Optimize IAS
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Courses
    • Prelims Test Series
      • LAQSHYA 2026 Prelims Mentorship
    • Mains Mentorship
      • Arjuna 2026 Mains Mentorship
  • Portal Login
    • Home
    • About Us
    • Courses
      • Prelims Test Series
        • LAQSHYA 2026 Prelims Mentorship
      • Mains Mentorship
        • Arjuna 2026 Mains Mentorship
    • Portal Login

    Why are unclassed forests ‘missing’?

    • April 30, 2024
    • Posted by: OptimizeIAS Team
    • Category: DPN Topics
    No Comments

     

     

    Why are unclassed forests ‘missing’?

    Subject: Environment

    Sec: Environment Laws

    Context:

    • In response to a Supreme Court order from February 19, 2024, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) published the reports of various State Expert Committees (SEC) on its website in early April.
    • These reports, a response to public interest litigation, address concerns about the constitutionality of the 2023 Forest (Conservation) Act Amendment, particularly the identification and status of unclassed forests.

    What does the FCAA stipulate?

    • The Forest (Conservation) Act Amendment (FCAA) results in unclassed forests, previously protected under the 1996 T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad case, losing their legal protection.
    • This exposes these forests to potential diversion.
    • The State Expert Committee (SEC) reports were mandated to define ‘forests’ broadly, including all categories regardless of ownership or notification status, under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 
    • Consequently, any diversion of unclassed or deemed forests for non-forest purposes now requires approval from the Central government.
    • These unclassed forests can include lands owned by various government entities, community forests, or privately owned areas, even if they are not officially designated as forests.

    Have these forests been identified?

    • The identification of unclassed forests remains unclear.
    • Initially, their status was not known from 1996 until the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) indicated to a Joint Parliamentary Committee that State Expert Committees (SECs) had identified such forests, countering criticisms that the amended Forest (Conservation) Act would ignore these lands.
    • Despite this assurance, a response to a January 17 RTI application revealed that the MoEFCC did not possess the necessary reports.
    • Recent uploads of SEC reports to the MoEFCC website show that no state has provided concrete data on the identification, status, or location of unclassed forests. 
    • Additionally, seven States and Union Territories have not established their SECs, and although 23 States submitted reports, only 17 comply with the Supreme Court’s guidelines.

    What do the reports say?

    • The State Expert Committee (SEC) reports reveal that only nine States have detailed the extent of unclassed forests.
    • Most states and union territories provided only general information about different types of forest areas, such as those under government, forest, or revenue department control, and rarely included forests under other government departments.
    • Additionally, geographic locations for these forests were largely unspecified, with any provided data focusing on reserve or protected forests—information that is already accessible through Forest Departments.
    • The reports also cast doubt on the accuracy of the Forest Survey of India’s data, as seen in discrepancies like Gujarat’s SEC report listing its unclassed forests at 192.24 square kilometers versus the Forest Survey’s much higher figure of 4,577 square kilometers from 1995-1999.
    • Furthermore, the lack of on-ground verification by the SECs has been linked to potential large-scale destruction of these forests, which were supposed to have been identified and protected starting 27 years ago.
    • The absence of baseline data from 1996-1997 makes it impossible to quantify how much unclassed forest land has been lost, exemplified by the omission of Kerala’s ecologically sensitive Pallivasal unreserve in the reports, an area significantly affected by the 2018 floods.

    Implication:

    • This failure undermines the goals of the Indian Forest Policy, which aims for significant forest coverage of 33.3% in plains and 66.6% in hilly areas.

    Key features of the Forest Act:

    ProvisionsAct of 1980Proposed Bill of 2023
    Name
    • Forest (Conservation) Act 1980
    • Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, or Forest (Conservation and Augmentation) Act
    Aim
    • The act was enacted to ensure that India’s forest land is not wantonly usurped for non-forestry purposes.
    • The Act empowers the Centre to require that any forest land diverted for non-forestry purposes be duly compensated.
    • To encourage the practice of cultivating plantations on non-forest land that could, over time, increase tree cover, act as a carbon sink, and aid India’s ambition of being ‘net zero’ in terms of emissions by 2070.
    Restrictions on activities in the forest
    • Restricts the de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purposes
    • Specifies certain activities (conservation, management and development of forest and wildlife) that will be excluded from non-forest purposes
    Adds more activities to this list such as:

    1.      zoos and safaris under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,

    2.      eco-tourism facilities,

    3.      silvicultural operations (enhancing forest growth), etc.

    Land under the purviewThe Bill provides that two types of land will be under the purview of the Act:

    • Land declared/notified as a forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or under any other law, or
    • Land not covered in the first category but notified as a forest on or after October 25, 1980 in a government record.
    Exempted categories of landThe Bill exempts certain types of land from the provisions of the Act such as –

    • Forest land along a rail line or a public road maintained by the government
    • Land situated within 100 km along the international borders
    • Land up to 10 hectares, proposed to be used for constructing security-related infrastructure, etc.
    • The amendments would also remove the 1980 Act’s restrictions on creating infrastructure that would aid national security and create livelihood opportunities for those living on the periphery of forests.
    Assigning of land through a lease or otherwise
    • The state government or any authority requires prior approval of the central government to direct the assigning of forest land through a lease or otherwise to any organisation not owned by the government.
    • The Bill provides that such assigning may be done to any organisation subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the central government.
    Power to issue directions
    • The Bill adds that the central government may issue directions for the implementation of the Act to any other authority/organisation under or recognised by the centre, state or UT.
    Objections raised in the amendment
    • Proposed amendments “diluted” the Supreme Court’s 1996 judgement in the Godavarman case that extended protection to wide tracts of forests, even if they were not recorded as forests.
    • Construction of highways, hydel power projects and other such projects in geographically sensitive areas within 100 km of international borders or the Line of Control will no longer require a forest clearance.
    • Some north-eastern States objected that vast tracts of forest land would be unilaterally taken away for defence purposes.
    • Several environmental groups said that the amendments removed Central protection from vast tracts of ‘deemed forest’ (forested areas not officially recorded as ‘forests’) and would permit activities such as tourism in these areas, compromising their integrity.

    Source: TH

    Environment Why are unclassed forests ‘missing’?
    Footer logo
    Copyright © 2015 MasterStudy Theme by Stylemix Themes
        Search