1

Polic

y Pa

pers

Clearance Trends Series/ August 2019 Vol III No 1

Key Findings

• 9,220.64 hectares (about 100 sq. km) of forest land was recommended for diversion for non-forestry uses such as mining, roads, railways, hydel, infrastructure etc.

• Out of 240 proposals that had sought diversion of forest land, only 7 were rejected. This implies that mere 1.01% of forest land (in hectares) considered for diversion was rejected for non-forestry use

• Linear Proposals (Roads, Railways, Transmission Lines, Pipelines) account for 53.66% of forest land recommended for diversion

• Irrigation & Mining together account for 41.69 % of forest land recommended for diversion

• 43% of 9,220.64 hectares of forest land recommended for diversion falls in wildlife habitats

• Barring Plantation Forests, 59.16% of forest land recommended for diversion falls under medium dense and very dense forest type

Analysis of Forest Diversion in India,2019(January-June)

2

I. INTRODUCTION India’s Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 mandates that a prior approval needs to be sought from the Central Government through Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to use any forest land for non-forestry purposes such as Roads, Railways, Mining, Irrigation, Hydel infrastructure etc. Before forest clearance is granted by the Central Government, recommendation

mandatory1

the recommendations of the FAC/REC are accepted by MoEF&CC in almost all instances. Therefore, though actual felling may not place in the year when the FAC/REC furnishes its recommendation, however, the decision to use the land for non–forest is taken the moment the FAC/REC recom-mends for diversion of forest land.

Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE) has been analysing the recommendations made to proposals for diversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes since 2017. The forest land (in

1 below.

Figure 1: Forest Land (in hectares) recommended for diversion in calendar years of 2017 & 2018

Building up on the analysis carried in 2017 and 2018, this paper aims to analyse the recommenda-

June). The paper is based on review and analysis of minutes of the meetings of FAC and REC con-ducted in the calendar year of 2018. These minutes of the meeting are uploaded on the PARIVESH website managed by the MoEF&CC(MoEF&CC 2019a) (MoEF&CC 2019b).

Out of 240 proposals considered by FAC and REC for diversion of forest land for non-forestry pur-poses, 193 proposals were recommended, 40 proposals were deferred for later consideration and seven were rejected. Recommendation for 193 proposals implies that 9,220.64 hectares of forest land was recommended for diversion for non-forestry purposes such as roads, railways, mining, irrigation, infrastructure, hydel etc.

AUTHORS: MRIDHU TANDON DR. RAKESH SINGH

27,801.07

20170

7000

14000

Area

( in

hect

ares

)

21000

28000

2018

21,781.30

3

II. OVERALL TRENDS IN FOREST DIVERSION RECOMMENDATIONS

Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh accounted for 75.11% of the total forest land recommended for diversion. A total of 6,925.66 hectares (more than 69 sq. km) of forest land was recommended for diversion in these states.

Figure 2: Forest Land (in hectares) Recommended for Diversion in 2019 (January-June) in States

Out of total forest land recommended for diversion, the share of different non-forestry

of forest land recommended for diversion, 4,948.10 hectares was for linear projects such as Roads, Railways, Transmission Lines and Pipelines. These projects accounted for 53.66% of total forest land recommended for diversion. After Linear, the next major category was mining and quarrying. 2,526.09 hectares of forest land recommended for diversion for mining and quarrying projects and accounted for 27.4% of total forest land recommended for diversion. This was followed by irrigation for which 1,318.48 hectares of forest land was recommended for diversion and thereby accounted for 14.3% of forest land recommended for diversion. Put together, proposals under linear, mining and quarrying and irrigation account for 95.36% of total forest land recommended for diversion.

