Loosing Forest for Trees: On the Cag’s Audit of The Green Indian Mission (TH)
General Studies
Paper III: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Introduction
The National
Mission for a Green India (GIM) one of the eight flagship pillars
under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) was conceived
as an ecological restoration framework designed to enhance forest
quality, protect biodiversity, and secure vital ecosystem services, while
serving as the primary institutional vehicle to achieve India’s Paris
Agreement Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) target of
creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon-di-oxide equivalent by 2030 .However, the recent
Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) performance audit
highlights a fundamental paradigm failure, revealing a strategic drift
where policy execution has consistently prioritized superficial, quantitative
tree-planting drives over long-term, qualitative forest eco-restoration.
Execution Deficits and Sub-Optimal Institutional Convergence
A.
Stark Target–Achievement Gap: Over a decade of
execution, against an intended target of improving forest quality across 1.4
million hectares, the mission achieved implementation across barely 0.11
million hectares (under 10% of the target). Similarly, expansion of new
forest cover stalled at approximately 4%.
ü The CAG Audit
tabled in Parliament revealed that across 16 audited States/UTs (2015–2025),
GIM recorded a massive 91.87% shortfall in improving forest quality and
a 97.57% shortfall in adding new forest cover.
B.
Failure of Institutional Convergence: GIM’s core
policy architecture mandated seamless financial and operational integration
with existing public programs, such as CAMPA under the MoEFCC and rural
wage-labour schemes like MGNREGS (and VB-G RAM G).
ü Instead of
pool-funding, schemes like Nagar Van Yojana and School Nursery Yojana
continued to operate in isolated departmental silos, failing to realize the
envisaged ₹10,600 crore convergence fund support.
C.
Consequences of Siloed Governance: Due to
administrative friction and lack of inter-agency coordination, GIM
remained financially constrained and executionally isolated at the ground
level.
ü The CAG noted
that against a Cabinet-approved outlay of ₹2,000 crore for the mission's
initial phase, GIM received only ₹1,149.14 crore (47.88%) in actual
budgetary support due to the complete collapse of institutional
pooling mechanisms.
D.
Persistent Fund Underutilization and
Delayed Disbursal: Severe administrative delays in releasing
funds from central to state executive agencies caused chronic unspent
balances, disrupting time-sensitive planting seasons.
ü State Annual
Plans of Operation (APOs) faced structural delays; out of 68 sampled
APOs, only 6 were submitted before the financial year began, and zero
received timely approval, missing key seasonal afforestation windows.
E.
Weak Monitoring and Verification
Architecture: The absence of real-time scientific
evaluation and robust geo-tagging frameworks led to unverified sapling
survival, allowing paper targets to obscure poor ground outcomes.
ü CAG findings
highlighted that between 2015 and 2025, only two states
(Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh) conducted baseline assessments for carbon
sequestration, while major states like Assam, Jharkhand, and Kerala
failed to maintain or submit audited carbon tracking records.
Superficial
Afforestation Vs. Deep Ecological Regeneration
The audit exposes
a systemic conflation between growing "tree cover" and restoring
true "forest ecosystems",
India State of
Forest Report (ISFR) Green Cover Distribution:
·
Total Net
Gain in Green Cover: 1,445 sq. km
·
True
Recorded Forest Restoration: 156
sq. km (10.8% of total gain)
·
Tree Cover
Outside Recorded Forests (TOF):
1,289 sq. km (89.2% of total gain)
A.
Disproportionate Reliance on
Tree Cover Outside Forests (TOF): The latest
assessment from the Forest Survey of India (FSI) reveals a key structural limitation:
while total green cover expanded by 1,445 sq. km, 1,289 sq. km (89.2%)
occurred outside recorded forests, whereas core forest area restoration
contributed merely 156 sq. km (10.8%). This heavy reliance on commercial
timber plantations, roadside strips, and agro-forestry inflates overall green
statistics without restoring contiguous, natural wilderness areas.
ü
FSI's ISFR (Forest Survey of India) Reports showcase heavy
expansion via Linear Plantations along highways/rail tracks and
commercial Agro-forestry (e.g., Populus and Eucalyptus species), which
artificially inflates total green cover statistics while core natural forests
remain neglected.
B.
Severe Canopy Degradation
Within Core Reserves: Quantitative gains in broad
green cover mask an ongoing process of qualitative degradation. Dense,
multi-layered natural canopies are progressively thinning into open forests and
scrubland, leading to fragmentation, a drop in biomass density, and a
significant loss in baseline carbon storage potential.
ü
Degradation of Very Dense Forests (VDF) in the
Western Ghats & North-East Region, where core multi-tiered forest canopies
are thinning into 'Open Forests' and scrubland due to infrastructure
fragmentation, leading to lost biomass density.
C.
Mass Afforestation Drives vs.
Natural Ecosystem Succession: Popular
voluntary initiatives such as the Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam campaign successfully
drive public engagement and mass planting. However, such drives often rely on quick-growing
monocultures that cannot replicate the microclimatic stability, soil hydrology,
and multi-tiered canopy structures developed over centuries by undisturbed
forests.
ü
The Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam Campaign (MoEFCC) while
highly successful as a mass public movement (planting over 100 crore saplings
via the MeriLiFE Portal) focuses primarily on individual sapling
survival rather than recreating complex, multi-tiered forest ecosystems.
D.
