NEW DELHI: In the recent Green Credit Rule 2024 announced by the government to promote tree plantations on natural forest land, environmentalists see another attempt to destroy natural forests. Experts say the rules are also in violation of the recent Supreme Court interim order, where it reinstated the dictionary meaning of the term forest, and directed the government to conserve it.
Through the rules, the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) directed the State Forest Departments to identify degraded land parcels, including open forest and scrub land, wasteland and catchment areas, under their administrative control and management, and make them available for tree plantation.
The rule further states that each State Forest Department will provide a green credit certificate after evaluation and verification to applicants on completion of tree plantation activity. The certificate will be a symbol of environmental, social and governance leadership indicators.
However, experts see the rules as damaging the forest ecology as it can easily be manipulated in favour of business conglomerates or interested parties to suit their interests. “The term degraded forest is of critical importance. There is no rule or law which prescribes a formula to identify a degraded forest,” says Debadityo Sinha, an expert on environmental laws.
“In that scenario any and every forest can be a degraded forest,” Sinha adds. Prerna Singh Bindra, a wildlife conservationist and writer, sees the rules as another ploy for a greenwash. “Scrub and arid lands as also catchment areas are vibrant ecosystems which host endangered, even endemic wildlife, and studies have established their vast potential for carbon sequestration,” emphasises Bindra.
As per the rules, the Green Credit will come into play if at least 1,100 trees are planted per hectare. It further states that plantation must be done based on local silvi-climatic and soil conditions. But scientists say planting 1,000 trees per hectare cannot be a functional ecosystem. “We have been suggesting 2,500-3,000 vegetation per hectare, which includes top and middle canopy of trees, lower storey and ground vegetation of shrubs and grasses,” explains Dr Faiyaz Khudsar, scientist and wildlife conservationist and eco-restoration expert.
The rules further state that credit may be exchanged for meeting the compliance of compensatory afforestation in case of diversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980. Obsessions with plantation Tree plantation is being projected as an answer to every environmental problem, especially climate change. But a number of studies show that if care is not taken, these plantations would do more harm than good.
A recent study led by scientists at the University of Sheffield in collaboration with the University of Leeds, the Cambridge, the National Centre for Climate Research and WWF points out that the side effects of large scale forestation initiatives could reduce the CO2 removal benefits by up to 30%. According to the study, a faster rate of afforestation will reduce the reflectivity of the land surface as it blocks incoming solar radiation, which helps in regulating temperature.
Scientists who led the study believe that relying only on afforestation instead of reducing fossil fuels consumption would not help in climate change mitigations. “Stopping climate change requires urgent and rapid reductions in fossil fuel emissions alongside protecting and restoring forests,” states Prof Dominick Spracklen of the University of Leeds, who was part of the study.
The Indian government has invested lots of public money in plantation projects but most of them failed, experts say. “There is a need for an audit of public money spent on such greening and afforestation programmes to fix accountability as it is no more beneficials to environment,” says Debi Goenka of the Conservation Action Trust, a Maharashtra-based non-profit engaged in protection of the environment, particularly forests and wildlife. Bindra questions the government’s rationality over diversion of natural forest land and compensating with afforestation as there is no study to back up the idea.
“Have there been any studies to substantiate that plantations via afforestation programmes will have great capacity to sequester carbon? Surely that is a prerequisite before irrevocably destroying such ecosystems? Such lands would have been identified as forests as per the 1996 TN Godavarman order, and consequently protected,” says Bindra.