On paper

The Green Rating Project (GRP) of the Centre for Science and Environment was conceived as a means to track the environmental performance of India's key industrial sectors. Its essence? There had to be a way civil society could provide -- and make public -- a scientific knowledge of, and a positive check on, the effects of industrialisation on the country's natural resource base, and its people. GRP has done exactly this, since its inception. In 1999, it rated the pulp and paper sector. In 2001 came the rating of the powerful automobile sector. In 2002 it grappled with the performance of the chlor-alkali sector. And now, GRP rates the pulp and paper sector for the second time. What follows is not a snap-shot. It is definitely not as short-term, or sensational, as an opinion poll. This rating benchmarks the present. Even as companies compete for leadership, and the top spot, it provides an empirical, verifiable measure of change. And GRP-driven change has occurred. Cynics, prepare to be surprised... Click to see the report card - How India's pulp and paper sector fared>>>

On paper

Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.

  • Water absorbing plants like

    Water absorbing plants like Eucalyptus,Casuarina etc., grow naturally in Hills with abundance of water (to balance water). Planting them in plains leads to huge absorption of water which leads to lowering ground water table. Think of water & food needed than paper. We should have to ban so-called "Social Forestry" projects.

    Posted by: Anonymous | one year ago | Reply
  • The huge area where farm

    The huge area where farm forestry is practiced should be used for food crops and not for paper and pulp. Urban population should limit the paper consumption to very minimal.

    Posted by: Anonymous | one year ago | Reply
  • First use of paper be

    First use of paper be restricted.Though industries demand for forest land justified in the sense that farmers planting water guzzling varieties which is more harmful in long run,Suitable forest land with fixed responsibilities both for the industry as well as for the babus of government be allotted .In fact growing of forest is less energy consuming than horticulture,saving energy is saving trees .you have mentioned the package industry,in fact consumerism,and irresponsible marketing and food habit of our middle class is more responsible for degradation and destruction of our forest.Hope is that trees are fastest recyclable thing, its responsible cutting do less harm than any other industrial alternative.

    Posted by: Anonymous | one year ago | Reply
  • First things first- Casurina

    First things first- Casurina in India is not grow on hills. It is grown all along coastal regions of Eastern India. Mostly grown in cyclone hit areas and saline soils where other crops do not grow well or fail due to cyclones. Trees survive. Next, let us have a fair debate. There are abundant number of studies by FRI Dehradun, IFGTB Coimbtore, Oxford Forest Research Institute and various other international bodies about water uptake by tree vs agri crops in general and these specific trees vs other trees vs agri crops. The trees indicated have much lower water consumption per Unit of biomass produced than many others. Rice monocultures grown in non-traditional growing areas is reported to have much larger impact on water table where pumped water is used for paddy cultivation. If these studies cannot be believed one can lay her own experiment. So, let start with crude method. Let us also understand that commercial tree plantations are all rainfed and not irrigated by design. So, try to plant 10 any high water absorbing trees near a well and see the affect after 5 years and 10 years on the water table. Best results will be with assumption that well will not be used for pumped irrigation/ any kind major water supply scheme. Even if it is usual open well with normal irrigation purposes being fulfilled, the water table difference of the experimental well and other wells can be compared, evaluated and concluded Sugarcane and Paddy have huge water requirements per Unit of biomass production and is well known. Should be abandon them. Let us propose a few questions for debate - - All of us want to use best quality paper, at lowest cost and with no pollution. and also we do not want the "forest" to supply wood to manufacturing plants. Now what is the best solution. - If there are no trees, where will water come from in the rivers? Even fast growing trees are harvested at 4-5 years cycle and Good tree cover is maintained for 2-3 years. Social Forestry green cover is a huge area as reported in recent State of Forest 2013 by GOI - And some times I wonder should we produce so much food? Have we studied how many lac tonnes is wasted every year. If we are not able to find some mechanism for proper storage after so many years of efforts and research, why grow it and allow it to ROT. Let us grow wood to cook whatever is not rotting in FCI godowns. We will save water and energy to grow that much food and instead grow sufficient wood to cook whatever we grow. So far we have worked for FOOD SECURITY. Let us work for WOOD and WATER security also by increasing green cover. This will largely serve the small and medium farmers With regards

    Posted by: Anonymous | one year ago | Reply
  • I have shared a few thoughts

    I have shared a few thoughts in detail in my earlier post, but to this specific observation i would like the debate to include - - There should be balanced land use whether it is farm land or forest land. Forest Land should have conservation role as well Production role to meet wood needs of society - Timber, furniture, paper, fuel (fire wood). Country today lacs policy on production role of forests involving all stakeholders. There is need for productivity improvement w.r.t. degraded forest areas - farm land use decisions are in hands of farmers. She will do what is profitable for her. - I am not sure whether the respondent is from urban or rural area, but it would be interesting to know how will you, as an individual, reduce paper consumption over one year period. Let us layout an experiment. Weigh every kind of paper at the door of our home (even if estimates are noted it is ok, if one has good estimate skill)- bags, books/ notebooks, writing books, photo copies, packing boxes, toothpaste box, soap box/ wrapper, tissue, napkins,news paper. Do it for 12 months and see how much we are able to reduce over 12 months. And then let us pass a bill for MINIMAL PAPER USAGE. debate is welcome. With warm regards

    Posted by: Anonymous | one year ago | Reply
  • Welcome Comment Sir. The

    Welcome Comment Sir. The POLICY OF GROW MORE WOOD And USE MORE WOOD is very sustainable in long run. BUT FIRST GROW MORE WOOD instead of wasting foodgrains in godowns and allowing to rot in lacs of tons

    Posted by: Anonymous | one year ago | Reply
  • THere is a conrtadiction on

    THere is a conrtadiction on article: Here you say in 2014 MOEF rejected working group reccomendations And in another article on your web site it is claimed that the new Minister Incharge MOEF Mr Prakash Javdekar has initiated for handing over forest land to paper industry. What is truth n this. Surely all of us need good paper, but do not want the undue benefit to industry at d cost of harm to nature. It should b balanced method. Can be done. Where there is will there is a way SAVE TIGER.

    Posted by: Anonymous | one year ago | Reply
  • Firstly to reduce use of

    Firstly to reduce use of packing material which cannot be recycled extra duty be charged for such packaging & the benefits be passed on to recycling industry. Secondly in a country where millions suffer from hunger top priority should be building suficent number of ware- houses&. Diverting land meant for food for other purposes is a cruel alternative. There is plenty of waste & degraded land for other purposes. It is with state & central govt. depts. It should be used. One way is to give this land on short term lease to retired soldiers, war widows, retired govt. servants with clean service records & above average efeciency.

    Posted by: Anonymous | one year ago | Reply
  • About a couple of months back

    About a couple of months back MoEF officials had told CSE/DTE that they had no plans of supporting working group recommendation - i.e. handing over degraded forest land to paper industry. Subsequently, at the time of the release of "State of the Forest", the Minister spoke about using some of the forest land for both commercial and community use, but there has been no formal communication yet. This would be a major, and potentially unwelcome, shift in policy.

    Posted by: Priyavrat Bhati | one year ago | Reply
  • Agro-forestry is the need of

    Agro-forestry is the need of the hour. Govt policies leading to high cost of labour,seeds, fertilisers and non-availability of electricity has made agriculture unviable.Moreover, surplus production of foodgrains has lowered its prices. It is a double blow to the farmers. It is necessary to diversify and maintain the balance. Rain-fed agroforestry is always beneficial for increasing rainfall, maintaining ground water level, dispensing with extravagant energy-needs. In fact research be done to meet food needs, from agro forestry, apart from wood.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 8 months ago | Reply
  • Mr. Bhati-Very interesting

    Mr. Bhati-Very interesting article. I have a question about this section: "The industry has put in a lot of research to make farm forestry work. Initially, not many farmers were willing to grow eucalyptus because of high gestation period, poor yield and low market price. They had to wait seven years for harvesting only six tonnes of pulpwood from a hectare. This would sell for just Rs 75 a tonne. Now farmers like Rao harvest nearly 80 tonnes of pulpwood from a hectare in four years, which they sell at around Rs 3,500 per tonne." I understand the increase in yield per hectare and the faster growing cycle. But do not understand why the price per tonne would rise as well. Especially a 4600% rise per tonne. Is it of such higher quality? Thank you very much. Todd Lemmon

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 months ago | Reply
Scroll To Top