1 00:00:01,360 --> 00:00:05,080 From India's largest newsroom, I'm Arun George and this is the 2 00:00:05,080 --> 00:00:19,550 Times of India podcast. Mani sabapati more than a 3 00:00:19,750 --> 00:00:21,470 prastavid karthak is bilko patiya. 4 00:00:23,180 --> 00:00:26,260 After a brief debate, the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill was 5 00:00:26,260 --> 00:00:28,660 passed by the Rajya Sabha on the 2nd of August. 6 00:00:29,020 --> 00:00:31,340 The Opposition had walked out of the debate on the law in the 7 00:00:31,340 --> 00:00:34,140 Upper House of Parliament to protest against the situation in 8 00:00:34,140 --> 00:00:36,900 Manipur. In its preamble, the Bill talks 9 00:00:36,900 --> 00:00:39,500 of maintaining or enhancing forests, improving the 10 00:00:39,500 --> 00:00:42,860 livelihoods of those dependent on forests and conservation of 11 00:00:42,860 --> 00:00:45,100 forests. But not everyone's buying these 12 00:00:45,100 --> 00:00:47,820 claims. I think we need to understand 13 00:00:47,820 --> 00:00:50,000 that. This amendment does not 14 00:00:50,000 --> 00:00:52,360 strengthen the Forest Conservation Act, it weakens the 15 00:00:52,360 --> 00:00:55,000 Forest Conservation Act. And the only reason that the 16 00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:57,760 government has not done away with the act completely is 17 00:00:57,760 --> 00:01:01,120 because it wants to retain that sort of thing leaf of well, 18 00:01:01,120 --> 00:01:03,080 there is still a Forest Conservation Act on the books 19 00:01:03,080 --> 00:01:04,840 and we are still concerned about conservation. 20 00:01:04,840 --> 00:01:07,560 As you notice in the amendment that was made, there's a 21 00:01:07,560 --> 00:01:10,560 beautiful preamble about how important forests are now, even 22 00:01:10,600 --> 00:01:13,040 for this, that and the climate change and so on and so forth. 23 00:01:13,400 --> 00:01:15,520 The preamble didn't exist in the 1980 Act. 24 00:01:15,950 --> 00:01:18,270 You've added a beautiful preamble, and everything that 25 00:01:18,270 --> 00:01:20,430 you have done is actually going against that preamble. 26 00:01:21,470 --> 00:01:24,230 That's Doctor Sharad Chandra Leli, who we spoke with to 27 00:01:24,230 --> 00:01:26,070 better understand the issues with the new law. 28 00:01:26,430 --> 00:01:29,630 In today's episode, he explains the issues with the new law and 29 00:01:29,630 --> 00:01:32,070 why it doesn't really stick to its promise of protecting 30 00:01:32,070 --> 00:01:35,390 India's forests. Sharad Leli is a senior fellow 31 00:01:35,390 --> 00:01:38,870 and convener of the Center for Environment and Development at 32 00:01:38,870 --> 00:01:42,430 the Bengaluru based Ashoka Trust for Research in ecology and the 33 00:01:42,430 --> 00:01:45,750 environment. He explains that the original 34 00:01:45,750 --> 00:01:49,070 Forest Conservation Act was passed in 1980 because it was 35 00:01:49,070 --> 00:01:51,790 felt that states were being a little too generous in that 36 00:01:51,790 --> 00:01:54,030 diversion of forest land for other purposes. 37 00:01:55,310 --> 00:02:00,230 So the Forest Conservation Act was passed in 1980 and this was 38 00:02:00,230 --> 00:02:04,670 seen as a response to the movements in the 1970s, drawing 39 00:02:04,670 --> 00:02:07,390 attention to environmental degradation in general and 40 00:02:07,710 --> 00:02:10,030 deforestation in the Himalayas in particular. 41 00:02:10,419 --> 00:02:13,660 Including the Chipco movement and Indira Gandhi's sense was 42 00:02:13,660 --> 00:02:17,180 that well this was basically the reason why we were losing a lot 43 00:02:17,180 --> 00:02:20,380 of forest is because the states were being very casual about 44 00:02:20,380 --> 00:02:24,140 diverting forests to non forest. Especially in those days there 45 00:02:24,140 --> 00:02:26,940 was a lot of diversion of forests land to agricultural 46 00:02:26,940 --> 00:02:28,820 lands. States had not really 47 00:02:28,820 --> 00:02:30,740 successfully implemented land reform. 48 00:02:31,440 --> 00:02:34,000 And there was therefore a lot of land, hunger, landlessness in 49 00:02:34,000 --> 00:02:38,600 these in states where they then found it very convenient to hand 50 00:02:38,600 --> 00:02:40,640 over forests to people to cultivate. 51 00:02:41,160 --> 00:02:44,800 So the 1980 Forest Conservation Act is basically an attempt by 52 00:02:44,800 --> 00:02:47,840 the central government to say the states are too close to the 53 00:02:47,840 --> 00:02:50,560 problem, they don't have good judgment, they are politically 54 00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:54,200 much more captured by local interests, and the central 55 00:02:54,200 --> 00:02:56,480 government is a little distant from this politics. 56 00:02:56,890 --> 00:02:59,730 And we'll have a more balanced view of whether or not a 57 00:02:59,730 --> 00:03:01,490 particular diversion should take place. 58 00:03:02,650 --> 00:03:05,290 So how did the Forest Conservation Law aim to protect 59 00:03:05,290 --> 00:03:09,290 forests? Any diversion of forest land 60 00:03:09,570 --> 00:03:12,690 above a certain size will require the permission of the 61 00:03:12,690 --> 00:03:14,730 central government. They introduced the idea of 62 00:03:14,730 --> 00:03:17,250 compensatory afforestation, saying that if permission is 63 00:03:17,250 --> 00:03:19,890 given, you will have to do a certain amount of compensatory 64 00:03:19,890 --> 00:03:22,490 afforestation to compensate the loss of forests. 65 00:03:22,690 --> 00:03:25,930 In a way, they're hoping that, well, if you have to divert 100 66 00:03:25,930 --> 00:03:29,050 acres at least we'll get equivalent 100 acres of 67 00:03:29,130 --> 00:03:31,290 plantation afforestation somewhere else Done. 68 00:03:31,610 --> 00:03:33,690 In that sense, we are still conserving the total forest 69 00:03:33,690 --> 00:03:36,850 cover in the country. Now, what was meant to happen? 70 00:03:37,150 --> 00:03:39,190 Was that the central government should have stopped the 71 00:03:39,190 --> 00:03:41,510 allocation of forest land for different purposes. 72 00:03:41,830 --> 00:03:45,550 But Sharad Leli says that didn't really happen, especially after 73 00:03:45,550 --> 00:03:49,390 the economic liberalization of 1991 when the stopping of 74 00:03:49,390 --> 00:03:52,830 projects due to environmental concerns began to be viewed as a 75 00:03:52,830 --> 00:03:56,990 hindrance to India's economic. Growth over time, especially 76 00:03:56,990 --> 00:04:00,030 after 1991 liberalization of the economy. 