INDIA'S forest cover is on the decline. But government agencies consistently present data that support a false narrative of the country’s forests doing well with regard to both carbon sequestration and forest cover. Forest Survey of India (FSI) has the responsibility of publishing ‘India State of Forest Report (ISFR)’ every alternate year. The ISFR 2023 reported a 1,445 square kilometres (sq. kms) increase in total forest and tree cover compared to 2021, with 156 sq. kms attributed to natural forest cover and the remainder to tree cover outside forests. Earlier in 2022 FSI reported an increase of 1,540 sq. kms of forest cover in 2021 over that of 2019. In terms of percentage of forest cover of the total geographical area of the country in 2021 it was given as 24.62 per cent and in 2023 as 25.17 per cent. A bright picture indeed! But is this real? This data of FSI has been challenged as erroneous by experts. It looks like in order to increase the carbon credit rating of India, ‘favourable statistics’ have been put out by FSI by including non-forest land into the data by changing the definition of forests!

Biennial assessment of Indian forest cover has been done by FSI since 1987 through interpretation of satellite images. Ground truthing is also done to justify satellite images and to make it more accurate. IRS series satellites with efficient LISS -III sensors are being used now for imageries. Along with this forest biomass estimation and carbon stock change is also assessed following standard methods. No doubt the technology used is robust along with its interpretations made by efficient scientists, though there is scope of using more efficient technologies that are being overlooked. But then why is it in recent years the whole process is being challenged as inaccurate statistics of our green cover?

MISLEADING THE COUNTRY

The Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was compelled to allow a suo moto case based on the Global Forest Watch (GFW) findings which states that there is a significant discrepancy between the FSI data and the ground reality. Apart from that, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has conducted a study on the forest cover of India between 2000 and 2023. It reports that at least 23,300 sq. kms of natural forest has been denuded during this period. It also mentions that 18 per cent of the forest cover loss occurred in the country's moist primary forests.

GFW states that India's forests have released 510 lakh tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere between 2001 and 2022 instead of sequestering it. According to GFW in the period under review, India's forests absorbed 1410 lakh tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stored only 900 lakh tonnes in its forests. The rest was released to the atmosphere. NGT states that this huge amount of carbon dioxide is enough to warm our atmosphere. NGT, therefore, mentioned "The above matter indicates violation of the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986."

GFW also mentions that forest cover has suffered most in Northeast India, namely Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Manipur. The decline in forest cover is about 60 per cent between 2001 and 2023. The Government of India also admitted in the Rajya Sabha in August 2024 that between 2011 and 2021, development-related activities resulted in the loss of about 1,734 sq. kms of forest in the nation.

Experts say that the excess could fall at least in the range of 5-12 per cent of the forest cover in various parts of the country. Members of Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG) – which consists of former government administrators –  have accused the FSI of incorrect calculations, saying between ISFR 2021 and ISFR 2023, India lost 1,488 sq. kms of  forest cover going by the ISFR data itself. However, ISFR 2023 report claims there is an increase of 1,445 sq. kms.

It appears that FSI was compelled to give false information by exaggerating the amount of forest cover. The primary goal of this is to convince the populace that, in terms of forest conservation, our government has fared well. FSI stated that tea and coffee plantations, fruit orchards, sugarcane fields, commercial plantations, etc. are all captured within the forest statistics violating the definition of forest! This is an attempt to inflate forest cover for accounting greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and land-use change as per REDD+ (Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus forest conservation) agreements. More forest cover will result in more carbon sequestration and thus more income through 'carbon offsets'. Including commercial plantations of any kind within forests is a clear violation of the rights of the forest dwellers of our country. Besides that, the erroneous data misleads the world community and Indians alike about the country's forest cover.

REDEFINING ‘FOREST’!

 It needs to be mentioned that tree cover can never be considered as forest cover as per ecological definition of forests. India’s definition of forests has been criticised by scientists. In its 1996 ruling in the Godavarman case, the Supreme Court of India stated that, regardless of ownership, any place that satisfies the dictionary definition of a forest shall be protected under the Forest Conservation Act (FCA) of 1980. Wilderness is a primary criteria of a forest area, be it a woodland or a savannah. However, Section 1A inserted by the 2023 amendment of FCA states that a land has to be either notified as a forest or specifically recorded as a forest in government records to qualify it as a “forest”. Conveniently therefore, as per the forest departments, a vast forest area under private and community management goes out of the Forest Conservation Act!

Now, according to the definition given in the India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2021, forest cover includes orchards, palm plantation, bamboo plantations etc. It is stated that natural forests and plantations are two very different things, but satellite imaging equates the two. But this is not true because as per present interpretation efficiency of the satellite images, these can be separated. UNFCCC has pointed out that inclusion of orchards, tea and coffee gardens, oil palm areas etc., within forest cover is a clear exaggeration of forest cover.

CARBON CENTRISM

Delineated areas under orchards and plantations of bamboo and palm cannot be used to determine the nation's carbon reserves as in this case the sequestered carbon is recycled back into the atmosphere as and when they are harvested. Moreover, plantation ecosystems do not have the same efficiency to store carbon as that of the natural forests. Forest soil carbon sequestration is much higher than for plantation and agricultural areas.

Emphasising on carbon stock simply ignores many other ecosystem services like biodiversity, water, soil conservation etc., that forests provide. Focusing on carbon is nothing but opening avenues for carbon trading in developing countries. It is true that India is a developing country with a large population. But the vital ecosystem services and biodiversity of the country can never be compromised in the name of development.

Around 2500 lakh Indians depend on the natural ecosystems for their livelihood. These forest dwellers are a part of forest ecosystems as well. Forests provide firewood, fodder, food, medicinal plants, building material and are crucibles of local cultural practices of forest-dependent people. In the near future, if the carbon centrism of Indian policy makers is not combated, our forests and forest dwellers will be more marginalised than before.