<p>The amendment to the Vansanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Adhiniyam was enacted on August 4, 2023, and came into force on December 1, 2023. Relevant rules and guidelines were also notified on November 29, 2023. The enactment was challenged by a group of retired bureaucrats, including foresters and some NGOs, through WP Civil No. 1164/2023 (Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs. Union of India) in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, in the T N Godavarman vs. Union of India judgement (WP No. 202/1996) on December 12, 1996, defined the expression ‘forests,’ which covers not only the land notified as reserved forests and protected forests but also all lands recorded as forests in any government records. This includes wooded areas, irrespective of ownership, so far as it relates to the diversion of such areas for non-forestry uses.</p>.<p>In 2002, the Supreme Court directed the state governments to form expert committees to identify ‘forests’ and also those subsequently degraded, denuded, and cleared forests, as well as tree plantations. This aimed to ensure that all cases of forest land diversion for non-forestry uses were approved by the Central Government only. Reiterating the issue further, the Supreme Court in the 2011 Lafarge order gave directions to create and regularly update a GIS-based support data base with district-wise details of the location and boundary of each plot of land that is defined as ‘forests’ for the purpose of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. However, over two decades later, the Expert Committees appointed by the states have not adequately fulfilled their duties, and the district-wise GIS data base has not been regularly updated.</p>.<p>In 2002, Karnataka’s Expert Committee identified nearly 10 lakh acres of non-notified forests as deemed forests, which mainly comprise un-classed forests and wooded areas under private ownership. Later in 2016, the government moved the Supreme Court to cut this down to three lakh acres, citing various reasons such as community occupancy and insufficient tree density, with many areas having less than 50 trees per hectare. Let us not forget that these lands, which were identified as wooded in 2002, were found to have been degraded and denuded with less than 50 trees per hectare in 2016. The forest and revenue departments have failed to control the illegal tree felling on these lands. I am sure even three lakh acres would have further degraded and shrunk if another stock-taking was done now.</p>.<p>Despite clear directives from the Supreme Court, Kerala diverted revenue forests for non-forestry purposes without referring them to the Union Government under the Act. Similarly, in 2015, Odhisa notified that the state has 16,000 sq km un-classed forests, and within two years, in 2017, it brought it down to 22 sq km.</p>.<p>States appear to think that listing all un-classed forests and private wooded areas and bringing them under the purview of the central Act would be to tie their hands as the lands become unavailable for future development projects. However, this short-sighted approach disregards the ecological importance of natural forests, which have 40% higher carbon sequestration potential than man-made forests. Forests are home to streams and rivers and render invaluable ecological services.</p>.<p>The amended Act introduces several provisions that dilute the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, especially regarding the definition of forests. In response to the petition by Ashok Kumar Sharma and others challenging the amendment, the Supreme Court issued an interim order on February 19, 2024, upholding the definition of forests made on December 12, 1996. The amendment to the parent Act is thus partially stayed, with the court directing the expert committees of the states and UTs to submit the list of forests to the Union Ministry by March 31, 2024; the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change will maintain the records, digitise the boundaries, and upload them to their website by April 15, 2024.</p>.<p>The amended Act has damaging effects, exacerbating forest fragmentation by excluding forests up to 0.1 ha for providing public access along the rail lines and public roads, exempting the process of diversion up to 10 ha for security-related infrastructure and 5 ha for areas affected by left-wing extremism, and permitting zoos, safaris, and ecotourism facilities within the forests.</p>.<p>The rules notified under the amended Act provide a land bank for growing compensatory afforestation. The land included in the bank is from the Jhudapi jungle of Maharashtra, the Chhote Bade Jhad lands of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, etc. These lands are un-classed forests available in all states with one name or another. As per the Supreme Court’s December 12, 1996 definition, these are all forest lands. At present, many of these land parcels may be degraded and denuded, but trees can be revived in all of them if rigid protection is provided and natural rootstock is allowed to regenerate.</p>.<p>The true compensation comes when trees are grown on non-forest land to an extent equal to the extent of the forests lost. The land banks should comprise only non-forest lands. Keeping un-classed forests in the compensatory afforestation land bank is totally unjustified and can lead to compromising the ecological security of the region. More over, states do not have good track records of growing successful compensatory afforestation of high biodiversity value.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court bench also ruled that permissions for zoos, safaris, and ecotourism facilities should not be granted by the government without the approval of the court until another bench of the Supreme Court concludes a case establishing an illegal tiger safari in Corbett Tiger Reserve. This provision of the amended Act has the potential to damage and fragment core areas of Tiger Reserves and is in contravention of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is the retired head of the Forest Force, Karnataka)</em></p>
