In News:

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), in its performance audit of the Green India Mission (GIM), has flagged significant deficiencies in planning, implementation, financial management and monitoring. The audit covered 16 States/UTs during 2015–16 to 2024–25, raising concerns about the effectiveness of India’s afforestation and ecosystem-restoration efforts.

Key Findings of the CAG

• 98% shortfall in forest-cover expansion: Against the target of 1.4 million hectares (mha), increased forest cover was observed in only 0.03 mha.
• 92% shortfall in forest-quality improvement: Improvement was recorded over merely 0.11 mha, against the target of 1.4 mha.
• Poor landscape selection: In some cases, landscapes with low-to-moderate climate vulnerability were selected instead of areas more vulnerable to climate change.
• Weak planning and financial management: The audit identified inadequate convergence with other schemes, poor coordination, financial-management deficiencies and weaknesses in implementation planning.
• Deficient monitoring:14 States failed to provide mandatory public web links for relevant information. GIS-based assessment found no noticeable GIM-attributable change in 70% of sampled sites, while the audit also pointed to inflated reporting and overstated achievements.

Why Does It Matter?

GIM is important for enhancing forest and tree cover, improving ecosystem quality, strengthening ecosystem services and supporting forest-dependent livelihoods. Its weak implementation can therefore undermine carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, climate resilience and livelihood security.

The findings also highlight a broader governance concern: environmental expenditure must be supported by credible monitoring, transparent reporting and measurable outcomes, rather than merely recording physical targets and expenditure.

Way Forward

GIM requires climate-vulnerability-based landscape selection, stronger convergence among schemes, scientifically verifiable GIS-based monitoring, transparent public reporting and independent evaluation of outcomes. Financial controls and institutional coordination must be strengthened, with greater participation of local communities and forest-dependent households.

Conclusion

The CAG findings demonstrate that afforestation targets alone cannot guarantee ecological restoration. India needs an outcome-oriented approach that prioritisesforest quality, ecosystem resilience, biodiversity and community livelihoods, backed by transparent monitoring and accountable public spending.