At COP21, India committed to increase its
forest cover to 33 percent of total land area in order to create carbon sinks
that would reduce carbon emissions. Currently 24.56% of the land area is under
forest or tree cover. The National Mission for a Green India (GIM) is dedicated
to achieve this target. At the COP26 summit, India declared its
ambitious commitment to achieve Net Zero emissions by 2070.
Surprisingly there is no mention of any attempt to utilize carbon sinks-India’s
tropical forests to reach emission targets.
Dilution of forest legislation:
There has been a trend of increasingly confusing
proposal for changes to India's forest legislation- confusing because of the
blatant use of doublespeak. While retaining the original essence of the
old policies, there is an attempt to introduce contradicting edits. One of the
first was the ominous proposal to amend the Indian Forest Act, 1927 that
gave more power to the forest department authorities-even to use firearms.
After vehement opposition, this proposal was dropped but the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has again expressed
intentions to amend the act. It aims to decriminalize minor
violations of law, promote people participation and ease of doing business
The National Forest Policy, 1988 describes a lofty
mandate of maintaining environmental balance for the sustenance of all life
forms. Direct economic benefit was considered secondary. In the 2018
draft of a revised National forest policy the focus is less on forests and more
on carbon storage related processes which means little to the wildlife and
indigenous people inhabiting forests. We must remember that “green cover” is
not synonymous to forest. A forest is a composite of biotic (including humans)
and abiotic factors that evolve over thousands of years and it is essential to
preserve this equilibrium. You may like trees around your houses but won’t be
very happy with tigers staying there. Urban greening, social forestry and
private afforestation programmes are definitely welcome but should not be
included in the definition of forests as they cannot be inhabited by wild
animals and indigenous tribes.
The draft National Forest Policy also
emphasizes on the need to carefully examine any diversion of forest land for
non-forest activities based on social and environmental costs and benefits. It
further talks about regulating felling of trees on private
holding. Yet the proposed amendments to Forest Rights Act (FRA), 1980 are
an antithesis to proposed National Forest Policy, 2018.
The amendments to FRA propose to exempt lands
under seven categories from the purview of the Act in order to expediate
developmental projects related to security, roads and railways, and forestry
and tourism related activities. As per FRA, 1980 to carry out non-forest
activities in the above mentioned situations, stakeholders needed to obtain
permissions, and pay a fee or provide alternative land for afforestation. The
amendments are proposed to ease and quicken time taken for developmental
progress thereby reducing opportunity costs.
Yet, a complete exemption implies no regulation, no
measure to ensure little or no effect of non-forest activities on wildlife or
forest dwellers of sensitive areas. According to MoEFCC data,
the FCA has been effective in preventing deforestation: Between 1951 and
1976, 1.6 lakh hectares of forest area was diverted every year for non-forest
activities which reduced to 32,000 hectares between 1980 and 2011.
Diluting this important legislation would erase the progress made till now.
What is the percentage of currently forested land that might be diverted under
these exemptions and how does it affect India’s goals for forest cover, carbon
sequestration, tribal rights and wildlife protection? It would be irresponsible
to proceed with the amendments without such estimations and projections.
Are we on target to reach our
forest conservation goals?
There is undue importance given to the role of
forests in conservation of water. Water related issues in India such as drying
up of rivers and depleting ground water are caused by dams, water pollution and
over exploitation and it’s more prudent to address these issues. Though
protected forest areas are referred to as a network, there is no mention of the
need to enhance connectivity amongst forest areas. India’s protected areas are
disconnected with intervening large tracts of human dominated landscapes.
Another commonality in the different changes in
forest related legislations is the attempt to reduce power of states and
transfer to the Centre. Any shift in power should be towards the governing
bodies at grassroots. It is high time India empowers the district and state
level authorities to pass by laws as required for local situations.
A holistic forest policy would aim at i) protecting
existing forests, ii) improving forest quality and connectivity and iii) ensure
forest dwellers have full access to their ancestral land. To preserving the
existing forests requires keen scrutiny on part of the authorities. It is
important to understand the opportunity costs of deforestation for economic
benefits. Economic value of deforestation is low compared to its detrimental
effect on agriculture, global climate and trophic structure of ecosystems.
Monoplantations and forests degraded by invasive species do not function the
same way as pristine forests and are expected to be less effective in attaining
sustainability goals on a per area square basis. Discontinuous forests lead to
habitat loss, loss of genetic diversity of biotic components and increased
danger to human life from wildlife-animal conflicts. Lastly, it is important to
remember that human communities inhabiting forest areas since centuries are a
part of the definition of forests. They fall under the poorest fraction of
India and protecting forests on their terms is essential for poverty
alleviation in India.
India need not stick to the colonial area goal
of 1/3rd forest cover nor is it correct to
cite the 'sustainability does not go
with development' adage. A better goal would be to conserve
1/3rd of India's wild habitat which would include grasslands, coral reefs,
marine and freshwater bodies , mangroves and mountains. India definitely needs
to stick to sustainable development goals as the effects of
climate change would be most severe for poor, developing countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment