Forest and Wildlife Protection

and Conservation
Unit 6
 Intro
• The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 (FCA,
1980) is an act by the Parliament of India
which ensures conservation of forest and its
resources.
• It was enacted by the Parliament of India in
order to control the ongoing deforestation of
the forests of India. It came into force on
October 25, 1980 containing five sections.
Need for Forest Conservation Act, 1980
• Forests are an important resource that nature can bestow upon mankind.
Therefore, it is the duty of every citizen to preserve the ecosystems of forests.
But due to rapid deforestation, the cycle of nature is itself being disrupted.
Therefore, the need to bring about a law to ensure the preservation of forest
was needed.
• One of the first legal drafts to protect forest tracts was the Indian Forest Act,
1865 replaced by a 1927 version of the same act. However, it was more geared
towards protecting the commercial interests of the British Empire in India.
• The act gave authority to the British to restrict tribal activities by levying taxes on
timber and forest services. In other words, it mainly regulated the cutting of
timber and flow of raw materials rather than protecting forests.
• Upon independence, the President of India enforced the Forest (Conservation)
Ordinance in 1980 which was later repealed by virtue of Section 5 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. Under the 1980 Act, the restriction was made on the
use of the forests for non-forest purposes.
 Objectives of the Forest Conservation Act
1980
• Protect the forest along with its flora, fauna
and other diverse ecological components
while preserving the integrity and territory of
the forests.
• Arrest the loss of forest biodiversity
• Prevent forest lands being converted into
agricultural, grazing or for any other
commercial purposes and intentions.
 Important Sections
• Section 2: Restriction of forests being used for non-forest purposes.
The section lists restrictions where state authorities cannot make laws regarding forest
without the permissions of the Central Government. The emphasis is on ‘non
forest purposes’ which means that clearing forest land for the planting of:
• Tea
• Coffee
• Spices
• Rubber
• Palms
• Oil-bearing
• Medicinal plants
Section 3: Advisory committee
• As per Section 3 of this Act, the Central government has the power to constitute an
advisory committee to advice on matters related to advising the central
government on the preservation of forests
 Tarun Bharat Singh v. Union of India (1993)
• In the instant case, a voluntary organisation approached the Supreme
Court through a PIL filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The
petition was against the illegal mining going on in the reserved area of
the Alwar District. Despite the fact that the area was reserved under the
Act, the state government had granted hundreds of licences for mining
marble. The Court held that whenever an area is declared as the
protected forest it comes within the purview of the Forest
(Conservation) Act and now, the State government cannot carry on any
non-forest activity in the reserved area without the prior permission of
the Central government. As mining is a non-forest activity, the State
government’s action to grant a licence for mining or renewing their
licence for mining is contrary to law. An interlocutory direction was also
passed to the State government and the mine owners to stop the illegal
activity in the reserved area.
 State of MP v. Krishnadas Tikaram (1994)
• In this case, the respondents were granted the mining lease
of limestone in the forest area in the year of 1966 for a
period of 20 years. In 1986, after its expiry, the respondents
approached the State government for its renewal. The State
government passed the orders to renew the lease for
further 20 years. The Forest Department cancelled this
order. This cancellation was challenged before the Supreme
Court of India. The Court held that under Section 2 of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, the state cannot grant or renew
the licence without the prior approval of the Central
government. Therefore, the cancellation of the order was
properly made.
 Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay
Environmental Action (2011)
• In this case, an application was filed by the District collector to initiate the
contempt proceedings against the appellants for violating the orders to
the court. The court had issued directions to remove the newly
constructed bund so that seawater can come in to protect the mangrove
forests. The order tried to restrain the appellants from indulging in any
activity which will harm the mangrove forests. The appellants have the
licence to manufacture salt at the place. The Supreme Court held that
the manufacturing of salt by solar evaporation of seawater is not
permitted in the area as that area is home to the mangrove forests. The
mangrove forests are of great ecological importance and are also
ecologically sensitive and that is why they fall under the category of CRZ-I
(Coastal Regulatory Zone-I). The
Coastal Area Classification and Development Regulations, 1991 classifies
the Coastal Regulatory Zone, and according to it, the manufacturing of salt
is prohibited.
The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
 Intro
• The Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 protects the rights of
forest-dwelling tribal groups and other traditional forest
dwellers to forest resources, which these communities rely
on for a range of purposes, including subsistence, housing,
and other socio-cultural requirements.
• Forest management policies in both colonial and post-
colonial India, including Acts, Rules, and Forest Policies of
Participatory Forest Management policies, did not recognise
the STs’ symbiotic relationship with the forests, reflect on
their reliance on the forest as well as their traditional
wisdom regarding forest conservation, until the enactment
of this Act.
• The Act covers individual rights such as self-cultivation and habitat, as
well as community rights such as grazing, fishing, and access to water
bodies in forests, habitat rights for PVTGs, traditional seasonal resource
access for Nomadic and Pastoral communities, biodiversity, community
right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge, recognition of
traditional customary rights, and the right to protect, regenerate,
conserve, or manage natural resources. It also grants rights to the
distribution of forest areas for development activities in order to meet
the community’s basic infrastructure needs.
• The Act also places a responsibility on the Gram Sabha and right holders
to conserve and protect biodiversity, wildlife, forests, adjoining
catchment areas, water sources, and other ecologically sensitive areas,
as well as to stop any destructive practises that harm these resources or
the tribals’ cultural and natural heritage.
• Under the Act, the Gram Sabha is a highly empowered body that allows
the indigenous community to have a decisive say in the development of
local policies and initiatives that affect them.
 Need for Forest Rights Act, 2006
• To address the poor living conditions of many tribal families living in forests as a
result of non-recognition and vesting of pre-existing rights, The Forest Rights Act,
2006, was enacted to recognize and vest forest rights and occupation of forest land
in forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have
been residing in such forested areas for many years.
• On the advice of Gram Sabhas, the Act also allows for the diversion of forest areas
for government-managed public utility facilities like schools, dispensaries, fair
pricing shops, electricity and telephone lines, water tanks, and so on. In addition,
the Ministry of Tribal Affairs has developed numerous schemes for tribal people’s
benefit, including those in the forest, such as “
Mechanism for selling of Minor Forest Produce (MFP
) through Minimum Support Price (MSP) and creation of Value Chain for MFP
.” Infrastructure projects linked to basic services and facilities, such as approach
roads, healthcare, primary education, minor irrigation, rainwater harvesting,
drinking water, sanitation, community halls, and so on, are funded through the
Special Central Assistance to Tribal Sub Plan, for development of forest villages.
Wildlife First v. Ministry of Forest (2019)
• The Supreme Court ordered the eviction of lakhs of Scheduled Tribes (STs)
and Other Traditional Forest Residents (OTFDs) across 16 States on
February 13 after the Forest Rights Act, 2006 rejected their claim to be
forest dwellers. The Chief Secretaries of many of these states were
instructed to evict people whose petitions were ultimately dismissed by a
bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha, and Indira Banerjee.
According to a court order, the eviction must take place by July 24, 2019.
• The Order from February 13 is supported by affidavits that the states
submitted. However, it is unclear from the affidavits if the requirements of
the law were followed before the claims were denied. The Centre
contended that the rejection of claims was especially strong in states
where there was a high tribal population and left-wing extremism.
• .
• The states typically denied the forest land claims made by these
tribes and forest inhabitants. They did not know the proper
procedure for making claims because they are underprivileged,
illiterate, and live in rural places. The gram sabhas, which are in
charge of verifying their claims, lack knowledge of how to handle
them. These communities were not even informed of the rejection
orders.
• The court’s order was stayed on February 28 but warned that “the
mighty and the undeserving” who had encroached on forest land
would not be spared. It has made the decision to investigate
whether the gram sabhas and the states complied with the Forest
Rights Act’s requirements for due process before rejecting the
applications or not
 Core issues
• Non compliance of procedure
• Lack of transparency
• Documentation hassle- proof of evidence
• Poor record keeping
• Lack of awareness
• right of woman
• Lack of coordination
• Multiple legal provisions
(ministry of tribal affairs)
Wild Life Protection Amendment
Act 2022
 Objectives
• Implement the provisions of the CITES
– CITES is an international agreement between governments to ensure
that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not
threaten the survival of the species.
• The act was enacted for protection of plants and animal species
• Authorities Appointed under the Act:

– The Central Government appoints the Director of Wildlife Preservation and

assistant directors and other officers subordinate to the Director.
– The State Governments appoint a Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) who heads the
Wildlife Wing of the department and exercises complete administrative control
over Protected Areas (PAs) within a state.

