CAG audit flags major gaps in Green India Mission implementation

The National Mission for a Green India (GIM) is one of the eight core missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). Launched to protect, restore, and enhance India's declining forest cover, the mission is crucial for fulfilling India's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, specifically the target to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5-3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030. The massive shortfalls flagged by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG)—achieving only a fraction of its 1.4 million hectare targets for both quality improvement and area expansion—seriously jeopardize these international climate commitments. For UPSC mains, this highlights the gap between ambitious climate pledges and on-ground implementation, emphasizing the need for robust institutional mechanisms to achieve sustainable environmental change and combat climate change effectively.

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), mandated under Article 148 of the Constitution, acts as the guardian of the public purse and ensures executive accountability. This report underscores significant governance deficits in scheme implementation, particularly the failure of convergence (integrating multiple schemes to maximize resources). The audit revealed that GIM operated in silos, failing to synergize with schemes like MGNREGA, Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), and the Nagar Van Yojana. This lack of inter-departmental coordination, combined with weak monitoring mechanisms and poor financial controls (like unmaintained or unaudited annual accounts by states), points to structural weaknesses in cooperative federalism and administrative efficiency. UPSC aspirants should note this as a prime example of implementation failure where fragmented governance undermines scheme objectives.

A critical issue flagged by the audit is the chronic underfunding and poor financial management of the mission. Against a proposed funding requirement of ₹10,600 crore, and an approved budget of ₹2,400 crore for the initial four years, the mission received only ₹1,149.14 crore (47.88%) over ten years. This highlights the challenge of fiscal constraints in environmental financing. Furthermore, the lack of convergence with well-funded schemes like MGNREGA and Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) meant that potential parallel funding streams were not leveraged. This failure not only stalled afforestation efforts but also impacted the mission's objective of enhancing forest-based livelihoods, which is vital for rural economic resilience. This illustrates the critical link between adequate, targeted public finance, effective fund utilization, and the realization of both ecological and economic goals.