No State showed net increase in forest cover between 2015 and 2019, study reveals
What is more concerning is that while the loss was in the forest core and bridge areas (corridors connecting different core areas), the increase in forest area was mostly restricted to islets — patches of forest containing no core and representing isolated habitats. Nearly half of newly added forests were islets while a negligible 6% increase in forest cover was in the core, according to a study by researchers from SASTRA University and IIT Bombay. The results were published in the journal Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.
Structural connectivity plays a crucial role in habitat permeability, species dispersal, gene flow and biodiversity within a forest landscape. In this, the islets, which are isolated patches, play the least role in habitat permeability and species dispersal. 'Islets have the least ecological value as they are isolated habitats. What that means is that species found in islets cannot migrate to any other habitat as islets do not have any bridge or loop or any other facility to facilitate migration,' says Dr. V. Sathyakumar from the School of Civil Engineering, SASTRA University, and the first and one of the corresponding authors of the study. So any increase in forest cover of the islets without attempting to link them to the main forest does not help increase biodiversity.
'The novelty in our study is that we assessed the forest connectivity, which currently is not available in any Forest Survey of India report. We also looked into gross forest gain and gross forest loss, while FSI reports mainly focus on net change,' says Dr. Sathyakumar.
'There are studies on total forest gain or loss but structural connectivity has not been studied so far. Knowing structural connectivity will help in understanding ecological health, and carry out biodiversity conservation,' says Dr. R. Ramsankaran, Professor at the Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay and a corresponding author of the study. Forests have been divided into seven distinct connectivity classes, with core at one end of the spectrum while islets are at the other end of the spectrum.
According to Dr. Ramsankaran, islets are more prone to deforestation compared with the cores. And across India, net additions to forest cover have been largely restricted to islets and not the forest cores.
Compared with 2015, forest core area that has been converted into non-forest in 2019 is nearly 204 sq.km. In the case of islets, the conversion into non-forest has been even higher at nearly 230 sq. km. What makes the conversion into non-forest in the case of islets stand out is that the net loss of about 230 sq. km is from a far smaller area of about 32,000 sq.km compared with net loss of about 204 sq. km of forest core from about 5.87 lakh sq. km, points out Dr. Sathyakumar.
'Forest core has more resilience. As a result, even when some portion of the forest core is converted into non-forest, the core has better chances of survival, which is not the case with other structural entities of the forest, particularly the islets,' says Dr. Sathyakumar. 'In the case of the core, we found only 0.035% has become non-forest, while 0.72% of islet has become non-forest. The conversion rate of islets to non-forest has been almost 20 times higher between 2015 and 2019.'
The higher rate of islet loss would mean that even when attempts to afforest the islets are made, the chances of sustenance of afforestation will be very less, says Dr. Sathyakumar. Based on the study, he says forest cores have higher resilience while islets have the least and so any attempt at afforestation should be in the forest core with the least preference given to islets. 'As far as possible, if afforestation of islets is undertaken, it should be done to convert them to a higher-ranking class such that islets become a branch so they have better resilience,' he says.
Across India, forest cover decreased from 24.13% in 2015 to 24.10% in 2019. While there was about 56 sq. km of forest gain, forest loss was 1,033 sq. km, resulting in a net loss of about 977 sq. km. This equates to a loss of approximately 18 sq. km for every 1 sq.km. gained.
