Open Forum
New Delhi, 30 August 2023
Forest Amendments
BETTER OR WORSEN CONSERVATION?
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The
controversial Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill 2023 passed recently in
the monsoon session of Parliament, has generated a huge debate and opposition
from environmentalists and scientists who are concerned about ecology and
nature. Broadly, it seeks to restrict the conservation scope of the Act to only
certain forest lands. It also exempts border lands from the obligation to seek
permissions to clear forests to construct “strategic linear projects of
national importance”. Finally, it also allows some non-forest activities on
forest lands, such as running zoos and ‘eco-tourism’ facilities, at a time when
global warming has accentuated not just in India but the world over.
The
history of the amendments was the result of a consultation paper of the Ministry
of Environment way back on 2 October 2021 which proposed significant amendments
to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA) mandating deregulations, penalties
and norms on non-forestry activities in forest lands. The ministry asked the States
to revert with their suggestions and objections over the next 15 days, after
which a draft of these amendments would be tabled in Parliament. However, these
amendments limited the ambit of the FCA making it easy for the diversion of
forest land for non-forestry purposes and proposed to exempt certain agencies
like the railways and road transport ministries for ‘strategic and security’
projects from seeking permission from the Centre prior to such actions.
This led
to the present amendments. It stipulates that only those lands that were
notified as ‘forest’ under the Indian Forest Act 1927, any other relevant law
or were recorded as ‘forests’ in government records will be acknowledged as
‘forests’ under the Act as well. This revision stands in stark contrast to the
wide applicability of the extant Act at present – i.e., it applies to “any
forest land”. A Supreme Court judgement in 1996 had reiterated such a broad
application and stated that a ‘forest’ includes just the land recorded in
government records regardless of ownership and not “deemed forests”, which are
not officially classified as ‘forests’.
The apex
court had also asked States to undertake an exercise to identify and notify
their own deemed forests. But even after almost 30 years, many States are yet
to complete this exercise. As such, the amendment opens up all land that hasn’t
been officially classified as ‘forests’ to commercial activity. It also removes
the checks and balances the Act currently includes, in the form of forest
clearance permissions and consent of the local community.
The
amendments further seek to exempt linear infrastructure projects such as roads
and highways from seeking forest clearance permissions if these are located
within 100 km of the national border. Experts have raised concerns because
“strategic linear projects of national importance” is an undefined term and can
thus be misused to push through infrastructure projects that are devastating
for the local ecology.
One may
mention here that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
clarified to the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) that areas identified in
1997 by the expert committees have been taken on record and will therefore be
recorded as forests. However, a bare reading of the text of the amendment suggests
otherwise and the matter could have been addressed clearly. For forest areas
identified after 1997, the status is unclear. Forest lands that are yet to be
identified as per the dictionary meaning are excluded from the scope of the
post-amendment FCA.
There is
a genuine feeling among critics that real estate and mining lobbies are prime
beneficiaries. Forest lands in States like Haryana and Uttarakhand, which have
not yet identified forest areas will reduce. The threat in the National Capital
Region is even higher due to high potential gains for real estate in the
Aravallis. For example, over 35 percent of the Aravalli hills of Faridabad and
Gurugram comprising 18,000 acres kept as forests “status to be decided” would
be threatened and would need alternative protection. The biggest losers will be
citizens who depend on hydrological functions of forests like groundwater
recharge and stream flow. Additionally, those tribals living in forest land
would be greatly affected.
The
whole exercise entails freeing forest land for developmental projects as also
for security purposes. But the big question that arises is the livelihood
concerns for those who live inside non-recognised forests or deemed forests.
Moreover, the other important aspect is the question of countering global
warming and the imperative need for extending the reach of forests in a bigger
and planned way. Experts question, and very rightly, that these amendments run
counter to the States’ objectives of ecology and environmental protection.
Obviously,
the criticisms of the Act related to the amendments, not really contributing
towards regenerating natural forests. Many criticised that the amendment
weakened the Supreme Court’s judgement of Godavarman (1996). Concerns from
north-eastern States were raised as it exempted the land near border areas for
national security projects. In fact, projects within 100 km of international
borders would no longer require forest clearance, which raises concerns about
the degradation of forests, thereby jeopardising the environment.
Environmentalists
have stated that this should be restricted to less than 50 km and up to two
hectares initially so that local livelihoods are not affected. Some are also of
the opinion that central protection for deemed forests and restrictions may
lead to curbs on the tourism industry and related activities, thereby affecting
local incomes.
Over the
years, diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes has become a rule
rather than an exception. According to available data, since 1980, around 10
lakh hectares of government forest land have been diverted for do-called
development purposes and the annal rate of diversion since 1950 has been 1.5
lakh hectares.
It is
indeed tragic evident that environmental laws, which have been formulated to
play a crucial role in the protection and conservation of the environment and
the sustainable use of natural resources, are not followed scrupulously.
Article 48(A), of the Directive Principles of the Indian Constitution states
that “the State shall make an effort to protect and improve the environment and
shall also safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country”. Article 51 A(g)
makes it our fundamental duty to “protect and improve our environment including
forests, lakes and wildlife”. But unfortunately lack of adherence to these laws
has enabled large-scale violations. And the result has been different forms of
environmental catastrophe.
The most
striking fact is that when global warming has created havoc in most countries,
such tendency to curtail forests is obviously not quite desirable, not just in
India but in most countries across the globe. The important consideration for
India is that a large section of the population lives inside and derivesits livelihood
from forest produce. Just talking of renewable energy will not stop nature’s
fury; there is need to lay emphasis on afforestation and ensure that forests
are not indiscriminately curtailed for so-called development projects that do
not benefit the impoverished and backward sections of society. This could well
be described as yetanother example of misconceived strategy of development.
Government would need to prove its claim of improving lives.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|