On August 2, Parliament passed the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, in a bid to further Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s commitment to India’s sustainable and inclusive development. It also works as an enabler to secure India’s borders.
Under PM Modi, India is working towards social, economic and ecological justice for its 140-crore citizens. The Bill furthers the Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas vision of the government by making provisions that ensure people living in deep forests, held captive by left-wing extremists for decades, are able to join the mainstream of India’s sustainable development journey. The legislation has been drafted with a vision to ensure that tribal people have access to basic amenities that enhance their ease of living. It responds to the aspirations of a New India and lays the ground for enhancing green areas outside forests and making forests more productive.
Those challenging the legislation’s vision seem to lack a basic understanding of the development needs of forest dwellers and left-wing extremism-impacted areas. It is sad, though not surprising, that the Opposition refused to participate in the debate over this crucial piece of legislation – after they had criticised it on social media.
The Modi government’s commitment to protecting and enriching India’s forest cover is reflected in data. As per the latest India State of Forest Report 2021, India’s total forest cover is 7,13,789 sq km — 21.71 per cent of the country’s geographical area. The forest cover of the country has increased by 1,540 sq km and the tree cover has increased by 721 sq km compared to the assessment in 2019.
The Bill does not give any blanket permission for the diversion of forest land but only allows minor exemptions by taking care of all conservation concerns, including compensating the affected trees. It is important to understand why this piece of legislation became necessary.
The Forest (Conservation) Act was promulgated on October 25 1980 to regulate the use of forestland for various other non-forest purposes. It stipulated that the de-reservation of reserved forests, use of forest land for non-forest purposes, assigning forest land by way of lease or otherwise to private entities and clearing of naturally grown trees for reforestation requires prior permission of the Union government. Forest policy was a state subject earlier. A paradigm shift in the applicability of the FCA was observed after the Supreme Court’s orders in the Godavarman case (1996). The SC clarified that the Act will apply not only on notified forest land — forest lands recorded in government records — but also in the areas resembling forests as per dictionary meaning. Each state government had to constitute an expert committee to identify such lands, plantations and private forests.
After the order, the Act was made applicable to revenue forest land or in lands which were recorded as forest in government records and to areas which resembled forests as per their dictionary meaning. Many such lands were already put to non-forestry use with the required approval of the competent authority. This resulted in different interpretations of the FCA’s provisions, especially in recorded forest lands, private forest lands and plantations. Developmental work could not be undertaken in government-recorded forestlands that were been put to non-forestry use after state sanction.
Fear had also crept in that FCA could be applied to private plantations. Afforestation outside forests failed to get the desired impetus. This was becoming a hindrance to enhancing the green cover to fulfil the Nationally Determined Contribution targets of creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3.0 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent. The legislation addresses these concerns.
The Bill exempts an area up to 0.10 ha in forests to provide access to the public for habitation and road/rail, side amenities. This small exemption will pave the way for tribal children, especially the girl child, to get access to education. It will allow pregnant women and elderly people to access hospitals. It will weaken the hold of extremism as forest dwellers will join the developmental mainstream.
The understanding earlier was that border areas should be left undeveloped so that the advancing enemy would find it difficult to make inroads. But warfare has undergone a paradigm shift and border areas need to be developed to ensure swift deployment of forces. India stands committed to extending to her soldiers, guarding the country in sub-zero temperatures, the road infrastructure needed for the transportation of weapons, protective gear and ration. The exemption is only for forest areas in border areas. Since most of India’s forest areas are landlocked, they are protected completely. There are checks and balances for all exemptions.
Elimination of ambiguities will facilitate decision-making on proposals involving non-forestry use of forestland by the authorities. For want of enabling provisions in the Act, it is difficult to create basic infrastructure in the forests. This affects forestry operations, regeneration activities, monitoring and supervision and prevention of forest fires. These provisions will pave the way for better management of forests and add to the efforts towards mitigating the impact of climate change and the conservation of forests.
Activities like the establishment of zoos and safaris as well as ecotourism, besides sensitising and generating awareness about the importance of protection and conservation of forest land and wildlife, will add to livelihood sources of local communities, providing them opportunities to connect with the mainstream of development. One of the reasons for the success of Project Tiger and Project Elephant is the regular visits of tiger and elephant lovers to reserve areas. When communities find livelihood in economic activities around forest areas their commitment to conservation increases. We cannot see people as antagonistic to nature.
The writer is Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change; & Labour and Employment
