New Delhi: Haryana has a bizarre and logic-defying formula to balance urban development and environment protection in NCR. The state government has proposed that some of the nature conservation zones, which are critical for sustainability, could be scrapped in “urbanizable” areas and relocated somewhere else. This sub-regional plan will be placed before NCR Planning Board (NCRPB) on Thursday. But some members of the planning committee received details of the plan late Wednesday afternoon. Nature conservation zones include most part of the Aravalis, riverbeds and areas surrounding other major water bodies. The proposal may prove to be a disaster for NCR since only the state government can decide which areas are urbanizable. “This is a ridiculous provision. How can you finish a conservation zone in one area and identify another somewhere else? It’s not like compensatory forestation,” said Chetan Agrawal, an environmental analyst. Haryana has already prepared the draft plan for Mangar region, proposing a mega tourism complex in the area that has a sacred forest. “Once this proposal is cleared, they can make an eco-sensitive zone an urbanizable area. Hope some members object to this proposal,” said Tykee Malhotra, who has also been fighting for saving Aravalis. Sources told TOI that another provision in the proposed plan suggests giving a free hand to the government for any land use in agriculture zone in “controlled/ development/ regulated areas”. It says that “any other use” can be allowed in these areas as “approved by the town and country planning department as per the policy parameter decided by the government”. Haryana government officials said that this is not the final plan and changes could be made if the planning committee suggests amendments. “We will also put our case in the meeting. If they still suggest changes we will incorporate them and put the final draft before the empowered committee, which has the power to approve subregional plan,” an official told TOI. Times View Allowing conservation zones to be developed by mandating that land for the purpose may be given elsewhere makes no sense. Where these zones ought to be is not something that we can arbitrarily determine, it is determined by natural factors. This is not a zoo that can be shifted from one location to another at man’s convenience. It is sad that short-term real estate considerations are allowed to trump long-term ecological sustainability is such a cavalier manner. Better sense should prevail and this move must be prevented from becoming a decision.