 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Under the present BJP government, we have been seeing a steady decline in the strength of the regulations that protect our environment. This is quite similar to what the US is witnessing under Donald Trump. To discuss the recent amendments made to different regulations, we have with us today D. Raghunandan from the Delhi Science Forum. Welcome, Raghun. So starting with the new national forest policy, this policy is largely being viewed as something that allows for the privatization of forests. So what can you tell us about that? There are, I think, three features of this new national forest policy which stand out. The first is an old habit, which is to speak of forest cover and tree cover in the same breath. So when you announce targets for forest oblique tree cover, then you're saying that if you have a mixed forest, a mixed natural forest with biodiversity, with trees and shrubs and bushes and grasses, et cetera, or if you have plantations of pine or saal or eucalyptus, you're talking of both of these in the same breath. We do have a fairly clear definition of what a forest is. And we do know that a bunch of trees don't make a forest. Whereas this policy, as in many previous policies, conflates these two and talks of forest oblique tree cover. So India has set a target for itself as well as in commitments to Paris, saying we will increase our forest oblique tree cover to 33%. That's not the same thing. We've currently got forest cover of about 20 odd percent. It would have been a meaningful target if we had said we'll increase that to 33. But if you plant eucalyptus along the highways, you may reach a target of 30 odd percent of tree cover and call it a forest, which it is not. Because a forest performs very wide ecological services, prevention of soil erosion, capturing water from rainfall and feeding water bodies and rivers, engendering biodiversity. None of these services are performed by a bunch of trees. And forests perform very useful social services in providing to forest dwellers and in the neighboring areas fuel, fodder, medicinal plants, non-timber forest produce, et cetera. So this conflation is one part. Two new features in this forest policy, which is what you're talking about is, the first is this new policy makes a virtue out of, let us have what it calls plantation forests. So let's plant commercial timber species like sal, seasam, et cetera, and use that to increase the production of timber. And it makes a virtue of this by saying, if we use this timber, then we can reduce the utilization of steel or aluminum, which will contribute to our climate change efforts. This takes a cue from developed countries, particularly in the north, Sweden, Canada, Norway, which have vast unpopulated forests, which can then be used for harvesting of timber, which countries like that use in house building, et cetera, thereby saving on. In India, that's not the case. Our forests are already very poor. And if you're going to use plantations in forests in order to provide for utilization of timber in construction, et cetera, then the proportion of mixed forests that you already have will only go down further. So that's one big danger in the new policy. The other is, linked with this, the policy talks of increasing the area under such plantations, both inside forests, in fringe forest areas, in degraded land, and outside forest, and doing this through a PPP mode. Which then introduces the private sector into forest management for the first time. So also something, joint forest management is also something that requires. Well, joint forest management has been there. The idea of joint forest management was to involve communities of forest dwellers, tribals, et cetera, who have been conserving the forests where they are, because they have a stake in preservation of the forest. This is very different, however. The stake of the private sector is not in forests. It's in timber. So they're not interested in preserving forests for water conservation, for soil conservation, for fuel, fodder, and non-timber forest product. They only want the timber. So they have no stake in ecological conservation of the forests. They have a stake only in the production value of forests for timber and other such useful products. So all in all, I believe the new forest policy is the thin end of the wedge to convert forests into plantation areas, which is what the British had started doing 200 years ago. And we've seen the effects of that in Himachal, Uttarakhand, where you've got denuded slopes because of virtual monocrop plantations of pine and other such species, and where the old mixed forests have virtually disappeared, with great ecological harm in the area. And we've seen the loosening of the soil leading to greater land slips and so on. This is going to increase that further. And if you allow the private sector into it, that's going to destroy the system of management and to destroy benefits to the people of whom an estimated 120 million live in or around forests. So it has huge societal as well as ecological impact. When we talk about this conversion from forest to plantation, of course, there are a lot of tribals in forest dwellers. Exactly. What does the policy say about the rights of these people? It, of course, says that we will ensure that we are promoting non-timber forest produce and the stakes of the local people and so on. But if this policy follows in the spirit in which it is written, it will reduce those kinds of species which local communities can use for their benefit rather than species which would be used for commercial purposes, especially for timber. So moving on to the new coastal zone management, and notification for the coastal zone management, that is also along similar lines. It is reducing the limit of the area that comes under regulation. And also, again, it's giving very weak protection to these areas. Absolutely. And