We’ve lost vast areas of forestland to mines, dams, industries. Sure, we need development. But should we not have a balance between nature and growth, asks Meghna Krishnadas
In pursuit of economic growth, India has lost lakhs of hectares of forestland to mines, dams, roads and industries. Sure, we need mines, minerals, raw materials, power and development. But need our development policy be fragmentaryIJ Can we not have responsible growth that considers conservation of irreplaceable natural capitalIJ Forest loss can no longer be shrugged aside as collateral damage or considered a mere externality in our economic progress. We also have to consider and account for the costs of unplanned land-use that endangers wildlife and its habitats. We have the laws needed to protect our forests. It is execution that is lacking. Recent developments have made amply clear the need for tighter regulation in the process of balancing development and conservation.
THE lAFARGE JUDGEMENT
Following its judgement in the lafarge Umiam Mining case in Meghalaya, the Supreme Court has directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to review and streamline the process of granting forest clearance. The lafarge case brought to fore certain glaring deficiencies of the forest clearance process, both in assessment and monitoring. Just as the 1996 TN Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union of India & Ors judgement became a landmark precedent in evaluating the diversion of forestland for non-forest purposes, the lafarge case can be a watershed for streamlining the process of granting forest clearances and overhaul current procedural deficiencies. Although the diversion of forestland for non-forest activities has decreased since the enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, numerous cases of violations, encroachments, and illegal clearings continue apace. For example, the five years between years 2007 and 2011 saw more than two lakh hectares being cleared (CSE, 2012). The current Supreme Court directive provides an opportunity to revamp the procedure related to forest clearances, tighten the process to ensure compliance, improve accountability by user agencies and Forest Officials, and institute punitive measures for transgressions, lack of compliance, or negligence of duty.
The MoEF prepared a ‘Draft Policy on Inspection, Verification, Monitoring and Overall Procedure Relating to Grant of Forest Clearance and Identification of Forests’, and invited public comments on this document. As a group of scientists studying ecology and conservation across India, Researchers for Wildlife Conservation (RWC) presented a set of comments on the draft policy. Here, we highlight the major issues regarding forest clearances and provide an overview of our suggestions to the MoEF in tackling these matters.
The Supreme Court judgement has clearly laid down that clearance for infrastructure projects will have to be taken at three levels: Pollution control, environmental impacts, and forest clearance. Obtaining one does not negate the need for the other two. Further, the apex court has said that Forest Clearance, being more specific, should be taken before Environmental Clearance. Interestingly, the court strongly acknowledges that since the EIA clearances are based on self-assessment by the user agency, there is scope for misinformation. Indeed, much ink and many words have been employed to decry the obvious conflict of interest when the agency doing the EIA is paid for by the company seeking clearance for a project. But, this is a topic for another day. Below we outline some of the key areas in which we believe the Forest Clearance policy can be tightened.
BEING EARNEST
The first assessment of the status of the land under question for diversion is a self-assessment by the agency applying for clearance. Here, the project proponent submits an account of whether the land is forested or not, and whether it is of ecological importance. There are several problems with this. First, the user agency may not be qualified to assess the status of forest. Further, there is scope to misstate or misinform the status of forest cover, unless they know that the Forest Department (FD) will stringently verify their claims. Assessments of flora and fauna are often perfunctory at best and ridiculous at worst. Further, reports are usually limited to the area of the project and comprehensive assessments of landscape-level impacts on forest fragmentation or loss of connectivity is not offered.
Mandatory field inspection by the FD is a better way to understand the on-ground impacts of the project, local ecological contexts, and verify the claims of the proposal. Field evaluation at this stage can drastically curtail the numbers of inappropriate clearances or false claims. Provisions exist on paper, no doubt. But, the lafarge case has shown that improper field assessment was the underlying cause of much confusion and eventual forest loss. The Forest Department should use advances in Global Information System (GIS) technology at this preliminary stage itself, to verify self-assessments. High resolution satellite imagery can provide a bird’s eye view of the landscape and allow for evaluation of habitat connectivity and nearby land-uses. We suggest that the MoEF and Forest Department collaborate with ISRO and/or Remote Sensing & GIS Division, National Informatics Centre, to provide real-time imagery for landscape level evaluation of project impacts. Other independent agencies with GIS expertise should also be recruited for the purpose.
