The Haryana government’s decision to go by the ‘dictionary meaning’ of forests has thrown open the doors to wide-ranging debates. On March 4, the Supreme Court directed all states and union territories to define what constitutes a ‘forest’ and commence surveys to identify forest areas in their respective jurisdictions. The order came while hearing a clutch of writ petitions that challenged the Central government’s amendments to Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
On August 18, a gazette notification by the Haryana Environment, Forest and Wildlife department stated: “A patch of land shall be deemed to be ‘forest as per dictionary meaning’ if it fulfils following conditions: A minimum area of five hectares land parcels, if it is in isolation, and a minimum area of two hectares, if it is in contiguity with the government notified forests and it has a canopy density of 0.4 (40 per cent) or more.”
The definition explicitly excludes ‘all linear, compact, agro-forestry plantations and orchards situated outside the government notified forests from the scope of forest.
Environmentalists argue this definition could exclude most of the state’s remaining Aravalli forests from the protective embrace of the Forest (Conservation) Act as small patches of forests, hillocks with low density vegetation, scrublands, grasslands and community common lands will not be considered ‘forest’ anymore.
What next?
Now land that falls under the ‘definition’ will be identified. They can be private lands, community or panchayat lands too. In April, two committees were constituted by the Haryana government, including one at the district-level under the deputy commissioner, to send the proposals and another at the state-level under the additional chief secretary (Environment, Forest, and Wildlife department) to look into the proposals and submit recommendations. After the identification, the chief secretary will submit an affidavit before the Supreme Court.
Talking with The New Indian Express, Haryana’s principal chief conservator of forests, Vineet Kumar Garg said, “This definition is for areas which have, so far, not been covered under any notifications of forest areas. The definition was arrived at after deliberations among various stakeholders by an expert committee chaired by the chief secretary of the state. Already 15 other states have adopted a forest definition which relies on canopy density of 0.4 or more. Thus this definition will not reduce areas,’’ he said.
Supreme Court directive
In the landmark judgment in the TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India case of 1996, the court had stated that the term ‘forest land’, occurring in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, will not only include ‘forest’ as understood in the dictionary sense but also any area recorded as forest in the government record, irrespective of the ownership.
The court had directed all states to “identify areas which are ‘forests’, irrespective of whether they are notified, recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest.”
Citing its 2011 Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited case judgment, the SC had mandated a GIS-based decision support database, district-wise details of each plot of land that may be defined as forest as per the FC Act, inclusion of core, buffer and eco-sensitive zone of protected areas constituted as per the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, important migratory corridors for wildlife and forest land diverted for non-forest purpose in the past in the district.
Environmentalists disagree
Environmentalists insist Haryana’s definition could end up excluding most of the state’s remaining Aravalli forests from legal protection. Neelam Ahluwalia, founder member of People for Aravallis says the state’s definition of ‘forests’ has no ecological or scientific basis. “In a semi-arid state like Haryana, climatic conditions do not support having forests with 40% canopy density like in states such as Maharashtra, Kerala or the North Eastern region where the rainfall pattern, topography and forest types are very different,” she points out.
Mining and waste dumping has already destroyed and poisoned the Haryana Aravallis as brought out in the two detailed citizens reports recently submitted to the chief minister and Union Minister of Environment and Forests. “This latest definition is a big blow to conservation as it will leave large portions of the ‘not notified’ Aravalli forests and the state’s open natural ecosystems from getting legal protection as ‘forests’, thereby leaving them vulnerable to real estate development and other kinds of commercial exploitation,’’ she says.
Samita Kaur, another environmentalist concurs. The natural habitat of the blackbucks, the state animal of Haryana in Fatehabad district, is an example of an open natural ecosystem that must be legally protected with immediate effect. “This unique ecosystem does not have a 40% canopy but it does not make it any less ecologically important,” Kaur explains.
Ibrahim Khan, president of Jal Biradari in Nuh district, recalls that before the Haryana polls last year, he and others had met leaders of all the political parties and presented them a ‘Green Manifesto’ which highlighted that Haryana was faring poorly on the environment and ecological front.
“How will millions of people living in Haryana survive if more forests are taken out of legal protection? This definition of ‘forests’ rolled out by the government is not acceptable to the people of this state who are already facing extreme pollution levels, water stress and climate events,” said Khan.