In several villages across India, a government-backed tree plantation scheme is facing growing resistance from local communities who say it is quietly taking away their land and traditional forest access. The programme, known as the Green Credit Programme, allows companies to fund afforestation on forest land and earn “green credits” in return.
In Gujarat’s Vyara forest division, villagers say the change became visible only when fences and locked gates appeared in areas they had used for decades. In Mogarbara village, a local farmer named Dattu Valvi discovered that a portion of his cultivated land had been enclosed by the forest department. Inside the fenced area, young saplings had been planted under the scheme, while entry was restricted.
Officials say the programme is designed to restore degraded forests. Public sector companies, including major energy and oil firms, have contributed funds for plantation projects across thousands of hectares in India. According to official data, crores of rupees have already been invested in such eco-restoration blocks.
However, many villagers argue that the land marked as “degraded” is not unused or barren. Instead, it often supports farming, grazing, and collection of forest produce such as firewood, medicinal plants, and fodder. When access is restricted, these everyday activities are disrupted.
In Sarjamli and nearby villages, residents say they now travel longer distances to graze cattle and collect basic forest resources. Some also report losing access to agricultural patches that were later included in plantation zones.
Experts working on forest governance say the programme raises deeper questions about land rights. They point out that many of these forest areas may fall under Community Forest Rights protected by India’s Forest Rights Act, meaning local communities should have a say in how the land is used.
Environmental researchers also caution that labeling diverse ecosystems as “degraded” may be misleading. Grasslands and open forests, they argue, are ecologically valuable even if they do not have dense tree cover. Replacing them with uniform plantations could disturb local biodiversity.
Another concern is transparency. In many cases, villagers say they were not informed about the exact boundaries or purpose of plantation sites until fencing appeared. Even local village leaders in some areas have expressed confusion about how land was selected.
Government records show that some states have raised questions about the involvement of private companies and the lack of clear definitions within the programme. Officials from several states have suggested that community participation should be strengthened and that forest corporations or local bodies may be better suited to manage restoration work.
Despite the concerns, authorities maintain that the programme is part of a broader effort to improve forest cover and ecological health. They argue that scientific monitoring and long term plantation success will determine its impact.
For villagers like Valvi, however, the issue is more immediate. Standing near the fenced land he once cultivated, he says the concern is not only about trees or credits, but about repeated loss of land and livelihood.
As the Green Credit Programme expands, the debate continues between ecological restoration goals and the rights of the communities who live closest to these forests.