Except for a few states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the regulations in forests in most other states are governed by the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
During this journey of more than 90 years, statutes like Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 were enacted to keep the pace of forest management with changing environment of ecological, social and cultural traditions.
The Central government has come up with draft Indian Forest (Amendment) Act, 2019 and has placed it in public domain. There are several positive steps towards conservation in the draft.
They include: declaring conservation area for carbon sequestration as in Section 27(A) (even private wooded areas can be declared), certain forests deemed to be reserve as in Section 27(B), confiscation proceedings to be conducted by the Deputy Conservator of Forests as proposed in Section 52(A) and a provision for appointment of Special Court vide Section 67(A) added in the draft.
However, some other sections in the proposed amendment are likely to be misused and can harm conservation. I am pointing out the amendments which can degrade natural forests and can also lead to grabbing of forest lands.
The first and the foremost is the proposed amendment for the management of village forests as seen in section 28. Any reserve forest can be converted into a village forest and can be assigned to the gram panchayat for management.
Some of the reserve forests located in hilly terrain and are far from villages, are still pristine. Reserve forests in the neighbourhood of the villages have been subjected to illicit felling of trees, grazing, fire etc and have sufficiently degraded.
Moreover, there has been the practice of managing these forests under the Working Plan approved by the Centre. The condition in village forest management is also diluted in Section 28. Village forests will be managed under working schemes which are approved by state governments. The forests will be left for further plundering.
The second serious concern is the proposed Section 34(C) on `production forests’. This amendment is for growing trees on degraded forest land and for that purpose, land may even be handed over to private agencies.
This has serious implications. It may result in a wanton diversion of forest land in the name of production such as growing of monoculture plantations by corporate bodies causing loss of biodiversity.
The existing natural forest of the country is in a very critical state and these forests need to be protected for ecological services and minimising the impact of natural disasters. It may not be advisable to use the existing forests for the production at the cost of ecological services they provide.
Forest produce may have to be produced by promoting agroforestry, and degraded forest land can be reforested by closing the area and regenerating with native species.
The third critical issue is the definition of ‘mineral’. Unlike in Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, where any mineral found in forests is forest produce, the proposed law in section 2(13)(b)(III) says that minerals found in forests are forest produce except if it is covered under Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (MMRD Act).
All major minerals found in forests are covered in MMRD Act and will therefore not be forest produce. A new Section 39A is proposed for levy of cess for forest produce. Forest department will be deprived of huge revenue from mineral-rich forests and consequently, forests will suffer from investments.
The fourth issue is the intention of the government to notify a particular area as `reserve forest’. A number of proposals of the Forest Department are pending with state government for several decades. No one takes interest and conservation suffers.
There is addition proposed vide Section 27(B) of Indian Forest (Amendment) Act, 2019 stating that if there is any process initiated to reserve such forests under any Act, it will be deemed to be a reserve forest, which is a welcome step. The compliance of such good provision will be doubtful as although Section 4(4) of the proposal provides that the settlement officer must conclude the proceeding in three years, next steps are not specified in case the officer fails to act.
In a debate on climate change in the Rajya Sabha in June 2019, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh hit out at the government saying that the job of the Environment & Forest Ministry was to take some hard decision in safeguarding forests and environment. I completely agree with him.
Union Minister Prakash Javadekar has said that his ministry used to be called ‘roadblock or tax ministry’. If the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Forests Right Act 2006 and Coastal Zone Regulation were weakened with the perspective of ease of doing business, then we are inviting disaster with greater frequency.
Union Environment and Forest Ministry should never take clearing the projects as their achievement. For any development projects, diverting pristine natural forests lowers ecosystem services and contributes to global warming.
The Indian Forest (Amendment) Act, 2019 should keep all such areas beyond the scope of diversion under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. If someone says that compensatory afforestation can substitute natural forests, he is fooling the people of this country.
Javadekar has said that India will work towards additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 by growing additional forests and tree cover by 2030. However, the state forest departments are unclear of forestry target of growing additional trees for this purpose even after four years of signing the Paris agreement.
(The writer is retired Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka)