India is Losing Forests Faster Than it Can Replace Them

Over the past two decades, India has lost nearly 15% of its total tree cover. According to Global Forest Watch, an online monitoring system, more than 3,48,000 hectares (ha) of humid primary forest have disappeared since 2002; 18,000 of them in 2024 alone. These aren’t just trees. They are dense, centuries-old ecosystems that store carbon, regulate rainfall and provide habitat for thousands of species.

Forests in India have been absorbing an average of 80.3mn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e) every year since 2001. Their loss undermines India’s pledge to sequester 2.5–3bn tonnes of CO₂e by 2030 under its Nationally Determined Contribution. If current trends continue, experts warn that that promise may not be kept.

India’s total carbon store is estimated at 6.13 gigatonnes (gt), most of it locked in biomass. When natural forests are cleared, that carbon is released back into the atmosphere.

The ecological fallout is vast: disrupted rainfall patterns, soil erosion, declining air quality and irreversible loss of biodiversity. Many species driven from their habitats can’t survive in plantations or degraded land.

Living in Delusion

India has a long list of laws and programmes designed to protect forests: The Forest Conservation Act, Joint Forest Management, the Forest Rights Act, the Green India Mission and Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (Campa). On paper, these appear robust. On the ground, the situation tells a different story.

While the Forest Rights Act aims to restore access and authority to forest-dwelling communities, rights curtailed by earlier laws, conflicts persist. In many cases, these communities are still excluded from decisions about land use and conservation. The result? Along with the communities, the forests suffer.

Historically, forest loss stemmed from shifting cultivation, logging and natural causes like fire. But in recent years, infrastructure development, settlements and mining have taken the biggest toll.

“Since the 1990s, forests have steadily shrunk due to the misuse and gradual dilution of the Forest Conservation Act,” says Anuja Anil Date, a post-doctoral research associate at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, a non-profit.

An amendment to the Forest Conservation Act in 2023 handed more decision-making power to state governments, allowing them to approve forest land diversions that once required central clearance. It also exempted projects near India’s borders from scrutiny if deemed “strategic”, raising alarms about ecologically fragile regions like the Western Ghats and trans-Himalayan zones.

Conservationists argue this has opened the door to unchecked development. A petition by retired officials warns that this clause removes regulatory oversight, enabling such projects to bypass environmental-impact assessments.

Even more concerning: the law now excludes infrastructural and extractive projects like mining, roads, railways and surveys in unclassed forests, deemed forests and private forest lands from environmental scrutiny, categories that cover vast areas.

The Plantation Illusion

Definitional loopholes further obscure the crisis. India’s Forest Survey classifies any land with over 10% tree canopy and more than one hectare in area as “forest”, regardless of whether it’s a monoculture plantation or a native ecosystem.

According to the 2021 India State of Forest Report, moderately dense forests declined by 1,582sq km while open forests increased by 2,621sq km; a shift that looks positive on paper but masks a transition from rich ecosystems to degraded or cultivated lands.

“It is a very reductionist understanding of forests,” says Ramanjaneyulu GV, executive director at the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, a non-profit. “Forests are not just tree cover. They are entire ecosystems of soil, insects, micro-organisms, grasses and native species that evolve over centuries.”

Campa’s compensatory afforestation programme is one of the government’s flagship responses to deforestation. But its effectiveness is hotly contested. The scheme is based on the assumption that any forest lost to development can be replaced by planting new trees elsewhere. In practice, it prioritises commercial species and often takes place on unsuitable land.

The monetary value, collected as environmental compensation, is allotted to states to undertake compensatory afforestation on earmarked non-forest land. A 2020 audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) revealed that Odisha’s Campa plantations had just a 7.5% survival rate. The programme suffered from poor maintenance, misuse of funds and a focus on quantity over quality.

In Uttarakhand, funds meant for afforestation were spent on mobile phones, office renovations and legal fees. Tree survival rates were 33%.

Overall, the programme has largely been ineffective in delivering meaningful ecological dividends. Multiple CAG reports highlight poor plantation survival rates and misuse of funds under Campa.

“The idea of compensation in that sense is very absurd,” says Date. In Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli, the Centre has approved the diversion of 937ha of forest land and the felling of 1.23 lakh trees for an iron-ore beneficiation plant by the mining company Lloyds Metals and Energy, she adds.

Forest-dwelling communities have long maintained that they are the most effective stewards of the land.

Evidence backs them up. In Maharashtra, villages such as Mendha Lekha, Pachgaon and Payvihir have restored biodiversity and improved soil fertility after gaining community forest rights (CFR). Since 2012, Pachgaon has set a local benchmark in sustainable forest management. In Payvihir, barren land was transformed into fertile farms and forests, increasing soil fertility due to rich carbon, nutrient and organic content.

In Chhattisgarh’s Bastar district, CFR has helped integrate traditional knowledge with conservation goals. But many gram sabhas still receive no financial support for their work. “There is no formal recognition of the role these communities play. Campa funds have never reached them,” says Date.

International models show what’s possible. In Nepal and Mexico, governments have supported forest communities with training and equipment, enabling them to run sustainable forest enterprises.

In Oaxaca, Mexico, one such model in Sierra Norte has produced 3mn metric tonnes of timber and carbon over two decades, all from forests that continue to thrive. “It is absolutely possible if communities are empowered and given the space to negotiate their terms and the contracts signed are people-based and community-led,” says Date.

Systemic Change

“The system has to change,” says Debadityo Sinha, senior resident fellow and lead, climate and ecosystems team, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a think tank. A target-oriented afforestation policy would need to be FRA-centric. Campa projects must be executed considering ecological history with systems in place to ensure funds are actually used for restoration.

Sinha notes that many afforestation projects use bulldozers and even blasting to clear rocky ground for plantations. “You cannot restore forests by destroying ecosystems,” he says. He adds that afforestation plans must be developed in consultation with scientists, ecologists and social experts, selecting tree species aligned with local community needs. The true measure of success should be net biodiversity gain.

Above all, there needs to be strict oversight of environmental clearances for development in eco-sensitive areas. “If the Great Nicobar forests disappear, no amount of compensation will bring them back,” he warns.

India has bet big on forests as a solution to climate change. But unless it rethinks how it defines, manages and values those forests, it risks losing more than carbon sinks. It risks losing the forests themselves.