Case Of The Missing Forests : 61,500 square kilometers Of Forests Are Missing in India

Representation pic. Photo by Renaldo Matamoro on Unsplash

• The difference between forest area in government records and the actual existing forest area in India is 61,500sq.km. These are the Missing Forests. 
  
  
• In Telangana state, which recorded one of the biggest positive changes in forest cover as per ISFR-2021(632sq.km), forests are missing over 6,474sq.km. 

V.Nilesh | Hyderabad

There has been a lot of hoopla recently in the media on the numbers reported in the India State of Forest Report-2021 (ISFR-2021) published by the Forest Survey of India (FSI). I present to you in this blog the case of missing forests in India.

According to the ISFR-2021, India's forest cover increased by 1,540 square kilometers(sq.km) in 2021 compared to 2019. In the same period, Telangana state's forest cover increased by 632sq.km, one of the biggest positive changes recorded among all states. 

While this minuscule increase in forest cover has become the most spoken about datapoint from ISFR-2021 in the media, a careful reading of the report reveals a lot of underlying gloom in the data that it presents.

The Case of Missing 61,500 square kilometers of Forests in India

Here's some information you weren't made aware of by the media - India's actual forest cover as studied through satellite images by the FSI is 61,500 sq.km less than the combined geographical area officially recorded by the Governments of various States and Union Territories as "forest."

What do I mean?

The ISFR provides data on 'Recorded Forest Area as per the State's records' — a state's total geographical area recorded officially as 'forest' — under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or Acts passed by state governments. 

All the States and Union Territories of India officially recognize 7,75,288sq.km area as 'forest' according to the ISFR-2021. As part of its biannual exercise of measuring forest areas in India through satellite imagery, the FSI could identify only 7,13,789sq.km of forests in 2021, which means across 61,500sq.km area where forests must exist as per government records, there are no forests! 

How much is 61,500sq.km? It is 10,000sq.km more than the landmass of Bangladesh! 

In the case of Telangana, the Recorded Forest Area by the state government is 27,688sq.km, whereas the forest area identified by FSI in 2021 was 21,214sq.km. So over 6,474sq.km of the area where forests should have existed, there are none! 

Pathetic Forest Cover in States Ranking High on Industrialization 

Industrialization does not seem to be treading a sustainable path in the states that take pride in their economic model.

Among the top-11 states of India ranked according to Gross Value Added by their factories in the Annual Survey of Industries-2017, in three states, the forest cover is less than 10% — Gujarat, Haryana, and Rajasthan. Except for Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh, forests don't even cover a quarter of their geographical area in the other eight states. 

States in Descending Order of Gross ValueAdded by Factories as per Annual Survey of Industries-2017	Forest Cover (Percentage of Geographical Area that is Forests)	Recorded Forest Area as per the State's records (in square kilometers)	Existing Forest Area as Reported in the ISFR-2021 (in square kilometers)	Missing Forests (Area in square kilometers)
Maharashtra	16.51	61,952	50,798	11,154
Gujarat	7.61	21,870	14,196	6,944
Tamil Nadu	20.31	23,188	26,419	NA
Karnataka	20.19	38,284	38,730	NA
Uttar Pradesh	6.15	17,384	14,818	2,566
Haryana	3.63	1,559	1,603	NA
Rajasthan	4.87	32,863	16,655	16,208
Uttarakhand	45.44	38,000	24,305	13,695
Madhya Pradesh	25.14	94,689	77,493	17,196
Telangana	18.93	27,688	21,214	6,474
Andhra Pradesh	18.28	37,258	29,784	7,474

As you can see in the table above, of the top-11 industrial states of India, except Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Haryana, there is a massive difference between the Recorded Forest Area and the existing forest area as per the ISFR-2021. The other eight states have 81,711sq.km of missing forests, which is a little more than the landmass of Belarus.

Why are these forests missing? Well, hopefully, a journalist interested to know the answer to this question would take it up and ask the forest department officers about it. Although one answer I'm sure about is deforestation and encroachment of forest areas.

