The private forestry plan must square with Forest Rights Act

The Union government recently amended the statutory guidelines under the Van (Sanrakshan evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, to allow private entities to lease forest land for plantation activities.

- Gautam Aredath

Practices that were treated as “non-forestry” — because they alter the natural composition of forests and diminish biodiversity, especially when they involve commercially oriented monoculture for timber and pulpwood — are now reclassified as forestry activities, provided they conform to forest working plans. These plans, prepared by state forest departments, prescribe how forests are to be managed but still reflect a colonial legacy geared towards optimising tree growth for timber. By exempting plantation activities from the compensatory obligations imposed on non-forestry uses of forest land (i.e., payment of the forest's net present value and equivalent afforestation on non-forest land), the amendment substantially lowers the cost of private entry. It is, thus, expected to benefit industries such as paper and pulp, which increasingly rely on imports.

As a kind of balancing act, though not without contradiction, the government has also framed this as an opportunity to scale up the restoration of degraded forests.

That justification is hardly persuasive. The government does not lack funds for restoration, with substantial allocations often remaining unspent. A more plausible rationale is the expectation that non-government actors might bring new, socio-ecologically appropriate approaches into a field long monopolised by State agencies. Yet the insistence on strict compliance with existing working plans leaves little room for correction or innovation. The implementation frameworks that states are expected to develop may provide further clarity, but the amendment’s emphasis on revenue-sharing models already points to commercial, rather than ecological, priorities.