JharkhandAndhra Pradesh

OdishaChattisgarh

MaharashtraGujarat

Madhya PradeshAssam

TripuraUttrakhand

Uttar PradeshBihar

Arunachal PradeshKerala

KarnatakaHimachal Pradesh

TelanganaManipur

SikkimRajasthan

HaryanaPunjab

DelhiMeghalaya 6.55

10

28.733.8737.440.93

86.369112.89113.47123.02136.86153.78

176.81215.105220.86

251.7546.66

770.145770.19776.3

972.11

1180.61009.858

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

1446.46

Area (in hectares)

ACHANAKMAR TIGER RESERVE, MUNGELI DISTRICT, CHHATTISGARH

RITW

ICK

DUTT

A

3

4

Figure 3: Forest Land (in hectares) Recommended for Diversion in 2019 (January-June); by Project Category

III. PROJECT CATEGORY WISE TRENDS i. LINEAR PROPOSALS

Linear proposals such as roads, transmission lines, railways and pipelines had the highest contri-bution in the overall forest land recommended for diversion. A total of 132 proposals for linear proj-

were recommended for diversion, 16 were deferred for later consideration and one was rejected. The proposal which got rejected was for diversion of 6.55 hectares of forest land for construction of Bheturi-Jaledi-Chamund Motor Road by PWD in Tehri district of Uttarakhand. The proposal was rejected by REC Dehradun as it was observed by REC that the villages mentioned in the proposal have already been connected with the main road, hence the requirement of the proposed road was

4948.10(53.66%)

2526.09(27.4%)

1318.48(14.3%)269.36(2.92%)

77.32(0.84%)

58.82(0.64%)

22.47(0.24)

LinearMining and Quarying

Irrigation Others

Hydel

Mineral Prospecting

Thermal

RAILWAY LINE PASSING THROUGH ELEPHANT CORRIDOR IN GIBBON WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, ASSAM

RK S

INGH

5

Linear projects accounted for 4,948.10 hectares of forest land which is 39% of total forest land rec-ommended for diversion. The break up linear projects into sub categories such as Road, Railways,

Figure 4: Forest Land (in hectares) Recommended for Diversion for Linear Projects in 2019 (January-June); by Sub Category

The share of major states in terms of land diverted for major linear projects (Roads, Railways,

Figure 5: Forest Land (in hectares) recommended for diversion for Linear Projects in 2019 (January-June); by Major States

44.03%

4,948.09 hectares of forest land

recommended for diversion for Linear Projects

0.35%

3.01%

25.65%

29.02%

Road Transmission Line

Railway

Ropeway

Pipeline

Gujarat(753.08 ha)

Maharashtra (503.45 ha)

Bihar (163.59 ha)

Roads

Transmission Lines

Railways

Pipelines

Uttar Pradesh (160.49 ha)

Telangana (102.75 ha)

Jharkhand (408.38 ha)

Madhya Pradesh (377.78 ha)

Uttarakhand (164.23 ha)

Tripura (151.86 ha)

Arunachal Pradesh

(131.45 ha)

Jharkhand (572.25 ha)

Odisha (314.39 ha)

Maharashtra (214.74 ha)

Madhya Pradesh

(76.98 ha)

Karnataka (18.11 ha)

Jharkhand (127.07 ha)

Gujarat (11.27 ha)

Bihar (5.83 ha)

Odisha (1.61 ha)

4

5

6

ii. MINING PROPOSALS

Followed by Linear projects, the next major non-forestry use for which forest land was recom-mended for diversion was mining and quarrying. Out of 46 proposals on mining and quarrying, 37 were recommended, eight were deferred and one was rejected. The proposal that was rejected was for diversion of 0.64 hectares of forest land for exploratory drilling for prospecting of coal in forest areas of Chandrabila Coal Block in Angul, Odisha. The proposal was rejected as 600 MT of coal is already available in the non-forest area and it will take 30 years to exhaust this coal. Moreover, the forest land proposed for diversion forms part of a migratory corridor for wild elephants and the Kanheri-Jena-Ananthapur Elephant Corridor is approximately 4 Km from the prospecting site (REC Bhubhaneshwar 2019).

