Tomorrow, the Indian Cabinet will consider funding the first phase the Green India Mission (GIM) – an ambitious national plan to restore 5 million hectares of degraded forest land and to bring another 5 million hectares of non-forest areas under forest cover in the next 10 years. If GIM’s reforestation targets are met official’s estimate India will see annual carbon sequestration of 50-60 million tons by 2020. Forests would then offset 6% of the country’s greenhouse gases, up from 4.5% without replanting and the nation’s green cover will be extended from 24% to 33% by 2024. The first phase, up for funding tomorrow, will cost 1300 crore Indian Rupees, which roughly amounts to $2 billion and the whole project is billed at $9.8 billion. Funding for the GIM will likely come from India’s recently approved Corporate Responsibility law, which requires all large companies to kick in 2% of annual net profits for socially responsible projects. More admirably, it appears that the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests has learned from the Chinese experience and made “increasing the quality of Indian forest cover and improving the provision of ecosystem services” a central tenet of the GIM. 
The GIM also promises to have learnt from previous ‘big ticket’ projects in India. The 1980 forest conservation act (FCA) which set the groundwork for forest clearances and offsets has been largely criticized for successfully institutionalizing the forest use and clearance process on the one hand (over 300,000 hectares were granted clearance between 2003 and 2007 alone), and failing to morally and materially support compensatory afforestation process on the other. In contrast, the GIM aims to incorporate the following features to protect forests and bolster afforestation: i) An integrated cross-sectoral approach to which treats public and privately held forest/non-forest land simultaneously and targets the drivers of land degradation. ii) The strengthening of decentralized governance through Gram Sabhas and other thematic committees/groups. iii) A robust and effective monitoring framework which employs a mix of on-ground monitoring, GIS based remote sensing as well as intensive soil quality/biomass monitoring on some sites. On paper, the GIM appears to have done a thorough job at responding to shortcomings of previous afforestation projects around the world. However, how the GIM translates into reality, especially in the context of the India’s institutional structure and economy is a point of contention for many. Civil society groups and activist organizations like the Campaign for Survival and Dignity (an initiative of the National Forum of Forest Peoples and Forest Workers) have labeled the GIM as a “formula for more land and resource grabbing.” Criticism of the aim and efficacy of afforestation aside, such groups make a compelling argument that India’s institutional structure will itself be the main roadblock to GIM’s success and that the failures of GIM will prove to be far more dangerous than anticipated by the GIM planners sitting in Delhi. 
First, the fact that the forest department will maintain all control of funds, policy implementation and coordination, makes decentralized governance through Gram Sabhas look more like tokenism. Similarly, critics contend that the non-statuary Joint Forest Management Committee is being “slipped in as a sub committee of the gram sabha, when it is, once again, controlled by the Forest Department and not accountable to the village.” As a result, there are fears that local control of forest management is being undermined in the policy text itself. Second, critics argue that the “forest department has neither the expertise nor the skill to implement restoration of ecosystems and habitat diversity.” Further, they contend that there is no space for such expertise within the document, one glaring example of this “old department line” being that within the GIM National Action Plan (NAP), restoration is almost equated with plantations (Para 5.2.2) and grassland restoration with grazing reduction (5.2.3). Additionally, there is an argument to be made that the document ignores indigenous and local knowledge about ecosystems and eco-restoration. The sub committees of the gram sabha are controlled by the Forest Department and not accountable to the village. As a result, there are fears that local control of forest management is being undermined in the policy text itself. Third, there are fears that the enormity of the task and the ambitions of the GIM may incentivize corruption and land grabbing. As funding is largely connected to the number hectares converted/planted, it’s possible that local authorities may come under pressure to absorb / forcibly convert land with myriad existing uses and rights. Conversion of areas such as common lands, shifting cultivation fallows and traditional grazing lands in order to meet targets will then be driven less by noble conservation intentions and more by the profit motive. Lastly, the GIM conveniently sides steps a glaring challenge that comes with planting millions of hectares of forests – water. India is already water stressed with the industrial, power and agricultural sector vying for greater shares to boost development. Although India’s National Water Mission, part of the same National Action Plan, has set a goal of achieving 20% improvement in water use efficiency through pricing and ‘other’ measures, it is unlikely that this will make up for the water consumed as part of the GIM. By moving ahead and putting its money where its mouth is, the Indian government has signaled its intent to tackle climate change and invest in mitigation measures. The Green India Mission, will be the second largest afforestation project to be funded and it has had the good fortune of learning from experiences of the Chinese Norths Shelterbelt Development Program. However, the success or failure of the GIM will clearly depend on the institutional structure it operates in. For now, it seems that investing billions is only part of the solution. ** ** ** Update ** ** ** The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) approved a National Mission for a Green India on 20 February 2014. The Union government will provide 90 percent of the funds for implementing the scheme in the north-eastern states, and 75 percent of the funds for other states. State governments will meet the balance requirement.
Leave a Reply