NATIONAL

India’s Green India Mission Misses 97% of Its Forest Targets After a Decade of Funding

A fresh Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit reveals that the Green India Mission (GIM) fell dramatically short of its forest‑cover and quality goals, achieving only 0.034 million hectares against a 1.4 million‑hectare target. Despite a budget of just over ₹1,149 crore—less than half of the approved allocation—the programme also suffered planning, coordination and monitoring failures that left 70% of sampled sites unchanged.

By Open Vaartha Desk · 2026-08-20

What happened

TL;DR

A CAG audit shows the Green India Mission missed 97.57% of its forest‑cover target, spent less than half its approved budget, and suffered planning, coordination and monitoring failures.

Key points

Forest‑cover increased by only 0.03409 mh against a 1.4 mh target (97.57% shortfall)
Only ₹1,149.14 crore (47.88% of approved funds) was released over ten years
70% of sampled sites showed no measurable change from GIM activities
Eight states/UTs failed to keep annual accounts; carbon sequestration was measured only in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh
Convergence funding of ₹10,600 crore never materialised, and annual plans were never approved on time

BackgroundThe Green India Mission, launched under India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change, was intended to boost forest cover, improve forest quality and create a robust carbon sink. It was one of eight climate‑related missions and tied to the country’s pledge to add 2.5‑3 billion tonnes of CO₂‑equivalent sequestration by 2030 through additional forest and tree cover.Targets vs. Achievements (2015‑16 to 2024‑25)<ul><li>Forest‑cover target: 1.4 million hectares (mh). Actual increase: 0.03409 mh. Shortfall: 97.57%.</li><li>Forest‑quality improvement target: 1.4 mh. Actual improvement: 0.11384 mh. Shortfall: 91.87%.</li></ul>These numbers represent a decade‑long failure to meet the mission’s measurable objectives, according to the CAG audit.Funding Gap and Allocation<ul><li>The government projected an additional ₹10,600 crore in convergence funding from programmes such as CAMPA and MGNREGS. The audit found that this amount was never secured.</li><li>Over the ten‑year period, the mission received ₹1,149.14 crore in budgetary support, amounting to 47.88% of the approved initial allocation.</li></ul>While under‑funding contributed to the shortfall, the audit stresses that financial constraints alone do not explain the poor outcomes.Planning and Coordination Failures<ul><li>Of 68 sampled Annual Plans of Operation, only six reached the Ministry before the financial year began, and none were approved on time.</li><li>Climate‑vulnerability criteria, meant to guide landscape selection, were ignored in several cases; less‑vulnerable or moderately vulnerable areas were chosen over the most vulnerable ones.</li></ul>Convergence Model BreakdownThe GIM was designed to integrate multiple schemes—CAMPA, MGNREGS, Nagar Van Yojana, and School Nursery Yojana—into a single restoration ecosystem. The audit found that these programmes operated largely in silos, with separate budgets and reporting systems, undermining the intended synergy.Accountability Gaps<ul><li>Eight States/UTs failed to maintain annual accounts for the mission; other accounts were either unaudited or showed discrepancies with subsidiary records.</li><li>Apart from Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, no state assessed carbon sequestration from GIM activities during the audited period, raising serious doubts about the mission’s climate‑impact claims.</li></ul>Data and Monitoring Issues<ul><li>The CAG highlighted problems with the validation of reported achievements, including the use of inaccurate KML files.</li><li>A GIS‑based assessment revealed that roughly 70% of sampled sites showed no discernible change attributable to GIM interventions.</li></ul>On‑Ground Reality<ul><li>PRS notes that, as of December 2025, only about 0.17 million hectares of plantation activity had been undertaken since 2015‑16, far below the intended scale.</li></ul>Implications for Climate CommitmentsGiven that GIM is a cornerstone of India’s strategy to expand carbon sinks, the audit’s findings cast doubt on the reliability of the mechanisms meant to deliver on the nation’s 2030 climate goals.Calls for AccountabilityThe audit lists ten critical questions the Environment Ministry and the involved states must answer, ranging from the reasons behind the 97.57% target miss to the whereabouts of the ₹1,149 crore spent, and why convergence funding never materialised. The overarching demand is clear: verifiable forests, surviving plantations, transparent accounts, and measurable carbon sequestration—not merely paper targets.The CAG has put the numbers on the table; the next step is for the government to provide the evidence and corrective action that the nation’s climate credibility demands.