By Riya Lalchandani

Abstract

This research article endeavours to present a comprehensive understanding of the newly proposed Forest Conservation Act Amendment Bill. The article starts by explaining what the bill is and what it seeks to achieve, it then proceeds to analyse the statute and expounds upon the proposed amendments, followed by an update on the current and projected status of the bill, and lastly a discussion on the social and environmental ramifications of the changes introduced.

What is the Forest Conservation Act Amendment Bill 2023?

The Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill 2023 seeks to grant exemptions to the forest land for matters related to national defence and development aiding social, economic, and environmental purposes. These exemptions are granted to carry out initiatives of national significance and involving national security for building a camp for paramilitary forces, defence-related projects, security-related infrastructure, or public utility projects. Additionally, it allows for the charitable donation of forest land for non-forest purposes, such as the development of wireless communications construction of fences, boundary markers or pillars, bridges, culverts, check dams, waterholes, trenches, and pipelines, for the setting up of zoos, safaris, and eco-tourism facilities, among other things. 

What are its goals and objectives?

As per its Statement of objects and reasons the proposed Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 aims to update the existing Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to address new challenges related to ecological, social, and environmental developments. The amendments seek to broaden the Act’s horizons to tackle climate change challenges, achieve national targets of net-zero emissions, and enhance forest-based economic, social, and environmental benefits, including improving livelihoods for forest-dependent communities. 

The Bill clarifies the scope of applicability of the Act to different types of lands, exempting certain categories from its purview, such as fast-tracking strategic and security-related projects of national importance and encouraging plantations on non-forest lands. It also introduces provisions to specify terms and conditions for surveys not considered as non-forest purposes and grants the Central Government the power to issue directions for the Act’s implementation. Additionally, the Bill aims to bring uniformity in the applicability of the Act to both government and private entities and includes more activities related to the conservation of forests and wildlife within the scope of forestry activities. These amendments seek to align the Act with dynamic changes in ecological, strategic, and economic aspirations while preserving the country’s rich tradition of forest preservation and biodiversity conservation.

Why is it controversial?

This decision is facing the public ire for two main reasons.

One of which is that this Bill poses three major implications which undermine the protection granted for the protection of forest lands and indigenous communities alike.

This goes against the 1980 Act’s goal, which was to prohibit the de-reservation of forest area and the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, as well as large-scale deforestation.

Second, these actions will infringe on the rights of the communities that live in the forest, which were safeguarded by the 2006 Act. Thus, it also makes the 2006 Act less effective.

Third, such exemptions to forest areas are granted without the approval or consent of any authorities, including the Gram Sabha Sub-divisional Level Committee, District Level Committee, and State Level Monitoring Committee.

The second reason for which it is being scrutinised is the narrow interpretation of forest lands under amended section 1a reducing them to just two types, diluting the progressive landmark judgement of the Apex court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India which had broadened the scope of forest conservation.

What does the newly added Section 1a say?

The Forest Conservation Act amendment introduces a new section, 1A, which specifies the types of land covered by the Act and those exempted. The Act covers land officially declared as a forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, or any other existing law. It also includes land that is not officially declared as a forest but has been recorded as a forest in government records on or after October 25, 1980, with the exception of land that was converted from forest to non-forest use before December 12, 1996, based on an order issued by the State Government or Union territory Administration. The term “government record” refers to records held by the Revenue Department or Forest Department of the State Government or Union Territory Administration, or any other recognized authority, local body, community, or council.

On the other hand, certain categories of land are exempted from the Act’s provisions. These include forest land located alongside government-maintained rail lines or public roads, providing access to habitation or rail and roadside amenities, limited to a maximum size of 0.10 hectares each. 

Additionally, trees, tree plantations, or reafforestation on lands not specified in the covered land categories mentioned above are also exempted. Furthermore, forest land situated within a distance of one hundred kilometres along international borders or Line of Control or Line of Actual Control, intended for strategic linear projects of national importance related to national security, is exempted. 

Similarly, forest land up to ten hectares, intended for the construction of security-related infrastructure, is also exempted. Lastly, forest land proposed to be used for defence-related projects, paramilitary force camps, or public utility projects, as specified by the Central Government, is exempted, but limited to an extent of five hectares in Left Wing Extremism affected areas as notified by the Central Government.

What are the other changes introduced by this bill?

In subsection (1), the words and brackets “Forest (Conservation) Act” would be replaced with the words and brackets “Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam.” This change would officially rename the Act as “Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam.”

The proposed amendments to Section 2 of the Principal Act involve renumbering it as sub-section (1) and introducing specific changes to its clauses. In clause (iii), the phrase “not owned, managed, or controlled by Government” would be replaced with “subject to such terms and conditions as the Central Government may specify.” The Explanation would be revised to exclude certain activities from the definition of non-forest purpose, including silvicultural operations, the establishment of infrastructure for forest staff, fire line maintenance, wireless communications, construction projects, zoos, safaris, and eco-tourism facilities specified by the Central Government.

