VISAKHAPATNAM: Despite a reported increase in forest cover in the State from 29,137 square kms in 2019 to 29,784 square kms in 2021, as stated in the India State of Forest Report (ISFR), there are growing concerns about the impact of forest land diversion for non-forestry purposes on traditional forests, wildlife, and associated ecosystems.
In a reply during the recent Lok Sabha session, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) disclosed that a total of 95,724.99 hectares of forest land have been approved for non-forestry use across India under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, from April 2019 to March 2024, approving 8,731 proposals from all States. Specifically, 1,593.97 hectares of forest land have been approved for non-forestry purposes during this period through the approval of 47 proposals in AP.
The report noted the State’s efforts in compensatory afforestation, including the covered area, have been declining each year. Compensatory afforestation refers to afforestation and regeneration activities carried out as a way of compensating for forest land diverted to non-forest purposes. The compensatory afforestation in the State was recorded at 1,473.17 hectares in 2019-20, 509.04 hectares in 2020-21, 491.69 hectares in 2021-22, 845.04 hectares in 2022-23, and 643.62 hectares in 2023-24. This reduction has raised concerns among environmentalists about the long-term consequences of forest loss in the region. In terms of financial allocations, the report outlined the funds spent on compensatory afforestation in Andhra Pradesh over the last five years.
The expenditures were Rs 3,389.1 crore in 2019-20, Rs 4,909.87 crore in 2020-21, Rs 5,896.31 crore in 2021-22, Rs 6,149.85 crore in 2022-23, and Rs 5,205.12 crore in 2023-24. However, the report does not specify how these funds were utilised, leading to calls for greater transparency and accountability.
Addressing the discrepancies between the ISFR 2021 and data from Global Forest Watch (GFW), the Ministry noted that differences in definitions of forest cover and tree cover might account for the variations in the reports.
The Ministry said there are no plans to amend the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, despite recent criticisms regarding amendments that potentially reduce protection for deemed and community forests.
Environmentalists argue that the definition of forests should not be subject to change based on human needs but should comprehensively consider the protection of wildlife, their habitats, birds, and the broader ecosystem. They called for a more inclusive approach to forest conservation that balances human development with ecological preservation.
