Experts and former forest officials warn that opening forest land to commercial plantations could damage ecosystems
Critics say exempting plantations from environmental levies amounts to forest diversion by another name
Concerns centre on monocultures, exotic species and the dilution of legal safeguards
Forest-dependent communities and open natural ecosystems could be particularly affected, campaigners say
The government says the move is limited to restoring degraded forest land, a claim contested by experts
The central government’s move to allow commercial plantations on forest land has triggered sharp warnings from environmental experts and former forest officials, who say the changes would prove disastrous for the health of Indian forests.
The amendments to the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 — notified on January 6, 2026 — allow private entities to raise plantations on forest land without paying long-standing environmental levies such as Net Present Value (NPV) and Compensatory Afforestation (CA).
The paper and pulp industry has argued the changes are necessary to address chronic wood shortages and reduce dependence on imports. However, critics say the policy risks opening forests to commercial exploitation under the guise of afforestation.
Prakriti Srivastava, former principal chief conservator of forests, Kerala, questioned the technicality of the fresh guidelines and argued that when the Union government leases out forestlands, it inevitably counts as forest diversion because the lessee or the user agency has the right to hold and use the land on certain conditions for a specified period.
“Raising of plantations or assisted natural regeneration (ANR), which involves benefit sharing with the lessee is a commercial activity profitable to the user agency (the lessee), similar to a mining lease, for which the lessee is bound to pay NPV and undertake compensatory afforestation. Exempting such user agencies from these compliances is greenwashing the diversion,” she said.
Srivastava also pointed out that both central and state forest departments already have substantial funds earmarked for plantations and ANR, much of which remains unspent. It was “absurd” to suggest these cease to be forest management when undertaken by state agencies but become non-forest activities when leased to private players, she added.
“There is no need to lease out forest land to user agencies for this purpose,” she said, arguing that the dilution of guidelines should not be portrayed as a public good or corporate social responsibility exercise. “This is a commercial enterprise for the user agency, and the likely outcome is more monocultures and exotic species with little value for forest and ecosystem health.”
Srivastava also criticised the removal of mandatory prior approval from the central government, calling it a dilution of safeguards introduced under the 2023 amendment to the Act. The use of Section 3C illustrates how the ministry has arrogated to itself sweeping powers to alter guidelines without parliamentary oversight, she said.
Campaigners warn that the commercial logic underpinning plantations will inevitably favour monocultures over ecological restoration.
Rajesh Ramakrishnan, convener, Campaign to Defend Nature and People, a network of nature-dependent communities in India, says it will be devastating to allow monoculture on forestland. “Industries will go for large-scale monoculture to suit their commercial needs which will directly compromise the integrity of the forest and its fundamental characteristics,” he explains
Moreover, Ramakrishnan said, adivasi and forest dwelling communities, who depend heavily on forest produce will be directly impacted by the changes because their access to the forest will be restricted.
“The amendment to the 2023 guidelines should be resolutely opposed, especially when the 2023 Amendment of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, on which it is based, is challenged in the Supreme Court,” he said. “Under the Forest Rights Act, Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers already hold legally recognised rights over forests. The full potential of forest area over which these rights are recognised has scarcely been realised. The amendment does not speak of diversion, but it is diversion in reality, and it contravenes the FRA.”
He added that eucalyptus and acacia monoculture are known to deplete groundwater and cause soil toxicity, which hinders the growth of other trees and plants. “How can it be allowed in forestland?” he asks.
Concerns over monoculture plantations are reinforced by earlier assessments.
A 2017 study by Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), examining forest development corporations in states including Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, found that large tracts of mixed forests had been converted by forest development corporations into monoculture plantations with high ecological costs that were not reported.
The report documented the replacement of natural forests with pure stands of teak, eucalyptus and casuarina, as well as cash crops such as cashew, coffee and rubber.
It found limited benefits for forest-dependent communities and noted rising conflicts between forest development corporations and local communities, particularly after the enactment of the Forest Rights Act in 2006.
A separate 2012 study by the Regional Centre for Development Cooperation found that pulpwood-based paper mills in Odisha, operating under social forestry programmes, had taken over common property resources, agricultural land and pastures, alienating local populations.
Debadityo Sinha, senior resident fellow and lead (Climate & Ecosystems) at Delhi-based Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, says the amendment effectively opens up forests across India, particularly open natural ecosystems such as grasslands, savannas and floodplains to commercial exploitation by industries, as well as generate credits under the recently notified Green Credit framework, without demonstrating any clear benefit to forests, wildlife or ecosystem services.
“In the absence of scientifically robust protocols to identify degraded forests or wastelands, the amendment creates perverse incentives to damage open natural ecosystems, especially dry deciduous landscapes, savannas, grasslands and pastoral commons, under the false premise of afforestation and ecological restoration,” he said.
Such interventions, he added, degrade soils, erase native biodiversity and replace complex ecosystems with monocultures driven by financial returns, triggering cascading losses for wildlife adapted to these diverse and interconnected ecosystems.
Experts argued that forests should instead be left undisturbed to regenerate naturally.
In a statement to the news agency Press Trust of India, the government said the amendment does not open forest management to non-government entities, and only allows their participation in restoring degraded forest land to meet India’s target of 33 per cent forest cover.
Perhaps, India’s wood-dependent industries can seek alternatives. The Canopy suggested that new EU due-diligence requirements demand increasing compliance expectations for “deforestation-free” and “degradation-free” products (effective from December 2026) and can increase cost, continuity and compliance risks for export-oriented manufacturers.
It suggested that India could accelerate the adoption of circular fibres made from agricultural residues and recycled textiles to reduce dependence on high-risk forest sources. This would need to be backed by stronger sourcing standards, including Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, full traceability, and screening for ecological and social risks—especially impacts on Indigenous and forest-dependent communities, it stated.
This article is the last in a three-part series examining the recent amendment to India's nodal forest conservation law and its implications for the country's forests and paper industry. A detailed analysis of the amendment appears in Down To Earth's 1-15 February 2026 edition. Read part 1 and part 2.