Scrap the Bill on Forests

The Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill 2023, slated to be taken up for discussion in the monsoon session, is ill-conceived and needs to be scrapped.

If the bill gets passed in the House, it will emerge as the principal threat to the already shrinking forests. The nation’s forest cover at 21 per cent—against the internationally acknowledged 33 per cent of the land area of the nation—is pathetically low and the bill replete with ambiguities only makes it vulnerable to further erosion.

The Bill instead of being referred to a standing committee, was referred to a select committee of Parliament where except one, all others were members of the ruling party itself.

The Government has so far refused to entertain pleas from civil society organisations and groups working for environment protection some of whom have urged withdrawal of the Bill while others plead for its rejection lock, stock and barrel.

The Bill allows use of forest land for defence related purposes within 100 kilometres of the border, stretches of land alongside railway line and highways; permits use of forest lands for conversion into zoos and safaris owned by the Government or any authority, eco-tourism facilities, silvicultural operations, and more perturbingly, any other purpose specified by the central government.

The provision for defence purposes can be invoked in border states such as Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, the states that account for considerable forest wealth.

One need not look for evidence, if one is needed, of what havoc deforestation can wreak than Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, two states that continue to be in news for land subsidence, landslides leading to blockages of highways in the wake of heavy downpour and devastations due to floods.

The amendment bill seeks to undo the benefits accruing from the Forest Conservation Act 1980 that had stood as the major bulwark against forces trying to fiddle with the nation’s forest wealth. In the 30 years prior to 1980, about 4.2 million hectares of forest land were lost due to diversion for non-forestry purposes.

But following the 1980 enactment, only about 1.5 million hectares were diverted. This testifies to the efficacy of the Act as well as the sagacity of the then lawmakers who heeded to the urgency of conserving forests.

The bill seeks to replace forests with ‘compensatory afforestation’ in order to create a carbon sink of an additional 2.5 to 3.0 billion tons of CO2 equivalents, by 2030. Such euphemism can satisfy only the ignoramuses, plenty of whom are found among the current lawmakers, but not the environmentalists.

Forests, in their dictionary meaning, stand for undisturbed growth of trees, shrubs under them, providing shelter to wildlife and a land free from exploitation for economic purposes. Compensatory tree plantation may act as carbon sink but does not ensure protection against deluges, landslides, subsidence, depletion of groundwater and conservation of wildlife.

The provision of ‘diversion of forest land for any other purpose’ should also set off alarm bells. The clause provides wide scope for varied interpretation and misuse.

Experience shows that 364 out of the 367 proposals for conversion of forest land in 2020 were permitted by the Ministry of Forests. Given this background, the new amendment will only open floodgates for devastation of the residual forests.