Every edition of the ISFR reports a minor rise in the forest cover across various states of India. These improvements won't amount to much until all states recover the entire area of the missing forests, till the forest area existing on ground as seen through the satellite imagery is close to the Recorded Forest Area in government records. And even that would be just a beginning towards the long-term goal envisaged by the National Forest Policy of India, of having 33% of the country's geographical area under forest cover.

Ends/

Conservation of Telangana's Manjeera Sanctuary Essential to Prevent Extinction of Painted Storks

Painted Storks at Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary.
Courtesy: Wikipedia. By User:Ravinder Thakur, CC BY-SA 3.0,

Absence of Painted Stork Breeding in Telangana's Manjeera Sanctuary Flagged by BNHS researchers

 

In 2018, researchers from the BNHS recorded over 7,500 Painted Storks nesting at Puttigadda Island of the Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary; In 2019 and 2020, the numbers dropped to ZERO

 

V Nilesh | Hyderabad

Raising the alarm over the absence of Painted Storks breeding in the Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary in 2019 and 2020, a study published in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society(JBNHS) has underscored the role of the Sanctuary in maintaining the global population of the species.

Cause of Worry

In March 2018, researchers from the BNHS recorded over 7,500 Painted Storks nesting at Puttigadda Island of the Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary — around 30 percent of the estimated global population of the species!

In 2019 and 2020, the numbers dropped to ZERO as water levels drastically depleted and the Sanctuary dried up, according to the study Bird Ringing Programme in Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary, Telangana, India: Findings and Conservation Issues. 

This is a matter of grave concern because Painted Stork (Mycteria leucocephala) is listed as a 'Near Threatened' species on IUCN Red List, with an estimated global population of 24,000 mature individuals. This makes Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary one of the largest nesting sites of Painted Stork in South Asia.

If the Telangana forest department does not make efforts to ensure that Painted Storks continue to breed at the Sanctuary, the species' global population is at risk.    

It's not just the Painted Stork that is under threat. The BNHS researchers could not see the nesting of many other heronries in the Sanctuary in 2019 and 2020, recorded in large numbers in 2018. These include the Oriental Darter(Anhinga melanogaster), Asian Openbill(Anastomus oscitans), Black-headed Ibis(Threskiornis melanocephalus), and Black-crowned Night-Heron(Nycticorax nycticorax).

Significance of Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary

Birds

The Sanctuary is a crucial habitat for 286 migratory and resident bird species. The Sanctuary's significance also lies in the fact that it supports more than 1 percent population of various species of birds, according to the Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas in India by BirdLife International and BNHS.

The document mentions, "For instance, the biogeographic population of Bar-headed Goose(Anser indicus) is estimated to be between 52,000 to 60,000 (Wetlands International 2012). At Manjira, up to 500 are found regularly which is almost 1% of the population. To give a more specific example, about 3% of the non-breeding population of Ruddy Shelduck(Tadorna ferruginea) winters in Manjira. Wetlands International (2012) estimates about 50,000 individuals of this species in South Asia, and in Manjira, Vijaya Kumar & Choudhury (1995) found up to 1,500."

Mugger Crocodiles

The Sanctuary was established in 1978 to conserve Mugger Crocodile(Crocodylus palustris), listed as 'Vulnerable' on the IUCN Red List. The Mugger Crocodile population in the Sanctuary was 171 in 2017.

Fishes

A study on ichthyofaunal diversity of Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary taken up in 2015-2016 reported sightings of 57 species of fish, most of which were native species. Two are listed as 'Endangered' and four as 'Near Threatened'.

Anthropogenic Stress

The Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary, located in Siddipet district of Telangana, is a 36km stretch along the course of the Manjeera river located between two dams - Singur and Manjeera. Water from the Sanctuary serves as drinking water to nearby areas and Hyderabad. Also, farmers along the Sanctuary's shoreline use the water for irrigation.

While the Sanctuary faces stress due to anthropogenic factors during the average rainfall years, the pressure becomes severe during poor rainfall years. This affects the breeding of local and migratory birds and forces crocodiles to seek refuge in agricultural fields, endangering the lives of the creatures and humans. 

