Conservation of unrecorded forests

The Supreme Court’s recent directive to the Central government and the State government to revert to the old broad and all-encompassing definition of forest while making public relevant records of forest areas triggered fresh hopes for the protection of unrecorded forests in the northeast region. Bringing more clarity to the data on forest records provided by the states and made public by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, and Climate Change (MoEFFC) is essential for scientific forest management. The apex court passed the directive on a petition filed by retired forest officials and conservationists seeking a stay on the implementation of the amended Forest (Conservation) Act. The amended Act passed in 2023 eased the restriction imposed on forest diversion for infrastructure development and allowed opening up unrecorded forest areas for any non-forest purpose without any compensation. The SC noted in its order that in the landmark T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India case, the apex court, while noting that the Forest Conservation Act 1980 was enacted to curb deforestation, which results in an ecological imbalance, indicated that the provisions incorporated to conserve forests and for other connected matters “must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification.” Elaborating on the definition of forest, the SC clarified that the description of the expression ‘forest’ would cover all statutorily recognised forests, whether they are designated as reserved, protected, or otherwise for the purpose of the Forest Conservation Act 1980, besides including forests as understood in the dictionary sense. The apex court also directed the States to constitute an Expert Committee to identify areas that are forests, irrespective of whether they are notified, recognised, or classified under any law and irrespective of the ownership of the land; identify areas that were earlier forests but were degraded, denuded, or cleared; and identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the government and those belonging to private persons. The petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of the amended laws drew the attention of the SC that, whereas the total coverage of forests in the country is expected to be in the vicinity of 7.13 lakh sq. km, about 1.97 lakh sq. km would be excluded by the restriction of the coverage by the amending legislation. The challenge was on the ground that while the dictionary meaning of the expression ‘forests’ that was adopted in the T. N. Godavarman judgement provided a broad and all encompassing meaning to the expression, the amendment circumscribes the coverage of the statute to two categories. The following two categories of lands were excluded in the amended law- such forest land situated alongside a rail line or a publicroad maintained by the Government, which provides access to a habitation, or to a rail, and roadside amenity up to a maximum size of 0.10 hectare in each case; such as tree plantation or re-afforestation raised on lands that are not specified in first clause and such forest land,—which are situated within a distance of 100 km along international borders of Line of Control of Line of Actual Control proposed to be used for be used for construction of strategic linear project ofnational importance and concerning national security; or up to ten hectares, proposed to be used for construction of security related infrastructure. The provisions are critical to the northeastern region, where a fine balance is required between development and ecological conservation. A closer look at the topography of the region shows that areas within 100 km of the international borders have vast tracts of forest. The remoteness of the areas and rugged terrain make it difficult to record every such forest tract and notify them as protected areas. Rampant felling of forest to facilitate unrestricted use of the land for strategic protests could have a cascading impact on fragile ecology. At the same time, the region’s strategic location means that compromising on defence projects and projects of strategic importance to the nation will jeopardise the country’s interests and security. A compensatory mechanism with oversight by wildlife and environmental experts will provide much-needed expertise to go into the finer details of environmental impacts and mitigation measures. Long delays in environmental impact assessment and environmental and forest clearance pose hurdles to fast-tracking the strategic projects. The solution to the problem lies in strengthening the existing oversight mechanism with capacity building, recruitment of more human resources, and adequate financial support to drastically cut down on environmental and forest clearance time. Mitigation measures for any diversion of class and unclassed forest for non-forestry use also need to be followed up rigorously to ensure that project developers strictly adhere to the schedule and various conditions imposed in the permissions. Opening unclassified forest in the region, the percentage of which is very high, without adequate checks and balance would have an irreversible ecological impact, which should not be allowed.