Indigenous people living in forests along the international border are up in arms over the latest amendment to the Forest Conservation Act (FCA) 1980, which allows exploitation of any forest which is within 100 km of the LOC or international border. Speaking at an online press conference organised by environmental group Youth for Himalaya on Saturday, July 22, a cro,ss section of indigenous leaders and climate activists from Jammu and Kashmir, Uttaranchal, Sikkim, Assam and other states along the Himalayan belt said that the amendment threatens life and livelihood of several communities and opens up pristine forests for unbridled commercial exploitation.  

Union minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Bhupender Yadav introduced the Forest Amendment Bill 2023 in the Lok Sabha on March 29 arguing that the earlier Forest Conservation Act (FCA) of 1980 has been prone to misrepresentation. The Union government has claimed that authorities are unable to undertake any change in land use for any development or utility related work on “recorded forest lands” which works against the idea of “national importance”. Clause 4 (2a) of the Bill says any land which is 100 km away from any international border or LOC and which could be used for construction of strategic linear projects of national importance shall not be protected as forest land. 

“The new Bill threatens the way of life for several groups of people. It can only result in the complete commercialisation of forest land,” said environmental activist Takpa Tenzin, a tribal representative and member of the Spiti Society in Himachal Pradesh. Tenzin argued that this clause completely dismisses rights of people living at the borders and has the potential to make things worse for tribal groups.

“Both undemarcated forests and demarcated forests were protected under the Indian Forests Act of 1927, which the current regime is trying to amend. They argue that there is a need to classify land. I want it to be known that in Himachal Pradesh alone only 2.4% of forest land is unclassified land,” he said.

Environmentalist Ravi Chopra, former Chairman of the Supreme Court appointed committee on Char Dham, brought up how strategic projects could pave way for colossal damage to the entire Himalayan belt which is already burdened. 

“The current Bill also paves way to fasttrack strategic projects as noted in its statement of objects and reason. Construction of paths for either railways, roads or electricity transmission projects require tunnels, and tunnels require blasts. These blasts cause cracks in mountains. The government will tell you that it is all being done scientifically but it isn’t. The job is carried out by a local contractor and invariably, the environmental impact assessment wouldn’t have been done. This is why the town of Joshimath sank,” said Chopra. 

Chopra explained that his concern comes from the fact that there already exists a lack of geological investigations, assessment of social impact and no security corridors when blasts take place. The Bill compounds this problem by placing such a high value on strategic projects. 

In the Bill’s statement of objects and reason, clause four notes: 

“There is also a need to fasttrack the strategic and security related projects of national importance so as to ensure development of vital security infrastructures, especially along the international border areas such as Line of Actual Control, Line of Control and Left Wing Extremism affected areas. Similarly, small establishments, habitations on the side of public roads and railways also need to be facilitated by providing them access and connectivity to main arterial roads and other public utilities.”

“In Sikkim, we are already burdened with 38 mega projects and more than 50 pharmaceutical companies. We have been trying to protect the River Teesta for over 17 years and have prevented construction of four to five dams. It is becoming progressively difficult to conserve land, forests and mountains. Even if the environmental rights are put aside, what about the religious rights of people? Buddhists in the state worship Mount Kanchenjunga as the guardian deity of Sikkim,” said Mayalamit Lepcha from the Lepcha tribe Affected citizens of Teesta. 

Earlier, in the TN Godavarman case (TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Others, 1997), the Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of the earlier FCA to apply beyond ‘notified forests’ to all areas ‘recorded’ as forest in any government record. Chopra said under the current Bill the definition of forests has been altered which defeated the purpose of the SC judgement. 

Further, the tabled Bill specifically targets ‘recorded’ forests and proposes to include only those lands within the ambit of the FCA which are recorded as the forest on or after 25th October 1980 – thus restricting the scope of the judgement. 

Bringing ,up Section 1A of the Bill which prevents certain lands from being covered under the FCA after the amendment, environmental activist Pranab Doley, from the Jeepal Krishak Sramik Sangha, voiced concern that constitutional rights of forest dwelling communities will be affected. 

“As it is with laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, our communities have been broken. We deal with military operations, geopolitical exercises and violence is a day to day companion. This clause removing protection for forests within 100 kms of a border, puts us at even greater risk. It undermines the constitutional rights of forest dwelling communities,” he said.

So far, over 400 ecologists have written to Union environment minister Bhupendra Yadav expressing their concerns and a 100 civil servants have written to all members of the Parliament voicing concern. With the JAC giving its nod, activists fear that the “nearsighted bill  threatens our biodiversity.”