Objections overruled, Forest Bill goes to House unchanged

A Parliamentary committee, set up to examine controversial proposed amendments to the Forest Act, 1980, has endorsed the amendment Bill in its entirety. Touching a raw nerve The proposed amendments to the Forest Act, 1980 have attracted objections on various grounds: ‘Dilution’ of the Supreme Court’s 1996 judgment in the Godavarman case that extended protection to wide tracts of forests, even if they were not recorded as forests In geographically sensitive areas within 100 km of the International Borders or the Line of Control, no forest clearance required to construct highways, hydel power projects and so on No Central protection for vast tracts of so-called ‘deemed forest’ and permitting activities such as tourism, compromising their integrity The report states that the joint committee, chaired by BJP MP Rajendra Agrawal, analysed the Bill “clause by clause” and invited representations from 10 Central Ministries, as well as views from Chattisgarh, Maharashtra and Telangana, from experts, individuals, and representatives of public sector units. ‘Diluting’ forest protection The report notes that objections were raised to various aspects of the Bill, including complaints that the proposed amendments “diluted” the Supreme Court’s 1996 judgement in the Godavarman case that extended protection to wide tracts of forests, even if they were not recorded as forests. The objections were on the grounds that it was “non-inclusive” and left out “vast tracks of population both in South India and also in the North-East.” Environment Ministry officials defended the name change, saying that it stressed the need to not only conserve but also “augment” forests, and that forest conservation involved much more than according “clearances.” Opposition from NE States The amendments were only introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 2023 but a draft copy has been in the public domain, for comment, since June 2022. There was also opposition from several environmental groups who said that the amendments removed Central protection from vast tracts of so-called ‘deemed forest’ and would permit activities such as tourism in these areas, compromising their integrity.