Can Mission-32 secure Himachal Pradesh’s Himalayan future in a warming world?

As climate change intensifies across the Himalayas, Himachal Pradesh is placing forests at the centre of its climate strategy.

The state government has announced Mission-32, an initiative that aims to increase Himachal Pradesh’s forest cover from 29.5 per cent to 32 per cent by 2030. The programme is being presented not merely as a plantation drive, but as part of a wider climate adaptation and green development strategy. On paper, the mission seeks to link forests with water security, biodiversity protection, renewable energy, sustainable agriculture and rural livelihoods.  

But scientists and environmentalists say the central question is not only whether Himachal Pradesh can increase the area under trees. It is whether the new and existing forests can become healthier, more diverse and more resilient in one of India’s most climate-vulnerable mountain regions.

Environmentalist and founder of ecological conservation network Himalaya Niti Abhiyan Kulbhushan Upmanyu said the answer lies beyond plantation targets. In mountain ecosystems as ecologically complex as the Himalaya, the quality of forests often matters more than the number of trees planted, he said.

Healthy forests regulate water flows, stabilise slopes, store carbon, support biodiversity and sustain rural livelihoods. If Mission-32 succeeds in strengthening these ecological functions, it could become an important model of climate adaptation. If it focuses only on increasing green cover, however, its environmental benefits may remain limited, Upmanyu said.

A wider climate plan

The government argues that climate change cannot be addressed through isolated interventions by a single department. Instead, forests, agriculture, energy, water resources, waste management and local institutions must work together under a common strategy.

This integrated thinking forms the foundation of Mission-32 and links it closely with Himachal Pradesh’s broader Green Growth Policy, according to Sushil Kumar Singla, secretary of the department of environment, science, technology and climate change for Himachal Pradesh government.

The policy connects afforestation with renewable energy expansion, natural farming, scientific plastic waste management, watershed conservation, biodiversity protection and sustainable mountain development, Singla said.

Rather than treating these sectors independently, it views them as interconnected components of climate resilience. The objective, he said, is not simply to increase the state’s green cover but to strengthen natural ecosystems that can support environmental security and economic development under changing climatic conditions.

According to Singla, Mission-32 represents a necessary shift in the state’s development paradigm. Climate change, he said, is no longer an environmental issue confined to forests. Its impacts are already affecting water security, agricultural productivity, rural livelihoods, public infrastructure and disaster risk.

The devastating natural disasters witnessed in Himachal Pradesh during 2023 reinforced this reality, he said. They demonstrated that forests cannot be viewed solely as the responsibility of the Forest Department. Degraded catchments, increasing soil erosion and declining natural forests have consequences that extend well beyond forest boundaries, influencing drinking water schemes, irrigation systems, roads, agriculture and the wider rural economy, he added.

Recognising these interconnections, the state has designed Mission-32 as a long-term climate adaptation strategy rather than a conventional forestry programme, Singla said.

The initiative rests on three broad pillars. The first focuses on expanding tree cover through plantations of native and climate-suitable species wherever scientifically appropriate land is available. The second seeks to improve the density and ecological quality of existing forests so that they become more effective in carbon sequestration, water conservation and biodiversity protection. The third aims to increase tree cover on private lands by encouraging farmers, panchayats, community institutions and the private sector to become active partners in the mission.

 Singla said restricting the programme to government agencies alone would make it difficult to achieve the state’s long-term objectives. Conservation, he argued, must become a shared societal responsibility.

This thinking also underpins the government’s effort to integrate environmental protection with rural livelihoods. The state proposes promoting medicinal plants and economically valuable species suited to local ecological conditions, enabling communities to derive sustainable income from conservation.

 Singla described this approach as linking “life and livelihood”, arguing that people become genuine partners in conservation only when healthy ecosystems contribute directly to their economic well-being.

The concept closely aligns with the globally emerging framework of nature-based solutions, which recognises healthy ecosystems as one of the most effective and sustainable responses to climate change. International conservation bodies say restoring and protecting natural ecosystems can reduce disaster risks, enhance biodiversity, improve water security and contribute to climate mitigation.

