Quantity not quality

The marginal one per cent rise in India’s forest and tree cover, now constitutes 24.39 per cent (although falling short of the 33 per cent target) of the total geographical area of the country. What is important, however, is to ensure that the right kind of trees are planted. There is no use of planting non-native and invasive trees like teak, eucalyptus etc and still claim to have increased “forest cover”, while the intention is to harvest and sell timber from them. Native trees like peepal, neem, banyan etc that are known for giving oxygen and purifying the atmosphere are the ones that ought to be planted. Sincere public participation is also essential.

Take the case of Bhutan. It offers a valuable lesson in advantages of enhancing forest cover. By constitutionally maintaining a minimum forest cover of 60 per cent of the total land area and banning timber-logging, the country, from the resultant generation of oxygen, has been able to “outweigh” it’s carbon dioxide emissions, thus becoming the world’s first “carbon-negative” country. An increasingly urbanising and economically growing India that is claiming more and more forest areas (for instance, Amaravathi in Andhra Pradesh) for development purposes, should emulate Bhutan. In fact, the 14th Finance Commission has added maintenance of forest cover as the new devolution criterion or incentive for funds to states.

C V Krishna Manoj Hyderabad