From forestry to productive forestry

My position on the need to re-position forests in development (see ‘Rethink growth with forest capital’, Down To Earth, May 16-31) has brought me a huge response.

Rethink growth with forest capital

Can you love tigers but hate forests? This is the question that troubled me as I visited the middle of India last fortnight. I was in Nagpur, where local politicians, conservationists and officials were discussing what needed to be done in this chronically poor and backward region endowed with forests and tiger habitats.

The big idea for change: bamboo as grass

“Stroke of the pen” reform is critical as in many cases policy is dastardly and change is laggardly. The essential element is to find that big-ticket item that can have impact on a scale and at a pace that is needed. I believe Union environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh’s letter addressed to all chief ministers clarifying that bamboo is indeed a grass and not timber, is such an item.

Is bamboo a tree or a grass?

The definition is contested as the answer has immense economic implications. If bamboo is a tree or timber, it belongs to the forest department and can be auctioned to the paper and pulp industry, often at throwaway rates.

Time a resource curse got lifted

Take a map of India. Now mark the districts with forest wealth, where the rich and dense tree cover is found. Then overlay on it the sources of streams and rivers that feed us, our water wealth. Upon this, further locate mineral depositsiron ore, coal, bauxite, all things nice that make economies rich. Dont stop here. Mark on all this wealth another indicator: districts where the poorest people of our country live. These are also tribal districts. So you will find a complete match. The richest lands are where the poorest people live.

The poor? They are the government's problem

Everybody knows one hand of the government does not know what the other is up to. But it does make a difference when a proposed programme of the government contradicts and, perhaps, even fatally undermines a flagship initiative. This is the case with the proposed programme of the Union ministry of environment and forests -- euphemistically called the multi-stakeholder partnership on forests -- and its impact on the prime minister's pet projects of employment generation like the Bharat Nirman project.

Can we use our forests well?

This issue of Down To Earth examines a crisis forest-rich states in India find themselves in: conserving forests is a burden states are no longer able -- or willing -- to afford. This has happened because in India, as concern for natural resources grew, the harvesting of forests stopped. For these states, revenue has dried up, but the establishment costs of maintaining forest departments -- intent on protection -- continues to climb. In the mid-1990s, for instance, Madhya Pradesh made money from its forest resources. Its revenue was higher than its expenditure in this sector.

Money does grow on trees

My initiation into environmental advocacy began in the mid-1980s. My colleague Anil Agarwal was involved in a fight against the Karnataka government's proposal to give forest land to Harihar Polyfibres -- the Birla-owned pulp mill based in the state -- to grow its raw material. The matter was in the Supreme Court and we had to put together information to convince, first our lawyer and then the judges, on why environmental groups were fighting against an "eminently" sensible and green proposal to afforest land.

After officialdom

I would love to write a handbook on the Indian bureaucracy. But for now let me focus on a favourite, the yes-minister technique. Do nothing, and then when pushed, unleash chaos. Nothing succeeds as much as failure. Every solution has a problem.

Of forests and wealth

The Supreme Court has suggested that the forested states, which lose revenue because of the ban on felling of trees should be compensated for keeping their forests intact. Protection of the biological hotspots should be the responsibility of the country, says the court, and therefore, if the state protects its forest endowment, the forest deficient states must contribute to its exchequer.