However, scientists and international conservation bodies caution against treating nature-based solutions as synonymous with tree planting. The International Union for Conservation of Nature defines nature-based solutions more broadly as actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems while benefiting both biodiversity and human well-being.

Research from Himachal Pradesh has found that the long-term success of public forest plantations in Kangra was associated with factors including community-led monitoring and enforcement, local livelihood benefits and seedling survival. Evidence from forest-restoration research in the Western Himalaya also points to the importance of choosing appropriate native species in restoration.

Afforestation can therefore contribute to climate and ecological goals, but its effectiveness depends on the wider ecological and social conditions in which planting takes place.

Consequently, the real measure of Mission-32’s success will not be whether Himachal Pradesh achieves 32 per cent forest cover by 2030 alone. It will also depend on whether the initiative succeeds in creating healthier forests capable of protecting watersheds, conserving biodiversity, supporting rural communities and increasing resilience to a rapidly changing climate.

In this sense, Mission-32 is no longer simply an administrative target. It has become a test of whether ecological restoration can be successfully integrated into development policy in one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable mountain regions.

Forest cover not same as forest health

For decades, forest conservation has often been measured in terms of the area under tree cover. Advances in satellite monitoring have made it easier than ever to estimate the extent of forests, and such data remain essential for tracking broad landscape changes.

However, recent research in India suggests that forest cover and forest health are not synonymous. A study by researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur found that Indian forests were experiencing declines in photosynthetic efficiency, carbon sequestration and water-use efficiency despite increases in apparent green cover, indicating that greater “greenness” does not necessarily translate into healthier or more functional forests.

This distinction lies at the heart of the debate surrounding Mission-32.

Satellite imagery can reveal how much land is covered by trees, but it cannot fully capture the ecological complexity that makes a forest resilient. It does not show whether the forest supports diverse native species, whether natural regeneration is taking place, whether soils remain biologically active, or whether the ecosystem can withstand increasing climatic stress.

As climate change intensifies, these ecological attributes become as important as the extent of tree cover itself, forest experts said.

Consequently, global conservation policy has shifted from an exclusive focus on afforestation towards broader approaches such as ecosystem restoration and forest landscape restoration, said Pawan Rana, principal scientist at the Himalayan Forest Research Institute. Rana works on forest entomology and the ecological importance of insects in Himalayan forests.

These approaches seek not merely to increase tree numbers but to restore the ecological processes that sustain forests over the long term, he said.

According to Rana, the success of any afforestation programme should be judged not by the number of saplings planted but by the quality of the forests that develop years later.

He said climate change is already increasing pressure on Himalayan forests through emerging pests and diseases. Under such conditions, plantation drives alone cannot guarantee ecological recovery. The selection of healthy planting material, preference for native species suited to local ecological conditions and long-term scientific monitoring are equally essential. Expanding forests is important, Rana said, but maintaining their health is just as critical.

Numbers need careful reading

His observations highlight one of Mission-32’s greatest implementation challenges. Himachal Pradesh possesses substantial forested landscapes, yet these forests vary widely in their ecological condition. While some remain relatively intact, others are increasingly affected by forest fires, invasive alien species, habitat degradation and changing climatic conditions.

Unless these pressures are addressed alongside new plantations, the ecological benefits expected from increased forest cover may remain limited.

The question becomes even more significant when considering whether newly planted trees can compensate for the loss of mature natural forests.

Although the state is frequently described as one of India’s most forested regions, the ecological picture is more nuanced. According to the India State of Forest Report, the state’s recorded forest area covers a significant proportion of its geographical area, while its actual forest cover is comparatively lower. The difference reflects not merely administrative classifications but also the realities of Himalayan topography, land use and forest management.

 Rana cautioned against relying solely on aggregate forest statistics. Equally important, he said, is understanding how much of the forest falls into very dense, moderately dense and open forest categories, how diverse the vegetation is, whether natural regeneration is occurring and how resilient these ecosystems are to climate change.

If Mission-32 measures success only through an increase in forest cover percentage, many of these critical ecological indicators could remain overlooked.