77 00:04:00,470 --> 00:04:04,790 The pressures on claiming forest land for development, whether it 78 00:04:04,790 --> 00:04:09,950 is highways, dams, mining, airports and so on, increased 79 00:04:09,950 --> 00:04:15,110 dramatically And the tendency after 1991 was to, regardless of 80 00:04:15,110 --> 00:04:17,149 which government was in power, was to say, well, these are 81 00:04:17,149 --> 00:04:20,670 developmental needs and they have to be met somehow, whereas 82 00:04:20,670 --> 00:04:25,470 the claims of landless people were seen as not really genuine 83 00:04:25,470 --> 00:04:28,070 or not really contributing to development. 84 00:04:28,450 --> 00:04:31,970 And so one clear trend has been that very little land has been 85 00:04:31,970 --> 00:04:36,970 allowed to be diverted for agriculture or even pre 1980 86 00:04:37,050 --> 00:04:40,010 conversions of the physically forest Land that was converted 87 00:04:40,010 --> 00:04:43,610 agriculture before 1980 were also not allowed to be 88 00:04:43,770 --> 00:04:46,640 regularized. The trend with respect to 89 00:04:46,640 --> 00:04:48,960 development projects was that initially there was a certain 90 00:04:48,960 --> 00:04:52,360 amount of regulation or a certain amount of denying forest 91 00:04:52,360 --> 00:04:53,840 clearance for some projects and so on. 92 00:04:54,120 --> 00:04:58,440 Over time, that has dwindled and the developmental pressures have 93 00:04:58,440 --> 00:05:00,800 increased. And the government's overall 94 00:05:00,800 --> 00:05:03,640 approach has been so much more pro development post 95 00:05:03,640 --> 00:05:07,040 liberalization that any attempt by the forest advisory 96 00:05:07,040 --> 00:05:10,600 committees to hold up clearance is seen as coming in the way of 97 00:05:10,600 --> 00:05:12,720 development. In this mix. 98 00:05:13,140 --> 00:05:15,220 Came what is known as the Godhavarman judgment of the 99 00:05:15,220 --> 00:05:27,540 Supreme Court in 1996. The Godhavarman judgment in 1996 100 00:05:27,580 --> 00:05:31,380 really did amend the law in practice was targeting the 101 00:05:31,380 --> 00:05:35,540 problem that the Forest Conservation Act says any forest 102 00:05:35,580 --> 00:05:38,580 that is diverted for non forestry purposes must go 103 00:05:38,580 --> 00:05:40,940 through this process laid down by the Act. 104 00:05:17,820 --> 00:05:20,820 The judgment came in response to a petition that was seeking to 105 00:05:20,820 --> 00:05:23,740 protect forest land in the Nilgiris from illegal timber. 106 00:05:41,340 --> 00:05:43,390 Question is. What is forest? 107 00:05:43,790 --> 00:05:47,230 All laws operate through legal record, especially land related 108 00:05:47,230 --> 00:05:50,910 laws of forest related laws. So anything that was notified as 109 00:05:50,910 --> 00:05:54,470 a reserve forest or a protected forest by the government was 110 00:05:54,470 --> 00:05:57,310 considered as the forest that is relevant to the implementation 111 00:05:57,310 --> 00:06:01,270 of the Forest Conservation Act. What the court observed or was 112 00:06:01,270 --> 00:06:05,430 brought to its notice was that there were last tracks of land 113 00:06:05,750 --> 00:06:08,630 partly in the Northeast, partly in some pockets in central 114 00:06:08,630 --> 00:06:10,830 India, certainly in pockets in the Western Guards. 115 00:06:11,200 --> 00:06:15,120 Which are actually forested, but have not been legally notified 116 00:06:15,120 --> 00:06:17,440 in the category of reserve forest or protected forest. 117 00:06:17,800 --> 00:06:20,240 And this is because of a whole bunch of historical quirks. 118 00:06:20,760 --> 00:06:23,560 It's not necessarily intentional or they've got a name which 119 00:06:23,560 --> 00:06:26,440 doesn't look like forest, it's not under the Indian Forest Act, 120 00:06:26,440 --> 00:06:28,280 it's notified under some other act and so on. 121 00:06:28,680 --> 00:06:32,040 So all these lands which were physically covered with forest 122 00:06:32,040 --> 00:06:36,080 were government lands, were escaping the ambit of the Forest 123 00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:38,640 Conservation Act and these were being diverted happily by the 124 00:06:38,640 --> 00:06:40,940 state governments. As if there was no forest on 125 00:06:40,940 --> 00:06:43,660 them. So that was the focus of the 126 00:06:44,060 --> 00:06:47,980 Godavarman judgment, saying any land that is covered by forests 127 00:06:47,980 --> 00:06:50,220 should be brought under the procedures of the Forest 128 00:06:50,220 --> 00:06:52,580 Conservation Act. When it comes to divergent, of 129 00:06:52,580 --> 00:06:55,420 course, the courts approach ends up being also very blunt, 130 00:06:55,420 --> 00:06:57,420 because the court did not distinguish, for example, 131 00:06:57,980 --> 00:07:01,660 between privately owned land which might be covered with 132 00:07:01,740 --> 00:07:06,420 either a plantation or with a natural forest, but it has been 133 00:07:06,420 --> 00:07:08,260 is regularly harvested for timber. 134 00:07:08,660 --> 00:07:11,620 The court took a negative view of these this timber harvest in 135 00:07:11,620 --> 00:07:14,660 general till the states in the northeast fought back and said 136 00:07:14,660 --> 00:07:17,300 that no, you have to allow timber harvest to continue and 137 00:07:17,300 --> 00:07:19,860 the states. So over time the Godavarman 138 00:07:19,860 --> 00:07:23,900 judgments complete stoppage on harvesting was relaxed. 139 00:07:24,260 --> 00:07:27,940 But this confusion about whether the act, in terms of diversion, 140 00:07:28,260 --> 00:07:32,460 applies to private lands, private agricultural lands, 141 00:07:32,460 --> 00:07:35,300 private forest, That ambiguity remained. 142 00:07:36,580 --> 00:07:38,830 Sharad, Lili says. This ended with states 143 00:07:38,830 --> 00:07:42,630 categorizing these forest lands as deemed forests, and they 144 00:07:42,630 --> 00:07:45,270 would be protected under the Forest Conservation Act. 145 00:07:45,670 --> 00:07:49,390 So just to clarify, you had a law which protected forests and 146 00:07:49,390 --> 00:07:52,990 then a judgment that protected forest lands that hadn't already 147 00:07:52,990 --> 00:07:55,150 been categorized as forest by states. 148 00:07:55,710 --> 00:07:58,910 While debating the new bill, Environment Minister Bhutendra 149 00:07:58,910 --> 00:08:02,390 Yadav said the ambiguity arising from this Supreme Court judgment 150 00:08:02,590 --> 00:08:05,310 is among the things the new amendment seeks to remove. 