Mizoram had the highest forest cover (about 99%) and Ladakh the lowest (0.91%) in both years. The largest net reductions were observed in West Bengal (0.28% points), Tamil Nadu (0.20% points), Kerala (0.14% points) and Goa (0.12% points). More importantly, forest core area loss was highest and exceeded the national rate in six States — Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, and Telangana. In particular, Tamil Nadu's rate was sixteen times higher than the national-level rate. 'These six states specifically require targeted interventions to address the rapid loss of forest cores,' they write.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
14 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
India's embrace of dangerous facial recognition technology is great for AI, terrible for privacy
In February, India, along with France, co-hosted the AI Action Summit held in Paris. At the end, it was announced that the next edition will be held in India. In its naming, priorities, and focus, the summit witnessed a clear shift from 'safety' to 'innovation' as the principal theme in artificial intelligence discourse. This move aligns with India's lax regulatory stance on AI governance, even in high-risk areas like healthcare and surveillance-driven technologies such as facial recognition technology. In the upcoming summit, this shift will enable the Indian government to steer discussions toward innovation, investment and accessibility while avoiding scrutiny over its weak legal protections, which create an environment conducive to unregulated technological experimentation. Shortly after the introduction of Chinese start-up DeepSeek's R1 model – which upended assumptions about large language models and how much it might cost to develop them – the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology announced plans to develop indigenous foundation models using Indian language data within a year and invited proposals from companies and researchers under its IndiaAI Mission. While local development in these areas is still in the early phase, the domain of AI that has already seen widespread adoption and deployment in India is facial recognition technology. As India contemplates a sustained push toward AI development and will likely seek to leverage its hosting of the next AI Summit for investments, it is instructive to look at how it has deployed and governed facial recognition technology solutions. Understanding Facial Recognition Technology Facial recognition technology is a probabilistic tool developed to automatically identify or verify individuals by analysing their facial features. It enables the comparison of digital facial images, captured via live video cameras (such as CCTV) or photographs, to ascertain whether the images belong to the same person. Facial recognition technology uses algorithms to analyse facial features, such as eye distance and chin shape, creating a unique mathematical 'face template' for identification. This template, similar to a fingerprint, allows facial recognition technology to identify individuals from photos, videos, or real-time feeds using visible or infrared light. Facial recognition technology has two main applications: identifying unknown individuals by comparing their face template to a database (often used by law enforcement) and verifying the identity of a known person, such as unlocking a phone. Modern facial recognition technology utilises deep learning, a machine learning technique. During training, artificial neurons learn to recognise facial features from labeled inputs. New facial scans are processed as pixel matrices, with neurons assigning weights based on features, producing labels with confidence levels. Liveness checks, like blinking, ensure the subject is real. Still, facial recognition technology faces accuracy challenges – balancing false positives (wrong matches) and false negatives (missed matches). Minimising one often increases the other. Factors like lighting, background and expressions also affect accuracy. Over the past seven years, facial recognition technology has seen widespread adoption in India, especially by the government and its agencies. This growth has coincided with debates surrounding Aadhaar (the national biometric ID system), frequent failures of other verification methods, a rise in street surveillance, and government efforts to modernise law enforcement and national security operations. In this review, I have surveyed the range of facial recognition technology deployment across sectors in India, both in public and private service delivery. This adoption tells the story of an exponential rise in the use of FRT in India, with barely any regulatory hurdles despite clear privacy and discrimination harms. Locating India's regulatory approach While efforts toward regulating AI are still in their infancy, with a handful of global regulations and considerable international debate about the appropriate approach, regulatory discussions about facial recognition technology predate them by a few years and are a little more evolved. Facial recognition technology systems can produce inaccurate, discriminatory, and biased outcomes due to flawed design and training data. A Georgetown Law study on the use of facial recognition technology in the US showed disproportionate impacts on African Americans and tests revealed frequent false positives, particularly affecting people of color. In 2019, the UK's Science and Technology Committee recommended halting facial recognition technology deployment until bias and effectiveness issues are resolved. The UK government countered the report by stating that the existing legal framework already offered sufficient safeguards regarding the application of facial recognition technology. Civil society organisations have been demanding bans or moratoriums on the use and purchase of facial recognition technology for years, most notably after a New York Times investigation in 2019 revealed that more than 600 law enforcement agencies in the US rely on the