Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill passed in Lok Sabha despite concerns
The Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill, which provides for contentious exemptions for constructions on forestland, was on Wednesday passed in Lok Sabha despite concerns and amid protests as the deadlock over the opposition’s insistence on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement in the House on the Manipur violence continued.
The bill was in March referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which invited public suggestions in May. The panel cleared all amendments the environment ministry proposed even as four opposition lawmakers on the committee submitted dissent notes.
During the debate on the bill, Union environment minister Bhupender Yadav cited international commitments on the climate crisis and Nationally Determined Contributions with three quantitative goals. He said the first two goals have been achieved nine years in advance but the third of creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3.0 billion tons of CO2 equivalent was yet to be realised. “For that, we need to focus on agroforestry and increase tree cover. The goal is important for the entire world.”
He said the development has stopped in certain Left-wing extremism (LWE)-affected areas due to certain restrictions in the current law. Yadav added they want critical public utility projects to reach these regions. “The exemption to forest areas in 100 km area from borders, LAC [the Line of Actual Control with China], and LOC [Line of Control, the de facto India-Pakistan border in Jammu and Kashmir] will help develop roads critical for border areas…help develop strategic infrastructure for our national security.”
He underlined the JPC reviewed the bill and passed all amendments proposed.
Ruling Bharatiya Janata Party member Rajendra Agarwal, who headed the JPC, was presiding over the proceedings in Speaker Om Birla’s absence when the bill was discussed and passed.
The bill was passed days after around 400 ecologists, scientists, and naturalists wrote to Yadav and members of Parliament on July 18, urging them not to table the proposed legislation. They cited the devastating impacts of climate change and environmental degradation and highlighted floods this summer across north India. “This is the time for the government to reaffirm its commitment to protecting the country’s immense biodiversity…This amendment will only seek to hasten the decline of India’s natural forests.” They called for additional consultations with domain experts.
The bill covers only land that has been declared or notified as forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, or under any other law. It says prior clearance is not needed for the construction of any strategic linear project of national importance. Almost all of the ecologically-fragile northeast fall under this category.
The submissions attached to the JPC report show opposition to the provisions of the bill. The environment ministry insisted exemptions were needed in the absence of clarity on the scope of the current law, unclear government records, the need to provide connectivity, etc. It also cited the fast-tracking of strategic and security-related projects of national importance, especially along the international border, LAC, LoC, and LWE-hit areas.
The report admits experts have highlighted the amendments were likely to dilute the Supreme Court’s 1996 landmark Godavarman judgment. The verdict widened the scope of the Forest Conservation Act to apply to any land recorded as forest irrespective of its ownership—large tracts of unclassed forests in the northeast, for example.
The ministry clarified that unclassed forests will also be covered.
Experts pointed out that the 100 km exemption from border areas can be detrimental to ecologically sensitive areas of the northeast. “Please look at the northeast, for example. If you are going to exempt 100 kilometres from each border, what is going to be left? it is a very sensitive area. As it is, we are seeing the problems which are being created because of certain communities who have had traditional rights and customary rights to forests under Schedule VI [of] the Constitution which itself, I believe, is inadequate,” noted an unnamed expert in the submission made to the JPC.
The Sixth Schedule provides for the autonomous administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.
The environment ministry said the 100 km provision has been decided in consultation with the defence ministry. It insisted it is considered optimum to meet the requirement of defence organisations and strategic requirements. The proposed exemption along the international borders and in LWE areas are not generic exemptions and will not be available for private entities, it said.
Experts have said the bill violates provisions of the Forest Rights Act as it does not clearly speak of prior informed consent of village councils on forest clearances. The environment ministry has insisted there was no violation.
Congress’s Pradyut Bordoloi, who was among those who submitted dissent notes to the JPC, wrote what remains an obvious gap, even in the statement and objects of the amendment, is the reconciliation of the forest conservation legislation with the forest rights question. He added that should have been important especially when almost all proposed amendments will necessarily come to bear on prevailing, pending, or recognised forest rights. “There is an absence of any perspective on how existing proprietary, customary, and livelihood use rights will be dealt with for net zero compliant lands or in the case of fresh forest land diversions.”
