Explained: What is Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, which is ruffling feathers?

Despite vehement protests by the Opposition, forest rights activists and north-eastern states, the Centre is all set to take up the contentious Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 in the first week of the Monsoon Session in the Parliament.

A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), appointed to examine provisions of the proposed law, adopted its report on Tuesday (July 11) even though six of its 31 members filed dissent notes against the Bill. The committee’s chairperson Rajendra Agarwal said the bill has the full endorsement of the panel and will be tabled in the Monsoon Session stating July 20, even though he declined to divulge details of the report.

The Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha by Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav during the Budget Session on March 29 this year before being referred to the JPC.

Also read: Forest Bill | You let govt avoid standing committee: Ramesh to Dhankhar

Here’s a look at the draft law and why it has ruffled feathers.

What does the Bill say?

The Bill, which seeks to amend the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 proposes to exempt certain categories of lands from the legal purview to fast-track strategic and security-related projects of national importance. The forest land it proposes to exclude (from legal protection) are those notified as forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or that in government records after the formulation of the 1980 Act.

The Bill also seeks to redefine the reach of “non-forest purpose” exemptions under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act.

The new law would exclude, forest land within a distance of 100 km along India’s international borders including the Line of Actual Control (LAC), from its ambit so that the land can be used by the government for national security projects, public roads and other strategic projects.

The Bill also seeks to remove the protection given by the present law to forests located along railway lines or public roads maintained by the government.

Under the new law, the state government would be required to get the prior permission of the Centre to assign any forest land to a private entity. The terms and conditions for the approved entity would be set by the Centre.

Under the new Act, the government would be able to build check posts, fences and bridges and run zoos, safaris as well as eco-tourism activities included in the Forest Working Plan/Wildlife Management Plan/Tiger Conservation Plan, inside forests.

Why is the Bill being opposed?

Some rights groups and Opposition parties have criticised the provisions of the Bill, asserting that these will compromise safeguards for the country’s forests.
The Congress had earlier vociferously opposed the decision to send the bill to a JPC instead of sending the same to a standing committee on science and technology, environment, forests and climate change, which is headed by its Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh.

Also read: COP15: India calls for new, dedicated fund for biodiversity conservation

Changes definition of forest

The Bill excludes land recorded, but not notified as forest, before October 25, 1980 as well as land changed from forest-use to non-forest use before December 12, 1996 from its purview. Environmentalists say such clauses would jeopardise several ecologically sensitive areas and biodiversity hotspots which would fall victim to encroachment and can be sold, diverted and exploited for non-forest uses.

The particular provision also goes against a 1996 Supreme Court ruling in which the apex court said that ‘forest’ includes all land recorded as forest in government records notwithstanding its ownership, as well as ‘deemed forests’, which despite not been recorded as forest, satisfy the dictionary meaning of forest, which is “any large area with significant tree cover and undergrowth.”

‘Clearing forest in NE dangerous for ecologically sensitive areas’

Opposition parties like the Congress and the Trinamool Congress have been protesting against the proposal to exempt forest land within 100 km of the international borders in the proposed legislation. The Opposition seconds the argument of environmentalists that clearing forests near border areas situated in Himalayan, trans-Himalayan and north-eastern parts of the country may lead to extreme weather situations and destroy the biodiversity of several ecologically sensitive areas. Instead, the Opposition has urged the government to limit the exemption of the forest land within a distance of 100 km from international borders to the ‘Himalayan’ borders only.

Also read: To stop species annihilation, protect forests, adopt regenerative agriculture

‘No Hindi name please…’

The Opposition has also protested against the Centre’s proposal to rename the law as Bill Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, and wants the government to stick to the English name as a Sanskrit one may not resonate with non-Hindi speaking population.

‘Bill dilutes FRA’

Parties and conservationists from the north-eastern states allege the Bill dilutes the Forest Right Act, 2006 and endangers the livelihood of tribals. They say as the proposed legislation would lead to privatisation of forest land and resources, the government should ensure that the consent of gram sabhas of concerned areas be made mandatory before the implementation of any developmental projects in forest areas and forest dwellers who are evicted be ensured proper rehabilitation and compensation before the project begins.

Also read: Specialist birds’ population declining in Himalayas due to hardwood forest loss

Define eco-tourism, demand environmentalists?

Pointing to the proposal to allow establishment of ‘eco-tourism’ hotspots, environmentalist say the term itself is vague and leaves scope for exploitation of forests and the plant and animal kingdoms they support.