Why Environmentalists Have Criticised Haryana Govt’s Definition of ‘Forest

Why definition of ‘forest’ matters

• India’s governance of forests rests on Constitutional, legal, and judicial frameworks:
  • Article 48A (Directive Principles): State shall protect & improve the environment and safeguard forests & wildlife.
  • Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty): Every citizen must protect environment & wildlife.
  • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA): Restricts diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes without Central approval.
  • Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and Environment Protection Act, 1986: Strengthen conservation.
• Key Issue: India never had a single, universal, statutory definition of “forest”.
  • Forests could mean Reserved Forests, Protected Forests, or Unclassified Forests (as per Indian Forest Act, 1927).
  • But large areas (scrubland, grasslands, community forests) remained outside formal records.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgments

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996 onwards)
  • SC ruled that “forest” must be understood not just by official records but by dictionary meaning.
  • Any land that fits dictionary meaning of forest—irrespective of ownership (private or govt)—is to be treated as forest and covered under FCA, 1980.
  • Led to a pan-India freeze on diversion of forest land unless approved by Centre.
  • Empowered judiciary to monitor deforestation through Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC).
• Impact of Godavarman:
  • Vast tracts of ecologically important land brought under “forest” protection.
  • States required to prepare “identification reports” and submit forest maps.

Haryana Government’s 2025 Notification

• New Definition issued by Haryana’s Environment & Forests Department:
  • “A patch of land shall be deemed a forest if it has a minimum area of 1 hectare, is a minimum area contiguous with government-notified forests, and has a canopy density of 0.4 (40%) or more.”
• Exclusions:
  • Lands smaller than 1 hectare.
  • Open forests (with <40% canopy cover).
  • Scrublands, wetlands, and fragmented green patches.
• State’s Argument:
  • Brings clarity, avoids confusion in development projects.
  • Provides objective parameters (area + canopy density) for classification.

Criticism from Environmentalists & Experts

• Contradicts Supreme Court orders:
  • Godavarman explicitly avoided rigid thresholds (area or canopy density).
  • Haryana’s rule narrows the scope, defying SC’s broader interpretation.
  • May amount to prima facie contempt of court.
• Ecological Concerns:
  • Biodiversity Loss: Excludes scrublands, grasslands, wetlands, which are home to endangered species (e.g., sarus crane, leopard, nilgai, reptiles).
  • Habitat Fragmentation: Many smaller forest patches serve as wildlife corridors connecting larger forests (critical in Aravallis). Exclusion threatens connectivity.
  • Climate Vulnerability: Haryana already has one of the lowest forest covers in India (~3.6%). Further reduction will harm carbon sequestration, rainfall regulation, and groundwater recharge.
• High threshold problem:
  • 1 hectare + 40% canopy rule sets the bar too high, leaving many ecologically important but degraded areas unprotected.
  • This is contrary to India’s National Forest Policy, 1988, which emphasises restoring degraded forests.
• Political-Economic Angle:
  • Critics argue move favours real estate developers, mining, and infrastructure projects, especially in ecologically fragile Aravalli Hills.
  • Dilution could open up land for commercial exploitation under the guise of “not forest”.

Reactions

• Retired IFS officers: Warned that this violates SC rulings and international commitments (CBD, UNFCCC).
• NGOs & Environmentalists: Filed objections; likely to challenge notification in Supreme Court & NGT.
• National Green Tribunal (NGT) in past has repeatedly struck down similar state-level dilutions (e.g., Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka cases).

Wider Implications

• Legal Precedent Risk: If Haryana’s move stands, other states may follow, weakening Godavarman framework built over 3 decades.
• Impact on International Climate Commitments:
  • India’s NDC (Paris Agreement): Create additional carbon sinks of 2.5–3 billion tonnes CO₂ eq. by 2030 via afforestation.
  • Narrowing forest definition undermines this target.
• Federal Tension:
  • Forests are in Concurrent List (7th Schedule).
  • State decisions must comply with Centre’s FCA 1980 & SC rulings. Haryana’s unilateral move could trigger Centre–State legal conflict.