Crouching data, hidden forest

By Kanchi Kohli, Manju Menon and Vikal Samdariya
06 Aug 2010

The Ministry of Environment and Forests has taken steps towards transparency and inclusiveness in its conservation approaches, but the forest clearance process remains shrouded under mystery and should be open to public scrutiny.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) revamped its website in October 2009 in an attempt to present itself as a transparent ministry that proactively discloses its decisions and their basis. One cannot deny that the MoEF's website and its press releases are more prompt than ever before. But, does that actually mean one can take what is given to us as the truth?

Let us attempt to examine this in light of the figures that the MoEF has sought to disclose with regards to the forest clearances it has granted. As per the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, if any activity, industry or process requires the diversion of forest land for non-forest purpose, permission needs to be sought from the MoEF prior to the commencement of such an activity. Since 1980, this procedure has ensured that there exists a certain rhythm through which all those who seek to use forest land have a prescribed procedure that they must follow.

Grant of forest clearances is not a mere mechanical activity. Any such land use change proposed has implications on not just the ecological nature of the area in question. Most often, take over of forest land for an industry, mine, dam or even just plantations, has far reaching impacts on the lives and livelihoods of people who live on and off these areas.

So, where do we stand today with regards to the forest land that has been allotted for other kinds of use? If one looks at figures received through Right to Information (RTI), the MoEF claims that between 1980-2009, a total of 11,37,686.70 hectares of forest land has been ‘cleared’ for non-forest use. One fourth of these clearances (not in number of clearances to projects but in terms of the total area) came in the period of 2004-2009. This amounts to 3,55,160.62 hectares of forest land.

But these figures cannot be relied upon for any idea of what is really the state of forest land in the country. Statistics are put out every year in the annual reports of the MoEF, the State of Environment report, and there are heated discussions, debates and disagreements on the total forest cover of the country. However all of these are based on poorly collated data that is full of inconsistencies and errors.

A recent example of this came to light when Kalpavriksh filed two RTI applications seeking data on the diversion of forest land. The responses received in both show contradictory information. Data received from the first RTI reveals that during the 12 month period from April 2008 to April 2009, MoEF allowed diversion of 61,607.82 hectares of forest land (both in principle and final clearance). When compared with the information received under the second RTI which provides data of a 20 month period of total land diverted from April 2008 to December 2009, the figure is reduced to 43,635.66 hectares.

However, the many questions that arise from these discrepancies go beyond reconciling figures on paper? For a bureaucracy such as the MoEF or the Forest Departments of state governments, these may only be challenges of accounting. But these discrepancies in the methods of data entry and book keeping have real consequences for people living on or off forest lands. Numbers are always political. When the Ministry says the country's forest land has increased, what do we have to compare with? Which forest land has missed finding a place in their records, or has landed up as double entry?

For a Ministry that is committed to becoming transparent and inclusive in its conservation approaches, the forest clearance process begs amendments that will make it open to public scrutiny. It has remained firmly shut to the public so far and there is no space for public participation in the processes of cost-benefit analysis, valuation of forests and other steps that are involved in the grant of forest clearances. Not only will the quality of decision making become more democratic by allowing public participation, but the Ministry may perhaps find partners in ironing out its statistical flaws. Ironically, the only official mechanism to ‘see’ the unfolding of FCA processes is the RTI, which in the current case has not helped to find the answer!

The revelations by the MoEF does not render much confidence by which one can make a full claim about the state of the forest land that has been continually diverted.

more interesting reads@http://www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=1331

Act green, get bonus!

By Shankar Sharma
03 Feb 2010


Environmentalists call Tehri dam in Uttrakhand as a major ecological disaster

Our forests, rivers, coastal areas and the overall biodiversity are immensely valuable and crucial for the health of the nation. Therefore, any initiative to reward their protection should be welcomed.

Union Minister for Environment & Forests Jairam Ramesh has indicated that the government is considering 'Green Bonus' for protecting forest cover. This is a novel idea to encourage the states to adequately protect forest cover. This proposal could help Himalayan states which rely on commercial exploitation of the forest wealth for revenue generation since they do not have many other avenues.

Uttarakhand is a good example in this regard. The officials think that since the state has large hydro electric potential, it should fully exploit it. Since electricity demand within the state is not huge, it plans to set up more than 100 hydel projects and sell power to other states. Obviously, setting up so many hydel projects will accelerate depletion of forest cover and degrade the rich bio-diversity of the state.

The other Himalayan states like Himachal Pradesh and Sikkim are also keen on exploiting their hydel potential on an accelerated basis. Even though some of the hydel projects in Sikkim are facing many hurdles because of environmental and social concerns, a majority of such proposals in Himalayas should be of major concern from bio diversity aspect alone.

Arunachal Pradesh is another state where huge hydel potential (totaling about 40,000 MW) has been identified. Many large-size hydel projects on river Subansiri, Lohit, Dibang etc are being proposed. The deleterious impacts of such big hydel projects on rich bio-diversity and poor tribals of nearby areas, though well known for decades, are sadly ignored by the policy makers.

