Chennai: The Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch (AARM) pledged to safeguard and expand the hard-won customary rights of the forest-dwelling people in its fourth national conference held between September 19 and 21. It resolved to strengthen the struggles against the “anti-tribal policies of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Union government and the multi-pronged attacks on adivasi people”.

The three-day conference discussed a number of pressing issues affecting tribal people on Thursday.  Large-scale land grabs, fund cuts, attacks on gram sabhas, shrinking education opportunities, unfulfilled vacancies in the public sector and the struggle to obtain Scheduled Tribe certificates were some of the issues.

Around 380 adivasi activist delegates, representing 14 states, participated in the conference held in Namakkal, Tamil Nadu.

On the final day of the conference, AARM elected a 61-member executive committee and 17-member national coordination committee (NCC) to lead the struggle at the national level. Jitendra Chaudhury was elected as the chairperson, Brinda Karat as vice chairperson, Pulin Bihari Baske as convenor, Dhulichand Meena and Thirupathi Rao as vice convenors and Dilli Babu as treasurer.

AARM is a joint platform of state-level organisations fighting on tribal issues.

INAUGURAL SESSION

As part of the inaugural session, president Baburao hoisted the AARM flag, delegates paid homage to martyrs and vice president Tirupathi Rao moved the condolence resolution.

P Rajeeve, Kerala minister for industries and law, delivered the inaugural address. He said, “Although we belong to different ethnic groups, cultures and traditions, we are united by one point, that of being Indians. But the present BJP-led Union government is trying to destroy the philosophy of unity in diversity.”

AARM leaders with the martyrs’ torch ahead of the inaugural session.

He added, “As a basic right, internet facility is taken to all parts of Kerala. Underprivileged and backward students are given financial assistance of up to Rs 25 lakh to study up to post-graduation. Poverty-free Kerala project plans to provide housing to the homeless by 2025.”

RESOLUTIONS PASSED

The conference rejected the recent amendments to the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, stating that they undermine the constitutional and legal rights of gram sabhas to own and manage forests. The amendments also usurp powers of the state government, the Manch observed.

The Manch expressed deep concern about the situation in Manipur underscoring that even after four months, the Northeastern state is far from returning to normalcy with thousands of people displaced. The conference condemned the horrific cases of sexual assault on Kuki-Zo tribal women, and the prime minister’s refusal to intervene – giving a free hand to the chief minister.

Brinda Karat addressed the delegates at the conference.

The AARM opposed the demand made by some RSS-affiliated organisations that adivasis converted to religions other than Hinduism, particularly Christianity, should be delisted from Scheduled Tribes. The resolution read: “A sinister objective of this campaign is to bring land belonging to Christian adivasis outside the coverage of protections granted by the Schedule V of the constitution to make land-grabbing easier.”

The conference also noted that adivasi/tribal does not refer only to people living in the hills, but the issues of urban people belonging to tribal communities will also be addressed by the Manch.

COMMISSIONED PAPERS

Studies were commissioned by the AARM to understand communalism among adivasis, the status of adivasi women, and the state of education among the tribes of India.

The paper on growing communalism among tribal people read: “The continual denigration of converted communities and the aggressive ‘ghar vapasi’ campaign by Hindutva forces have resulted in a significant divide between Christian and non-Chrisitan groups.”

The delegates diligently participated in the sessions.

The commission paper on everyday challenges and struggles of adivasi women argued that with the deepening capitalist and neo-liberal transformation, adivasi women emerge as the most vulnerable. “The limited rights that women in certain adivasi communities possessed, such as property transfer, are also being snatched away from her,” it said.

With the “disintegration of the adivasi world and proletarianisation”, adivasi women form a large part of the migrant labourers, and human trafficking and sex rackets are an offshoot of the migration, noted the paper.

The paper on the education of adivasi children observed: “Under the Modi government, the approach of the Indian State towards compulsory and universal education for all children shifted from an indifference to one of active obstruction. […] The prolonged closure of schools during the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in an irreparable loss to the education of adivasi children.” This has led to a large number of dropouts, irregular disbursement of scholarships, and learning gaps among students who returned to school, it states.

Leaders from fraternal organisations participated in the conference and extended their solidarity. Among them were Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) secretariat member G Sukumaran, All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) general secretary Vijoo Krishnan, All India Agriculture Workers’ Union (AIAWU) general secretary B Venkat, Students Federation of India (SFI) president V P Sanu, All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) secretary P Suganthi, and Dalit Soshan Mukti Manch (DSMM) leader Samuel Raj.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Adivasi Manch Pledges to Fight BJP Govt’s ‘Anti-Tribal’ Policies at National Conference appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the Indian Express, the “deemed forest” concept found its roots in a 1996 Supreme Court verdict, TN Godavarman vs Union of India, which substantially broadened the definition of “forests.” The ruling declared that areas recognised as forests in official records, regardless of ownership, would fall under the protective ambit of forest conservation laws. In other words, a land which in all sense appears to be a forest but is not notified as one by the centre or state governments. This interpretation aimed to safeguard ecologically valuable land that wasn’t officially classified as forests.

Thus the Odisha government’s decision to exclude “deemed forests” from the amended act has raised questions and stirred alarms over the move. The move also appears to deviate from the observations of the Joint Committee of Parliament, which evaluated the bill. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), defending the decision, stated that expert committee had already identified and documented these “deemed forests,” ensuring their inclusion under the act’s provisions, according to a report by The Hindu.

However this raises questions about the forest rights of Adivasis and indigenous people as a significant portion of Odisha’s forested regions comprises these “deemed forests,” upon which tribal communities depend heavily. These areas are essential to the social, cultural, and economic fabric of local populations.

Speaking to The Hindu, Tushar Dash, an independent researcher, talks about the potential consequences of this decision, stating, “Removing the ‘deemed forest’ provision could have adverse effects on the rights of these communities, potentially exposing ecologically crucial forest and bio-cultural habitats to exploitation.” Notably, Odisha contains a substantial area, almost 50% of its geography, designated as a fifth schedule area under the Constitution which means that this region comes under the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act.

In the wake of these new legislations, concerns over indigenous rights, environmental degradation and industrial consumption continue to rise as forest rights groups repeatedly raise their voices against these proposed changes by the government.

Related:

Parliamentary committee gives nod to proposed dilution of forest rights

Illegal mining: Only 6% cases ended up as FIRs in 2022

Adivasi struggle led by trailblazers working on-ground: Teesta Setalvad

Cottage industries on the verge of extinction due to deforestation and modernisation in Bengal

The post Odisha Government removes “deemed forest” provision appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In press releases released in August, NCCAF and KTB expresed their collective dissent and asserted that the Act poses a grim challenge to the land and forest rights of indigenous communities. They assert that the forest and land have been safeguarded by these communities for generations and thus the new Act’s vague definitions and stipulations are a definite cause of concern for the people, as pointed out in a joint press release.

According to the KTB, Nagaland has witnessed widespread voluntary conservation efforts by local communities. Over 407 Community Conserved Areas have been established, serving as a testament to the community’s deep-rooted commitment to preserving the rich biodiversity. However, the new Act introduces uncertainty that threatens traditional land ownership that has been listed for generations and decades.

What are these groups’ concerns?

The central concern for the groups protesting in Nagaland is the Act’s scope, which allows provision for certain sections of forest land to be indiscriminately allocated for national projects. Nagaland falls directly under this ambit, fears arise that the Act could potentially undermine the diligent environmental preservation initiatives undertaken by indigenous communities.

According to the KTB, the Act enables corporate giants to exploit forests for profit, hurting tribal interests and their identity. The group urged leaders to reconsider. One of the reasons is the purported cultivation of Palm Oil. The mass Palm Oil cultivation in Nagaland harms soil, water, biodiversity, and ecosystems. One Palm oil plant requires over 250 litres of water daily, leading to devastating effects.

The KTB argues that the Act’s implications extend beyond environmental considerations. It raises questions about social, cultural, and historical identity, thereby stoking concerns about the democratic process. Village councils, essential components of local decision-making, could find their voices silenced in this division of power and the very essence of indigenous traditions endangered is a threat looking over gravely.

