Amba Jamir
Senior Policy Analyst &
Development Strategist
The recent report in The Morung Express (March 19, 2026) regarding Nagaland’s "Zero CAMPA fund" should be a wake-up call for every stakeholder in the state. While our North-Eastern neighbours have accessed thousands of crores for forest restoration, Nagaland remains the only state to forfeit its share, an estimated ₹5,000 to ₹6,000 crore over five years.
To say our case is "unique" because of Article 371A is a starting point, not an excuse. Other states with similar protections have already "cracked the code" by moving beyond defensive vetoes to proactive authorship.
The Mizoram Model: Legislative Authorship
Like Nagaland, Mizoram is protected by a constitutional provision (Article 371G) that shields land and resources from central acts. However, the Mizoram Legislative Assembly didn't stop at a veto.
• The "Official Resolution": In August 2025, the Mizoram Assembly passed a formal resolution to “adopt” the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023.
• The Strategy: They didn't simply let the Central Act apply; they used their constitutional power to formally "extend" it to the state. By doing so, they satisfied the technical requirement for CAMPA funding while maintaining that the extension happened through their own sovereign assembly, not by Delhi’s fiat.
The Meghalaya Model: Institutional Inclusion
Meghalaya faces the same "custodianship" reality we do, with over 90% of forests owned by communities and clans. They unlocked CAMPA funds not just by "restructuring a committee," but by redefining the implementation chain.
• Bridging the Gap: They integrated traditional institutions, like the Nokma Council (Council of Garo Traditional Heads), into the State CAMPA Steering Committee.
• Direct Community Flow: Crucially, they developed a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) framework. Funds don't just sit in a government ledger; they flow to community-based organizations (CBOs) that implement "Community Natural Resource Management Plans." The state acts as the conduit, but the community is the executor and the beneficiary.
The Arunachal Warning: The Cost of a Vacuum
If we continue to ignore the need for a Nagaland-specific forest law, we risk the "Arunachal scenario." Because Arunachal lacks a strong legislative buffer like Article 371A, the Forest Department has faced serious allegations of using CAMPA funds to misappropriate ancestral lands.
• The Conflict: In the Dibang Valley, the Idu Mishmi tribe has fought cases where their village lands were allegedly reflected on the CAMPA portal as "degraded forest" to justify afforestation projects without their consent. (The Arunachal Times - June 2025)
• The Lesson: A lack of clear, state-authored law doesn't protect the community; it creates a "grey zone" where bureaucracy can operate without accountability.
Have We Truly Tried?
Nagaland's Forest Department boasts high-ranking officers from central services who know these regional models intimately. If Mizoram can use resolutions and Meghalaya can use PES frameworks to empower their custodians, why is Nagaland stuck at "Zero"?
Article 371A was meant to be a stronghold, not a hollow shell. I had earlier expressed this concern in another OpEd titled: Empowering Article 371A: Nagaland’s Need for Comprehensive State Laws on the 23rd October 2025 issue of The Morung Express. By refusing to legislate a "Nagaland Forest & Ecology Act", one that mandates NPV payments for forest diversion but keeps the money and the management in the hands of the Village Councils, we aren't protecting our rights. We are simply forfeiting our future.
It is time to stop saying "we don't know" and start asking, "Have we even tried to author our own way out?"
