400+ Ecologists Write to Environment Minister Against Amendments to Forest Conservation Act
The Wire Staff
A group of more than 400 ecologists – ranging from renowned academics and practitioners to students and researchers – have written to Union environment minister Bhupendra Yadav about the proposed amendments to the Forest Conservation Act, expressing their concerns. The amendment Bill is set to come up for discussion in the upcoming monsoon session of parliament.
The ecologists have highlighted four major concerns with the Bill – and said that instead of amending the existing Act, it seems to seek to change it entirely. “We strongly believe that the present Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 along with the judgment in the Supreme Court order in WP 202/9 together provide a strong basis for the protection of natural ecosystems, and require better and effective implementation,” the signatories say.
The full letter is given below.
■ ■
Shri Bhupendra Yadav
Union Cabinet Minister for Environment, Forest & Climate Change
Dear Shri Yadav,
We do hope this letter finds you well.
We are writing to you as ecologists and conservationists, who have spent decades working to research and conserve India’s ecosystems and the valuable services they provide. We also include research scholars and students who are beginning their careers in the field.
Each of us is deeply concerned about the state of India’s ecological security, given the current data in the public domain. Only 21% of India’s land area has forests, and only 12.37% of this is intact natural forest (very dense and moderately dense forest). Further, 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 northeastern hill states, show a net decline of 3199 sq. km of forest cover from 2009 to 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, which, in no way, can replace the ecological functions performed by intact natural forests.
Given this already fragile state of India’s forests, and based on our diverse experiences from the ground, we have serious concerns regarding the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill, 2023, that has recently passed through the Joint Parliamentary Committee. In fact, one could argue that this is not just an Amendment but an entirely new Act. Numerous organisations have provided submissions during the consultation phase and their concerns seem to have been ignored. We are writing to highlight again the many issues in the Bill and to urge our MPs and ministers to reconsider this move. We strongly believe that the present Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 along with the judgment in the Supreme Court order in WP 202/9 together provide a strong basis for the protection of natural ecosystems, and require better and effective implementation.
We outline our concerns with the Bill below:
(1) Reclassification of forest areas
The new Section 1A, Sub-Section 1 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.
If these areas are declassified, it will mean that thousands of square kilometres of forests will lose protection overnight. In fact, 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.
Through much of our work, we have seen that these forests are extremely biodiverse and are vital habitats for thousands of nonhuman species. Areas such as the Aravalli forests, which will lose protection are a vital green lung for northern India and provide refuge to hundreds of species of birds, reptiles, mammals and amphibians, apart from serving critical hydrological and climatic modulation for the entire Delhi NCR. Innumerable examples can be given of the ecological necessity of maintaining at least 23% of India’s land area under forests, as enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy.
(2) Exemptions for projects near border areas and for security purposes
The Amendment will remove the necessity of forest clearances for security-related infrastructure within 100 km of international borders. These areas are home to the most ecologically important ecosystems in the country, including the forests of northeast 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. Other security-related infrastructure in different parts of the country is also exempted from forest clearances, which means that every part of the country could be impacted by military infrastructure. However, the need for fast-tracking should not imply the complete elimination of the need for appraisal.
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. Their loss will result in greater displacement and heightened internal security risks. 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.
(3) Exemptions for zoos, safari parks and ecotourism activities
As should be obvious, a zoo or safari park and a forest cannot be equated. One is a thriving ecosystem, interconnected in thousands of ways, many of which we are still only learning about. The other, a zoo, can be a place for ex-situ conservation or education but can never be a replacement for the former. The aim should be to construct world-leading conservation centres in addition to giving our natural ecosystems the protection they need. Eco-tourism is also an important ancillary activity to generate employment, but exempting it from clearances will mean that tourism will overtake nature. There is enough evidence that ecotourism projects often encourage large-scale construction, which is detrimental to natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
Section 2 of the Amendment also states that the Central government may exempt clearance for ‘any other purposes, which the Central Government may, by order, specify.’ This could open the door to a whole host of ancillary activities on forest land that will no longer require clearances.
