A controversy has erupted after the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) notified the Forest Conservation Rules (FCR), 2022, under the Forest Conservation Act, on June 28, to replace the earlier rules notified in 2003.
The Opposition claims the new rules will sideline the gram sabhas and allow private developers to cut down forests without getting the consent of the forest-dwellers, in complete violation of the provisions of the Forest Rights Act.
The row is over a contentious clause that allows the Centre to permit the clearing of a forest even before consulting its inhabitants.
It also puts the onus or burden of ensuring forest rights of forest dwellers on the State governments, after the Centre has already given its ‘final’ approval to the project. In other words, the responsibility for obtaining consent from Scheduled Tribes and other forest-dwelling communities have now been shifted from the Centre to the State government.
As per Rule 9(6)(b) of the Forest Conservation Rules 2022: “The State Government or Union territory Administration, as the case may be, after receiving the ‘Final’ approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Act, and after fulfilment and compliance of the provisions of all other Acts and rules made thereunder, as applicable including ensuring settlement of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (No. 2 of 2007), shall issue order for diversion, assignment of lease or dereservation, as the case may be.”
Earlier, the Union government was required to verify the consent of the forest dwellers and ensure recognition of their rights over the forest before private projects could be approved.
Now, the handover of the forest can be approved and the Centre can collect payment for compensatory afforestation from the private developer even before the state government ensures consent of the forest dwellers.
The Congress on July 12 wrote to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) urging it to take note of the alleged “violation” of the Forest Rights Act 2006 and asking the Centre to withdraw the new forest conservation rules in public interest.
“The new rules violate the statutory legal mandate to ensure compliance of FRA and the consent of Gram Sabha prior to the diversion of forest land as already established as per the guideline of MoEF issued on August 3, 2009, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Mining Corporation vs the MoEF & others, 2013 and the FC Rules of 2017,” Congress’ national coordinator SC, ST, OBC and minority departments K Raju wrote in his letter to NCST chairperson, Harsh Chouhan. He also requested the NCST to direct the MoEF and Ministry of Tribal Affairs to ensure strict compliance of the FRA before the approval of forest diversions.
Earlier, Congress General Secretary (Communications) and former Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh went public on the issue tweeting: “This (new rules) destroys the very purpose of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and its meaningful use while considering proposals for diversion of forest land. Once forest clearance is granted, everything else becomes a mere formality and almost inevitably no claims will be recognised and settled.”
Ramesh expressed fear that the State governments will be under “even greater pressure from the Centre” to accelerate the process of diversion of forest land. “Obviously, this has been done in name of ‘ease of doing business’ for a chosen few. But it will end the ‘ease of living’ for the vast many,” he alleged.
Ramesh recalled that in 2009, when he was the Union environment minister, he had introduced a rule that no clearance for diversion of forests would be considered unless the rights under the FRA, 2006 (a still-ongoing process) were settled. This included acquiring a gram sabha No Objection Certificate. This was later included as a part of the Forest Conservation Rules in 2015 under the Act.
Union Environment and Forests Minister Bhupender Yadav responded saying: “Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022, are reformative with an objective to streamline the process of approvals under the Act, and enable the parallel processing under other Acts and Rules including FRA, 2006. The allegation is an ill-informed attempt to show that the Rules don’t care about the provisions of other laws. The govt under Shri @narendramodi ji remains committed to protecting the rights of the Adivasis. Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022, are reformative with an objective to streamline the process of approvals under the Act, and enable the parallel processing under other Acts and Rules including FRA, 2006.”
“You are trying to insinuate a problem where none exists. There is no dilution of provisions of FRA as being incorrectly interpreted since fulfilment and compliance of FRA 2006 is specifically mentioned in the Rules before State issues orders of diversion,” Yadav said further.
“The Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022 have been promulgated solely to implement the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. No rule or provisions of any Act are being diluted. The process has been streamlined for reducing the timelines for arrival at the final Decision… Processes and provisions envisaged in the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022 are not inconsistent with the other statutory laws including FRA compliance of which can also be ensured simultaneously by their respective nodal implementing agencies to reduce the time lag and cost involved,” said a note tweeted by Yadav.
Union Tribal Affairs Minister Arjun Munda joined issue saying the allegation that the present government is trying to snatch the rights from the tribals holds no ground and is just a futile attempt to divert the attention from the fact that NDA’s presidential candidate is a tribal lady.
Prof Sharachchandra Lele, a distinguished fellow at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, did not agree with Bhupendra Yadav. “The new Rules talk of settling rights of the forest dwellers before a project sanction. First, this comes at the tail end of permissions, after the Centre has already sanctioned a project. And secondly the gram sabha permission has not been included,” he was quoted by a news agency.
