A law not conducive to forest conservation or national security

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, which was passed by the Parliament without any discussion the other day, is a regressive law that could endanger the future safety of the country. Although the preamble of this Act says that the aim of the amendment is the protection of forests and national security, it rewrites all the good provisions in the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980. The original law that restricted deforestation on the onslaught of industrialization was enough to curb the monopolists who ventured out to clear the forests. Initially, the areas officially categorised as forests were included in the scope of that law. However, in 1996, the Supreme Court, while delivering the verdict in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case, widened the scope of the law to include areas not officially designated as forests. The present amendment has effectively overturned that Supreme Court judgment and also relaxed the original law. The fact that such a serious piece of legislation which was supposed to be scrutinized threadbare in Parliament or in the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) before that, was not done so, is a testament to the extent to which our democracy is being made irrelevant. Apart from this, the preamble of this Act, which deleted the provisions for the purpose of forest conservation, also misleads stating that it is to improve forest conservation.

The preamble highlights India's pledge to achieve net zero emissions by 2070 to address the climate crisis. For this, by increasing the forest area, carbon sink will be created which will absorb carbon dioxide and make the atmosphere completely carbon-free. One of the reasons cited for the amendment is that the 1980 Act does not encourage private afforestation. Under the new amendment, forest land can be acquired in the name of private afforestation. Accordingly, the definition of 'forest' has been limited, overturning the Supreme Court judgment. The restrictions now apply only to the area specifically mentioned as 'forest' in government documents from 1980 onwards. The power of states to register any area as forest land has now been effectively abolished. Moreover, it has been stipulated that the permission of the government is not required for encroachment of forest land within 100 km of India's border area for "strategic and security" purposes. The amended law promotes commercial enterprises like zoos, safari parks and eco-tourism at the expense of genuine forest lands. All provisions protecting native forests have been either removed or diluted thereby making them ineffective. It has empowered the Union government to acquire forest land even for "other purposes". The amendment allows anyone to acquire the country’s forest lands, which have not been designated as 'forest' after 1980. Of the total forest area, around 27.62 per cent of the land has now been removed from under legal protection; and about eight and a quarter lakh square kilometres of forest will cease to be forest land.

This also comes with a serious legal issue. Not only does it nullify the Supreme Court judgment, it also violates the 2006 Act for the Protection of the Rights of Forest Dwellers, including Scheduled Tribes and others. That particular rule, which mandates the permission of local village councils to acquire forest land for other purposes, was made ineffective by a notification last year. It also challenges federalism by taking away the power and participation of the states. Activists are terming the amendment an environmental death knell. One of the reasons the government cites to justify the amendment is national security. This justification for encroaching forests in border areas may stem from the simple rationale that security means military presence. In fact, the primary requirement of security is not military presence but the presence of forest lands. The forests on the northern borders of the country are rich in biodiversity and ecosystems essential for environmental protection. It goes without saying that environmental security is part of national security in these times of climate disasters. It deserves as much or more attention than military security. Paving the way for the destruction of natural forests and ecosystems is in no way conducive to forest conservation or national security.