Quality, quantity of forest cover needs realistic assessment
Native forests in India are disappearing at a rate of up to 2.7 per cent per year. The figures, published in an analysis of the country's forest cover, stand in stark contrast to those of a 2009 survey by an Indian governmental organisation.
FOREST SURVEY of India has been bringing out ‘State of Forest Reports’ (SFR) since 1987, based on interpretation of satellite images. India State of Forest Report 2009, is the eleventh such report. Forest cover mapping in this report has been done by digital interpretation of satellite images of LISS III sensor of Resourcesat-1. Of this, 8.35 million ha (2.54 per cent) is very dense forest, 31.90 million ha (9.71 per cent) is moderately dense forest and the rest 28.84 million ha (8.77 per cent) is open forest; including 0.46 million ha are mangroves. Excluding the area (18.31 million ha) above tree line, the forest cover of the country comes of 22.26 per cent. Reportedly, hills and tribal districts, especially the North-Eastern (NE) states, contributed significantly to this increase. This should not surprise anyone, for the tribal-dominated NE states are known for their robust community-led forest protection and regeneration.
However, what remains to be seen is for how long the tribal communities will be able to fight for and protect their forests from corporate cupidity instigated by the neo-liberal fantasies of the state.
Native forests in India are disappearing at a rate of up to 2.7 per cent per year.
The figures, published in an analysis of the country's forest cover, stand in stark contrast to those of a 2009 survey by an Indian governmental organisation, which said that forests have expanded by five per cent over the past decade. India is among the most densely forested countries in the world and in 2008, the government announced goals to increase forest cover by nearly 10 per cent by 2012.
The India State of Forest Report 2009 by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) indicated that the outlook was good. But according to Jean-Philippe Puyravaud and Priya Davidar of Pondicherry University and William Laurance, a conservation biologist at James Cook University in Cairns, Queensland, Australia, while the figures showing that forest cover in India has grown are ‘technically correct’, they are also very likely too optimistic and ‘misleading’. He found a very real and serious loss of native forest that could put India ahead of most other countries in terms of deforestation. They cite local studies that have shown that forests have decreased in some of India's most important conservation and bio-diverse areas: the Western and Eastern Ghats, and the Himalayas. India has been busy planting trees, including non-native eucalyptus and acacia, to provide timber and fuel wood — and in some cases to earn money from selling carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism established in 2001 as part of the Kyoto Protocol. The country now ranks second globally in terms of total land area under plantation. And much of India's claimed growth in forest cover has come from plantations and that this is masking a fall in native forests. No doubt, the Indian government has made a big deal of increasing forest cover, but they are not distinguishing between natural and artificial forests. Monoculture plantations are on the rise in India, expanding by nearly 6,000 square kilometers (2,300 square miles) to 18,000 square kilometers (nearly 7,000 square miles) per year. If one subtracts plantations from total forest cover then India’s native forests have actually declined at an alarming pace, from 0.8 per cent to 3.5 per cent per year. Under the circumstances, India is suffering from a higher rate of forest loss than either Brazil or Malaysia from 2000-2005. Therefore, there is great risk of our present over-reliance on satellite data to track changes in forest cover. It is pretty easy to estimate total forest cover, but often far harder to distinguish intact native forests from exotic plantations, degraded forest or secondary re-growth. We need to resolve this, as right now we just don't know what is happening too much of the world's native forests, which are crucial for conserving biodiversity. We might be fooling ourselves into thinking the situation is better than it actually is.-a bleak thought indeed.
This is bad for the environment because replanting native forests with non-native trees damages local biodiversity. Most plantations of non-native trees have very low biological value. They are only good to store carbon. This distinction between native and non-native trees is important for an accurate picture of the state of the world's forests. In the analysis, the researchers assessed data on the growth in Indian plantations collected for the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. It estimates that plantations grew by around 15,400 square kilometres a year between 1995 and 2005.
The researchers subtracted the rates of plantation expansion from the growth in total forest cover as measured by remote-sensing imagery and found that coverage of native Indian forests actually declined by 1.5–2.7 per cent between 1995 and 2005, an alarming average of 2.4 per cent a year and a loss of more than 124,000 square kilometres over the decade. The researchers checked these figures against changes in forest biovolume (the volume of wood and other above-ground forest material), estimated from field observations in the FSI report. They found a loss in native forest biovolume of around 2.7per cent per year.
They agree that the data on plantations is ‘rough’, but points out that the calculations of loss in biovolume used Forest Survey of India data. The figures derived were similar to his estimates for deforestation, so they are confident in the results. Bhaskar Vira, an environmental economist at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, says that there is probably some truth in the study's finding. But he warns that not all the trees planted each year reach maturity and show up in satellite imagery. Because the authors subtracted the FAO figures for the total area covered by plantations from a satellite-based estimate of total forest cover, the study may have overestimated the amount of deforestation taking place.
Researchers further pointed out that some assessments of forest cover, such as that carried out by the FAO, do not distinguish between native forests and plantations. They rely on relatively coarse data from sources including the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's advanced very high resolution radiometer satellites, which have a resolution of 1.1 square kilometres per pixel. But the Indian remote sensing satellites used by the FSI have a much higher resolution - up to 23.5 square metres per pixel - so the agency has the means to distinguish native forests from plantations of non-native trees.
