Image Courtesy:adda247.com
The amendment proposal for the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA) 1980 should be summarily withdrawn considering its hastiness and inability to address cardinal issues in forest governance, said Wayanad Prakruthy Samrakshana Samithi (WPSS) President N.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