(Above): Deforestation in India, West Bengal.

As India’s seeks to contribute to slowing down the pace of climate change by aiming to enhance its total forest cover (TFC) to 33 percent of its entire geographical area, the latest India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2019, released Dec. 30, 2019, by Union Minister of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) Prakash Javadekar, throws up with a delightful data indicating an expansion in its forest cover, both very dense and moderately dense, by 3,976 square kilometers (sq km), a jump of 0.56 percent since 2017, writes Priyanka Bhardwaj.

At present, the country’s TFC stands at 80.73 million hectares or 712,249 sq km, taking it to 24.56 per cent from 21.54 per cent in 2017, and leading states in this expansion story are Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, reporting increases of 1,025 sq km, 990sq km and 823 sq km respectively.

This report which forms the second part of biennial surveys follows the first that had also registered a steady rise, by over 1,275 sq km, and taken together add up to an increase of 5,188 sq km.

In the overall picture, the largest forest covers are to be found in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Maharashtra, while Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur and Nagaland top the charts in terms of density of forest cover.

Deducing from these digital data that were corroborated by a variety of “ground truthing” sources, to hone in the accuracy of the massive exercise, the total carbon stock in country’s forest may be estimated at 7,124.6 million tons (mt), a rise of 42.6 mt since 2017.

Despite these satisfying figures, conservationists’ concerns over crisis in data-interpretation and fluidity in growth pattern of forests, underpin the belief that the Indian forest chapter is definitely not out of the woods.

Very Dense Forests (VDFs), Moderately Dense Forests (MDFs) and Open Forests (OFs, which also include commercial plantations) are those that afford canopy densities of over 70 per cent, 40-70 per cent and 10-40 per cent respectively, and occupy 99,278 sq km (3.02 per cent0, 3,08,472 sq km (9.39 per cent) and 3,04,499 sq km (9.26 per cent).

A comparative analysis of recent surveys with those of preceding years betrays a consistent loss of MDF areas, by 3.8 per cent in last decade, to OFs that appear to have increased by 5.7 per cent, perhaps on account of the human factor and urban sprawl as they lie closest to human habitation.

Then in the case of VDFs, significant markers of the quality of forests as they absorb maximum carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, increases have been a mere 1.114 per cent between 2017 and 2019, as compared to a substantial one, by around 14 per cent, between 2015 and 2017.

As natural forests qualify differently from thickets of weeds such as juliflora or lantana, and commercial monocultures such as palm, coconut, rubber etc with regard to their carbon uptake, the data fails to qualify changes in biodiversity, how and why these changes occurred.

Another drawback is that the satellite-generated data is bleak in accounting the legal conversion of 49,583 hectares of forests for construction of industries, mines, dams, ports roads, real estate and other infrastructure projects promoted by central and state dispensations, an infamous case being the felling of over 130,000 trees for the expansion of 1,038.18 hectare Talabira coal mine in Odisha.

Moreover, since the sat-images do not assess what happens to the land after the forest on it is lost, it offers no indication of whether the loss is likely to be permanent or forests could regrow over time.

Of course even if forest regrowth were to occur, it is an established fact that the full range of biodiversity and ecosystem cannot be restored, as seen with the restriction of many flora and fauna species only in remaining intact forests.

Other critiques are the recent classification of tree covers with 10 per cent canopy densities as forests (“green cover”) without distinguishing their ecological functionality concerning prevention of soil erosion, retaining moisture or supporting wildlife, and, inclusion of “trees outside forest areas” in the tree-inventory.

A major shortcoming of the forest governance practices of the current central government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is its erroneously designation of “advasi” (tribal) or “forest fringe village’ as primary agents of decadence of forests, and thus their eviction in the name of conservation and abrogation of their forest land rights, vis a vis the official forest regulators who have had questionable records in control and monopolies, and have time and again ruled in favour of the Big Industry.

A purported political fallout may have been BJP’s recent loss in the Jharkhand assembly elections, a tribal dominant state, where it could retain only 25 seats in 2019, compared to 37 in 2014, as against the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (in alliance with the Congress) that raised prominent issues such as anti-tribal land and forest policies implemented by the BJP government, its proposed amendments to Indian Forest Act, threat of eviction of tribals due to the Supreme Court order, illegal diversion of forests for projects, illegal land acquisitions, non-implementation of the Forest Rights Act that has been into effect since 2006, all that have a direct impact on the tribals and marginalized sections of the state.

Therefore, the need of the hour is to integrate the acumen of tribals who have successfully managed forests habitats since prehistoric times and have been the best conservationists all over the world, with urban and scientific management of forests and environment, and usher in improvement in governance and transparency in forest-protection drives.

Even as narratives will remain unresolved, the country’s administration must take a longer view of course-correction – halting the onslaught of construction, industry or human encroachment in virgin forests, not rolling back protection regimes, and incorporation of the tribal worldview that “humans can regenerate forests and not create them” in letter and spirit, to not only end deforestation but also allow for a rapid and resurgence of natural tree cover that will surge the capacities to adapt and increase resilience to climate change.

December’s UN climate talks held in Madrid Spain, were aptly titled “Time For Action” as there is little time to spare to avert the catastrophic climate change, the aim should be to get down to increasing the ambition of the nationally determined contributions by reducing deforestation critical to reducing carbon emissions.

For voters and the international community it will make sense to examine the policies and delivery of governments of the day to encourage them towards a sustainable green environment and a prospectively much stronger financial future.