Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Thursday, 29 Feb 2024.
The offices of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), the top forest official in Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Kerala do not appear to have state expert committee (SEC) reports on deemed forests in these states reports that they were mandated to collect following a 1996 Supreme Court order.
According to RTI responses seen by HT, the states have delegated the task of providing these reports to their suboffices and other forest officials.
These RTI responses raise serious concerns about the implementation of Supreme Court’s December 12, 1996 order in TN Godavarman vs Union of India matter, which directed that each state government constitute an expert committee within a month to identify areas which are forests as per the dictionary meaning, irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of their ownership. The court also directed the committees to identify areas that were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the government and those belonging to private persons.
Deemed forest data from the whole state was to be collected and compiled by SECs in 1997 and then submitted to the Supreme Court.
It isn’t just these states. In response to a RTI application, the Kerala government said on February 14 that it only has details of reserved forests in the state.
HT reported on February 21 that the Union environment ministry does not have details of the state expert committee reports which identified all forests including unclassed/deemed forests in every state following Supreme Court’s 1996 order in TN Godavarman Vs Union of India case, according to information received under an RTI application.
All the RTI applications were filed by retired IFS officer Prakriti Srivastava, who served as the former principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF), Kerala. In January, she sought the names of all states that have submitted state expert committees as directed by the Supreme Court in 1996; and also copies of all state expert committee reports prepared as per direction of the top court. In response to the query, the environment ministry, on January 25 said: “The requisite information is not available in the Forest Conservation division of the Ministry. Accordingly, a copy of the application is hereby transferred under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act of 2005 to the PIO, O/o PCCF all states/UTs to furnish information directly to the applicant, as available with them.”
Thus far, Srivastava has received responses from seven states of which four Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana have not provided the information, and instead forwarded the query to other officials. A fifth state, Kerala, said that it only has revenue forest records.
The only two states to provide SEC reports are Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Assam’s report doesn’t mention deemed forests and reveals that the geographical location, boundaries of each forest site and extent is not given in the report and therefore forests mentioned in the report are not identifiable in the field.
Arunachal Pradesh’s report said total area under forest cover is 68, 621 sq km which constitutes 81.94% of the state’s total geographical area. About 14,445 sq km is under open forest and 54,176 sq km is under closed forests. The committee felt that areas under Jhum cultivation should be exempted from the purview of the forest conservation act. But, overall the report is generic and does not give any geographical locations of forests, their boundaries and extent.
“The RTIs are revealing that the Godavarman order of 12.12.1996, I am afraid, has not been complied with in letter and spirit by state governments. It is very disturbing that the MoEFCC has assured the Joint Parliamentary Committee in July 2023 that all SEC reports have been taken on record and the amended Act will be applicable to the forests identified in the SEC reports. It appears that the ministry in their urgency to push through the amended Forest Conservation Act neither examined the SEC reports and ascertained their competency and robustness when it is admitted by them that they do not even have the SEC reports, said Srivastava.
“We now have a situation where the whole forest governance of the country has been changed based on halfbaked inadequate information and data. This can only be viewed as irresponsible and callous while playing ducks and drakes with the ecological security of our country,” she added.
The offices of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), the top forest official in Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Kerala do not appear to have state expert committee (SEC) reports on deemed forests in these states reports that they were mandated to collect following a 1996 Supreme Court order.
According to RTI responses seen by HT, the states have delegated the task of providing these reports to their suboffices and other forest officials.
These RTI responses raise serious concerns about the implementation of Supreme Court’s December 12, 1996 order in TN Godavarman vs Union of India matter, which directed that each state government constitute an expert committee within a month to identify areas which are forests as per the dictionary meaning, irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of their ownership. The court also directed the committees to identify areas that were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; and identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the government and those belonging to private persons.
Deemed forest data from the whole state was to be collected and compiled by SECs in 1997 and then submitted to the Supreme Court.
It isn’t just these states. In response to a RTI application, the Kerala government said on February 14 that it only has details of reserved forests in the state.
HT reported on February 21 that the Union environment ministry does not have details of the state expert committee reports which identified all forests including unclassed/deemed forests in every state following Supreme Court’s 1996 order in TN Godavarman Vs Union of India case, according to information received under an RTI application.
All the RTI applications were filed by retired IFS officer Prakriti Srivastava, who served as the former principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF), Kerala. In January, she sought the names of all states that have submitted state expert committees as directed by the Supreme Court in 1996; and also copies of all state expert committee reports prepared as per direction of the top court. In response to the query, the environment ministry, on January 25 said: “The requisite information is not available in the Forest Conservation division of the Ministry. Accordingly, a copy of the application is hereby transferred under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act of 2005 to the PIO, O/o PCCF all states/UTs to furnish information directly to the applicant, as available with them.”
Thus far, Srivastava has received responses from seven states of which four Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana have not provided the information, and instead forwarded the query to other officials. A fifth state, Kerala, said that it only has revenue forest records.
The only two states to provide SEC reports are Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Assam’s report doesn’t mention deemed forests and reveals that the geographical location, boundaries of each forest site and extent is not given in the report and therefore forests mentioned in the report are not identifiable in the field.
Arunachal Pradesh’s report said total area under forest cover is 68, 621 sq km which constitutes 81.94% of the state’s total geographical area. About 14,445 sq km is under open forest and 54,176 sq km is under closed forests. The committee felt that areas under Jhum cultivation should be exempted from the purview of the forest conservation act. But, overall the report is generic and does not give any geographical locations of forests, their boundaries and extent.
“The RTIs are revealing that the Godavarman order of 12.12.1996, I am afraid, has not been complied with in letter and spirit by state governments. It is very disturbing that the MoEFCC has assured the Joint Parliamentary Committee in July 2023 that all SEC reports have been taken on record and the amended Act will be applicable to the forests identified in the SEC reports. It appears that the ministry in their urgency to push through the amended Forest Conservation Act neither examined the SEC reports and ascertained their competency and robustness when it is admitted by them that they do not even have the SEC reports, said Srivastava.
“We now have a situation where the whole forest governance of the country has been changed based on halfbaked inadequate information and data. This can only be viewed as irresponsible and callous while playing ducks and drakes with the ecological security of our country,” she added.
.JPG)
.JPG)