A Mugger Crocodile that ventured outside the Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary, captured by the Telangana Forest department.

The study in JBNHS points out, "Besides inadequate water during low-rainfall years, extension of agricultural activities in the periphery of Manjeera, excess use of pesticides in the nearby agricultural fields, spread of invasive species such as Prosopis juliflora and Ipomoea carnea are other conservation issues facing this wetland, as observed during our study and also reported by earlier workers".

It's time the Telangana government takes up the responsibility of putting conservation measures at the Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary to protect the Painted Storks from extinction along with other species of birds and the Mugger Crocodiles.

This must also includes all the protection measures as mandated by law in the Eco-Sensitive Zone of the Sanctuary, which extends one kilometer from its boundary covering an area of around 65sq.km. 

Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary Eco-Sensitive Zone. Source: MoEF.

Ends/

Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture: 96 Percent Marginal Farmers "Extremely Vulnerable"

 

Climate change is not just a global issue that deserves to be discussed only in fancy international summits and conferences. Its impact is local, especially the impact of climate change on agriculture, and it's going to affect the poorest the most.

According to a study conducted in Telangana, India, 96 percent Marginal farmers and 94 percent Small farmers are "Extremely Vulnerable" to the impacts of climate change. 

Also, 87 percent of Semi-medium farmers, 69 percent Medium farmers, and 26 percent Large farmers are Extremely Vulnerable to climate change, according to the study.

Marginal farmers are those who own less than 1 hectare(ha) farmland, Small farmers - 1.1ha to 2ha;  Semi-medium farmers - 2.1ha to 4 ha; Medium farmers - 4.1ha to 10 ha; Large farmers - 10ha and above.

The research paper containing findings of the study — Household Vulnerability to Climate Change and Identification of Target Beneficiaries to Implement Household-Specific Adaptation Strategies: A Quantitative Assessment —  has been published in the Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development (AJAD).  

The authors are Swamikannu Nedumaran, Ravi Nandi, Jyosthnaa Padmanabhan, Srigiri Srinivasa Reddy, Dakshina Murthy Kadiyala, and Shalander Kumar from International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, German Development Institute, Bonn, and Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University.  

As part of the study, the researchers investigated the climate change vulnerability of 6,214 households in the drought-prone districts of Telangana state - Mahabubnagar, Wanaparthy, and Nagarkurnool. 

Of the 6,214 households, 9.74 percent were marginal farm households, 17.8 were small, 32.7 percent were semi-medium, 32.59 percent were medium, and 7.11 percent were large.

Overall, 79 percent of the 6,214 surveyed households are found to be "extremely vulnerable", 11.2 percent "moderately vulnerable", and 9.65 percent were "resilient" to climate change.

Courtesy: The research paper on 'Household Vulnerability to Climate Change and Identification of Target Beneficiaries to Implement Household-Specific Adaptation Strategies: A Quantitative Assessment', published in AJAD.

Five Principal Components Of Vulnerability

For assessing the vulnerability to climate change, the researchers considered five principal components - (1) access to irrigation; (2) credit access, landholding, and income from agriculture; (3) household size and income sources; (4) access to information and climate-smart adaptation practices; and (5) social capital.

The households were classified into three clusters based on the varying degrees of impact of climate change on them - Extremely vulnerable, Moderately vulnerable, and Resilient.

Regarding the households classified as Extremely vulnerable, the researchers point out, "These households had the least access to irrigation, credit facilities, and climate information; had a smaller household size and fewer income sources; and had adopted the fewest climate-smart adaptation practices. In this category, the proportion of irrigated area to the total landholding was low. Moreover, households in Cluster 1 (extremely vulnerable) had a smaller social network compared to resilient and moderately resilient household groups."

Impact Of Climate Change On Indian Agriculture

In 2013, the Hyderabad-based Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA) came out with the 'Atlas on Vulnerability of Indian Agriculture to Climate Change'.

To develop the atlas, the CRIDA researchers considered close to 40 indicators to quantify the three components of vulnerability to climate change — sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive capacity — and developed a Vulnerability Index.

