By Ranjit Barthakur
On July 26, 2023, the Lok Sabha passed the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 which proposes significant changes to the existing Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA), 1980. The Bill was passed despite a lot of scrutiny and criticism on the intent of the proposed changes to the original Act. While the Bill aims to build forest carbon stock and create compensatory afforestation, it has sparked concern among environmentalists and conservationists.
In 1980, the Forest (Conservation) Act was formulated to safeguard India’s forests by curbing non-forest activities in designated forest areas. However, the implementation faced hurdles, with certain forested areas being left out, and lands without standing forests included under the “forest” category. The present proposed amendment seeks to address these issues and create a more robust legal framework for forest conservation.
One of the major changes in the Bill is a preamble to the Act, encompassing India’s rich tradition of preserving forests, their biodiversity and addressing climate change challenges. This addition acknowledges the crucial role of forests in ecological balance and in mitigating the effects of climate change.
A point of contention in the proposed changes is the delimitation of forest lands under the Act. The Bill outlines two categories of land under its purview: lands already declared as forests under various laws and those notified as forests after October 25, 1980. Unfortunately, the amendment excludes forest lands not falling under these categories but recorded in government records before 1980.
This exclusion diverges from the 1996 landmark Supreme Court verdict in the TN Godavarman vs Union of India case1 which sought to provide legal protection against deforestation for all forest lands, irrespective of ownership or classification, mentioned in government records. The new amendments explicitly challenge this judgment and paves the way to legalise transfer of any forest land to non-forest use on or before December 12, 1996.
The Bill also offers extensive exemptions for the building of infrastructure under the garb of security, public utility, roadside facilities, zoo/safari, ecotourism, and other activities that typically endanger the forest and animals. This exemption can unintentionally encourage mining and ecologically disturbing activity on formerly forested territory. While these additions aim to regulate and manage human interventions in forests, critics fear that vague terms like “any other purposes” could potentially be exploited or misused to the detriment of forest ecosystems. These exemptions raise concerns about the potential loss of protection for sizable forest areas, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. Environmentalists argue that comprehensive coverage of all forest lands is necessary to ensure the preservation of India’s ecological wealth.
The Bill also introduces exemptions for strategic linear projects of “national importance and concerning national security” within 100 km of international borders, the Line of Actual Control (LAC), and the Line of Control (LoC). While national security is of paramount importance, a more robust approach would be to do more site specific assessments to maintain environmental safeguards to prevent unchecked degradation of fragile ecosystems. For example, this blanket exemption could exacerbate deforestation, especially in the ecologically fragile and biodiversity rich North-east states. Compensatory afforestation that follows these projects may not adequately offset the loss of biodiversity and natural habitats. Instead of a blanket exemption, a case-by-case examination of strategic projects would ensure a more balanced approach that accounts for both forest conservation and the economic benefits of certain activities.
Another exemption in the Bill applies to “security-related infrastructure” up to 10 hectares, and certain activities like silvicultural operations, construction of zoos and wildlife safaris, and eco-tourism facilities. While some exemptions are warranted, it is vital to ensure strict adherence to environmental norms to prevent any adverse impact on forests and wildlife. For instance, silviculture or afforestation activity is not necessarily bad in itself, but it must aim to increase native biodiversity and restore the ecology. Promoting plantations under the disguise of silviculture can have a detrimental impact on the ecology and biodiversity of the region, along with affecting livelihoods of the dependent communities. Strict guidelines regarding planting non-native trees and maintaining existing natural forests must be in place as the old-growth forests act as a complex ecosystem also serving as habitat, shelter and food sources for significant species of birds, reptiles, mammals, etc.
The Bill’s inclusion of zoos within forests is also debatable. In February 2023, a Central Empowered Committee set up by the Supreme Court had expressed reservations about zoos located within tiger reserves or national parks, emphasising the importance of wildlife living in their natural habitats. The panel was making observations on the issue related to the establishment of a tiger safari in Corbett Tiger Reserve’s buffer area. The panel advised the Supreme Court to issue directions to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and to ask them to review guidelines and revise them to discourage using wildlife habitats for wildlife tourism – a non-site specific activity. The Court panel’s reasoning behind the review was very straightforward—establishing zoos in deep forest protected areas will disturb wildlife and undermine conservation outcomes even if it boosts tourism there. The inclusion of this amendment in this Bill raises worrying concerns regarding the wellbeing of ecosystems and wildlife.
One of the most contentious issues regarding the proposed amendments is the emphasis on raising plantations to build forest carbon stock. The preamble and proposed amendments take a contradictory stance on the key aspect of building significant carbon stocks. While the preamble talks about preserving old-growth natural forests and enhancing natural ecosystems, the amendments emphasise making up for the loss of natural forests with plantations by highlighting the carbon sequestration benefits they provide. The spirit of the proposed amendments is also contrary to the existing National Forest Policy of 1988. While the amendments seek to promote commercial plantations, the existing policy has been conservative in its approach by calling to protect and maintain natural forests.
While afforestation is essential to combat climate change, critics caution against replacing natural forests with plantation forests—especially monoculture plantations. Plantations can never fully replicate the complex ecosystems that have evolved over centuries in natural forests, with their high quality soil carbon sequestration and carbon stock. Moreover, their replacement with plantations leads to soil degradation, water scarcity and loss of native biodiversity: all of which are crucial components in carbon sequestration. It is essential to strike a balance between afforestation efforts and conserving existing natural forests. The decision also has worrying implications for the old-growth forest ecosystems of the North-east, particularly in the context of expanding commercial plantations and linear infrastructure in the region.
While the Bill’s preamble mentions the need to enhance forest-based socio-economic benefits and livelihoods of forest-dependent communities, in practice, its amendments weaken and dilute this. Proposed amendments like Section 1A (1)(b) and Section 1A (2) of the Bill seem to be tilting towards weakening protections provided to Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers for decision-making over forest resources on which they depend under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. For instance, under the new amendments, if the land falls outside the FCA’s purview, the need to obtain the gram sabha’s approval before diverting it is effectively eliminated.
The proposed amendments also contradict the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted at the Conference of Parties (COP 15) in December 2022 which emphasised the need to have the full participation of relevant stakeholders in the decision making process. These especially include dialogues with the indigenous people and forest communities. To address these concerns, the government must prioritise sustainable afforestation and reforestation programmes, especially focusing on community engagement. The involvement of local communities has proven to be a successful strategy for sustainable forest management.
In conclusion, the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, reflects the government’s commitment to addressing the challenges of forest conservation in India. However, it requires careful evaluation and amendments to ensure that it upholds the principles of sustainable development and ecological integrity.
Striking a balance between conservation and development is no easy task, but it is essential to safeguard India’s natural heritage for future generations. By taking into account the concerns of environmentalists, conservationists and local communities, the government can create a more comprehensive and effective forest conservation framework that benefits both people and the planet.
—The writer is a social entrepreneur and environmentalist
Reference
1https://leap.unep.org/countries/in/national-case-law/tn-godavarman-thirumulkpad-vs-union-india-ors & https://indiankanoon.org/doc/372706/