The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, which is being deliberated upon by a Joint Committee of Parliament, is a controversial piece of legislation indicating the complex challenges involved in balancing industrial development and conservation of forests. While industrialization has inevitably meant usurpation of large tracts of forest land and ecosystems, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has been the mantelpiece law that has empowered the state to regulate and impose costs on such industrial exploitation. Originally for notified forests, a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the TN Godavarman Thirumalpad case (1996), inter alia, extended the scope of such protection to those not officially classified it was done. As the biennial report of the Forest Survey of India points out, India’s forest cover has seen only a marginal increase. The increase in forest area within officially recorded forests is stable, or at most incremental. It is the tree cover in gardens, plantations and village homes that is increasing and complementing India’s claim that 24% of its area is under forest and tree cover. India, as part of its international climate commitments, has committed to increase this number to 33% by 2030 and thus add a carbon sink of 2.5 billion to 3 billion tonnes of CO2.
The existing Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – according to the environment ministry – was inadequate for these purposes, as it did not encourage private agro-forestry and plantation activities. From 2019 to 2021, India added 1,540 sq km of forest cover, of which 1,509 sq km was outside the recorded forest cover. The new amendments to the Forest Act gave such incentives by clearly defining the boundaries of the 1996 judgment. Only land recorded as ‘forest’ in any government record since 1980 or later would attract the provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Act will not apply to forest land occupied by states for non-forestry use between 1980-1996. The amendments effectively mean that states can no longer classify unclassed forest land, or patches of trees with forest-like characteristics, as ‘forest land’. The amendment also allows forest land up to 100 km near India’s borders to be appropriated for “strategic and security” purposes, without central approval. The primary criticism is that these amendments do not actually contribute to regenerating the natural forest, but instead encourage reforestation for commercial purposes. What is worrying is that the parliamentary committee, despite its statutory powers, has not expressed any views or suggestions on the way forward. Cultivating private forests may sound good in theory, but expecting them to become sustainable carbon stores is a fantasy, as there are strong market incentives to use them as ‘carbon credits’. Although new climate realities may require changes to the way conservation laws are interpreted, these must be supported by hard scientific evidence.