Forest cover-up? Plantations, tree canopy included in definition

How much land in India is under forest cover? No one has a clue though the Government of India has been bringing out state of the forest reports every two years for two decades.

The latest report says the forest cover is around 20 per cent of the land in the country, 3 per cent less than the area under the forest departments.

But the fine print shows that the report does not make a distinction between tree cover, commercial plantations and natural forest cover. To qualify as "forest cover", the Forest Survey of India considers 10 per cent tree canopy area and one hectare. So, if a householder has, say, a hectare of coconut palm, his land would qualify as forest cover.

WOODS AND TREES Figures in million hectare
TOTAL FOREST COVER
67.71	(20.60)*
5.46	(1.66)*
VERY DENSE FOREST
33.26	(10.12)*
MODERATELY DENSE FOREST
28.99	(8.82)*
OPEN FOREST
(* % of geographical area)

The Forest Survey of India admits there is a problem. "There is an absence of boundaries for forest areas, so it is difficult to tell a forest from a plantation. What can we do if the state forest departments don't give us the forest boundaries?" said Saibal Sengupta, joint director of the Forest Survey of India.

Sengupta admits that the definition may include apple orchards or poplar, acacia or eucalyptus plantations. "We cannot do anything about it," he added.

Environment scientists allege that the failure to distinguish between tree and forest cover is designed

to cover up India's depleting forest cover.

A few days after the government released the latest report NGO Kalpavriksh complained that the report was silent on the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes.

"If the objective of the survey is to monitor how well the forest department is able to conserve the forests under its care, it is not achieved here," said Sharadchandra Lele, fellow and coordinator, Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore.

The survey, he added, goes against the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which says tea, coffee and rubber plantations should not be considered forests.

"So plantations under social forestry, acacia, eucalyptus and all the monoculture that forest departments promote in forest lands and what is done outside are being counted as forest. That is not what the law wants," Lele said.

Sengupta disagreed that this is dishonest or that the recording of state forest boundaries is taking too long.

"We are trying to get forest boundary data from various states. But these are not easy to get. State forest departments have to get records from the revenue departments and then recheck their boundaries. It takes time."

So far, four states have completed the process of digitalising the recording of forest boundaries, according to the report. There is no deadline for the other states.

"It is a tedious procedure for the state forest departments to get data, but many states are in the process of doing this. Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu are getting their data together and the information may be ready by the next survey," Sengupta said.

Sengupta also strongly denied accusations that the nation is being kept in the dark about its forest cover or the loss of forest land. He said if there is a loss of more than a hectare, the forest survey would know.

"The loss is mostly outside the recorded forest area. We can make out denudation," he said. This report, for instance, records forest losses through submergence from the Narmada dam.

Sengupta added the losses are mostly in the north east due to shifting cultivation. However, Madhu Sarin, an environment activist who was part of several sub-groups set up for the Eleventh Plan, said about 10 million hectares under shifting cultivation in the north east is included under forest cover because it is considered part of recorded forest area.

"The whole concept of recorded forest is a farce. It was area that was so named by the British in 1893 to distinguish it from privately-held land. What is the basis of these stupid claims but to gain control over community land? There is an urgent need to redefine all these terms that are being loosely used," she said.

She gave the example of Himachal Pradesh where 40 per cent of area is above the tree line and yet 66 per cent of area is declared as forest. "Even if you remove the entire population you can't have 66 per cent forest," she said.

For Lele this is more than just a slip in mixing up tree cover and forest cover. The survey does not disaggregate data by type – for instance, degraded tree cover, alpine grasslands, and teak, eucalyptus, rubber, coffee and tea plantations.

There are also issues over the values attached to each of these, the kind of forest produce, the grasses available in certain types of land. The report is not able to give any of this, Lele said.

The truth will not only depend on disaggregated data but on who provides the data. Lele cited the case of the first survey done by the National Remote Sensing Agency in 1982, which came out with a figure of 13 per cent forest cover.

This was debunked and the agency was banned from further surveys, said Lele. To be credible, an agency other than the forest department must conduct the survey, he added.