I think this follows a series of dilutions of the coastal zone rules and regulations. Mind you, not only by this government, such dilutions have been attempted in the past as well. But this government has gone about it extremely systematically and with a sense of purpose. Many of these, the forest amendments, the coastal zone amendments, many other amendments which this government has been doing, are, in fact, continuations of what it had earlier commissioned, the TSR Subramaniam Committee's report, which the Parliamentary Standing Committee had rejected, but which the government is now trying to introduce many of those recommendations through the back door, through one kind of notification or new forest policy. So without doing the whole package, they are introducing bits of it here. And in the coastal zone regulation in particular, there have been a series of amendments to the coastal zone regulations culminating in this new zone. And I think it is very significant that more than a dozen of these new amendments that the government has moved have not been put to public scrutiny. So you say that you are doing this for the public good, but by excluding the public. So you are not involving the public, you are not notifying the public that this is what we are planning to do, inviting objections, none of that has taken place. And in fact, the new notification specifically says that we do not need to do this process of public notification for most such amendments. So that means even in future, they don't need to notify in public, they don't need to invite amendments, they can just pass executive orders and do that. Of course, as you say, there are serious dilutions of the coastal zone regulations. The 100 meters has now become 50 meters and a range of activities have now been permitted in this. Infrastructure activities, ports to conform with the government's Sagarmala project. Infrastructure projects, pipelines, roads, all these are now permitted. You can easily do those kinds of projects. They have permitted mining of uranium, of thorium and specifically saying even if these resources are available elsewhere, you will be allowed to do this within the coastal zone. And they've also used this to introduce ecotourism activities right within 50 meters as if you can't do ecotourism 100 meters away from the coast, but you need to go right up to the shoreline to do it. And not just in the shore, but they've specifically allowed such projects even in mangrove areas which as you know are highly sensitive and are the first line of defence against cyclones and storm surges and so on. They've allowed that. They have said that if you cut down mangroves you have to plant three times the area but that is what I know the same. I was going to say precisely this is what they're doing with forests as well. They say you can cut down the forest provided you do five times that much compensatory afforestation but I could cut down a 100 year old or a 300 year old mixed forest and plant eucalyptus and they would be happy and the same thing will apply in mangroves as well. I think the key dilutions are not only that there is a dilution of the coastal zone regulations and thereby opening up the coasts for so-called developmental activities which in an era that we are going through now where coastal erosion is already taking place in significant measure will open this up more to coastal erosion, will further destroy livelihoods of fisher folk and others who are dependent on the coasts and promote ecologically destructive activities which are also going to weaken our defences against erosion rising sea levels which we know are going to happen with climate change you should in fact be thinking of having a buffer zone from the coast not constricting it from 100 to 50 but going from 100 to 200 so that you can build defences against sea level rise. The key argument given to defend these regulations is that this is for the sake of development so environment basically has to sort of looked as like put aside for the sake of development so how do we stress upon the importance of that what do we make, what do we say is more important? See this has been a very old and I would say a very varied argument. Any serious perspective on development would know that development must go hand in hand with environmental protection and conservation otherwise you will not have development like I just gave the example if I build on the coasts I promote development for let's say a hotel but I destroy the development of fish and folk so it's not just development which is being promoted but development for somebody against the development of somebody else that's one. Secondly what looks like development in the short term a few jobs in hotels some infrastructure there but paving the way for destruction of the coastline for entry of the sea further inland that hotel is likely to get washed away the best example I can give for this is we saw during the Uttarakhand floods a few years ago settlements which had come up townships which had come up along the river without proper environmental clearances or building clearances got swallowed up by the flooding Ganga and its tributaries so what looked like development two years ago would look like destruction and damage two years from now so it's a very short sighted view of development which does this counterposing of development and environment I think our viewers need to know that India is a signatory to many international conventions and treaties such as the sustainable development goals we are signatory to the Paris agreement on climate all of these treaties make it a point to stress that environment and development are two sides of the coin that you can't have one without the other that if you promote ecologically destructive development even that development will not last so thank you Raghu for joining us today in this discussion and thank you for watching this clip