Haryana’s Forest Definition Sparks Controversy

Haryana’s New Definition of Forest Sparks Controversy

Why in the News ?

The Haryana government has notified a new definition of ‘forest’, excluding areas like agro-forestry plantations, orchards, and linear plantations. Environmentalists and retired IFS officers have criticised it for diluting forest protection under FCA, 1980 and leaving Aravallis vulnerable to encroachment and mining.

Key Highlights of Haryana’s Definition:

• Criteria for Forest Status:
• Minimum 5 hectares if in isolation.
• Minimum 2 hectares if contiguous with government-notified forests.
• Requires 40% or more canopy cover.
• Exclusions: Agro-forestry, compact plantations, orchards, and previously diverted lands.
• Impact: Sets a high threshold, potentially leaving ecologically fragile regions like the Aravallis outside FCA protection.
• Government View: Officials claim the definition is aligned with judicial expectations and enables long-pending forest surveys.

Judicial and Legal Context:

• SC’s Godavarman Judgment (1996): Defined forest by its dictionary meaning, covering all statutorily recognised forests—reserved, protected, or otherwise.
• SC Directive (2024): Ordered all States/UTs to define forests, set up committees, and complete surveys within 6 months. Non-compliance would hold Chief Secretaries personally accountable.
• 2023 FCA Amendment: Limited applicability of FCA to notified forests, exempting certain linear projects. Critics say it narrows forest protection.
• Environmental Concerns: Analysts argue Haryana’s criteria dilute FCA’s spirit, ignore dry-state ecology, and exclude scrub forests vital for biodiversity.