BENGALURU – The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) new Environmental Accounting on Forest 2025 report, which attempts to quantify the value and condition of India’s forests as “natural capital,” has been heavily criticized by conservationists and former forest officials for fundamental ecological blind spots.
Experts argue that the report inherits the same weaknesses of the biennial India State of Forest Report (ISFR) by failing to account for forest fragmentation, the primary cause of biodiversity loss, and by entirely omitting massive land-use changes under the Forest Rights Act (FRA).
Overlooking Fragmentation and Degradation
Praveen Bhargav, a former member of the National Board for Wildlife, stated that forests are “living systems, not static assets” and their value lies in “continuity, connectivity, and resilience.”
Though Volume 1 of the report lists fragmentation as a condition indicator, critics note it provides no measured data, no trendlines, and no connectivity maps. By ignoring fragmentation caused by roads, power lines, and mining, the report misses what truly defines forest health.
“Fragmentation or breaking up of forests into smaller pieces is the most serious threat to biological diversity. It isolates wildlife populations, prevents genetic exchange, and leads to ecological collapse,” said Bhargav.
Data Flaws: Resolution and Definition
Experts including BK Singh retired Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka, point out that the data underpinning the report relies on the ISFR 2023, which uses low-resolution satellite imagery IRS LISS-III with 23.5 metre resolution.
This coarse resolution cannot reliably distinguish between natural forests and monoculture plantations (like teak, eucalyptus, coffee, or rubber estates), meaning plantations are often counted as ‘forest cover,’ artificially inflating figures. Experts warn that unless the definition is corrected and higher-resolution imagery (like Sentinel-2 or PlanetScope) is used, the credibility of the entire accounting exercise remains questionable.
The Omission of the Forest Rights Act
Perhaps the most glaring criticism is the report’s complete silence on the land area granted under the Forest Rights Act (FRA). The FRA has led to one of India’s largest legal losses of forest land since 2008.
According to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ official dashboard, individual and community rights have been granted over approximately 94 lakh hectares of land, yet this area has not been accounted for in the MoSPI report.
While community titles may not involve immediate clearing, individual rights for habitation and cultivation have led to the physical disappearance of forest cover. Singh noted that while these tracts remain counted as ‘Recorded Forest Area’ in ISFR, the forest cover within them has practically “disappeared.”
Carbon Claims Lack Evidence
The report conclusion that India’s forests have substantially increased their carbon retention capacity has also been called “scientifically unsound and unsupported by data.”
Singh called on MoSPI to release all raw spatial and tabular datasets for independent verification. He argued that the reported increase likely confuses forest cover inside notified forests (which he says is declining) with tree cover outside (on farms and plantations, which is increasing).
“When natural forests are shrinking, how can ecological services and carbon absorption rise?” he challenged, demanding the forest department publish the data and methods behind the carbon claim to retain scientific credibility.