Centre’s afforestation bill faces Rajya Sabha stumble
The Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) Bill listed for business in Rajya Sabha in the ongoing parliamentary session has been postponed to the monsoon session of Parliament.An amendment to the CAF Bill calling for greater participation of gram sabhas in decisions pertaining to the development of forest plantations under the proposed law.
Compensatory afforestation pertains to development of new forests to compensate for loss of existing forest area due to their transfer for non-forestry purposes, such as setting up of industries, building roads, etc. This is as per a provision under the Rules to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The ‘user agency’ which seeks the diverted forest land is rule-bound to provide the land or the funds to plant the trees. Currently, funds accumulated through the implementation of this provision are being managed by an ‘ad hoc’ authority set up by the Supreme Court.
The CAF Bill was passed by Lok Sabha on May 3, 2016. However, the current opposition in Rajya Sabha means that the Centre’s plans to spend nearly Rs. 42,000 crore under the afforestation programme now hang in the balance.
While on the face of it, developing forests through plantations might seem like an environment-friendly initiative, there appear to be several issues pertaining to this Bill which require closer attention.
What the Bill says:
Ø Establish a Compensatory Afforestation Fund under the Centre and the States for crediting monies received from various agencies under compensatory afforestation, penal compensatory afforestation, net present value (of forest) and all amounts recovered as per the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Ø The Fund is created as per Supreme Court ruling in 2002 in the Godavaram Thirumalpad vs. Union of India case
Ø Besides artificial regeneration (Plantations), the Fund shall also be utilised for undertaking assisted natural regeneration, protection of forests, infrastructure development, wildlife protection and other related activities
Ø An independent system of concurrent monitoring and evaluation be evolved and implemented through the Fund to ensure effective and proper utilisation
Ø A group of experts appointed by the Centre shall monitor the activities undertaken from amounts released from the Fund
Ø All funds realised from the user agencies involving cases of diversion of forest land in protected areas be used exclusively for undertaking protection and conservation activities in protected areas of the State including facilitating voluntary relocation from such protected areas
Timeline of the legislation
Ø The Bill was first introduced in Parliament in 2008 under the UPA government
Ø It passed in the Lok Sabha but was stalled in Rajya Sabha in 2009.
Ø The Bill was passed by the NDA government cabinet in April, 2015
Ø It was listed for discussion in the budget session of Lok Sabha and passed on May 3.
Ø An amendment proposed in the Rajya Sabha demanding that the informed consent with a 50 per cent quorum of the gram sabhas of all villages, within whose boundaries the proposed afforestation scheme/project/activity falls, be obtained. It was also demanded in the proposed amendment that such consent includes a certification that the process of implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 is complete in the proposed project area.
Ø The Bill now stands postponed
The objections to it
Ø According to the Campaign for Survival and Dignity, a civil society organisation working on tribal rights, this Bill allows states to plant a huge number of trees (or undertake other “forest management” projects) in natural landscapes – such as grasslands, natural open forests, grazing areas, common lands or people’s cultivated lands – without even checking if people have rights over them, and without consulting them about where they should be planted, what species should be planted, and what impact this will have on their lives.
Ø Plantations have been one of the major sources of conflict in forest areas, as forest bureaucrats routinely use them as a way to get more people’s land under their control, the organisation notes in its statement. As a result of loss of access to land, many tribal groups have been pushed to starvation, the organisation notes.
Ø The amendment moved by the opposition in Rajya Sabha will not block the spending of proposed afforestation funds but will only add one small check to ensure that people have one forum where they can defend their rights.
Ø The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in 2006 found that the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) funds are being spent on all kinds of activities; for instance, the Uttarakhand Forest Department was spending CAMPA funds on office equipment, vehicles, etc.