Forest experts also identify two persistent challenges confronting Himachal Pradesh’s forests. The first is the spread of invasive alien species such as Lantana, which suppress native vegetation and hinders natural regeneration. The second is the increasing incidence of forest fires, driven by prolonged dry periods, rising temperatures and human activities.

Together, these factors weaken ecosystem resilience and reduce the ability of forests to provide essential ecological services.

Although addressing these threats is not the primary objective of Mission-32, experts said improving the quality of existing forests, promoting native species and strengthening community-based forest management could significantly reduce their long-term impacts.

Seen from this perspective, Mission-32 represents more than a plantation programme; it offers an opportunity for ecological restoration across Himalayan landscapes.

Communities at the centre

Its success, however, will depend not only on scientific planning but also on the participation of local communities.

Forests in Himachal Pradesh are far more than government assets. They sustain drinking water sources, agriculture, livestock, fuelwood, fodder and the livelihoods of millions of people living in mountain villages. Conservation efforts that overlook these socio-economic realities rarely achieve lasting success.

Recognising this, the government seeks to expand tree cover beyond public forests by encouraging participation from farmers, panchayats, community institutions and the private sector, Singla said. Private lands are expected to play an important role in achieving the state’s long-term target, he added.

 Singla said the strategy extends beyond plantation activities. By promoting medicinal plants and economically valuable native species, the government hopes to link conservation directly with rural livelihoods. Communities are more likely to protect forests when they derive tangible and sustainable economic benefits from them, he said.

This “life and livelihood” approach reflects a growing recognition within conservation policy that ecological restoration cannot succeed without community ownership.

Padma Shri awardee Nek Ram Sharma, who has worked with communities on natural farming, seeds and traditional ecological practices, said some of the most successful conservation initiatives in Himalayan regions have been those in which local communities participated in decision-making rather than serving merely as labour providers. Sharma has helped revive Himachal Pradesh’s traditional ‘Nau-Anaj’ farming system, conserve indigenous seeds and promote chemical-free natural farming and protect Forest. 

Institutions such as panchayats, village assemblies and community organisations possess valuable traditional ecological knowledge, he said. Their experience of local species, seasonal water sources and natural regeneration patterns can significantly strengthen scientific planning.

Panchayat pradhan for Siddhpur Panchayat Ajay Kumar echoed this view. In his assessment, simply involving villages in plantation campaigns will not be sufficient. People need to recognise that healthy forests directly influence water availability, agriculture, livestock and their future livelihoods.

Giving panchayats, women’s self-help groups and local institutions meaningful roles in planning and monitoring could make conservation efforts both more effective and more durable, he said.

Upmanyu also stressed that protecting existing natural forests must remain the highest priority. Mature forests, he argued, represent complex ecological systems where soils, water, wildlife, microorganisms and local climatic conditions have evolved together over long periods.

If development projects continue to degrade these ecosystems while compensatory plantations are undertaken elsewhere, improvements in forest-cover statistics may fail to reflect genuine ecological recovery, he said.

His argument reinforces a broader scientific conclusion: restoring Himalayan resilience requires protecting living ecosystems, not merely increasing the number of trees on the landscape.

Carbon finance and monitoring

Beyond ecological restoration, Mission-32 also opens the possibility of creating long-term economic value through climate finance, Singla said.

As forests increasingly feature in global climate mitigation strategies, well-managed landscapes can generate measurable carbon benefits. If forest carbon is assessed using scientifically robust methods, Himachal Pradesh could in the future benefit from carbon finance mechanisms, he said.

However, Nek Ram Sharma cautioned that carbon markets should be viewed as a potential co-benefit rather than the primary objective of Mission-32.

The central purpose of the initiative must remain ecological restoration and climate resilience, he said. Carbon sequestration is meaningful only when forests are healthy, biodiverse and capable of surviving in the long term.

Achieving this will require a credible monitoring, reporting and verification system. Such a framework would not merely record the number of saplings planted but assess whether plantations survive, continue to store carbon over time and deliver wider ecological benefits such as improved watershed health, biodiversity conservation and ecosystem resilience.