technology provided by a secretive company known as Clearview AI. An impact assessment commissioned by the European Commission in 2021 observed that facial recognition technology 'bear[s] new and unprecedentedly stark risks for fundamental rights, most significantly the right to privacy and non-discrimination.' The European Union and UK offer regulatory models for facial recognition technology in law enforcement. The EU's Law Enforcement Directive restricts biometric data processing to strictly necessary cases. While initial drafts of the EU's AI Act banned remote biometrics – such as the use of facial recognition technology – the final version has exceptions for law enforcement. In the UK, the Data Protection Act mirrors Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and a landmark court ruling deemed police facial recognition technology use unlawful, citing violations of human rights and data protection, and the technology's mass, covert nature. The EU's AI Act, while not explicitly banning discriminatory facial recognition technology, mandates data governance and bias checks for high-risk AI systems, potentially forcing developers to implement stronger safeguards. The GDPR generally bans processing biometric data for unique identification, but exceptions exist for data made public by the subject or when processing is for substantial public interest. In Europe, non-law enforcement facial recognition technology often falls under these exceptions. As per EU laws, facial recognition technology use may be permitted under strict circumstances in which a legislator can provide a specific legal basis regulating the deployment of facial recognition technology that is compatible with fundamental rights. US Vice President JD Vance's rebuke against ' excessive regulation ' of AI at the Paris Summit in February telegraphed a lack of intent for the current US federal government to regulate AI. However, there are numerous state-level regulations in operation in the US. Canada's Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) follows the EU model of risk regulation. Countries like South Korea have taken a more light-touch approach, with Seoul's AI Basic Act including a smaller subset of protections and ethical considerations than those outlined in the EU law. Japan and Singapore have explored self-regulatory codes rather than command and control regulation. The Indian Supreme Court's Puttaswamy judgment, which upheld a right to privacy, outlines a four-part test for proportionality to test whether state actions violate fundamental rights: a legitimate goal, suitable means, necessity (meaning there are no less restrictive alternatives), and balanced impact on rights. Facial recognition technology applications, like those that use the technology to mark attendance and carry out authentication, often have less intrusive alternatives, suggesting they fail the necessity test. Street surveillance using facial recognition technology inherently involves indiscriminate mass surveillance, not targeted monitoring. India's newly legislated Digital Data Protection Act, whose rules are currently being framed, permits the government to process personal data without consent in certain cases. Section 17(2) grants a broad exemption from its provisions for personal data processing, exempting state entities designated by the Indian government for reasons as broad as sovereignty, security, foreign relations, public order, or preventing incitement to certain offenses. In India, the primary policy document on facial recognition technology is a Niti Aayog paper, ' Responsible AI for All,' which anticipates that India's data protection law will handle facial recognition technology privacy concerns. However, it lacks detailed recommendations for ethical facial recognition technology use. It suggests the government should not exempt law enforcement from data protection oversight. It remains to be seen whether this recommendation will be followed, but this alone would be insufficient protection. Data minimisation, a key data protection principle that recommends the collection only of such information as is strictly necessary, restricts facial recognition technology by preventing the merging of captured images with other databases to form comprehensive citizen profiles. Yet, tenders for Automated Facial Recognition Systems (AFRS), to be used by law enforcement agencies, explicitly called for database integration, contradicting data minimisation principles. India's lenient approach toward facial recognition technology regulation, even as there is widespread adoption of the technology by both public and private bodies, suggests a pattern of regulatory restraint when it comes to emerging digital technologies. Rest of World recently reported on an open-arms approach that India has taken to AI, with a focus on 'courting large AI companies to make massive investments.' As a prime example, both Meta and OpenAI are seeking partnerships with Reliance Industries in India to offer their AI products to Indian consumers, which would be hosted at a new three-gigawatt data center in Jamnagar, Gujarat. These investments in India need to be seen in the context of a number of geopolitical and geoeconomic factors: data localisation regulations under India's new data protection law, the negotiating power that the Indian government and the companies close to it possess by leveraging the size of its emerging data market, how these factors facilitate the emergence of domestic BigTech players like Reliance, and most importantly, the Indian government's overall approach toward AI development and regulation. It was earlier reported that the much-awaited Digital India Act would have elements of AI regulation. However, the fate of both the legislation or any other form of regulation is, for the moment, uncertain. As recently as December 2024, Ashwini Vaishnav, the Indian minister of electronics and information technology, stated in the Indian Parliament that a lot more consensus was needed before a law on AI can be formulated. This suggests that the Indian government currently has no concrete plans to begin work toward any form of AI regulation, and despite the widespread use of AI and well documented risks, will stay out of the first wave of global AI regulations.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Earthquake of 4.2 magnitude strikes Myanmar
