Rule change raises fresh ecological risks for India’s Forests

The revised guidelines, issued under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, which has replaced the Forest Conservation Act ,allow both government and non-government entities to carry out plantation and afforestation activities on forest land, provided they align with the working plans of state forest departments. These activities are now categorised as “forestry activity”, exempting them from requirements to compensate for ecological loss or pay NPV, a mechanism historically used to internalise the environmental cost of diverting forest land.
Plantations equated with forests draw criticism
While the move has been presented as a technical adjustment aimed at boosting green cover, critics argue that its implications are far-reaching. They warn that plantations, particularly commercial monocultures, are being equated with natural forests — a comparison ecologists strongly contest.
Natural forests support complex ecosystems, rich biodiversity, carbon sequestration, soil stability and water regulation. By contrast, commercial plantations of fast-growing species such as eucalyptus, teak or acacia are primarily designed for economic extraction and deliver far fewer ecological services. Experts caution that expanding such plantations on forest land could degrade soil quality, reduce groundwater recharge and displace native flora and fauna.
Gujarat wildlife sanctuary case highlights risks
The risks of loosening safeguards have already come into sharp focus following a proposal involving the Balaram Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary in Gujarat, where diversion of forest land was sought for a religious establishment. Although the proposal initially received approval, it was later revoked after concerns were raised over the absence of recorded forest rights and the danger of setting a precedent for similar projects in protected areas. The episode highlighted regulatory gaps and underscored how exemptions on forest land use can open the door to incremental encroachment within ecologically sensitive zones.
The new guidelines also risk undermining ongoing efforts to restore native forests. In many regions, forest departments are already extracting teak, acacia and eucalyptus under approved working plans to rehabilitate degraded areas and encourage natural regeneration. Even these interventions have had unintended ecological consequences, including the spread of invasive species such as lantana, eupatorium and senna. Environmentalists warn that promoting additional commercial monocultures without safeguards could further weaken ecological resilience.
Removal of safeguards alters forest governance
The removal of compensatory afforestation and NPV requirements marks a significant shift in forest governance. These mechanisms have long served as ecological and financial checks, ensuring that forest diversion carried costs and that restoration was funded by project proponents. Their absence, critics argue, gives public and private actors a major advantage, allowing them to use forest land with minimal accountability.
Corporate plantation debate resurfaces
This policy shift comes amid a broader debate on opening forest land for corporate plantations, an idea that has resurfaced repeatedly as demand for timber, paper and wood products has grown. Earlier proposals to lease large tracts of degraded forest land to private companies were shelved following concerns over environmental degradation and the impact on forest-dependent livelihoods. Observers say the latest rule change risks reopening those unresolved conflicts.
Concerns over community rights and legal safeguards
The timing is also significant. Over the past three years, amendments to the Forest Conservation Act — now embedded in the Van Adhiniyam — have been criticised for weakening protections, narrowing the definition of forest, and potentially diluting compliance with the Forest Rights Act. Tribal and forest-dependent communities fear the latest changes could further marginalise their role in forest governance.
Forest governance in India has long balanced ecology, economics and community rights. Gram sabhas and tribal communities have fought for legal recognition as custodians of forests under the Forest Rights Act. Critics argue that facilitating plantation activity on forest land without strong safeguards risks sidelining these communities, particularly in central and eastern India, where livelihoods, food security and cultural identity are closely tied to forest ecosystems.The MoEFCC maintains that the revised guidelines will help India move towards its target of 33% forest cover and mobilise additional resources for restoration. While experts agree that forest restoration requires funding and policy support, many caution against conflating commercial plantations with ecological restoration.

(Asstt Editor)