Citing that this amendment affects all the people of north-east not just the Naga people, the KTB further emphasised the severe ramifications of the Act on the state of Nagaland arguing how by permitting corporate interests to exploit forest lands, the act stands to compromise the unique identity woven into the land and forests that have defined the Nagas’ existence for years. The Act’s swift passage, amid the backdrop of ongoing crises, has urged the KTB to call for introspection from Naga leaders and deemed this act to be ‘against tribal interests.’ Furthermore, the NCAFF has cautioned that if the act goes unopposed it will subjugate the will of the village councils and local district authorities to that of the Central government and affect the identity of the Naga people which is very much tied to the forest land.

What action do the indigenous groups of Nagaland want? 

Amidst this the KTB states that for Nagaland there lies a glimmer of hope in Article 371A of the Indian Constitution, which provides special provisions for Nagaland. “…Article 371 A of the Constitution of India which gives special provision in respect of the state of Nagaland stating that: “Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution (a) No Act of Parliament  in respect of ….. (iv) Ownership and transfer of land and its resources (forests) shall apply to the state of Nagaland unless the Legislature Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides.” The KTB has urged the Government of Nagaland to take this opportunity to vet the applicability of the Amendment of Forest Conservation Act 2023 by holding a special Assembly session immediately in this regard as the constitutional safeguard offers the Government of Nagaland the chance to review the applicability of the Amendment in the state. The KTB further appealed for a special Assembly session to deliberate on the potential impact of the Act.

Thus in a consolidated effort, the NCCAF and KTB have urged political leaders, NGOs, church bodies, and tribal organisations to raise their voices against the Amendment.

The KTB has also announced plans to host a comprehensive seminar in Kohima which will feature distinguished national and international experts. The seminar aims to enlighten the public about the gravity of the Forest Act Amendment and explore potential avenues for safeguarding Nagaland’s future.

What is the controversial forest amendment act?

This year on the 23rd of July, 2023 Lok Sabha approved the controversial Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023 on July 26th. This amendment has been criticised to leave vulnerable indigenous and non-indigenous forest-dwelling groups that have over centuries been dependent on the forest for their survival and have been instrumental in forest conservation on local levels. This bill excludes all forest land within 100km of the borders or ‘line of control’ from forest conservation regulations for ‘projects of national importance’, such as national security projects, roadside amenities, and public roads leading to settlements. Despite objections from experts and civil rights groups and indigenous communities, the bill was passed amidst widespread protests.

The battle against the controversial Amendment of the Forest Conservation Act 2023 rages on as more voices join the furore.

Related

Controversial Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023 passed by Lok Sabha without any change, all concerns ignored

Recognising fair compensation for farmers land is a non-negotiable human right: Bombay HC

Supreme Court affirms right of forest inhabitants, prevents it from being limited to recognized communities

How a battle is being waged within India’s forests, for rights over land and resources

The post Naga groups unite against controversial amendments to forest law (FCA 2023) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In March of this month, the said bill had been referred to a 31-membered Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). The said JPC was being headed by the Ruling Bharatiya Janata Party member Rajendra Agarwal. Public suggestions had been invited by the JPC in May. Notably, the Committee had not proposed any changes to the Bill. However, six MPs from opposition had filed the dissent note. The objections were raised by them on exemption of forest land at border areas from the purview of the Act that might turn detrimental to Biodiversity and forest coverage of border areas especially at Himalayan region. Concerns were also raised that it may lead to exploitation of forest land by using them for non-forest purposes.

It is essential to note that Rajendra Agarwal, who was leading the JPC, was also presiding over the Lok Sabha proceedings in Speaker Om Birla’s absence when the bill was discussed and passed.

Union environment minister says the said amendments will help with development:

Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav referenced Nationally Determined Contributions with three quantitative goals and international agreements on the climate problem during the bill’s debate. He said that the first two objectives had been accomplished nine years in advance, but the third objective—creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3.0 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent—had not yet been accomplished. As reported by Livemint, Yadav said, “I am happy to inform that India has achieved two of the three Nationally Determined Contributions nine years in advance. The bill will help us in achieving the last goal also.” 