United Nations' REDD+ initiative to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation - which includes a focus on conservation and sustainable management of forests - will encourage India and other countries in similar situations to distinguish between native and artificial forests, and pay more attention to protecting the former. Moreover, the researchers point out that FSI employed automated analyses of forest satellite imagery to come up with its conclusion that forests were on the rise.
However, with such analyses comes a big problem. With such a system, native forests are pooled with exotic tree plantations, such as eucalyptus, acacia, rubber, teak, or pine trees, which have very limited value for endangered biodiversity. Many of these plantations and subsequent deforestation are driven by a huge demand for firewood. Countries will be interested more in paying to stop deforestation of native forests than in expanding plantations.
Native forests in India are disappearing at a rate of up to 2.7 per cent per year.
The figures, published in an analysis of the country's forest cover, stand in stark contrast to those of a 2009 survey by an Indian governmental organisation, which said that forests have expanded by five per cent over the past decade. India is among the most densely forested countries in the world and in 2008, the government announced goals to increase forest cover by nearly 10 per cent by 2012.
The India State of Forest Report 2009 by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) indicated that the outlook was good. But according to Jean-Philippe Puyravaud and Priya Davidar of Pondicherry University and William Laurance, a conservation biologist at James Cook University in Cairns, Queensland, Australia, while the figures showing that forest cover in India has grown are ‘technically correct’, they are also very likely too optimistic and ‘misleading’. He found a very real and serious loss of native forest that could put India ahead of most other countries in terms of deforestation. They cite local studies that have shown that forests have decreased in some of India's most important conservation and bio-diverse areas: the Western and Eastern Ghats, and the Himalayas. India has been busy planting trees, including non-native eucalyptus and acacia, to provide timber and fuel wood — and in some cases to earn money from selling carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism established in 2001 as part of the Kyoto Protocol. The country now ranks second globally in terms of total land area under plantation. And much of India's claimed growth in forest cover has come from plantations and that this is masking a fall in native forests. No doubt, the Indian government has made a big deal of increasing forest cover, but they are not distinguishing between natural and artificial forests. Monoculture plantations are on the rise in India, expanding by nearly 6,000 square kilometers (2,300 square miles) to 18,000 square kilometers (nearly 7,000 square miles) per year. If one subtracts plantations from total forest cover then India’s native forests have actually declined at an alarming pace, from 0.8 per cent to 3.5 per cent per year. Under the circumstances, India is suffering from a higher rate of forest loss than either Brazil or Malaysia from 2000-2005. Therefore, there is great risk of our present over-reliance on satellite data to track changes in forest cover. It is pretty easy to estimate total forest cover, but often far harder to distinguish intact native forests from exotic plantations, degraded forest or secondary re-growth. We need to resolve this, as right now we just don't know what is happening too much of the world's native forests, which are crucial for conserving biodiversity. We might be fooling ourselves into thinking the situation is better than it actually is.-a bleak thought indeed.
This is bad for the environment because replanting native forests with non-native trees damages local biodiversity. Most plantations of non-native trees have very low biological value. They are only good to store carbon. This distinction between native and non-native trees is important for an accurate picture of the state of the world's forests. In the analysis, the researchers assessed data on the growth in Indian plantations collected for the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. It estimates that plantations grew by around 15,400 square kilometres a year between 1995 and 2005.
The researchers subtracted the rates of plantation expansion from the growth in total forest cover as measured by remote-sensing imagery and found that coverage of native Indian forests actually declined by 1.5–2.7 per cent between 1995 and 2005, an alarming average of 2.4 per cent a year and a loss of more than 124,000 square kilometres over the decade. The researchers checked these figures against changes in forest biovolume (the volume of wood and other above-ground forest material), estimated from field observations in the FSI report. They found a loss in native forest biovolume of around 2.7per cent per year.
They agree that the data on plantations is ‘rough’, but points out that the calculations of loss in biovolume used Forest Survey of India data. The figures derived were similar to his estimates for deforestation, so they are confident in the results. Bhaskar Vira, an environmental economist at the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, says that there is probably some truth in the study's finding. But he warns that not all the trees planted each year reach maturity and show up in satellite imagery. Because the authors subtracted the FAO figures for the total area covered by plantations from a satellite-based estimate of total forest cover, the study may have overestimated the amount of deforestation taking place.
Researchers further pointed out that some assessments of forest cover, such as that carried out by the FAO, do not distinguish between native forests and plantations. They rely on relatively coarse data from sources including the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's advanced very high resolution radiometer satellites, which have a resolution of 1.1 square kilometres per pixel. But the Indian remote sensing satellites used by the FSI have a much higher resolution - up to 23.5 square metres per pixel - so the agency has the means to distinguish native forests from plantations of non-native trees.
United Nations' REDD+ initiative to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation - which includes a focus on conservation and sustainable management of forests - will encourage India and other countries in similar situations to distinguish between native and artificial forests, and pay more attention to protecting the former. Moreover, the researchers point out that FSI employed automated analyses of forest satellite imagery to come up with its conclusion that forests were on the rise.
However, with such analyses comes a big problem. With such a system, native forests are pooled with exotic tree plantations, such as eucalyptus, acacia, rubber, teak, or pine trees, which have very limited value for endangered biodiversity. Many of these plantations and subsequent deforestation are driven by a huge demand for firewood. Countries will be interested more in paying to stop deforestation of native forests than in expanding plantations.
Login
 Login through Social ID
|
Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.
