Manmade plantations outside recorded forests do serve economic purposes but their long-term sustainability is questionable
When one thinks of a forest, the spotlight shines on the preservation of genetic diversity, untapped medicinal potentials of flora, and the aesthetic appeal of a multi-hued ecological entity. For scientists, conservationists, and the public at large, the debate between monoculture and biodiversity in forest plantations isn't just academic. A forest ecosystem is not just a collection of organisms; it's a meticulous web of interactions influenced by the environment. The forest floor and its vegetation play a pivotal role in recycling nutrients, thus ensuring the system's post-disturbance resilience. At its core, the crux of the matter remains sustainability. A sustainable forest retains its ecological services and maintains its ecosystem, despite human interference.
As per the Forest Survey of India’s 2021 report, India has recorded a slight increase of 31 sq. km. forest cover within its recorded forest area. The qualitative analysis, however, reveals that within the total recorded forest area of the country, there has been an alarming decline of 1582 sq. km. in moderately dense forests and an increase of 2621 sq. km. and 5320 sq. km. respectively in the categories of open forest area and scrub area. An increase of 1509 sq. km., however, is reported outside recorded forests. Agricultural land diverted for forest plantations often gets rich in terms of ecological niches. In stark contrast, natural forests degraded or converted into monoculture plantations lose their rich tapestry of life. India has seen a rise in plantations along roads, rails, and canals, sometimes replacing indigenous vegetation. One also finds instances of grassland ecosystems planted up under various Government programmes while riding the wave of ‘greening’, to create a record in tree planting.
Outside recorded forest areas, plantations are generally characterized by the cultivation of a single or selected few species primarily for commercial purposes such as timber, pulp, fuelwood, fodder, etc. While these monocultures can bring economic benefits, they come with significant environmental implications, especially concerning biodiversity. One of the immediate impacts of establishing such plantations is the loss of native plant species although there are some cases reported where many native species do spring up with time albeit in smaller quantums. Plantations often fragment existing natural habitats and significantly impact species that require larger territories or specific migratory routes or rely on a varied diet and nutritional diversity provided by biodiverse environments. Monocultures can become breeding grounds for pests and diseases specific to the planted species and with no natural predators or competitors, these pests can thrive, often leading to the use of chemical pesticides, which further harm the ecosystem. Further, monoculture scan deplete specific nutrients from the soil, reducing its fertility over time, impacting the regulation of the water cycle, and disrupting local water tables. Carbon sequestration by monoculture plantations is also less as compared to biodiverse areas.
The history of forest management in India shows that well-developed principles of silviculture aided its conservation strategy. Harvestable volume from the area under management was kept equal to the annual increment put on by the forest. Well-established silvicultural systems provide the choice of management tool depending on the selected objective of management duly considering the species, nature density of crop and requirement of produce for feeding the economy as well as for meeting local people’s needs. Respecting the carrying capacity of forests was non-negotiable.
The calculations prescribing yearly outturns presumed that the forests will be well protected with no illegal removals of forest produce. Plantations were taken up in the forest areas to supplement natural regeneration and improve the productivity of degraded patches. The domestic requirements of tribal and poor people being the first charge on forest produce as per the Forest Policy 1988, any deficit of such material was prescribed to be met by raising plantations outside forest areas. The system sustained till the ever-increasing population’s anthropogenic impact went beyond the carrying capacity of forests. The demands on the forests to meet economic as well as local people’s needs coupled with a fast attrition of control systems, however, marred the success of scientific forestry principles on the ground. Insistence on professional management of forests and wildlife and strict application of control systems were touted as attempts to continue its hegemony by the forestry sector even though it was an attempt to address the issues of Human-forests and human-wildlife interfaces becoming increasingly complex with time.
Sustenance of forests and biodiversity to additionally maintain the related eco-services for a much wider set of stakeholders required a highly researched and updated robust forest management system. The response, however, came in the form of a move towards the democratisation of forestry. During the 1990s the concept of participatory forest management was mooted and later; the idea of getting management done solely by village communities was brought in through the Forest Rights Act 2006 and state-specific Rules under the PESA 1996. The management of forests, wildlife, and minor forest produce along with management plan preparation for the areas in their vicinity is mandated to be done by village communities and overseen by Gram Sabhas. The Forest Rights Rules 2012 notified by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs precludes the forestry sector’s participation in the matter.
In effect, India’s erstwhile landscape-based forest and wildlife management that supported widespread ecosystems, large-range wildlife and biodiversity continuums, watersheds, and mega catchments is getting converted into a collage of village-specific micro-units of forest management as decided by the local communities. The legislation and guidelines by some state tribal departments have gone to direct that the village-level micro-plans shall override the provisions of landscape-based working plans of the forestry sector. Even though a majority of the currently recognized management rights are not in compliance with provisions, the conditions created by such changes are likely to be detrimental to biodiversity conservation. Intensive silviculture can coexist with enhanced biodiversity but that demands an evolved silvicultural system, ecosystem-specific goals, and a landscape-level approach. These requirements unfortunately are not fulfilled by the latest framework prescribed for forest management in the country.
Man-made plantations outside recorded forests serve essential economic purposes, but their long-term sustainability is questionable given their detrimental impact on biodiversity and ecosystems. However agroforestry, biodiversity corridors within plantations, optingfor mixed-species, interspersing long-rotation crops between short-rotation ones, retaining original vegetation patches or introducing a variety of shrubs and trees, keeping wider spacing and thinning to enhance both floral and avian diversity, abstaining from herbicides to bolster the invertebrate population, preserving large trees to provide habitats for avifauna, and preserving woody debris post-fellingsto amplify amphibian and invertebrate diversitycan be some viable and effective approaches towards biodiversity conservation even in areas outside the recorded forests.
In a country already battling with the challenges of water crisis, environmental degradation, and climate change, the details contained in the FSI’s 2021 report simply indicate the need for a complete paradigm shift in India’s approach towards forest and biodiversity conservation. The future lies in finding innovative solutions that marry the two objectives of economic utility and conservation to ensure that development does not come at the planet's expense.
(The writers are Former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, UP and Maharashtra, views are personal)
