India's forest cover rises, but flawed definitions mask biodiversity loss

The big picture in the biennial India State of Forest Report (ISFR), released a year late, suggests that the country’s forest cover is in good shape. According to the report, India’s forest and tree cover has reached 25 per cent of the country’s geographical landmass. The report also shows an increase in forest cover by 156 square km in the country over 2021. Union Minister for Environment Bhupender Yadav emphasises that India has augmented its carbon sink to 2.29 billion tonnes over 2005 levels. This is well ahead of India’s Paris Agreement commitments of creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 billion tonnes by 2030. A more granular look at the report suggests that there are multiple problems that should dim some of the optimism here.

 

First, though 25 per cent forest cover sounds impressive, the fact is that this still falls short of what was prescribed by the National Forest Policy of 1988 — 33 per cent for optimum ecological stability. But the authenticity of this coverage remains open to doubt because of the flexible definition of “forest”, an age-old issue that environmentalists have raised time and again. The Forest Survey of India defines forest as land covering at least one hectare and with a tree cover density of 10 per cent. This enables the ISFR, which started in 1987, to include plantations — orchards, bamboo, and so on — in the definition of forest cover. There are two problems associated with such inclusions. One, conservationists point out that plantations lack the deadwood and underground biomass development (leaf mulch and so on) that are also key sources of carbon sequestration. Two, plantations are a hindrance to sustaining biodiversity, which also plays a critical role in arresting climate change. Including plantations, therefore, is an inefficient way of measuring forest cover and it also acts as an alibi for the massive deforestation. In Arunachal Pradesh, for instance, large swathes of pristine forests are being cut down under the radar to accommodate palm plantations as part of the government’s quest to achieve self-sufficiency in palm oil. Ironically, the ISFR records Arunachal Pradesh as the state with the second-largest green cover, Madhya Pradesh being the first. Again, as environmentalist Ravi Chopra has pointed out, much of the increase in tree cover has taken place outside designated forest areas. This apart, being a netted-out figure, the overall expansion of forests and tree cover also disguises the fact that significant losses have been recorded in the Northeast (323.7 square km lost), and the Western Ghats and eastern states (58.22 square km), all regions rich in biodiversity.

 

A less specious definition of forest would offer policymakers and ecologists a more authentic picture of India’s forest cover. This is becoming increasingly critical following amendments last year to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Among those excluded from the purview of the Act are lands within 100 km of India’s border for national-security projects, small roadside amenities, and public roads leading to a habitation and, bizarrely, zoos, eco-tourism facilities, and reconnaissance surveys. This immediately threatens the fragile ecologies of India’s north and Northeast. Set against India’s growing reliance on coal as an engine of economic growth, a more realistic assessment of the country’s carbon sink is an urgent necessity.