Beyond Green Cover: Restoring India’s Forests

Context

CAG Flags an Outcome Gap: The CAG’s 2026 performance audit of the Green India Mission (GIM) found that forest-quality improvement covered only 0.11 million hectares, against the 1.4-million-hectare target, revealing a substantial 91.87% shortfall between the planned and achieved restoration.
The finding underscores the need to evaluate ecological outcomes rather than merely implementation activity.
Tree Cover Is Not Forest Recovery:The India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2023 recorded a 1,445 sq km increase in combined forest and tree cover, comprising only 156 sq km of forest-cover gain and 1,289 sq km of tree-cover gain outside recorded forests.
This divergence highlights why forest quality, ecological functionality and natural-forest characteristics must complement area-based indicators in assessing conservation progress.

What are the Reasons for the GIM’s Failure to Achieve Its Targets, as per the CAG Report?

Lack of Convergence: GIM activities lacked effective alignment with Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) and other Central/State afforestation initiatives.
Schemes such as Nagar Van Yojana and School Nursery Yojana also operated in silos, limiting potential synergies.
Failure to Follow the Bottom-Up Approach: The envisaged bottom-up approach was not adhered to in area identification and physical target assignment, contributing to the non-achievement of Mission goals.
Poor Prioritisation of Vulnerable Landscapes: Despite vulnerability being a key criterion, low- to moderate-priority landscapes were selected over areas more vulnerable to climate change, indicating inadequate prioritisation of vulnerable landscapes.
Inadequate and Delayed Financial Support: The lack of convergence resulted in failure to secure ₹10,600 crore in proposed funding support. Further, only ₹1,149.14 crore (47.88%) was received through budgetary support against the approved outlay during 2015–16 to 2024–25.
Weak Financial Planning and Internal Controls: Only 6 of 68 sampled Annual Plans of Operation (APOs) were received by the Ministry before the start of the financial year, and none were approved on time.
Moreover, 8 States/UTs did not maintain Annual Accounts, while accounts that were prepared were often unaudited or contained discrepancies.
Deficient Monitoring and Transparency: Monitoring remained inadequate at prescribed levels, with 14 States failing to provide the required public web links, thereby weakening transparency and oversight of GIM implementation.
Inflated and Unreliable Achievement Data: Audit evaluations revealed inflated data and overstated achievements, partly due to non-validated KML files, raising concerns about the reliability of reported outcomes.
Limited Evidence of Actual Impact: GIS analysis showed that 70% of sampled sites had no noticeable changes attributable to GIM, indicating weak evidence of actual improvement at the ground level.
Inadequate Carbon-Sequestration Assessment and Infrastructure Utilisation: Except Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, no State conducted carbon-sequestration assessments during 2015–2025.
Further, flux towers installed in these States remained idle due to improper maintenance and upkeep planning, despite expenditure of ₹3.50 crore.

What Do India’s Latest Forest Numbers Really Reveal?

A Quarter of India’s Geography Has Green Cover: ISFR 2023 estimates India’s combined forest and tree cover at 8,27,356.95 sq km, equivalent to 25.17% of its geographical area.
This comprises 7,15,342.61 sq km of forest cover (21.76%) and 1,12,014.34 sq km of tree cover (3.41%), providing the baseline for assessing progress towards the National Forest Policy, 1988 aspiration of one-third forest or tree cover.
The Long-Term Trajectory Remains Positive: India’s forest cover increased by 16,630.25 sq km between 2013 and 2023, indicating a sustained increase over the decade.
However, the 1,445.81 sq km increase in combined forest and tree cover between 2021 and 2023 comprised only 156.41 sq km of forest-cover gain, while 1,289.40 sq km came from tree cover outside recorded forests, showing that aggregate green-cover growth does not necessarily represent equivalent expansion within recorded forests.
Forest Resources Extend Beyond Canopy Extent: ISFR 2023 estimates growing stock at 6,430.85 million cubic metres across India’s forests and trees outside forests, comprising 4,479.41 million cubic metres inside forests and 1,951.44 million cubic metres outside forests.
India also has 4,992 sq km of mangrove cover and 1,54,670 sq km of bamboo-bearing area, reflecting the diversity of its forest-associated resources.
Forest Carbon Stocks Continue to Rise: India’s forest carbon stock was estimated at 7,285.5 million tonnes in ISFR 2023, an increase of 81.5 million tonnes over 2021.
The assessment places carbon stock in India’s forest and tree cover at 30.43 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, with an estimated additional 2.29 billion tonnes of CO₂-equivalent carbon sink since 2005, bringing India closer to its 2.5–3 billion tonnes by 2030 NDC target.
Green Cover Remains Spatially Uneven: 19 States and Union Territories have more than 33% of their geographical area under forest cover, while eight-Mizoram, Lakshadweep, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura and Manipur-have forest cover exceeding 75% of their geographical area.
These figures demonstrate that the national average masks substantial regional variation in forest extent and ecological conditions.

