36
S. Dhyani and D. Dhyani
of authors (Misra et al. 2008; Misra 2009; Dhyani et al. 2011, 2013; Dhyani and
Dhyani 2016). Dependence of communities on nearby villages was verified by following resource removal patterns (reflecting monthly, seasonal and annual dependence) actual field surveys, personal observations, informal group discussions and
focused personal interviews.
4 Results and Discussion
4.1 Forest Types in Uttarakhand Part of Central Himalayas
The major forest types of the study areas include subtropical forests (Deoprayag), moist and dry temperate forests (study areas in Uttarkashi, Chamoli and
Rudraprayag), alpine areas (Chamoli) and Pine forests (Pauri Garhwal). These
broad categories according to Forest Survey of India following Champion and Seth
1968 are further classified into different sub categories. These broad categories are
summarized in Table 1 while; broad legal status categories are shown in Table 2.
The central and state forest department along with forest managers and development agencies in the region face the dilemma of balancing conservation and forest
exploitation in the state. At present exploitation efforts far exceed conservation efforts
that are resulting in loss of forest cover and threatening biodiversity due to loss and
fragmentation of habitats. The loss of forests cover between 2003 and 2015 has been
almost 7772 km
2 (FSI 2003, 2015) (Fig. 1) and the pace of forest loss has been accelerated 2009 onwards (Fig. 2) likely because of developmental projects planned and
executed especially Hydro Power Projects (HPP) in higher reaches of the state. From
the overall changes in forest cover it is evident that the deforestation rates are significant in all dense forest, moderately dense and open forests (Fig. 1). Though, altitude
wise change in forest cover is not significant in 2009, 2013 and 2015 irrespective of
forest category (Fig. 3). The spatial distribution of deforestation and degradation was
also observed to be uneven throughout the region. Many rich forests of the region
are under Reserve and Protected category i.e. 71.10 and 28.52% respectively (FSI
2009) and, a small part of forests is with community under community forests or
Van Panchayats category as well as sacred groves (0.3%). There is unavailability
of data that provides details of loss in forest cover under different legal categories
of forests. Deforestation is clearly visible and significant in all the altitudes of the
study area wherever human habitations are present irrespective of the legal status
of forests in vicinity of these villages. Deforestation is evident at all altitudes, in all
legal categories be it protected or reserved. Illegal encroachment for extensive harvesting of MAPs (Medicinal and Aromatic plants), wild edibles provide significant
but invisible contributions to the loss. Poor socio-economic conditions, undulating
terrains, remoteness adds to misery of locals that increases dependence on forests
for food, livelihood and other daily subsistence demands.
S. Dhyani and D. Dhyani
of authors (Misra et al. 2008; Misra 2009; Dhyani et al. 2011, 2013; Dhyani and
Dhyani 2016). Dependence of communities on nearby villages was verified by following resource removal patterns (reflecting monthly, seasonal and annual dependence) actual field surveys, personal observations, informal group discussions and
focused personal interviews.
4 Results and Discussion
4.1 Forest Types in Uttarakhand Part of Central Himalayas
The major forest types of the study areas include subtropical forests (Deoprayag), moist and dry temperate forests (study areas in Uttarkashi, Chamoli and
Rudraprayag), alpine areas (Chamoli) and Pine forests (Pauri Garhwal). These
broad categories according to Forest Survey of India following Champion and Seth
1968 are further classified into different sub categories. These broad categories are
summarized in Table 1 while; broad legal status categories are shown in Table 2.
The central and state forest department along with forest managers and development agencies in the region face the dilemma of balancing conservation and forest
exploitation in the state. At present exploitation efforts far exceed conservation efforts
that are resulting in loss of forest cover and threatening biodiversity due to loss and
fragmentation of habitats. The loss of forests cover between 2003 and 2015 has been
almost 7772 km
2 (FSI 2003, 2015) (Fig. 1) and the pace of forest loss has been accelerated 2009 onwards (Fig. 2) likely because of developmental projects planned and
executed especially Hydro Power Projects (HPP) in higher reaches of the state. From
the overall changes in forest cover it is evident that the deforestation rates are significant in all dense forest, moderately dense and open forests (Fig. 1). Though, altitude
wise change in forest cover is not significant in 2009, 2013 and 2015 irrespective of
forest category (Fig. 3). The spatial distribution of deforestation and degradation was
also observed to be uneven throughout the region. Many rich forests of the region
are under Reserve and Protected category i.e. 71.10 and 28.52% respectively (FSI
2009) and, a small part of forests is with community under community forests or
Van Panchayats category as well as sacred groves (0.3%). There is unavailability
of data that provides details of loss in forest cover under different legal categories
of forests. Deforestation is clearly visible and significant in all the altitudes of the
study area wherever human habitations are present irrespective of the legal status
of forests in vicinity of these villages. Deforestation is evident at all altitudes, in all
legal categories be it protected or reserved. Illegal encroachment for extensive harvesting of MAPs (Medicinal and Aromatic plants), wild edibles provide significant
but invisible contributions to the loss. Poor socio-economic conditions, undulating
terrains, remoteness adds to misery of locals that increases dependence on forests
for food, livelihood and other daily subsistence demands.