India’s forests hold the future

The Hindu

1. Introduction and Context

The article by C.K. Mishra (former Secretary, MoEFCC) and Suraprabha Sadashivan (Senior VP, Chasa Advisors) examines India’s evolving forest governance framework under the revised Green India Mission (GIM).
It argues that India’s forests must now serve dual objectives — climate mitigation and socio-economic empowerment — through science-driven, participatory, and accountable restoration.

This debate is timely, given India’s Paris Agreement pledge (COP 21) to create an additional 2.5 – 3 billion tonnes CO₂-equivalent carbon sink by 2030. The authors position forests as a key pillar of Viksit Bharat 2047, linking ecological integrity to long-term national development.

2. Key Arguments and Core Message

a. From Quantity to Quality in Afforestation

• India’s forest discourse must evolve beyond tree-count metrics.
• A 12 % decline in photosynthetic efficiency (IIT Kharagpur study) shows that mere expansion does not ensure higher carbon sequestration.
• Future policy must emphasise species diversity, soil-water conservation, and ecological health rather than monoculture plantations.

b. Community Inclusion as the Missing Link

• Nearly 200 million Indians rely on forests for livelihoods, yet many afforestation drives exclude them.
• Successful participatory models — Odisha’s Joint Forest Management Committees and Chhattisgarh’s biodiversity-sensitive plantations — prove that local governance + ecological science yields lasting results.

c. Redesigning Plantation Strategy

• Critique of decades-old monoculture preference (eucalyptus, acacia) that harms soil and biodiversity.
• Revised GIM advocates native, site-specific species, aligning with the Forest Rights Act (2006) and Panchayati Raj principles for decentralised stewardship.

d. Financing and Capacity Utilisation

• The CAMPA Fund (₹59,000 crore) remains under-used — Delhi has spent only 23 % (2019 – 2024).
• Problems lie in coordination and accountability, not funding shortage.
• Examples: Himachal’s biochar model and U.P.’s carbon-market linkage show innovative, state-led financing for restoration.

e. Integration and Accountability

• Urges inter-agency coordination and public dashboards to track fund flow, survival rates, and species diversity.
• Proposes transforming afforestation from a bureaucratic target race into a national ecological movement.

3. Author’s Stance

• Constructive-reformist: Appreciates progress under GIM yet critiques poor execution.
• Evidence-based & policy-driven: Advocates science-led, people-centric forestry as a pillar of climate resilience.
• The tone blends optimism with caution — celebrating policy intent but warning against technocratic complacency.

4. Possible Biases

Despite these, the article’s bias is constructive and reform-minded, anchored in environmental governance experience.

5. Pros and Cons

 Pros

• Aligns with SDGs 13 & 15 and India’s Paris commitments.
• Promotes science-based restoration over target-driven plantations.
• Cites replicable state models integrating livelihood and ecology.
• Advocates transparency via digital monitoring dashboards.
• Suggests linking carbon finance and biochar innovations to local economies.

Cons

• No detailed implementation roadmap for CAMPA utilisation.
• Overlooks departmental overlaps (Forest vs Revenue vs Panchayati Raj).
• Neglects urban and peri-urban forestry dimensions.
• Does not address tribal displacement risks in large plantations.

6. Policy Implications

a. Environmental Governance

• Integrate forest, water, and biodiversity policies into a unified natural-resource framework.
• Build inter-ministerial coordination under a single accountability matrix.

b. Rural Development & Livelihoods

• Foster eco-industries (bamboo, mahua, biochar) through convergence of Gram Sabha, MGNREGA, and Forest Rights Act institutions.

c. Fiscal Management

• Reform CAMPA: tie fund release to verified ecological outcomes instead of plantation numbers.

d. Education & Capacity Building

• Expand ecological restoration training for frontline forest staff and Panchayat leaders.
• Encourage research on native species resilience and carbon measurement methodologies.

7. Real-World Impact

Positive Outcomes

• Community-driven forestry (Odisha, Chhattisgarh) enhances biodiversity and reduces conflict.
• Carbon-market linkages can generate steady rural revenue, aligning livelihoods with climate goals.

Challenges

• Administrative inertia (e.g., Delhi’s poor CAMPA utilisation) hampers outcomes.
• Climate stress—heat and soil drying—necessitates adaptive, long-term management.
• Fragmented accountability limits measurable progress toward India’s 2030 carbon-sink target.

8. UPSC Relevance

9. Conclusion

The article redefines India’s afforestation narrative — from a numerical race to plant trees to a science-based, inclusive, and accountable ecological restoration strategy.
It calls for integrating community wisdom, scientific planning, and transparent governance into one cohesive mission.

However, India’s challenge lies in execution. Without inter-departmental synergy, empowered local governance, and verifiable outcomes, the Green India Mission risks remaining aspirational.

If implemented faithfully, GIM could become the blueprint for a climate-resilient, livelihood-driven “Viksit Bharat”, where forests sustain both people and planet.

10. Future Perspectives

1. State-Level Climate Resilience Scorecards: Track forest health, carbon sequestration, and livelihood outcomes.
2. Digital Monitoring via Satellites: Ensure transparency in plantation survival and biodiversity indices.
3. Strengthened Forest Training Institutes: Update curriculum with restoration ecology and participatory mapping.
4. Localized Carbon Finance: Enable Panchayats to access verified carbon credit markets.
5. Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration: Unite scientists, tribal leaders, entrepreneurs, and youth to transform restoration into a mass movement.