Experts raise concern over new rule over proposals to divert forest land for other uses

State governments and union territories can now refer proposals for diversion of forest land to the Centre, even if the land is within a national park, tiger reserve, wildlife corridor, habitat of endangered species or an area within a severely eroded catchment, provided they can justify it and suggest appropriate mitigation measures, according to forest conservation rules of 2022 notified on June 28.

A new rule that empowers provincial authorities to refer proposals to divert forest land for other uses even in protected wildlife habitats to the central government, which can then approve the diversion, has raised concerns that it would have an adverse impact on ecology and wildlife.

A new rule that empowers provincial authorities to refer proposals to divert forest land for other uses even in protected wildlife habitats to the central government, which can then approve the diversion, has raised concerns that it would have an adverse impact on ecology and wildlife. (PTI)

State governments and union territories can now refer proposals for diversion of forest land to the Centre, even if the land is within a national park, tiger reserve, wildlife corridor, habitat of endangered species or an area within a severely eroded catchment, provided they can justify it and suggest appropriate mitigation measures, according to forest conservation rules of 2022 notified on June 28.

Under the new rules, the regional offices of the Union environment ministry can grant approval of the diversion of protected forests for other uses when the concerned area is between five to 40 hectares or the forest canopy is sparse. For all other proposals of land use change, the approvals have to come from the Centre once the provincial authorities have explored all options and have suggested mitigation measures.

Environmental lawyers and researchers have raised several concerns with the new rule. The clause on considering proposals of land diversion within national parks, sanctuaries and critical wildlife habitats goes against the mandate of the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 on conserving wildlife and their habitats, they said.

“To lay down a procedure on how to consider such projects is absolutely wrong and concerning,” said Ritwick Dutta, an environmental lawyer. “The standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife could be clearing infrastructure projects, but the mandate of the wildlife protection law is to allow only those projects that benefit wildlife, so what the standing committee has been doing is also wrong in law.”

The wildlife protection law does not allow for change in protected areas that are not aimed at improvement and better management of wildlife. Tiger reserves and areas linking one protected area or tiger reserve with another cannot be diverted for ecologically unsustainable uses, except in public interest and with the approval of the National Board for Wildlife and on the advice of the Tiger Conservation Authority.

“The forest conservation rules enabling the forwarding of proposals in any tiger reserve, wildlife corridor or habitat of any endangered species by giving justification of its anthropocentric need is contrary to the conservation philosophy under which Forest Conservation Act was enacted,” said Sudiep Shrivastava, a lawyer based in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

The new rule also flies in the face of a Supreme Court order on June 4 that bans mining not only inside national parks but within a radius of 1km around them, Shrivastava pointed out.

In the recent past, the environment ministry has issued a number of amendments and notifications that dilute environmental safeguards, experts and activists claim. For instance, violation of certain environmental regulations may soon be decriminalised, although they would attract stiffer penalties, according to public consultation papers released by the ministry. The ministry on July 14 notified amendments that exempt highways in border areas from environmental clearances.

The new forest conservation rules have omitted a clause on obtaining prior consent of village councils on a proposal before a state government considers it for granting forest clearance, HT reported on July 13. Opposition parties and environmental activists protested this omission because it weakens the say of local people on developmental or industrial projects in eco-sensitive areas.

“It would be important for the government to justify why they have selectively reconciled the forest conservation rules with the wildlife protection law and not with the Forest Rights Act, especially since the new rules replace the procedural requirement for gram sabha (village council) consent in the 2016 rules,” said Kanchi Kohli, legal researcher at the Centre for Policy Research, a Delhi-based think tank.

In none of these cases is there an explicit prohibition that forest land will be accorded the highest levels of protection, she said. “It can be transferred to various economic sectors provided the central and state governments are satisfied of the mitigation measures proposed,” Kohli said.

The ministry, however, defended the changes. “None of the clauses introduce any new provision. If at all we have made the provision stronger where the state will vet it before it goes to the national board for wildlife” an environment ministry official said, seeking anonymity. “In fact, now the rules are saying that such projects in protected areas need to be adequately justified.”

“We have clarified earlier also that gram sabha consent has not been done away with,” he added. “States will have to take gram sabha consent on proposals on forest land.”