The 37 mining projects accounted for 2,526.09 hectares of forest land which is 27.4 % of total forest land recommended for diversion. The break-up of forest land recommended for mining in terms of

Figure 6 (a): Forest Land (in hectares) Recommended for Diversion for Mining in 2019 (January-June); by Coal & Non Coal Mining projects

mining, 38% (961.01 hectares) was for coal mining. The major coal mining project recommended was Parsa OCP in Surguja and Surajpur districts of Chhattisgarh for which diversion of 851.54 hectares of forest land was recommended by FAC. The forest land proposed for diversion has high vegetation

RITW

ICK

DUTT

A

PENCH NATIONAL PARK, SEONI MADHYA PRADESH

62% 38%

2,526.09 hectares of forest land

recommended for diversion for

MiningCoal Mining

Non Coal Mining

6

6

7

cover as high as 70%, particularly with Sal (Shorea robusta) species. In addition to felling of 95,458 trees, the project site has regular movement of elephants from nearby Korba Forests. Parsa Coal Block is owned by Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (RRUVNL) and is adjacent to two other coal blocks owned by RRUVNL: Parsa East Kete Basan (PEKB) (1,898.33 hectares) and Kete Ex-tension (1,745.88 hectares) (MoEF&CC Forest Conservation Division 2018).

Further, in terms of non-coal mining, 1,565.08 hectares of forest land was recommended for diver-sion. Non Coal mining projects form 62% of total forest land recommended for mining. The share of

share of limestone was the highest at 53.04% (830.16 hectares). This was followed by Iron ore and Manganese which accounted for 38.68% (605.35 hectares). Rest of the diversion for non-coal mining was for chromite mining and minor minerals such as granite and stone quarrying.

Figure 6 (b): Forest Land (in hectares) Recommended for Non Coal Mining in 2019 (January-June); by Mineral Type

iii. IRRIGATION PROPOSALS

After mining and quarrying, the next major non-forestry use for which forest land was recom-mended for diversion was irrigation. Out of 22 irrigation proposals which were considered, 11 were recommended and 11 were deferred. The total forest land recommended for diversion for irriga-tion projects was 1,318.48 hectares and accounted for 14.3% of total forest land recommended for diversion.

Figure 7: Forest Land (in hectares) Recommended for Irrigation in 2019 (January-June); by States

Figure 7 shows the break-up of forest land recommended for irrigation in terms of states. The share of Andhra Pradesh in the forest land recommended for irrigation is highest at 76.78% (1,012.38 hect-ares). The major irrigation project recommended was construction of Sri Balaji Reservoir, Mallemad-ugu Reservoir and Kailasagiri Canal over river Krishna as a part of Galeru-Nagari Sujala Shravanthi (GNSS) Project Phase-III in Andhra Pradesh. The project will require diversion of 730.88 hectares of forest land out of which 476.66 hectares is for Sri Balaji Reservoir, 118.09 hectares is for Mallemadugu Reservoir and 136.13 hectares is for Kailasagiri Canal. Further, the forest land proposed for Balaji Resrvoir completely falls within Sri Venkateswar Wildlife Sanctuary and the forest patch proposed for Mallemadugu Reservoir is located at a distance of 0.27 km from the boundary of the sanctuary. The

Andhra Pradesh (1,012.38 ha)

Madhya Pradesh (282.79 ha)

Uttar Pradesh (13.08 ha)

Maharashtra (10.24 ha)

53.04%

7.8%

38.68%

0.51%

Limestone Chromite

Minor MineralsIron Ore &Manganese

1,565.08 hectares of

forest land was recommended for Non-Coal

Mining

6

8

project will require felling of 3,96,813 trees out of which 20,500 are Red Sanders trees (Pterocarpus santalinus) (MoEF&CC Forest Conservation Division 2019) (FAC 2019). Red Sanders has been catego-rised as ‘near threatened’ as per International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List which lists threatened species (Barstow 2018).

iv. PROPOSAL UNDER ‘OTHERS’

After irrigation, the next major non-forestry use for which forest land was recommended for diversion was ‘Others’. A total of 13 proposals were considered out of which eight were recommended, two were deferred and three were not recommended. The total forest land recommended for diversion for ‘Others’ was 269.36 hectares which accounts for 2.92% of total forest land recommended for diversion.

Figure 8: Forest Land (in hectares) Recommended for Diversion for ‘Others’ in 2019 (January-June); by Sub-Category

was recommended for diversion under ‘Others’ and accounted for 51% (136.85 hectares) of total for-est land recommended under ‘Others’. FAC had recommended diversion of 136.85 hectares of forest land for shifting of Thrissur Zoo from Thrissur to Puthoor at Range at Pattikad Forest Range, Thrissur Forest Division in Kerala. The proposal involves construction of buildings and other zoo related in-frastructure as per the Master Plan approved by Central Zoo Authority. Followed by ex-situ conserva-tion, infrastructure projects accounted for 32% (87.63 hectares) of total forest land recommended for diversion for ‘Others’.

