Source – thewire.in<\/p>\n\n\n\n
New Delhi<\/strong>: The Government of Uttarakhand has tightened the definition of \u2018forest\u2019, prompting expressions of concern from environmentalists that the new terms make it easier for builders and developers to ramp up construction in the ecologically sensitive hill state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Uttarakhand\u2019s decision is derived from a 1996 Supreme Court order that directed states to form expert committees to define \u2018forest\u2019. Consequently, the Union environment ministry\u2019s forest advisory committee clarified in October this year that states\u00a0don\u2019t need the Centre\u2019s permission\u00a0to evolve definition of unclassified land as forest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Times of India<\/em>\u00a0reported\u00a0that the Uttarakhand government notified on November 23 that \u201cdeemed forests\u201d will have to meet a minimum criteria of \u201cland patch of 10 hectare or above with 60 percent canopy density and 75 percent native plant species\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concern about the applicability of these standards are rising against the backdrop of agitation in Mumbai, for example, where the government\u00a0cut trees in Aarey colony\u00a0to erect a shed for the metro rail project. The colony hasn\u2019t been classified as a forest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Peter Smetacek, a conservationist based in Nainital, told\u00a0Times of India<\/em>\u00a0that builders don\u2019t need clearance from the forest department for construction activity in areas not defined as \u2018forest\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With the new definition, he stated that \u201cmany areas that are actually forests will not be officially recognised as one\u201d. He added, \u201cThe state government wants to make Uttarakhand, which has around 70% forest cover, a builders\u2019 paradise at the cost of its green cover.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He also called the notification a \u201cclear-cut suppression of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980\u201d and that he and his peers would \u201cchallenge it in the Supreme Court\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The report, which quoted various sources, said that the new definition would also allow hotel construction to begin around Corbett Tiger reserve, expedite all-weather road construction work and ease the eviction of van gujjar<\/em> from some areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reenu Paul, an activist and lawyer, noted that the Forest Survey of India has defined \u2018forest\u2019 as one hectare or more of land with 10% canopy cover, submitted in India\u2019s second biennial update report in December 2018. However, a technical body of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which organises annual climate conferences like the one where the Paris Agreement was forged, questioned it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cGoing by that example, how does the Uttarakhand government justify the 10-hectare explanation? The definition is totally arbitrary and they have tried to change the dictionary meaning of the word forest \u2013 any large area with trees and undergrowth \u2013 to make profits,\u201d Smetacek continued. \u201cUnabated construction works will now start in the hills and forests will get lost.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In October, when the state cabinet cleared the new rules, Vimal Bhai, a member of Matu Jan Sangathan,\u00a0told\u00a0Indian Express<\/em>\u00a0that the parameter \u201cwill be used for industrialist and political beneficiaries\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the state government has defended the definition; Uttarakhand forest minister Harak Singh Rawat has asserted that the criteria were drawn up in consultation with experts. \u201cWe have also taken all points under consideration and the new meaning is the need of the hour,\u201d he said in a statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Times of India<\/em> report also quoted an anonymous senior scientist of the Wildlife Institution of India saying the new definition will lead to loss of animal corridors. However, the head of Uttarakhand forest force claimed in response that wildlife corridors won\u2019t be hampered as much as further protected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEarlier, the term \u2018deemed forest\u2019 was not categorically defined and now with the new clear-cut definition, no one will be able to exploit the over 71% forest cover of our state,\u201d he told the newspaper.<\/p>\n