From CK Nayak
NEW DELHI, July 26: Environmentalists have demanded that the Centre rollback the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 which was passed by the Lok Sabha on Wednesday amid noisy scenes.
They felt the Bill will seriously affect the country’s entire forest areas, mainly the Northeast where it allegedly dilutes the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. They also felt the Bill will change the governance of forests and spell disaster for the country’s forest resources and livelihood of millions, mostly tribals.
The Bill was passed by amending the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Lok Sabha was adjourned for the day after the Bill’s passage.
The Bill seeks to exempt land within 100 km of the country’s borders from the purview of the forest conservation laws and permit the setting up of zoos and eco-tourism facilities besides safaris in forest areas.
Activists from the Himalayan region raised concerns over the Bill, for they believed it will erase the rights of indigenous communities living in India’s vast forest areas, including the Northeast. All states in the Northeast have land boundaries with foreign countries and almost all of their forest areas will come under the 100 km distance.
Under the Sixth Schedule, the NE states get protection from many central laws, including rights over forests and forest lands which are individual or community-owned in the region. The Autonomous District Councils in various states of the region manage the forest areas. The activists, who converged for a dialogue on the issue, organised by the Youth for Himalaya Coalition, called the Bill’s provisions ambiguous and dangerous. They expressed concerns over the provisions on exemptions from due processes, paving the way for the exploitation of fragile forest lands and mountains.
All the proposed amendments to the Bill have been approved by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on FCA. If the Bill comes into effect, it exempts many activities from requiring mandatory forest clearances, including those in forest lands of upto 0.10 hectares alongside roads and rail lines and construction of defence-related or public utility projects.
It will also exempt forest lands within 100 km from the international border/Line of Control/Line of Actual Control for strategic linear projects. The activists claimed that Kashmir and almost the entire Northeast come within this 100-kilometre ambit.
They also raised concerns over the potential dilution of Article 371, which contains special provisions for certain states as well as the Sixth Schedule and other special statuses which give certain immunities and rights to make decisions regarding land.
Some provisions of the Bill will also harm the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The Bill will also affect the Panchayats (Extension to The Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 by not defining strategic linear projects or addressing the requirement for people’s consent to access certain lands, the activists claimed.
Environmental organisations and civil societies staged protests across the country over the tabling of the FCA Bill. They demanded its rollback alleging that it will change the governance of forests and spell disaster for the country’s forest resources and livelihood of millions, mostly tribals.
Lok Sabha member from Shillong, Vincent H. Pala has demanded exemption for the entire Northeastern region from the ambit of the FCA Bill since the forest areas are owned by individuals or local bodies as a community. Their lives and livelihood also depend on the forest in the absence of any major industry or agriculture in the hills, he said.
Pala also raised objection to the manner in which the FCA Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha amid din. Such an important legislation affecting lakhs of tribals and vast forest areas, mostly in the Northeast, should have been sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee for wider consideration, he said.
“The government is bypassing the Standing Committee and taking a short cut to pass such an important bill even without any discussion,” Pala said.
The Bill has also ignored the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 which recognizes the rights of the forest-dwelling tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers to forest resources, on which these communities were dependent for a variety of needs, including livelihood, habitation and other socio-cultural needs, Pala said.
Even within the JPC, some members have given dissent notes which should have been taken into account, Pala added.