Feature Story: Newly Issued Notice by National Forestry and Grassland Administration Sparks Controversy Amid Current Economic Work (AI Translation)

特稿｜服务当前经济工作 国家林草局新发通知引争议

The National Forestry and Grassland Administration issued Document No. 64 on October 14, 2024, introducing eight measures to streamline approval processes for key projects involving forestry and grassland elements. These measures aim to improve economic work and development but have sparked controversy, as they could conflict with higher-level laws such as the Forest Law and the Law on Prevention and Control of Desertification. Critics argue that these measures prioritize economic development over ecological protection, potentially justifying illegal practices and reducing regulatory oversight [para. 1][para. 2][para. 3][para. 4].

Document No. 64 allows for phased processing of relevant approval procedures during the construction of key projects, enabling prior use of forest and grassland areas with subsequent documentation. This approach could significantly reduce the initial resistance faced by such projects. A similar policy from the Ministry of Natural Resources in 2022, which included 26 measures for land use approvals, serves as a precedent [para. 4][para. 5].

This document emphasizes accelerating the completion of procedures for key infrastructure projects, such as highways, railways, and pipelines, allowing these projects to commence construction urgently with paperwork to be completed later [para. 9]. The potential relaxation of regulations on protected areas and wetlands has raised concerns among environmentalists, who fear that unsupervised projects could proceed without meeting stringent ecological standards, thus threatening biodiversity [para. 6][para. 7][para. 8].

Importantly, the document extends the temporary use period for forestry and grassland areas from two to four years, conflicting with the Forest Law. This extension could lead to prolonged unsupervised use, increasing the risk of ecological damage. Critics also caution against the "case-by-case" approach for projects involving desertified land protection zones [para. 10][para. 11][para. 12][para. 14].

Concerns extend to the oversight of projects affecting wetlands, with Document No. 64 allowing some projects to bypass consultation with the National Forestry and Grassland Administration. This could result in unchecked damage to wetland ecosystems, lacking clear standards for evaluating ecological impact [para. 13][para. 14].

Delegating assessments of key projects impacting terrestrial wildlife to provincial forestry authorities poses additional risks. These local entities might face conflicts of interest, potentially compromising the objectivity of environmental impact assessments as they balance economic development pressures [para. 15][para. 16][para. 17].

The document's focus on post-incident supervision, rather than preventive measures, has drawn criticism, as such an approach might fail to halt destructive activities promptly, exacerbating environmental harm. The document signifies a shift in the National Forestry and Grassland Administration's role, from regulatory oversight to facilitating economic development in forestry and grassland sectors [para. 18].

Lastly, the legality and enforceability of Document No. 64 have been questioned, given potential conflicts with higher-level legislation. Critics urge a need for stricter adherence to existing laws and improved clarity in regulatory standards to ensure the protection of ecological resources and align with national environmental goals [para. 20][para. 21][para. 22][para. 23].