ISFR 2023: How an Elitist Narrative Ignores the Real Plight of Himalayan Communities.

SHIMLA/NEW DELHI: The recently released Indian State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2023 has drawn sharp criticism from the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG)—a forum of retired bureaucrats.

Their open letter to the Union Minister for Environment, Forests & Climate Change raises serious concerns over the credibility of ISFR data, highlighting flawed methodology, misrepresentation of forest health, and non-compliance with Supreme Court orders.

However, while their critique exposes systemic flaws in forest governance, it conveniently ignores the ground realities of marginalized communities—especially in Himalayan states like Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, where the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980, has turned every inch of wasteland into "forest land," leaving small farmers and landless families with no room to survive.

ISFR 2023: Data Manipulation or Scientific Analysis?

The CCG’s letter points out several glaring flaws in the ISFR 2023 report:

1. Misleading ‘Forest Cover’ Expansion: ISFR continues to count orchards, plantations, and even palm oil farms as forest cover—a fact that grossly inflates India's green footprint while ignoring actual deforestation trends.

2. Failure to Recognize Ground Truth: Independent satellite imagery reveals that India has lost 1.49 million hectares of forests between 2013 and 2023, yet the ISFR paints a rosy picture of increasing forest cover.

3. Unexplained Data Fluctuations: The area of ‘unclassed forests’ in Uttar Pradesh fluctuated wildly from 14,000 sq km in 1995 to below 4,000 in 2001, raising doubts over the reliability of data collection methods.

4. Ignoring Supreme Court Orders: Despite the 1996 Godavarman case and 2011 Lafarge judgment, which mandated proper digitization and legal recognition of forests, the ISFR report fails to address these concerns transparently.

5. Rampant Forest Diversion: Over 3,00,000 hectares of forests have been handed over for non-forest use in the last 15 years. The ISFR, however, does not reflect this loss.

While these issues are critical, the CCG’s assessment lacks a fundamental perspective—the impact of rigid forest laws on small farmers and marginalized populations in Himalayan states.

The Unspoken Truth: How FCA is Crushing Himalayan Communities

The Forest Conservation Act, 1980, was meant to protect forests. But in states like Himachal and Uttarakhand, it has become a stranglehold on local communities.

Himachal Pradesh: Where Every Wasteland is ‘Forest Land’

Himachal Pradesh's historical land ownership patterns were shaped during pre-independence feudal rule, where Rajas and Ranas granted fertile lands to their elites, while lower castes and marginalized communities were left with rocky, infertile terrain. Post-independence, when land reforms were attempted, the FCA froze large tracts of land as ‘forest land’, including wastelands that local communities depended on.

Forest & Revenue Discrepancies: Due to the lack of proper demarcation, land records are inconsistent across districts, with some areas recognized as revenue land while others remain ‘forest land’, even if cultivated for decades.

Small Farmers vs. Bureaucratic Red Tape: Marginalized communities struggle to get land regularized for agriculture, grazing, or housing, as FCA provisions prevent the conversion of forest land into revenue land.

Disaster Vulnerability: In high-altitude areas, deforestation is real, but the real estate and dam projects continue unchecked, while local farmers are harassed for cultivating a few extra hectares.

Uttarakhand: A Land Deserted by Its People

Villagers Abandoning Land: With tiny, fragmented landholdings unable to sustain joint families, many mountain villages are being deserted. Thousands of villages are now ‘ghost villages’, as youth migrate to cities due to a lack of agricultural viability.

Outdated Forest Laws: In several cases, ancestral lands like charagaha drakhtan are now classified as ‘forest land’, preventing villagers from even selling or developing them.

Forest Bureaucracy vs. Local Survival: The forest department is quick to penalize villagers for cutting a tree, but turns a blind eye when companies clear entire hillsides for hydro projects and tourism resorts.

CCG’s Flawed Perspective: The Urban Elites vs. The Rural Struggle

The CCG—comprising mostly retired IAS officers—has valid concerns about the ISFR report. However, their argument remains elitist and disconnected from ground realities. Sitting in metros, they criticize the manipulation of forest data, but fail to acknowledge the suffocating policies that have turned entire villages into ‘forest offenders’.

What Needs to Change?

1. Transparent and Grounded Forest Data: ISFR reports must distinguish between actual forests and commercial plantations. Ground-truthing should involve local communities, not just bureaucrats and satellite imagery.

2. Forest Conservation with Human Sensitivity: Laws like FCA should protect forests but not at the cost of destroying rural livelihoods.

3. Land Regularization & Reforms: The government must recognize ancestral land claims and wasteland rights, especially in Himalayan states, where villagers face severe land fragmentation.

4. End Greenwashing Through Plantation Schemes: The ISFR 2023 promotes the Green Credit Programme (GCP)—allowing businesses to offset deforestation by planting commercial crops. This is nothing but corporate greenwashing.

In the end   Himalayan Crisis Needs Local Voices, Not Just Retired Babus

The CCG’s criticism of ISFR 2023 is crucial, but their bureaucratic lens ignores the real crisis in the Himalayas. Forest laws should not become a tool to criminalize local communities, nor should green cover data be used to mask environmental destruction.

The forests must be protected—but not by sacrificing the very people who have lived in harmony with them for centuries.