The report underscores the need for robust monitoring, effective execution of plantation drives and third-party certification of carbon stock to meet India’s climate commitments
Forest Survey of India has been releasing biannual reports on the status of Indian forests. The last report was released on December 31, 2021, and the current report which was due in December 2023, has been released after a year’s delay. The highlight of the report is that total forest cover has been increased from 7,15,187 square km (2021 assessment) to 7, 15,343 square km (current assessment), which is now 21.76 per cent of the total geographical area of the country. Also, the tree cover, which comprises trees along the linear infrastructures and also in agricultural fields up to one hectare is increased by 1289 square km, which is 3.41 per cent of the total geographical area of the country. The net increase of forest cover and tree cover is 1445 square km in two years period till 2023.
The increase in forest cover is a meager 156 square km. Among the states that have gained maximum increase in forest cover are Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Odisha. A maximum decrease in forest cover has been noticed in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Ladakh and Nagaland. Recorded Forest / Green Wash areas (RFA/GW) are the forests in control of the forest department. While Mizoram, Odisha, Karnataka, West Bengal and Jharkhand have added in RFA/GW areas and the forest cover has increased, Tripura, Telangana, Assam, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat have lost. It indicates that states are losing their recorded forests. Villages on the fringes of the forests have been burning tree growth and occupying forest land with the support of local leaders and to claim it under the Forest Rights Act, of 2006. Improper implementation of the Forest Rights Act, of 2006 can be attributed to the reason for the loss of forests for agriculture. All the states have been taking up ambitious plantation programmes to increase forest cover and tree cover. The degraded forest areas are being planted regularly.
Taking a conservative estimate, a minimum of 18,000 square km area is being planted annually in the country; should it not be reflected in this report? How can we justify a 7 square km increase in two years in RFA? It only indicates that deforestation and degradation are taking place at the same pace, we are planting the areas. Such an important report should contain an assessment of the success of plantations across the states. Forest cover outside RFA has increased in Gujarat, Bihar, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and Assam, while it has been lost in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Arunachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Loss of cover outside RFA is on account of the failure of the administration of the Revenue department of the state. States should put greater vigil on such forests.
These are the carbon sinks and in the era of a warming world, we cannot afford to plunder tree growth even outside RFA. The bright spot in the report is the success of the agroforestry programme. Most states have lost forest cover, but have gained in tree cover. This means that tree planting programmes on private lands/ community lands have been largely successful. Trees on government lands can be cut and destroyed, but the same cannot be done on private lands. In this period of two years, very dense forests increased by 3465.12 square km, while moderately dense forests and open forests have decreased by 1043.23 square km and 2480.11 square km respectively. Forest departments’ efforts in taking up plantations in open and degraded areas appear to have shown some success. A large chunk of open and degraded areas has been re-stocked, which has pushed it into the very dense forest category.
But a simple arithmetic indicates that 58 square km of forests have been lost. Most probably, several small plots taken from forests on the fringes of the villages must have been encroached on for agriculture and eventually community members had an intention to claim rights over it. Decadal changes in forest cover in Western Ghats eco-sensitive areas have also been brought out in the report. It is found that 58.22 square km of cover is lost in ten years. How can we forget the 30th July tragedy that struck Wayanad, Kerala? Nearly 500 humans were buried under landslide debris when they were asleep.
It also damaged roads, bridges, buildings and human houses. Landslides in portions of Karnataka and Maharashtra across the Western Ghats have disrupted lives and livelihoods. Losing 58 square km in ten years means losing nearly 6 square km annually. We need to mend our ways and cannot afford to lose any tree growth in such eco-sensitive areas. Mangroves in the country along the coastline protect against tsunamis, cyclones and Sea surges of any kind. The report indicates that out of 4991 square km of mangroves 7.5 square km is lost in two years. While Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra together have added 25 square km of mangroves, Gujarat has lost 36 square km. On the western coast Gujarat is the most vulnerable state against frequent and destructive cyclones, how can it afford to lose such a big chunk of mangrove forests?
Other coastal states are reportedly expanding their mangroves by taking up large-scale planting, but the report does not show any increase. There has to be an enquiry as to why mangrove plantation programs are failing. Another highlight of the report is that the growing stock of carbon in the forests is 7285 Mt, and comparing it with the 2021 report there is an increase of 81.5 Mt in two years. Thus our forests are adding 40.75 Mt of carbon annually, which is like 149 Mt of CO2 equivalent annually. Comparing it with the report of 2005, the growth in forests has created a carbon sink of 2.29 billion tons of CO2 equivalent compared to the 2005 level.
To contain the average global rise in temperature within 1.50 Celsius, we have committed in our nationally determined contribution to achieve a carbon sink of 2.5 to 3.0 billion tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030 in response to the Paris Climate Accord of 2015. We are on course to achieve the target well before 2030. I suppose we need a third-party assessment for carbon stock in our forests. Carbon credit has been quite a contentious issue and in several annual climate conferences, UNFCCC has failed to find a resolution. However, for the first time at Baku CoP 29, a resolution has been achieved. It has allowed countries to trade carbon credits – certified reductions of carbon emissions at prices determined as a consequence of emission caps imposed.
It has also been agreed that the operations of the carbon market would be supervised by the UN body. Strict UN control is needed, as a project proponent in the developed nation can pay for an afforestation project to absorb 1000 tons of CO2 in a developing nation where trees fail to put in desired growth and are unable to sequester the entire quantity of carbon credited. Therefore, the carbon sink created by us through our interventions in forest growth needs certification from the UN body. The report in future should take into account the plantation programs each state is implementing and measure the change in the cover concerning the success/ failure of plantations.
(The writer is retired Principal chief conservator of forests, head of Forest Force, Karnataka. Views expressed are personal)