Why Does More Green Cover Not Always Mean Healthier Forests?

Canopy–Ecology Disconnect: An increase in canopy does not necessarily signify recovery of native species composition, age structure, natural regeneration, soil functions or habitat quality.
The distinction is particularly important because forest-cover assessment is primarily canopy-based, while ecological restoration requires recovery of multiple ecosystem attributes.
Restoration–Time Mismatch: Forest recovery involves biological processes that extend well beyond plantation cycles, including soil formation, seed-bank recovery, nutrient cycling and hydrological regeneration.
Consequently, short-duration assessments can overstate ecological recovery when vegetation establishment has occurred without comparable restoration of ecosystem functions.
Open-Ecosystem Misreading: Natural grasslands, savannahs and open ecosystems may possess distinct biodiversity and ecological functions and are not inherently degraded simply because tree density is low.
Converting such landscapes into tree-dominated systems can alter their characteristic ecological structure rather than restore it.
Fragmentation of Forest Landscapes: Roads, railways, transmission lines and other linear infrastructure can divide contiguous habitats into smaller patches, disrupting wildlife movement, dispersal and genetic exchange.
Aggregate forest-cover statistics may therefore remain relatively stable even while ecological connectivity deteriorates.
Invasive and Disturbance Pressures: Invasive plants such as Prosopis juliflora can suppress native vegetation and modify habitat structure in degraded landscapes, including parts of the Aravallis.
Such pressures can prevent planted areas from developing into functionally diverse ecosystems despite an apparent increase in vegetation cover.
Fire–Climate Vulnerability: Increasing exposure to forest fires, heat stress, drought and altered rainfall regimes can impair regeneration and modify species composition, particularly in already fragmented forests.
Repeated disturbance can also reduce biomass accumulation and ecosystem resilience, weakening the long-term stability of restoration gains.
Implementation and Monitoring Deficits: CAG’s 2026 performance audit found that only 0.14793 million hectares had received GIM afforestation interventions against the approved 2.8 million-hectare target, while GIS analysis of sampled sites found 70% showing no noticeable change attributable to GIM interventions.
The audit also identified inappropriate site selection, inconsistent planting-pit spacing, undersized saplings and weaknesses in plantation records, demonstrating a substantial outcome-verification gap.
Competing Land-Use Pressures: Mining, infrastructure expansion and other land-use changes can permanently remove or fragment ecologically mature forests whose biodiversity, soil, hydrological and connectivity functions cannot necessarily be recreated through equivalent-area plantation.
The challenge is therefore not merely loss of tree biomass, but the loss of complex ecological relationships accumulated over long periods.

How Does India’s Forest-Conservation Architecture Work?

Constitutional–Legal Architecture: The 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976 placed forests in the Concurrent List, while Article 48A establishes a constitutional direction for protecting forests and wildlife.
The Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, as amended, provides the principal framework for regulating specified diversion and non-forest use of forest land through prior Central Government approval.
Judicially Expanded Forest Protection: In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court adopted the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ for the purposes of the forest-conservation law, extending protection beyond narrowly notified forest categories.
This jurisprudence has remained an important foundation of India’s forest-conservation framework.
Compensatory Ecological Finance: The Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 created National and State-level funds for managing compensatory-afforestation receipts and financing activities including afforestation, assisted natural regeneration, forest protection, soil and moisture conservation and wildlife-related measures.
The framework therefore links forest diversion with dedicated financial resources for ecological management.
Landscape-Scale Mission Framework: The Green India Mission (GIM), operational since 2015–16, adopts an integrated landscape approach covering degraded forest and non-forest areas; by August 2026, it had brought 1,84,467 hectares under eco-restoration across 17 States and one Union Territory.
Its implementation involves local institutions such as Joint Forest Management Committees, Village Forest Committees and other community-based organisations.
Technology-Based Forest Monitoring: The Forest Survey of India undertakes biennial forest-cover assessment using remote sensing and field-based methods, while its forest-fire alert system supports near-real-time detection and response.
The integration of GIS, remote sensing and field inventories also supports forest-resource assessment and working-plan preparation.
Targeted Ecosystem Conservation: Conservation policy extends beyond conventional forests to ecologically distinctive systems through programmes such as MISHTI for mangrove restoration and the wider protected-area and biodiversity-governance framework.
This reflects an increasingly ecosystem-specific approach, recognising that conservation requirements differ across forest, mangrove, wetland and other ecological landscapes.
Rights-Based Community Stewardship: The Forest Rights Act, 2006 recognises individual and community forest rights and assigns rights-holders responsibilities for protecting wildlife, forests and biodiversity.
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 further provides for Biodiversity Management Committees, creating an institutional channel for local participation in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
Scientific Management and Emerging Restoration Finance: Forest management is organised through approved working plans, which provide spatial and temporal prescriptions for forest management and regeneration.
Alongside this, the revised Green Credit Programme permits restoration of verified degraded forest land by public and private entities, with credits claimable only after at least five years of restoration and achievement of 40% canopy density, adding a performance-linked layer to restoration finance.

