State of Forest Report 2023 Overview

The State of Forest Report (SFR) 2023 was launched by Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav on December 21, 2024. This report is part of a biennial effort by the Government of India to monitor forest and tree cover, carbon stock, and various other environmental parameters. The findings from SFR 2023 indicate notable trends in India’s green cover and forest health.

Forest and Tree Cover Statistics

According to SFR 2023, 25.17% of India’s land is covered by forests and trees. This includes 21.76% forest cover and 3.41% tree cover. These figures show a slight increase from the previous report in 2021, which recorded 21.71% forest cover and 2.91% tree cover. In total, there has been an increase of 1,445 square kilometres in forest and tree cover.

State Performance in Forest Cover

Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, and Odisha are the leading states in increasing forest and tree cover. Conversely, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Ladakh, and Nagaland experienced declines in their green cover. The National Forest Policy of 1988 mandates that 33% of India’s land must be under forest or tree cover, denoting the need for continued efforts in this area.

Definitions of Green Cover

The report defines forest cover as areas of one hectare or more with a tree canopy density of at least 10%. Tree cover refers to smaller patches outside designated forest areas. This includes trees in urban and rural settings that do not qualify as forest cover.

Impact on Sensitive Areas

The Western Ghats Eco-Sensitive Area has lost 58.22 square kilometres of forest over the last decade. Although very dense forests increased, moderately dense and open forests declined. The Nilgiris region, part of this area, has also seen rise in forest fires, with a fourfold increase reported.

Mangrove and Northeast Forest Cover

Mangrove cover has decreased by 7.43 square kilometres, constituting only 0.15% of India’s total geographical area. The Northeast region, while covering less than 8% of the country, houses over 21% of its tree and forest cover. However, this region has also faced a loss of 327.3 square kilometres of forest, attributed partly to agricultural expansion.

Concerns Over Forest Definitions

Critics argue that the SFR’s definitions may misrepresent forest health. The inclusion of plantations and non-native species in forest statistics raises concerns about the accuracy of the reported increases in green cover. Experts assert that this aggregation obscures the distinction between natural forests and monocultures, potentially misleading policymakers.

Forest Fire Monitoring

The Forest Survey of India has implemented a robust forest fire alert system, sending over 112.67 lakh SMS alerts during the 2023-2024 season. This system relies on satellite data to identify fire hotspots. However, the SFR does not differentiate between beneficial fires and those that harm forest health.

Carbon Stock and Climate Action

India aims to increase its carbon stock by 2.5-3 billion tonnes by 2030. SFR 2023 reports an increase of 81.5 million tonnes in carbon stock over the past two years. However, experts highlight the absence of data on forest quality and ecological indicators, making it difficult to assess the significance of these statistics.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the impact of the National Forest Policy of 1988 on India’s forest cover.
2. What are the ecological implications of including plantations in the definition of forest cover? Explain.
3. What are the primary causes of forest degradation in India? How do they relate to agricultural expansion?
4. Comment on the effectiveness of the forest fire alert system implemented by the Forest Survey of India.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the impact of the National Forest Policy of 1988 on India’s forest cover.

1. The policy mandates that 33% of India’s geographical area should be under forest cover, guiding afforestation efforts.
2. Since its implementation, there has been a marginal increase in forest cover, from 21.71% in 2021 to 21.76% in 2023.
3. States like Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, and Odisha have successfully increased their forest cover, showcasing positive outcomes.
4. However, states like Madhya Pradesh and Nagaland have seen declines, indicating uneven implementation and challenges.
5. Critics argue that the policy has not sufficiently addressed issues like biodiversity loss and forest degradation.

2. What are the ecological implications of including plantations in the definition of forest cover? Explain.

1. Inclusion of plantations can obscure the distinction between natural forests and monocultures, misleading conservation efforts.
2. Plantations often lack biodiversity and ecological functions provided by natural forests, affecting ecosystem health.
3. Non-native species in plantations may disrupt local ecosystems and lead to biodiversity loss.
4. This aggregation can create a false sense of progress in forest health, hindering effective policymaking.
5. Experts emphasize the need for accurate definitions to prioritize conservation of natural forests over monocultures.

3. What are the primary causes of forest degradation in India? How do they relate to agricultural expansion?

1. Primary causes include agricultural expansion, urbanization, illegal logging, and infrastructure development.
2. Forest land is often converted for agriculture, leading to loss of tree cover, especially in the Northeast.
3. Increased demand for food and land drives deforestation, impacting biodiversity and ecosystem services.
4. Land-use changes disrupt habitats and contribute to soil erosion and climate change effects.
5. Policies need to balance agricultural needs with conservation to mitigate forest degradation.

4. Comment on the effectiveness of the forest fire alert system implemented by the Forest Survey of India.

1. The system has successfully sent over 112.67 lakh SMS alerts, indicating a proactive approach to forest fire management.
2. Utilizes satellite data for real-time monitoring, allowing for timely responses to fire outbreaks.
3. However, it does not differentiate between beneficial and harmful fires, which is limitation.
4. Critics argue that the system may inflate fire statistics without addressing underlying causes of forest fires.
5. Overall, while the alert system is effective in alerting, it requires improvements in data interpretation and response strategies.