The hornets’ nests in the Forest Amendment Bill/Missing the woods

• Recently, the Lok Sabha passed the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 with no substantive changes from the original version.
• It ignores strong public objections that highlight a number of concerns.

The problem areas

1. The narrowed definition of forests under its scope

• The Bill significantly restricts the application of the landmark Godavarman judgement of 1996
  • It had extended the scope of the 1980 Act to the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ i.e. areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest.
• The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980.
• This change could potentially impact around 28% of India’s forest cover
• Perversely, States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgement, are now free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development.

2. The exclusion of significant tracts of forest areas

• The Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems.
• It removes the need for forest clearances for security-related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders.
• These include globally recognised biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows.

3. The granting of sanction to additional activities that were regulated earlier

• The Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and eco-tourism facilities.
• It also grants unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify ‘any desired use’ beyond those specified in the Act.
• Such provisions raise concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.

4. No reference to other relevant forest laws

• The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest-dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 finds no mention.
• Instead, the exclusion and ease of diversion of forest areas mean that forest people’s institutions no longer need to be consulted.
• If India is to meet its net zero carbon commitments and increase forest cover, it should further the participation of forest people, rather than disenfranchise them.

Conclusion

• The system of forest clearances under the FCA (1980) may have been flawed but this Bill does little to rectify these deficiencies.
• Instead, it just excludes certain privileged sectors from its ambit.
• The objective of fast-tracking strategic and security related projects is a fair ask.
• Administrative processes can and should be speeded up and needless delays in environmental clearance avoided.
• However, giving blanket exemptions from regulatory laws is not the answer.
• Forests and other natural ecosystems are an absolute necessity and cannot be considered a luxury.