Guwahati: Days after Union Environment and Forest Minister Bhupender Yadav released the ‘India State of Forest Report 2023 (ISFR 2023)’ at Forest Research Institute, Dehradun on December 21, several experts have come forward to criticize the report, alleging that it is not scientifically prepared and contains numerous discrepancies in its data and conclusions.
According to the report, India’s forest and tree cover has reached a quarter of the country’s total geographical area. This translates to a 25.17% increase, which includes 21.76% forest cover (7.15 lakh sq km) and 3.41% tree cover (1,289 sq km).
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The Forest Survey of India (FSI) defines “forest cover” as land with a tree canopy density exceeding 10% and covering at least one hectare. Notably, the ISFR definition of “forest” encompasses plantations.
Experts Raise Concerns About Report Methodology
Three experts, Prakriti Srivastava (retired IFS officer), Prerna Singh Bindra (ex-member National Board for Wildlife and author), and Krithika Sampath (a conservation researcher and author), have critiqued the ISFR for failing to follow and incorporate the Supreme Court’s orders in WP 202/96 Godavarman order SEC reports and the Lafarge order of 2011.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
They argue that the data on unclassed forests is unreliable and lacks explanation for the significant fluctuations observed in state-reported data on unclassed forests between reporting cycles.
The experts further point out that the Lafarge order directive mandating the inclusion of all forests diverted under the Forest Conservation Act 1980 and the inclusion of digitized maps of diverted areas in the ISFR has not been followed, even after 13 years since the order was issued.
“Overall, the ISFR 2023 is riddled with discrepancies. It neither reflects the true state of our forests nor accounts for forests that have been excluded in violation of the Godavarman order,” they said.
The methodology employed in the report remains unchanged from previous years. Forest areas include orchards, palms, and bamboo clumps with a canopy cover of 10% exceeding 1 hectare outside forests. The report also incorporates coconut, oil palm, areca nut, rubber plantations, and shade trees in tea and coffee plantations.
Counting all these areas as forest cover significantly inflates the figures and fails to consider the ecological value that natural forests provide for biodiversity and wildlife conservation. These areas are fragmented and lack the ecological benefits of natural forests.
Report Faulted for Lack of Ground-Truthing and Ignoring Discrepancies
The ISFR’s publication date suggests that ample time was available to conduct ground-truthing and exclude these non-forest areas. However, neither the states nor the FSI undertook this crucial step, resulting in another faulty report with inflated forest cover data. The inflated figures ultimately serve to benefit administrators who can claim an increase in the country’s forest cover.
The report fails to establish a correlation between forest area and forest cover. This anomaly suggests that the data for both metrics may not be robust and cannot be reliably correlated. The ISFR’s silence on this issue further raises concerns about a deliberate attempt to conceal this important finding.
The FSI claims that data on Recorded Forests is obtained from states and UTs, and therefore, they disclaim responsibility for ensuring the data’s accuracy and comprehensiveness within the ISFR. However, the Supreme Court’s 2011 Lafarge order mandated the MoEFCC, states, UTs, and FSI to work collaboratively to achieve this goal. The FSI’s continued disclaimer after 13 years constitutes a violation of the Supreme Court’s orders and can only be seen as a deliberate omission to avoid a comprehensive evaluation of all forest areas in the country, as mandated by the Lafarge order.
Data Inconsistencies and Unexplained Forest Loss
The ISFR 2023 report reveals a loss of 1,488 sq km of unclassed forests between 2021 and 2023. The report offers no explanation for this significant loss. In the absence of a correlation between forest cover and forest area, it can only be presumed that this lost forest area has not been accounted for. If factored in, this loss would reveal a decrease, not the increase of 1445.81 sq kms claimed in the ISFR.
The FSI reports contain poor-quality data on unclassed and recorded forests. This data lacks authenticity and reliability, and it fails to correlate with the data that should have been compiled from state expert committee reports prepared and submitted by states and UTs as per the Godavarman order. The report acknowledges that the SEC reports are sketchy and incomplete, justifying the exclusion of their data from the ISFR 2023. However, this exclusion results in the omission of large tracts of forests lost to diversions between 1996 and the ISFR 2023, rendering the ISFR unreliable and in violation of the Supreme Court order of 1996.
Examples of Questionable Data in Specific States
The report exhibits significant inconsistencies in data on unclassed forests across various states. For instance, unclassed forest area in Odisha increased from 17 sq km (in 1999) to a staggering 16282 sq km between 2001-2015. However, in the subsequent reporting cycle (2017), it drastically reduces to 22 sq km, a figure maintained in the 2023 report as well, with no explanation provided.
Similarly, Uttar Pradesh witnessed a drop in unclassed forest area from 13739 sq km (between 1995-1999) to a mere 3323 sq km in 2001. In Himachal Pradesh, unclassed forest area remained relatively constant around 2000 sq km between 1995-2019 before a sudden increase to 7178 sq.km in 2021.
The data for Goa is even more concerning, with unclassed forests oscillating between 988 sq.km in 2001, 165 sq. km in 2003, and 987 sq.km in the next cycle (2005). It again dropped to 126 sq. km between 2009 and 2011 before increasing to 972 sq. km in 2013.
Jharkhand’s unclassed forest area remained constant at 33 sq km between 2001-2019 before jumping to 1696 sq km in 2021.
States like Kerala and West Bengal show no change in unclassed forest area throughout the entire period (1995-2021). Kerala, in fact, does not report any unclassed forest area at all. This raises questions about the accuracy of the data, as it’s difficult to believe that Kerala has no unclassed forests or has simply failed to identify or protect them.
The fact that these states report zero diversions of unclassed forest areas over 25 years raises serious concerns about the data’s credibility. Consequently, the data provided by the country’s premier organization responsible for surveying and collating forest data cannot be entirely trusted.
FSI’s Complicity and Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Orders
As highlighted in Volumes 1 and 2 of the ISFR, the Forest Survey of India (FSI) has failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s orders. While the ISFR includes a disclaimer stating that data collection is the responsibility of states and UTs, it is important to note that the FSI has not brought this non-compliance to the Court’s attention in the 13 years since the order was issued. This inaction suggests the complicity of the FSI and its parent ministry, the MoEFCC, in concealing the extent of forest land diverted for dams, mines, roads