To say that achieving 33 per cent forest cover is unrealistic is tantamount to say that our environment can be completely compromised for the sake of so called GDP centred development. 33% forest cover has been the target recommended by National Forest Policy, which the present govt. has not disowned yet. Without recommending a different target figure, to say that the earlier figure is unrealistic is sacrilegious to say the least. What is the revised target figure you are proposing: 20%, 10% or even 5%? What is the guarantee that this revised figure will not be laughed at by the next MoEF? Has MoEF the support of any objective scientific study to arrive at such a conclusion?
The figure of 33% target recommended by National Forest Policy has been done after a careful analysis of all the related issues, even though that target itself is considered by many scientists as inadequate to ensure a health environment to our people on a sustainable basis. Looking at how the density/quality/extent of our forests is being reduced every year, the figure of 33% can certainly be termed as inadequate. The wise people in your ministry seem to confuse trees with forests. I am living in the midst of Western Ghats, and on observing the continuous degradation of forests here, and on talking to the villagers, scientists and environmentalists it becomes very clear that the concerned authorities have no objective to adequately protect our bio-diversity. Fast degrading forests, as we have today, even in 50% of the total area of our country cannot provide us the quality and quantity of ecological services our country needs. Instead of making honest efforts to increase the provision of such ecological services, MoEF seem to be focused on how to reduce such services even further to benefit few industrial/corporate houses. Read the full report here.
Source: by Shankar Sharma, Countercurrents.org.
