ECOI .OGICAL CRISI5 ; 83 TABLE I—STATE-W ISE FOREST AREAS BY S ATELLITE , DATA (in million hectares) State/Union Territory Forest area by Satellite date Area controlled by forest departments 1972-75 1980-82 1980 Andhra Pradesh 4.90 4.04 6.41 Assam 2.11 1 98 3 07 Bihar 2.27 2.01 2.92 Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh 0.95 0.08 11.51 0.51 0.04 0.91 1.95 0.16 2.21 Jammu & Kashmil Karnataka 2.23 2.95 1.44 2.57 22 19 3.79 Kerala 0.86 0.74 1.11 Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra 10.86 4.07 9.02 3.04 15.39 6.41 Manipur Meghalaya Nagaland Orissa 1.51 1.44 0.82 4.84 1.38 1.25 0.81 3.94 1.52 0.86 0.29 6.77 Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim 0.11 1.1S 0.18 0.05 0.60 0.29 0.24 3.49 0.26 Tamil Nadu 1.67 1.32 2.18 Tripura Uttar Pradesh 0.63 2.59 0.51 2.10 0.59 5.14 West Bengal Andaman and Nicobar Islands 0.83 0.33 0.65 0.64 1.18 0.71 Arunachal Pradesh 5.14 5.21 5.15 Dadra and Nagar Haveli Goa, Daman and Diu 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.02 1.11 Mizoram 1.39 1.20 0.71 SOURCE National remote Sensing Agency, as reported in Business India, August 12-25, 1985. accordance with principles of scientific forest management, these were very rarely, if ever strictly followed. Revenue from forests was, as it continues to be today, a significant proportion of the state's revenue (see Table2). This along with the need to clear forest land for agriculture and other uses ensured that not much forests were conserved. The forest contractor has further added to this denudation by extracting even more than what was authorised, and sharing the resultant ill-gotten wealth with many in office. In recent times the institution of forest contractors has been done away with by most of the. states, who have replaced these contractors by Forest Development Corporations. Unfortunately, this has not significantly stopped illegal felling in many of the states, for the Forest Corporations have themselves become centres of vested interests and very often work through the same persons who were earlier forest contractors. In 1980, the Government of India passed the Forest Conservation Aci