According to the atlas, of the then 572 districts in India, the vulnerability to climate change was 'Very high' (115 districts) or 'High' (115 districts) of nearly half of all the districts.  

The 'high' or 'very high' vulnerability was mainly due to a combination of the indicators - Projected decrease in July rainfall, Low Rainfall, Low groundwater availability, Projected increase in the number of drought years, Projected rise in minimum Temperature, High Net Sown Area and Low Net Irrigated Area.

What Needs To Be Done?

In their study, the ICRISAT, GDI, and ANGRAU researchers highlight three policy-level measures to combat the impact of climate change on agriculture :

Allocation of resources in the Leximin order

The researchers explain, "A Leximin rule entails redistribution to the most affected along some criterion as a matter of priority. After the needs of the most vulnerable have been met, attention is directed to redistributing to the next affected."

They further explain, "Ideally, policy formulation can target identified households, and enabling policies can be rolled out to enhance the adaptive capacity of said households based on the identified reasons for vulnerability for each of the categories. Consequently, this can increase the adoption of context-specific climate-smart adaptation technologies. Compared to a "one size fits all" approach, a tailored policy approach can potentially increase the resilience of households by enhancing their adaptive capacity." 

Improved extension services

The researchers mention, "Agricultural extension services should be improved to ensure that farmers receive climate information and information on climate-smart adaptation strategies. Given the paucity of agricultural extension personnel, providing group extension, or linking extension services through producer organizations or local farmer associations, can advance the transfer of information and technologies cost-effectively. The government should work with private entities and non-government organizations with proven extension models in public-private partnerships."

Improving low-cost technologies

According to the researchers, "There is a need to explore opportunities for donors to invest in low-cost infrastructure such as improved irrigation systems, improving credit access, and establishing more weather stations that can precisely predict weather conditions in a specific village or groups of villages."

21 years since formation, Lake Protection Committee yet to issue final notification for 3,306 lakes in Hyderabad Metropolitan region

Final notification issued only for 226 lakes out of 3,532 lakes in HMDA limits by the Lake Protection Committee. 

Hyderabad

September 3, 2021: 

It has been 21 years since the "Lake Protection Committee" was formed by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA). However, the HMDA could manage to issue official notifications for only 226 lakes out of the 3,532 lakes under its jurisdiction - meaning 3,306 lakes are yet to be notified.  

In Hyderabad, the Lake Protection Committee issued final notifications for just 18 lakes, of the total 28 lakes the Committee recognizes in the city. 

This shocking fact comes to light as the National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone) took up a case Suo Motu, based on a report on "Indiscriminate encroachment of tanks and ponds" in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits and other municipalities, in the Telugu newspaper, Eenadu.

The Executive Engineer of the HMDA's Lake Protection Committee in his reply to the NGT provided details that there are 3,532 lakes under the HMDA limits, of which preliminary notification has been issued for 2,139 lakes. The final notification has been issued for 226 lakes.

Here's a break up of the lakes: 

What is the responsibility of the Lake Protection Committee?

The letter puts forward the mandates of the Lake Protection Committee formed by the HMDA on April 6, 2010, in compliance with the orders issued by the High Court (in WP no. 9386/2007).

According to the letter the responsibilities of the Lake Protection Committee are:

- Listing all lakes in the HMDA area 

- Demarcation of the Full Tank Level of the lakes (FTL is the maximum water-spread area of a lake that is based on historical records) 

- Protection of FTL from encroachment 

- Taking up wide publicity and awareness campaigns on the protection of the lakes

Why the delay?

The letter says that the delay is on account of the delay by Revenue department officials towards the Certification of cadastral maps of the lakes prepared by a private agency hired by the HMDA.

Another reason is the delay in the officials of the Irrigation and Revenue departments coming to an understanding over the Full Tank Level area of the lakes.

What is the big deal here?

The official notification by HMDA demarcating the Full Tank Levels of lakes will serve as official documents pointing out the territory of all lakes, in which no construction will be allowed. They will play an essential role in preventing encroachments of lakes. They can also be used as reference points in litigations involving encroachments of lakes.

Why must the lakes not be encroached?

