Redefining ‘forest’ : A nuanced approach for conservation

The Supreme Court’s recent directive to states and union territories to define “forest” has once again pushed this debate into the national spotlight. How India defines a forest will shape the future of ecological security, conservation policies, and land-use planning in one of the world’s most biodiverse yet densely populated countries

The debate over defining a forest in India remains a complex issue with far-reaching implications for conservation policy, ecological security and land-use planning. This matter has recently resurfaced in national discourse following a Supreme Court directive instructing that all states and union territories must define the term “forest”, encompassing its dictionary meaning, and undertake surveys to identify forest areas within their jurisdictions irrespective of official classification, ownership, or legal status. This is basically a reiteration of the judgements in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and the Lafarge case passed in 1996 and 2011 respectively. The purpose is to regulate the diversion of all ecologically sensitive lands by bringing them under the Forest Conservation Act, now Van (Sanrakshan evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam (VSSA) 1980.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India had informed the Rajya Sabha on 3rd February 2022 that in accordance with the decision 19/Conference of Parties (CP) 9-Kyoto Protocol, India defines an area as “forest” if its ten per cent or above is under tree crown cover on a patch of one hectare or above, and minimum height of the trees or their potential to reach a minimum height at maturity in situ is two metres.

Organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization and the Convention on Biological Diversity, define a forest as land covering more than 0.5 hectares, with trees exceeding five metres in height and a canopy cover of at least ten per cent, or trees that have the potential to reach these dimensions in situ. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change provides a more flexible approach, defining a forest as a minimum area of 0.05-1.0 hectare with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of 10-30 per cent, and trees capable of reaching 2-5 metres at maturity, allowing countries to set thresholds within this specified range. These international definitions do include planted forests and temporarily unstocked lands that are expected to regenerate.

Several countries have, going beyond the numerical limits of size, canopy density, and tree heights, adopted more nuanced and inclusive definitions that could serve as instructive models for India. In the United States, forest land is defined as areas of at least one acre with a minimum of ten per cent tree canopy cover. This definition, interestingly, accommodates areas with sparse tree cover, small gaps, unpaved forest roads, and narrow streams, as long as the minimum size and canopy thresholds are met. Lands that were previously forested but are temporarily unstocked-such as areas with stumps or snags-are also classified as forest if they have the potential to regenerate and achieve the canopy cover threshold. Similarly, Australia’s definition encompasses all living and non-living entities within a forested area, including native forests and plantations regardless of age, and also covers ecosystems commonly referred to as woodlands. China adopts an ecologically oriented approach: in dry or high-altitude regions, areas with shrubs cultivated for economic or protective purposes are also classified as forests if canopy cover exceeds 30 per cent, which are duly categorised further by primary function viz. ecological, commercial, and special-purpose forests.

European countries have also adopted inclusive definitions, going beyond the numerical parameters while encompassing the broader forest landscapes rather than focusing solely on tree-covered areas. In Germany, the definition includes cutover or thinned plots, fire-prevention strips, forest tracks, forest glades, openings and clearings, temporarily unstocked areas, recreational zones, feeding grounds for game, landings, rides, and lands dominated by dwarf pines or green alders. Notably, streams or watercourses up to five metres wide passing through these areas do not disrupt the continuity of forest classification. Italy’s definition is similarly broad and encompasses young natural stands that have not yet reached a crown density of ten per cent or a tree height of five metres, forestry plantations established for timber or ecological purposes, temporarily unstocked areas expected to regenerate into forest, and windbreaks or shelterbelts larger than 0.5 hectares and wider than twenty metres.

India, with its vast ecological and social diversity, requires a nuanced and context-sensitive definition that reflects both landscapes and socio-economic realities. Its forests harbour eight per cent of the world’s biodiversity, act as carbon sinks, serve as buffers against floods, droughts, and cyclones, and directly sustain nearly 300 million human lives that predominantly include forest dwellers. At a time when the country has pledged under its Nationally Determined Contributions to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO? equivalent through forests and tree cover by 2030, ensuring a precise and enforceable definition becomes central to balancing ecological imperatives with social needs.

Applying rigid numerical definitions of forests to India’s vast and ecologically diverse landscape can pose significant challenges. They risk excluding fragile ecosystems-like degraded catchments, grazing lands, and sacred groves-that may not meet conventional size or canopy criteria but remain vital for ecological integrity, biodiversity, watershed management, ecological services, and cultural practices. A participatory process involving foresters, ecologists, environmental scientists, tribal communities, and civil society has to be the key to the development of appropriate definitions and identification of forests in each state.

Haryana offers a recent example of how a state-specific definition can significantly influence the scope of forest protection. Stating that 15 other states have also adopted similar criteria, Haryana’s Environment, Forest, and Wildlife Department issued a gazette notification defining forest “as per dictionary meaning”, specifying that isolated land parcels must cover at least five hectares, or two hectares if contiguous with government-notified forests, and must have a minimum canopy density of 40 per cent. It excludes all linear, compact, agro-forestry plantations and orchards situated outside the government-notified forests. Critics warn that such criteria could leave much of Haryana’s remaining Aravalli forests unprotected under the VSSA 1980. Small patches, hillocks with sparse vegetation, scrublands, grasslands, and community commons under semi-arid climatic conditions would no longer qualify as forests since they do not naturally support the 40 per cent canopy density. The likely adoption of a similar definition by states highlights a broader, troubling trend that could undermine the protection of India’s ecologically diverse forest ecosystems.

Despite the fact that the one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for India, many states are reported to be defining forests mechanically and based solely on parameters like size, canopy density, and tree height.

As a result, many unique regional ecosystems with present and future ecological value are likely to get excluded. Such exclusions pose ultimately a long-term threat to the natural resources, economy, and people of the country. While the spirit of protecting ecologically significant areas inherent in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1996 ruling needs to be upheld, the committees responsible for identifying forests must avoid being driven solely by economic and industrial interests, and the administrative criteria must not be prioritised over ecological reality. Committees tasked with identifying forests must take note of the fact that countries worldwide have added country- and region-specific ecological parameters to expand and bring inclusiveness into their definitions of forest.

They should use area-specific ecological parameters to recognise “deemed forests”, regardless of ownership or legal status, so that ecologically significant areas vital for biodiversity, watershed protection, and habitat connectivity are not excluded.

Modern tools, such as satellite imagery combined with ground surveys, must be used to accurately assess such areas while including lands having potential for crucial eco-services as also with regeneration potential even though currently degraded due to anthropogenic factors. Ultimately, India needs robust and inclusive definitions of forests that integrate scientific, ecological, and community perspectives to ensure long-term conservation and sustainable management of the forests and natural ecosystems in all its states.

The writers are former PCCFs, UP and Maharashtra