Recent amendments to the Forest Conservation Act seem to be contentious, casting a shadow over India’s just transition journey
Forests play a pivotal role in the transition to a net-zero economy. As essential carbon sinks, they are indispensable in maintaining global temperatures within the 1.5°C threshold and achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century. In the Indian context, the importance of forests in fostering an equitable transition has been widely acknowledged. The government has ambitiously committed to enhancing carbon sequestration by 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through the expansion of tree and forest cover. However, the success of this commitment hinges profoundly on the efficacy of forest regulation.
The legal framework governing forest conservation in India has evolved through multiple complexities, characterised by policy reforms, legislative amendments and significant judicial pronouncements. Particularly contentious are the recent amendments to the Forest Conservation Act, casting a shadow over India's just transition goals.
The government has ambitiously committed to enhancing carbon sequestration by 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through the expansion of tree and forest cover.
This article delves into the complexities of forest conservation in India, highlighting the delicate interplay between legislative goals and judicial oversight. Analysing recent legislative amendments and landmark judicial rulings, the paper clarifies the complexities and opportunities in forest governance. It aims to contribute to a just transition that ensures ecological integrity while upholding the rights and livelihoods of forest-dweller communities.
The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, aims to boost conservation efforts, recognising forests’ crucial role in achieving India’s net-zero emission targets by 2070 and fostering sustainable development. However, a critical examination highlights significant flaws in its approach, particularly regarding India's climate neutrality objectives. The 2023 Act’s purported objective of bringing “clarity” to the definition of “forest” land, as stated in the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report, seems to have diluted conservation efforts under the guise of clarity.
The 2023 Amendment significantly narrows the scope of forest lands protected under the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, making room for non-forestry activities. The Amendment defines forest land as either “(i) land declared/notified as a forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or under any other law,” or “(ii) land not covered in the first category but notified as a forest on or after 25 October 1980 in government records”.
The myopic interpretation of the term “forest” raises concerns for two reasons:
First, it excludes a vast amount of unrecorded or unclassed forest cover from the scope of conservation and regulation. The limited definition of forest lands relies on historical records and specific criteria, leading to the exclusion of extensive areas of unrecorded and community forests from protection, contradicting the 2023 Act’s conservation objectives. This is concerning as it opens up more forest cover to potential destruction. Given the diversion of over 300,000 hectares of forest land for non-forest purposes like mining and infrastructure, and with approximately 750,000 square kilometres of forest projected to become climate hotspots by 2030, there’s a risk of losing forest cover at an accelerated rate.
Furthermore, the 2023 Act hinders climate mitigation initiatives, with India's persistent reliance on coal for energy generation—a significant cause of forest land diversion, notably for opencast coal mining, which amounts to a substantial portion of forest land—approximately 20-25 percent of total forest area—with coal mining alone responsible for nearly half of this diversion. This amendment has inadvertently increased the risk of unsustainable harm to forests and tree cover.
The limited definition of forest lands relies on historical records and specific criteria, leading to the exclusion of extensive areas of unrecorded and community forests from protection, contradicting the 2023 Act’s conservation objectives.
Secondly, the proposed interpretation defies judicial precedents that mandate a “broad and all-encompassing” definition of forests. However, in a recent order, the Supreme Court rectified this by iterating that the term “forest” should maintain its broad, all-encompassing, and inclusive meaning, as defined in the dictionary. It is that this decision has brought around 1.97 lakh square kilometres of undeclared forest lands under regulation. This judicial intervention underscores a resolute stance against legislative attempts to undermine conservation efforts.
The Amendment Act introduces specific exemptions for diverting forest lands, including those near government rail lines or public roads, areas within 100 kilometres along international borders or strategic areas like Line of Control (LoC) or Line of Actual Control (LAC) for national security projects, and up to 10 hectares designated for security infrastructure. These exemption provisions allow certain developments without any restrictions on forest land use.
These exemptions in the 2023 Amendment Act undermine the scientific assessment of the use of forest lands for non-forest purposes. According to the Forest Conservation Rules 2003, user agencies are mandated to conduct a detailed cost-benefit analysis, employment generation, and the impact on displaced families, particularly Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Additionally, these Rules require Environmental Clearance under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) where necessary, which entails a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). These exemptions circumvent the need for such clearance is obviated, undermining environmental protections.
