06/06/2014
INDIA EXAGGERATING GREEN COVER, STUDY FINDS
On World Environment Day, this could be worrying news for the new environment minister. A study by forest researchers from the Indian Institute of Science (IISC) has concluded that India could be grossly "over-reporting" its forest cover.
The researchers say that the existing forest cover, in reality, may be what the Forest Survey of India had reported back in 1997. This is because, they say, a large area that the government has been including under the forest category actually comprises commercial plantations, including those for coffee, arecanut, cashew, rubber, fruit orchards, parks and gardens.
The reason behind this, the study claims, is that India's ambiguous definition of the word 'forest' which doesn't differentiate between tree cover on agricultural land and natural forests.
The Forest Survey of India (FSI) defines forest cover to be "all lands more than one hectares in area, with tree canopy density of more than 10%, irrespective of ownership and legal status". This definition could well mean that manmade forests or monocultures (farmland used to grow only one type of crop) are being considered forests.
"If plantations are being included in forest area, it has huge implications for biodiversity and may even change the way we look at forests," said NH Ravindranath, lead author of the study.
The FSI has been reporting a steady increase in forest cover — from 63 million hectares (mha) in 1997 to 69mha in 2011. But to verify the exact area under natural forests which can represent biodiversity, the team of researchers gathered data of area under various plantations from the agriculture ministry.
It put together all probable monocultures that may be being reported as forests and found this to together measure 8.79mha or 12.7% of our total forest area. They also calculated the year-wise increase in the area under plantations, which also showed a steady increase. The increase in plantation area may be even masking deforestation in India.
"Inclusions of plantations of eucalyptus, casurina and poplar under forest area is questionable from a conservation perspective. India could be potentially under-reporting deforestation by reporting only gross forest area," the study concludes.
"Our afforestation rates could be higher than deforestation rates, showing a continuous increase in forest cover," the study points. TOI had ealrier reported about a study by Ravindranath on April 19, 2012, that found that FSI's method of reporting forest cover was masking deforestation to a large extent.
The current study raises doubts about India's tall claims about afforesting 1 mha every year.
"India has been implementing one of the largest afforestation programmes in the world and annually between 1 and 1.5 mha has been afforested since 1980. Large investment is going into afforestation programmes in India and it is not clear how much of the planted area has survived and matured into forests," Ravindranath said. The team suggests the government modify the current forest area reporting format.