-

(40.51 hectares) and Establishment of Manipur University of Culture in East Imphal, Manipur (30.08 -

lines on Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The guidelines clearly specify that “normally there should . The guidelines further

of non-forest land (which is 60% of the total land required) has already been transferred and that the proposed site has been found suitable and approved by the authorities. The State Government further submitted that in order to meet the minimum possible land as required for the purpose, there is no other option available (MoEF&CC Forest Conservation Division 2019). Further, for establishment

32%

51%

17%

Infrastructure

Defence

Ex Situ Conversation269.25 hectares of forest land recommended for diversion for 'Others'

8

makes it mandatory for the State Government to scrutinize the projects in more details and to give complete justification for locating the non-site project in forest area (MoEF&CC 2019). However, a perusal of the minutes of the meeting suggests that no detailed justification is given by the State Government in either case. For example, in the case of AIIMS Bilaspur, the justification given by the State Government was that the minimum land required for the project is 200 acres out of which 120 acres

9

-able in the valley district of the State and that the proposed University should be centrally located so that it is accessible to all communities (PCCF Government of Manipur 2018). In both the cases, the committees accepted the submissions made by the State Government as it is with no questions asked if there were any alternatives explored by the State Government and details of the same. Giving non

forest land for large scale real estate development. Given the fact that most of the forest land is state owned, the user agency will get prime land on long leases and at a fraction of the real market value of equivalent non-forest land. After infrastructure, defence proposals accounted for 17% of total forest land recommended for diversion for 'Others'.

v. PROPOSAL UNDER REST OF THE CATEGORIES

After ‘Others’, the next major non-forestry use for which forest land was recommended for diversion was Hydel. A total of 11 hydroelectric projects (HEPs) spread over 77.32 hectares of forest land was recommended for diversion. Followed by Hydel, 58.82 hectares of forest land was recommended for diversion for three thermal power projects. Out of 58.82 hectares, 38.10 hectares of forest land was recommended for 3* 800 MW Super Critical Thermal Power Plant by Odisha Thermal Power Corpora-tion Limited in Dhenkanal district of the state. Lastly, 22.47 hectares of forest land was recommended for diversion for mineral prospecting (by drilling of boreholes).

RITW

ICK

DUTT

A

RITW

ICK

DUTT

A

LIMESTONE MINING IN FORESTS OF MEGHALAYA

MINING IN NORTH KARANPURA COAL FIELD, JHARKHAND

10

IV. EMERGING CONCERNS

of the meeting of FAC and RECs suggests a few overall concerns with respect to the recommendations made to forest diversion proposals.

i. LOW RATE OF REJECTION OF PROPOSASLS

From January-June 2019, a total of 240 proposal had sought diversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes. Out of these, 193 proposals were recommended, 40 proposals were deferred for later con-sideration and only seven were rejected. This implies that 9,220.64 hectares of forest land was rec-ommended for diversion and decision on another 1,936.27 hectares of forest was deferred for later

Figure 9: Decision on Forest Land (in hectares) for Diversion in 2019 (January-June)

It is important to note that 1,936.27 hectares of forest land was not recommended for diversion, only to be considered later. These are proposals wherein the FAC and REC in principle agreed with the pro-

the user agency. It is important to highlight that FAC and REC had given rejection to only seven out of 240 proposals. This implies that the rejection rate of proposals is a mere 2.92%. In terms of forest land (in hectares), this means that out of 11,271.29 hectares of forest land considered for diversion for non-forestry purposes, FAC and REC rejected use of only 114.385 hectares of forest land which is 1.01% of forest land (in hectares).

Recommended

Deferred

Not Recommended

9220.64(193)

1936.27(40)

114.385(7)

A MOTHER ELEPHANT AND HER CALF CROSS THE TRACKS AT THE BIRSA MUNDA HALT STATION IN WEST BENGAL’S BANKURA DISTRICT.