An Earthquake with a magnitude 4.2 on the Richter scale hits Myanmar. According to the NCS, the earthquake occurred at a depth of 10 kilometres at 02:42 AM Indian Standard Time (IST). Myanmar is wedged between four tectonic plates (the Indian, Eurasian, Sunda, and Burma plates) that interact in active geological processes. (Pic used for representation)(REUTERS) NCS wrote on X, 'EQ of M: 4.2, On: 04/08/2025 02:42:47 IST, Lat: 20.88 N, Long: 95.82 E, Depth: 10 Km, Location: Myanmar.' Myanmar is vulnerable to hazards from moderate and large magnitude earthquakes, including tsunami hazards along its long coastline. Myanmar is wedged between four tectonic plates (the Indian, Eurasian, Sunda, and Burma plates) that interact in active geological processes. A 1,400-kilometre transform fault runs through Myanmar and connects the Andaman spreading center to a collision zone in the north called the Sagaing Fault. The Sagaing Fault elevates the seismic hazard for Sagaing, Mandalay, Bago, and Yangon, which together represent 46 per cent of the population of Myanmar. Although Yangon is relatively far from the fault trace, it still suffers from significant risk due to its dense population. For instance, in 1903, an intense earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 that occurred in Bago also struck Yangon.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
Intervention by Indian team helped fix key issue before Axiom-4 launch: ISRO chief
Weeks before it finally took off, the Axiom-4 mission, which carried Group Captain Shubhanshu Shukla and three other astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), was nearly cleared for launch despite a perceived minor oxygen leak — until an ISRO team insisted on further checks that revealed a potentially dangerous crack in the rocket, ISRO Chairperson Dr V Narayanan told The Indian Express. The Axiom-4 mission took off for space from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida on June 25 after a series of delays since the initial launch date of May 29. The first launch was deferred to June 8 due to an electrical issue in the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft — the module where the crew was seated. But on June 8, when the engines were test-fired on ground, an oxygen leak was observed in addition to an anomaly in one of the actuators, used in controlling the direction of the rocket's thrust. Dr Narayanan told The Indian Express that the oxygen leak was deemed minor and unlikely to affect the launch, but the Indian team — 18 scientists including the ISRO chairman and the director of the Human Space Flight Centre — embedded with the Axiom-4 and NASA teams felt something was amiss and pushed for further checks. 'Initially the team thought that there was a minor leak and the mission could proceed as planned. But, the Indian team insisted that proper checks be carried out even if it meant delaying the mission. And it was good that the tests were carried out because a crack was detected, allowing for repair. It was resolved before the mission took off,' Dr Narayanan said. The crack was in the oxidiser line, which carries liquid oxygen to power the rocket — a serious safety risk, especially for a crewed mission. The crack and other issues were fixed, but on June 12 NASA announced it was working with Russian space agency Roscosmos to evaluate a leak in the Zvezda module, the Russian-built service module of the ISS that houses key life-support and docking systems. This further delayed the mission until the final launch two weeks. During the mission, the Indian team was present at both Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral where launch operations took place and at mission control in Houston, Texas, where real-time flight operations are managed — from crew health monitoring and communications to emergency response. Dr Narayanan described the mission as a significant step forward for ISRO's human spaceflight programme, with astronaut training emerging as its single most valuable takeaway. He said Indian scientists got hands-on exposure to how crewed missions are run — from making real-time decisions and interpreting telemetry data to monitoring astronaut health and responding to in-flight contingencies. 'It was like a classroom where we learnt a lot by working with the other teams there,' he said. 'The experience was important for understanding how human space missions are run at an operational level… The training of the astronaut — especially with someone as experienced as the commander — was a big learning experience for the Indian team.' Axiom-4 commander Peggy Whitson, a veteran astronaut, holds the record for the most number of days spent in space by an American or a woman — 695 days across multiple missions. India plans to build a sustained human spaceflight programme, with a space station targeted by 2035 and a human Moon mission by 2040. This will require setting up a permanent astronaut corps and regularly training new astronauts, like NASA and Roscosmos do. In addition to the training, Dr Narayanan said Shukla's experience of living in microgravity, staying in an isolated environment and returning to Earth would be invaluable for India's own programme. ISRO has asked Shukla to document his entire experience in detail. 'This,' Dr Narayanan said, 'would become teaching material for his fellow astronauts as well as the other astronauts to come.' Shukla, who returned to Earth with a splashdown on July 15, is currently undergoing reconditioning in the United States. He is expected to remain in quarantine until the first week of August, after which he will participate in a debriefing with NASA and return home by mid-August.
