Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill 2023: Massive Attack on Forests and Rights, Fillip For Corporate-Security State
Tapan Mishra
THE BJP government is continuing its relentless assault on the country’s environment and natural resources, especially on forests, with resultant severe impacts on forest-dependent tribals and other forest-dwellers. At the same time, the government proclaims its commitment, loudly but falsely, to environmental protection! A Forest (Conservation) Amendments Bill 2023, introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 29, 2023 does exactly that. In brief, the bill proposes to narrow the definition of forest lands and exempt large sections of forests from having to obtain permissions for diversion to non-forest activities, using security grounds in border regions and Left-wing extremism areas as cover, but also opening up large areas throughout the country. The bill was referred to a joint parliamentary committee, which called for public responses by May 15, 2023 and will report on these to parliament in the coming monsoon session.
The bill itself is a follow-up to a broad proposal floated by the ministry of environment, climate change and forests (MoEF&CC) towards end-2021 which had also been put up for public responses. At that time, a large number of political parties including the CPI(M), environmental and other civil society organisations, think tanks and experts had raised a number of objections to the provisions then proposed. Besides the proposed provisions, a major objection raised had been that there was no mention of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and the hard-won rights it bestows on tribal peoples and other forest dwellers. Shockingly, the present bill has not only ignored all those objections and suggestions, but has hugely expanded the forest areas which are to be exempted from existing regulations, chiefly the Forest Conservation Act 1980, restricting non-forest activities. It also further tramples on protections earlier granted under different forest or environmental regulations and Supreme Court rulings.
FALSE PRETENCES
Before discussing the actual provisions, it is important to look at the deceitful preamble and even the title of the bill. Accepting that the bill proposes amendments to the prevailing Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, the irony should be noted of a bill with “conservation” in its title proposing a slew of measures enabling diversion of large swathes of forest for non-forest purposes. The fraudulence does not stop there.
The new preamble introduced in the amendment bill recognizes the forest-related new international commitments made by India in its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) submitted under the Paris Agreement in 2015, namely to achieve net zero emissions by 2070, bring one-third of India’s land area under forest or tree cover, and create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.
Anyone looking at this preamble and these promises would believe that the bill was proposing to expand forest areas. The reality is opposite.
The concealed intent is to allow forest areas to be diverted to non-forest purposes, while new tree cover or carbon sinks are created through compensatory “afforestation” or private investments in or commercial plantations.
Of course, viewing forests or tree cover through the single lens of carbon sequestration is completely wrong and is another example of how terminological jugglery is used to mislead by passing off private or other commercial plantations as forests or in the name of “sustainable development.” The Draft National Forest Policy 2018 has also introduced the concept of “production forests” in public-private partnerships, again looking at plantations through a commercial and carbon lens. However, forests cannot be conflated with tree cover, as the two are not the same. Even if new trees or commercial plantations provide carbon sequestration equivalent to that of natural forests they replace, although this is highly doubtful, the former will not perform the many ecological services performed by natural forests, nor will they provide sustenance to tribals and other forest-dwellers.
PROVISIONS IN THE BILL
Broadly speaking, the bill exempts a wide range of forest lands from having to seek and obtain approval for being used for non-forest purposes.
The bill also redefines “forest land” as those lands recognised as forests in government records on or after October 25, 1980, thus circumventing the famous Supreme Court order of December 12, 1996 in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India which recognises as forests all lands with forests as ordinarily understood and as so recorded in any government record at national, state or local levels. Many forest lands in the government records date back decades before 1980. As per the latest Forest Survey of India’s State of Forests Report (2021), out of the total forest area of 7,75,288 sq km, as much as 1,20,753 sqkm is categorised as “unclassed,” accounting for approximately 15 per cent of India’s total forest cover. In some states, unclassed forests are a large proportion of the total forest cover.
It would be readily seen, as explained below, that these provisions remove vast and ecologically sensitive forest areas from the protections of having to obtain “forest clearance” if they are to be used for non-forest purposes. This re-definition of “forests” means that such exempted lands can henceforth be sold, diverted, cleared, felled or otherwise utilised without any prior approval.
The exempted forest lands include forests situated alongside railway lines and public roads or providing access to related infrastructure or public facilities.
Tree plantations and afforestation works are also similarly exempt, providing for private or other commercial plantations in cleared forest lands. A new and very serious exemption is for forest lands within 100 kilometres from international borders or LoC (Line of Control between India and Pakistan in J&K) or LAC (Line of Actual Control between India and China) as may be required for strategic purposes. The need for additional infrastructure for both military and civilian purposes is understandable, but exemptions could also be sought and obtained on a case-by-case basis. Hundred kilometres along the LAC or international borders encompasses almost the entire eastern Himalayas, huge swathes of north-east and eastern India with borders with Myanmar and Bangladesh. These areas contain wildlife sanctuaries and two out of four biodiversity hotspots in out of just 36 in the world. These hotspots in NE India are both biologically rich and already highly threatened, and the region is also home to many rare wildlife species. Similarly a huge part of the highly sensitive Sunderbans falls come within 100 km of the Indo-Bangladesh boarder. These forests provide enormous ecological services all over the region and also support the lives and livelihoods of millions of already marginalised peoples.
Exemption has also been granted for up to five hectares for developing infrastructure for defence or paramilitary forces in “Left-wing extremism” affected areas, which could be so defined anywhere in the country. It needs emphasis that many of these areas are inhabited by tribal and other forest-dwelling communities including Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG). Further, in order to provide in advance for any eventuality or requirement, up to ten hectares of forest land anywhere in the country may be used for security related infrastructure without seeking forest clearance!
UNACCEPTABLE CENTRALISATION
The Bill also provides for undue weightage for the union government as against the Constitutional schema wherein forests fall under the concurrent list dividing jurisdiction and powers equally between the union and the states.
A specific provision empowers the central government to issue any directions it feels necessary for implementation of the Act-to-be to any central, state or local authority.
More dangerously, the bill provides for the union government to permit any “survey,” reconnaissance, prospecting, exploration and so on in forest lands by not classifying the former as “non-forest activities.”
The provisions assume special importance in view of the resistance by several State governments to developmental projects pushed by the Union government with environmental impacts including in forest lands and without regard to concerns of the concerned state government.
In sum, the entire Bill is highly damaging for India’s forests, for the environment in the country in general, for States’ rights and for the lives and livelihoods of tribals and other forest dwellers. It is hoped the bill would be resisted in parliament.