BIPL

AB H

AZRA

9

11

ii. PROJECTS RECOMMENDED IN WILDLIFE HABITATS

Our analysis reveals that 43% out of 9,220.64 hectares of forest land recommended for diversion i.e. 3,937.52 hectares fall under wildlife habitats. The term wildlife habitats means protected areas (wild-life sanctuaries, national parks and conservation reserves); eco-sensitive zones of protected areas; tiger reserves; elephant reserves; wildlife corridors and movement paths used by wildlife210).

Figure: 10: Wildlife Habitat in Forest Land Recommended for Diversion in 2019 (January-June) in hectares

It is important to note that while recommending a project in wildlife habitats, neither FAC nor REC -

est (Conservation) Amendment Rules, 2014 requires that the committees (before recommending the proposal) ensure the State Government or Union Territory Administration considers the direct and indirect impact of diversion of forest land on wildlifea. However, the only thing FAC and REC seem to concerns themselves is whether the State Government has obtained the necessary wildlife clearance from the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife. If not, then the recommendation for forest diversion is given on the condition that transfer of forest land (falling within the wildlife area) to the user agency will be made only after the necessary clearance is obtained.

a Clause (e) of Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 6 of Forest (Conservation) Amendment Rules, 2014

TIGER AT KANHA TIGER RESERVE, MANDLA, MADHYA PRADESH

RITW

ICK

DUTT

A

Area not under Wildlife Habitat

Area under Wildlife Habitat43%57%

43% of 9,220.64 hectares of

forest land recommended for diversion falls in Wildlife Habitats

12

iii. RECOMMENDATION FOR DIVERSION OF DENSE FORESTS FOR NON-FORESTRY PURPOSES

This section deals with distribution of forest land recommended for diversion for non-forestry pur-

that is covered by crown of trees and is expressed as a percentage (%) of total area.

The Forest Survey of India (FSI) has categorised the canopy density as follows:

Table 1: Classification Scheme of Canopy Density

Class Description

Scrub Forest All lands with poor tree growth mainly of small or stunted trees having canopy density less than 10 %

Open Forest All lands with tree canopy density of 10% and more but less than 40%

Medium Density Forest All lands with tree canopy density of 40% and more but less than 70%.

Very Dense Forest All lands with tree canopy density of 70% and aboveSource: (FSI n.d.)

From January-June 2019, 9,220.64 hectares of forest land was recommended for diversion for non-forestry purposes. Out of this 240.84 hectares of forest land has been categorised as road side plan-tations and data is unavailable for another 18.3 hectares of forest land. Barring road side plantations and data unavailability, forest land recommended for diversion comes to 8,961.44 hectares. Using the

recommended for diversion falls under medium density forest. Further, 3.58% of forest land recom--

est land (barring plantations and data unavailability) recommended for diversion falls under dense forest category i.e. forest lands where tree canopy coverage is at least 40% of the total area.

It is important to note that diversion of forest land which supports moderately dense and very dense canopy density has implications for climate change regulation. The Government of India as a part of its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) has communicated to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that is will create an additional carbon sink of 2.5-3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in its “Road-map for Achieving Additional 2.5-3 Billion Tonnes CO2 e Sequestration from Forestry Sector by 2030” suggests that in order to achieve this target, the very dense forest area should be conserved. It fur-ther recommends that efforts should be made for improvement of moderately dense to very dense forest and for converting open forest to moderately dense forest (Sharma 2017). The recommendation

target will be achieved.

ARAVALLI FOREST AS SEEN FROM KOT VILLAGE, FARIDABAD-HARYANA

CHET

AN A

GARW

AL

13

Figure 11: Forest Land (after adjusting for plantations) (in hectares) Recommended for Diversion January-June 2019; by Canopy density

iv. LACK OF DISCUSSION ON COMPLIANCE WITH FOREST RIGHTS ACT, 2006

As per Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2016a, before approval is given for the diversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, it is mandatory that the process of recognition and vesting of forest rights in accordance with the provisions of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act is completed. In addition to this, it is mandatory to obtain the written consent of the Gram Sabha for diversion of the forest land. This

Ensuring Compliance of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 in cases of Diversion of Forest Land for Non-Forestry Purposes under the Forest (Conserva-tion) Act, 1980 dated 03.08.2009 (MoEF&CC Forest Conservation Division 2009).