The Amendment risks diminishing the decision-making authority of state governments, undermining community land rights, and silencing village councils. In just transition politics, stakeholders’ inclusivity is crucial for implementing just transition strategies and necessitating adherence to the foundational principles of sovereignty, democracy, and federalism at all levels. However, the amendments compromised these principles by encroaching upon the state government’s forest management autonomy. This is particularly troubling for Northeastern states, which are known for their extensive forest cover and share international borders, where forests could be replaced by commercial plantations, jeopardising the federal structure of governance as envisaged by the Constitution-makers. This concern is compounded by the fact that the Northeastern states have already experienced significant forest cover loss in recent assessments, highlighting the potential ramifications of these amendments on regional environmental integrity and governance.
According to the Forest Conservation Rules 2003, user agencies are mandated to conduct a detailed cost-benefit analysis, employment generation, and the impact on displaced families, particularly Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
The concept of just transition demands the active participation of all relevant stakeholders. The 2017 Amendment rules initially required consent from Gram Sabhas for projects, ensuring community participation. However, the recent amendments have eliminated this provision, effectively silencing local governing bodies and undermining community involvement. This change threatens the livelihoods of those dependent on forest lands, as the amended Forest Conservation Act now offers limited protection to unclassed forest lands. Tribal and forest-dweller communities without secure land rights are at increased vulnerability to displacement, land conflicts, and loss of livelihood. Such a scenario is antithetical to the principles of just transitions, which seek to address entrenched inequalities within existing legal and policy frameworks.
The pursuit of just transitions required balancing ecological conservation with economic imperatives. Achieving this balance necessitates a thorough re-evaluation of India’s forest conservation strategies, emphasising the need for equitable and inclusive approaches toward environmental sustainability. An integral aspect involves evaluating not only the technological and economic dimensions of conservation efforts but also their socio-economic implications and distributional effects. However, recent legislative amendments indicate challenges in meeting India’s ambitious goal of restoring 26 million hectares of degraded land by 2030.
Community-based initiatives like community forestry and joint forest management are crucial for fostering partnerships between forest-dweller communities and conservation efforts. In India, where a substantial population resides in forested regions, it’s essential to reconceptualise forest conservation as a relationship that respects both the environment and the rights of forest dwellers. Even with the judicial interventions, including directives from the Supreme Court, there are still concerns about the effectiveness of these measures in addressing legislative gaps.
An integral aspect involves evaluating not only the technological and economic dimensions of conservation efforts but also their socio-economic implications and distributional effects.
A prominent issue of encroachments on forest land, where conservation priorities often override the socio-economic rights of forest-dependent communities. The Supreme Court's eviction directives, impacting millions of indigenous peoples reliant on forests for their livelihoods, highlight this discrepancy. Although aimed at wildlife protection, these orders overlook the constitutional validity of crucial legislation such as the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006—which aimed to rectify centuries of injustices by recognising the land rights of forest dwellers and scheduled tribes. Such decisions underscore a technocratic approach to forest management, prioritising financial interests and afforestation at the expense of community rights and socio-economic fairness.
Forest governance also requires reassessment for its effectiveness in achieving climate targets. For instance, the introduction of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) was established to compensate for forest loss due to development projects. However, CAMPA does not adequately address ecosystem resilience. Biodiversity, which develops over long periods, is richest in older forests. Yet, analysis shows a net loss over time. Replacing mature forests with new saplings adversely impacts biodiversity, climate regulation, carbon storage, and water resources.
Consequently, ecosystem resilience is compromised. Launched in October 2023, the Green Credit Scheme allows entities such as private enterprises or government bodies to cultivate plantations and earn carbon credits. However, this scheme risks undermining ecosystem resilience by prioritising profit over the preservation of common lands. It fails to recognise that plantations cannot replicate the complex biodiversity of natural forests.
To effectively conserve forests, the government must adopt rights-based approaches to environmental protection and sustainable development, ensuring that conservation efforts genuinely benefit the ecosystem and communities reliant on it and contribute to nation-building.
Nishant Sirohi is a Law & Society Fellow at Transitions Research
Lianne D’Souza is a Research Assistant at the Low Carbon Society Programme, Transitions Research
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Nishant Sirohi is an advocate and a legal researcher specialising in the intersection of human rights and development - particularly issues of health, climate change, ...
Read More +
Lianne is an environmental lawyer and researcher specialising in climate change law, energy transition, and international trade law. She holds a Bachelor's degree in Law ...
Read More +
PREV