Failure to Restore
Invasive-Dominated Eco-Corridors: In
ecologically sensitive belts like the Aravalli Range, afforestation
efforts often focus on planting peripheral green strips while failing to tackle
deep-rooted driver issues such as illegal quarrying, habitat fragmentation, and
the dominance of invasive species like Prosopis juliflora (Vilayati Kikar),
which prevent the re-establishment of native flora.
ü
The Aravalli Green Wall Project (MoEFCC) intended
to restore a 1,400 km green belt across four states struggles with
ecological success because planting fast-growing trees fails to address
core degradation drivers, such as the unchecked spread of invasive Prosopis
juliflora (Vilayati Kikar) and illegal mining.
E.
Ecosystem Services and Carbon
Sink Dilution: The Paris
NDC target of creating an additional 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent sink depends on deep, long-term
carbon sequestration provided by mature forest soils and old-growth trees.
Replacing complex habitats with fast-growing saplings reduces long-term ecological
resilience, biodiversity conservation, and watershed protection.
ü
Monoculture
Compensatory Afforestation under CAMPA
where natural biodiverse old-growth forests (like those diverted for mining
in Odisha/Chhattisgarh) are replaced with single-species commercial
plantations (e.g., Acacia), severely lowering long-term carbon storage
capacity and soil-water retention.
Policy Imperatives and Structural Reforms
To
align national afforestation strategies with India’s climate targets, key
institutional realignments are necessary,
A.
Shift from Accountancy to Ecological Auditing: Traditional CAG financial auditing counts expenditures and saplings. A
modern governance framework requires satellite geospatial tracking and
biodiversity metrics managed by the MoEFCC
to evaluate actual canopy density and survival rates.
ü
Utilization of
the VAN (Vegetation and Afforestation Network) Portal alongside ISRO's Bhuvan
Geo-Spatial Platform by MoEFCC to map afforestation activities, track
sapling survival rates, and monitor canopy density changes via satellite
imagery rather than relying solely on physical paper audits.
B.
Institutionalized Multi-Departmental Synergy:
Statutory mandate must be given to convergence protocols linking State Forest
Departments, Rural Development Ministries, and Gram Sabhas.
ü
The MISHTI
(Mangrove Initiative for Shoreline Habitats & Tangible Incomes) scheme,
which formally merges funds and operational planning from CAMPA, the MGNREGS
wage-labour mechanism, and coastal management bodies for targeted mangrove
restoration.
C.
Community-Led Eco-Restoration: Empowering
Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) and leveraging the Forest Rights
Act (FRA), 2006 ensures that local communities lead ecological protection
rather than top-down plantation drives.
ü
Community
Forest Rights (CFR) titles granted under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006
in regions like Gadchiroli (Maharashtra) and Similipal (Odisha),
where local Gram Sabhas and Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs)
regulate, protect, and restore native forest ecosystems.
Conclusion
Achieving
India’s carbon sink and biodiversity targets demands a fundamental shift from landscape
maintenance to ecosystem rejuvenation. By aligning GIM execution with
technological tools like geo-spatial tracking and legal frameworks like the Forest
Rights Act (2006), India can build a resilient forestry model. Restoring
core natural forests rather than expanding peripheral tree cover
is essential to ensuring long-term ecological stability, water security, and
sustainable livelihoods for forest-dependent communities.
Question
The
Green India Mission (GIM) was envisioned as a key vehicle for meeting India’s
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. Examine
how implementation gaps in afforestation programs imperil India’s climate
targets. (10 Marks, 150 Words).
Introduction
Under the Paris Agreement, India committed to an NDC
target of creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of
carbon -di-oxide equivalent by 2030, anchored by the National Action
Plan on Climate Change’s (NAPCC) Green India Mission (GIM).
Implementation Gaps & Impact on NDC Targets
1)
Target Shortfalls: A performance
audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) revealed severe underachievement
GIM improved quality across only 0.11 million hectares against the
1.4-million-hectare target, achieving under 4% of its overall forest
cover expansion goals.
ü Ek Ped Maa Ke
Naam (2024) reported planting 140 crore saplings, yet the India
State of Forest Report (ISFR 2023) showed that out of 1,445 sq. km of green
cover gain, only 156 sq. km was true forest, while the rest was
fragmented tree cover outside recorded forests.
2)
Quality of Carbon Sink: India is planting
trees outside recorded forests rather than expanding true dense forests. These monoculture
plantations store far less biomass and long-term carbon compared to mature,
complex natural ecosystems.
ü In the Aravalli
Range, afforestation efforts often rely on planting aggressive fast-growers
like Prosopis juliflora (Vilayati Kikar) or commercial monocultures.
These exotic species fail to restore native biodiversity, pull down groundwater
tables, and sequester far less stable carbon than mature, native multi-canopy
forests.
3)
Fund Utilization & Accountability: Intended
convergence with schemes like CAMPA and rural employment wage funds failed to
materialize, leading to ineffective fund deployment without long-term sapling
survival monitoring.
ü
Inter-agency
silos prevented GIM from effectively converging with CAMPA (Compensatory
Afforestation Fund) and wage employment programs like VB-G RAM G
(formerly MGNREGS). As a result, funds were spent upfront on sapling
procurement and planting drives, without allocation for post-plantation
maintenance or survival audits after 3–5 years.
Way
forward
To
fulfill climate pledges, India must shift focus from mere sapling counts to auditing
long-term survival rates, deploying real-time geo-tagging (Bhuvan/GIS
monitoring), and empowering Gram Sabhas for decentralized,
community-led forest stewardship.