In the context, it is important to note that compliance with Forest Rights Act is rarely deliberated upon by the FAC and REC while considering forest diversion proposals. When it is discussed, the minutes simply record that “documents for compliance with Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA) and Gram Sabha Resolution has been submit-ted”. In cases where compliance has not been submitted, the recommendation is simply given on the condition that FRA Compliance Letter will be submitted before grant of Stage-II approval.

a Clause (e), (f), (g) of Sub Rule 3 of Rule 6

Scrub Forest

Open Forest

Medium density forest

Very dense forest

55.97%

34.22%

6.23% 3.58%

Nearly 60% of 8,961.44 hectares

of forest land recommended for

diversion falls under Dense

forest category

RULES MADE BY MIRGI GRAM SABHA TO ACCESS FORESTWOOD, MAHUADANR BLOCK, PALAMAU DISTRICT, JHARKHAND

RK S

INGH

14

It is important to note that in cases when FRA compliance is submitted along with forest diversion proposals, there is no effort made by the committees to check the authenticity of the same. For ex-ample, while recommending the proposal for diversion of 851.54 hectares for Parsa OCP (Surajpur and Surguja districts of Chhattisgarh), the FAC did not even once questioned the FRA compliance docu-ments submitted. Significantly, before the forest land is approved for diversion for the Parsa Mine, the individual forest rights of four villages Salhi, Hariharpur, Fatehpur and Ghatbarra would either have to be acquired or surrendered by claimants. However, the Chhattisgarh Government’s letter (based on which forest diversion was approved) claims that all Gram Sabhas have consented surrendering over 614.219 hectares of forest land in lieu of ameliorative measures. This is however denied by the residents of Hariharpur village as there is no Gram Sabha record where such consent was recorded. With respect to community forest rights, the Ghatbarra village in September 2013 had received the community forest rights (CFR) title to access 811 hectares of forest land for their livelihoods including col-lection of non-timer forest produce. It is important to note that this area overlaps coal concessions of both the Parsa mines and the adjacent PEKB coal block. However, in January 2016 this CFR title was cancelled by the State Government on the grounds that it was disrupting mining activities for the PEKB Coal Block (Kohli 2019). None of these concerns were taken into consideration by FAC while recommending the proposal.

V. CONCLUSIONThe total forest cover in India is 7,08,273 Km2 which is 21.54% of its geographic area. Official estimates by MoEF&CC in India’s State of the Forest Report, 2017 suggests that the country added an area of 3,775 Km2 in its forest cover from 2013 to 2015 and added a further 6,778 km2 from 2015 to 2017 (FSI 2016) and (FSI 2018). This suggests that the forest cover in India is continuously increasing. While releasing the India’s State of the Forest Report, 2017, India’s [then] Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Dr. Harsh Vardhan, made the following statement, “India has shown an increasing trend in the forest and tree cover, in comparison to the global trend of decreasing forest cover during the last decade. Despite tremendous population and pressures of livestock on our forests, India has been able to preserve and expand its forest wealth” (Press Information Bureau, 2018). This was reiter-ated by the current Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Mr. Prakash Javdekar during the release of results of the fourth cycle of All India Tiger Estimation – 2018. As per the Minister, “India’s forest cover has been continuously increasing since last 5 years. While from 2015 to 2017 the forest cover has increased by 8,000 sq. km, the increase has been more than 15,000 sq. km from 2014 to 2019” (Press Information Bureau 2019). On the face of it, this also works well for India’s strategy on climate change. As a part of its INDCs submitted to UNFCCC, India aims to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 by increasing forest cover (MoEF&CC 2015). However, the Environment Ministry’s own data suggests that in year 2017 approvals were granted to 686 projects for diversion of 11,601.08 hectares of forest land for non-forestry uses (E-Green Watch MoEF&CC n.d.).

