The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change has introduced a transformative yet controversial amendment to India’s forest conservation guidelines that fundamentally alters how forest land can be used by private and government entities. Issued on January 2, 2026, the new directive reclassifies commercial plantations as a “forestry activity,” effectively exempting developers from paying the Net Present Value (NPV) or undertaking mandatory compensatory afforestation.
This move, which applies to the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists who argue that it removes the last financial and legal safeguards protecting India’s natural ecosystems from industrial exploitation.
The government defends the policy change as a necessary step to address India’s surging demand for wood products and to reduce the country’s reliance on imported pulp and paperboard. According to the Indian Paper Manufacturers Association, imports reached a staggering 2.05 million tonnes in 2025, nearly doubling in just four years.
By allowing private players to establish short-rotation crops like eucalyptus, poplar, and teak on degraded forest land, the ministry believes it can simultaneously restore land and boost domestic industry. Under the new framework, these activities are no longer viewed as a “diversion” of forest land for non-forest use, provided they follow a state-approved management plan.
However, the scientific community and former forestry officials have labeled the amendment “disastrous,” warning that it could lead to the large-scale replacement of biodiverse habitats with sterile monocultures. Experts point out that a plantation lacks the structural complexity of a true forest, such as the understory vegetation and decaying deadwood that support complex wildlife food webs.
There are fears that private entities, driven by profit and harvest cycles, will have little incentive to plant diverse native species, potentially turning once-living ecosystems into industrial “green deserts.” Furthermore, legal experts like Ritwick Dutta have highlighted that this policy bypasses the historical requirement for biodiversity protection in favor of silvicultural operations.
Political opposition has also intensified, with leaders like Jairam Ramesh accusing the administration of “bulldozing” changes that essentially privatize forest management without parliamentary oversight. Critics argue that by leaving revenue-sharing and utilization frameworks to individual state governments, the central government has created a fragmented system that could be easily exploited by the “mining and industrial lobbies.”
As India navigates its climate goals and industrial needs, this amendment marks a significant shift in environmental governance, moving away from a model of strict compensation toward one of market-driven ecological management.