Forest Amendment Bill: MoEFCC prevails over concerns shared by Nagaland, other stakeholders

July 31, 2023 16 Views No Comment

Morung Express News
Dimapur | July 31

The Union Government is now quite literally bulldozing its way to clip the powers of the Forest Conservation (FC) Act, 1980. On July 26, the Bill came closer to becoming legislation after it was passed in the Lok Sabha without much discussion on a day marked and overshadowed by raucous protests on the ongoing crisis in Manipur.

It proposed radical changes to the FC Act by giving greater legal flexibility to the Central government and developers for implementing infrastructure projects of national importance in fragile forest eco-systems around the country. If passed, it will have the Union government expanding the list of non-forest activities prohibited by the existing FC Act in notified forest areas.

As inferred from the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, which was submitted to the Parliament on July 20, suggestions/recommendations from stakeholders, including the Northeastern states likely to feel the biggest impact of the amendment, were largely ignored and countermanded by the Union Ministry of Forests, Environment and Climate Change (MoFECC).

The Parliamentary Committee was established after the Amendment Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha in March, this year. It was tasked with the job of essentially putting the Bill through an extensive vetting process by consulting and inviting suggestions/objections from stakeholders from across the country, which included state governments, non-governmental organisations, Central government Ministries and agencies. It received over 1300 “memoranda” in response.

One of the major changes prescribed include deregulation of lands and forests falling within 100 km of the international borders. Nagaland, with its unique land holding system, raised this issue with the Committee in June. It submitted that the state be excluded from the prescribed deregulation citing that the state falls in the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspots and also that the “Indo-Myanmar border is not as sensitive as Indo-China or Indo Pakistan Border.”

The MoFECC countered by maintaining that the proposed change would not be a blanket or general exemption. It said that the use of exemption would be for specific projects of strategic importance and determined based on individual needs of each project. It said, “The 100 km distance is maximum allowable distance. The use of exemption will be need based i.e. may be used within 5 km or 10 km.”

In response to a suggestion for inserting a specific clause for excluding privately or community-owned forests, the MoEFCC said that as provided under the proposed section 1A(1) of the Bill, all forests, including unclassed forests would come under the purview of the Act once amended and passed.

The state government further, while emphasizing the rich bio-diversity of the forests in the NE, called for loss compensation “either through restoration or long-term protection provided to equivalent areas through realization of NPV (Net present value), in agreement with the community.” To this, the MoEFCC replied that safeguards will always be included in the terms and conditions to be prescribed by the Central Government.

Similar concerns were raised by Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Sikkim and Tripura.

Meanwhile, the Border Roads Organisation suggested that the 100 km range of exemption from the Line of Actual Control/Line of Control/International Border be increased to 150 km as numerous tunnels, bridges and roads are proposed to be constructed with the objective of providing strategic depth to the border areas.

The JPC report informed that it held discussions on June 5 with government representatives from Tripura, Sikkim and Nagaland regarding their views on the provisions proposed in the Amendment Bill.

Nagaland was among 21 States Governments/Union Territories, which gave “oral evidence” to the Committee.

In its written response, the MoEFCC maintained that the 100 km distance was determined in consultation with the Ministry of Defence, which the latter considered optimal for fulfilling strategic Defence requirements.

The exemptions will not be available for private entities and even after the diversion of forest land, the legal status of forestland remains unchanged, therefore, there will be no reduction in the forest area, it contended.

“Defence projects which are to be completed in a time bound manner, often gets delayed due to length procedures and documentations involved in the process of approval, “it added.

The bill is due for approval in the Rajya Sabha to get an official stamp.