Supreme Court on Compensatory Afforestation Failure
Background
Context: Supreme Court reprimanded the Maharashtra government for its poor performance in compensatory afforestation.
Key Finding: Out of 20,460 saplings planted to replace felled trees for Mumbai’s infrastructure projects, barely half survived.
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai’s Bench.
Action: The SC suspended clearances for certain Mumbai projects, including metro lines and tunnels under Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP).
The Court warned that clearances could be withdrawn if credible afforestation plans were not presented by November 10.
Issues Highlighted
Poor Implementation:
The Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act (CAF Act) mandates planting twice the number of trees felled.
In practice, it has become a bureaucratic ritual saplings are planted only on paper, often left to die due to lack of maintenance.
Forest Department Admission:
The Maharashtra Forest Department admitted that most saplings perished due to poor protection and maintenance.
National Problem:
This issue is not limited to Maharashtra. Similar failures have been reported across India:
Chhattisgarh: Plantations to offset 282 hectares of forest loss for a highway project failed due to land fragmentation.
Himachal Pradesh (2020 Study): Only 3.6% of planted saplings survived after compensatory afforestation efforts.
Environmental Impact:
India lost 2.3 million hectares of tree cover (2001–2024) (Global Forest Watch).
Poor afforestation results in loss of biodiversity, monoculture plantations (like teak, eucalyptus), and weak resilience to climate shocks.
Key Concerns
Lack of Transparency in monitoring compensatory afforestation funds.
Weak accountability mechanisms.
Inadequate local community involvement.
Preference for monocultures rather than native forests.
Absence of penalties for failure to maintain plantations.
Supreme Court’s Observations & Recommendations
Accountability Required: The Court emphasized that growth cannot come at the cost of destruction.
Expectations from Centre and States:
Establish real-time audits of afforestation projects.
Ensure transparent monitoring of CAF funds.
Impose penalties on agencies for failure to maintain saplings.
The Court has effectively opened a door for judicial oversight in environmental compliance.
Implications
The judgment reinforces environmental governance as a key pillar of sustainable development.
It calls for:
Balance between infrastructure growth and ecological protection.
Strengthened implementation of CAF Act, 2016.
Improved accountability and monitoring frameworks under the MoEFCC and State Forest Departments.
Global Forest Watch (GFW)
Overview
Global Forest Watch (GFW) is an open-source, web-based platform that provides near real-time monitoring of forests worldwide.
It enables governments, NGOs, companies, researchers, and citizens to access data on deforestation, forest cover change, fires, and land use.
Launch & Origin
Established: Originally launched in 1997 as a global forest monitoring network.
Revamped: The modern online version was relaunched in 2014.
Convened by: World Resources Institute (WRI), a Washington D.C.–based environmental think tank.
Prelims Practice MCQ
Q .Consider the following statements regarding the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016:
It was enacted to ensure proper utilization of funds collected for afforestation from project developers.
The Act provides for the creation of both a National Fund and State Funds for afforestation.
Funds collected under the Act can be used for any type of development project, including urban infrastructure.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
✅ Answer: (a)
Explanation:
Statements 1 and 2 are correct — the Act created National and State Compensatory Afforestation Funds to ensure transparent use of money for forest restoration.
Statement 3 is incorrect — the funds are specifically earmarked for afforestation, regeneration, and forest/wildlife protection, not for unrelated development projects.
Q. Which of the following environmental acts or policies directly relates to the “polluter pays principle” and compensatory mechanisms such as afforestation?
(a) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
(b) Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016
(c) Forest Conservation Act, 1980
(d) Both (b) and (c)
✅ Answer: (d)
Explanation:
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 regulates diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes and mandates compensatory afforestation.
CAF Act, 2016 operationalizes the mechanism to utilize funds collected under it.
Both Acts reflect the “polluter pays” and “ecological restoration” principles.