Compensatory Afforestation In India - A Legal And Ecological Critique
- IJLLR Journal
- Mar 16
- 1 min read
Vaishnavi V Shankar, School of Law, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences.
ABSTRACT
In India, Compensatory afforestation represents one of the most significant legal mechanisms to streamline developmental imperatives with environmental protection. It constitutes as a cornerstone of India’s forest governance model mandated as an environmental safeguard under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and operationalized through the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016. The Compensatory Afforestation requires that the forest land diverted for non- forest purposes be compensated through afforestation and financial payments calculated as Net Present Value. While the legislative framework appears comprehensive, it undermines both legal intent and ecological objectives. This research paper opts for a doctrinal research methodology to provide a legal and ecological critique.
The paper begins with contending how India’s Compensatory Afforestation is based on the concept that prioritizes area-based replacement rather than ecological equivalence. Plantation driven afforestation, often comprising of fast-growing species and inadequate monitoring, fail to replicate original biodiversity and functions of natural forests. The judiciary makes interventions progressively to enforce statutory compliance however enforcement remains uneven and jurisdictionally fragmented. Additionally, CAMPA funds remain inadequately monitored raising serious fiscal governance and environmental justice concerns.
Furthermore, this research seeks to provide a comparative review with countries such as Brazil and United States highlighting alternative models grounded in ecological performance standards, adaptive management and other elements largely missing in the approach opted by India. The paper concludes that while compensatory afforestation is normatively justified within India’s constitutional environmental framework, the present implementation poses risks legitimizing forest diversion without achieving substantive ecological restoration. Conclusively, the paper also provides for recommendations focusing on ecological equivalence, strengthening transparency and accountability and prioritizing ecosystem recovery.
