[Marxistindia] Ministry proposals favour private interests - Brinda Karat's letter to Union Minister for EFCC

[news from the cpi(m)]

Press Release

October 6, 2021
 
Ministry Proposals Favour Private Interests
 
Smt. Brinda Karat, Member, Polit Bureau of Communist Party of India
(Marxist), has written today the following letter to Shri Bhupendra Yadav,
Union Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of
India on the Consultation Paper on Proposed amendments in the Forest
(Conservation) Act 1980.  We are herewith releasing the text of the letter
for publication.
 
****
 
Shri Bhupendra Yadav ji,
 
Namaskar. I write to you in regard to the 'Consultation Paper on Proposed
amendments in the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 (FCA).  Your Ministry
through its circular F.No. FC-11/61/2021-FC dated October 2 has invited
comments/suggestions on proposed amendments. However the actual amendments
are not circulated but only a general note. In our experience a reading of
concrete amendments and its wording is critical in formulating a response.
The above Circular also only gives 15 days for sending in comments, not even
30 days as called for by the Pre-legislative consultation policy. 
 
Studying the concrete amendments is all the more necessary since at first
reading the proposals appear to be designed to undo various Supreme Court
judgements related to protection of forests and payment of net present value
compensation (NPV) and compensatory afforestation (CA) mandatory for
diversion of forest land. It is noticed that wherever any "inconvenience" is
perceived for project proponents using forest land for non-forest purposes,
the Note proposes to simply waive application of the FCA. Given the context
of privatization of infrastructure projects which require forest land, the
proposals will not only facilitate takeover of forest land, but make it
cheaper and easier for corporates, intending to take the benefits of
privatization. This also includes mining companies with the mining sector
being opened up for takeover by domestic and foreign companies. This is what
underlies the points raised in the note, which we oppose as they are more
concerned about protecting private interests and projects rather than
addressing environment concerns.
 
The proposals tend to dilute the rights of the States to notify forests
thereby further centralizing authority in the central Government. Further
centralization is  another ground to oppose the proposals.
 
In the "Consultation Paper" there is no mention, not even once, on
protection of the rights of tribal communities and other traditional forest
dwellers in any of the amendments proposed. The direction of amendments
proposed will directly impact on the rights granted under the Forest Rights
Act, 2006. It should be noted that under the FRA Section 2 (d) "forest land"
means "land of any description falling within any forest area and includes
unclassified forests, undemarcated forests, existing or deemed forests,
protected forests, reserved forests, Sanctuaries and National Parks."  The
thrust of the Consultation Note is to loosen definition of forests,
protected forests, deemed forests etc. so as to remove them from the
conditions of diversion to non-forestry purposes without  any reference as
to how this will affect tribal communities and  forest dwellers. This is the
third reason to oppose the proposals as the note is completely silent on
protection of the rights granted by law to tribal communities and other
traditional forest dwellers.
 
To cite some examples: 
 
The "Consultation Paper" in B 1 proposes to change the definition as well as
procedures for defining forest land to protect the rights of plantation
owners or private owners. The present procedures adopted under the law by
State Governments have been described as being "subjective and arbitrary"
causing "resentment and resistance from private individuals and
organisations." Who are these individuals? Have any of them approached the
courts for protection?  How much land do they hold "without vegetation" and
in that case why do ceiling laws not apply to them? The proposal amounts to
liberalization of the present structure to permit easier diversion of forest
land for non-forestry purposes without heed to any regulation and will end
up privatising forests and forest resources. If really necessary, as case by
case examination by MoEFCC may show, then any exemption may be granted by a
duly authorized Expert Committee, rather than through a blanket exemption
provision as proposed.
 
But strangely in Point B 3 (i) and (ii) the opposite argument is used namely
that such land if handed over to private "owners" to be used without any
conditions,  will be used by them to grow forests and will help India
achieve the required forest cover according to our international
commitments. How did Government reach such a conclusion? There is no
explanation. Whereas Point 1 argues for exemption from the FCA on grounds
that "it restricts an individuals right to use his/her own land for
non-forest activity", Point 3 argues that exemption should be given so that
more trees can be planted without worrying about the conditions of the law!
In other words, big plantations can be raised for commercial purposes. It is
to be noted that the new  Forest Policy (2018) has mentioned a fourth type
of forest called ""production forests" or plantation forests, besides the
usual Reserve Forests, Protected forests and  Unclassified or Village
forests as per Forest Act 1927, however without adequate regulatory
provisions. If private lands are to be dealt with, suitable regulations
governing this type of forest including prohibition of any diversion of the
other three types of forest lands.
 
 
In B 2 the note refers to "resentment of railways, Ministry of Roads"  etc
for having to make additional payments for land acquired prior to 1980 but
only partially used. The resentment is that now if they are to use the
unused land, they will have to accept the financial responsibilities of
compensation payments for diversion of land developed as forest land through
Government schemes. The first question that arises is prior to 1980 who were
these lands acquired from? If the Government has failed to use the land for
the purpose acquired the first claimant on the land must be the original
owners, who would probably be tribal communities and other forest dwellers.
If it was non-forest land that was originally acquired, B 2 also states that
in the meanwhile trees were raised on the land not utilized and were
categorized as "protected forests." As has been stated earlier, tribal
communities have established rights within "protected forests." What will
happen to those rights? The proposal of the Ministry is to exempt such land
acquired before 1980 from the purview of the Act. In other words the
Ministry wants to handover large tracts of protected forest land to private
companies via Ministries of Railways, Road, Transport etc. or even for other
commercial non-forest purposes by these entities. This would be against the
proclaimed aim of the Ministry itself to ensure adequate afforestation.
 
National security issues have been raised to permit projects in the name of
national security to escape the provisions of the law. This is a specious
argument as national security concerns can and must be fulfilled according
to the requirements of law. Again, specific projects may be considered after
Environmental Impact Assessment and granted exemptions along with conditions
by duly constituted independent Expert Committees. Blanket exemptions with
no questions asked are unacceptable.
 
The other points are also clearly to enable access to forests for commercial
purposes for mining and for use of technologies for oil and gas drilling
such as in Points B8 and B9.
 
In spite of benefits under the FRA 2006, the FCA is still used to file cases
against tribal communities. Thousands of members of tribal communities have
suffered arrest under the Act. The proposal to enhance the penalties has to
be examined in the light of the experience of forest dwellers. Stronger
penalties against big companies and private businesses who violate the law
are welcome. But the very purpose of the proposals are to protect the
interests of these sections. 
 
I would request you not to go ahead with these proposals as they are nothing
but liberalization to favour private interests over the interests of tribal
communities, traditional forest dwellers and environmental concerns. 
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Sd/-
Brinda Karat
 
 
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpim.org/pipermail/marxistindia_cpim.org/attachments/20211006/61bd8cb3/attachment.html>