In the wake of a recent interim order from the Supreme Court, the discourse surrounding India’s forest definitions has once again taken centre stage. This directive, issued on February 19, has reignited debates and raised questions about the country’s approach to delineating its forest areas.
In this explainer-style breakdown, we delve into the key aspects of this ongoing conversation, shedding light on the recent court order, the concerns raised by petitioners, and the broader challenges hindering the accurate identification of forest lands across India.
Q. What recent order has reignited the debate on India’s forest definitions?
Following an interim order from the Supreme Court on February 19, there’s renewed discussion around India’s forest definitions. The order mandates all states and Union Territories (UTs) to determine their total forestland based on the dictionary definition of a forest by March 31, as per a landmark verdict from 1996.
Q. What does the recent Supreme Court order entail?
The Supreme Court has instructed the government to adhere to the 28-year-old dictionary meaning of forest until a final verdict is reached on petitions challenging Parliament’s 2023 Amendment to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This interim measure aims to prevent potential exclusions of forest areas until a final decision is made.
Q. What are the concerns raised by petitioners regarding the 2023 amendment?
Petitioners argue that the 2023 amendment might exclude approximately 197,000 square kilometres, or 27 per cent of the total forest area, due to its “constricted” coverage. They assert that this amendment contradicts the 1996 order, which directed states and UTs to identify their forest area based on the dictionary definition.
Q: What factors have contributed to the delay in defining forests in India?
The delay can be attributed to the complexity of the process and various challenges encountered along the way. One significant issue is the identification of deemed forests, which are areas resembling forests but not officially recognized as such in government records.
Q: Why haven’t deemed forests been identified and declared as forests as per the Godavarman verdict?
Despite the Godavarman verdict’s directive to identify and declare such areas as forests, a comprehensive identification hasn’t occurred due to the absence of Expert Committees (ECs). This has led to a lack of clarity and delay in the process.
Q: Could efforts post the 1996 and 2011 judgments have expedited this task?
Experts believe that sincere efforts following the 1996 and 2011 judgments could have sped up the identification process significantly. However, due to various reasons, including administrative challenges, this didn’t materialize as expected.
Q: Why do state governments hesitate to protect forest-like areas and traditional ecosystems?
State governments exhibit hesitation in safeguarding forest-like areas and traditional ecosystems such as orans and runds in regions like Rajasthan and the Aravalis in Haryana. This reluctance could stem from conflicting priorities, resource constraints, or differing interpretations of environmental conservation policies.
Q. What challenges does Karnataka face in identifying its deemed forests?
Karnataka, among few states attempting to identify its deemed forests, has encountered various hurdles, resulting in different figures over time. Factors such as the absence of land records and changes in land use contribute to the discrepancies in identifying deemed forest areas.
Q. What is the broader challenge in monitoring and managing forests in India?
Forests, being dynamic, require regular monitoring and management. Beyond identifying deemed forests, challenges lie in excluding areas recorded as forests in government records but have degraded over time due to human activities or government projects, like dams.
Q. Why have state governments resisted expanding the scope of the Forest Conservation Act?
State governments seek autonomy over land use decisions, including releasing land for industrial activities without central oversight. Resistance to identifying deemed forests stems from concerns about alienating communities inhabiting these areas once they’re declared as forests.
Source: Forests’ lingering question (Down To Earth, March 21, 2024)