(4) Riding roughshod on local human communities
Exempting such a large number of projects from the clearance process will mean that forest- dwelling people will no longer be consulted. This is an extremely important way that forest- dwelling people are given a voice. The Scheduled Tribes And Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition Of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, has made it mandatory to get free, prior and informed consent of local communities through their gram sabhas, a right that they have won over years of struggle. It is likely that this proposed Amendment to FCA will ride roughshod over the rights of forest-dwelling tribals and other people.
As has been pointed out before in some representations, it is also not clear as to whether there has been any consultation with the National Commission on Scheduled Tribes by the Union Government under Article 338 of the Constitution, as it mandates that the Union and every State Government shall consult the Commission on all major policy matters affecting Scheduled Tribes. Many of the proposed Amendments in the Bill [Section 1A (1)(b) and Section 1A (2)] adversely affect the protection accorded to Scheduled Tribes (“STs”) and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (“OTFDs”) under the FRA 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.
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. Doing so will require strengthening forest protection laws and the rights of indigenous peoples to own and manage their lands. This Amendment will only seek to hasten the decline of India’s natural forests.
For these reasons, and those described above, we urge that this Amendment Bill not be tabled in Parliament without additional consultations with domain experts. An extension of time for submitting objections to the JPC and further discussions is essential.
Thanking you sincerely for your attention and consideration, and with our warm regards,
Signed by:
400+ Academicians and Scientists.
(For full list of signatories, see ‘The Wire’. Courtesy: The Wire.)
More Than 100 Ex Civil Servants Question New Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill
Constitutional Conduct Group
Full text of the letter is as below.
■ ■
Honourable MPs of the Lok Sabha,
Honourable MPs of the Rajya Sabha,
We are a group of former civil servants of the All India and Central Services who have worked with the Central and State Governments in the course of our careers. As a group, we have no affiliation with any political party but believe in impartiality, neutrality and commitment to the Constitution of India.
We are deeply perturbed by the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023, which was introduced in Parliament in March 2023 and is slated to be passed in the coming monsoon session. Our concerns are both about the content of the Bill as well as the procedure by which the Bill is being examined and passed.
Procedurally, the Bill should have been referred to the Parliamentary Committee on science, technology, environment and forests, instead of being referred to a Select Committee, all the members of which, except one, belong to the ruling party, making the examination partisan and unsatisfactory.
The historical reason for the passing of the Forest Conservation Act (FCA) in 1980, viz. to prevent deforestation, needs to be appreciated, before we discuss the present Bill. In the thirty years prior to 1980, about 4.2 million hectares of forest land were lost, being diverted for non-forestry purposes. In over forty years since the enactment of the FCA, 1980, only about 1.5 million hectares have been diverted. Even though the adverse impacts of climate change were not obvious in 1980, it is a testament to the sagacity of our lawmakers that they considered it critical to regulate the diversion of forest lands through the enactment of the FCA, 1980.
Unfortunately, in the last few years, despite the adverse impacts of climate change becoming increasingly obvious – the floods now sweeping north India are a glaring example – the diversion of forest lands has gathered pace. Between 2018-19 and 2022-23, almost 90,000 hectares of forest land have been diverted for non-forest use. The institutions of the Forest Advisory Committee and the Regional Empowered Committees, which are meant to regulate and minimise this diversion, have been ineffective. Hardly any proposal for diversion of forest land seems to be rejected! In 2020, alone, of the 367 proposals received for diversion of 14,855 hectares of forest land, only 3 proposals amounting to about 11 hectares were rejected!