• The state governments are also entitled to appoint Wildlife Wardens in each district.
 What is the CITES?
• The CITES is an international agreement to which States
and regional economic integration organizations adhere
voluntarily.
• CITES was drafted as a result of a resolution adopted
in 1963 at a meeting of members of the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
• CITES entered into force in July 1975.
• The CITES Secretariat is administered by UNEP
(The United Nations Environment Programme) and is
located at Geneva, Switzerland.
• India is a signatory to the CITES.
 Salient features
1. Prohibition of hunting (schedule I to IV)
It prohibits the hunting of any wild animal specified in
Schedules I, II, III and IV of the act.
Exception: A wild animal listed under these schedules
can be hunted/ killed only after getting permission from
the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW) of the state if:

– It becomes dangerous to human life or to property (including

standing crops on any land).
– It is disabled or suffering from a disease that is beyond
recovery.
• Schedule I:
It covers endangered species that need rigorous protection. The species are granted
protection from poaching, killing, trading etc.
• A person is liable to the harshest penalties for violation of the law under this Schedule.
• Species under this Schedule are prohibited to be hunted throughout India, except under
threat to human life or in case of a disease that is beyond recovery.
• Some of the animals granted protection under the Schedule I include:

– The Black Buck

– Bengal Tiger
• Schedule II:
Animals under this list are also accorded high protection with the prohibition on their
trade.
• They cannot be hunted except under threat to human life or if they are suffering from a
disease/ disorder that goes beyond recovery.
• Some of the animals listed under Schedule II include:

– Assamese Macaque, Pig Tailed Macaque, Stump Tailed Macaque

– Bengal Hanuman langur
– Himalayan Black Bear
• Schedule III & IV:
Species that are not endangered are included under Schedule III and IV.
• This includes protected species with hunting prohibited but the penalty
for any violation is less compared to the first two schedules.
• Animals protected under Schedule III include:

– Chital (spotted deer)

– Hyena
– Nilgai
•
Animals protected under Schedule IV include:
Flamingo

• Falcons
• Kingfishers
2. Prohibition of cutting/uprooting specific plants (eg:
red sandalwood)
It prohibits the uprooting, damage, collection,
possession or selling of any specified plant from any
forest land or any protected area.
Exception: The CWLW, however, may grant
permission for uprooting or collecting a specific plant
for the purpose of education, scientific research,
preservation in a herbarium or if a person/institution
is approved to do so by the central government.
3. Constitution of various bodies
The WPA act provides for the constitution of
bodies to be established under this act such as
the National and State Board for Wildlife,
Central Zoo Authority and National Tiger
Conservation Authority.
• National Board for Wildlife (NBWL)

– It serves as an apex body for the review of all wildlife-related matters and for the approval of
projects in and around national parks and sanctuaries.
– The NBWL is chaired by the Prime Minister and is responsible for promotion of conservation and
development of wildlife and forests. The Minister of Environment, Forest and Climate Change is
the Vice-Chairperson of the board.
– The board is ‘advisory’ in nature and can only advise the Government on policy making for
conservation of wildlife.
• Standing Committee of NBWL: The NBWL constitutes a Standing Committee for the purpose of approving
all the projects falling within protected wildlife areas or within 10 km of them.
– The committee is chaired by the Minister of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
• State Board for Wildlife (SBWL): The state governments are responsible for the constitution of the state
board of wildlife.

– The Chief Minister of the state/UT is the chairperson of the board.

– The board advises the state government in:

• The selection and management of areas to be declared as protected areas.

• The formulation of the policy for protection and conservation of the wild life
• Any matter relating to the amendment of any Schedule.
– Central Zoo Authority: The act provides for the constitution of Central Zoo Authority consisting of a
total 10 members including the Chairperson and a Member-Secretary.

• The Environment Minister is the chairperson.