Since revenue needs of these mountainous states are crucial, they should be helped to explore many other alternatives available. These states should realize the dangers of exploiting the forest wealth on an unsustainable basis by damming the rivers. Providing adequate financial incentives to conserve and develop the forest wealth on a sustainable basis can be a good idea. Such an initiative must be designed to also encourage non-Himalayan states like Karnataka, Kerala, Maharastra and Goa to arrest the destruction of forest cover there. A large number of power projects being planned in the vicinity of Western Ghats in these states without due diligence is a matter of serious concern.

Recently, Mr Ramesh commented that, "the health of the Himalayan glaciers is poor and we need to take immediate remedial measures." But, will the large number of proposed hydel projects in Himalayas not negate 'immediate remedial measures'? The same argument holds true in case of hydel /coal /nuclear power projects in the vicinity of Western Ghats.

The economic, environmental, and social impacts including many cultural and heritage impacts of building large dam based power projects cannot be ignored any longer. World Charter for Nature was adopted by consensus by UN General Assembly in 1982. It has provided some guiding principles for protecting biodiversity. Two key principles are: (a) activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature should be avoided; (b) activities which are likely to pose significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that the expected benefits clearly outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed. Since forests are the predominant source of bio-diversity, the protection of forest wealth can not be more emphasized.

A recent report by Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) - "Achieving 2010 Biodiversity Target: India's contributions" - has copiously described the rich bio diversity in the country, the threats to it and the tall claims about the remedial measures taken. But without holistically reviewing the present practice of issuing environmental clearance to almost all projects presented before MoEF, policymakers can not take any credit for contributing to the conservation of global biodiversity.

As per State of Environment Report 2009 by MoEF, India is a mega diversity country and despite having only 2.4% surface area of the globe, it has 7-8% of the recorded species of the world. It is also home for 11.8% of the plant species documented so far. The National Forest Policy 1988 envisages one third of the geographical area of the country to be covered by forests and trees, and considers it as essential for economic and ecological security of the country. But as per the MoEF report 'Achieving 2010 Biodiversity Target: India's contributions', at present this figure is only 23%, of which forest cover alone accounts for 21%. Hence it is critical that we do not loose the pristine forest cover anymore, but increase it, as early as possible, to the target figure of 33%.

The United Nations programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries is a collaboration between FAO, UNDP and UNEP. REDD is accepted as a critical step in addressing the threat of Global Warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that deforestation is now contributing close to 20 per cent of the overall greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Forest degradation is no less responsible for emissions from forest ecosystems. Therefore, IPCC says, there is an immediate need to make significant progress in reducing deforestation, forest degradation, and associated emission of greenhouse gases.

As per a study report "Bio-diversity Impact of Large Dams" prepared for IUCN / UNEP / WCD, the value of ecological functions as well as resources of the environment (both terrestrial and aquatic) has been estimated to be about $33 trillion per year, which is almost twice the global GDP. Bio-diversity is of immense value for the humans and the world as a whole. As per the Convention on Biological Diversity it will be a wise policy to apply Precautionary Principle and take necessary action to conserve Bio-diversity before components of it are permanently lost. Since forests are the major source of bio-diversity, we need to take into account the potential value of ecological services associated with forests in the country.


As per the report 'Economics of Climate Change' by Nicholas Stern, emissions from deforestation are estimated to represent more than 18% of global emissions. Hence, curbing deforestation is a cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

While it may appear that exploiting the natural resources can accelerate economic development of our communities, there are also credible risks of upsetting the delicate equation of ecological sub-systems. Hence an objective study of all the issues concerning a sustainable development model will be critical for the long term welfare of not only the people in the mountain states, but also of lower riparian states. The potential of revenue generation for the state through hydel generation should be carefully viewed in this context.

Amongst various 'developmental activities' in India, large size power projects lead to massive destruction of forest wealth, as has been noticed since independence. Whether it is due to the drowning of forests in dam waters, or due to forest clearance to set up buildings, hydraulic structures & transmission lines, or due to the need to open up more coal mines etc, large tracts of rich evergreen forests have been irrevocably lost all over the country.

As per the Integrated Energy Policy of the Planning Commission - "by 2031-32 the power generation capacity must increase to nearly 800,000 MW from the current capacity of about 160,000 MW inclusive of all captive power plants." 90% of this additional 640,000 MW capacity is projected to come from coal based and dam based power projects. Such a large number of coal based and dam based power projects will have massive impact on the extent and quality of forests & bio diversity in the country. Scaling up of conventional power capacity in a short period will also have far reaching consequences on social, environmental and economic aspects of our society.

There are many benign alternatives to building hydel projects as a means of revenue. Similarly, various better substitutes to dam based or coal based power projects can be explored to meet our electricity demand. Hence the need is to initiate policy measures to ensure that every state considers biodiversity as of immense value to our country, and reviews projects from a holistic perspective to ensure a sustainable development model.

Keeping in mind the multi faceted importance of adequate size and quality of forests, it is in the long term interest of our society to objectively review various developmental processes being followed now wherein the forests are not being given their due credit. Bio-diversity, including forests, rivers, coastal areas are crucial for the health of the nation, and hence will need appropriate valuation. In the light of these facts, the Green Bonus idea is a good initiative.