NEW DELHI: On March 4, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change regarding alleged inadequacies in the Green Credit Rules (GCR) of 2023. The notice came after NGOs People for Aravallis and Rainbow Warriors filed an intervention petition challenging the constitutional validity of amendments made to the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 in 2023. The petition seeks to make the rules more objective and scientifically sound, while enhancing accountability and transparency of entities involved in plantation activities.
The petitioners criticised the rules as "unscientific", pointing out that they permit the planting of 1,100 trees per hectare and rely on vague criteria that do not consider the survival rate of saplings. They argued that the current GCR undermines the concept of green credit and may adversely affect the rights of tribal and forest dwellers. These shortcomings could adversely affect India’s forest conservation efforts and compromise the rights of indigenous people. In response to the petition, the ministry sought additional time to provide a detailed reply.
What is GCR?
Under the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, the GCR 2023 was notified in February 2024. The rules list a set of activities for individuals as well as government and private institutions to get green credits, such as tree plantation, water management, sustainable agriculture, waste management, air pollution reduction, mangrove conservation, eco mark label development, and sustainable infrastructure. The rules were designed to incentivise environmentally positive actions through a market-based mechanism. They allow for the generation of green credits and trade in the market to fulfil certain environmental compliance and report them under corporate social responsibility. Tree plantation on degraded land aims to increase the country's green cover and is seen by the ministry as suitable for the grant of green credits.
Low survival rate of saplings
The petitioners’ primary concern is the way GCR allows entities to get green credit only based on tree plantation as it exempts them from the responsibility to ensure the “survival” and “maintenance” of trees.
The petitioners argued that the major challenge with the afforestation project is the low survival rate. Evidence shows that survival rates for plantation of tree species were between 6% and 30%, which is entirely contrary to the intention of such plantations.
Comptroller and Audit General (CAG) reports in various states showed that only 10% of tree saplings in Madhya Pradesh, 28% in Uttar Pradesh, and 10% in J&K under different afforestation programmes survived.Another CAG report in West Bengal underlined that even hardy trees like eucalyptus had a survival rate of 37% in Purulia district, compared to the target of 80%. “If the survival rate was poor of hardy trees, the reasons may need further investigation. The government of West Bengal needs to enquire into the reasons for selection of unsuitable species and should take up a study to ascertain the ecological impact of planting eucalyptus,” the report titled ‘Compliance Audit of State PSUs (Non-Power Sector) for the year ended 31 March 2018’ noted.
There are reports of lower survivability of trees in Delhi under different plantation schemes. Former Union environment minister Prakash Javdekar publicly lamented the low survival rate (10-20%) of trees under the afforestation scheme. “Given this, grant of green credits only based on plantation defeats the purpose for which the green credit scheme was launched, i.e., to increase the green cover in the country,” argued Neelam Ahluwalia, founder member of the People for Aravallis group. The petition urged the court to direct the responsibility of the project proponent to ensure the trees survive post-plantation.
Unscientific approach: 1,100 saplings per hectares
The GCR rules allow the plantation of 1,100 trees per hectare without any scientific study in fragile ecosystems such as open forests, scrublands, wastelands, and catchment areas, the petitioners claimed.
Experts say such dense plantations would only promote monoculture and increase the chances of pest infestations. Studies show that monoculture also disrupts ecological interactions, such as those between plants and pollinators, natural predators, and pests.
The petition argued that tree plantations in such high density can wreak havoc on the fragile ecosystem by reducing species diversity, increasing pressure on soil and impacting hydrological systems.
Further, it argued that tree root overcrowding may accelerate nutrient depletion, soil compaction and erosion, thereby compromising soil health and productivity. Finally, the petitioners cited a number of studies stating that plantations have a limited role in ecosystems compared to natural forests, where many species grow, such as grasslands and trees.
Unclear definition of wastelands
The petition pointed out the lack of uniform or clear definitions of “degraded land parcels” or “wastelands”, which will make the process of identifying them for plantations arbitrary. For instance, the Wasteland Atlas (NRSC, 2011) and the Atlas of Degraded Areas (ICAR-NAAS, 2010) provide different results due to definitional issues. This makes an effective assessment of the extent of land degradation imprecise and open to interpretation.
Moreover, it may foster inappropriate land use and conversion to other land uses that might exacerbate land degradation and lead to conflict over resources. For example, if a village grazing land is classified as wasteland and used for plantation, then shifting cattle grazing onto forest areas would prove detrimental to forest conservation.