DEFINITION OF FORESTS
ANIL KUMAR RATAN, IFS
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (WORKING PLANS), BELGAUM (KARNATAKA)
ON MID-CAREER TRAINING (PHASE IV) SECOND CYCLE (JUNE 17- AUGUST 9, 2013)
E-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Abstract:
Since long, the term “Forest” has remained difficult to define, considering the threats the
natural forest habitats face from present models of economic development at global level.
The difficulty is further compounded by the exclusion of forest vegetation while defining them
from the wildlife which forms their integral part. Thus it is not strange that the forest
regulations in India do not define the term forest or forestland. At international levels, the
production functions of the forests have been given priority over their environmental and
ecological functions. Consequently the definitions at international level need to be modified
to integrate various functions of the forests. In Indian context, the term forestland should
include the notified forests as well as all other government or private lands with primarily
natural forest vegetation and those which are set aside for environmental or ecological
considerations.
Key words: forest, forest regulations, forest definition, ecological definition of forest, legal
definition of forest
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Introduction
India has a long tradition of active role played by the State in preserving forests, promoting
planting of trees and preservation of wildlife. There are evidences to show that larger part of
Indian sub-continent was once covered with dense forests during the pre-Vedic period.
Ancient Hindu scriptures like the Yajurveda, the Bridha Smriti, the Yagyavalkya Smriti, the
Vishnu Samhita, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata mention the religious ceremonies that
were performed in the forests. During the Maurya and Gupta periods, planting of trees was
encouraged. Certain forest areas were reserved for pleasure of royal family and rich. Magadh
kings, Chandra Gupta Maurya and Ashoka took interest not only in preserving forests but
also in planting trees especially along the Highways. Kautilya’s Arthshastra also suggests a
systematic management of forests by the State. The trend continued even later. Shershah Suri,
the Rohilla king of Delhi, is known to have undertaken tree planting all along the Grand
Trunk Road, the most important route connecting Bengal to Delhi and further up to Lahore.
Mughal emperors developed a number of Royal Gardens at different places. However the
Mughal period (1526-1700) was characterized by a continuous destruction of forests for
timber and clearance for cultivation. Even though there were no forest specific detailed
Anil Kumar Ratan, IFS, Conservator of Forests (Working Plans), Belgaum (Karnataka)
Page 1 of 7
regulations in pre-British days, the forests especially those around temples/ gurukuls and
those reserved for royals/ rich were preserved well. However it is a fact that despite royal
protection to certain forests, other vast forest areas continued to be cleared over centuries for
expansion of agriculture and human habitation.
2. Forest regulations in modern India
Indian forests being the source of timber required for ship building and other industrial
purposes began attracting greater attention under British rule. Control of the State over forests
slowly became stricter. By middle of the nineteenth century, the depletion of forests began to
assume serious proportions in India. The British Government was forced to recognize the
need for the conservation and its improvement. In 1840, the British colonial administration
promulgated an ordinance called Crown Land (Encroachment) Ordinance. This ordinance
targeted the forests in Britain's Asian colonies, and vested all forests, waste lands, unoccupied
and uncultivated lands to the crown. The Forest Charter of 1855 was the first attempt by the
British Indian government in the direction of forest governance. The first comprehensive
piece of legislation concerning forests came in 1865 by way of formulation of the Indian
Forest Act, which was amended in 1878. It subsequently became the basis of Indian Forest
Act, 1927, as well as other Forest Acts adopted by certain Princely States (Mysore, Kolhapur,
merged states of Ramdurg, Mudhol and Jamkhandi, etc.). It is strange that all these forest
regulations did not define forests. They targeted only those lands which were legally notified
as the Reserved/ Protected/ Minor/ Village/ Private Forests under different provisions of the
Act concerned. They were conspicuously silent on non-notified government or private lands
which possessed natural forest vegetation. The Mysore Forest Act, 1900, defined the term
“District Forest” for the first time and provided for regulation of certain activities in such
lands which were not notified as forests (the provisions continue to be in vogue till date in the
