'Increased' forest cover is due to technicalities

MUMBAI: At first glance, the news about Maharashtra’s forest cover is cheering. The Forest Survey of India’s latest report shows that forest cover in the state increased by almost a thousand square kilometres between 1999 and 2001—from 46,672 square kilometres to 47,482.
Significantly, most of this increase has been in dense forest cover—which is defined as wooded area with over 40 per cent canopy density— rather than open, or sparse, forest cover.
But the report’s fine print shows that the news is probably too good to be true. This is because the recent survey has used different, more sophisticated techniques of interpretation, which makes it difficult to compare the new data with that of previous years.
Moreover, additional areas, which were excluded from the older surveys, have also been included.
“So any apparent increase or decrease has little meaning,’’ explains an environmentalist. As the report itself states, “the difference between forest cover..is not entirely due to changes in the ground but includes differences due to technical factors.’’ It suggests that the new data gives a more accurate picture about forest cover which can be used as a baseline for future reference.
Curiously, although the caveat about technical difference is reiterated throughout the report, it has been conveniently left out of the official fanfare over the country-wide increase in forest cover.
India’s forest cover is up by six per cent, according to the survey.
What are the technical differences which could account for the change? The FSI has been using satellite data to assess forest cover for decades now but this time, they interpreted data digitally, rather than visually.
The scale is higher—1: 50,000 rather than 1: 250,000— which means the FSI can discern forest lands down to one hectare, as opposed to 25 hectares. So small patches of forest which were previously invisible are included, while intermittent, blank spaces would also be seen and excluded.
Similarly, the survey shows an increase in mangrove cover in the state, from 108 square kilometres in 1999 to 118 square kilometres in 2001, but this is still less than the 97 figure of 124 sq km. Again, the report notes that better technology has allowed small patches of mangrove cover to be detected, which might account for the increase.
This time, mangroves have been included as dense forest— though their share is specified— and more controversially, additional lands like tea estates and orchards have been included.
Since the survey uses canopy density and land size as primary parameters, “irrespective of the tree species or legal status or ownership or land use’’, it fails to distinguish between natural forests and lands like plantations, commercial or otherwise.
Environmentalists view this as one of its greatest flaws since there are hugely divergent views on whether increased plantations count as improved forests. “Social forestry is not ecologically equivalent to natural forests,’’ says one environmentalist.
Another notes that Maharashtra has lost a lot of natural forests over the past few years, particularly in the western regions, and this can not be compensated by artificial plantation, whether done by commercial organisations or by the forest department.
For starters, plantations tend to be monocultural, of one tree species.
Some environmentalists therefore suggest that such lands should be counted as part of tree cover, rather than forests.
“Maharashtra has lost a lot of natural forests over the past few years, particularly in the western regions, and this cannot be compensated by artificial plantation