India's forests and the Forest Survey of India need a fresh lease of life, reveals new report
each new report on the state of India's forest cover published by the Forest Survey of India (fsi) provides new insights and triggers fresh criticism. The latest State of Forest Report (sfr) 2003, the ninth in a series, released on July 19, 2005, by Union ministry of environment and forests (moef), fits the bill. It has made experts feel the fsi's approach is too traditional, both in terms of research methodology and the agency's centralised, bureaucratic functioning.
The report further blurs the change matrix by saying that of the 26,245 sq km of dense forest decrease, only 4,605 sq km is real decrease. The rest is due to 'interpretational corrections': areas considered dense forests earlier were found to be sugarcane or cotton fields. The error occurred because they "give reflectance similar to that of forest cover". But G Areendram, an expert of geographic information systems (gis) and wildlife at World Wildlife Fund, the global conservation group, says, "it is difficult to confuse the two, since the reflectance value is different and the pattern they yield is easily distinguishable". Also, the logic that sugarcane does not grow in hilly areas or other regions associated with dense forests seems to have escaped fsi.
P S Roy, deputy director, National Remote Sensing Agency (nrsa), Hyderabad, suggests: "There is no need for a full mapping every two years...a very good baseline map on which changes can be superimposed regularly will be more scientific and also reduce error and the time and money utilised." fsi disagrees: "We do a full wall-to-wall mapping. Why should we do any less?" asks Aloke Saxena, joint director, fsi. He says using high-resolution mapping will require more time and money. Currently, fsi interprets raw data bought from nrsa for about Rs 60 lakh.
M D Madhusudhan of Natural Conservation Foundation, Mysore, feels, "it [the report] is a crucial source of large-scale data, but has become fsi's monopolistic pursuit". Eminent gis and remote sensing expert Jagdish Krishnaswamy agrees: "At present there is none of the accountability or transparency that comes with peer reviews. The process should be decentralised; fsi should work with other groups or...hand the task over to experts in different regions." The sense is that the crucial task shouldn't be handled by a single body, especially one under the government's pressure to assure the nation that its forests are safe. It is also feared that weak forest management will strengthen the case to involve the private sector in achieving the goal of 33 per cent forest cover; moef is already talking about leasing degraded forestland to wood-based industries.
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.
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.