form of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963). The Act brings many such non-notified lands within
the ambit of forest regulation: The District Forests included “All lands at the disposal of
government that are not included within the limits of any Reserved Forest or Protected
Forest or a Village Forest and not set aside for any grazing or communal purposes at the
time of survey settlement.” However in absence of effective control and poor implementation
of forest laws, most of the so called “waste lands” which were not notified as the Reserved/
Protected/ Minor/ Village Forest continued to be indiscriminately used for different activities
like expansion of agriculture and human settlement. Promulgation of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, witnessed drastic decline in the rate at which the notified forest
Anil Kumar Ratan, IFS, Conservator of Forests (Working Plans), Belgaum (Karnataka)
Page 2 of 7
lands were being used by the State for non-forest purposes. However absence of proper
definition of the term “forestland” in the Act could hardly prevent diversion of non-notified
forest lands till the landmark order dated 12.12.1996 by Hon. Supreme Court in WP
202/1995 whereby the definition of the term “forestland” in Section 2 of the FC Act was
broadened to include not only the notified forest lands but also any land (government or
private, irrespective of ownership) having characteristics of a natural forest within dictionary
meaning. Hence arose the need of defining forests legally in Indian context.
3. Forests as defined conventionally
In the new circumstances involving the national and global initiatives to preserve the existing
natural forests necessitate adoption of a proper and widely acceptable definition of the word
“forest”. Considering diverse nature of forest lands and forest vegetation, defining what
constitutes a forest is not easy. The forest types differ widely, determined by factors like
latitude, temperature, rainfall patterns, soil composition and human activity. How a forest is
defined also depends on who is defining it. As a matter of fact, more than 250 definitions of
the term "forest" are available today. These definitions differ based on the context or
concerns of different stakeholders. Legal definition of forest is different from an ecological
definition. All definitions stress the importance of trees in the ecosystem and include places
where tree cover ranges from 5% to as high as 100%. The term “forest” is conventionally
defined as “a dense growth of trees, together with other plants, covering a large area of land”.
It originated from Middle English forest or from Old French forest (also forès) "vast expanse
covered by trees". It was first introduced in English as the word for wild land set aside for
hunting. The Medieval Latin word foresta "open wood" was first used by Carolingian scribes
in the Capitularies of Charlemagne to refer specifically to the royal hunting grounds. The
exact origin of Medieval Latin foresta is obscure. Some authorities claim that the word is
derived from the Late Latin phrase forestam silvam, meaning "the outer wood"; others claim
the term is a latinisation of the Frankish word forhist "forest, wooded country", assimilated to
forestam silvam (a common practice among Frankish scribes). The term “forest” was
introduced by the Norman rulers of England as a legal term (appearing in Latin texts like the
Magna Carta) denoting an uncultivated area legally set aside for hunting by feudal nobility.
These hunting grounds were not necessarily wooded much, if at all. However, as hunting
forests did often include considerable areas of woodland, the word "forest" eventually came
to mean wooded land more generally. By the start of the fourteenth century, the word
Anil Kumar Ratan, IFS, Conservator of Forests (Working Plans), Belgaum (Karnataka)
Page 3 of 7
appeared in English texts, indicating the most common usage as well as the legal term and the
archaic usage.
4.
Forest as defined ecologically
A forest is best defined as a complex ecological system or assemblage of ecosystems
dominated by trees and other woody vegetation. The living parts of a forest include trees,
shrubs, vines, grasses and other herbaceous (non-woody) plants, mosses, algae, fungi, insects,
mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and micro-organisms living on the plants and animals
and in the soil. These interact with one another and with the non-living part of the
environment - including the soil, water, and minerals, to make up what we know as a forest.
According to the US National Vegetation Classification system, a forest consists of trees
with overlapping crowns forming 60% to 100% cover. Woodlands are more open, with 25%
to 60% cover. Other classification systems recognize savannas, which have widely spaced
trees with anywhere from a minimum of 5 - 10 % cover to a maximum of 25 - 20% cover.
5.
Forests as defined internationally
At the international level, three widely used definitions of forests have been adopted by United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) and Forest Resources Assessment by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The
CBD has not included the term `forest' in its Art. 2 (use of terms), and the definition given here is
taken from the Report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Forest Biological
Diversity UNEP/CDB/SBSTTA 2001.
5.1 FAO definition of forest
As per the Forest Resources Assessment Programme of Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO),
the forests are defined as the lands of more than 0.5 hectares, with a tree canopy cover of more than
10 percent, which are not primarily under agricultural or urban land use. The trees should be able to
reach a minimum height of 5 meters in situ. Areas under reforestation which have yet to reach a
crown density of 10 percent or tree height of 5 m are included, as are temporarily unstocked areas,
resulting from human intervention or natural causes that are expected to regenerate. The term
specifically includes: forest nurseries and seed orchards that constitute an integral part of the forest;
forest roads, firebreaks and other small open areas; forest in national parks, nature reserves and other
protected areas such as those of specific scientific, historical, cultural or spiritual interest; windbreaks
and shelterbelts of trees with an area of more than 0.5 ha and width of more than 20 m; plantations
primarily used for forestry purposes, including rubberwood plantations and cork oak stands. The term
specifically excludes trees planted primarily for agricultural production, for example in fruit
plantations and agroforestry systems.
5.2 UNFCC definition of forest
Anil Kumar Ratan, IFS, Conservator of Forests (Working Plans), Belgaum (Karnataka)
Page 4 of 7
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines the
forest as a minimum area of land of 0.05-1.0 hectares with tree crown cover (or equivalent
stocking level) of more than 10-30 per cent with trees with the potential to reach a minimum
height of 2-5 meters at maturity in situ. A forest may consist either of closed forest
formations where trees of various storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the
ground or open forest. Young natural stands and all plantations which have yet to reach a
crown density of 10-30 per cent or tree height of 2-5 meters are included in forest, as are
areas normally forming part of the forests which are temporarily unstocked due to human
interventions such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest.
5.3 CBD definition of forest
The UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA, 2001 defines the forest as a land area of more than 0.5 ha, with a
tree canopy cover of more than 10%, which is not primarily under agricultural or other
specific non-forest land use. In the case of young forests or regions where tree growth is
climatically suppressed, the trees should be capable of reaching a height of 5 m in situ, and of
meeting the canopy cover requirement.
5.4 A comparison of UNFCCC, CBD and FAO definitions:
The forest definitions of the UNFCCC, CBD and FRA are compatible and based on land use
and tree cover. All definitions set thresholds for minimum area, tree height and canopy cover
and they apply universally to all countries. The UNFCCC thresholds differ from these in that
the Parties to Kyoto Protocol can establish the numerical values drawing on their national
definitions within the indicated ranges. In the context of the UNFCCC, the countries have an
interest to ensure that the choice of threshold values (e.g. adoption of FRA definitions) does
not lead to exclusion of significant carbon stocks from carbon accounting. It is therefore
necessary to ensure that the entire classification and accounting system is able to
accommodate the change without causing distortions. A pivotal feature of both the FRA and
UNFCCC definitions of forest is that temporarily unstocked forest areas are classified as
forest provided their land use remains forestry. There are a number of reasons why the term
`temporary' should be qualified. Many lands which for legal or administrative reasons are
classified as forest lands falling under forestry land use may not be covered with trees in a
near future (or ever). On the other hand, there may be other ways than legal provisions or
administrative decisions to ensure that the tree cover will be re-established and that forestry
continues to be the land use. For example, existence of a management plan to reforest the
Anil Kumar Ratan, IFS, Conservator of Forests (Working Plans), Belgaum (Karnataka)
Page 5 of 7
land (soon) could be considered a qualifier, or that the tree cover is expected to expand to
more than 10% of the crown cover and reach a minimum of 5 meters in height, if the area is
brought under protection and not further disturbed by human intervention. The UNFCCC and
FRA definitions are harmonized in the sense that data can theoretically be converted from
one threshold to another. The CBD definition of forest does not include the concept
`temporary', possibly because the context where it is applicable, i.e. unstocked areas, are not
referred to in the definition. The FRA and UNFCCC definitions state that temporarily
unstocked areas, are considered forest. The CBD definition does not explicitly mention these,
but makes a reference to `young forest'. Lacking an explicit definition, it is unclear whether
young forests are equal to unstocked forest or not. It would probably be rare to have a
virtually clean unstocked forest without any seedlings, and this would in most cases be a
temporary situation. A forest is not considered `stocked' before it has reached the thresholds
set (10% and 5 meters). Before that it would be temporarily unstocked containing tree
seedlings, i.e. it would be a young forest (natural or planted). If this interpretation is correct,
the various definitions would be compatible. The omission of unstocked forest from the CBD
definitions has a number of connotations related to what extent unstocked forests house forest
biodiversity and whether such areas are considered part of a forest ecosystem. On one hand,
emergence of unstocked areas on a temporary basis is part of forest development dynamics,
be the forest managed or unmanaged. On the other hand, a definition that would allow
inclusion of (large) unstocked areas could be criticized from biodiversity standpoint (e.g.
vastly reduced biodiversity at least temporarily). The difference can be considered
fundamental, and the possibility to agree on a common approach in this regard could be
explored. The most promising option would be to modify the CBD definition of forest to
explicitly include temporarily unstocked areas. Excluding unstocked areas from the FRA and
UNFCCC definitions is difficult to justify, since they are firmly anchored in the internal logic
of these processes. If this kind of consistency between definitions is not considered feasible
or desirable, another option is to harmonize them through improving comparability. This
could be achieved by introducing a separate category of unstocked forest within the FRA and
UNFFFC definitions of forest. Another aspect of unstocking is degraded forest land which is
discussed in Annex 1, Section 3.
6. Limitations of current definitions
The current definitions of forest have been criticized for lacking environmental and social
criteria, and overemphasizing production aspects. Another key issue is what characteristics of
Anil Kumar Ratan, IFS, Conservator of Forests (Working Plans), Belgaum (Karnataka)
Page 6 of 7
a natural forest should be present in an area to qualify as forest. Forest plantations, in
particular, have been criticized for being `too simplistic ecosystems' to be considered a forest.
It has proved difficult to agree on such distinctions as well as on appropriate classification
criteria, and the current definitions of forest do not yet include references to them. However,
most attempts to define the `naturalness' of forests refer to indicators such as species
composition and stand structure which, in principle, can be added as attributes to existing
definitions. Social criteria are more difficult to incorporate in definitions of forest in a manner
that would make them practical to use. For instance, considerations such as "equitable sharing
of benefits from forests", are difficult to operationalize, since the benefits are often intangible
and it is difficult to make them comparable. `Equitable sharing' is also a highly value-laden
and context-specific concept. A possible option would be to address social issues mainly
through more detailed and comprehensive conceptual frameworks (e.g., criteria and
indicators) rather than through such basic and concise instruments as core definitions.
7. Conclusion
In order to safeguard the forestlands against indiscriminate use for non-forest purposes, the
legal definition of forest in Indian context needs to include not only the notified forests
(Reserved/ Protected/ Minor/ Village Forests) but also the private/ government lands with
largely (fifty percent or more ground cover) or completely natural forest growth and the
government lands primarily set aside for environmental/ ecological considerations. Natural
forest growth includes not only trees but also the natural shrubs and herbs. Forest plantations
raised in non-notified government and private lands need to be excluded. However all the
patches of ecologically significant natural forest growth (like mangroves) along rivers,
streams, etc., 0.5 Ha or larger, need to be included.
Anil Kumar Ratan, IFS, Conservator of Forests (Working Plans), Belgaum (Karnataka)
Page 7 of 7