- The Union ministry of environment and forests feels defining forests will help it identify and protect them better. Critics feel limiting the meaning would free forest land for commercial use.
- There is no definition of a forest in Indian law but a Supreme Court order enables the "dictionary sense" of the word to qualify as one of the parameters
- The MoEF wants to do away with this broad criterion. Critics fear that several forests which have not been notified will be released for commercial purposes.
- The definition is currently being discussed with various states, with some of them expressing reservation
***
He dismisses the ministry's latest exercise as unwarranted. "The idea of coming up with a definition of a forest is indeed a wild goose chase," he says. According to him, even the argument that a definition would help the government identify forests and protect them borders on the ridiculous. "Why would the government want to do something like this when it already has all the right to acquire any forest land and declare it as protected?" asks Ramesh, also the founder of the university's Centre for Environmental Law Education, Research and Advocacy.
The ministry's initiative has also been criticised for its redundancy. Following the Supreme Court's 1996 ruling on what constitutes a forest, states were asked to form committees to identify forests. "Many did that. Why does it have to be done all over again?" asks Dutta. Some also see this MOEF move as a counter to the Forest Rights Act, 2006, that grants ownership of forest lands to traditional forest dwellers. The Act has been passed by Parliament but has not been notified so far.
When contacted by Outlook, the MOEF offered no comments on its initiative. It maintains that a "definite description has not yet materialised and (that) the consultative process is on". Also, forests, being on the concurrent list, have to be discussed with the states. Some of them, it is learnt, have opposed the definition being proposed by the Centre. However, an MOEF note on the subject says that applying the Forest Conservation Act to areas with scanty tree growth is questionable since it delays development of rural areas and that forests require a clear definition given recent concerns about climate change.
Raj Panjwani, an advocate in the Delhi High Court and an environmental law expert, feels a definition is of no relevance. "Those areas which are established to be of ecological importance by a scientific body need to be preserved irrespective of their ownership. Those that are not important need to be handed over for development," he says. Critics point out that those who framed the earlier law had the "foresight and wisdom" not to define a forest in public interest. It seems the question—what is a forest—may best be left unanswered.
