A collective of 420 people that includes ecologists, conservationists and students, have written to Bhupendra Yadav, Union Cabinet Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, expressing serious concerns regarding the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill, 2023 that has recently passed through the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).
The petition has been signed by representatives of premier institutions from across India and abroad, such as National Institute of Advanced Studies, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Indian Institute of Science, National Centre for Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore and Trinity College, Dublin.
Referring to data in the public domain that shows that only 21% of India’s land area has forests, and only 12.37% of this is intact natural forest, the petition says while the Forest Survey of India has shown a marginal increase in forest cover of 2261 sq.km during the last two years, it has been proven by domain experts that this hides a pattern of deforestation in some parts of the country. For instance, the most biodiversity-rich part of the country, the north-eastern hill States, show a net decline of 3199 sq.km of forest cover from 2009-2019. Further, field surveys show that much of even this marginal increase in forest cover can be ascribed to commercial plantations, forest fragments and urban parks, that in no way can replace the ecological functions performed by intact natural forest.
“Given this already fragile state of India’s forests, we have serious concerns regarding the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill, 2023. In fact, one could argue that this is not just an amendment but an entirely new Act.”
Pointing out that numerous organisations have provided submissions during the consultation phase and their concerns seem to have been ignored, they have outlined their major concerns with the amendments, leading with the reclassification of forest areas.
“The new section adds confusion regarding the classification of forests in the country, stating that the FCA will only apply to areas recorded as forest in government records, as on or after 25 October, 1980. This has raised legitimate fears that the amendment will invalidate the Supreme Court’s 1996 judgment in T.N. Godavarman vs Union of India in which the court interpreted the meaning of forest as its dictionary definition, expanding the purview of the FCA,” says the petition, adding that if these areas are declassified, it will mean that thousands of square kilometre of forests will lose protection overnight.
The Forest Survey of India’s latest report, India State of Forest Report 2021, states that while 5,16,630 sq km of the forests are within Recorded Forest Areas, 1,97,159 sq km of forests lie outside Recorded Forest Areas. This implies that out of a total of 7,13,789 sq km of forests of India identified by FSI, 1,97,159 sq km of forests (27.62% of our forests) will lose all protection, they have explained, citing the example of the Aravalli forests.
The petitioners have also singled out the exemptions for projects near border areas and for security purposes, as well as for zoos, safari parks and ecotourism activities, arguing that the amendment will remove the necessity of forest clearances for security-related infrastructure within 100 km of international borders — areas which are home to the most ecologically important ecosystems in the country, including the forests of North East India, the high altitude deserts of Ladakh and Spiti, the alpine forests of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, and the open scrub and desert ecosystems of West India.
Climate change
“While ensuring the military security of the country is a priority, it should not come at the cost of losing our ecological security. These natural ecosystems play a crucial role in buffering against increasingly unpredictable weather patterns caused by climate change. The recent floods in the Western Himalayas have shown that areas heavily disturbed and fragmented by infrastructure development have experienced the most destruction of property due to landslides,” the petitioners have said.
Highlighting the difference between a zoo or safari park and a forest, and emphasising that a a zoo can be a place for ex-situ conservation or education but can never be a replacement for a forest, they have also said eco-tourism, though an important ancillary activity to generate employment, tourism will overtake nature with clearances.
“Exempting such a large number of projects from the clearance process will mean that forest dwelling people will no longer be consulted....It is likely that this proposed amendment to FCA will ride roughshod over the rights of forest-dwelling tribals and other people. Many of the proposed amendments in the Bill adversely affect the protection accorded to Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers because if the land falls outside the scope of the FCA, it effectively eliminates the requirement of obtaining consent from the Gram Sabha for diversion of that land,” says the petition.
Urging the government to not be tabled in Parliament without additional consultations with domain experts and seeking an extension of time for submitting objections to the JPC, the petition says as the devastating impacts of climate change and environmental degradation become clearer, highlighted in the recent floods across north India, this is the time for the government to reaffirm its commitment to protecting the country’s immense biodiversity.
Concerns
- Reclassification of forest areas
- Exemptions for projects near border areas and for security purposes.
- Exemptions for zoos, safari parks and ecotourism activities
- Riding roughshod on people