Yadav also said the bill was passed by a joint committee which had visited even border area villages to understand what the legislation will help in achieving.” The bill will help in taking development to the border villages,” said Yadav. “To do that, we must concentrate on agroforestry and expand tree cover. The worldwide community should care about the objective,” as provided by the Hindustan Times. 

He claimed that due to certain limitations in the current law, progress has come to a halt in some places impacted by Left-wing extremism (LWE). “Compensatory afforestation is essential for carbon sink… The bill will prove to be a milestone. We want to encourage afforestation on private land. Also, this would help in addressing development issues in Left-wing extremism affected areas. The tribals are waiting for roads and health facilities. This will help us in achieving this,” as reported by Livemint. 

Yadav continued by saying that they want important public utility projects to reach these areas. “The exemption to forest areas in a 100 km radius from borders, LAC [the Line of Actual Control with China] and LOC [the Line of Control, the de facto border between India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir]] will help develop roads crucial for border areas…help develop strategic infrastructure for our national security,” as reported by the Hindustan Times.

On BJD MP Bhartruhari Mahtab’s point that the bill was in conflict with the Forest Rights Act, Yadav said there was no contradiction. 

Bill passed amid protest from opposition on Manipur violence:

On Wednesday at 11 a.m., the Opposition members flocked to the Lok Sabha with placards seeking Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement regarding the Manipur crisis. The opposition members of parliament carried signs that said “India united against hate” and “India wants reply, not silence” and shouted “We want justice” intermingled with cries of “Shame.” The House was adjourned by Speaker Om Birla shortly before noon. The House was once more suspended till 2:00 pm in the afternoon.

The administration seems intent to advance a portion of its legislative agenda during the post-lunch session, according to the Hindustan Times. Notably, even as the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes had objected to a few of the controversial Forest Conservation Amendment Bill’s clauses, it was tabled for review and passage before the Lok Sabha. The issue was discussed by four MPs amid incessant sloganeering from opposition members. It is important to mention that the said bill was enacted within 30 minutes of the House convening, amidst the sloganeering.

What were the concerns raised against the said bill?

On July 18, a few days before the bill was passed by the Lok Sabha, around 400 ecologists, biologists, and naturalists had written to Yadav and other members of the Parliament, pleading them to not introduce the proposed legislation. In the said letter, they had highlighted the terrible effects of environmental degradation and climate change, emphasising on the flooding across the north India this summer. “Now is the time for the administration to reconfirm its dedication to safeguarding the vast biodiversity of the nation…The main goal of this amendment is to speed up the destruction of India’s natural forests.” They demanded more discussions with subject-matter specialists.

It is pertinent to highlight here that the now passed bill covers only land that has been declared or notified as forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, or under any other law. It states that no prior clearance is not needed for the construction of any strategic linear project of national importance. Essentially, almost all of the ecologically-fragile northeast fall under this category.

As provided by the Hindustan Times, the submissions attached to the JPC report shows opposition to the provisions of the bill, which are as follows:

1. The report acknowledges that experts have noted that the amendments were likely to weaken the landmark Godavarman decision of the Supreme Court from 1996. The aforementioned decision had expanded the application of the Forest Conservation Act to include all land that had been designated as a forest, regardless of who owned it—for example, huge areas of unclassified woods in the northeast.
2. Additionally, the experts also pointed out that the 100 km exemption from border areas can be detrimental to ecologically sensitive areas of the northeast. “Please look at the northeast, for example. If you are going to exempt 100 kilometres from each border, what is going to be left? It is a very sensitive area. As it is, we are seeing the problems which are being created because of certain communities who have had traditional rights and customary rights to forests under Schedule VI [of] the Constitution which itself, I believe, is inadequate,” noted an unnamed expert in the submission made to the JPC, as provided by the Hindustan Times. 

The Sixth Schedule provides for the autonomous administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.

On this particular concern, the environment ministry said the 100 km provision has been decided in consultation with the defence ministry. It insisted it is considered optimum to meet the requirement of defence organisations and strategic requirements. The proposed exemption along the international borders and in LWE areas are not generic exemptions and will not be available for private entities, it said.

3. Experts had also pointed out that the bill violated provisions of the Forest Rights Act as it does not clearly speak of prior informed consent of village councils on forest clearances. The environment ministry has insisted there was no violation.

