform, transparent, and data-driven methodology to classify forests as inviolate based on ecological and environmental sensitivity.
The Committee’s main terms of reference included:

• Formulating objective parameters for identifying inviolate forest areas.
• Establishing a system of mapping and evaluation using spatial and ecological data.
• Providing a framework for coordination between the central and state governments in designating such areas.
• Recommending processes for stakeholder consultation and eventual notification of inviolate areas.

Key Recommendations

The Committee identified six major parameters to determine whether a forest area should be categorised as inviolate:

1. Forest Cover: The extent and density of vegetation in the area, indicating its ecological value and carbon sequestration potential.
2. Forest Type: Classification based on ecological diversity and sensitivity of specific forest types such as tropical moist, dry deciduous, or evergreen forests.
3. Biological Richness: The level of biodiversity, including the presence of endemic, rare, or endangered species of flora and fauna.
4. Wildlife Value: The role of the area as a habitat or corridor for wildlife movement, particularly near protected areas like national parks and sanctuaries.
5. Hydrological Value: The importance of the forest for maintaining water regimes, river catchments, and groundwater recharge.
6. Landscape Integrity: The connectivity of the forest landscape with other ecosystems, ensuring continuity of habitats and ecological corridors.

The Committee proposed that areas falling within a specific threshold under these parameters, especially those located within one kilometre of national parks, sanctuaries, or critical wildlife corridors, should automatically be treated as inviolate.

Methodology and Implementation Process

The Chatterjee Committee recommended a phased approach to implementation:

• First Phase: The Forest Survey of India (FSI) and other technical agencies would conduct mapping based on readily available data such as forest cover, type, and wildlife value.
• Second Phase: Compilation of more detailed datasets on hydrology, biodiversity, and socio-economic aspects by central and state agencies.
• Final Phase: Public consultation, validation of identified areas, and formal notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

This approach aimed to combine ecological science with participatory governance, ensuring that both conservation and development objectives were addressed.

Significance

The Committee’s work had far-reaching implications for India’s environmental and mining policy. Its recommendations sought to:

• Provide scientific legitimacy to the designation of no-mining zones.
• Reduce conflicts between conservation authorities and industrial sectors.
• Ensure that ecologically fragile regions received permanent legal protection.
• Promote sustainable mining practices by directing extractive industries to less sensitive zones.

By establishing a transparent and objective framework, the Chatterjee Committee’s report aimed to create a balance between economic development and ecological preservation, making it a significant milestone in India’s environmental policy discourse.

Criticisms and Challenges

Despite its well-defined framework, the Committee’s recommendations encountered several challenges during implementation:

• Complex Data Collection: Compiling comprehensive information on biodiversity and hydrology across all forest regions required significant time and resources.
• Policy Dilution: Later modifications to the criteria reportedly reduced the number of parameters or merged them, potentially expanding the areas available for mining.
• Industry Pressure: There were concerns that industrial and mining interests could influence how inviolate zones were demarcated.
• Coordination Issues: Differences between central and state authorities in interpreting and enforcing the guidelines caused delays.

Environmentalists argued that any dilution of the criteria would weaken the purpose of the committee and threaten the integrity of critical forest ecosystems.

Later Developments

After submission of its report in 2012, the MoEFCC initiated consultations to operationalise the framework. By 2014, the Ministry revised some of the committee’s parameters and guidelines to make the process more flexible for mining approvals, merging certain ecological indicators for simplicity.
The concept of “inviolate forest areas” continues to influence India’s forest clearance and environmental impact assessment procedures, although implementation remains uneven across states.

Relevance and Policy Impact

The Tishyarakshit Chatterjee Committee represents a landmark effort in developing a rational and science-based method for environmental decision-making. It demonstrates India’s attempt to integrate ecological sensitivity into resource governance and policy formulation.
For environmental governance studies, the Committee’s work is significant for:

• Introducing criteria-based conservation planning.
• Bridging the gap between ecological science and administrative decision-making.
• Reflecting the tension between industrial development and environmental protection.