Without reliable monitoring, it would be difficult to demonstrate either climate benefits or ecological success.

Policy alignment is not enough

At the policy level, Mission-32 aligns closely with several priorities identified in Himachal Pradesh’s State Action Plan on Climate Change. The state’s climate strategy emphasises water security, forest and biodiversity conservation, climate-resilient agriculture, renewable energy, energy efficiency and disaster risk reduction.

Mission-32 attempts to integrate many of these objectives within a single green development framework, recognising that climate adaptation cannot be pursued through isolated sectoral interventions.

The initiative also complements national programmes such as the Green India Mission, the National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem and LiFE, or Lifestyle for Environment. Together, these initiatives encourage ecosystem restoration, sustainable resource use and greater public participation in environmental stewardship.

Better coordination among these programmes could help Himachal Pradesh build a more coherent and climate-resilient development model while avoiding duplication of efforts. Yet policy alignment alone cannot guarantee success.

Environmental experts consistently emphasise that the effectiveness of any large-scale conservation programme depends on implementation. Clear institutional accountability, adequate financial resources, interdepartmental coordination and transparent governance will determine whether Mission-32 delivers its intended outcomes.

Independent monitoring will be equally critical. If the programme is evaluated solely on the basis of the number of saplings planted or the percentage increase in forest cover, it may overlook the very ecological changes it seeks to achieve.

A plantation that survives for only a few years contributes little to climate resilience. Likewise, an increase in tree cover does not necessarily indicate improvements in biodiversity, watershed protection or ecosystem health.

A more meaningful evaluation framework would therefore include indicators such as forest health, species diversity, natural regeneration, water-source conservation and the quality of community participation. These parameters would provide a far more accurate picture of whether the initiative is strengthening ecological resilience across the Himalayan landscape.

This broader perspective also reflects the evolution of global climate policy. Increasingly, governments and scientists recognise that climate adaptation is not merely about reducing emissions or planting more trees. It is about restoring ecosystems so that they continue to provide the services on which societies depend: clean water, fertile soils, biodiversity, disaster protection and sustainable livelihoods.

Mission-32 represents one of Himachal Pradesh’s most ambitious attempts to apply this thinking at the state level, according to Singla and other experts. For the first time, afforestation is being linked with climate adaptation, green growth, natural farming, renewable energy, water conservation and livelihood generation within a common policy framework, they said.

This integrated vision distinguishes the initiative from conventional plantation programmes. Its greatest strength lies precisely in this holistic approach, experts said.

However, the mission’s true test will unfold over the coming decade. Its success will not ultimately be measured by the millions of saplings planted or by whether the state formally achieves 32 per cent forest cover. The more important questions are whether these plantations mature into healthy forests, whether degraded watersheds recover, whether drying springs regain their ecological function, whether biodiversity is strengthened and whether local communities become long-term custodians of these landscapes.

The Himalaya’s greatest challenge is not simply increasing the number of trees, experts said. It is restoring resilient ecosystems capable of protecting water resources, stabilising fragile mountain slopes, conserving biodiversity and sustaining rural livelihoods under increasingly unpredictable climatic conditions.

In that context, Mission-32 represents an important opportunity. If implemented with scientific rigour, ecological sensitivity and meaningful community participation, it could evolve beyond a state afforestation programme into a model for climate adaptation across the Indian Himalayan Region.

By integrating forest restoration with watershed management, biodiversity conservation and sustainable livelihoods, it has the potential to demonstrate how environmental protection and economic development can reinforce rather than compete with one another.

If, however, implementation becomes limited to plantation targets and administrative reporting, the initiative risks joining the long list of afforestation campaigns that improved statistics without fundamentally improving ecosystems.

The future of Himachal Pradesh’s forests, and by extension the resilience of its mountain communities, will therefore depend not on how many trees are planted, but on whether Mission-32 succeeds in restoring living forests that can withstand a changing climate.

Rohit Prashar is a mentee of the Climate Change Media Hub at the Asian College of Journalism. The programme is supported by Interlink Academy, Germany.