One of the Congressmen who provided dissenting opinions to the JPC, Pradyut Bordoloi, noted that the reconciliation of the forest conservation law with the issue of forest rights “remains an obvious gap, even in the statement and objects of the amendment.” That should have been crucial, he continued, especially since practically all proposed revisions would inevitably affect any forest rights that are currently in effect, on hold, or recognised. He remarked, according to the Hindustan Times, “There is an absence of any perspective on how existing proprietary, customary, and livelihood use rights will be handled for net zero compliant lands or in the case of fresh forest land diversions.”

The complete bill can be read here:

Related:

Parliamentary Committee Gives Nod to Proposed Dilution of Forest Rights

Supreme Court affirms right of forest inhabitants, prevents it from being limited to recognized communities

‘Black Day’ Protest against ecological plunder of forests, displacement of indigenous communities: Bhumi Adhikar Andolan

How a battle is being waged within India’s forests, for rights over land and resources

TN: Under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, 158 people in two villages have been granted title deeds

Amendments to Forest Conservation law to majorly affect the North East

The post Controversial Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill, 2023 passed by Lok Sabha without any change, all concerns ignored appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 is a proposed amendment that aims to modify the crucial 1980 law which was initially enacted to prevent indiscriminate conversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes. The Act gives the central government crucial power and mandate to ensure proper compensation for any diversion of forest land for non-forestry uses. The provision is available even for land that may not be officially classified as ‘forest’ in government records.

While the Act has undergone several amendments over the past decades, primarily focused on extending protection to larger areas resembling forests, the latest set of proposed amendments set it apart from its earlier trajectory. According to the government, these amendments are necessary to eliminate ambiguities and bring clarity regarding the Act’s applicability to various lands.

Among the proposed amendments, some specify exemptions from the Act, while others actively promote cultivating plantations on non-forest land, potentially contributing to increased tree cover, carbon sequestration, and supporting India’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2070. Furthermore, the amendments aim to remove the Act’s restrictions on developing infrastructure that would aid national security and create livelihood opportunities for communities residing on the fringes of forests.

The proposed amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 have faced objections on various grounds, including concerns about diluting the Supreme Court’s 1996 Godavarman case judgement that extended protection to extensive forest areas, even if they were not officially recorded as forests. Additionally, objections were raised about the exemption from forest clearance for construction projects within 100 km of international borders or the Line of Control in geographically sensitive regions.

The joint committee’s report acknowledges the objections raised by various stakeholders who argue that the amendments dilute forest protection measures. The Environment Ministry however has refuted these claims by asserting that the proposed provisions in the Bill guard against such situations.

Resistance was also encountered regarding the proposal to change the name of the 1980 law from the Forest (Conservation) Act to the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, translating to the Forest (Conservation and Augmentation) Act. Critics argued that the new name was exclusionary and neglected large sections of the population in both South India and the North-East due to linguistic and cultural diversity. However the Environment Ministry in turn defended the name change, stating that it emphasised the need to conserve and augment forests, as forest conservation involves more than just granting clearances.

These amendments were introduced in the Lok Sabha in March 2023, and a draft copy has been available for public comment since June 2022. This early disclosure sparked opposition from various quarters, including objections from some northeastern states that raised concerns about unilateral land acquisition for defence purposes. Environmental groups also voiced opposition, claiming that the amendments removed central protection for areas classified as ‘deemed forests’ (forested areas not officially recognized as forests), potentially compromising them by permitting activities such as tourism in these areas.

The Lok Sabha motioned to refer the Bill to a joint committee, which was seconded by the Rajya Sabha. Jairam Ramesh, Congress spokesperson and chair of the Standing Committee on Science, Environment, and Forests, expressed dissent over the decision to refer the Bill to a joint committee instead of the standing committee. The 31-member joint committee consists of 21 members from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha, with 18 members belonging to the ruling BJP.

India’s forest cover is defined as land over one hectare in size with a tree canopy density exceeding 10%. While India’s total forest cover has increased to 38,251 sq. km from 2001 to 2021, the rise primarily occurred in open forests with tree canopy density ranging from 10% to 40%. However, dense forest cover has decreased during this period. The proposed amendments encouraging plantation and cultivation may lead to increased tree cover but are unfortunately unlikely to reverse the loss of dense forests.