MISSING FOREST FOR TREES
Notably, there still appears to be an anachronistic emphasis in the draft policy on evaluating a land for its forestry worth — that is, the standing crop of trees. Forest and wildlife policy in India has long since moved away from use-based perspectives such as forestry. The emphasis now should be on wildlife conservation, corridors, connectivity of landscapes, and preservation of vital ecological processes. This has been clearly articulated by the Supreme Court. This requires the involvement of trained experts in ecology and conservation sciences, to estimate the conservation impacts of forest diversion. The revised draft should underscore this important shift of perspective and all proposals for forest clearances should be evaluated accordingly.
Immediate afforestation
Compensatory afforestation is an opportunity to improve the forest cover status of India in an ecologically-sound framework. The user agency, in its proposal for forest clearance, should provide for an afforestation plan that is ecologically relevant and scientifically and logistically feasible. This must be regularly monitored for compliance. The current procedure of paying Net Present Value of land to the state department often postpones the afforestation process, or results in plantations of exotics like Acacia and Eucalyptus; a double whammy to native vegetation. Often, this is just an easy exit for the user agency and money in the government coffers. The focus, now, should be on immediate and early restoration of forest lost. Restoration should ensure ecological needs of corridors and connectivity, and practical aspects of increasing the Protected Area network. The Government should identify and create a database of suitable private and revenue lands in the vicinity of existing forests, or lands that may act as buffers, corridors, or enhance connectivity. The user agency can be asked to acquire pieces of such land suitable for compensatory afforestation, and transfer ownership of such lands to the respective State Forest Departments. They can then undertake the process of afforestation as per sound ecological principles with relevant independent experts guiding the process. A status update of the progress of reforestation/restoration should be provided annually to the Forest Department. Most importantly, restoration should be undertaken only with native species in accordance with ecological understanding of forest succession.
The MoEF needs to create a database of accredited agencies and individuals, both governmental and non-governmental, who can act as capable consultants to provide accurate and up-to-date technical inputs regarding restoration of mined areas and/or afforestation-related activities. The user agency can be asked to pay a prescribed consultation fee to the State Forest Department which can be used to transparently hire consultants from the MoEF list, who will then prepare an appropriate technical plan, within a reasonable time frame such as three months.
NEEDED, A WIDER NETWORK
There is currently a paucity of independent experts involved in the review and assessment of forest clearances. It is difficult for the three independent experts in the Forest Advisory Committee to encompass the breadth and scope of knowledge required to assess multiple ecological impacts. A wider network is needed. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s suggestion, we propose the creation of an Accredited Expert Panel that contains at least 100 experts drawn from various relevant fields — ecology, conservation biology, wildlife science, hydrology, geology, soil ecology, social science, restoration ecology, ecological/developmental economics. Such a set-up allows each proposal to be reviewed by four to five experts, and several proposals to be simultaneously reviewed within a reasonable time frame. The idea has been suggested to the MoEF before. This may be a suitable time to act.
Keeping an eagle eye
Monitoring of projects is a critical component of preventing encroachment and keeping a check on project methods. The monitoring exercise should be carried out every three years instead of five as it stands now. Any breach of clearance, or violation of laws, or illegal use of forestland should be dealt with strongly by an immediate cessation of user agency’s activities, and the forest clearance should be revoked. Surprise checks can be good deterrents against misconduct. Negligent officials should be similarly punished.
Overall, this is a good opportunity for the MoEF to review the process for granting and monitoring forest clearance. Accountability is of utmost importance, from user agencies and the Government. We hope that the MoEF will revise the draft policy based on the above requirements, and tighten the loopholes that continue to cause massive loss of India’s already compromised forest cover. With inputs from Tarun Nair
The writers are researchers for Wildlife Conservation