Environment and conservation have finally begun receiving greater public attention in Nagaland. That is welcome. The increasing discussions around forests, wetlands, wildlife and biodiversity suggest that awareness is growing. But awareness alone cannot conserve what is rapidly disappearing.
The government and the authorities responsible for conservation have a much greater role to play. Organising events, observing environmental days and issuing reports and press statements are important, but they cannot become substitutes for sustained action on the ground. Conservation requires identification, documentation, protection, scientific management and, above all, long-term commitment.
National and international recognition should not be treated as the ultimate measure of successful conservation. Yet Nagaland’s complete absence from several major global conservation frameworks should make us pause. The state has no World Heritage Site, Ramsar Site or UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Nor does it have a site on the IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas or a recognised Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS).
This raises an uncomfortable question. Does Nagaland genuinely lack places, landscapes or traditional systems worthy of such recognition? Or have we simply failed to identify, document, develop and pursue them with the seriousness they deserve?
The second possibility deserves honest examination. Nagaland is known for its forests, rich biodiversity, traditional ecological knowledge, community-conserved areas and distinctive agricultural practices. If these resources have potential for wider recognition, then years of inaction represent a missed opportunity, not merely an absence of a certificate.
Such recognitions do not happen overnight. They require credible documentation, scientific assessment, community participation, institutional continuity and years, sometimes decades, of dedicated work. They also require authorities to look beyond routine departmental activities and ask what can actually be achieved.
The real question, therefore, is not why Nagaland has no global conservation label. It is whether we have done enough to discover what deserves one.
If the answer is no, the time for another event or statement has passed. What is needed now is a serious inventory of Nagaland’s ecological and cultural assets, followed by a clear strategy to protect, strengthen and, where appropriate, put them forward for national and international recognition.
Conservation must move from ceremony to commitment, and from intention to measurable action.
