What are forests? A natural conglomeration of trees? What is natural? Do plants with woody stems alone makeup forests? If so how do we assess them? Do we count individuals; measure the area canvassed by their canopies or study observable influences on their surroundings? What about the life systems they support? These are all valid questions and since forests constitute a sizeable proportion of global land cover and crop up to the forefront during any environmental discourse, one would assume that we have pretty much nailed down their definition. This is crucial as sustainable forest management becomes more impertinent globally.
However, what forests truly encompass is contingent on how we contextualize these questions and our approach to answering them. This could be ecological, silvicultural, commercial, recreational, legal, administrative, political, socio-cultural or more pragmatically, an amalgamation of all these aspects. Then there’s sustainability, a term that is bandied about across a wide spectrum, from being used to label locally sourced products; market green businesses; proclaim a carbon-neutral enterprise; declare a minimalist lifestyle; set agendas at international conventions; greenwashing and a lot more.
A breif history of sustainable forest management
The broad and quite often loose connotations associated with these terms convey the enormity of the task at hand when one talks of sustainable forest management (SFM). This complexity was identified at the Rio Earth Summit, considered the progenitor of international agreements for environmental conservation and development, wherein the first global non-legally binding document on SFM was ratified. Named “Forest Principles”, it laid down a blueprint for any SFM framework based on environmental sustainability, economic viability and social-upliftment.
For its implementation, a set of results-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools had to be devised that would provide relevant, cost-effective, and readily understandable information for efficient forest management and related decision-making by policymakers and forest managers. This was easier said than done and no universal configuration would work considering the diversity of forest biomes, the organisms and ecosystems intrinsically linked with them and the complex geo-political contours that govern them.
To address this, a plethora of governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental bodies came together led by ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization) to develop a ‘Criteria and Indicator’ (C&I) based approach to conceptualize, monitor, evaluate, assess and report progress on sustainable forest management based on which regional processes would be adapted and drafted.
Understanding the criterias used for Sustainable Forest Management
Here ‘Criteria’ would be the broad elements under which sustainability is assessed adhering fundamentally to the productive, protective and social roles of forests and therein ecosystems. ‘Indicators’ would be quantitative, qualitative or descriptive parameters monitoring the status and dynamics under each criterion1. After much expert deliberation came 11 regional and international processes2 whose detailed structural descriptions are beyond the scope of this humble article.
However, at present, it would suffice to understand that the criteria across all 11 processes broadly cover aspects related to the extent of forests resources; biodiversity; forest health and vitality; productive functions of forests; protective functions of forests; socio-economic needs and benefits; and the requisite legal, policy and institutional frameworks. Thusly, a global consensus on the importance of SFM was reached and in its pursuit, a broad yet comprehensive outline framework was drafted.
With that minor history lesson out of the way, one may ask the pertinent question – what is the purpose of this article? SFM has been recognised as a pressing requisite of forest governance, significant attention has been brought to it on the world stage and there is even an expert-driven consensus on an approach towards achieving it. Well as with a variety of multifarious issues, the bottlenecks lie in the realization of SFM frameworks. This is the scope of the current article with a brief dive into SFM implementation in India.
The Implementation of Sustainable Forest Managment in India
SFM is a multilayered labyrinthine initiative that requires copious amounts of prima facie information and its success includes but isn’t restricted to the scope and quality of data compiled, the systems design of the framework and its transparency to us civilians. During the period of C&I development across the world, India and its neighbours too collaborated and drafted a C&I for SFM framework called the Dry Zone Forests of Asia Process (also called the Bhopal-India Process because the lead institution was our very own Indian Institute of Forest Management in Bhopal!).
They came up with a comprehensive set of 8 Criteria (one more than most other processes) and 43 Indicators to monitor progress towards SFM. Finalized in 2001, it was mandated by the NWPC (National Working Plan Code 2014) as the blueprint for M&E across all Forest Working Plans3 (documents that detail all matters on forest management) to be implemented by State Forest Departments (SFDs) at the forest management unit level, which in India are Forest Divisions. This leads to the current status of SFM frameworks across the country.