• The authority provides recognition to zoos and is also tasked with regulating the zoos across the
country.
It lays down guidelines and prescribes rules under which animals may be transferred among
zoos nationally and internationally.
– National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA): Following the recommendations of the Tiger Task
Force, the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) was constituted in 2005 for strengthening
tiger conservation.

• The Union Environment Minister is the Chairperson of NTCA and the State Environment
Minister is the Vice-Chairperson.
• The Central Government on the recommendations of NTCA declares an area as a Tiger Reserve.

– More than 50 wildlife sanctuaries in India have been designated as Tiger Reserves and
are protected areas under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
– Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB): The act provided for the constitution of
Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) to combat organized wildlife crime in the country.

• The Bureau has its headquarters in New Delhi.

4. Declaration and Protection of Wildlife Sanctuaries
and National Parks: The Central Government can
constitute any area as a Sanctuary, provided the
area is of adequate ecological, faunal, floral,
geomorphological, natural or zoological significance.

– The government can also declare an area (including an

area within a sanctuary) as a National Park.
– A Collector is appointed by the central government to
administer the area declared as a Sanctuary.
5. Government Property
Hunted wild animals (other than vermin-fruit
bat, crow, rat), animal articles or meat of a
wild animal and ivory imported into India and
an article made from such ivory shall be
considered as the property of the
Government.
 Constitutional Provisions for Wildlife
Conservation
• The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, Forests and Protection
of Wild Animals and Birds was transferred from State to
Concurrent List.
• Article 51A(g) of the Constitution states that it shall be
the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests and
Wildlife.
• Article 48 A in the Directive Principles of State
policy, mandates that the State shall endeavor to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard
the forests and wildlife of the country.
 Tarun Bharat Singh Alwar v. Union of India,
1992
• In this case, the petitioner, a social action group, was an organization
concerned with the protection and conservation of wildlife. The group
aggrieved by the actions of the state government filed public interest
litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of
certain statutory notifications issued by the government in the area, that
was popularly known as the ‘Sariska Tiger park’, which was declared as a
sanctuary under Section- 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. It was
alleged by the petitioners that certain mining operations were being
carried out in the area on the pretext of the grant of licenses by the
state government, which were acting as a hindrance to the environment
and was affecting wildlife in the park, and stated that the state
government by issuing licenses by notifications and declaration was
itself permitting the degradation of the environment by authorizing the
mining operations in the area.
 Cont.
• The Supreme Court stated that:-
• Direction for the appointment of a committee headed by a retired
judge to ensure the enforcement of the state notifications and other
orders of the Supreme court and ensured that there should be the
protection of the environment and wildlife within the protected area
under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986
• It directed that no mining operations should be conducted in the
protected areas as the mining operations have infringed Section 2 of
the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
• Police protection should be provided to the environmental activists
against any kind of physical threats by vested interests.
• The activists were provided rewards for taking up the matter to the
Supreme court and in order to protect the wildlife.
 Chief Forest Conservator (wildlife) v. Nisar
Khan, 2003
• In this case, The appellant was a dealer in birds namely Munias,
Parakeets, Mainas, and Buntings which were found in abundance
in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He was granted a license by the state
government for carrying on his business which was valid up till
1990. After the expiration of the term, he submitted his
application to the licensing authority for the renewal of the license
for the next year, but the license was refused to be granted on the
ground that it wouldn’t be possible for him to carry on the
business of breeding of captive birds without hunting which
includes the trapping of birds. The respondent challenged the
order of the High Court and filed a writ petition in the Supreme
Court contending that it was the violation of his basic fundamental
right i.e., freedom to carry on trade or business under Article 19.
 Cont.
• The Supreme Court held that:
• The licensing authority has rightly refused to renew the
license as the business of breeding birds in captivity by
procuring them by trapping is prohibited under
Section-9 and Section-2(16) of the Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972.
• The appellant’s plea of his violation of fundamental right
was refused on the ground that Article 19 states
restrictions that if any business is posing threat to public
peace or is found to be illegal in the eyes of law, then he
shall be forbidden to carry on any business.
 Consumer Education and Research Society,
Ahmedabad v. Union of India, 2000
• In this case, the Government of Gujarat in the exercise of its powers under
Section 18 of the Act declared a part of the forest area in the Lakhpat Taluka of
Kutch as a ‘wildlife sanctuary’ named as Narayan Sarovar Chinkara Sanctuary’,
where the state government issued a notification that 94.87 sq. km of land would
be a part of the said reserve forest.
• The petitioner challenged the notifications, which were quashed by the state
government. Steps were taken by the state government:
• The state government decided to delimit the area of the sanctuary as it was found
to be more than required and the delimitation was likely to be helpful in
systematically developing that area economically by making use of its mineral
wealth.
• It moved the state legislature to pass an appropriate resolution on that behalf. The
state legislature passed the resolution for reducing the statutory limit and was
passed in the exercise of the powers under Section 26A(3) of the Act.
• The government issued a notification to that effect but was again challenged by
the petitioner on the ground that the area was not enough to protect the wildlife
 Cont.
• The High Court:
