250+
mock exams
42,914
tests completed
6,72,765
questions answered
A recent performance audit by the (CAG) of the (GIM) revealed significant shortfalls in achieving its afforestation and forest quality improvement targets over the past decade. The editorial critiques the government's approach of focusing on tree-planting numbers, such as through the initiative, rather than holistic forest ecosystem restoration, highlighting a growing disparity between reported green cover and true forest health.
The Green India Mission is one of the core eight missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). Its primary objective is holistic ecological restoration, aiming to enhance biodiversity, water sequestration, and habitat revival, rather than just planting trees. The editorial emphasizes a crucial distinction for UPSC aspirants: the difference between 'forest cover' (ecosystems with dense canopy) and 'tree cover' (isolated plantings outside forests). The India State of Forest Report 2023 illustrates this, showing that while green cover increased, the growth was primarily in 'tree cover outside recorded forests,' accompanied by a thinning of dense canopies within actual forests. This shift indicates a failure to restore degraded ecosystems, as seen in the Aravallis, where planting invasive species like Prosopis juliflora ('vilayati kikar') cannot reverse the damage from mining and encroachment. The core issue is that restoration is not landscaping; true forest creation takes millennia and involves complex ecological interactions that mere sapling counts fail to capture. This highlights the challenge India faces in meeting its Paris Agreement commitment to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit exposes significant implementation and governance failures within the Green India Mission. A key issue is the lack of convergence, a critical concept in UPSC governance studies. GIM was intended to synergize with schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA), utilizing rural wage labor for land restoration, and Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) funds. The failure to materialize these linkages points to siloed functioning and poor inter-departmental coordination. The CAG's findings highlight the limitations of bureaucratic accountability mechanisms; while audits can track financial expenditure and physical targets (hectares planted), they often fail to assess qualitative outcomes, such as ecosystem health or biodiversity revival. This raises questions about the efficacy of performance audits in environmental initiatives and underscores the need for outcome-based monitoring frameworks that evaluate ecological impact rather than just output metrics.
The editorial critiques a visible shift in environmental policy from complex, ecosystem-based restoration (like GIM) towards populist, easily quantifiable initiatives like the Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam campaign. While such campaigns generate public participation and impressive numbers (e.g., 140 crore saplings planted), they often prioritize quantity over ecological suitability, risking the introduction of non-native species and ignoring the survival rates of planted saplings. This represents a policy shift from ecological restoration to mere afforestation, which may not effectively address the root causes of forest degradation. For UPSC, this highlights the tension between achieving political visibility through large-scale planting drives and undertaking the arduous, long-term work required to genuinely rehabilitate degraded landscapes and secure India's ecological future.