This tendency of liberally giving away forest land for non-forest purposes, is now sought to be further strengthened through the FCA Amendment Bill. This Bill allows forest land, other than in protected areas, to be used for several non-forest purposes, viz. (i) defence related purposes within 100 kms. of the border of India; (ii) stretches of land alongside railway lines and highways; (iii) zoos and safaris owned by the government or any authority; (iv) eco-tourism facilities; (v) silvicultural operations (to enhance forest growth); and, most worryingly, (vi) any other purpose specified by the central government. The Bill also specifies that reconnaissance and prospecting surveys, among other surveying activities, may be undertaken, under conditions to be specified by the central government. One wonders what is the purpose of prospecting surveys? Does it mean that if any important minerals are found in dense forests, mining will be allowed? A recent print article mentions that diamond mining is proposed to be undertaken in the dense natural forests of Buxwaha, in Madhya Pradesh, even though this will endanger water availability in the region, and contribute to local as well as global warming. Permission for this mining project has been given even under the existing, stricter, Act. What will happen once the Act is amended, and permissions are granted freely?
The preamble of the Bill mentions that as a result of this Bill, forest and tree cover will be increased to create a carbon sink of an additional 2.5 to 3.0 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, by 2030. It puts its faith, apparently, in compensatory afforestation. Such an expectation is unrealistic given the fact that large tracts of existing natural forests will be diverted for non-forest use. There are ample studies which suggest that natural forests are forty times more efficient as carbon sinks than newly planted forests. Moreover, the results of compensatory afforestation, as of today, have not been rosy. Between 2008 and 2019, an area equal to only 72% of the diverted forest area was brought under compensatory afforestation; moreover, 24% of this was on existing, but degraded, forest land.
It is important to remember that natural forests are important not only as carbon sinks but also because they harbour immensely precious flora and fauna. India is one of only 17 megadiverse countries in the world with more than 5000 endemic species of plants and animals. This myopic Bill threatens all of this biodiversity.
Besides the fact that the Bill seeks to overturn the praiseworthy Supreme Court judgment of 1996 in the Godavarman case (which, inter alia, defined forests as any piece of land that resembles the dictionary meaning of forest), one of its most damaging provisions is to allow forest lands within 100 kms. of the country’s borders to be used for ‘strategic linear projects of national importance and concerning national security’. This 100 km. stretch would cover all the north-eastern States and would include Sikkim and Uttarakhand – states which have the highest forest cover in the country and are also biodiversity hotspots.
The preamble of the Bill also mentions that it will “enhance forest based economic, social and environmental benefits, including improvement of livelihoods of forest dependent communities”. One of the main Acts which supports forest dependent communities is the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006. The current Bill does not contain any provision to protect the rights granted under the FRA; nor does it mention whether the provisions of the Bill are in conflict or conformity with the provisions of the FRA. For example, what happens if the lands, on which one or more forest communities depend, are leased out for eco-tourism or safari parks or used for defence installations? This conflict was observed by Mr Harsh Chauhan, until recently the Chairman of the National Commission on Scheduled Tribes; he resigned, reportedly, because his request that the Bill be deferred was not accepted by the government. It is apparent that far from protecting forest dependent communities, the Bill may actually threaten their livelihoods and their lives.
Article 48A of the Constitution says that “the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”. It is apparent that the FCA Amendment Bill will do just the opposite.
The Amendment Bill is replete with flaws and is totally misleading. We urge you not to pass it in its present form as it will nullify the very Act it seeks to amend, and will prove to be the last nail in the coffin for the existing forest resources of the country.
SATYAMEVA JAYATE
(For full list of signatories, see The Wire.)
Another article in The Wire, “Citizens, Climate Action Groups Protest Against the Passage of Forest Conservation Amendment Bill”, details the protests held across the country against the amendment bill (Extract):
Ahead of the upcoming Monsoon Session of parliament, where the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 is slated to be tabled, citizens and climate action groups across India held peaceful demonstrations in Delhi and 16 states to protest against the passage of the Bill.
The Monsoon Session will begin on July 20.
The protesters used online campaigns with hashtags such as #SaveIndianForests and #ScrapForestConservationAmendmentBill2023, and launched an email campaign addressed to political leaders and members of parliament in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
All the rural and urban citizens from several states, including Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir, rural Punjab, among others, have demanded that the government scraps the Bill in its current form.
Other regions such as Lucknow, Hasdeo in Chhattisgarh, Kolkata, Visakhapatnam, the Western Ghats states of Maharashtra, among others, have made the same demand.
