Planting more trees under ‘Compensatory Afforestation’ may replace the greenery but the exercise will not recreate the lost ecosystems
On the face of it, Compensatory Afforestation (CA) is a well-meaning policy that aims at saving the lush forests of India while enabling economic development. The CA law promulgated in 2016 mandates that every time forest land is diverted for non-forest purposes such as mining or industry, the user agency pays for planting forests over an equal area of non-forest land, or when such land is not available, twice the area of degraded forest land. Additionally, in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the entity responsible for such land diversion is also liable to contribute funds for establishing the compensatory forest fund. But of late CA has attracted negative attention in India mainly due to its lacklustre contribution towards achieving its goals.
The inherent flaw in CA makes it presume that cutting down an old-growth area that has created an ecosystem of its own can be compensated by planting young saplings elsewhere. Old-growth forests are complex ecosystems that mature without external interference, providing a home to rare and unique biodiversity while storing substantial amounts of carbon. Once felled, these trees release vast amounts of carbon back into the atmosphere. As compensation, usually, non-native trees that might not be suitable for the region are planted in their stead. The new plantation cannot compensate for the loss of carbon stocks and other ecosystem services in any realistic timeframe and are hazardous to the existing ecosystem.
In the last three years, the Niti Aayog proposed measures “to promote competitive spirit amongst the UTs to expedite the process of development.” As a part of this, ecologically sensitive regions were identified for projects involving forest land use change.
One such proposal was the `72,000 crore Great Nicobar Project which proposed a land use change of 166.10 sq km involving the felling of 8.5 lac trees. The project adversely impacted an area 78% of which is a pristine tropical forest with unique, endangered wildlife species. The project has already resulted in the denotification of Galathea Bay wildlife sanctuary and a part of a tribal reserve that directly threatened the survival of the indigenous Shompen and Nicobarese communities. The timely intervention of the National Green Tribunal thankfully resulted in a stay on the project.
The forests of the future depend a lot on how Compensatory Afforestation is implemented today. As part of its international climate change commitments, India has promised to increase its forest and tree cover to ensure that it can absorb an additional amount of 2.5 billion to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030. Forests are under stress due to the need for rapid industrial and infrastructure development, and accompanying urbanisation. In the last 10 years, more than 1,611 square km of forest land, a little more than the area of Delhi, has been cleared for infrastructure or industrial projects. Nearly a third of this — 529 sq km — has been cleared in the last three years.
According to T.V. Ramachandra, associate faculty, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, dense forest areas in northern, central and southern Western Ghats have decreased by 2.84%, 4.38% and 5.77% respectively over the last decade. Currently, up to 25,000 hectares of forests–250 sq. km, or more than twice Chandigarh’s area–are handed over every year for “non-forestry activities”.
This state of affairs can be remedied to an extent by planting more trees under CA, but a mere afforestation effort may replace trees but not recreate the lost ecosystems. This is the glaring deficiency at the heart of the CA concept that needs to be addressed quickly before more damage is inflicted on the environment in the garb of CA. Another issue plaguing the CA in India is the chronic misuse of funds. Despite the establishment of a dedicated fund for Compensatory Afforestation, it has failed to achieve its intended goals. The funds are not being used for the designated purposes and land is left without any afforestation.
The government must also revisit the system under which CA is conducted. Continuous evaluation and monitoring are a must during afforestation drives as so much can go wrong. For example, the survival rate of saplings is often extremely variable in new plantations, but all that is recorded are the number of saplings planted. Monitoring year on year is the key. It is never a 100 per cent success the way it is made out to be in official data. Compensatory afforestation as it exists now is inadequate for offsetting the loss of natural forests ecosystems and biodiversity. A working definition of forest is needed to accurately measure the success of the CA policy and to ensure that replanted forests are of suitable quality. Without this, the policy is likely to be nothing more than a whitewash, with little or no benefit to the environment and ecosystems will continue to be a casualty.
(The writer is a policy analyst)
