In the wilderness

Forest Bill defeats purpose of the law

The government’s enthusiasm for development has diluted environmental laws in the interests of industrial and infrastructure projects. Between 2020 and 2022, it introduced a variety of changes to the Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986, providing major relaxations and exemptions, such as decriminalising offences under the EPA with fines that some analysts say are too low to act as a deterrent. Last week, the Lok Sabha passed the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill, which makes significant changes to the original law. Indications of the trend were evident in 2022, when the government relaxed the rules concerning compensatory afforestation. The amendment Bill was introduced in March 2023 and was referred to a 31-member joint parliamentary committee. The committee did not propose any changes but, significantly, six MPs from the Opposition filed dissent notes.

Apart from renaming the law in Hindi, which excludes non-Hindi-speaking areas in the east, northeast (the region most impacted by the new provisions), and south, the amendments make a mockery of the original purpose of the law. It excludes forests from the purview of the Act under five conditions. The first is for forest land alongside rail lines or public roads that lead to habitations or amenities up to 1,000 square metres. The second is forest land within 100 km of international borders, including the line of control, for constructing “linear projects of national importance and concerning national security”. The third is up to 10 hectares for constructing security-related infrastructure. The fourth is security-related infrastructure up to 5 hectares in areas afflicted with left-wing extremism. And finally, it exempts any land that is not notified as forest on government records on or after October 25, 1980. All these exemptions can be guaranteed to result in a diminution of India’s already sparse forest cover. In particular, the legal relaxation along the northeastern borders and in the jungles of central and east India heightens the danger of losing fragile biodiversity and encroaching on the land and rights of indigenous communities. This provision has already drawn criticism from states such as Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Chhattisgarh.

By limiting the Act to forest land notified before October 25, 1980, the government has also restricted the scope of the Supreme Court’s landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996, which extended the Act to the dictionary meaning of forest (that is, to areas with trees rather than just those legally notified as “forest”). It is true that this capacious definition was an irritant for realtors and investors in industrial projects but it also had the effect of affording a modicum of protection to such endangered ecosystems as the Aravalli hills. It is also concerning that the amendment adds under the definition of forestry activities projects such as zoos, safari parks, and eco-tourism. The broader aim is to ensure that such areas contribute to India’s forest conservation and climate change goals. But zoos and safari parks are man-made constructions that corral animals within a limited space. They cannot be considered natural forests. As for “eco-tourism”, the concept is yet to prove its conservation credentials. On a broader scale, the Bill gives excessive powers to the Central government even though forests were included in the Concurrent List of the Constitution, pointing to another potential source of tension in the already fraught Centre-state relations.