A recent circular issued by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has triggered concern among conservationists, legal experts and tribal rights activists, who warn that the decision could open India’s forests to commercial plantations while weakening long-standing safeguards meant to protect biodiversity and forest-dependent communities.
Issued in the first week of January 2026, the circular allows private and non-government entities to undertake afforestation and plantation activities on forest land without paying Net Present Value (NPV) or undertaking compensatory afforestation, requirements that are otherwise mandatory when forest land is diverted for non-forest purposes. Critics argue that the move blurs the distinction between ecological restoration and commercial activity, effectively treating plantations as forests.
The circular states that assisted natural regeneration, including afforestation and plantation carried out by State governments and Union Territories in collaboration with private or non-government entities on a revenue-sharing basis, will be classified as forestry activity, provided it is undertaken under an approved Working Plan or Management Plan and supervised by the State Forest Department. It further exempts such activities from compensatory afforestation and NPV payments, while leaving revenue-sharing frameworks to be determined by States on a case-by-case basis.
The ministry has defended the decision as part of an evolving framework for forest restoration and sustainable use of silviculturally available forest resources. The circular flows from consolidated guidelines issued under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, formerly the Forest (Conservation) Act, which expanded the definition of forestry activities to include assisted regeneration and silvicultural operations.
Afforestation and plantations conflated under new rules
Environmental lawyers and ecologists have raised alarm over the circular’s interchangeable use of the terms “afforestation” and “plantations,” warning that the conflation dilutes a well-established legal and ecological distinction. While afforestation aims to restore natural forest ecosystems, plantations are typically monocultural and commercial in nature, designed for harvest rather than biodiversity conservation.
Ritwick Dutta, an environmental lawyer and founder of the Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, said the circular allows economically driven plantation activities to be justified as ecological restoration. He warned that if private entities selectively promote commercially valuable species under assisted natural regeneration, forest biodiversity could be severely undermined, especially when natural regeneration follows selective felling.
The ministry has insisted that the guidelines do not open forest land management to private control, arguing that private participation will only help restore degraded forests and assist India in meeting its long-standing goal of bringing 33 per cent of its geographical area under forest and tree cover, as outlined in the National Forest Policy of 1988.
However, critics describe the move as a form of “land grab” that could exclude forest-dependent communities from accessing traditional lands and minor forest produce. They argue that leasing forest land for revenue-sharing plantations deepens the monetisation of forests, a trend that began decades ago with the introduction of Net Present Value and compensatory afforestation under the Forest (Conservation) Act.
Manshi Asher of the Himdhara Collective termed the decision dangerous, saying it enables private enclosures for profit while being counted as forest cover, even as biodiversity and community governance are weakened. She noted that plantations have historically been used to restrict access to forests and convert diverse landscapes into commercial monocultures.
Community rights and degraded land under question
The ministry has claimed that only degraded forest land, estimated at around six per cent of India’s geographical area, will be eligible for such leasing. But activists point out that degraded forest land is widely used by pastoral and forest-dependent communities for grazing and livelihoods. In many cases, community forest rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, remain unrecognised or poorly implemented.
Experts have also questioned the logic of using forest land already owned by the Forest Department to achieve national forest cover targets. According to the India State of Forest Report 2023, India’s forest cover stands at 21.76 per cent, far below the 33 per cent goal.
Environmentalists such as Debi Goenka of the Conservation Action Trust argue that if private participation is genuinely needed, afforestation should be encouraged on non-forest land. He noted that forest departments already have access to large compensatory afforestation funds, which have often been misused, as documented by multiple Comptroller and Auditor General reports.
Audits in States such as Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh have revealed diversion of CAMPA funds for non-permissible activities, including vehicle purchases, construction, commercial teak plantations and administrative expenses unrelated to forest restoration. Despite these findings, courts have largely treated such deviations as minor.
Some experts acknowledge that limited ecological benefits may arise if plantations are undertaken on degraded lands dominated by invasive species. However, former Wildlife Institute of India director Gopal Singh Rawat cautioned that many landscapes classified as degraded forests, including savannahs, grasslands and open forests, are ecologically rich habitats. Afforestation or plantations in such areas, he warned, could cause irreversible biodiversity loss.
As the debate continues, critics argue that the circular reflects a broader shift in forest governance, where restoration is increasingly framed as a commercial opportunity. They warn that without clear ecological criteria, community consent and accountability, the policy risks transforming forests into revenue-generating assets rather than living ecosystems.