Tree plantations by the State forest departments are driven by national policies and forest cover targets; here is why they should be revised
Representational Photo from iStock Tree planting has become a primary activity of most state forest departments. This is driven by India’s National Forest Policy, international restoration commitments, central government schemes like the Green India Mission and the importance given to forest cover in devolution of funds to states by the Finance Commission.
Over three-fifths of India falls under the tropical dry forest biome. It starts from the south of the Shivaliks in north India to the Aravali range in the northwest, and down till the Eastern Ghats of Tamil Nadu. This is where the tree cover is generally sparse (10-40 per cent canopy cover and more of open forest, scrub and grasslands). This region receives less than 1,000 millimetres of annual rainfall and is also drought-prone.
Further, a large rural population depends on these landscapes for cattle grazing. It is also an important habitat for endangered fauna like wolves, striped hyena and blackbuck.
Between 2006 and 2015, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (united till June 1, 2014) collectively added over 346,400 hectares to their forest cover. By 2021, Telangana was estimated by the Forest Survey of India to have added another 136,100 hectares to its forest cover, thanks to schemes like Haritha Haram and the compensatory afforestation funds that aim to create equivalent forests for loss of forests elsewhere in India.
There must be sufficient tree cover on the ground to detect a forest in a 30 by 30-pixel satellite image. This necessitates more trees to be planted in a dense manner, compared to the natural 10-40 per cent canopy cover. Only fast-growing trees like teak, eucalyptus and vegetation like bamboo can grow quickly enough to be picked up in satellite images.
There is no scientific basis for the 33 per cent forest cover target that India has set for itself to achieve. It was first proposed in the National Forest Policy 1952. There is also no basis for the 26 million hectares target under the 2011 Bonn Challenge that India has set to achieve by 2030.
However, there is increasing scientific evidence on the negative effects of tree planting. This includes loss of grassland and scrub ecosystems — rich in biodiversity — and loss of grazing land available for pastoral communities, thereby affecting their livelihood.
Further, a recent study in the Nature Geoscience journal showed that with increased tree plantations, there was a decline of almost 38 per cent in water availability in some river basins globally. This could affect the water security of millions of rural communities in the dry forest region of India.
The 15th Finance Commission took a good step forward by recognising that forest canopy cover across India varies and weighting given for devolution of funds to the states should be according to different canopy density classes. However, it does not provide any incentives for preserving grasslands and other open scrub ecosystems with low tree cover, which are of high importance and often misclassified as ‘wasteland’.
Restoring degraded land and forests is important, but tree planting is not the only option. Restoring degraded land to its original state of grasslands or scrub vegetation with native trees will be more rewarding than creating monoculture plantations of teak, bamboo or eucalyptus.
It is important to revise the target forest cover under the National Forest Policy, and promote the conservation of grasslands and other open ecosystems, as in the state they should be.
The restoration programmes and monitoring should not entirely depend on satellite imagery, as tree cover is not the only good indicator of health of an ecosystem. Such a top-down policy approach will dissuade the states from taking up ill-advised tree planting schemes that could be detrimental in the long term and avoid wasteful expenditure. Further, ecological balance cannot be achieved by compensating for forest loss elsewhere by tree plantations in these dry forest regions.
Dhanapal G is an independent consultant on climate change and environment
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
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.