How Can India Move from Tree Planting to Ecological Restoration?

Measure Ecological Recovery, Not Plantation Output: India should replace hectare-based restoration success with an Ecological Outcome Framework measuring native-species composition, regeneration, canopy structure, soil integrity, hydrological function and habitat recovery.
The Montreal Process framework supports multidimensional assessment across biodiversity, ecosystem health, soil and water, carbon cycles and long-term socio-economic outcomes, rather than relying on a single indicator.
Create Separate Restoration Accounts: National reporting should distinguish natural regeneration, ecological restoration, plantations and tree cover, preventing an increase in canopy from being treated as equivalent to recovery of a natural forest.
This distinction is ecologically justified because natural forests generally possess varied ages and higher biological diversity, whereas planted systems can be relatively uniform or monocultural.
Restore From the Soil Upward Through Preventive Ecological Design: Restoration should begin with soil–water diagnosis and erosion-sensitive planning, identifying unstable slopes, saturated areas, drainage pathways, soil stability, regeneration capacity and vulnerable water bodies before deciding whether planting or physical interventions are necessary.
Preventive measures such as water bars and diversion structures, along with avoiding erosion-prone terrain, can reduce soil erosion and sedimentation, while protecting natural erosion controls such as roots, forest-floor vegetation and woody debris.
Prioritise Natural Regeneration Where Feasible: Restoration should follow a regeneration hierarchy in which protection of surviving vegetation and natural recovery precede artificial planting, with planting reserved for situations where ecological recovery cannot occur unaided.
This approach recognises that reforestation can occur through either natural or artificial regeneration and avoids treating plantation establishment as synonymous with forest recovery.
Design Restoration at Landscape Scale: Forest recovery should be planned around ecological connectivity, linking habitat patches through functional corridors and retaining natural forest patches rather than restoring isolated parcels independently.
Sustainable forest-management literature specifically identifies forest corridors and connected natural patches as important for maintaining plant and animal gene pools.
Build Long-Term Ecological Stewardship: Restoration finance should be structured around multi-year ecological milestones, with independent verification of regeneration, species diversity, soil condition and hydrological recovery rather than certification at plantation completion.
This would address the recognised gap between reported management coverage and demonstrable management outcomes, for which stronger reporting and verification are required.
Balance Ecological and Social Objectives: Restoration should incorporate livelihood compatibility and intergenerational stewardship into site design, particularly where communities depend directly on forest resources.
Sustainable forest management is inherently multidimensional, requiring environmental, economic and social objectives to be considered together rather than maximising one objective at the expense of forest resilience.

Adopt Adaptive Restoration and Governance Cycles: Restoration projects should use a baseline, ecological milestones, periodic monitoring and corrective decision points, with plans revised every 3–5 years based on ecological responses to regeneration, fire, invasive species, soil and water conditions. This adaptive approach, reflected in Canada and New Zealand, enables restoration plans to evolve rather than remain fixed prescriptions.

Concluding Insight

India’s forest challenge is no longer merely how much green cover exists, but how much ecological function survives and recovers. The pathway ahead is from “trees planted” to “ecosystems restored”--anchoring conservation in ecological additionality, biodiversity, soil integrity, hydrological function, connectivity and long-term resilience.

UPSC Prelims Connect

Q. At the national level, which ministry is the nodal agency to ensure effective implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006? (2021)

(a) Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

(b) Ministry of Panchayati Raj

(d) Ministry of Tribal Affairs

Ans: (d)

Q. A particular State in India has the following characteristics: (2012)

It is located on the same latitude which passes through northern Rajasthan.
It has over 80% of its area under forest cover.
Over 12% of forest cover constitutes the Protected Area Network in this State.

Which one among the following States has all the above characteristics?

(a) Arunachal Pradesh

(b) Assam

(d) Uttarakhand

Ans: (a)

UPSC Mains Connect

Q. “The most significant achievement of modern law in India is the constitutionalization of environmental problems by the Supreme Court.” Discuss this statement with the help of relevant case laws. (2022)

QuestlinksIAS Practice Question

Prelims:

Q. Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional and legal framework for forest conservation in India:

The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 placed forests in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.
Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wildlife.
The Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, as amended, requires prior approval of the Central Government for specified diversion and non-forest use of forest land.
The Supreme Court’s decision in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) restricted the meaning of “forest” to areas formally notified or recorded as forests.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A. 1, 2 and 3 only

B. 1 and 4 only

C. 2, 3 and 4 only

D. 1, 2, 3 and 4

Ans: A

Mains:

Q. “India’s forest-conservation challenge is increasingly one of ecological quality rather than merely forest-cover expansion.” Examine this proposition in the light of the distinction between canopy-based assessment and ecological restoration. Discuss the implications for landscape connectivity, natural regeneration and outcome-based forest governance.

Source Editorial- Losing forest for trees: On the CAG’s audit of the Green India Mission - The Hindu