In a bold move to combat climate change, India has set an ambitious target of reducing carbon emissions by one billion tonnes by 2030 through forest conservation, aligning with the Paris Agreement.

The biennial report of the Indian Forest Survey, released earlier this year, showcases an increase in forest cover by 1,540 square kilometres since 2019. However, a deeper dive into the data reveals a troubling trend: this growth primarily occurs on degraded lands or previously lost forest areas, while primary forests continue to deplete at an alarming rate.

India’s rich mineral deposits lie beneath deep forests and the government has fast-tracked several ‘development’ projects, often bypassing comprehensive environmental assessments in the quest for rapid GDP growth. According to central government data presented in the Lok Sabha, 25,800 hectares of forest land were allocated for various projects between 2008 and 2020. In 2017-2018 alone, 496 square kilometres of forest land were destroyed for such projects.

Afforestation efforts by the forest department primarily involve planting commercially-valuable species like eucalyptus, acacia, or rubber, resulting in monoculture forests. These plantations have severe implications for climate change and the livelihoods of forest-dependent tribal communities. Monoculture plantations possess a carbon sequestration capacity significantly lower than natural forests, approximately one-fortieth. Natural forests, which are rich in biodiversity, play a crucial role in sequestering atmospheric carbon, a necessity for controlling global warming.

The National Forestry Scheme, despite holding substantial funds, has been mired in corruption. Many states offer subsidies and incentives for afforestation projects outside forest boundaries, but the efficacy and honesty of these efforts are questionable. Between 2009 and 2020, the central environment department spent around Rs 59,000 crore on afforestation. However, data from the ‘e-Green Watch’ portal of the department of environment revealed that half of the 23,500 hectares afforested with Compensatory Afforestation Fund between 2015 and 2018 were planted with only one or two species of trees. A researcher, who examined 2,000 documents from six states found that in areas claimed to be afforested, no trees existed. Furthermore, the Indian Forest Survey notes that 75 per cent of the forest creation information submitted by state forest departments is false, indicating a lack of proper monitoring and fostering corruption.

India’s forest management system is clearly inadequate for addressing multidimensional problems. Reforms are essential and the role of forest-dependent communities is crucial. Various research papers suggest that forest destruction is significantly less in tribal-managed forest areas compared to those managed by the forest department. The Government of India’s ‘Forest Rights Act 2006’ recognises the rights of forest-dwelling communities over forests, allowing them to live and manage their surrounding areas. Despite this, the forest department is reluctant to relinquish its authority, arguing that tribal cannot manage forests effectively—a claim proven incorrect in many instances.

Researcher Dr Pravat Kumar Shit’s studies in the Junglemahal forest fringe demonstrate that tribal dependence on forest resources improves their livelihoods through the sale of forest products. However, many forest areas are being replaced by eucalyptus and acacia plantations, adversely impacting the environment and society. Dr. Shit’s research in Jhargram and West Midnapore districts highlighted that Sal forests have better soil health compared to eucalyptus and acacia plantations, with lower bulk density, higher organic matter content, better water retention, and higher nutrient levels.

Forests should be viewed as socio-ecological systems rather than commodities. Empowering local communities to manage forests can encourage the preservation of multi-species forests, increasing biodiversity and effectively combating climate change. This approach also has the potential to reduce government expenditure on forest conservation, providing a sustainable model for the future.