Conclusion:-
The Bill is necessary in the wake of the challenges of climate change which staring at our face with an unblinking eye.The sooner the bill becomes act , the better it is for the country , as time is not the luxury when the country is facing the scourges of climate change year after year.Mitigation – the faster the better.However, the aforementioned concerns should also be taken into account and a balance should be found between consent of the community and the authority of respective forest officials of the region so that the community and officials can work together.Community should not have expansive rights so that it becomes the ground for politics and works of afforestation are stalled , similarly state official should not have expansive rights , so that their hegemony is checked.What we don’t want in this process is neither the agenda of community being exploited for political reasons nor the state behaving as ‘know-it-all’ entity that does not give heed to the genuine concerns.Harmony is the key for this program to succeed and dissemination of environmental education can educate the concerned.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Petrol in India is cheaper than in countries like Hong Kong, Germany and the UK but costlier than in China, Brazil, Japan, the US, Russia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Bank of Baroda Economics Research report showed.
Rising fuel prices in India have led to considerable debate on which government, state or central, should be lowering their taxes to keep prices under control.
The rise in fuel prices is mainly due to the global price of crude oil (raw material for making petrol and diesel) going up. Further, a stronger dollar has added to the cost of crude oil.
Amongst comparable countries (per capita wise), prices in India are higher than those in Vietnam, Kenya, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. Countries that are major oil producers have much lower prices.
In the report, the Philippines has a comparable petrol price but has a per capita income higher than India by over 50 per cent.
Countries which have a lower per capita income like Kenya, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Venezuela have much lower prices of petrol and hence are impacted less than India.
“Therefore there is still a strong case for the government to consider lowering the taxes on fuel to protect the interest of the people,” the report argued.
India is the world’s third-biggest oil consuming and importing nation. It imports 85 per cent of its oil needs and so prices retail fuel at import parity rates.
With the global surge in energy prices, the cost of producing petrol, diesel and other petroleum products also went up for oil companies in India.
They raised petrol and diesel prices by Rs 10 a litre in just over a fortnight beginning March 22 but hit a pause button soon after as the move faced criticism and the opposition parties asked the government to cut taxes instead.
India imports most of its oil from a group of countries called the ‘OPEC +’ (i.e, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Russia, etc), which produces 40% of the world’s crude oil.
As they have the power to dictate fuel supply and prices, their decision of limiting the global supply reduces supply in India, thus raising prices
The government charges about 167% tax (excise) on petrol and 129% on diesel as compared to US (20%), UK (62%), Italy and Germany (65%).
The abominable excise duty is 2/3rd of the cost, and the base price, dealer commission and freight form the rest.
Here is an approximate break-up (in Rs):
a)Base Price | 39 |
b)Freight | 0.34 |
c) Price Charged to Dealers = (a+b) | 39.34 |
d) Excise Duty | 40.17 |
e) Dealer Commission | 4.68 |
f) VAT | 25.35 |
g) Retail Selling Price | 109.54 |
Looked closely, much of the cost of petrol and diesel is due to higher tax rate by govt, specifically excise duty.
So the question is why government is not reducing the prices ?
India, being a developing country, it does require gigantic amount of funding for its infrastructure projects as well as welfare schemes.
However, we as a society is yet to be tax-compliant. Many people evade the direct tax and that’s the reason why govt’s hands are tied. Govt. needs the money to fund various programs and at the same time it is not generating enough revenue from direct taxes.
That’s the reason why, govt is bumping up its revenue through higher indirect taxes such as GST or excise duty as in the case of petrol and diesel.
Direct taxes are progressive as it taxes according to an individuals’ income however indirect tax such as excise duty or GST are regressive in the sense that the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich have to pay the same amount.
Does not matter, if you are an auto-driver or owner of a Mercedes, end of the day both pay the same price for petrol/diesel-that’s why it is regressive in nature.
But unlike direct tax where tax evasion is rampant, indirect tax can not be evaded due to their very nature and as long as huge no of Indians keep evading direct taxes, indirect tax such as excise duty will be difficult for the govt to reduce, because it may reduce the revenue and hamper may programs of the govt.