151 00:08:05,750 --> 00:08:07,470 But does the new law really do that? 152 00:08:08,650 --> 00:08:10,810 The amendment does not address this problem at all. 153 00:08:10,930 --> 00:08:14,210 What the amendment is doing is in a sense undoing the go the 154 00:08:14,210 --> 00:08:17,810 government judgment. It just goes back to saying any 155 00:08:17,810 --> 00:08:21,250 land notified as forest, either in the forest departments record 156 00:08:21,250 --> 00:08:24,610 or in the revenue departments record is to be covered by the 157 00:08:24,650 --> 00:08:27,730 act, nothing else. Which means in particular in the 158 00:08:27,730 --> 00:08:30,090 Northeast there are large types of land which are community 159 00:08:30,090 --> 00:08:33,010 owned lands which will lose this protection. 160 00:08:33,130 --> 00:08:36,409 There are state owned lands but not notified as forest. 161 00:08:36,919 --> 00:08:39,760 Those will lose that protection. What does it mean to lose 162 00:08:39,760 --> 00:08:42,120 protection? It means diversions of those 163 00:08:42,120 --> 00:08:45,120 lands for non forestry purposes, whether it is highways, Rd. 164 00:08:45,160 --> 00:08:49,560 mining, train, railway lines, dams, whatever will no longer 165 00:08:49,560 --> 00:08:51,760 have to go through the permission of the Central 166 00:08:51,760 --> 00:08:54,400 Ministry. That is the main implication of 167 00:08:54,400 --> 00:08:57,760 the amendment. There's been criticism that the 168 00:08:57,760 --> 00:09:00,880 new law now gives too much power to the central government. 169 00:09:00,880 --> 00:09:05,200 Would you say that's the case? I wouldn't say that because. 170 00:09:05,710 --> 00:09:07,830 It's not as if the central government can divert land 171 00:09:07,830 --> 00:09:09,830 without the state government putting up a proposal. 172 00:09:10,230 --> 00:09:12,030 The ownership of the land is still with the state 173 00:09:12,030 --> 00:09:14,230 governments. Let us say there's a proposal to 174 00:09:14,230 --> 00:09:16,470 do a create a highway or whatever else. 175 00:09:16,630 --> 00:09:18,950 That proposal has to go to the state government, and the state 176 00:09:18,950 --> 00:09:21,510 government has to endorse that proposal before it comes to the 177 00:09:21,510 --> 00:09:24,910 Forest Advisory Committee. Now, exempting certain lands 178 00:09:25,270 --> 00:09:28,150 simply means that the diversion can happen without it coming to 179 00:09:28,150 --> 00:09:29,670 the central government. So in that sense, the central 180 00:09:29,670 --> 00:09:32,990 government has given up control, not increase its control. 181 00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:37,080 One major criticism of the new law is the fact that it allows 182 00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:39,440 for any infrastructure development within 100 183 00:09:39,440 --> 00:09:42,120 kilometers of the borders if it's deemed necessary for 184 00:09:42,120 --> 00:09:44,920 national security, Sharad Leli says. 185 00:09:45,160 --> 00:09:48,280 This in fact gives some departments the freedom to take 186 00:09:48,280 --> 00:09:51,560 up any project without fear of having to make changes due to 187 00:09:51,560 --> 00:09:55,120 environmental concerns. The assumption is that if the 188 00:09:55,120 --> 00:09:57,760 army proposes a road, the state government is never going to say 189 00:09:57,760 --> 00:10:00,110 no. And now it doesn't need to come 190 00:10:00,110 --> 00:10:02,110 to the central environmental ministry. 191 00:10:02,350 --> 00:10:05,670 So in a sense the central Defense Department is now sort 192 00:10:05,670 --> 00:10:09,590 of lost any fear of the central environmental ministry doing its 193 00:10:09,590 --> 00:10:12,950 due diligence and perhaps either holding up the project or 194 00:10:12,950 --> 00:10:16,310 suggesting a different routine or saying that you know this 195 00:10:16,310 --> 00:10:18,550 particular forest is to pristine, so you should not 196 00:10:18,550 --> 00:10:21,190 really cut through it at all. All these possibilities are now 197 00:10:21,190 --> 00:10:23,470 ruled out. So the central environmental 198 00:10:23,470 --> 00:10:27,780 ministries powers have been cut. Correspondingly, the Central 199 00:10:27,780 --> 00:10:31,900 Defense Department's powers, you know, go out by by default that 200 00:10:31,900 --> 00:10:34,860 they don't have anymore regulation on top of them. 201 00:10:36,020 --> 00:10:39,300 We also told that the national security things can be 202 00:10:39,300 --> 00:10:41,620 questioned. We are sort of trailing an 203 00:10:41,620 --> 00:10:45,260 adversary like, say, China, because we don't have the same 204 00:10:45,540 --> 00:10:48,500 willingness to do things that say a China is. 205 00:10:48,780 --> 00:10:53,380 Why would you argue that even a defense project needs that 206 00:10:53,380 --> 00:10:56,450 examination by an environmental ministry? 207 00:10:57,610 --> 00:11:01,490 In any democracy, the principle is one of checks and balances. 208 00:11:01,970 --> 00:11:05,130 In any good governance systems, there are principles of checks 209 00:11:05,130 --> 00:11:07,850 and balances. The idea is that I may in all 210 00:11:07,850 --> 00:11:10,890 good faith that as a Ministry of Defense or the Ministry of 211 00:11:10,890 --> 00:11:14,930 Irrigation or the Ministry of Power propose a project thing. 212 00:11:15,130 --> 00:11:17,810 The country absolutely needs this coal mine, needs this dam, 213 00:11:17,810 --> 00:11:21,850 needs this highway, needs this security infrastructure. 214 00:11:22,350 --> 00:11:27,230 But you have to have the views of other stakeholders tabled and 215 00:11:27,230 --> 00:11:29,350 their views considered in a balanced manner. 216 00:11:29,350 --> 00:11:33,590 So the FCA process was allowing the Ministry of Environment to 217 00:11:33,830 --> 00:11:38,630 incorporate its views. And frankly, there is almost no 218 00:11:38,710 --> 00:11:41,830 example in front of us where some national security projects, 219 00:11:41,830 --> 00:11:44,750 some incredibly important national security project was 220 00:11:44,750 --> 00:11:47,350 enormously delayed because of the Ministry of Environment 221 00:11:47,350 --> 00:11:48,710 putting its put down and saying no. 222 00:11:48,910 --> 00:11:52,210 So this is just a bogey. This whole story about delays, 223 00:11:52,330 --> 00:11:55,490 the whole story about denial, there is no evidence of such 224 00:11:56,370 --> 00:11:58,010 denial. There may be evidence of delays 225 00:11:58,010 --> 00:12:00,370 because obviously if you have a process, you have to complete 226 00:12:00,370 --> 00:12:03,770 the process that will take time. Ill give you the example of 227 00:12:04,250 --> 00:12:07,170 mining projects that required more than 100 hectares of forest 228 00:12:07,170 --> 00:12:10,470 diversion. From 2009 onwards, and we were 229 00:12:10,470 --> 00:12:12,550 looking at to what extent FRA was complied with. 230 00:12:12,830 --> 00:12:18,270 Between 2009 and 2018 there were 128 mining projects that 231 00:12:18,270 --> 00:12:21,950 required more than 100 hectares of forest diversion and we asked 232 00:12:21,950 --> 00:12:24,710 the question first of all, how many were denied forest 233 00:12:24,710 --> 00:12:27,750 clearance and they were like 7 which were denied. 