New Delhi: The Joint Committee of the Parliament has accepted nearly all amendments proposed in the forest conservation amendment bill 2023, but state governments have opposed specific clauses, according to the panel’s report. Northeastern states including Nagaland, Tripura, Mizoram, Sikkim -- all ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party or its allies -- have said a clause on exempting forest clearance in forest land within 100 km along the international borders would cover their entire states and open up ecologically important forest areas to a change in land-use.
Himachal Pradesh , ruled by the Congress, has also sought clarity on the provision of exempting forest clearance for forest land within 100 km along the international borders or Line of Control or the Line of Actual Control proposed to be used for construction of strategic linear projects of national importance and concerning national security.
“With regards to the exemption of 100 km, it is to submit that the entire Nagaland State will be excluded. Given the peculiar shape of the northeast except Assam, nearly all States become excluded. The uniformity of 100 Km needs to be removed, more so as the Indo-Myanmar border is not as sensitive as the Indo-China or Indo- Pakistan border. Further, the entire 100 km belt falls in the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot, one of the richest areas in terms of gene pool diversity in the entire world,” Nagaland said in its submission to the committee.
Nagaland has also submitted that most forest areas in the state are not recorded as forests as no land records are maintained. “There is no mention of how specifically the privately and community owned areas in the State will be treated. It is submitted that a specific insertion may be made keeping the private (naturally grown) forest areas out of the purview of the act to remove any ambiguity.”
{{/usCountry}}Nagaland has also submitted that most forest areas in the state are not recorded as forests as no land records are maintained. “There is no mention of how specifically the privately and community owned areas in the State will be treated. It is submitted that a specific insertion may be made keeping the private (naturally grown) forest areas out of the purview of the act to remove any ambiguity.”
{{/usCountry}}Mizoram’s submission is similar and says: “ As almost the entire Mizoram State falls within 100 kms of aerial distance of the international border (Myanmar & Bangladesh Border) and therefore, all its forest and wildlife areas will get destroyed with such provision. This provision is strongly objected to and is not acceptable and shall be dropped.”
Sikkim has also raised concerns about opening up of biodiversity rich areas and come up with a recommendation of its own: “In Sikkim’s geographical context, the proposed exemption may be reduced to 2 kms from 100 kms from the International Borders.” Tripura has recommended that it be reduced to 10 km. Arunachal Pradesh, interestingly, recommended that the 100 km distance may be enhanced to 150 km.
Himachal Pradesh has sought clarity on which authority is competent to certify or specify projects as being of national importance and national security. The environment ministry has said exemptions will be applicable to such qualifying linear projects, as may be identified by the defence and home ministries.
During briefing on the Bill, experts, the report notes, observed that the 100 km exemption possible as in eastern Himalayas and in Northeastern states it would cover large chunks of land and states might not agree to the proposal. In response, the environment ministry said the exemptions were only for specific projects of strategic importance concerning national security as identified by the Union government.
An analysis of approvals accorded in the past for defence projects revealed that out of total area of 80,408 ha diverted in the last eight years, only 2480 ha of forest land has been diverted to defence projects including roads which account for 3% of the total area, the ministry added.
Several experts and members have raised concerns about how the clause impacts people in conflict affected areas.
“The proposed amendment, along with the MOEFCC’s clarification in the parliamentary report, clearly states that linear projects of national importance and security, as identified by the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Home Affairs, will be deemed be approved from the Central Government. The MoEFCC has included a provision in the Bill to define terms and conditions, and guidelines to be followed for availing such exemptions.
The proposed amendments only relax the Central Government’s permission under Section 2, which is separate and acts as additional safeguard only after the State’s show intent to divert such forest land- it’s not the vice versa. It’s important to note that the State Government’s approval remains necessary for any forest diversion where the State has jurisdiction, including lands notified, recorded, and identified as ‘forest’ by the State,” said Debadityo Sinha, Lead- Climate & Ecosystems, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
“Even for strategic or nationally important projects within 100 km of international borders or public utility projects, until the State intends to divert such forests, central government cannot permit any non-forest activity on such lands. Therefore, if this amendment gets through, the future of forests will greatly depend on how much of these exemptions the States are willing to avail,” he added.
India’s 15,100 km international terrestrial border, comprises rich ecosystems - grasslands, deserts, wetlands, lowland forests, evergreen rainforests — that are mostly untouched due to their remoteness. “This is a natural defence cover to our country and needs to be protected at any cost. Animals and birds do not have international borders. Their free movement across the borders should not be restricted,” said another.
Some suggested large-scale consultations are needed with local people on these exemptions.