Ex-civil servants oppose Green Credit Rules for making it easy to acquire forests

A group of 91 former civil servants on Tuesday wrote an open letter opposing the Green Credit Rules issued on February 22, saying the government is trying to make it easy for entrepreneurs and industrialists to acquire forests.
“The scheme’s shortcomings are obvious. No amount of money can be a substitute for the land required for our forests, and for our biodiversity and wildlife to thrive. Yet the government is trying to make it easy for entrepreneurs and industrialists to acquire forest land by permitting them to offer, in exchange, money (in the form of green credits), instead of land for land as was the case so far,” said the former civil servants under the banner Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), which says its work on upholding the Constitution
It added when entrepreneurs can easily obtain forest land, it does not take much imagination to realise that the extent of land legally classified as forests will steadily shrink until there is virtually nothing left. “A new set of Green Credit invaders may ask for diversion of some of our densest and best-protected forests for commercial purposes like mining, industry, and infrastructure,” the CCG said in the open letter.
The Union environment ministry issued a notification last month saying corporations and other private entities can take up plantations on degraded land, including open forest and scrubland, wasteland, and catchment areas, under the administrative control of states to help generate green credits. The credits can be traded and used as a leadership indicator under corporate social responsibility.
State forest departments are required to identify all sparsely covered forest lands within their jurisdiction to be offered to private agencies/investors for funding to support plantations. The forest department has to complete afforestation within two years after receiving money from investors.
CCG said the government seems to have issued the rules in the belief that plantations absorb more carbon than natural scrublands. “This is not true. Plantations are usually fast-growing monocultures and it is a scientifically proven fact that they are poor at carbon sequestration when compared to natural ecosystems. Compensatory afforestation plantations already undertaken in our country are known to have dubious success rates.”
GCC underlined the importance of recognising that green credits as a concept is anachronistic. It added the idea has been seen as a tool for monetising the natural environment and handing it over to corporates for exploitation.
“To allow transfer of pristine forest lands to corporates, in exchange for green credits earned by them, by getting them to fund the forest department to plant degraded forest lands, is shocking indeed. More so, because the ecological values of these lands can be restored by the forest department itself, with the funds already at its disposal. This is a transaction weighted heavily in favour of Big Capital,” the CCG said.
In July 2023, CCG wrote another open letter critiquing the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, which allows the diversion of forests for defence/security infrastructure.
Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy lead (climate and ecosystems) Debadityo Sinha last month said the rules are unscientific and completely ignore the ecological aspects of forests. “Referring to open forests, scrubland, and catchment areas as ‘degraded’ land parcels is vague… incentivising industrial-scale plantations in such areas will irreversibly alter soil quality, replace local biodiversity, and might be disastrous for local ecosystem services.”