Forest and National Security
Context:
- The Lok Sabha has approved the bill authorising the use of forest land for strategic purposes.
- The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 was repealed by the Lok Sabha with a voice vote, releasing some infrastructure and development projects from the current necessity to acquire forest clearance.
Forests in India:
- Only 21% of India’s geographical surface is covered in trees, and even more concerningly, only 12.37% of those trees are still in their original state, meaning that we still have a long way to go before we meet our target of 33 percent forest cover.
- Commercial plantations and urban parks make up a sizable chunk of the marginal increase in forest cover, while the northeastern states, which are the area of the country with the highest biodiversity, show a net decrease in forest cover of 3,199 sq km between 2009 and 2019.
- These cannot replace the ecological services offered by robust natural ecosystems.
General concerns with the bill:
- Classification changes in forestry.
- Exemptions for projects in border regions and for safety concerns.
- Locals are granted no authority, and zoos, safari parks, and ecotourism activities are exempt.
Impacts of collective environmental harm caused by humans:
- Strong and more frequent cyclones, massive wildfires, prolonged heat waves with high temperatures, and intense rain events.
- Widespread biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse frequently interact favourably.
- Billions of people’s lives were impacted.
- Premature deaths and a rise in the frequency of disease.
- Destruction of established infrastructure and declining soil fertility.
- The air and water quality are degrading, which is one of the repercussions we are seeing.
The Amendment’s clauses and their effects:
- In order to achieve our aims for the preservation of forests, protection of biodiversity, and concerns posed by climate change, this Bill’s primary goal is to increase the nation’s forest cover.
- A provision allowing the central government to forego clearance requirements for “any other purposes” might have serious effects as it could permit a wide range of operations on forest land that now need approval.
- If such a large number of projects are exempt from the clearance procedure, people who live in woods will no longer be consulted. This is an essential strategy for giving forest dwellers a voice.
- The Act also exempts from its constraints all strategic linear projects of “national importance and concerning national security” that are situated within 100 kilometres of international borders. In addition, it may be seen supporting initiatives like forestry work, zoo and animal safari construction, eco-tourism facilities, and any other initiatives chosen by the federal government.
- The amendment also exempts some types of land from the Act’s restrictions, including forest area next to a rail line or a government-maintained public road that gives access to a home or a train as well as roadside facilities up to a maximum size of 0.10 hectare.
- According to the Supreme Court, “forests” do not just refer to forests in the dictionary sense but also include any location listed as such in official records, regardless of who owns the land. The change invalidates the Supreme Court’s T N Godavarman decision from 1996.
- The 1980 Act’s restrictions on the construction of infrastructure that would assist national security and provide choices for livelihood for those who live close to woods would also be lifted as a result of the change.
T’s case. Union of India v. N. Godavarman, 1996:
- In 1996, the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the Godavarman case broadened the Act’s application to any locations that satisfied “the dictionary definition of a forest”.
- The Court’s ruling put a stop to the destruction of areas that the government’s assessments had not classified as forests.
How to Proceed:
- In order to combat the more unpredictable weather patterns brought on by climate change, our natural ecosystems are a crucial line of defence.
- As a result of the devastation of natural ecosystems, more people will be displaced, and internal security issues will worsen.
- As a result, it’s crucial to find a balance between the financial benefits of such projects and the preservation of forests. It is not necessary to fully disregard the subjects that the central government must consider on a case-by-case basis in order to attain this balance.
Conclusion:
- The remaining proposed amendments contradict with the previously stated purposes and noble ambitions of the preamble. The goal of this amendment becomes murkier as a result.
- By severely restricting the geographic reach of the FCA, broadening the categories of projects that may be exempted, and reducing the participation of local communities in decision-making, the Act takes a step backward that must be avoided at all costs.
