The scenario of India’s forests management today is at cross road because of two main reasons. First the pressure of population for livelihoods/ smuggling coupled with developmental pressure requires diversion of forestlands. Second the developing global scenario due to deforestation, climate change and political economy of conflicting forest use and control needs a relook into policies and programmes.
As on today India’s forests and tree cover span approximately 80.9 million hectares, or nearly 25% of the country’s geographical area. Forests are vital for biodiversity conservation (as India is one of 17 mega-diverse countries having ` two Mega biodiversity hot spots), food and water security, climate regulation, and the livelihoods of over 300 million people, including tribal communities who constitute about 8% of the population. Forests also contribute significantly to India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement by acting as carbon sinks.
Historically, forest management in India evolved from pre-colonial community-based systems to colonial-era focused on introduction of scientific management and timber production centric considering the priority of British empire under the Indian Forest Act of 1865 and later 1927. Post-independence, the emphasis shifted toward conservation/ social forestry after consolidation of princely forests. The National Forest Policy of 1952 and especially 1988 marked a paradigm change by prioritizing ecological security, biodiversity, and people’s participation over revenue generation. The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 and Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 further strengthened protective frameworks. However, rapid socio-economic changes since the 1990s have introduced new dimensions that demand a fundamental reorientation in forest governance.
Read Also: Wildlife Week 2026 : Why Conservation Is Really About Human-Animal Relationships
The 1988 National Forest Policy explicitly moved away from the colonial “production forestry” model from Timber centric Production to Multi-Functional Ecosystem Management. Today, forests are valued more for the ecosystem service, carbon sequestration, watershed protection, pollination, and soil conservation alongside timber and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) like indigenous medicines etc. The initiatives like the Green India National Mission aims at to increase forest and tree cover over the entire landscape so that quality of natural forests as well as entire landscape improves, and sequester substantial CO₂ annually apart from meeting local needs.
In this regards CAMPA funds have supported large-scale plantations, wildlife and local livelihoods. Further, forests are central to India’s climate commitments of creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5–3 billion tonnes CO₂ equivalent by 2030. These challenges necessitate adaptive strategies, including climate-resilient species and landscape-level restoration.
The Joint Forest Management (JFM) committees involve local communities in protection and benefit-sharing and have been one of the reasons for the decentralized forest governance by empowered people covering roughly more than 30% of the forest area. While JFM has shown success in most of the states in regenerating degraded forests, implementation remains uneven and needs second generation reforms to empower better functioning communities under relevant Act.
In this regards there is another big challenge to synchronize the Forest Right Act (FRA) 2006 with the JFM as many beneficiaries who are non- tribals are dependent on the forests vested with tribal people under FRA. Noted foresters have been critically highlighting the faulty implementation of the FRA which is putting strains on the integrity of forests in their articles and presentations.
The Act as such was intended as an instrument to correct historical injustice to tribal forest-dwellers—has been politicized and weaponized as land distributing mechanism to consolidate political hold in tribal belt. Faulty implementation have encouraged fresh encroachments on forest lands in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Orissa and other states rather than genuine empowerment. This has transformed it into a driver of “ecological suicide” by fragmenting remaining forest carbon sinks, undermining regulatory oversight, and allowing post-2006 claims to carve up forests for political or short-term gains instead of securing pre-existing rights with proper investment on the vested lands.
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change should ask the Ministry of Tribal Affairs why this Act should not have a last date of filing application and why for past 29 years they are not able to find the unjust takeover of tribal lands? This approach is harming the long term interests of tribal communities. All these challenges and illegal logging, invasive species, forest fires and FRA implementation are contributing to conflicts between humans and wildlife. The rising leopard killing of people in Uttarakhand and elephant and Bear attack are very disturbing elements due habitat loss and foresters must find a durable solution for this.
Then the ticklish issue of balancing development needs with conservation of forest and biodiversity with regards to use of forests lands for infrastructure, power, roads, railways, mining, and urbanization. The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, though streamlines procedures for certain projects but exemptions like 100 km distance from border have led to genuine concern and petitions are pending in the Supreme Court.
The recent controversy on defining of Aravali hills over 100 meter height by a Committee set up by the Supreme Court under pressure from mining lobby of Rajasthan is a glaring example of this conflict but the hue and cry by environmentalist forced the Supreme Court to constitute another Committee led by ICFRE Director- General to re-examine the matter.
Aravali hills are the lungs of this regional ecosystem in and around Delhi as also source of its water and already FSI had done in depth study on it. I must commend the then DG SFI Anoop Kumar who refused to agree with this 100 meter definition.
The financial and human resources for tending the forests remain a issue of vital necessity. The field of Environment today is one of the fields like in defence which need additional man power and infrastructure. The regeneration in natural forests is not adequate in more than 52 % of the forests and this situation demand timely shift in our afforestation policy and the department must create water harvesting structures in forests and adjoining areas for aquifer recharge and to maintain the flow of sub-surface water, streams and Rainfed rivers like Narmada, Cauvery and Godavari.
Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers and frontline staff have traditionally operated within a hierarchical, enforcement-oriented framework. The foresters must build trust with communities and mediate between conservation goals and livelihood needs. There is need for skill diversification and training must expand to climate modelling, socio-economic analysis, digital tools, and ecosystem service valuation. Foresters and local JFM committees/ Panchayats should be trained in technological proficiency like use of drone technology for all time real monitoring of fires, smuggling and go for climatic resilient planning and developmental strategies must be core of scientific management with stakeholder engagement and convergence with district administration, Gram Sabhas, NGOs, private sector, and other departments is very necessary.
Last but not the least; is the need for systemic Reforms in Forest Administration for better productivity? And for this futuristic reforms are essential in the organizational set up: The organizational structural hierarchy should be revisited and be made co-terminus with civil administration boundaries. This has been done in Tripura in 2014 by me and it need to be replicated. At the national level there is a need to merge the subject of Environment and Forests at the landscape level for better results.
The mandate of service should incorporate the subject of Environment and therefore, the service could be renamed as Indian Forest and Environment Service. Similarly Tribal development should be part of overall forest management. Then an eco-development & Cash crop board is also the need of the hour for better tourism, livelihood and revenue generation. In the states also different wings should be independently created to be looked after by forest department staff and officers.
The IFS leadership also need to rediscover the old camaraderie and get rid of mini silos so as to manage the forests with highest professionalism. For better research output a sub-cadre or a Central Forest Research Service should be created and as a first step ICFRE should be declares as Department of Forestry Research as proposed in the first Cabinet note in 1990 when ICFRE was made autonomous.
(The writer is former Director General of ICFRE and Chairman of Centre for Resource Management and Environment)
Read Also: From Wildlife Day to Wildlife Week: The Origins of India’s Conservation Movement
