What about our forests - the forests of India

Development priorities in India are in a state of flux as actions aimed at increasing the quality of life receive credence over concerns of environmental degradation that we are suffering from. The story repeats itself in most resource rich countries who are willing to undergo social and environmental sufferance at the cost of a higher Gross Domestic Product.

All is not pleasant if we look at the trends of degradation that forests of the country, which at one time covered large tracts of the nation, are subject to. Societal needs of a country of more than one billion have assumed alarming prospects. To add to the alarm, a statistic reveals that 78% of the forests face heavy grazing and other unregulated uses, another 7-9 % is suffering from pressures of shifting cultivation, besides diversion for meeting non-farm related demands of the burgeoning population. It is an alarm that forest managers recognize and steps taken now may well determine the future of the forests in the coming decades.

Forests serve multiple roles but increased demands on the ecosystem lead to a fall in the health of fragile areas, increasing stress and causing conflicts. Postures of those advocating access to traditional users and those who advocate for inviolate zones have become increasingly hardened. Additionally, industrial forces demand more and cheaper access to raw material as well as permission for diversion of forest lands.

In the midst of gloom, there is an interminable hope that forests in India would survive and flourish into the next century. For forests continue to have strong social and cultural linkages with human communities and mainstream religious customs. The starting point is now for the loss of forests is at stake and along with it, is the loss of a precious heritage that existed for millennia.

With change in use patterns driving demands for forest products and economic growth, challenges that will throw themselves up to the manager and demand innovations include

 

×          To apply policies that will factor in an area-based approach of management

×          To conserve biodiversity for their inherent value rather than a commodity to trade

×          To reconcile conservation ideals with resource use by communities

 

The intention is two fold. Realise that a healthy forest environment and the sustainability of societies are the objectives of forestry and then act.

First, conserving diversity of inviolate areas is necessary. A start has been made by designating protected areas as repositories of diversity. They cover 4 % of the land and are not expected to rise much, hence need to be protected. Several opponents of this system emphasize on the rights of people. It is true that for more than 85% of forests, the role of communities becomes crucial. People live here and cannot be removed without force, not just for the paucity of land but also because of the enormous social upheaval that the nation will have to incur with this forced migration. A hard choice must be offered to them of the need to maintain forests. Wherever possible, those convinced can move out voluntarily and for those who choose not to, adivasis can stay, albeit with restrictions.

Leaving aside core areas, Reserve Forests need to undergo a drastic change in management practices that are unique to the needs of the region. The system of core, buffer and transitional zones as envisaged will be strengthened. Designated core areas in the reserve forests remain inviolate. Community areas, corresponding to existing boundaries, can be created with permissions to carry out activities for predetermined consumption. These areas will work on a charter that embraces protection as their goal and enables those who wish to stay to do so without discrimination or apathy.

 

An old prescription, but the community will have an area based design and a chalked out plan, aided by a government appointed manager, to extract and conserve based on the following criteria – amount of extraction, social fencing initiated and regeneration activities such as nurseries. The forest department will support and convince communities to conserve forests or face punishments in the form of loss of rights for short periods.

 

In practice, communities with real power and even greater responsibility are the only ray of hope to ensure that forests survive. Hiving of forests as independent units capable of maintenance by communities with the department as a consultant (initiating watershed interventions and consolidating landscape priorities) will make management a more focused activity, an action oriented movement and not a problem solving mechanism as is practiced presently.