Related:

Forest Conservation Bill 2023: too many exemptions, discretion to Centre

Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill: North-east to bear the brunt

Forest Conservation Rules violate Forest Rights Act: reiterates NCST

Adivasi struggle led by trailblazers working on-ground: Teesta Setalvad

Cottage industries on the verge of extinction due to deforestation and modernisation in Bengal

The post Parliamentary Committee Gives Nod to Proposed Dilution of Forest Rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The amendment proposal for the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA) 1980 should be summarily withdrawn considering its hastiness and inability to address cardinal issues in forest governance, said Wayanad Prakruthy Samrakshana Samithi (WPSS) President N. Badusha.

During a webinar on October 24, 2021 the WPSS and other environmental organisations discussed the national and international significance of the paper introduced by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC). Attendees criticised its hasty introduction to the public amidst an ongoing pandemic and called for transparency on the matter in the future.

“[The timing] itself smacks of some hidden agenda… Ideally any amendment to the FCA would have addressed issues that emerged during the past four decades. Climate change induced extreme climatic events and consequent disasters; the emergence of zoonotic diseases attributed to loss of forest cover; the growing involvement of forest dependent indigenous people in forest governance like FRA,” said Badusha.

Instead, environmentalists said the document speaks vaguely about the climate crisis and fails to address it properly in any capacity despite the rising number of climate crisis related disasters in India. Further, Badusha points out that while Section 2A empowers the central government to provide for state government approval for projects on forest land for “strategic” or security projects of “national importance”, it does not clarify the scope of these terms or define national importance.

Members in their clause-by-clause analysis of the document particularly took issue with amendments regarding mining, redefining “non-forestry activites” and the Ministry’s understanding of India’s ecology.

The WPSS opposed the MoEFCC’s suggestion to do away with Sub-Section 2(3) that deals with lease of land. Particularly, mining leases must be treated with utmost caution, it said. Badusha pointed out that the Supreme Court objects to mining in violation of the FCA and mining in national parks and sanctuaries. The stand of the Supreme Court should be adhered to while making amendments in this provision.

“A bold decision should be taken not to permit further mining centres and industrial areas inside forest areas of India,” he said.

Similarly, the organisation opposed using Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) because such measures can lead to issues with respect to water recharge and also may create landslides.

Highlighting the threat of zoonotic diseases, members warned that zoos and related activities will enhance the risk of such diseases in human spaces. Therefore, they recommended that such activities be limited to areas outside Protected Areas and wild animal corridors, at least two kilometres away from respective boundaries. Zoos and Safaris should be permitted only after clearance from Health Authorities against the spread of zoonotic diseases, epidemic and pandemic, they said.

The WPSS also challenged the notion that there is a spontaneous growth of vegetation in the country due to the tropical climate. It cited Kerala’s animal corridors and recent elephant massacres and asked that this claim not be extended to lands under the state’s Ecologically Fragile Land (Vesting) Act 2003. Similarly, regarding the idea that tree plantation owners be exempted from the provision of this Act, the WPSS said such planted trees can be of only commercial species that would not contribute to the country’s goal to create additional carbon sinks by 2030. Rather than this, Badusha recommended declaring man-animal conflict areas as Prominent Mitigation Zones (PMZ) and called for natural afforestation by cutting down trees like eucalyptus.

Regarding MoEFCC’s idea of excluding revenue records of plantation, afforestation etc. on any non-forest land after December 12, 1996 from the scope of the Act, the WPSS said there should also be clarity for lease lands wherein forest land is leased for the purpose of agriculture or agroforestry.

“A special case of lease has been prevailing in Kerala since 1942 under the ‘Grow more Food’ programme. Forest lands were leased out to farmers in some Districts of North Kerala. The whole area is converted into agricultural lands. These lands may be interpreted as forests on records as per the 1996 Supreme Court order. Exemption of these types of lease lands should find a place in the amendment,” said Badusha.

