Conserve forests in sync with saving livelihoods

PARLIAMENT recently passed the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, paving the way for a modification of the regulatory regime for the conservation of forest resources in the country, based on the experience gained over the decades after the enactment of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The latter is not a prohibitory Act but a regulatory mechanism for the use of forest land for non-forest purposes. According to an estimate, since 1980, around 10 lakh hectares of government forest land have been diverted for developmental purposes; the annual rate of diversion since 1950 has been 1.5 lakh hectares, with a total of 4.5 million hectares of forests diverted for agriculture and other non-forestry use. The Act has made a tremendous impact on conserving water and other life-sustaining resources and medicinal plant biodiversity. It has also contributed to sustaining the livelihoods of the forest-dependent rural poor and tribal people by curbing rampant diversion of forests.

In the 1970s, the Central Government helplessly witnessed de-reservation of reserved forests for developmental purposes by state governments; in the run-up to elections, Chief Ministers used to announce in assemblies or in public that encroachments on forest land would be regularised. The subject of ‘Forests and Wildlife’ was transferred from the State list to the Concurrent list through the 42nd Constitution Amendment Bill. After discussions, the Forest Conservation ordinance was promulgated by the Government of India in October 1980; Parliament enacted the Forest Conservation Act in December 1980. This changed the way forests were managed in the country.

However, ever since the enactment of this Act in 1980, many activists, social workers and lobbies, especially the mining and hydropower industries, have claimed that it is a hurdle to development. Issues such as providing basic amenities in villages (schools, dispensaries, anganwadi centres, electricity and water supply, etc), settlement of tribals’ claims and defence-related projects near international borders have been raised by states.

In 2002, the government delegated the powers of diversion up to 2 hectares to the states for public utility projects such as schools and check posts. In 2006, the Forest Rights Act was enacted by the UPA government to carry forward its predecessor’s February 2004 notification in which a roadmap was created for the settlement of disputed claims on forest land occupied by the tribals by converting it into an Act. Proponents of the Forest Rights Act have been the most vociferous critics of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. However, paradoxically, the same people are now opposing the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act (notified on August 4). The 2006 Act was enacted to correct a historical injustice to tribals; even more than 17 years later, the issue remains unresolved. Political brinkmanship has taken centre stage in states such as Madhya Pradesh, where Assembly elections are due later this year, as a large number of encroachments on forest land are threatening the livelihoods of the tribal people. When the Forest Rights Act was enacted, its focus was more on community rights, but mostly individual rights are now being claimed.

Let’s analyse the scope of changes with regard to the 2023 Act. First, it takes out of the 1980 Act’s purview all forest land diverted for non-forestry use on or before December 12, 1996, after the Supreme Court order in the Godavarman case. It will help the states and user agencies change the land use in public interest without seeking the Centre’s nod. Second, the Bill has taken out private land on which afforestation has been done; forest land situated alongside a rail line or public road maintained by the government and providing access to a habitation, or to a rail and roadside amenity up to a maximum size of 0.1 hectares in each case; forest land situated within a distance of 100 km along international borders for the construction of projects related to national security, such as roads. It has further allowed up to 10 hectares for the construction of security-related infrastructure; in Left-wing extremism-affected areas, it is restricted to 5 hectares. For all this to be implemented, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change will issue specific operational guidelines. However, many people are arguing that especially in the North-East, the entire state will come within the 100-km radius and they fear that it will open a Pandora’s box for the use of forest land and threaten livelihoods. They argue that in any case, no state was opposing the release of forests for defence-related activities. Third, amending of Section 2(iii) of the principal Act has ruffled feathers. With regard to leasing out of forest land to private people or bodies, the words “not owned, managed or controlled by the Government” have been replaced by “subject to such terms and conditions, as the Central Government may, by order, specify”. Fourth, it has expanded the list of activities in sub-section (ii), ancillary to conservation, by including the establishment of zoos, safaris, eco-tourism activities, etc. Fifth, it empowers the government to specify the terms and conditions subject to which any reconnaissance survey, prospecting, investigation or exploration shall not be treated as ‘non-forest purposes’.

It is clear that there should be no quarrel with the first two categories of changes as there was a long-standing demand to rationalise the applicability of the 1980 Act for better implementation of the regulatory regime for private land and land along rail lines or roads, except that 100 km from international borders is too large an area for small states like those in the North-East, where tribal people fear a loss of livelihoods. The ministry, while issuing guidelines as per the new 3C Section, should restrict the area to less than 50 km and up to 2 hectares initially so that local livelihoods are not affected. The third, fourth and fifth points are just explanations or expansions of existing provisions. However, the ministry must keep a strict watch as states such as Odisha, soon after the August 4 gazette notification released by the Ministry of Law and Justice, issued an order to district collectors on deemed forests — contrary to the assurance of Forest Minister Bhupender Yadav during a debate in Parliament. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.