Chhattisgarh’s Forests at Risk; Over 15,000 Trees Cut

The Conflict Between Coal Mining and Environmental Conservation

Newsreel Asia Insight #137
Feb. 20, 2024

The situation in Chhattisgarh, where the Union and state governments have approved the second phase of mining operations in the Hasdeo Arand forest, highlights a significant conflict between economic development and environmental conservation. This decision has led to the cutting of over 15,000 trees, adding to the 81,000 trees felled since 2012 for coal mining purposes, according to the media outlet Article 14.

Activists believe the actual number of trees at risk is much higher, predicting that up to 399,000 more could be chopped down, Article 14 says. The Hasdeo Arand forest is deeply important to the Adivasi communities living there, for whom the forest is sacred, with trees worshipped as gods, and it’s essential for their daily living.

The prioritisation of coal mining over forest conservation and the wellbeing of Adivasi communities reflects a broader trend of prioritising short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability and social equity. Coal mining is seen as a way to boost economic development, provide energy security, and support industrial growth. However, it overlooks the ecological costs and the social impact on communities dependent on natural resources for their livelihood.

Impact

A 2021 study by the Wildlife Institute of India highlighted the consequences of deforestation, noting the loss would include “irreplaceable, rich biodiversity,” as much as 70% of the income for local Adivasis reliant on forest resources for essentials like food, fodder, fuel, and medicinal plants, along with the socio-cultural values of the region.

The deforestation has also intensified elephant-human conflict as a direct result of the deforestation, according to Article 14.

Elephants rely on extensive forested areas to meet their dietary needs and for migration. When large swathes of forest are cleared, elephants are forced to move greater distances in search of food, often leading them into areas inhabited by humans. This encroachment can result in the destruction of agricultural fields, damage to homes, and even lead to dangerous encounters between humans and elephants.

The conflict is further exacerbated by the fact that both elephants and humans compete for the same resources—land and water. As human activities expand into forested areas, the competition intensifies, leading to more frequent and severe conflicts. The situation is made worse by the fact that traditional strategies elephants use to cope with changes in their environment, such as migrating to new areas, are becoming increasingly difficult due to the expansion of human settlements and agricultural lands.

Community-Based Forest Management

What’s needed is adherence to community-based forest management (CBFM) systems, which empower local communities, particularly indigenous peoples, to manage and benefit from the forests on which they depend, while also ensuring the conservation of these ecosystems.

A successful example of a government implementing such a solution is the Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme in India, which was initiated in the early 1990s. The National Forest Policy of 1988, which laid the foundation for JFM, was formulated during the tenure of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, but the formal guidelines for implementing JFM were issued in 1990, when V.P. Singh was the Prime Minister.

Under JFM, the forest department and local communities form partnerships, typically formalised through the creation of Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs). These committees are responsible for the protection, regeneration, and management of designated forest areas. In return for their efforts in conservation and protection, communities are granted certain rights to use forest products, such as non-timber forest products, and share in the benefits from timber harvests, ecotourism, and other forest-based economic activities. 

Criticism

While the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which governs the central and Chhattisgarh governments, claims to maintain the JFM programme as part of its forest management strategy, critics have raised several concerns.

Critics argue that the BJP government has sought to simplify environmental regulations to promote industrial and infrastructural development. This includes amendments to the Forest Conservation Act and environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures, which could weaken protections for forests and biodiversity, making it easier for mining, industrial projects, and infrastructural developments to proceed with less stringent environmental oversight.

There is concern that the government’s approach to forest management and land acquisition for development projects has adversely affected indigenous and local communities. For example, the implementation of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) Act of 2016 has raised several concerns among environmentalists, indigenous groups, and human rights advocates about its impact on indigenous and local communities’ rights and access to forest lands.

The government’s push for afforestation and reforestation projects has been criticised for favouring commercial plantations over the restoration of natural forests. Critics argue that such plantations, often consisting of monocultures, do not provide the same ecological benefits as natural forests and can adversely affect biodiversity. There is also concern that these plantations are sometimes established on lands traditionally used by indigenous peoples, leading to displacement and loss of livelihoods.

Critics also say that the implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006, which aims to recognise and secure the land rights of tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers, has been slow and inconsistent.

While the government has initiated several conservation projects, critics point out a conflict between conservation goals and the approval of large-scale development projects that threaten critical habitats. The approval of projects in ecologically sensitive areas, including wildlife corridors and protected areas, has raised concerns about the long-term impact on India’s biodiversity.