The proposal also suggested that around 0.05ha of land along road and railway lines notified as forest should be exempted from seeking government’s approval to “alleviate the hardship of the residents/business owners”. In response, the WPSS said, “Exemption of 0.50ha may be allowed for access through forests and strip plantations along Railways, Roads (RoW). This power can be delegated to State PCCFs to avoid rampant clearance and provide a common way to beneficiaries thus reducing the cumulative clearance area.”

Similarly, it said forest-notified land under transport ministries’ lands that were acquired before October 25, 1980 may be exempted from the Act provided except for areas falling adjacent to or within Protected Areas, wild animal corridors and Mangrove Forests.

Dismissing the MoEFCC’s claim to keep “certain pristine forests showcasing rich ecological values intact for a specific period,” environmentalists said that existing procedures for declaring Protected Areas are more than sufficient for this purpose. Any other distinction will diminish the value of other adjacent forest lands, resulting in application of the FCA for non-forest purposes.

“The most important request is that existing Forests under Government possession should not be taken up for planting up oil palms or other exotic plantations,” said the WPSS.

Above all, environmentalists said the amendments should not be against the interests of the Forest Rights Act beneficiaries, wild animal corridors and protected areas including mangrove forests. The Supreme Court viewed all types of forests carrying different histories when it defined the term forests, said Badusha.

“’Irrespective of ownership’ also means “irrespective of their histories and traditional associations” which is more than the simple noun ‘ownership’. The Supreme Court’s intention was to protect all forests and the biodiversity therein forever,” he said.

Moreover, the WPSS argued that India is a union of innumerable princely states and tribal territories with vastly different cultures and their varied histories. Each group of people follow their own traditions and maintain a distinct association with forest lands. A uniform narrative will not fit into every situation.  Hence a highly generalised or all- inclusive description is ideal.

As such, local heads should be empowered to grant permission to conduct surveys and investigation in forest areas. Rather than simplifying the process, more desired mechanisms should be set in place, said the WPSS.

Related:

Nearly 20 days later, MoEFCC shares FCA proposal in regional languages

Jal, Jungle, Zameen: Chhattisgarh Adivasis march 300kms to oppose coal mining projects

India farmers, Adivasis and forest dwellers condemn FCA draft changes

Forest Conservation Act: GoI suggests fundamental changes Act, despite widespread objections

The post Withdraw FCA proposed amendments: WPSS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on October 2, 2021 proposed amendments to Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 that do away with many stringent laws requiring prior approval for development projects on forest land. While the deadline for submitting comments and suggestions regarding the changes has been extended to November 1, many environmental groups have condemned the government for weakening the country’s environmental laws. The amendments will cause a drastic alteration to a national conservation programme in place since the mid-1970s.

The Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA) was enacted from October 25, 1980 to check deforestation. It required the prior approval of the central government for de-reservation of reserved forests and for use of forest land for non-forest purposes. Further, it called for an advisory committee to advise the government regarding such approvals. Over the years, lands bearing vegetation, irrespective of ownership and classification, came under the ambit of this Act, particularly if the land is considered a forest based on locally defined criteria.

“This leads to ambiguity and has been observed to be resulted into (sic) lot of resentment and resistance particularly from private individuals and organisations,” said the Ministry proposal.

It claimed that the Ministry of Railways, Ministry of Road, Transport & Highways, and others resented the interpreted scope of the Act over the Right of Way (RoW) of railways, highways, etc. As such, it suggested de-reserving some of this land.

“In most cases, these RoWs are claimed to have been formally acquired by these developmental organisations long before 1980, with a specific purpose to construct / establish rail line and roads. Ministry is considering to exempt such lands acquired before October 25, 1980 from the purview of the Act,” said the proposal. Under colonial rule, the construction of the Indian Railway had been accompanied by widespread destruction of trees and national habitats as the project was first executed to fulfil the mass production motives of the British government. Timber was required for their own industry and thereafter the War and India’s forest provided ready natural loot.

Essentially, the Ministry suggests exempting similar categories of infrastructure project developers from requiring the aforementioned approval from the Centre to use forest land for non-forestry purposes. This includes international border projects that seek to develop infrastructure and hold our borders intact.

