Some forest questions

How should India manage its forests? This is a question, strangely enough, that is rarely asked and never really answered. And it would seem that there is no reason to ask, because there is no reason to worry about the state of the forests in the country. All is well on this front, says government.

And on the face of it, they seem to be right. The 2017 State of Forest Report — produced by the Survey of India and based on satellite imageries — finds that the forest cover is by and large stable: Between 2015 and 2017 a mere 0.21 per cent change is noted. Forests cover some 21.54 per cent of the land area of the country. The area, classified as “recorded” forests — the land under the control of the forest department — is some 23 per cent of the land area of the country. So, it would seem that the forest story is good news — but not so fast.

First, we need to understand where these trees are growing; second, we need to understand what the quality of that forest is that it is so stable.

According to the State of Forest Report, the definition of forest cover includes all lands more than 1 hectare in area with a tree canopy of more than 10 per cent, irrespective of land use, ownership, and legal status. In other words, this 21.54 per cent of forest cover includes trees growing in the government’s forestland and in private lands. It is not possible to say how much the area under forests in the “recorded” forests is, because not all state governments have completed digitising the boundaries of these lands. So, we don’t have a complete picture of the state of the forests in classified and protected forestlands.

As of today, according to the report, some 16 states have digitised the boundaries of their forests. This data, in fact, shows that states have “lost” substantial areas previously recorded as forests and are not “found” when the records are digitised. Almost 70,000 square km of forestland, roughly 12 per cent of the recorded forest area, has been wiped out in these 16 states. It becomes critical to complete the digitisation of boundaries across the country to know what the state of land under what is reserved or protected forests is.

Then there is the question of the quality of the forests. According to this assessment, of the 21.54 per cent of the land that is under forest cover, only 3 per cent can be classified as very dense — the tree canopy density of 70 per cent or more. Roughly 9 per cent of the land is moderately dense (40-70 per cent tree canopy), and another 9 per cent is open forest (10-40 per cent tree canopy density). The report also finds that between 2015 and 2017, the category of forests classified as “very dense” has increased by some 9,000 square km, while moderately dense forests have decreased and there is some increase in open forests. So, it would seem that the quality of forest cover has improved and “moderately dense” has been converted into “very dense”. Good news? Not so fast.

The reasons for the change, as reported, are varied — from improvement in satellite imageries, to protection, and to plantations outside the recorded forestlands. This then is the nub of the matter.

What are we protecting some 0.76 million square km of recorded forestlands for? What is their purpose? Is it to plant trees for productive purposes? In that case, who will plant and who will benefit — the forest department or village communities which live in these habitats? Or is India’s forestland for conservation purposes primarily — hands-off forestry, in other words? So, will we grow and cut trees, not in recorded forestlands, but in private lands? Questions not asked. Not answered.

But the 2017 report does provide important insights into what is happening today. According to its estimate, the annual production of timber from recorded forestlands is 4 million cubic metres and so most of the demand for timber is met from outside forest land or from timber imports, which are spiralling. The report also makes an assessment of the timber-growing potential in the country in lands outside recorded forests, which comes to some 74.5 million cubic metres. Compare this to the 4 million cubic metres, produced in the vast lands under the forest department and you will begin to understand who is actually growing trees and where.

In fact, almost 30 per cent of the growing stock — an indicator of forest health and productivity — is outside the “recorded” forests and this is increasing, faster than the growing stock in the lands controlled by forest department. The difference is the “nature” of tree species. While the growing stock in forests is mainly sal, teak, or pine — timber species, outside it is mango, coconut, neem, and bamboo — horticulture and plantation species. And this is when growing and cutting trees in India is a complicated business, with multiple permissions required to cut, to transport and to sell.

So, the question remains. What are forestlands meant for India? Let’s continue to discuss this.