234 00:12:28,420 --> 00:12:30,740 Forest clearance. In a few cases the project was 235 00:12:30,740 --> 00:12:33,700 withdrawn for some other reason and a few cases they were denied 236 00:12:33,700 --> 00:12:36,660 on some other technicality. In no cases were they really 237 00:12:36,660 --> 00:12:39,580 denied because the forest was too important to lose. 238 00:12:39,900 --> 00:12:42,540 In no cases were they denied because the local community did 239 00:12:42,540 --> 00:12:45,020 not give its consent, because there was number process through 240 00:12:45,020 --> 00:12:47,660 which local consent was really sought in spite of the Niyamgiri 241 00:12:47,660 --> 00:12:49,660 judgment. So we are looking at a forest 242 00:12:49,660 --> 00:12:52,460 clearance process which is as it is heavily compromised. 243 00:12:53,200 --> 00:12:55,680 Now you're basically just saying that we, we don't even want this 244 00:12:55,920 --> 00:12:58,360 very weak process anymore. The Ministry of Defense will 245 00:12:58,360 --> 00:13:01,240 decide what is important and nobody else will, will ask any 246 00:13:01,240 --> 00:13:03,800 questions, even to the external saying, well, can you route the 247 00:13:03,800 --> 00:13:06,720 highway differently, don't go through this ecosensitive area, 248 00:13:06,920 --> 00:13:08,440 maybe take a different route, Nothing. 249 00:13:08,680 --> 00:13:12,560 There are going to be absolutely no other opinions sought. 250 00:13:13,240 --> 00:13:17,180 I think that's a problem if you're saying that the center is 251 00:13:17,180 --> 00:13:20,820 giving more power to the states to decide how to go ahead, isn't 252 00:13:20,820 --> 00:13:22,260 it? Like, I know this is a slogan 253 00:13:22,260 --> 00:13:24,500 that's now been ditched by even the World Bank, but wouldn't it 254 00:13:24,500 --> 00:13:27,460 fit within that ambit of ease of doing business in some senses? 255 00:13:28,380 --> 00:13:31,420 Oh, absolutely, absolutely. I mean the overall intent of of 256 00:13:31,420 --> 00:13:34,460 the central government over the last 10 years has been ease of 257 00:13:34,460 --> 00:13:37,820 doing business. When in 2014, Prakash Raodekar 258 00:13:37,820 --> 00:13:40,700 became the Minister of Environment, he openly said that 259 00:13:40,700 --> 00:13:42,380 ease of doing business was the main goal. 260 00:13:42,800 --> 00:13:46,560 And when they celebrated one year of the regime in 2015, you, 261 00:13:46,760 --> 00:13:49,440 the Ministry of Environments website, was basically 262 00:13:49,440 --> 00:13:52,320 celebrating how they had speeded up environmental clearances and 263 00:13:52,320 --> 00:13:55,400 forest clearances when Anil the Way took over as Minister of 264 00:13:55,400 --> 00:13:57,760 Environment. After that, he held a meeting of 265 00:13:57,760 --> 00:13:59,560 all the chairs of the environmental clearance 266 00:13:59,560 --> 00:14:01,600 committees, the various committees that deal with 267 00:14:01,600 --> 00:14:05,400 various kinds of projects, and he told them very categorically. 268 00:14:05,400 --> 00:14:07,520 And I was there in the meetings, since I was a member of one of 269 00:14:07,520 --> 00:14:10,160 the environmental clearance committees at that point that 270 00:14:10,520 --> 00:14:14,310 read my lips. My government's motto is ease of 271 00:14:14,310 --> 00:14:15,990 doing business. So it was very open. 272 00:14:15,990 --> 00:14:19,150 It was not at all implicit. It was very open that the 273 00:14:19,150 --> 00:14:22,910 government's foremost focus was ease of doing business, and 274 00:14:22,910 --> 00:14:25,510 anything that came in the way was seen as a hindrance. 275 00:14:25,510 --> 00:14:29,470 And environmental reasons for either reducing the size of a 276 00:14:29,470 --> 00:14:33,710 project, changing the shape of the project or occasionally 277 00:14:33,710 --> 00:14:36,590 maybe thinking about saying no to the project were to be 278 00:14:36,590 --> 00:14:40,720 absolutely not tolerated. And do you have an assessment of 279 00:14:40,720 --> 00:14:43,040 what the potential? Cost could be of this. 280 00:14:44,560 --> 00:14:47,760 No, it's very difficult to assess the cost because you 281 00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:51,240 don't know what we have in mind, right, in terms of whether it is 282 00:14:51,240 --> 00:14:53,400 national security, infrastructure in general, 283 00:14:53,400 --> 00:14:55,280 highways, linear projects, dams and so on. 284 00:14:55,560 --> 00:14:57,040 But we are seeing the track record. 285 00:14:57,510 --> 00:15:00,310 For example, in the Northeast, the amount of dam building that 286 00:15:00,310 --> 00:15:04,150 has happened and that is going on and the amount of land that 287 00:15:04,150 --> 00:15:07,230 has been diverted without even applying the FCA process 288 00:15:07,230 --> 00:15:10,550 properly, certainly without local consent, all those and 289 00:15:10,550 --> 00:15:13,110 communities already have rights over there, those lands, but 290 00:15:13,110 --> 00:15:14,510 they have been completely bypassed. 291 00:15:14,750 --> 00:15:18,550 So we can see that happening. The negative environmental 292 00:15:18,550 --> 00:15:22,750 impacts, human impacts, flooding impacts of these kinds of 293 00:15:22,750 --> 00:15:26,070 constructions, dam constructions in the Northeast are well 294 00:15:26,070 --> 00:15:28,680 documented. Now what we have in mind in 295 00:15:28,680 --> 00:15:31,400 terms of the expanded developmental and security 296 00:15:31,400 --> 00:15:34,880 activity, one can only guess what those impacts will be. 297 00:15:44,350 --> 00:15:46,870 We're in conversation with Doctor Sharad Leli about the new 298 00:15:46,870 --> 00:15:50,070 amendment passed by Parliament to the Forest Conservation Act. 299 00:15:50,710 --> 00:15:53,870 As we discussed earlier, one major aspect is the clearance of 300 00:15:53,870 --> 00:15:57,390 forests for projects linked to national security, which can now 301 00:15:57,390 --> 00:16:00,370 take any form. Another major issue is what is 302 00:16:00,370 --> 00:16:03,890 being classified as a forest. There has been criticism of what 303 00:16:03,890 --> 00:16:07,050 India considers forests, given that even plantations make the 304 00:16:07,050 --> 00:16:09,730 cut. Sharad Lili says the big issue 305 00:16:09,730 --> 00:16:12,370 for him is the lack of transparency in the data. 306 00:16:13,690 --> 00:16:16,530 The Forest Server of India's methodology of mapping forests 307 00:16:16,930 --> 00:16:20,250 or estimating forest cover is flawed in the sense that. 308 00:16:20,720 --> 00:16:23,880 They define it as simply 3 cover, any piece of land which 309 00:16:23,880 --> 00:16:28,120 is larger than .1 hectares and having more than 10% tree canopy 310 00:16:28,120 --> 00:16:30,880 cover, which could be an Arika plantation, it could be a 311 00:16:30,880 --> 00:16:33,640 coconut plantation, it could be a rubber plantation. 