From Live Mint: Dodgy numbers, a ‘flexible’ approach to the facts and self-serving definitions beginning with how “forest cover” itself is actually defined. This is what accounts for the unanimous skepticism among ecologists and other experts of the “growth” in India’s forest cover, claimed by the recently released India State of the Forest Report 2019.
India added to its green cover, but the numbers are questionable
The India State of the Forest Report 2019 released earlier this month once again placed India among the few countries in the world showing a consistent rise in its forest cover—a trend which aligns well with its ambitious climate action targets. Yet, it has the ecologists concerned.
The assessment carried out biennially shows India’s forest cover has increased by 3,976 sq. km since 2017—a rise of 0. 56%. Tree cover—tree patches of size less than one hectares outside the recorded forest areas, also showed a rise, albeit a little higher at 1.29%.
India’s total forest and tree cover now stands at 80.73 million hectares—roughly 24.5% of its geographical area, and still far from the eventual target of 33%, which India has committed to raise to, by 2030.
But, just like its previous editions, the report seems to have tip-toed around several pertinent issues surrounding forests that ecologists have raised over the years—beginning with how “forest cover” is actually defined in the survey.
Forest Survey of India defines forest cover as “all patches of land, with a tree canopy density of more than 10% and more than one hectare in area, irrespective of land-use, ownership and species of trees”—an assessment relying majorly on satellite mapping.
“If we stick to definition, then any fruit garden, coconut or coffee plantation, or even urban parks would come under ‘forest cover’. So, what we get is an incomplete picture of our forests. This is disconcerting, because if we do not know, how much area we have under ‘natural forests’, we will never know what is happening in our biodiversity-rich Western Ghats or Himalayan forests,” said N.H. Ravindranath, professor, Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore.
Satellite mapping also fails to give any insight into the quality of these forests or its biodiversity, even as the government revelled in the “numbers”, showing a rise in forest and tree cover. Also, despite swathes of forest land being converted for non-forest use each year, the ‘losses’ do not reflect in the report.
“We have evidence how several thousand hectares of land is being diverted for non-forest use, taking away lakhs of trees. But the report misses that point. It rather takes a myopic view of who is damaging the forests, by putting the onus on forest-dwelling communities who are dependent on forests for fuelwood or small timber. The big impact areas—the diversion of forest land for roads, dam projects— has been completely disregarded,” said Kanchi Kohli, researcher, New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research.
Kohli is referring to FSI’s new study to assess the dependence of people, living in over 170,000 ‘forest fringe villages’, on forests for fuelwood, fodder, small timber and bamboo, which according to the report, could be a “major driver of impairment of forest productivity”.
Experts also argued that the compensatory plantation done to replace the original, natural forests during diversion of forest-lands for projects have so far yielded no impactful results. Some of these new areas were even earmarked for other projects or expansion of existing ones, even though they remain under government’s Recorded Forest Area (extent of forests in terms of legal status).
“The problem lies in how ‘forests’ are defined in government records. Instead of just canopy cover or hectares, the need is to focus on what is a ‘thriving forest’ or an ‘ecosystem’. What we need is an ecosystem restoration and its time that FSI reorients itself to it,” said Harini Nagendra, professor of sustainability, Azim Premji University, Bangalore.
Also, what we need is real time spatial data of our forest land, she added. “The technology has existed for a long time, then why not share those maps in real time so we know where we are losing our forests.”
Changing climatic conditions have thrown newer challenges. Forests are sink and reservoirs of carbon, thus critical in adaptation to climate change. As part of its climate action plan, India has committed to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5-3 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent through additional forest cover and tree cover by 2030. However, the existing forests too are facing risk of climate change and loss of biodiversity.
Any afforestation activity undertaken must include an adaptation programme because it is futile planting new trees, which will be adversely impacted due to climate change, said climate scientists. “Land is limited. Our priority must be to protect our existing natural forests and their biodiversity, safeguard the ‘protected areas’ and ‘eco-sensitive zones’ through community involvement and stop the fragmentation of forests—especially a problem in the North-East where forest cover is declining—so that forest areas remain connected to form one big habitat,” said Ravindranath.
K.N. Ninan, Deccan Herald
Given that we are living in an era when statistics are being withheld, managed or fudged to paint a rosy picture of the economy and the environment, one does not know how dependable the FSI data is. FSI is unable to clarify as to how much natural and pristine forests survive in the country.
Pradip Krishen: In Delhi lies a forest uprooted
Is it too much to expect that a Forest Department respond appropriately to the character of a natural habitat in order to plant new species suitably? Why is it that some 170 years after we started training foresters, we still have a cadre that knows and cares so little about natural habitats?
A blow from an axe: Ramachandra Guha on India’s new forest policy
Ramachandra Guha, The Telegraph
Both social equity and environmental sustainability are critical to our republic’s future. The present government seems bent on reversing the modest gains of the past three decades by making the corporate sector, once more, the key beneficiary of State forest policies. This is the inescapable conclusion one reaches after reading the ‘Draft Forest Policy, 2018’.
Civil Society Response to Draft National Forest Policy 2018
Through the existing Forest Policy of 1988 and FRA 2006, has the required correct perspectives towards forest management by providing ownership and management to adivasis and other traditional forest dwellers, and in that sense, prioritized its forest policy thrust in a win-win approach for forests/wildlife and adivasis/traditional forest dwellers. State-managed forestry and revenue maximization by industry have already been relegated to a backseat and rightly so. In such a context, it is unclear why we need a new revised policy at all and why the forest department cannot work through the local institutions that FRA operates through.
NDA 2.0: What it means for India’s environment
Activists fear dilutions of the green laws and rules against the interests of forest dwellers and tribals would continue unabated. The union environment already has, on its table, an amendment in the Indian Forest Act 1927, revision of the national forest policy and the new set of rules for the environment clearance regime.
(Visited 192 times, 1 visits today)