It also suggests exempting upto 0.05ha for roads and railway projects to alleviate the hardship of residents/business owners. Similarly, land deemed forests in revenue records after December 12, 1996 will be exempted from the provisions of the Act.

The Ministry also recommends doing away with Section 2 (iii) of the Act so as to alleviate confusion for a mining lease holder who will break or clear the forested land. This means that reserved forest land may be given to private organisations for non-forest use without requiring the environmental clearance. Accordingly, lease renewal will also not require compensatory feed for degrading forest land.

“New technologies are coming up such as Extended Reach Drilling (ERD), which enables exploration or extraction of oil and natural gas deep beneath the forest land by making drilling holes from outside forest areas and without impacting the soil or aquifer that supports the forest in the forest land. Ministry considers use of such technology is quite environment-friendly and as such should be kept outside the purview of Act,” said the proposal.

Another change in this section is regarding the ‘non-forestry use’ of forest land that identifies activities which are to be regarded as non-forestry activity. The Ministry suggests that ancillary projects like establishment of zoos, safaris, Forest Training infrastructures, etc. should not come within the meaning of “non-forestry activity.” Surveys inside reserved forests for development projects will also not be considered “non-forest” activity and thus not require approval from the central government.

Aside from these major changes, the proposal suggests keeping “certain pristine forests showcasing rich ecological values intact for a specific period.” Overall, the law dismisses the Supreme Court judgement that defined forests using the dictionary meaning.

While the Ministry had initially given state and union territory authorities 15 days to respond to the suggestions, activists and concerned organisations voiced their ire against the short time period. Many argued that on top of quietly ushering in the proposal on a national holiday, the Ministry had published the document in English alone, excluding many affected communities from the decision.

Regressive and laughable amendments proposed to the Forest Conservation Act, such legislative policy resembles the psyche of the erstwhile colonial raj. Ministry of railway and highway are said to be “resentful” to the FC Act! https://t.co/x1nbTGO1Aw

— Sreeja Chakraborty (@SreejaRai) October 6, 2021

The devil works hard but the MOEFCC works harder. https://t.co/dP66TMhnuE

— Disha Ravi ? (@disharavii) October 4, 2021

Land rights and Forest rights groups have roundly objected to this policy shift and change. At the first stage itself in 2020, the All India Union of Forest Working Peoples (AIUFWP) filed a detailed objection to this policy shift after changes were made to the Environment Impact Assessment rules.

“Draft EIA 2020 gives industries, corporations, and public projects licence to loot our “Jal, Jungle and Jameen” “Water, Forest, and Land” which is antithetical to the idea of national interest : We find that a number of aspects of EIA has been modified to make it easier for construct and operate all kinds of projects, without proper assessment and procedures that stand to cause irreversible damage to people and places,” said AIUFWP member Ashok Choudhary.

On October 6, CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Brinda Karat requested the government not to go ahead with the proposals because “they are nothing but liberalisation to favour private interests over the interests of tribal communities, traditional forest dwellers and environmental concerns.”

Later, Kerala’s CPI Rajya Sabha MP Binoy Viswam also wrote to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav requesting that the proposed amendments be translated into 22 languages to allow all people to respond and the deadline be extended by 12 weeks for public consultation.

Climate activist Disha Ravi on October 9 said that the government was “diluting” environmental laws and that this “trend” started with changes in the Environment Impact Assessment rules in 2020. According to the New Indian Express, Ravi cited the example of Adivasi activist Hidme Markram – arrested for protesting against coal mining in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh – and said that indigenous people and environmental defenders are “hurt every day for doing the very work which will protect all of us.” 

On October 11, the Bhoomi Adhikar Andolan and the All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP) will have a press conference at 4 PM to address the contentions with the government suggestions.

Related:

UN resolution calls right to clean, healthy and sustainable environment a Human Right

Protect Maliparvat: Odisha Adivasis prepare for another struggle to protect their land

UP: Merely 20% land rights claims approved by district committees

Climate change policies will never work until Adivasis are included: AIUFWP Roma Malik

Forest resource rights and Land rights as per Forest Rights Act

The post Forest Conservation Act: GoI suggests fundamental changes Act, despite widespread objections appeared first on SabrangIndia.