• Dismissed the petition and stated that the state
legislature was quite aware of the wildlife and the
area of 444.23 sq. km was enough for 1200
chinkaras to be protected.
• It was further held that the economic development
of the area was likely to benefit the people of the
area at large and help in the protection,
preservation, and development of the flora and
fauna.
• The petitioner challenged the decision of the High Court on the
grounds that:
• The state government had wrongly assumed that the purpose of
the impugned notification was to protect the chinkaras in the area.
• It was issued with a view to protect the ecosystem and maintain an
ecological balance.
• The state legislature did not use its intellect to gather all the
relevant facts and passed the resolution only relying on the
opinion of the state government.
• It was pointed out that a large number of trees on the land which
was given on lease for the purpose of the setting up of a cement
plant was not brought to the notice of the legislature.
 Cont.
• The Supreme Court stated that the forest in the notified area is an
edaphic thorn forest but with a large number of trees. It has been
identified as a potential site for designation as a biosphere reserve as
declared by the Forest Committee, but at the same time pointed out
that it was a backward area and there is no possibility of industrial
development.
• Therefore, affirmed that if an attempt by the state legislature and the
government maintain an equitable balance between the economic
development of the backward area and the protection of the
environment including both plants and animals then the principle of
prohibition should not be applied, but it would be maintainable to
apply the ‘principle of protection’, ‘principle of polluter pays’ with a
view of sustainable development and intergenerational equity.
 Naveen Raheja v. Union of India, 2001
• In this case, Naveen Raheja, a wildlife enthusiast filed a public
interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
stating the vulnerability of the captive tigers in the zoo at
Bhubaneswar. A cursory look of the Report shows that much
needs to be done both for the welfare of tigers in captivity in
zoo as well as in the reserves. The situation is distressing and
far from satisfactory and the manner in which welfare of
animals is being looked into leaves much to be desired. He
raised his concern over the welfare of the animals both in the
reserved forests and in the zoos. The Supreme Court was
tormented by the gruesome activity that was indulged in by
the humans, rendering the animals in sheer agony and pain.
 Cont.
• The Supreme Court stated that:
• It was the duty of the authorities of the zoo to provide
protection to the tiger but resultantly received no
protection from this cruelty that was conducted in the zoo.
• Poor voiceless animals cannot be allowed to be treated in
such a terrific manner, resulting in animal cruelty. If
committed, it will result in punishment under the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
• The court directed that the state should take appropriate
steps so that no such incident ever occurs in the zoos or
reserved forests.
 T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of
India, 2012
• In this case, the petitioner Godavarman filed a petition under Article 32
under the Supreme Court stating that the state governments of
Chattigrashand the Union of India should be directed to take necessary
steps to save the Asiatic Wild Buffalo, an endangered species, and also to
take steps to ensure that the interbreeding of the wild and domestic
buffalo does not take place, and the genetic purity is maintained.
• The Supreme Court gave detailed directions:
• Directed the State of Chattisgarh to implement the
Centrally Sponsored Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats Scheme
, 2009
so as to save the wild buffalo from extinction.
• Emphasis should be laid on the recovery programs for saving critically
endangered species and habitats distinguished from conservation
programs, and the objectives of the recovery program are to protect
wildlife outside the protected areas.
The Compensatory Afforestation
Fund (CAF Act), 2016
 Introduction
• An Act to provide for the establishment of funds under the public
accounts of India and the public accounts of each State and crediting
thereto the monies received from the user agencies towards
compensatory afforestation, additional compensatory afforestation,
penal compensatory afforestation, net present value and all other
amounts recovered from such agencies under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980;
• Constitution of an authority at national level and at each of the State
and Union territory Administration for administration of the funds and
to utilise the monies so collected for undertaking artificial regeneration
(plantations), assisted natural regeneration, protection of forests,
forest related infrastructure development, Green India Programme,
wildlife protection and other related activities and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad V. Union Of
India & Others 2002
• In 1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, popularly
known as “the green man” for his litigation efforts
for conservation, filed a writ petition with the India
Supreme Court to halt illegal timber operations in
the area out of concern. He claimed the timber
operations violated section 2 of the Forest
Conservation Act, which says no state government
or any other authority can make use of land of the
forest for any non-forestry activities through the
prior permission of the Central Government.
 Facts about the CAMPA fund
• In 2002, the supreme court of India in the TN Godavarman Vs union of
India ordered the creation of a Compensatory Afforestation Fund
Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA).
• To manage the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF), CAMPA was
established in 2004.
• CAMPA also acts as the custodian of the CAMPA fund.
• The state funds will receive 90% of the payments, while the national
fund will receive 10%.
• All states except Nagaland have set up state CAMPAs following this
notification as of November 2019.
• The National Compensatory Afforestation Fund under the Public
Account of India and the State Compensatory Afforestation Fund
under the Public Account of each state was created.
 Authority
• S.8: National Compensatory Afforestation
Fund Management and Planning Authority
• S. 10: State Compensatory Afforestation Fund
Management and Planning Authority
• The CAF Act was passed by the centre in 2016 and the
related rules were notified in 2018.
• The CAF Act was enacted to manage the funds collected
for compensatory afforestation which till then was
managed by ad hoc Compensatory Afforestation Fund
Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA).