Lakes in Hyderabad/HMDA limits are a network of water bodies. These interconnected water bodies play an essential role during heavy rains in preventing flooding of residential areas.

As rains/heavy rains occur, the rainwater from residential areas, open spaces, roads, etc. runs off into the lakes and gets collected there. When these lakes overflow, the excess water flows through the channels between lakes - also known as stormwater drains or nallas - and reaches other lakes. This way, the excess water gets balanced.

Unfortunately, due to the encroachment of lakes, they do not have enough space to contain the excess rainwater. On top of this, the nallas are also encroached in the city at many places. As a result, there is not enough space for water from the lakes to flow to the interconnected lakes.

All of this leads to flooding!

The situation becomes worse with intense rains due to climate change. To get an idea about it, read Worse yet to come? Climate change to aggravate flooding in Hyderabad, and Climate change causing increase in rainfall in city.

Here's the letter by Executive Engineer of Lake Protection Committee that I refer in this article:

Ends/ 

Telangana violates Forest laws, undertakes illegal road development inside Protected Areas

Tiger pugmarks. (Representation picture. Courtesy : Wikimedia Commons)

• Nine road development works taken up in Protected Areas without prior approvals

• The road development projects are located inside Kawal Tiger Reserve, Kinnerasani & Pakhal Wildlife Sanctuaries

Hyderabad, August 23, 2021: 

There are 29 states in India and all state governments often resort to chest-thumping for various reasons. One such reason for Telangana government often thumps its chest about is its afforestation scheme - 'Telangana ku Haritha Haram' as part of which it claims to have planted 210.85 crore saplings since the scheme's launch in 2015. 

Unfortunately, Telangana government seems to be more interested in planting new saplings than protecting the existing forests and adhering to forest conservation laws of the land. 

It has come to light that the Telangana government violated Forest Conservation and Wildlife Protection laws by taking development of as many as nine BT roads inside Protected Areas (Protected Areas include sanctuaries, national parks, Tiger reserves), without obtaining necessary approvals from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC). 

Violations inside Kawal Tiger Reserve, Kinnerasani and Pakhal Wildlife Sanctuaries

According to the minutes of the 49th meeting of Regional Empowered Committee(REC) of the MoEF&CC, Telangana government has proposed 24 road development projects inside various Protected Areas, including Tiger Reserves and Tiger Corridor forests, under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) to connect remote Tribal hamlets and villages with pucca roads. 

Of these 24 projects, nine came up for discussion in the 49th REC meeting held online this month on 17th. These nine projects fall in Kawal Tiger Reserve(4 projects), Kinnerasani Wildlife Sanctuary(3 projects) and Pakhal Wildlife Sanctuary(2 projects). 

What are the violations?

The Telangana government, despite being the custodian of laws went ahead and broke them. Without obtaining necessary approvals from the MoEF&CC the state government went ahead with chopping down trees, clearing vegetation and laying of roads.  

The minutes of meeting details,

"After deliberation on each proposal, the committee noted that the most of the road stretches have already been completed/partially completed by the User Agencies without prior approval of the competent authority, in violation of FCA, 1980. The Committee considered such works in violations very seriously and directed the PCCF, Telangana to ensure no works will be carried out further till the approval from the competent authority is obtained."

When government violates laws  

The REC seems as shocked as anyone would be at the gross violations. It has directed Integrated Regional Office of the MoEF&CC in Hyderabad to write to MoEF&CC, New Delhi regarding the violations and requesting for further orders on how to proceed with the issue. 

This was done keeping in mind the fact that the violations are by the State Government, for implementation of a Central Government scheme, leaving the REC in a fix regarding how to proceed. If the violator would have been a private company or individual, the REC would have implemented fines and penalty without any hesitation. 

Committee to conduct site inspections 

Now that the damage has already been done in nine out of the 24 projects proposed in Protected Areas and the status quo of other projects is not known, the REC has decided to conduct site inspections of all the 24 sites where the road development projects have been proposed. 

It has to be seen what does the REC find in its site inspection and what decision the MoEF&CC takes regarding the violations by Telangana government.