<p>The amendment to the Vansanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Adhiniyam was enacted on August 4, 2023, and came into force on December 1, 2023. Relevant rules and guidelines were also notified on November 29, 2023. The enactment was challenged by a group of retired bureaucrats, including foresters and some NGOs, through WP Civil No. 1164/2023 (Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs. Union of India) in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, in the T N Godavarman vs. Union of India judgement (WP No. 202/1996) on December 12, 1996, defined the expression ‘forests,’ which covers not only the land notified as reserved forests and protected forests but also all lands recorded as forests in any government records. This includes wooded areas, irrespective of ownership, so far as it relates to the diversion of such areas for non-forestry uses.</p>.<p>In 2002, the Supreme Court directed the state governments to form expert committees to identify ‘forests’ and also those subsequently degraded, denuded, and cleared forests, as well as tree plantations. This aimed to ensure that all cases of forest land diversion for non-forestry uses were approved by the Central Government only. Reiterating the issue further, the Supreme Court in the 2011 Lafarge order gave directions to create and regularly update a GIS-based support data base with district-wise details of the location and boundary of each plot of land that is defined as ‘forests’ for the purpose of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. However, over two decades later, the Expert Committees appointed by the states have not adequately fulfilled their duties, and the district-wise GIS data base has not been regularly updated.</p>.<p>In 2002, Karnataka’s Expert Committee identified nearly 10 lakh acres of non-notified forests as deemed forests, which mainly comprise un-classed forests and wooded areas under private ownership. Later in 2016, the government moved the Supreme Court to cut this down to three lakh acres, citing various reasons such as community occupancy and insufficient tree density, with many areas having less than 50 trees per hectare. Let us not forget that these lands, which were identified as wooded in 2002, were found to have been degraded and denuded with less than 50 trees per hectare in 2016. The forest and revenue departments have failed to control the illegal tree felling on these lands. I am sure even three lakh acres would have further degraded and shrunk if another stock-taking was done now.</p>.<p>Despite clear directives from the Supreme Court, Kerala diverted revenue forests for non-forestry purposes without referring them to the Union Government under the Act. Similarly, in 2015, Odhisa notified that the state has 16,000 sq km un-classed forests, and within two years, in 2017, it brought it down to 22 sq km.</p>.<p>States appear to think that listing all un-classed forests and private wooded areas and bringing them under the purview of the central Act would be to tie their hands as the lands become unavailable for future development projects. However, this short-sighted approach disregards the ecological importance of natural forests, which have 40% higher carbon sequestration potential than man-made forests. Forests are home to streams and rivers and render invaluable ecological services.</p>.<p>The amended Act introduces several provisions that dilute the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, especially regarding the definition of forests. In response to the petition by Ashok Kumar Sharma and others challenging the amendment, the Supreme Court issued an interim order on February 19, 2024, upholding the definition of forests made on December 12, 1996. The amendment to the parent Act is thus partially stayed, with the court directing the expert committees of the states and UTs to submit the list of forests to the Union Ministry by March 31, 2024; the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change will maintain the records, digitise the boundaries, and upload them to their website by April 15, 2024.</p>.<p>The amended Act has damaging effects, exacerbating forest fragmentation by excluding forests up to 0.1 ha for providing public access along the rail lines and public roads, exempting the process of diversion up to 10 ha for security-related infrastructure and 5 ha for areas affected by left-wing extremism, and permitting zoos, safaris, and ecotourism facilities within the forests.</p>.<p>The rules notified under the amended Act provide a land bank for growing compensatory afforestation. The land included in the bank is from the Jhudapi jungle of Maharashtra, the Chhote Bade Jhad lands of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, etc. These lands are un-classed forests available in all states with one name or another. As per the Supreme Court’s December 12, 1996 definition, these are all forest lands. At present, many of these land parcels may be degraded and denuded, but trees can be revived in all of them if rigid protection is provided and natural rootstock is allowed to regenerate.</p>.<p>The true compensation comes when trees are grown on non-forest land to an extent equal to the extent of the forests lost. The land banks should comprise only non-forest lands. Keeping un-classed forests in the compensatory afforestation land bank is totally unjustified and can lead to compromising the ecological security of the region. More over, states do not have good track records of growing successful compensatory afforestation of high biodiversity value.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court bench also ruled that permissions for zoos, safaris, and ecotourism facilities should not be granted by the government without the approval of the court until another bench of the Supreme Court concludes a case establishing an illegal tiger safari in Corbett Tiger Reserve. This provision of the amended Act has the potential to damage and fragment core areas of Tiger Reserves and is in contravention of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is the retired head of the Forest Force, Karnataka)</em></p>