Additionally, a new sub-section (2) empowers the Central Government to define the terms and conditions under which certain surveys, such as reconnaissance, prospecting, investigation, or exploration, would not be considered non-forest purposes.

Section 3C empowers the Central Government to issue necessary directions to any authority, organization, or body under its jurisdiction, including State Governments and Union territories, for the effective implementation of this Act.

What is the current status of this bill?

March 2023 Bill is introduced in Parliament →  20^th July JPC’s approval → 26^th July Lok Sabha approves the bill

The Bill was first introduced in Parliament in March 2023 amidst protests, including those led by Congress MP and former environment minister Jairam Ramesh. The matter was subsequently forwarded to a 31-member JPC led by BJP MP Rajendra Agrawal and comprised of 14 BJP MPs.

On 20th July, without almost any comments, adjustments, or suggestions, the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which was reviewing the Bill’s alterations approved all the proposed changes in the bill and presented and presented its report along with dissent notes’ tendered by 4 opposition MP’s.

On Wednesday, 26th July 2023 Bhupender Yadav, the Union Minister for Environment, Forestry, and Climate Change, reintroduced it in the Lower House, where it was approved following a brief discussion. To “fulfil India’s Nationally Determined Contributions, we need agro-forestry and tree cover, and this Bill is necessary for the objective,” Bhupender Yadav stated in response to the debate over the bill in Parliament.

What are the potential environmental and social ramifications of this bill?

Environmental concerns:

The proposed Forest Conservation Act amendment has sparked significant opposition and concerns from environmentalists and conservationists. The bill’s proposal to redefine forests may now allow ecosystems in vital areas such as the Aravallis, mangroves, and forests in the Western and Eastern Ghats to be diverted or cleared without regulatory oversight.

In a letter sent to Parliament in July of this year, a group of more than 100 former civil servants expressed their worries about “the tendency to liberally give away forest land for non-forest purposes,” which they felt would be “strengthened by the passing of the Bill.”

The letter’s signatories argued that it is “unrealistic” for the Bill to depend on “compensatory afforestation” to help India reach its objective of increasing its carbon sink by 2.5 to 3.0 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030.

To make up for the loss of another forested area, compensatory afforestation entails locating non-forested or degraded forest land and restoring the forest cover.

Border states fiercely opposed the Bill because of concern that the changes will have a significant negative impact on their forests. These included Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Nagaland, Tripura, and Assam, each of which provided the Joint Parliamentary Committee with a separate report.

Federal issues undermining the powers of state governments

One major issue is the potential infringement on the federal structure, as the bill grants the central government the authority to decide whether certain activities qualify as “non-forest purposes,” without consulting the state governments. This has led to dissent from MPs who believe it undermines the rights of state governments and their administrative control over their respective forests.

R. Girirajan, a DMK MP, said in his dissent note that forests are included in the concurrent list and that “granting all powers” to the Centre “infringes on the rights of the state governments.” He underlined the necessity for state governments, who he said should have administrative responsibility over the forests in their respective states, to be involved in discussions about forest clearance issues.

The Joint Parliamentary Committee also received a recommendation from TMC dissident MP Jawhar Sircar that the central government should create these regulations “in consultation with the state government”.

Legal issues regarding dilution of laws

The Joint Parliamentary Committee’s 201-page report explained that the 100-kilometre restriction would only be used for national security concerns and wasn’t a  blanket exception.

According to Bill’s statement of purposes and justifications, in light of the relaxations offered by the suggested modifications, “conditions of planting trees to compensate for the felling of trees undertaken” would be included. But there is still much to worry about. 

According to Sharachchandra Lele, distinguished fellow at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, “the government is watering down regulations for the conservation of forests in the entire nation, which started last year with the Forest Conservation Rules of 2022 which sidelined local consent.”

The national government’s notification of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022 last year does away with the requirement to obtain gram sabha approval before destroying forests in a region.

Author’s opinion

While the Joint Parliamentary Committee’s role is crucial, the absence of local stakeholders like forest dwellers and villagers raises concerns about representation and compensation. As we delve deeper, it becomes apparent that the absence of local communities might not merely lead to a lack of representation but also result in the absence of just compensation and meaningful rehabilitation. History has etched the tragedies of governmental projects that have disrupted lives without offering adequate reparations. Ensuring that development is humane and respects the dignity of those impacted is not only a moral obligation but a litmus test of our societal values. Striking the right balance is imperative; sustainable economic progress need not jeopardize natural heritage. As we navigate this intersection, our policies must reflect inclusivity, empathy, and the wisdom to ensure that development respects both ecological systems and human lives, weaving a narrative that harmonises aspirations with environmental stewardship.

Author’s Bio

Riya Lalchandani is a 2nd-year BBA LLB student at JGLS with a keen interest in environmental law and conservation. She is a columnist at the Centre for New Economics Studies and writes research articles aimed at raising awareness about pressing environmental and social issues for their blog Nickled and Dimed. She is also a medical and nutritional facilitator at People for Animal Welfare (PAW) JGU. Her hobbies include volunteer work and reading. 

Image Source: State of Forest Report 2017