Baigakheda, a tribal village under East Mandla Forest Division (MP), against the backdrop of tropical deciduous forests
Let’s begin with the first criterion on the extent of forest cover, and while it has been reported to have increased over the last decade, there is some contention on its implications. India defines forest cover as any land area greater than 1 hectare with a canopy density of 10% and more irrespective of ownership, legal status or land use. Experts have largely critiqued this definition as it includes ever-growing plantations, agro-forestry and ToFs (trees outside forests), inflating the overall cover percentages. Moreover, much of these forests are highly fragmented patches. These “forest” patches are ecologically a far cry from naturally occurring old-growth forests in terms of the quality of ecosystem services provided4,5,6.
Biodiversity monitoring is the next criterion and, forest inventories across FWPs (Forest Working Plans) list inhabitant floral and faunal diversity along with their threatened status with a special focus on endemic/native or important species groups such as orchids, epiphytes, migratory species, etc. However, there is a lacuna of information regarding their past and present ecological status such as species distribution and richness trends at the Forest Division level, save for charismatic megafauna such as tigers, rhinos, elephants, etc.
Limitations to these monitoring methodologies
Such studies on biodiversity are rather conducted by autonomous institutions that possess the requisite scientific expertise but their research is project-driven. Even amongst them, such information is majorly available for forests of important conservational significance such as wildlife sanctuaries, tiger reserves, national parks, biosphere reserves, etc. This is not a critique of either the research institutions conducting such commendable work or the already understaffed SFDs mainly tasked with administrative responsibilities. Nevertheless, maintaining updated biodiversity records across all designated forest areas is imperative and calls for much-improved coordination, collaboration and data sharing between R&D wings and the bureaucratic bodies supplemented by the necessary capacity-building at the Forest Division level.
A severe lack of focus on regulation services
In the case of protective aspects of forests such as maintaining soil resources, water provisioning, carbon sequestration, and other regulating services, records maintained are mostly qualitative. SFDs are largely tasked with addressing soil erosion, reversing degraded lands and reviving dried streams. However, far more comprehensive monitoring of SFM needs to be standardised including detailed records of relevant climatic, edaphic and hydrological parameters. For example, forest carbon stock is a crucial biophysical parameter describing climate resilience and is a requisite indicator to be monitored under the NWPC Criteria 5 (Maintenance and Enhancement of Forest Resource Productivity).
Carbon stock estimation methods range from field-based allometric modelling to advanced machine learning-based RS-GIS techniques using optical, LiDAR and SAR satellite imagery. Several state-backed projects exist employing said techniques for carbon profiling spread across the countries’ most reputable institutions including a nationwide carbon stock estimation exercise conducted biennially by FSI.
But this data doesn’t trickle down to the management unit level wherein many FWPs fail to provide pertinent information due to a lack of feasibility of such assessments at the division level. This further underlines the need for improved collaboration and resource sharing between the research bodies possessing the requisite expertise and forest managers in the field.
A Forest Beat Office of East Mandla Forest Division in the vicinity of Kanha National Park (MP)
On the monitoring of forest productivity, the most readily documented data comprises growing stock of wood, extracted timber, and related commercial information. This is relevant as the forestry sector contributes 37.5 billion USD to the national GDP of which timber constitutes 65%, the rest being NTFPs (non-timber forest produce). National-level records reveal ~45% of households in the country are still directly dependent on fuelwood and the average volume extracted amounts to ~272.8 million metric tonnes annually (as per India’s last environmental accounting for 2018-19)7. There is still a sizeable information gap on other NTFPs though.
Even under the best of circumstances, data regarding commercially exploited NTFPs such as Tendu, Mahua, Sal seeds, profitable medicinal and aromatic plants, etc are available but anyone having an insight into the lives of forest-dwelling communities would tell you that the true assortment of forest products used across the country is vast and rather poorly documented.
