Bite the hand that feeds you

Last week, the Supreme Court passed an interim order asking states and Union Territories to act as per the definition of “forest” laid down by the apex court in a 1996 judgement — in the case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India, and that the definition of forest will include 1.97 lakh square km of undeclared forest lands. Addressing petitions challenging the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill 2023, a Supreme Court bench directed states and UTs to provide details of the forest land within their jurisdiction to the Centre by March 31. The apex court has noted that the process of identifying land recorded as forests in government records is going on as per the amended law. The establishment of zoos or safaris by a government or authority should also not be consented to, without the final approval of the SC.

The Amendment Bill introduced last year had stripped protection from 1.97 lakh square km of forests, in violation of the 1996 judgement. Petitioners allege the wide definition of “forest” in the SC judgement has been diluted under Section 1A inserted in the amended law, which says land has to be either notified as a forest, or specifically recorded as a forest in government records after 1980, to qualify as a “forest”.

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, was aimed at checking deforestation and ecological damage. An estimated 4 mn hectares of forest land had been diverted from 1951-1975. Once the Act was enforced, the average annual diversion rate dropped to 22,000 hectares, or one tenth. In response to the SC order, the Congress party highlighted a report on the amnesty window opened for just six months in March 2017 to clear projects in a novel “violation category” that became routine through an Environment Ministry notification in July 2021. It also provided ex-post facto approval to over 100 projects (including coal mines, factories and cement plants) till the Supreme Court stayed it in January.

The government has often turned a blind eye to such violations. Prime Minister Modi recently inaugurated the 960-bed AIIMS Kalyani in West Bengal’s Nadia district. Per the guidelines of the Environment Ministry, any project over 20,000 square metres requires an Environment Clearance (EC). The facility, built on an area larger than 20,000 square metres, does not have EC as yet. So, the West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPCB) has imposed an environmental damage cost and a penalty of over Rs 15 crore.

There is also the strategically critical Rs 72,000-crore mega-infra project on the Great Nicobar Island. It is set to divert 130 square km of forest area to construct several projects, including an international container transhipment terminal, a military-civil airport, a power plant, and a township. Reports have hinted at the Project’s negative impact on the indigenous Shompen and Nicobarese communities on the island. Sadly, last April, the NGT said it would not interfere with the EC granted to the Project. Instead, a panel will now re-examine the environmental clearance.

There is a need for introspection and improvement in eco-adjudication practices. We need a data-driven approach to determine thresholds and calls for joint probes by regulators, environmental specialists, judiciary, and engineers to improve effectiveness of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, which helps one evaluate the ecological impact of a project.