By Kanchi Kohli, Manju Menon and Vikal Samdariya
06 Aug 2010
The Ministry of Environment and Forests has taken steps towards transparency and inclusiveness in its conservation approaches, but the forest clearance process remains shrouded under mystery and should be open to public scrutiny.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) revamped its website in October 2009 in an attempt to present itself as a transparent ministry that proactively discloses its decisions and their basis. One cannot deny that the MoEF's website and its press releases are more prompt than ever before. But, does that actually mean one can take what is given to us as the truth?
Let us attempt to examine this in light of the figures that the MoEF has sought to disclose with regards to the forest clearances it has granted. As per the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, if any activity, industry or process requires the diversion of forest land for non-forest purpose, permission needs to be sought from the MoEF prior to the commencement of such an activity. Since 1980, this procedure has ensured that there exists a certain rhythm through which all those who seek to use forest land have a prescribed procedure that they must follow.
Grant of forest clearances is not a mere mechanical activity. Any such land use change proposed has implications on not just the ecological nature of the area in question. Most often, take over of forest land for an industry, mine, dam or even just plantations, has far reaching impacts on the lives and livelihoods of people who live on and off these areas.
So, where do we stand today with regards to the forest land that has been allotted for other kinds of use? If one looks at figures received through Right to Information (RTI), the MoEF claims that between 1980-2009, a total of 11,37,686.70 hectares of forest land has been ‘cleared’ for non-forest use. One fourth of these clearances (not in number of clearances to projects but in terms of the total area) came in the period of 2004-2009. This amounts to 3,55,160.62 hectares of forest land.
But these figures cannot be relied upon for any idea of what is really the state of forest land in the country. Statistics are put out every year in the annual reports of the MoEF, the State of Environment report, and there are heated discussions, debates and disagreements on the total forest cover of the country. However all of these are based on poorly collated data that is full of inconsistencies and errors.
A recent example of this came to light when Kalpavriksh filed two RTI applications seeking data on the diversion of forest land. The responses received in both show contradictory information. Data received from the first RTI reveals that during the 12 month period from April 2008 to April 2009, MoEF allowed diversion of 61,607.82 hectares of forest land (both in principle and final clearance). When compared with the information received under the second RTI which provides data of a 20 month period of total land diverted from April 2008 to December 2009, the figure is reduced to 43,635.66 hectares.
However, the many questions that arise from these discrepancies go beyond reconciling figures on paper? For a bureaucracy such as the MoEF or the Forest Departments of state governments, these may only be challenges of accounting. But these discrepancies in the methods of data entry and book keeping have real consequences for people living on or off forest lands. Numbers are always political. When the Ministry says the country's forest land has increased, what do we have to compare with? Which forest land has missed finding a place in their records, or has landed up as double entry?
For a Ministry that is committed to becoming transparent and inclusive in its conservation approaches, the forest clearance process begs amendments that will make it open to public scrutiny. It has remained firmly shut to the public so far and there is no space for public participation in the processes of cost-benefit analysis, valuation of forests and other steps that are involved in the grant of forest clearances. Not only will the quality of decision making become more democratic by allowing public participation, but the Ministry may perhaps find partners in ironing out its statistical flaws. Ironically, the only official mechanism to ‘see’ the unfolding of FCA processes is the RTI, which in the current case has not helped to find the answer!
The revelations by the MoEF does not render much confidence by which one can make a full claim about the state of the forest land that has been continually diverted.
more interesting reads@http://www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=1331
No comments:
Post a Comment