312 00:16:33,960 --> 00:16:36,960 All gets classified as forest cover and that is I think a 313 00:16:36,960 --> 00:16:40,080 flawed definition and therefore they overestimate forest because 314 00:16:40,080 --> 00:16:43,400 they start including all these plantations which are most of 315 00:16:43,400 --> 00:16:45,960 the time on private lands. But the other way of also 316 00:16:45,960 --> 00:16:48,790 looking at it is that. We shouldn't get hung up about 317 00:16:49,070 --> 00:16:52,710 again a binary definition of forest and non forest because 318 00:16:53,150 --> 00:16:56,430 forest comes in different shapes and sizes and these different 319 00:16:56,430 --> 00:16:59,510 forms of forest have different, you know, implications for 320 00:16:59,510 --> 00:17:00,790 benefits. For example, the forest 321 00:17:00,790 --> 00:17:04,150 department has historically cut down natural forest and created 322 00:17:04,150 --> 00:17:07,430 tea plantations or monocultural Sal areas. 323 00:17:07,550 --> 00:17:11,670 So you have a whole range of vegetation types which have 324 00:17:11,670 --> 00:17:14,470 different levels of benefits when it comes to biodiversity or 325 00:17:14,470 --> 00:17:16,910 local livelihoods, carbon and so on. 326 00:17:17,349 --> 00:17:20,030 And so it's better to actually, for what forests should be 327 00:17:20,030 --> 00:17:23,829 doing, is giving us much more detail in terms of different 328 00:17:23,829 --> 00:17:26,790 types of forest cover or tree vegetation cover that exists on 329 00:17:26,790 --> 00:17:29,030 the landscape. What are the percentages, what 330 00:17:29,030 --> 00:17:30,870 are the area where do they occur? 331 00:17:31,150 --> 00:17:34,030 Putting their maps into the public domain on top of Google 332 00:17:34,030 --> 00:17:36,990 Earth so people can also cross check and maybe point out errors 333 00:17:37,230 --> 00:17:39,630 and not get into this binary of forest non forest. 334 00:17:39,630 --> 00:17:42,390 Because that is actually not a very productive way of thinking 335 00:17:42,390 --> 00:17:46,020 about the problem. The forest as a source of 336 00:17:46,020 --> 00:17:49,380 resources, as something that we need because as a nation that 337 00:17:49,380 --> 00:17:52,540 has to cater to so many people we need those resources. 338 00:17:52,660 --> 00:17:56,700 What is your argument for preserving forests in the way 339 00:17:56,700 --> 00:17:58,980 they exist, rather than disturbing them? 340 00:18:00,420 --> 00:18:03,180 So I think we cannot take a binary perspective of 341 00:18:03,220 --> 00:18:05,420 undisturbed forest versus no forest. 342 00:18:05,820 --> 00:18:09,460 There's a whole gradient because forests provide benefits to 343 00:18:09,460 --> 00:18:13,800 different kinds of stakeholders. From the local forest dweller, 344 00:18:13,880 --> 00:18:17,080 maybe Adivasi who depends on the forest for firewood, for 345 00:18:17,080 --> 00:18:21,960 grazing, for medicinal plants or non forest products and so on to 346 00:18:21,960 --> 00:18:25,000 let's say farmers downstream who depend upon the catchment being 347 00:18:25,000 --> 00:18:28,040 closed by forest in order to regulate these stream hydrology. 348 00:18:28,570 --> 00:18:30,770 Of course, we now talk about the importance of forests from a 349 00:18:30,770 --> 00:18:33,450 biodiversity perspective, which is important for the nation as a 350 00:18:33,450 --> 00:18:36,810 whole or even for the world. And now we talk about forests 351 00:18:36,810 --> 00:18:39,890 being carbon repositories of carbon and therefore important 352 00:18:39,890 --> 00:18:41,210 in the context of climate change. 353 00:18:41,410 --> 00:18:43,850 So forests have multiple benefits. 354 00:18:44,450 --> 00:18:47,570 If local communities have to use forests, they will change the 355 00:18:47,570 --> 00:18:50,130 nature of forests. Forests in India have never been 356 00:18:50,130 --> 00:18:52,290 pristine. Local communities have always 357 00:18:52,290 --> 00:18:55,430 used them and modified them. But there is a sharp difference 358 00:18:55,430 --> 00:18:59,350 between a modified forest and a completely deforested piece of 359 00:18:59,350 --> 00:19:02,510 land in terms of the environmental benefits that come 360 00:19:02,510 --> 00:19:06,110 from either a pristine or a modified forest versus the 361 00:19:06,750 --> 00:19:10,630 impacts that are completely barren or mine piece of land 362 00:19:10,630 --> 00:19:13,670 will have in terms of soil erosion, of course, the loss of 363 00:19:13,670 --> 00:19:16,790 biodiversity, loss of all the benefits for local communities, 364 00:19:17,310 --> 00:19:19,710 the loss of the carbon sequestered and so on. 365 00:19:20,110 --> 00:19:22,590 Obviously one has to strike a balance between developmental 366 00:19:22,590 --> 00:19:26,910 needs and environmental needs. Perhaps 5000 years ago a much 367 00:19:26,910 --> 00:19:30,390 larger fraction of the the Indian peninsula was covered 368 00:19:30,390 --> 00:19:32,990 with forests as compared to today. 369 00:19:32,990 --> 00:19:35,190 So we have overtime reduced forest cover. 370 00:19:35,550 --> 00:19:38,950 The question now is we have reduced it already to 24% of the 371 00:19:39,070 --> 00:19:40,950 of the country. The real forest cover might be 372 00:19:40,950 --> 00:19:45,110 more like 1718%. Do we want to lose even those 373 00:19:45,110 --> 00:19:47,790 parts, especially the forests that are on slopes? 