Editorial: Re-look at forest conservation

The apprehensions about the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes are genuine and need to be addressed

In the Development versus Environment dilemma, successive governments have invariably chosen to sacrifice the latter at the altar of the former. The 2023 amended Forest Conservation Act served as the latest example of how the law was tweaked to make it easier to clear forests for development. This evoked widespread fears over the possible erosion of the rights of millions of people who depend on these ecosystems. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s recent order, directing the government to follow the “broad and all-encompassing” definition of forest as laid down in its 1996 judgment, is a welcome development. Passing an order on a batch of petitions challenging the amendments, made last year, to the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked the Centre to furnish a record of land registered as ‘forest’ by panels constituted by States and union Territories as per the 1996 yardstick. The petitions had argued that the amended Act had substantially diluted the definition of forests. Some States are yet to classify forests in accordance with the apex court’s 1996 ruling. The data is bound to be scrutinised now for discrepancies. The court’s observation that the dictionary meaning was adopted so as to align with the intent of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, sets the stage for robust arguments, and hopefully, course correction. There is a need for an expert review to forestall large-scale projects which endanger natural forests and wildlife.

The court ruled that the Forest Conservation Act would apply to all land parcels that were either recorded as ‘forest’, or which “resembled the dictionary meaning” of forest. The 2023 amendment says the land has to be either notified or specifically recorded in a government record to qualify as a forest. This definition, the environmentalists had warned, would shave off about 1.97 lakh square km of undeclared forest land from the protection it had been accorded. The apprehensions about the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes are genuine and need to be addressed. The petitioners raised the apprehension that land classified as ‘forest’ as per the earlier definition would get diverted for non-forest use during this exercise. There are fears that the amended Act would throw open floodgates to divert forest land for other purposes in the name of development, thereby infringing on the rights of forest-dwelling tribes. While it is important to strike a balance between industrial development and environmental protection, the NDA government’s approach in this matter has raised questions over its commitment to conservation efforts. The Environment Ministry informed Parliament that over 90,000 hectares of forest land was diverted for non-forestry purposes — mainly irrigation, mining, road construction and defence projects — in the past five years. This is a clear setback to India’s goal of substantially increasing its forest cover by 2030, as part of its international climate commitments.