The amendments proposed to the Forest Conservation Act in the budget session of Parliament and referred to a select committee for consideration have caused concern as they are seen to go against the original intent of the Act. The amendments seek to expand the list of activities permitted on forest land and exempt certain types of land from the purview of the Act. It was stated that the main reason for amendments is the need to fast-track strategic and security-related projects. But this has been contested and many experts have seen it as an effort to open forest land for commercial purposes. If the amendments are approved, that will have implications for forest lands near international borders, in areas prone to Maoist violence, and in many stretches of forests elsewhere, too. Forest land alongside a rail track or public road will also go outside the purview of the Act.
The government has claimed that there are new ecological and social challenges, such as mitigating the impact of climate change, achieving the national target of net-zero emissions by 2070, and maintaining and enhancing the forest carbon stock. The amendments are claimed to be necessary to give legal support for policies and actions that need to be taken to realise these objectives. But it is pointed out that the changes will be used for commercial exploitation of forests and to deprive forest-dependent communities of the economic benefits of the global carbon-trading market. These communities have always had a crucial role in the conservation of forests. Building and improving strategic infrastructure projects along international borders is possible without the amendments, which have the potential to be misused. Regions in the country where there is Maoist presence are also areas where there is potential for mining. The amendments may lead to indiscriminate destruction of forests through mining.
Passing the bill without adequate consultations with all stakeholders and experts may render many checks and balances in the Forest Act irrelevant. Experts have said that there are several vague terms like ‘public utility specified by central government’ in the amendment bill, which leave scope for misuse. It is also pointed out that the 100 kilometres of forest land that may be used for strategic purposes in the border areas would encompass large swathes of the North-East and the Himalayan region. These are ecologically sensitive and biodiverse areas. There is also a view that the bill should have been referred to a parliamentary standing committee, which would have been in a better position to evaluate it. The bill should not be rushed through without allaying the concerns that have been raised about it.