As India pursues its renewable energy ambitions, the Central Electricity Authority has identified an enormous pumped storage potential, flagging 320 projects with a combined capacity of approximately 345 gigawatts. Maharashtra alone accounts for nearly 67 gigawatts of this potential, while the Southern Region holds roughly 97 gigawatts, shared principally by Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Karnataka. However, these figures represent an identified potential, not an established requirement or a binding commitment to construct every proposed project.
With thousands of hectares of natural forests in the Western Ghats, Eastern Ghats, and qa aaEastern Himalayas facing annihilation from these power sector and infrastructure proposals, civil society must urgently persuade environmental regulatory authorities to adopt highly rational and accountable decision-making regarding forest land diversions. At the heart of this debate is a critical scientific question: can compensatory afforestation in a different geographical region ever serve as an effective replacement for the destruction of rich, thick tropical rainforests?
The Illusion of Ecological Equivalence
The overall scientific conclusion is a resounding no. Compensatory afforestation undertaken in a different geographical region cannot be regarded as an ecologically equivalent replacement for the destruction of a mature, species-rich tropical rainforest. A natural rainforest is far more than a mere collection of trees; it is a complex, self-organizing ecosystem. Its immense ecological value is generated by the intricate interaction of diverse native flora, multiple canopy layers, old-growth trees, specialized fungi, soil microorganisms, and complex wildlife relationships. These elements sustain vital nutrient cycling, natural regeneration, genetic diversity, and hydrological functions such as rainfall interception, groundwater recharge, and erosion control.
A plantation of several thousand saplings per hectare simply does not reproduce these attributes. Consequently, tree numbers or canopy cover alone are entirely inadequate indicators of ecological equivalence, and compensatory afforestation must be treated strictly as a limited mitigation measure, never as a justification for destroying an irreplaceable natural forest.
Scientific Evidence and Geographic Mismatch
Global ecological research consistently supports the irreplaceability of primary tropical forests. A major 2011 meta-analysis published in Nature demonstrated that biodiversity remains substantially lower in degraded forests, proving there is no substitute for primary forests in maintaining tropical biodiversity. Furthermore, a 2021 global synthesis published in Science revealed that while soil properties might recover relatively quickly, forest structure, species diversity, and biomass can take many decades or even over a century to approach old-growth conditions. Carbon recovery does not equal biodiversity recovery, as different ecological attributes follow entirely different recovery trajectories. This reality is compounded by geographic mismatch.
A proposed compensatory plantation in a dry or semi-arid part of another state cannot replicate the high rainfall, locally evolved forest soils, endemic species, specialized wildlife habitats, or catchment hydrology of a Western Ghats rainforest. Recognizing these limitations, the January 2022 Supreme Court expert committee report on compensatory conservation, chaired by Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh, explicitly stated that avoidance must come first. The committee emphasized that the mitigation hierarchy requires avoiding and minimizing impacts before considering offsets, and that any compensation must adhere to a "like for like or better" principle, acknowledging that some biodiversity losses are simply irreplaceable.
The Pitfalls of Tree Planting and Implementation Gaps
Beyond the theoretical limitations, there is a profound difference between tree planting and genuine ecological restoration. Compensatory afforestation programmes often focus on implementation indicators, such as the number of saplings planted or hectares covered, rather than proof of ecological recovery. Indiscriminate tree planting, including monocultures or exotic species, can actively damage naturally non-forested ecosystems like shola grasslands, rocky plateaus, and wetlands. The 2022 expert committee specifically cautioned against this plantation-oriented approach, urging a shift toward ecological restoration consistent with native habitats. This scientific concern is exacerbated by severe historical implementation gaps.
Past Comptroller and Auditor General audits revealed that only a fraction of non-forest land due for transfer was actually received, and an even smaller portion was subjected to compensatory afforestation, alongside poor fund utilization. A recent 2026 study by TERI continues to identify significant gaps between the compensatory afforestation policy framework and its actual implementation across Indian states. These findings demonstrate that promised ecological compensation cannot be blindly assumed to materialize in practice.
A Mandate for Avoidance and Landscape-Level Accountability
The implications for proposed pumped storage projects in sensitive mountain landscapes, such as Sharavathi, Varahi, and Upper Bhavani, are direct and severe. When a project involves the diversion of mature evergreen forests, the destruction of wildlife corridors, tunnelling in ecologically sensitive terrain, and the fragmentation of continuous forest landscapes, a distant plantation cannot compensate for these losses. The effects of multiple projects must be assessed cumulatively, examining the total loss of ecological connectivity and ecosystem functions across the entire landscape.
Before any forest clearance is considered, project proponents must bear the burden of demonstrating ecological acceptability through independent, landscape-level assessments. These assessments must rigorously evaluate forest uniqueness, endemic biodiversity, catchment equivalence, and realistic timeframes for ecological recovery. Where true ecological equivalence cannot be demonstrably achieved, the only rational policy response is the avoidance of forest diversion entirely. Regulatory authorities must reject the notion that a simplistic hectare-for-hectare exchange ratio proves environmental acceptability, ensuring that India’s most irreplaceable natural heritage is not sacrificed under the false promise of compensatory afforestation.
---
*Power & Climate Policy Analyst, Karnataka
Comments