To: [email protected]

SUBJECT: APPEAL TO WITHDRAW THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) AMENDMENT BILL 2023

Most Respectfully,

The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,

On March 29, 2023, the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change introduced the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 in Lok Sabha, proposing revisions to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This email is in reference to a citizen’s appeal to withdraw the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill 2023. The Forest Amendment Bill, 2023

The Bill modifies the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 to apply to certain categories of land.

These include 

• land designated as a forest under the Indian Forest Act of 1927
• or land identified as a forest in government records after the 1980 Act went into force.
  
  

The Act will not apply to land that was changed to non-forest use before December 12, 1996.

This is a vast shift from the current policies and clearances that are required to divert forest lands to non-forestry uses. In the TN Godavarman Case of 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that under the dictionary term “forests,” i.e. any vast area with significant tree cover and undergrowth- would recognise any place listed in official records, regardless of ownership.
This landmark judgement has been set as the precedent for the formation of the Amendment. However, the modifications suggested in the recent bill, stand to remove central protection from "deemed forest" zones provided by the TN Godavarman Case and unilaterally take away enormous tracts of forest land for defence objectives, and perhaps permitting tourism activities that could jeopardise the integrity of these areas.
The Bill attempts to close the continued identification of deemed forest lands. It says that the FCA, 1980 will apply only to those lands that have already entered government records as forests (on/after October 25, 1980).

• It exempts certain categories of lands from the purview of the Act which includes the following :
  → Such forest land situated alongside a rail line or a public road maintained by the Government, which provides access to a habitation, or a rail, and roadside amenity up to a maximum size of 0.10 hectares.
  → The forest land is situated within a distance of one hundred kilometres along international borders or Line of Control or Line of Actual Control, as the case may be, proposed to be used for the construction of strategic linear projects of national importance and concerning national security.
  → Land up to ten hectares, proposed to be used for construction of security-related infrastructure.
  → Land as is proposed to be used for the construction of defence-related projects or a camp for paramilitary forces or public utility projects, as may be specified by the Central Government, the extent of which does not exceed five hectares in a Left Wing Extremism affected area as may be notified by the Central Government.
  
  This is a significant exemption of forest land area in the country, especially because large tracts of forest land in India were recorded as ‘forest’ during the transfer of lands to the forest department while abolishing the Zamindari system in respective states after independence. A large section of such transferred land could not be notified as forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, or state forest legislation because of improper demarcation and disputes with ownerships. However, such lands continue to be protected as forests under the FCA, irrespective of their ownership. Such forests can be easily found in ecologically rich landscapes like the Aravallis, central Indian plateaus, western ghats, etc and are important as wildlife habitats providing critical ecological services.

Moreover, the Bill has been referred to the Joint Committee of Parliament instead of the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Science & Technology, Environment and Forests for review, with a report expected in July 2023. It is also worth bringing to notice that sending a Bill to a Joint Committee unspecialized in the field of Environment and Science instead of a Standing Committee goes against the spirit of democracy and the system of checks and balances in our highly regarded parliamentary processes.
The Joint Committee in question is chaired by an MP of the ruling party which may lead to a biased opinion. While new climate realities may need adjustments in the interpretation of conservation laws, these must be supported by strong scientific data which in the case of the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill are lacking.

To evaluate the wider ramifications of the proposed Bill, opinions and recommendations were invited from Non-Governmental Organisations, experts, stakeholders, citizens and institutions. More than 1200 notes, objections, and addendums were addressed to the Joint Committee of Parliament by several environmentalists, environmental activists and lawyers, Indian Forest Service (IFS) officials, tribal groups, former civil servants and residents from across the country. This invitation of comments and objections is an integral part of our democratic process in this country’s policy-making, however to our dismay the submitted objections have been overruled and the bill is set to go to Lok Sabha without any amendments.