In addition to forest land already diverted in 2017, our analysis suggests that regulatory bodies cre-ated under India’s Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, recommended 21,781.30 hectares of forest land for diversion for non-forestry activities in 2018. Further, analysis for first six months of 2019 shows that another 9,220.64 hectares of forest land has been recommended for diversion. It is important to note that this figure excludes illegal encroachments and felling over forest land and represents the loss of forest land which is backed under India’s law on forest conservation. In addition to the number itself, it is important to recognise that 43% of total forest land recommended for diversion falls in wildlife habitats and that nearly 60% falls under dense forest category. Given this scenario, recommending 81.81% of total forest land considered for diversion for non-forestry purposes and rejecting only 1.01% of total forest land is a matter of serious concern. Further, in addition to rejection itself, it is equally important to highlight the way decisions are made while recommending forest for diversion. For example, ignoring deficiencies in the settlement of rights of forest dwellers dependent on the for-est land and in obtaining consents from the village councils for diversion of forest simply shows the

15

importance given by the committees in complying with Forest Rights Act, a mandatory requirement under Forest (Conservation) Rules. Lastly, the fact that forest land is recommended for diversion for non-site specific projects without any in-depth discussion on justification of project location and if alternatives are explored (a pre-requisite for non-site specific projects) simply shows the extent to which the committees follow ministry’s own guidelines under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

NOTES 1. The jurisdiction of FAC and REC over forest diversion proposals is as follows:

REC:

z Proposals that involve diversion of forest land above 5 hectares and up-to 40 hectares;

z proposals that related to mining, encroachments and hydel involving forest land up to 5 hectares and

z all Linear proposals (irrespective of area)

FAC:

z Proposals that involve diversion of forest of more than 40 hectares, other than proposals related to Linear.

It is the responsibility of the FAC and REC to screen these proposals, seek additional information or studies, order for site inspections and subsequently recommend or reject the proposal for granting of clearance.2. For example, in certain mining projects recommended in Chhattisgarh and Odisha, the forest

land does not form part of an elephant corridor, but movement of elephants is often seen in the area. Such forest lands are also counted as diversion within wildlife habitats.

16

REFERENCES

1. Barstow, M (2018): “Pterocarpus santalinus: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018.” IUCN Red List Website. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-1.RLTS.T32104A67803072.en. (Accessed July 31, 2019).

2. E Green Watch MoEF&CC (n.d.): “State-wise Summary of FCA Project,” Retrieved from E-Green Watch Website, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India,http://egreenwatch.nic.in/FCAProjects/Public/Rpt_State_Wise_Count_FCA_projects.aspx, (Accessed July 31, 2019).

3. FAC (2019): “Minutes of the Meeting of Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) dated 21.02.2019.” New Delhi: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; Government of India pp. 34. http://forestsclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/FAC_Minutes/31181225121811.PDF (Accessed July 31, 2019).

4. FSI (n.d): “Scheme of Classification”. Forest Survey of India Website. http://fsi.nic.in/scheme-of-classification. (Accessed July 31, 2019).

5. FSI (2016):” Executive Summary to India State of Forest Report 2015,” Dehradun: Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, pp 1. http://fsi.nic.in/isfr-2015/isfr-2015-executive-summary.pdf (Accessed July 31, 2019).

6. FSI (2018):”Forest Cover under India State of Forest Report 2017,” Dehradun: Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment &Forests & Climate Change, pp 28http://fsi.nic.in/isfr2017/isfr-forest-cover-2017.pdf. (Accessed July 31, 2019).

7. Kohli, Kanchi (2019): “ Historical injustice and “Bogus” claims: Large infrastructure, conservation and forest rights in India,” New Delhi: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung India, pp. 8-9, https://in.boell.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2019/06/historical_injustice_and_bogus_claims_large_infrastructure_conservation_and_forest_rights_in_india.pdf (Accessed July 31, 2019).

8. MoEF&CC (2015): “India’s Intended Nationally Determined Constribution: Working Towards Climate Justice,” New Delhi: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, pp 29 https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/India/1/INDIA%20INDC%20TO%20UNFCCC.pdf (Accessed July 31, 2019).

