Why in the news?

SC ordered MoEFCC to upload State Expert Committee reports on unclassed forests due to concerns over the Forest (Conservation) Act Amendment 2023 constitutionality, impacting protection and potential diversion of these forests.

What are the present issues?

1. The missing forests in SECs 

• Undermined the previous judgment: MoEFCC informed a Parliamentary Committee that SECs had identified unclassed forests, aligning with the proposed Forest (Conservation) Act Amendment, despite earlier criticism that the law undermined the Godavarman judgment.
  • However, an RTI application revealed that MoEFCC claimed not to have the SEC reports, raising questions about its assurance to the Parliamentary Committee.
• Lack of verified data: Following a Supreme Court order, MoEFCC uploaded the SEC reports, but they showed a lack of verifiable data on the identification, status, and location of unclassed forests.
• States not constituted SECs: Seven states and Union Territories, including Goa, Haryana, and Tamil Nadu, hadn’t constituted SECs, while others hadn’t fully complied with Supreme Court directives.
• Non-traceable Forest: Ladakh formed an SEC only after the dissolution of Jammu & Kashmir, and Puducherry’s report was declared “not traceable”, further highlighting inconsistencies in the process.

1. Disagreement with FSI data 

• Insufficient timeline: Many states argue that the one-month timeline provided by the Supreme Court was insufficient for comprehensive work due to the voluminous nature of the task.
• Relied on Existing data: Instead of conducting ground-truthing, physical cadastral surveys, and demarcation of unclassed forest lands, most states relied on existing data from forest and revenue departments. Some states, like Manipur and Sikkim, simply quoted figures from the Forest Survey of India (FSI).
• Question on Data: The reliability of data is questioned, with Haryana’s report lacking clarity on data sources and creation dates. Only nine states provided the extent of unclassed forests, while others focused on different types of forest areas specified in the order.

1. Lack of clarity in the Reports:

• Failed to specify the geographic locations: Most states and UTs failed to specify the geographic locations of forests in their SEC reports, rendering the information provided largely unhelpful for accurate identification and protection.
  • But Tripura was an exception, providing Khaitan numbers for forest areas beyond those officially recorded, but the classification of land remained unclear.
• Lack of on-ground verification: SEC is lagging that on-ground verification may have led to the widespread destruction of forests that should have been identified and protected nearly three decades ago.
  • Instances like Kerala’s SEC excluding ecologically significant areas like Pallivasal unreserve and Chinnakanal unreserve, critical for wildlife corridors and conservation, showcase the lack of diligence in identifying and protecting vital forest areas.

Suggested Measures:

• Extended Timeline: Provide states with a more realistic timeline to conduct comprehensive surveys and data verification, considering the voluminous nature of the task and the need for accuracy.
• Ground Truthing and Surveys: Mandate states to conduct ground-truthing, physical cadastral surveys, and demarcation of unclassed forest lands to ensure accurate identification and mapping of forest areas.
• Data Verification: Implement mechanisms for verifying and cross-referencing data obtained from various sources, such as forest and revenue departments and the Forest Survey of India, to ensure reliability and consistency.

Main PYQ: 

Q Examine the status of forest resources of India and its resultant impact on climate change.(UPSC IAS/2020)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now