The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, passed by the Lok Sabha last week, has two aspects. First, it dilutes a December 1996 Supreme Court ruling (N Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India) by defining forests in a narrower sense. The judgment takes a sweeping view on ‘forests’ and calls for Central clearance for any diversion of forest land (revenue land or protected forests) for non-forest use. Now, land not ‘notified’ as forest, or where the land use has changed prior to 1996 can be regarded as non-forest and thrown open to other uses. Second, it expands the scope of permissible activity within notified forests.

The 1996 ruling, according to the ‘objects and reasons’ for the amendment, ended up “restraining the authorities from undertaking any change in the land use and allowing any development or utility related work”, even on lands which are not forests any more. This may seem like a pragmatic step in situations where the land cannot be revived for forestry. But it should not lead to diversion of potentially good forest land for commercial purposes. The key issue here is the amount of the land that could be so diverted and the extent of degradation of such land. The India State of Forest Report 2021 identifies forest cover through satellite mapping, pegging it at 7.13 lakh sq km or 21.7 per cent of the country’s area, way below the generally accepted target of 33 per cent. This includes both recorded forests and ‘forests’ outside such zones. The report says that recorded forest area stands at 7.75 lakh sq km (protected and reserved forests). Since this is more than the forest cover as a whole, it is clear that the quality of ‘protected’ forests is not great. As for the green cover outside these zones, the report estimates this at 1.97 lakh sq km. If land use change in these areas has been held up by the 1996 ruling, that could change. The new law also allows more activities within the recorded forest zones, despite the report suggesting that within them, “there are blanks and areas with density of less than 10 per cent”. Governments should work towards exhausting the range of permissible projects within degraded ‘revenue forests’, while trying to revive them. A detailed assessment of the quality of forests should be made.

Meanwhile, it would not be incorrect to say that, on paper, almost any activity can be allowed inside forests, which is concerning. This is because of a new clause that clearance may be given for “any other like purposes which the Central Government may, by order, specify”. This is besides allowing national security installations, reconnaissance surveys, safaris and eco-tourism. The last will not be a disaster if it is managed well. This liberal use regime should, however, not open the doors to overexploitation by vested interests.

In aligning environment and development goals, it is important that governments do not swing from over-regulation to a free-for-all.

Related Topics