While the controversial yet much awaited Nagaland Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations, 2012 (NPNGR) designed by the Cabinet Sub Committee (CSC) is likely to be passed in the floor of the State’s Assembly without much hiccups given the fact that the same has been, what the government claims, overwhelmingly approved by the Naga Hoho and the ENPO, the implementation of the said regulation could be a cumbersome exercise unless the major players are taken into confidence as an MOU has to be executed before the commencement of the project.
Ever since the draft modalities prepared by Grant Thornton has been tabled for further discussions on 13th July 2012, several individuals and groups has objected citing several reasons within and outside that modality. The Ao Senden declared that modalities on petroleum and natural gas would not be accepted and implemented in Ao areas for the time being since the “Naga political issue” was coming to “a logical conclusion”. Some members of the Naga Council Dimapur has also expressed their reservation about the modality citing the ongoing peace process as one reason and the other and more radical observation that exploration of hydrocarbons would create class division as some landowners will become millionaires.
Yet, the most vocal and steadfast resistance on the proposed regulation in its present blueprint has been from the Kyong Hoho which has taken a stiff position that upon the failure of the government to accommodate its suggestions, the Hoho will not allow any exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in its jurisdiction even if the Regulation is passed in the Assembly.
Apparently, the Kyong Hoho has been irked and felt betrayed by the non consideration of its recommendation by the CSC despite the fact that it is the CSC who has sought suggestions and opinions from the civil organizations. However, among the 15 point charter of demand placed by the Kyong Hoho, several has been already incorporated in the NPNGR that includes setting up of mini-refineries, monitoring agencies, environment protection and CSRs (though implicitly through general advisories), revenue sharing, educational institutes, employment and mode of payment etc.
Other demands of the Hoho like the establishment of Group Gathering Station (GGS), Gas Cracker Plant, location of the Company office, equity share, relief and rehabilitation, reclamation and reforestation and multi-party MOU can be ironed out and incorporated in the Act without much ado. The bone of contention seems to be on the area of employment, revenue sharing and mode of payment and the Trust Fund or what the Hoho calls the Community Benefit Fund.
While the government proposed a job reservation of 33 percent for unskilled labours, 20 percent for non-technical white collar jobs and 10 percent of all technical jobs; the Hoho wants 100 percent jobs reservation for 3rd and 4th grade and 30 percent for 1st and 2nd grade jobs. Here the Hoho might have to reconsider their demands and show some flexibility. With regard to grade IV employees, 100 percent job reservation for the Nagas may somewhat be justifiable; but 100 percent job reservation for 3rd grade (clerical) and 30 percent for class 1 and 2 categories needs to be reconsidered keeping in mind the specific job requirements of the firms and the availability of experienced and trained Naga workers.
Regarding the mode of payment of land access fee and royalties it would only reduce the burden of the state government if payments are made directly to the land owners rather than route it through the state government. And for the Hoho’s proposed Community Benefit Fund, the intention is quite appealing yet the mechanism for its operation are still unclear, hence, the Hoho need not rush ahead with this proposed Trust Funds till proper formalities and adequate guidelines are mooted out.
Among all issue, revenue (royalty) sharing has been the trickiest and most cumbrous issue where a sharp line of opinion has divided the government and the people which it represents. While the elected representative are of the opinion that the NLA enjoys the sole authority to frame its own laws regarding ownership of land and its resources (including minerals) and to that effect has passed a resolution on 26th July 2010, many Nagas still believe that the government cannot arbitrarily take away the rights afforded to the Naga people through article 371A.
Moatoshi Ao and N. T. Jamir in an earlier article asserted that this right is the outcome of the Naga people’s demand and struggle and not the State Government of Nagaland and therefore this right exclusively vests with the Naga people. The State Government of Nagaland was not even born when Article 371A was inserted in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962. They further maintained that the claim of the State Government of Nagaland the right to legislate a statutory law for sharing of royalty is against the customary right of the Naga people. Similar opinions have been vented out by others including Dr. Abraham Lotha, Dr. L M Murry and Jonas Yanthan.
In the NPNGR 2012, the government has identified three types of land owners, namely, individual land owners, village bodies and state government. While there appears to be no conflict in the case of individual, clan, community or village owned lands, many Nagas are still not willing to grant ownership status to the state government. Perhaps, the intention of the state government is not to grab the land belonging to the Naga people, but only to generate resources (through royalty) for its expenses under the shadow of an imaginary land owner; but the Nagas have been so dear to their lands that they don’t want to share that ownership status to anyone.
Hence, the question that has been raised by several commentators is how can the Nagas share royalties and revenues generated from the use of its ancestral lands to a non entity? Or, put it otherwise, how can the state government, claim a royalty from a land where it does not enjoy ownership status. Hence, the popular opinion is that, if extraction of minerals is undertaken from a land owned by the government let the government take away all royalty be it 10 or 20 percent: likewise, if the land is owned by individuals, clan or village bodies let them benefit the entire royalty.
However, confrontation will not lead to any workable solutions. Both the state government and the Tribal Hoho’s need to rethink for the overall and long run benefits of the Nagas. In a compromise, nobody gets everything, but that there should be concessions from both the parties. Even if the state claims ownership, it cannot enforce that right unless the Naga people concede upon it. Conversely, if the landowners insist not to share certain benefits with the state government, then the government may choose to ignore the plight of the landowners. In both the case, the Nagas are going to suffer. Hence, a mid way option may be available to settle the score between the parties.
Moreover, in the NPNGR 2012, the government has specified three types of operations, namely, pre- production, production and post production, where land access fee shall be paid during pre and post production and royalties on the volume of production during the production stage. Here, care has to be taken so that oil firms do not siphoned off crude oil or gas on the pretext of trial exploration as did in Changpang by the ONGC.
Lastly, effective engagement through open, transparent and meaningful consultation processes, adequate information disclosure in order to achieve inclusive and informed decisions and agreements on hydrocarbons and other minerals regulation in the state of Nagaland is crucial to establish a relationship that endures throughout the life of the project.
(N Janbemo Humtsoe)
Green Foundation,
Wokha.
