Can you love tigers but hate forests? This question troubled me as I visited central India last fortnight. I was in Nagpur, where local politicians, conservationists and officials were discussing what needed to be done in this chronically poor and backward region endowed with forests and tiger habitat.
The discussion started with a focus on tigers. Everybody wanted more money to protect the reserves earmarked for this magnificent creature. It was unanimously demanded that Nagpur be declared the tiger capital of the country; the existing tiger reserves be expanded and better protected; money be paid to relocate families living in tiger habitats; and tiger tourism be promoted. Clearly, there was an important constituency for the tiger, which, in turn, is important to protect its forested habitat. Or so you would think.
Then the talk turned to forests. “All development has come to a halt. We cannot mine coal. We cannot build thermal power stations, roads, factories or irrigation canals. In each case we need to go to Delhi or Bhopal (the regional office of the ministry of environment and forests) because we need clearance from forest departments for each hectare of land that will be diverted.” Forests were suddenly the underlying reason for the lack of development, poverty and dissatisfaction. Tigers were loved, but forests were hated.
It is important to understand the reality. This is a region where in many districts over 80 per cent of the land is classified as forests. Under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, it was decided that the only way to stem rampant diversion of forests for development projects was to ensure that every file travelled to Delhi for clearance. But the trip to Delhi was time-consuming. So in 2003 it was agreed that in the case of projects requiring diversion of less than 40 hectares of forest land, the file would go to the ministry’s regional office.
There is no doubt that this sternly-worded legislation has been critical in safeguarding forests. Cutting forests has become tough. This is because the diversion of forest land requires clearance on file, payment of its net value and funds for compensatory afforestation.
More From This Section
However, there is a flip side. In this region, people have no use for forest land. They do not understand that forest conservation is interrelated with tiger survival. The population of tigers is increasing but the contiguous forests, which allowed the territorial tiger to roam, are degraded or diverted for other uses. At this rate, the tiger will survive – because of the huge investment being made for its protection – but in increasingly smaller zones. This is “zoo-ification” of the tiger, which is bound not in city zoos but in reserves that are surrounded with high firewalls.
This is the tragedy of our forests. There is no value for the tree, but only for the land on which it stands — for mining or development. The people who live in forests are neglected and are impoverished, caught between the lack of development and the hateful stick of the forest guard. No wonder then that the Naxalites are taking advantage of this anger.
How can one maintain the balance between forests and development? In my view, it requires a drastic rethinking of what we mean by development and a re-positioning of forests in that development strategy. Let me explain. At present, in India there is a provision to pay the “net present value” of forests while felling trees. In other words, we pay to cut trees. But there is no payment for standing forests. There is no value for this resource. For many years, chief ministers have been demanding that they be paid to protect forests. Finally, the 12th Finance Commission agreed that states must be paid for the maintenance of forests — some Rs 1,000 crore between 2005 and 2010. Very little money, but the principle was established. However, nothing really happened. In 2010, the 13th Finance Commission reiterated the need to compensate states and enhanced the allocation to Rs 5,000 crore over the next five years. Even so, the money has not been provided. Equally important is that this money must go to the people who live in the forested regions. It is their burden that must be rewarded. This is the first step.
But it is not enough to protect forests; we have to use them as well. The big challenge is to sustainably use the resources to build green wealth. Currently, the productivity of our forests is pathetically low. This is partly because we do not know how to plant and cut and then grow again, in the face of enormous human and animal pressure on our forest land. So we plant, but there is little regeneration. We cut and then the land is degraded. So how can we build a green forest future? How can we turn our forests into assets? Let us continue to discuss this.