The Bill also suggested exempting the requirement of forest clearance within 100 km of an international boundary for the construction of defence sites and public utilities on forest land. And further propounds the exemption of up to 10 hectares of forest area adjacent to railways, highways, and certified forest land for security infrastructure. Additionally, It also exempts the construction of zoo/safari and tourist facilities that are part of the management plan. The problems with these provisions are that - 

1. The usage of forest land for ‘security-related infrastructure’ and ‘public utility’ is also very wide and can be used to establish a variety of infrastructure projects on forest lands without applying for forest clearance. For example, public utility services are commonly understood as services provided by the government essential to citizens’ requirements. This includes transport, postal, telephone, power, water, etc. This virtually allows the construction of any project on forest land. 
2. It is also specified under the official document of Amendment, “The exemption provided under sub-section (2) shall be subject to such terms and conditions, including the conditions of planting trees to compensate for felling of trees undertaken on the lands, as the Central Government may, by guidelines, specify the establishment of zoo and safaris referred to in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, owned by the Government or any authority.” The drawback remains that activities like compensatory afforestation are not scientific and do not provide an alternative to natural ecosystems that serve as biodiversity hotspots and carbon sinks. Moreover, there is no clarity as to what could be the ‘terms and conditions in the proposed bill. 
3. It has been evident that increased tourism in biodiversity hotspots has not only led to land degradation, pollution of multiple forms, and overexertion of resources but also disturbance in the natural habitat of animals. Zoos are also notorious for doing more harm than good. Animals in zoos are forced to live in unnatural, stressful, boring environments, leading to a lack of mental and physical stimulation. They are removed from their natural habitats and confined to small limited spaces and often forced to perform tricks or entertain visitors. According to a paper published in 2020the Indian ecotourism industry, with apparent conservation and commercial bias, might become unsustainable in the long run.
   For example - Growing tourism in the Sundarbans, although contributing to the local economy, appears to be threatening the natural environment due to pollution by garbage disposal, poor sanitation and noise from mechanised boats ultimately harming the pristine forest. Therefore, these practices cannot be incentivized through the medium of this bill. 

According to the Forest Survey of India's biennial reports, India's forest cover has increased only marginally. Forest cover growth within officially reported forests is stationary or at most incremental. To encourage reforestation efforts in forested areas, silvicultural (forest management) operations have been included in the list. The law initially required that compensating afforestation be done on non-forest or degraded forest land of at least equal area by developers planning to divert forest land. However, the Amendment Bill will now make it possible for such afforestation on forest land as well, following in the footsteps of the 2022 regulations.
As a result, there are concerns that monoculture plantations would eventually take the place of old-growth forest ecosystems, whose products forest-dwelling communities have historically relied on. Monoculture plantations, although may contribute to the economy and are misapprehended as tree cover, are not sustainable and certainly not acceptable alternatives to forests. Due to Forest Right Act violations and procedural flaws in some states, India's compensatory afforestation campaign was already contentious. As part of its international climate commitments, India has pledged to raise this figure to 33% and create a carbon sink of 2.5 billion to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 this way by 2030. This goal seems to be in jeopardy if this bill is set to become law.

This bill has also raised valid concerns about the need for clearing forests for the building of motorways, hydropower projects, and similar projects within 100 km of international borders or the Line of Control which may severely impact not just the ecosystem but also the local communities and indigenous people.
We believe that this bill sets a dangerous precedent for future activity in these areas and the appropriate cautionary measures and environmental due diligence required by the law would be diluted in India. Several groups, particularly some northeastern states and environmental organisations, oppose the revisions of the Act because it stands to affect them considerably and have a blanket impact in the region considering that entire states of Mizoram, Nagaland, Manipur and Tripura will be affected as the geographical sizes of these states is not more about 100 kms calculated from any point on the international border. Northeastern states are a boon to biodiversity in our country that host many endemic species and make it an ecologically unique ecosystem that must not be jeopardized, moreover forests in India’s North-East account for 23.75 per cent of the total forest cover in the country. The Bill protects only those forests that are Reserved Forests and Protected Forests notified under the Indian Forest Act 1927 and leaves out unnotified forests, which, unlike the case for the North East, are composed of 'unclassified' forests.

This bill excessively impacts the country, its people and its biodiversity and opens up large tracts of forests to unimaginable change that has the potential to be detrimental to the natural resources of our country. We are reaching out as concerned citizens, abiding by our fundamental duty to maintain and improve our natural environment.
We strongly ask the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change to review the proposed revisions to respect the principles of sustainable development, environmental protection, and democratic ideals. The extensive criticism and complaints received by a varied spectrum of persons and organisations should not be dismissed, but rather taken seriously into consideration in order to improve our natural resources and preserve our distinct ecosystems.

In Solidarity,
Climate conscious citizens of India