9. MoEF&CC (2019a): “Schedule for Forest Advisory Committee (FAC)”, Retrieved from PARIVESH MOEF&CC; Government of India Website, July 2019, http://forestsclearance.nic.in/FAC_Report.aspx

10. MoEF&CC (2019b): “Schedule for Regional Empowered Committee/State Advisory Group (REC/SAG)”, Retrieved from PARIVESH MOEF&CC; Government of India Website, July 2019, http://for-estsclearance.nic.in/REC_Report.aspx

11. MoEF&CC Forest Conservation Division (2009): “Diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 -- Ensuring compliance of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006,” New Delhi: Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India. http://forestsclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/public_display/schemes/981969732$3rdAugust2009.pdf (Accessed July 31, 2019).

12. MoEF&CC Forest Conservation Division (2019): “Factsheet on Construction of Sri Balaji Reservoir, Mallemadugu Reservoir & Kailasagiri Canal under GNSS Phase-II”, New Delhi : Ministry of Envi-ronment, Forest and Climate Change; Government of India, pp. 7 & 22, http://forestsclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/AdditionalInformation/AddInfoSought/0_0_211191247121118632018.pdf (Accessed July 31, 2019).

13. MoEF&CC Forest Conservation Division (2018): “Factsheet on Parsa Open Cast Coal Block in Surguja and Surajpur districts of Chhattisgarh .” New Delhi : Ministry of Envionment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India, pp. 8-9, http://forestsclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/Addi-tionalInformation/AddInfoSought/0_0_711201235121218362018.pdf (Accessed July 31, 2019).

14. MoEF&CC Forest Conservation Division (2018): “Factsheet on Construction of AIIMS at Kothipura in Bilaspur district of Haryana.” New Delhi : Ministry of Envionment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India, pp. 8-9, http://forestsclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/AdditionalInformation/AddInfoSought/0_0_711201235121218362018.pdf (Accessed July 31, 2019).

15. MoEF&CC Forest Conservation Division (2019): Handbook of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Forest Conservation Rules, 2003 (Guidelines & Clarifications). New Delhi : Ministry of Environ-ment, Forest and Climate Change; Government of India, pp. 40. https://parivesh.nic.in/writeread-data/FC/HANDBOOK_GUIDELINES/HANDBOOK_GUIDELINES18_03_2019.pdf. (Accessed July 31, 2019).

17

16. Press Information Bureau (2018): “India Among Top Ten Nations in the World in Terms of Forest Area: Dr. Harsh Vardhan,”Retrieved from Press Information Bureau, Government of India website, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=176496 (Accessed July 31 2019)

17. Press Information Bureau (2019): “PM releases results of 4th cycle of All India Tiger Estimation – 2018. July 29. http://pib.nic.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1580622. (Accessed August 7, 2019).

18. REC Bhubhaneshwar (2019). “Minutes of the Meeting of the Regional Empowered Committee of Regional Office of MoEF&CC Bhubhaneshwar dated 08.02.2019.” New Delhi : Ministry of Environ-ment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India. pp. 4-6. http://forestsclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/SAG_Minutes/6117121712121REC_Minutes6June19.pdf (Accessed July 31, 2019).

19. REC Dehradun (2019). “Minutes of the Meeting of Regional Empowered Committee of Dehradun Regional Office of MoEF&CC dated 20.06.2019.” New Delhi : Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India. pp. 8. http://forestsclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/SAG_Minutes/61124125312161RECmeetingminutes39.pdf. (Accessed July 31, 2019).

20. Sharma, JV (2017): “Roadmap for Achieving Additional 2.5-3 Billion Tonnes CO2 e Sequestration from Forestry Sector by 2030.” Discussion Paper, New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute; pp. 8; https://www.teriin.org/sites/default/files/2018-02/co2e-sequestration.pdf (Accessed 31 July 2019).

Cover Photo : Forest diversion for Thoubal Multipurpose Irrigation Project, Mapithel Valley, Manipur

Credit : Ritwick Dutta

18

SUGGESTED CITATION : LIFE (2019): "Analysis of Forest Diversion in India, 2019 (January-June) Vol III No 1", New Delhi: Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment

KANHA TIGER RESERVE

RIT

WIC

K D

UTT

A

SUPPORTED BY PRINCIPAL OFFICE

N-71, Lower Ground Floor, Greater Kailash - I, New Delhi -110048www.thelifeindia.org.in

REGIONAL OFFICE

AC-160, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata- 700064

Flat No.5, Gulmohar Court, Lane-B, Koregaon Park, Pune – 411001