When forests are diverted for development, compensation is meant to restore what is lost—not only ecologically, but also for the communities that depend on them. In Andhra Pradesh, however, large Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) funds remain unutilised, delaying restoration efforts and raising deeper concerns about environmental justice, accountability, and the credibility of compensatory afforestation itself.
The Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA) was envisioned as a corrective response to an unavoidable reality: forests are often diverted in the name of development. In such cases, the law requires ecological loss to be compensated through restoration measures. The Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016, and the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Rules, 2018, were designed to ensure the timely and effective use of funds collected as compensation, particularly the Net Present Value (NPV) of forests.
The Andhra Pradesh State CAMPA functions through a three-tier governance structure comprising the Governing Body, Steering Committee, and Executive Committee. The Governing Body frames policy, the Steering Committee oversees fund utilisation and approves Annual Plans of Operation (APOs), and the Executive Committee handles implementation. While the structure appears robust on paper, operational challenges indicate the need for greater streamlining and accountability.
But what happens when funds accumulate while forests remain unrestored?
As of November 2025, Andhra Pradesh had received ₹2,256.77 crore under CAMPA. Interest accrued on this corpus added another ₹284.57 crore up to March 2024, with an estimated ₹63.38 crore during 2024–25. Yet, despite this substantial financial pool, actual expenditure between 2019–20 and November 2025 stood at only ₹657.93 crore. This leaves an unspent balance of ₹1,946.79 crore—an amount large enough to significantly restore degraded forest landscapes, but currently lying idle.
At first glance, the system appears compliant with the law. The CAF Rules require that at least 80 per cent of NPV funds be spent on core ecological activities such as afforestation, forest regeneration, and wildlife conservation, while no more than 20 per cent may be used for infrastructure and administrative support. The Annual Plan of Operation for 2025–26 follows this ratio on paper: ₹115.26 crore (81.28 per cent) is allocated to core activities and ₹26.55 crore (18.72 per cent) to infrastructure.
However, a closer examination reveals a different reality.
Discussions within the Steering Committee repeatedly emphasise expenditure on vehicles, construction, and infrastructure strengthening. This is despite clear restrictions in the Rules against certain forms of spending, including the purchase of vehicles and construction of buildings for senior officials. The persistence of such priorities suggests that compliance is increasingly being reduced to accounting categories rather than adherence to ecological objectives.
The problem is not new. Earlier Annual Plans reveal a similar pattern of ambition undermined by delay. The APO for 2022–23 proposed an outlay of ₹286.15 crore covering afforestation, biodiversity conservation, and infrastructure. Yet, only 14 per cent of the 2021–22 outlay was utilised. For 2024–25, as of September 2024, only ₹41.69 crore had been released out of an approved ₹244.87 crore.
Such delays are not merely procedural—they carry ecological consequences. Afforestation is a seasonal activity. If the planting window is missed, survival rates decline. If maintenance is delayed, plantations fail. In this sense, financial inefficiency directly translates into ecological loss.
Administrative bottlenecks further compound the problem. Pending bills amounting to ₹13.32 crore for 2019–20 and ₹34.82 crore for 2020–21, delays in fund clearance through the CFMS system, and the slow implementation of flagship initiatives such as the MISHTI (Mangrove Initiative for Shoreline Habitats and Tangible Incomes) programme—with an outlay of ₹1,224.376 lakh—point to systemic weaknesses in financial management.
Even so, field-level implementation has not been entirely stagnant. For 2024–25, afforestation targets included 1,891.57 hectares under compensatory afforestation and 1,049 hectares under NPV projects. By September 2024, achievements stood at 1,450.91 hectares and 932.50 hectares respectively—around 78 per cent of the target. These figures indicate that the system is capable of delivery, though only partially and under considerable constraints.
Perhaps the most striking gap lies in the utilisation of interest funds. Under the Rules, 60 per cent of interest earnings must be used for conservation and 40 per cent for administrative purposes. Yet, for 2025–26, only ₹10 crore—₹6 crore for conservation and ₹4 crore for administration—has been proposed for utilisation against a total interest corpus of nearly ₹348 crore. This means that less than 3 per cent of available interest funds are being deployed.
Compounding this issue is a lack of transparency. The Finance Department has reportedly not reconciled interest figures despite repeated requests. Without clear accounting, it becomes difficult to ensure that funds are being used within prescribed legal limits.
Equally concerning is the absence of clarity regarding participatory processes. It remains unclear whether consultations were effectively conducted, as mandated by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, before finalising and implementing the Annual Plans of Operation. In the absence of meaningful consultation—particularly with local and forest-dependent communities—the legitimacy and effectiveness of CAMPA interventions become questionable.
The consequences of these governance gaps are visible on the ground. Against an afforestation target of 3,050.20 hectares for 2025–26, only 2,004.56 hectares had been achieved by October 2025. The shortfall is not due to lack of planning, but rather a failure of timely execution.
Weak accountability mechanisms add another layer of concern. A reported misappropriation of ₹46.23 lakh in the PT Atmakur Division, detected in 2025 and currently under vigilance inquiry, may appear to be an isolated case, but it points to broader vulnerabilities in financial oversight.
Taken together, these trends reveal a structural contradiction. Andhra Pradesh is not short of funds—it is short of effective utilisation. The CAMPA framework has created a substantial financial pool for ecological restoration, yet administrative delays, procedural bottlenecks, and weak accountability mechanisms have prevented its meaningful deployment.
This gap has implications that extend beyond governance. NPV is collected as compensation for forest diversion, often in areas inhabited by tribal and forest-dependent communities. When these funds remain unspent or are diverted from ecological priorities, restoration is delayed and the burden of environmental loss is effectively shifted onto present and future generations. This raises fundamental questions of environmental justice.
The experience of Andhra Pradesh suggests that the challenge lies not in legal design, but in implementation. Ratios such as 80:20 or 60:40 may be maintained on paper, but they have little meaning if funds remain idle or are diverted from core ecological purposes.
What is needed is a shift from procedural compliance to substantive accountability. This requires timely release of funds, transparent financial reporting, strict adherence to legal provisions, and stronger monitoring mechanisms that prioritise ecological outcomes over administrative convenience.
CAMPA holds immense potential as an instrument of ecological restoration. But unless the gap between intent and implementation is bridged, it risks becoming a repository of idle funds rather than a vehicle for restoring India’s forests.
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor