According to them, by redefining ‘what a forest means’, the government has done away with restrictions on felling trees in several parts of the country, endangering 25 per cent of forest areas.

If true, then it poses a big challenge to the government’s 2021 pledge to cut its emissions to net zero by 2070 at the 26th Conference of Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Net zero emissions (NZE) means reducing greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible. Since forests play a key role as an absorbent of emissions, the solution lies in increasing its cover rather than allowing its depletion under the law.

The central government’s amendment to the preamble of the law contradicts the claims of some green activists that the new law will encourage the diversion of forest areas for non-forest activities.

It acknowledges, instead, the importance of forests and says that they will help achieve the 2070 NZE target “and maintain or enhance the forest carbon stocks through ecologically balanced sustainable development.”

The government also suggests that the new forest law aims at creating a carbon sink that can absorb 2.5 to 3.0 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030.

A carbon sink includes trees, oceans, or anything else that absorbs more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases.

Contrary to what the conservationists allege, the preamble says that the country envisages an increase in the forest and tree cover to one-third of its land area, which is to be given impetus with an enhanced growth trajectory.

The amended Act defines forest as areas “declared or notified as a forest in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927” and “recorded in government record as forest, as on or after the 25th October 1980”.

Activists fear that since many forest areas are not notified as forests in government records, such as those in the Northeast region, they have now lost legal protection and could eventually disappear.

Besides, the amended Act provides relaxation for felling trees for strategic projects concerning national security within 100 km of the Indian border, or for security-related infrastructure or defence-related projects. It can also be done for building a camp for paramilitary forces or public utility projects, among others.

Before these amendments, the legal provisions were so harsh, especially after the Supreme Court judgement in the T N Godavarman case in 1996, that even cutting down a tree on private land necessitated several permissions.

The Act is aimed at eliminating ambiguities in its applicability to facilitate decision-making on proposals involving non-forestry use of forest land by the authorities, the government said in a statement.

Environmentalists like Sharachchandra Lele, a distinguished Fellow at the Ashoka Trust For Research In Ecology And The Environment (ATREE), Bengaluru, said there is a mismatch between the amendments in the preamble and the operative sections of the law.

According to him, while the preamble’s language suggests that the purpose of the amendments is to take effective measures to improve environmental conditions, the newly added sections actually render the Godavarman judgement null and void.

The preamble is only a greenwash, which looks good on paper, but in a true sense, it won’t provide positive environmental benefits, Lele added.

A few conservationists agree with Lele. Terming the compulsory provision of planting trees to compensate for the felling of trees elsewhere as a greenwash, one of them, who did not wish to be named, expressed serious concerns over the complete exclusion of the local community’s consent in forest diversion.

However, it is noteworthy that not all environmentalists disagree with the amendments. Some of them believe that changes were required to strike a balance between developmental needs and climate concerns.

“I am waiting for the rules to come out before I make any comment on the merits and demerits of the Act,” said Chandra Bhushan, a public policy expert and the founder and CEO of the International Forum for Environment, Sustainability and Technology (iFOREST).

“However, I must say that if I have to take multiple permissions to cut a tree which I have grown myself on my land, then, it is overregulation and that was the scenario before the new law,” Bhushan said.

In the last two decades, figures from the 2001 and 2021 comparative study of India State of Forest Reports (ISFRs), which are released biennially, suggest that despite having stringent legal provisions to protect forests, dense forests have reduced.

As per ISFR 2021, total forest cover in India stood at 7,13,789 sq km, 21.71% of the country’s geographical area. Out of this, dense forests, which are considered to be good quality forests, accounted for 4,06,669 sq km and open forests, known as degraded forests, 3,07,120 sq km.

In comparison, ISFR 2001 recorded the total forest cover as 6,75,538 sq km. This is 19.5% of the geographical area. Even though the total forest area in the country increased by 38,251 sq km, it is pertinent to note that the dense forest area narrowed to 4,16,809 sq km, while the open forest area increased to 2,58,729 sq km.

“It clearly shows that the dense forests have decreased by 10,140 sq km and open forests have increased by 48,391 sq km,” Bhushan said.

The ISFR cites reasons such as development activities, shifting agriculture, and natural disasters among others responsible for the decrease in the dense forest area.

“So, if the government focuses on the areas of dense forest, which are already protected even in the amended Act, it will serve the desired purpose of preserving our green cover,” Bhushan added.

(Prakash Sharma is a New Delhi-based independent journalist. Views expressed are personal)