374 00:19:48,450 --> 00:19:51,450 In the geologically sensitive Himalayas, harboring the what 375 00:19:51,450 --> 00:19:53,930 little biodacity that remains, or what little wildlife that 376 00:19:53,930 --> 00:19:57,210 remains, and still continuing to be important for local 377 00:19:57,210 --> 00:20:00,050 communities for their livelihoods, do we want to 378 00:20:00,050 --> 00:20:04,930 sacrifice what this what remains of this forest for the sake of 379 00:20:04,930 --> 00:20:08,090 projects whose developmental benefits need to be very 380 00:20:08,090 --> 00:20:12,010 carefully evaluated? Sharad Lili says the issue isn't 381 00:20:12,010 --> 00:20:14,330 really about whether development should happen or not. 382 00:20:14,770 --> 00:20:18,210 The issue is what cost the development of progress comes 383 00:20:18,210 --> 00:20:21,810 at. So nobody denies that for 384 00:20:21,810 --> 00:20:25,050 instance a dam may have some mitigation benefits or a mine 385 00:20:25,050 --> 00:20:27,890 may have some benefits in terms of coal thermal power 386 00:20:27,890 --> 00:20:31,250 generation. Question is who benefits from 387 00:20:31,250 --> 00:20:35,170 that and who pays the cost and how much is that benefit that's 388 00:20:35,290 --> 00:20:38,090 actually trickling down and I think coal thermal power is a 389 00:20:38,090 --> 00:20:40,850 really good example where the. Benefit goes to the 390 00:20:40,850 --> 00:20:45,090 industrialized economy, It goes to the urban centers who draw a 391 00:20:45,090 --> 00:20:48,410 huge amount of electricity for their air conditioning by the 392 00:20:48,410 --> 00:20:51,170 local Adivasi is not even getting six hours of electricity 393 00:20:51,170 --> 00:20:54,370 for a bulb that might be lighting their house, let alone 394 00:20:54,370 --> 00:20:56,970 anything else, right? So the benefits are distributed 395 00:20:56,970 --> 00:20:59,970 extremely lopsidedly. And as we privatize mining, for 396 00:20:59,970 --> 00:21:03,010 instance, the profits from mining are much more going to 397 00:21:03,010 --> 00:21:05,610 the private sector, not even going into the national coffers. 398 00:21:06,050 --> 00:21:09,730 One need to question that the definition and the nature of 399 00:21:09,810 --> 00:21:14,130 development that is being promoted blindly and forests are 400 00:21:14,130 --> 00:21:16,410 seen as an obstacle to that development. 401 00:21:17,530 --> 00:21:20,730 You've been critical of this scheme of a forestation, which 402 00:21:20,730 --> 00:21:25,250 is that you cut a forest and you plant one, say elsewhere to make 403 00:21:25,250 --> 00:21:28,490 up for it. Could you explain how successful 404 00:21:28,490 --> 00:21:32,730 such plans have been and why do you believe it's it's not as 405 00:21:32,730 --> 00:21:34,690 effective as we like to think it is? 406 00:21:35,920 --> 00:21:39,320 The idea of compensatory if a forestation was the feeling 407 00:21:39,320 --> 00:21:42,520 that, well, if we lost forests here at least we have gained it 408 00:21:42,520 --> 00:21:45,240 elsewhere. It is flawed because after all 409 00:21:45,280 --> 00:21:50,040 if you lose a natural forest planting or usually a single 410 00:21:50,040 --> 00:21:53,280 species stand of eucalyptus or something or some fast growing 411 00:21:53,280 --> 00:21:56,480 species is not a replacement for the natural forest you lost. 412 00:21:56,560 --> 00:21:58,880 It's not the same level of biodiversity, it's not giving 413 00:21:58,880 --> 00:22:01,920 the same level of soil conservation or the local 414 00:22:01,920 --> 00:22:04,900 benefits and so on. If you're decided that this 415 00:22:04,900 --> 00:22:08,780 particular project needs to go ahead, then the compensatory 416 00:22:08,780 --> 00:22:12,540 forestation is just a little bit of a salve to make you feel a 417 00:22:12,540 --> 00:22:14,900 little better that you haven't lost everything. 418 00:22:15,260 --> 00:22:17,540 The problem also comes in implementation. 419 00:22:18,540 --> 00:22:20,540 How do you implement compensatory forestation? 420 00:22:20,900 --> 00:22:24,340 For a long time, the compensatory plantation were not 421 00:22:24,340 --> 00:22:26,340 being carried out. The court also looked at these 422 00:22:26,340 --> 00:22:28,460 issues at a later point in the 2000s. 423 00:22:28,920 --> 00:22:31,520 They found that the, you know, the money was collected for 424 00:22:31,520 --> 00:22:35,000 compensatory afforestation, but the actual planting didn't 425 00:22:35,000 --> 00:22:37,040 happen. There are additional problems 426 00:22:37,040 --> 00:22:40,200 that the planting happens on community lands, completely 427 00:22:40,200 --> 00:22:42,360 ignoring what communities are using those lands for. 428 00:22:42,360 --> 00:22:45,160 Maybe those are grazing lands, and in the process the forest 429 00:22:45,160 --> 00:22:49,000 department would notify that as forest and bring it under its 430 00:22:49,000 --> 00:22:51,000 control. So the forest department would 431 00:22:51,000 --> 00:22:53,560 increase its estate through the method of compensatory 432 00:22:53,560 --> 00:22:56,440 afforestation and communities would lose access to. 433 00:22:57,070 --> 00:22:59,030 Common lands that they were using for grazing and other 434 00:22:59,030 --> 00:23:01,990 activities, and of course they were not consulted on diversion. 435 00:23:02,190 --> 00:23:04,830 They were not consulted on taking away their lands for 436 00:23:04,830 --> 00:23:06,430 compensatory afforestation either. 437 00:23:06,830 --> 00:23:10,390 So this is a problem in terms of the method through which both 438 00:23:10,390 --> 00:23:13,230 diversion takes place and compensatory afforestation takes 439 00:23:13,230 --> 00:23:16,550 place. Sharad Leli says that a big 440 00:23:16,550 --> 00:23:20,350 issue now is the amendment to the rules in 2022, which says 441 00:23:20,350 --> 00:23:23,150 you can plant trees in a completely different place to 442 00:23:23,150 --> 00:23:25,390 compensate for forest land that you may be clearing. 443 00:23:26,770 --> 00:23:29,730 You have liberalized through the amendment last year to the 444 00:23:29,730 --> 00:23:32,970 forest conservation rules that in fact you can do compensatory 445 00:23:32,970 --> 00:23:35,890 afforestation anywhere in the country where anybody can go and 446 00:23:36,250 --> 00:23:38,290 create a plantation. And then say this is now 447 00:23:38,290 --> 00:23:41,970 available for some company to offset or to show as their 448 00:23:41,970 --> 00:23:45,490 compensate afforestation project for the land that they are 449 00:23:45,730 --> 00:23:47,250 demanding from the forestry state. 450 00:23:47,410 --> 00:23:51,250 So the latest example was the Nicobar Island case, where the 451 00:23:51,250 --> 00:23:55,180 government is going to destroy. Really unique tropical 452 00:23:55,940 --> 00:23:59,620 nickelberry's forest and say that the compensatory first is 453 00:23:59,620 --> 00:24:03,020 going to happen in Haryana and there is no comparison between 454 00:24:03,020 --> 00:24:05,180 these ecosystems, right. Whereas earlier there was at 455 00:24:05,180 --> 00:24:07,660 least a requirement that you do the compensatory forest station 456 00:24:07,660 --> 00:24:10,700 in the same district, Now even that possibility is kind of gone 457 00:24:10,700 --> 00:24:13,340 when you have anything can compensate for anything 458 00:24:13,340 --> 00:24:15,470 anywhere. In addition to all the issues of 459 00:24:15,590 --> 00:24:19,190 monitoring whether it actually gets done, #1 and #2, the social 460 00:24:19,190 --> 00:24:22,910 issue of whether local communities land are being taken 461 00:24:22,910 --> 00:24:25,990 away in the name of compensate aforestation, are they being 462 00:24:25,990 --> 00:24:28,390 asked whether they're willing to let it go? 463 00:24:28,910 --> 00:24:31,310 None of that is happening. So that's like the largest set 464 00:24:31,310 --> 00:24:33,070 of issues around compensatory aforestation. 465 00:24:34,470 --> 00:24:39,470 One more thing you did flag is the aspect of Zoos and Safaris. 466 00:24:39,820 --> 00:24:44,380 In forests, I wanted to understand why you would object 467 00:24:44,380 --> 00:24:48,260 to that Because for most urban dwellers, that is the idea of 468 00:24:48,260 --> 00:24:52,340 the jungle or a forest. Because we don't quite even 469 00:24:52,340 --> 00:24:54,700 understand when we are looking at a forest and when we are not. 470 00:24:55,380 --> 00:24:58,380 Why would you argue that it's a flaw to allow them in all 471 00:24:58,380 --> 00:25:02,020 forests? So let's separate zoos and 472 00:25:02,020 --> 00:25:07,340 safaris a little bit. Zoos are a very Western. 473 00:25:08,290 --> 00:25:10,690 Construct, which is now being very heavily questioned in the 474 00:25:10,690 --> 00:25:12,810 West. By the way, should you have zoos 475 00:25:12,810 --> 00:25:15,370 at all? So the idea was that, well, you 476 00:25:15,370 --> 00:25:18,250 know, urban dwellers have no idea about the beauties of 477 00:25:18,250 --> 00:25:21,690 wildlife that is out there, whether it is zebras or giraffes 478 00:25:21,690 --> 00:25:25,690 and rhinos and tigers and so on, and they cannot otherwise see 479 00:25:25,690 --> 00:25:27,930 them anyway. So bring them and put them in 480 00:25:27,930 --> 00:25:31,530 cages and make them visible to city dwellers to see. 481 00:25:31,530 --> 00:25:34,970 The animals suffer a lot because of that, but keeping that aside 482 00:25:34,970 --> 00:25:37,830 for a moment. You can see that the idea of a 483 00:25:37,830 --> 00:25:42,230 zoo is to make wildlife visible to those who do not have access 484 00:25:42,230 --> 00:25:45,030 to wildlife otherwise. So it's one thing to talk about 485 00:25:45,030 --> 00:25:48,350 setting up a zoo in the middle of the city of Delhi or whatever 486 00:25:48,350 --> 00:25:51,030 it is, Guwahati or somewhere where that the urban dweller can 487 00:25:51,030 --> 00:25:54,030 actually see some wildlife. Why would you want to set up a 488 00:25:54,030 --> 00:25:57,510 zoo inside forest land? If that forest contains 489 00:25:57,510 --> 00:25:58,990 wildlife? You go and try to see the 490 00:25:58,990 --> 00:26:01,150 wildlife. Get onto a Cantor or get into a 491 00:26:01,150 --> 00:26:03,990 Jeep and drive the game road and try to see the wildlife. 492 00:26:04,690 --> 00:26:07,530 If the forest doesn't contain wildlife, then what? 493 00:26:07,530 --> 00:26:10,050 You're asking city dwellers to come all the way to the forest 494 00:26:10,050 --> 00:26:12,730 and then see some curated wildlife which doesn't exist in 495 00:26:12,730 --> 00:26:14,770 the natural forest. So it's kind of a false 496 00:26:14,770 --> 00:26:16,810 pretence. And that same argument extends 497 00:26:16,810 --> 00:26:20,530 to safari, where you people put people in well protected 498 00:26:20,850 --> 00:26:23,490 vehicles and then take them into an area. 499 00:26:23,650 --> 00:26:26,490 It's a very large caged enclosure, a very large 500 00:26:26,490 --> 00:26:28,170 enclosure. The animals are able to move 501 00:26:28,170 --> 00:26:30,730 around much more than they would do in a zoo. 502 00:26:31,210 --> 00:26:33,810 But you're bringing animals from somewhere and keeping them in 503 00:26:33,810 --> 00:26:36,530 that enclosure. They're typically not local 504 00:26:37,130 --> 00:26:39,330 because if they were already tigers in that forest, you would 505 00:26:39,330 --> 00:26:42,250 say, well, set up a safari to go into the forest switching, 506 00:26:42,290 --> 00:26:44,810 basically go on the game roads, which is already happening. 507 00:26:44,810 --> 00:26:47,010 You don't need to do any further deforestation for that. 508 00:26:48,330 --> 00:26:51,290 A major justification for this act is to ensure that those 509 00:26:51,290 --> 00:26:55,410 living near or in forests also receive the benefits of economic 510 00:26:55,410 --> 00:26:58,330 development. In this context, the Neem Giri 511 00:26:58,330 --> 00:27:02,110 case is an important one. The Niyamgiri case of Odisha was 512 00:27:02,110 --> 00:27:05,030 one of those cases that defined how forest dweller should decide 513 00:27:05,030 --> 00:27:07,590 the fate of the forest and the lands that they rely on. 514 00:27:07,990 --> 00:27:10,830 The Niyamgiri hill range was to be the site of a Vedanta 515 00:27:10,830 --> 00:27:13,950 refinery for bauxite, the compound from which the metal 516 00:27:13,990 --> 00:27:17,430 aluminium can be extracted. The project was opposed by the 517 00:27:17,430 --> 00:27:21,030 110 villages in the area, where 2 tribes believe that the hill 518 00:27:21,030 --> 00:27:24,150 is the residence of the God. After the project was blocked by 519 00:27:24,150 --> 00:27:27,510 the environment ministry since the forest residents did not 520 00:27:27,510 --> 00:27:30,680 clear it, the Supreme Court stepped in to say that it could 521 00:27:30,720 --> 00:27:33,480 only be cleared by the villages living around the proposed 522 00:27:33,480 --> 00:27:35,880 project. The villagers voted against the 523 00:27:35,880 --> 00:27:39,000 project and the court later rejected a proposal to have a 524 00:27:39,000 --> 00:27:41,800 fresh vote there. At the time of the protest 525 00:27:41,800 --> 00:27:44,400 against the project, the agitation was compared to the 526 00:27:44,400 --> 00:27:47,640 Hollywood film Avatar, where a race of blue aliens seeks to 527 00:27:47,640 --> 00:27:50,000 protect their world from greedy humans. 528 00:27:50,680 --> 00:27:52,680 But such a case may not play out again. 529 00:27:53,320 --> 00:27:56,080 Sharad Lily explains how the rules have been steadily amended 530 00:27:56,080 --> 00:27:59,480 to ensure that local communities cannot easily block such 531 00:27:59,480 --> 00:28:03,320 projects in the future. One aspect that you mentioned a 532 00:28:03,320 --> 00:28:07,400 lot throughout is the forest dwellers and people who live 533 00:28:07,400 --> 00:28:09,680 near forest. There are multiple issues that 534 00:28:10,840 --> 00:28:14,560 have been flagged Overtime. I have they got anything out of 535 00:28:14,560 --> 00:28:18,160 this new version of the law given it's been an issue now for 536 00:28:18,360 --> 00:28:22,600 over 30-40 years so. If one looks at the. 537 00:28:23,160 --> 00:28:27,160 Latest Forest Conservation Amendment Act 2023. 538 00:28:28,160 --> 00:28:32,800 It's not directly affecting forest dwellers rights and so on 539 00:28:33,000 --> 00:28:35,600 directly. Earlier the Forest Conservation 540 00:28:35,600 --> 00:28:39,920 Act required that when you divert land, if communities have 541 00:28:39,920 --> 00:28:43,720 rights on those lands, then communities permission is 542 00:28:43,720 --> 00:28:47,480 required now because you have exempted a certain fraction, 543 00:28:47,480 --> 00:28:51,160 possibly 20% of the land from coming under the purview of the 544 00:28:51,160 --> 00:28:54,640 forest conservation. Act during diversion process, 545 00:28:55,240 --> 00:28:57,600 then, correspondingly, communities may not get asked at 546 00:28:57,600 --> 00:28:58,920 all. You know when the diversion 547 00:28:58,920 --> 00:29:01,680 happens. Although technically, even if 548 00:29:01,680 --> 00:29:04,240 there was number Forest Conservation Act, once a 549 00:29:04,240 --> 00:29:06,840 community's rights are recognized on a piece of forest, 550 00:29:07,440 --> 00:29:10,280 somebody wants to divert that forest for whatever it might be. 551 00:29:10,680 --> 00:29:13,360 Obviously they should ask their community's permission, because 552 00:29:13,360 --> 00:29:16,120 the community is, in a sense, the de facto proprietor of that 553 00:29:16,120 --> 00:29:19,530 land unit, the technically the. Ownership rests with the state. 554 00:29:19,690 --> 00:29:21,850 But the chances of that happening was strengthened if 555 00:29:21,850 --> 00:29:26,170 there was a FCA process in place which enshrined the FRA into the 556 00:29:26,170 --> 00:29:27,650 FCA. And this happened because of the 557 00:29:27,730 --> 00:29:30,890 Mgiri judgment and the earlier order passed by Jairam Ramesh in 558 00:29:30,890 --> 00:29:34,570 2009 which said that since we now have a Forest Rights Act 559 00:29:34,930 --> 00:29:38,010 when communities get right on their forests, then if that 560 00:29:38,010 --> 00:29:40,530 forest has to be diverted, they need to be consulted. 561 00:29:41,170 --> 00:29:44,810 Overtime they diluted that 2017, they diluted it a little bit and 562 00:29:44,810 --> 00:29:48,970 in 2022 last year. They in sense completely, almost 563 00:29:48,970 --> 00:29:52,930 completely eliminated by taking those sections out of the rules 564 00:29:53,170 --> 00:29:56,890 and just having one line saying the process of FRA etcetera will 565 00:29:56,890 --> 00:29:58,850 be done in parallel by the state government. 566 00:29:58,850 --> 00:30:02,210 So you will give permission here for diversion and then you are 567 00:30:02,210 --> 00:30:04,890 saying that the state government will do the FRA process in 568 00:30:04,890 --> 00:30:06,770 parallel. It makes absolutely no sense. 569 00:30:06,770 --> 00:30:12,290 So the loss of the rights of the Community to assert that they 570 00:30:12,690 --> 00:30:15,370 control the forest and therefore their consent is required. 571 00:30:16,330 --> 00:30:20,850 That option I was lost last year itself, and this act further 572 00:30:20,850 --> 00:30:24,210 reduces that possibility by eliminating some lands from even 573 00:30:24,330 --> 00:30:26,290 coming under the ambit of any such process. 574 00:30:27,250 --> 00:30:29,250 But you're saying that essentially something like a 575 00:30:29,250 --> 00:30:33,890 neem giri cannot happen again? Absolutely, Yeah. 576 00:30:33,970 --> 00:30:37,490 I should say that we must read this amended act in tandem with 577 00:30:37,490 --> 00:30:40,930 the amended rules of 2022 and see how they are all part of the 578 00:30:40,930 --> 00:30:45,290 same process of dilution the 2022 rules focused heavily on. 579 00:30:45,940 --> 00:30:48,660 In a sense getting rid of the community consent or creating 580 00:30:48,660 --> 00:30:53,100 space to bypass it a de facto plus they focus on this issue of 581 00:30:53,220 --> 00:30:55,580 accreditation. Any plantation anywhere can 582 00:30:55,580 --> 00:30:57,260 become a compensatory plantation and so on. 583 00:30:57,260 --> 00:31:00,300 That was the main 2 focuses of the amended rules. 584 00:31:00,540 --> 00:31:03,940 And on top of that now you have an amended act which says that a 585 00:31:03,940 --> 00:31:07,260 Godavaram judgment needs to be quote UN quote fixed. 586 00:31:07,540 --> 00:31:10,260 It created too much ambiguity and then it goes on to do 587 00:31:10,460 --> 00:31:13,940 something which doesn't address the ambiguity anyway, it just 588 00:31:13,940 --> 00:31:16,630 gets rid of. The protection of the FCA to 589 00:31:16,630 --> 00:31:21,310 these de facto government owned forests that have, for whatever 590 00:31:21,310 --> 00:31:23,110 reason, been recorded in some other name. 591 00:31:24,150 --> 00:31:27,670 In the end, Sharad Leli says the new amendment is just the latest 592 00:31:27,670 --> 00:31:30,550 push against safeguards that have already been weakened over 593 00:31:30,550 --> 00:31:33,230 the years. Given all of this is being done 594 00:31:33,230 --> 00:31:36,430 in the name of national security and development, he says we need 595 00:31:36,430 --> 00:31:38,590 to consider the cost it's coming at. 596 00:31:39,880 --> 00:31:43,480 This amendment for the weakens what was already weakened in the 597 00:31:43,920 --> 00:31:45,440 amendments to the rules last year. 598 00:31:45,800 --> 00:31:49,160 It just makes it defect sort of de jure what was already 599 00:31:49,160 --> 00:31:52,080 happening de facto, which was that the forest clearance 600 00:31:52,400 --> 00:31:56,520 process hardly ever held up a project or hardly ever rejected 601 00:31:56,520 --> 00:31:58,880 a project. At best they might hold it up, 602 00:31:58,920 --> 00:32:01,240 ask for some changes here and there. 603 00:32:01,680 --> 00:32:05,160 So the clearance process was weak anyway and it's been 604 00:32:05,160 --> 00:32:08,080 dramatically weakened now. I think that's a larger question 605 00:32:08,080 --> 00:32:11,370 of what does it mean? When our government is pushing 606 00:32:11,370 --> 00:32:15,770 the idea of national security and this very vague and fuzzy 607 00:32:15,770 --> 00:32:20,010 idea of development at the cost of environment so brutally, it's 608 00:32:20,010 --> 00:32:21,570 something we all need to ponder about. 609 00:32:28,130 --> 00:32:31,530 Today's episode was produced by Jayaraj Singh and Anuja Singh. 610 00:32:31,890 --> 00:32:35,210 For a daily spotlight on people, ideas and stories that matter, 611 00:32:35,450 --> 00:32:39,130 subscribe to us. We're available on Ty, Spotify, 612 00:32:39,410 --> 00:32:43,130 Apple, Google Podcasts, and all other platforms of your choice. 613 00:32:43,670 --> 00:32:48,670 For any new steps, e-mail us at typodcast at Timesinternet in.