Ever since the mid 1990s, when the Narasimha Rao-led Congress government amended the Indian Conservation Act and threw the forests open for commercial exploitation, including for mining, the Indian landmass’s forest cover has been rapidly dwindling. Although India has not been a complete slouch in reforestation, and there have been good gains in some states, an estimated 728 sq km of forests has been completely lost across the country, and another 630 sq km subjected to degradation. Given how large India is, the numbers in themselves might not sound catastrophic ? they are certainly nowhere close to Brazilian proportions ? but the devil is in the details.
The matrix of economic development is failing to take into account the costs of irretrievables such as wildlife habitat. In Orissa, for example, bauxite under the earth has found its way into spreadsheets as an input cost for an aluminium smelter, but the fact that these mines would threaten a tiger forest has been ignored. In Madhya Pradesh, recessed coal is a source of huge optimism for low-cost power generated in bulk, with few to worry about saving (or compensating for) the forest cover that must yield way to the project. The wildlife implications of this differ from those in Orissa, but the question is the same: are we sensitive enough to the environment in our hurry to achieve economic success? The Supreme Court has appointed a committee that recently ordered the cancelling of 49 projects on forest land that appeared to have got the requisite clearances from assorted arms of governance. That such a thing has happened at all suggests something rotten in the various bodies who bear responsibility for the protection of forests. What is going on? The Vedanta and Reliance cases in Orissa and MP, respectively, discussed above will probably see satisfactory compensatory efforts, since they are both so high-profile. But then what? Apart from MP and Orissa, forests are at huge risk in Andaman & Nicobar, Assam and Manipur. These green cover bastions ? the northeast has more than 25% of India?s forest cover with just 7% of the land ? have shown the worst losses. Arunachal has saved its trees to a large extent, but what happens next is anybody?s guess. Let?s face it, forests still matter. The lives of some 250 million people in India, not all of them tribals, depend on them. Forest products and related activities provide millions their livelihoods, too. Last but not least, India?s flora and fauna, among the world?s most diverse, are at stake here. Bio-diversity can be a big competitive advantage in the biotech market of the 21st century, and herbs valued for their healing properties for thousands of years could be lost forever if the forests fail to ensure their survival as species.
Meanwhile, conservationists are divided over a new tribal-rights law that will empower bona fide inhabitants of forests to make good use of many available natural resources. Some fear that this will damage forests further. But these fears are misplaced. Tribal populations have always adhered to ancient rules and rites of sustainable resource usage, and perhaps urban conservationists need to learn a lesson or two from them. A nation that sees its wildscape as an asset, no matter how badly misunderstood it is by urban chauvinists, is one that can be confident of its future.
