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 a 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 derives its 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 yet another example of misconceived strategy of development. Government would need to prove its claim of improving lives.—INFA