The National Forestry Report 1998 states that India must retain a true forest cover of 33 per cent, but at present the cover is only 19 per cent. A budgetary allocation of Rs. 850 crore for forestry has been described as just a drop in the ocean. Based on this information, which of the following conclusions is logically valid?

Introduction / Context:
This question is about interpreting a policy related statement from a forestry report. The statement compares the required forest cover with the actual cover in India and comments on the size of the budgetary allocation. The conclusions invite you to decide whether forest cover must be proportional to population and whether low budget allocation is an obstacle. The key is to stay close to what the report actually suggests.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• India must retain a true forest cover of 33 per cent, according to the report.
• The present forest cover is only 19 per cent.
• The budgetary allocation for forestry is Rs. 850 crore.
• This allocation is described as just a drop in the ocean, implying that it is very small compared to the need.

Concept / Approach:
The description of the budget as a drop in the ocean is a clear pointer that the allocation is inadequate to meet the target of 33 per cent forest cover. Therefore, we can infer that insufficient funding is a significant barrier to expanding forest cover. However, the report does not state that forest cover should be proportional to population; the 33 per cent figure is a target based on environmental or policy considerations, not on population size. So the first conclusion is not supported by the given information.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: The target forest cover is 33 per cent, while the actual cover is only 19 per cent. This reveals a substantial shortfall.Step 2: The phrase just a drop in the ocean regarding the Rs. 850 crore budget suggests that this amount is far too small to close the large gap between current and desired forest cover.Step 3: It is reasonable to conclude that inadequate budgetary allocation is one major factor that is slowing or preventing the expansion of forest cover.Step 4: Now consider the first conclusion, that forest coverage should be in proportion to population. The report does not mention population at all, nor does it link the 33 per cent target to any demographic measure.Step 5: Thus, we have no basis to assert that forest coverage must be proportional to population. This conclusion is not supported.Step 6: Therefore, only the second conclusion, about inadequate budgetary allocation, logically follows from the information.

Verification / Alternative check:
Think of other countries with different populations but similar forest cover targets. Many environmental policies recommend a minimum percentage of forest cover for ecological balance, regardless of population size.This shows that the 33 per cent target is not necessarily tied to population, which further weakens conclusion I.On the other hand, when a funding level is described as a drop in the ocean, it clearly implies that more money is needed to achieve the stated goal, supporting conclusion II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a is wrong because there is no mention of population based proportionality.Option c is wrong because at least one of the conclusions, the one about inadequate budget, is clearly supported.Option d is wrong because it claims both conclusions follow, while the first does not.Option e directly contradicts the data by claiming forest cover is more than sufficient when it is actually below the recommended level.

Common Pitfalls:
Bringing in outside knowledge about population or unrelated environmental rules instead of sticking to the given information.Misinterpreting the phrase drop in the ocean as just a figure of speech without recognising that it signals serious under funding.Assuming that any strong target must be tied to population, which does not follow from the text.

Final Answer:
The conclusion supported by the report is that Inadequate budgetary allocation is a major obstacle to enhancing forest coverage in India.