Context: 

This article is expressing the concerns of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, which was passed on July 26 in the Lok Sabha.

• This Amendment Bill has no substantive changes from the original version which was introduced in March. It ignores strong public objections that were highlighted with a number of concerns.

Promises made by the New Bill: 

• The Bill starts with a promising Preamble, expressing the following commitments:
  • To achieve net zero emissions by 2070
  • Creating a carbon sink
  • Increasing forest cover
  • Improving the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities

Concerns with the Lok Sabha passed Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023:

• Differing of Operative Part from its Preamble: The operative part of the Bill shows little connection with the Preamble. 
  • Instead, it excludes entire categories of forest from the ambit of the law and even facilitates the destruction of forests.
• Differing of Priorities and Implementation: 
  • The bill is deviating from the current development needs and recognized priorities.
  • Rather to restrict, this bill seems to be of protectionist stance to the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which made forest clearances time-consuming and costly to obtain.
• The Narrowed Definition of Forests under its Scope: 
  • The present Amendment restricts the Forest Conservation Act to only legally notified forests and forests recorded in government records on or after October 25, 1980.
  • The Bill restricts the application of the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996, which states that forest is areas with trees rather than just areas legally notified as forest. 
• Negative Impacts going to be Faced in the near Future:  
  • It could impact around 28% of India’s forest cover. 
  • Unclassed Forests in Nagaland, that have not been officially recorded or deemed forests despite centuries of protection and use by autonomous clans. 
  • States that have refused to identify important forest areas despite the Godavarman judgment, may now be free to allow the destruction of these forests for construction and development. 
  • For the same reason, large areas of the Aravalli Hills in the Delhi National Capital Region which are considered ecologically significant may be affected by the amendment.
• The Exclusion of Significant Tracts of Forest Areas:
  • The Bill excludes some of India’s most fragile ecosystems like globally recognised biodiversity hotspots such as the forests of northeastern India and high-altitude Himalayan forests and meadows, as it removes the need for forest clearances for security-related infrastructure up to 100 km of the international borders. 
• The Granting of Sanction to Additional Activities that were Regulated Earlier: 
• The Bill introduces exemptions for construction projects such as zoos, safari parks, and eco-tourism facilities. 
  • Artificially created green areas and animal enclosures are very different from natural ecosystems which provide a bouquet of ecosystem services that contribute significantly to human well-being. 
• Unrestricted powers to the Union government to specify any desired use: 
  • This provision of the Bill raises legitimate concerns about the potential exploitation of forest resources without adequate environmental scrutiny.
• Disenfranchising forest people:
  • The Bill makes no reference to other relevant forest laws like the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest-dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. 
  • The exclusion and ease of diversion of forest areas will mean that forest people’s institutions no longer need to be consulted, which is against the equity. 
• Concerning Blanket Exclusions:
  • The Bill excludes certain privileged sectors from its ambit. 
  • A blanket exemption for projects like zoos, eco-tourism facilities, and reconnaissance surveys may adversely affect forest land and wildlife.
• Use of Hindi Title is seeming against the non-Hindi speaking population:
  • On changing the short title of the Act as “Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980,”objections were raised that it ignores the non-Hindi speaking population of the country.

Way Forward:

• Giving Rights to Local Communities:  If India is to meet its net zero carbon commitments and increase forest cover, it would require further participation of forest people.
  • Example: In neighboring Nepal, the handing over of forests to local community forest user groups is credited to have helped the country increase its forest cover from 26% to 45% over just three decades.
• Speeding up the Administrative Process: 
  • The objective of fast-tracking strategic and security related projects is a need. 
  • Administrative processes should be speeded up and needless delays in environmental clearance and giving blanket exemptions should be avoided. 
• Need for Proper Geological & Environmental Assessment: 
  • The importance of India’s natural ecosystems must be valued. 
  • Recent events in Joshimath (Uttarakhand) have shown the need for proper geological and environmental assessments for all development projects.
  • Forests and other natural ecosystems cannot be considered a luxury. They are an absolute necessity.

News Source: The Hindu