The compensatory afforestation riddle
When news about the decision to fell more than 16,000 full-grown trees in Delhi broke last month, one question raised related to compensatory afforestation and the availability of land for it. The chairman of the National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited correctly pointed out that if compensatory plantation had not happened despite the company having deposited ~80 million with the Delhi government’s forest department, they could not be held responsible.
This reflects the ingrained problems in our laws and policies. Zooming out from Delhi, let us look at the present situation in forested and tribal-dominated states. Large tracts of forest are being diverted for mega infrastructure projects on the condition that forest loss will be compensated through afforestation with the money being collected from user agencies. Can the “polluters pay” model resolve environment- and landrelated concerns? Will money compensate for loss of forests? Where is the land?
The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Indian jurisprudence gave birth to the concept of Compensatory Afforestation (CA). This was at a time when India’s Supreme Court (1995) started playing a major role in matters of forest policy and its governance through the ongoing matter of T N Godavarman vs Union of India.
In 1999, a need was felt to develop a set of practices to compensate for the loss of forests. It was proposed that the “area” of forest lost be compensated by afforesting an “equal area” on non-forest land. In case non-forest land was not available, then degraded forest land that was “double the area of forests lost” had to be afforested. Eventually a price tag was put on forests which reduced them to a commodity. Seeds of conflict were already sown.
Introduction of new parameters on valuation of forest goods and services and concepts such as Net Present Value, created two categories — users and implementers or conservers (Kohli K, et al: Pocketful of Forests). Users, who were causing the forest loss, were required to pay monetary compensation and their roles ended. The implementers (state forest departments) were made responsible for afforestation.
In due course, it came to light that even when monies were deposited by the user agency, CA was not taking place on the ground. This led to the setting up of the Compensatory Afforestation Planning and Management Authority (CAMPA) at national and state level to manage these funds. The money, which was earlier deposited with the state government, came under the purview of the Centre. Later, in 2016, the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) Act was enacted.
In a nutshell, the whole principle reduced a “forest” to a “commodity which acquires certain area on the ground”. Its loss was deemed to be compensated financially. Its ecology, biodiversity and ecosystem services were completely ignored. Neither did it recognise the fact that land is finite, with multiple uses. Forests, as a natural resource and as a survival system for millions of rural people, became a non-issue.
In 2008, the Standing Committee on Science and Technology had raised an alarm that the CAMPA Bill seemed to be legitimising monetary compensation for diversion of forest land on the assumption that monetary compensation and plantations are substitutes for forest conservation. Later, the 2013 CAG audit report found that 11 out of India’s 30 states could not use more than 50 per cent of the funds released to them by the centre because the state forest departments lacked planning and implementation capacity. The report added that it was difficult to procure land for compensatory afforestation.
In 2006-17, some ~380 billion was deposited under the CAMPA fund by user agencies, of which only 32.2 per cent was released to the states. The utilisation rate was around 30 per cent in Odisha and Chhattisgarh. This situation is all the more worrisome for these states with high tribal populations, as a majority of the populace depends on forests for their livelihood and habitat. Even when Chhattisgarh spends around 30 per cent of its fund, activities such as creating oxyzones or parks in Raipur city are being taken up.
An analysis of diverted forest compensated by afforestation presents a similarly alarming picture. Between 2000 and 2018, Odisha and Jharkhand successfully compensated only 0.1 per cent of the actual forest area diverted. In Chhattisgarh it was negligible.
Cases of forcible plantations are regularly reported by communities. Community land, agricultural or community forest over which people have legal rights as per the Forest Rights Act, 2006, are being used for what is now being called forest plantations. Publicly available data indicate that ecologically unviable but commercially popular species like Eucalyptus are promoted.
The whole focus has shifted to spending money rather than arresting forest loss and ecological degradation. Funds have to be spent even if land is not available. Search for land made the MoEFCC issue a notification on November 8, 2017 to create a land bank for plantations to ensure expenditures.
We have come full circle and are back in the courts and tribunals, as CA funds are not being collected and utilised properly. The problem will persist if forest clearance processes, approvals and basic issues of forest governance are not addressed. While this merry-go-round continues, we are actually losing forests to trees.
The whole focus has shifted to spending money rather than arresting forest loss. Funds have to be spent even if land is not available. A notification last year sought to create a land bank for plantations to ensure that money is spent