JOIN USDiluting strict forest laws: Environmentalists cry foul
Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 is being suggested to be made inapplicable on private forests, deemed forests, forest land for constructing temporary structures for tourism, establishing zoos and safaris, right of ways held by railways and road ministry prior to 1980. This is also is being made inapplicable on plantations grown outside forest areas.
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is being suggested to rearrange the list of species in different schedules for convenience, and adding a chapter on cities. We are also fortunate to find that the integrity of the habitats such as Section 29 for Wildlife Sanctuaries, Section 35(6) for National Parks and Section 38-O (g) for Tiger Reserves and areas linking one Protected Area with another is not tampered. In general, the amendments do not propose any change with the power to arrest the offenders, carry on investigation, launch prosecution, impose penalties and award of punishments etc, but the only alarming suggestion is to constitute and empower Standing Committee of State Board for Wildlife.
Like the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) is headed by prime minister, the State Boards are headed by respective chief ministers. So far, the Act provided for Standing Committee of NBWL only. In the regime of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, NBWL has never met. All the decisions have been taken by the Standing Committee and those who are ‘yes man’ find themselves on this Committee. Clearance Trends Series Publication of August 2020 Vol. III No. I by LIFE (Legal Institute for Forest and Environment) indicate that between January and July 2020, NBWL considered a total of 59 proposals for diversion of forests for projects, including 28 of them that were located in Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks, also termed as Protected Areas (PAs). All 28 projects in PAs covering 228.23 hectare have been approved by Standing Committee of NBWL. Some 74 per cent of diversions were for linear projects like transmission lines, roads and bridges.
Not even a single proposal has been rejected. The cause of concern is the impact of multiple diversions in a single PA. Standing Committee of NBWL in 2019 approved doubling of rail track in Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary in Goa, and in their first meeting in 2020 Standing Committee approved widening of National Highway and laying of extra high voltage transmission line in the same sanctuary. Roads and railway lines are permanent barriers and increase the risk of wildlife mortality and obstruct free movement of wild animals. Arboreal mammals move through the tree canopy are severely impacted. PAs are inviolate areas for wildlife conservation and statute prohibits damage and destruction. Standing committee has been approving 100 per cent proposals of diversion compromising the integrity of PAs. The concern of the Standing Committee is not the conservation of wildlife, but favour development projects.
If Standing Committees of State Boards of Wildlife (SBWL) are constituted and empowered, more and more projects will be referred there and all cases will be recommended to NBWL. In fact, SBWL will hardly meet and deliberate on issues; Standing Committees will meet and recommend the proposals. More meetings will lead to more destruction of habitats and consequent deforestation. Standing Committee of NBWL in its 64th meeting held on August 7, 2021 decided to levy 2 per cent of proportionate cost of project falling inside PAs and Eco Sensitive Zones on user agencies for impact mitigation measures. The amount collected will be spent in the same PA, where habitat is impacted by the project. The perception of members of Standing Committee who think that damaged habitat can be restored with money is completely misplaced.
Praveen Bhargav, Trustee, Wildlife First and former member NBWL, observes: “The ecosystem level consequences of habitat fragmentation are deleterious. Yet the NBWL, whose statutory duty is to protect habitat is justifying a project in PA by imposing 2 per cent levy. Endangered wildlife now faces a double whammy of fragile habitats getting fragmented and excess money causing cascading impacts in PAs due to wide ranging construction and earth moving activities using bulldozers, which will be termed as mitigation and habitat improvement works. Already we are witnessing such negative impacts after the release of Rs 50,000 crore Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act (Campa) funds. With the states not allocating money for habitat consolidation through voluntary resettlement and land acquisition is a huge lost opportunity.” I agree with Praveen entirely.
Suggested amendments in Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 can be disaster. Its inapplicability on private forests and deemed forests would open a flood gate of deforestation in several wooded areas outside notified forests. A hilly district like Kodagu in Western Ghats has only 1,700 sq km area as notified forests and the remaining 2,500 sq km (two third of it is still covered with thick forests) can now be plundered without making any reference to the Act. The bane lands, pysari lands, and many other classes of lands in Kodagu district, Kumaki lands of Dakshin Kannada district, betta lands of Uttar Kannada district and kan lands of Shivamogga district, which have very good tree growth and are catchments of important rivers face immense pressure for development projects leading to accelerated deforestation.
Use of forest land for non-permanent structures for eco tourism would also not require approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, once the amendment goes through. It would again bring pressure of tourism on pristine forest areas. Temporary sheds and roads will be made in the forests without any reference to the Act. On paper, only few big trees will be sacrificed, but people moving in the area for experiencing wilderness will aggravate chances of forest fires, loss of regeneration and reproduction capacity. Even there will be disruption in the corridors for movement of wild animals. Similarly, forest lands can be utilised for establishing zoos and safaris in forest areas without any reference to the Act. A tiger safari is already established near Pakharo gate in Kalagarh division of Corbett Tiger Reserve, Uttarakhand with proper permission under the Act, but it has cascading effect and tourist reception centre and arches have been illegally constructed by Tiger Reserve management by sacrificing the tree growth and making the area as tourist hub.
I witnessed in Lansdowne recently that a huge tourism complex with a compound wall has been established by the same management in the area used by wild elephants. Several private resorts have come up and there is a proposal to widen the road from Kotdwar to Satpuli (NH 534) overlooking the fact that the area is an elephant habitat. It is reported that the National Tiger Conservation Authority has ordered for demolishing all illegal constructions by Forest Department. But several trees sacrificed for constructions cannot be brought back and also nothing can be done to prevent the expansion of private resorts. Forest officers concerned should be held accountable.
Inapplicability of the Act on forest lands within right of way of Surface transport department and Railways prior to 1980 will increase pressure for widening of roads and doubling of railway lines leading to accelerated deforestation. Suggested amendments under Forest (Conservation) Act can be put off. Further, proposal for Standing Committee of SBWL under Wildlife (Protection) Act can be dropped, and provisions for preliminary offence report on detection and charge sheet integrating with CrPC be added.
(The writer is former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka)