Policy makers to man on the street think that forest cover in the country is
diminishing, but casual observations and statistics tell the opposite.

I wrote a piece on the subject for Bhutan Today, and they have published it
today.

For the benefit of members who have no access to Bhutan Today, and with the hope
our group can give some serious look on the subject, I produce it below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As a once forest analyst, I enjoyed reading the piece "All Talk, But No Action"
by Rinzin K. Lotey which appeared in your Bhutan Today issue of dated 16th April
2009. The piece captured beautifully the animated discussion that took place one
day amongst Rinzin's friends on forest cover and forest conditions in the
country. Since then, I have wanted to engage in and take this beautiful
discussion further with the hope it generates further discussion.

The forests not only provide timber and non-timber resources, they are also the
sources of human civilizations, wildlife and biodiversity, protect land and
water resources, and act as the primary carbon sink. However, as pointed out in
the discussions, the forests have been over the centuries heavily exploited for
timber resources, agriculture and economic development, and they are also
damaged by forest fires, storms and pests and diseases. The consequences of loss
of forest cover as an environmental issue have been extensively documented and
are now a common global knowledge. Therefore, naturally the changes in forest
cover and conditions remain a matter of great global and national concern.

As the climate change is today the most pressing global environmental issue, it
was the tropical deforestation in the 1980s and 1990s. Raising issues do prompt
actions. There is good news. Today about 30% of the global total land area is
covered by forests, amounting to 40 million km˛. According to FAO, and its
latest assessment of global forest conditions in 2005, the net loss of global
forests has slowed down from 0.22% per year in the period 1990-2000 to 0.18% per
year between 2000 and 2005. We can therefore take comfort at the thought that
deforestation in the world is atleast not accelerating.

Now coming over to our forest cover and conditions in the country, quite
contrary to the prevailing narrative that our forests are under continual
pressure from growing populations of human and livestock, economic development
and forest fires, the greening of our mountains and valleys with the natural
regeneration of trees over the last three or four decades through forest
protection by the Royal Government is a story of most phenomenal success in the
world.

With Sri Lanka, India and Nepal with less than 30% forest cover, and Bangladesh
10 %, and Afghanistan, Pakistan and Maldives less than 4%, our forest cover at
64 % is the highest in the South Asia, and is currently listed as the top 17th
forested country in the world.

When our figures are revised next time, we would without difficulty secure our
position in the top 10 forested country in the world. This is because that the
64% forest cover was based when the country's land area was taken as 40,006 km˛
as against today's official figure of 38,394 km˛, a four percent reduction in
total land area, and since the reduction of area corresponds to rocks and rocky
outcrops above the tree line in the north, the increase in forest cover
therefore becomes 68% of the total land area. Further, present official forest
figures are based on the analysis of 1989/1990 satellite images, and according
to unofficial reports, the analysis of the 1999/2000 satellite images shows a
significant increase of about 10% forest cover in the country over the ten-year
period from 1990 to 2000, which makes the total forest cover at over 80%
including the shrub and scrub lands. And when we take 14% of land as
constituting high mountain peaks, rocks and water bodies, the land available for
agriculture, settlements and development is just about 6%. We have thus in the
country of not diminishing but increasing forest cover with serious consequences
on our cultural landscapes, biodiversity and economic development.

Man and environment shape each other, giving rise to the many distinct cultural
landscapes with great scenic value. They represent the history and spirit of our
nation and people. As important as the biodiversity conservation, we must
inventory, characterize, protect and enhance our mountain landscapes shaped by
our farming and livestock communities from north to south, and from west to
east. The cultural landscapes in many rural areas are being taken over by a huge
expanse of forest cover.

Biodiversity richness is a function of the richness of the landscapes. Different
landscapes such as open space, meadows, rocks, cliffs, shrubs, scrubs and water
bodies harbour different sets of biodiversity. We have developed the belief
system that tree cover is the ultimate environmental goal. It is important that
we do not equate tree cover as the only indicator of the good health of our
environment as now research shows the grass and shrubs are if not richer in
biodiversity and if not better than trees in soil and water conservation.

Finally, we have before us one of the most scared duty enshrined in our
Constitution which is to ensure that our Nation maintains a minimum of 60%
forest cover for all times to come. We need not worry about not meeting this
national obligation for sometime as we are in a very comfortable situation.
However, in order to ensure this Constitutional obligation is not breached, and
there is a common understanding of what does the minimum of 60% forest cover
mean at the operational level, we have a long way to go as of now and as far as
I know we have not even attempted to frame questions, and then seek answers to
these questions. For instance:

• How should the forest cover be distributed in both space and time?
• Does forest cover mean only tree cover? What about the shrubs and
pastures?
• Does forest cover mean just the public lands? What about the
private and community forests, and trees outside forests?

I can at the moment only think of the few questions above. I hope the discussion
today tickles forest policy makers and researchers to take this important
discussion further.


Dr. Phuntsho Namgyel