A local weekly bazaar for the sale of gathered forest products in Mandla district (MP)
Lastly, monitoring of socio-political, legal and institutional aspects involves recording details of criminal proceedings and corresponding legislation associated with forest resources; status of socio-economic mechanisms to promote SFM such as ecotourism, activities to involve locals in forest management under JFMs (Joint Forest management) and VDCs (Village Development Committees); indigenous peoples and their accorded rights (FRA, 2006); land ownership and related dispute settlements; as well as regulation of forest areas intertwined with religious, spiritual and cultural faith.
Here too there is room for progress, SFM promotion activities (such as plantation/regeneration enhancement drives) often lack thorough post-activity verification to quantify results and ensure long-term benefits to stakeholders. There is also the matter of under-estimation of sacred grove sites, only about 14,000 have been registered across India out of over 100,000 as suggested by several peer-reviewed publications8. Lastly, there is great potential in incorporating indigenous and traditional forest-related knowledge and practices in forest management planning and implementation, but this hasn’t been backed by the necessary policy interventions.
Forest workers employed on temporary basis by the Forest Department for enumeration based surveys.
How is sustainable forest management progressing globally?
While the above section paints a rather underwhelming picture of SFM in India, it is by no means a condemnation of the work carried out by its custodians. India is still a developing country with a myriad of socio-cultural complexities and one must acknowledge the limitations that come with it. However, advancements must always be made by learning from the very best. It shouldn’t be surprising that Canada, the USA and Western Europe lead the way in achieving the greatest progress towards SFM making rapid strides by rigorously revising and updating their C&I sets.
Their processes put far greater emphasis on forest governance including management transparency, auditing, capacity building, outreach and incentivisation of SFM to name a few. Indicators of carbon fluxes and sinks are measured with the latest methodologies in climate science. Silvicultural indicators now focus on certified timber products, adherence to global compliance schemes, transparency in supply chain management, and validation of reduced-impact harvesting procedures.
Biodiversity monitoring now encompasses genetic diversity monitoring and documentation of in situ conservation methodologies not only in designated areas for wildlife conservation but all forest patches. Indicators on monitoring protective services now demarcate interventions applying specific soil and hydrological engineering. Likewise, socio-cultural indicators also bring attention to the health and safety of forest workers, mechanisms of sharing costs and benefits of SFM operations and gender equity amongst stakeholders.
As mentioned, several commendable research projects have been and are being carried out yet there is a legitimate argument that they exist in largely disjointed bubbles and their findings are mostly circulated within R&D echo chambers. The best M&E structures employ both top-down and bottom-up approaches and this rings true in SFM as well. To enable this, we need facilitative instruments at the Forest Division level across the country.
What role does private investment have in sustainable forest management?
A key difference between forest management in India and countries credited with achieving the greatest success such as Canada has been the influence of private investments in production-based forest estates and one may be tempted to replicate that here. However, these nations have demonstrated enormous efficiency in being able to strictly regulate private players while there is justifiable scepticism around our ability to do so.
This becomes evident with the recent impetus on removing hurdles to hasten the process of acquiring environmental clearances for industries in forested areas; opening up coastal areas for the proliferation of tourism, industrial and port-linked activities; the alleged weakening of institutions such as the Ministry of Tribal Affairs as the nodal authority on the Forest Rights Act. 2006; and so on9.
The way forward for sustainable forest management
It is our prerogative as citizens to safeguard our forests to ensure the sustenance of their benefits to marginalised sections of society and future generations. Understanding the need for diligent implementation of SFM is pivotal to this requiring consolidation, transparency and effective communication of relevant information. While this article only skims the surface of the SFM diaspora, it still took considerable time to compile into one coherent discussion and therein lies the crux of the issue.
The conversation around SFM needs to be had not only between policymakers and forest managers but all stakeholders including civilians. It is our duty as a responsible populace to endeavour for better involvement in its discourse as it is a matter of our long-term survival on this planet.
Help us Help Them! Think Wildlife Foundation is a non profit organization with various conservation initiatives. Our most prominent campaign is our Caring for Pari intiative. Pari is a rehabilitated elephant at the Wildlife SoS Hospital. 25% of the profits from our store are donated to the elephant hospital for Pari. Other than buying our wonderful merchandise, you could donate directly to our Caring For Pari fundraiser.
Written by: Rishab Srikar