Definitions by nature are specific. They facilitate better decision-making and reduce the grey areas of ambiguity. But defining something as amorphous as forests is a problematic exercise. Across the world people have lived within forests and used resources from there to sustain their lives. In India too the story is the same. Indigenous communities particularly are known as forest dwellers. But with a stroke of the pen the Government passed the Forest Conservation Act (1980) besides several other such Acts which reduced the forest dwellers to interlopers who had to be evicted from their hearths and homes. Only in 2006 did the Forest Rights Act once again gave back to the forest dwelling communities their entitlement to use forest and non-timber forest products (NTFP) for their livelihoods.
The Nongtrai Lafarge case whereby the Supreme Court overruled the mining permission given by the State Forest Department and Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to Lafarge, stating that the French Cement giant should adequately compensate the communities for taking away what they have always defined as ‘forest land,’ is an eye opener.
The Forest Department went by its stated definitions whereby forest land is one with standing trees. The Department stated that mining by Lafarge was going to be executed in barren land. The communities argued otherwise and the apex court judgment went in favour of the communities. The court even said that the communities had their innate native wisdom to determine what is a forest land and what is not and that the Forest Department should have taken cognizance of the indigenous wisdom while alienating land to limestone mining in that area.
The Supreme Court has gone one step further. It has used the dictionary meaning of the word ‘forest’ to define all forests in the future. This has caused tremendous headache for the Forest Departments across the country since they already have their own set of definitions.
It is in this context that all forests outside the purview of the Department would now have to be defined. In Meghalaya this is particularly tricky since only about 4-5% of forest land is held by the Forest Department and the rest is with the District Councils vide the United Khasi & Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management & Control of Forests), Act 1958. This Act already clearly defines what a forest is. To that extent not much exercise is required. What is required however are more stringent clauses to the Council Act, as it is silent on whether forest land can be alienated for mining and other non-forest activities. The Councils have enjoyed powers without responsibility. It is time they are brought in as definitive stakeholders so that they can also discharge their responsibilities.