– Compensatory afforestation means that every time forest land

is diverted for non-forest purposes such as mining or industry,
the user agency pays for planting forests over an equal area of
non-forest land, or when such land is not available, twice the
area of degraded forest land.
• The funds can be used for treatment of
catchment areas, assisted natural generation,
forest management, wildlife protection and
management, relocation of villages from
protected areas, managing human-wildlife
conflicts, training and awareness generation,
supply of wood saving devices and allied
activities.
 Objectives of CAMPA Law
• To promote afforestation and development activities in
order to compensate for forest land that is intended to be
diverted to non-forest uses.
• To law down effective guidelines for the State
• To facilitate necessary assistance in terms of scientific,
technological, and other requisites that may be required by
the authority responsible for the State CAMPA.
• To recommend measures based on strategic planning to the
authorities of the State CAMPA
• To resolve issues that arise between inter-state or Centre-
State.
When Rights Collide: Thengumarahada Case Shows The Need For
Balancing Animal And Human Interests
 Criticism Of CAMPA Act 2016
• In 2002, the Supreme Court had observed that collected funds for afforestation were under-
utilized by the states and it ordered for centrally pooling of funds under ad hoc Compensatory
Afforestation Fund.
• The law says that land selected for afforestation should preferably be contiguous to the forest
being diverted so that it is easier for forest officials to manage it. But if no suitable non-forest land
is found, degraded forests can be chosen for afforestation. In several states like Chattisgarh, Odisha,
and Jharkhand where the intensity of mining is very high, finding the non-forest land for
afforestation to compensate for the loss of forest is a big task.
• Utilization of CAMPA fund: Several state governments are not utilizing it properly. An amount of
Rs 86 lakh from CAMPA funds meant for afforestation was reportedly spent on litigation work in
Punjab.
• Infrastructure development is one area of fund usage. Experts argue that CAMPA funds can
become general development fund.
• Moreover, at several places, the loss of natural species is compensated with the plantation of
non-native species in the name of the artificial plantation. It serves as a threat to even the
existing ecosystem.
• Questions can be raised on the quality of new forests.
• There is no provision regarding consultation of tribal Gram Sabhas during compensatory
afforestation.