Physical Address
23,24,25 & 26, 2nd Floor, Software Technology Park India, Opp: Garware Stadium,MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad, Maharashtra – 431001 India
The Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) funds, designed to offset deforestation and enhance green cover in India, have repeatedly come under scrutiny for misuse and diversion. The recent findings from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) highlight systemic issues in fund allocation and usage, raising concerns over the effectiveness of CAMPA as a tool for environmental conservation.
Misuse of CAMPA Funds in Uttarakhand
The Supreme Court recently reprimanded the Uttarakhand government over the alleged misuse of CAMPA funds. The CAG report revealed that between 2019 and 2022, Uttarakhand’s forest authorities used CAMPA funds for purchasing iPhones, laptops, fridges, and coolers, as well as for renovating buildings and covering court expenses. These expenditures starkly contrast with the fund’s primary objective of increasing forest cover and ecological restoration.
Additionally, the court noted that Rs 275.34 crore in interest from 2019-20 to 2021-22 had not been deposited, despite repeated reminders from CAMPA authorities. While the state government claimed to have deposited Rs 150 crore of this amount in July 2023, a significant portion remained unaccounted for. The Supreme Court has since demanded an affidavit from the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary, seeking explanations on the misallocation of funds.
Madhya Pradesh’s Misallocation of CAMPA Funds
A similar case of fund diversion emerged in Madhya Pradesh, where the CAG reported that over Rs 167 crore meant for afforestation was allocated to “ineligible activities.” Between 2017 and 2020, substantial amounts were diverted to projects unrelated to afforestation, including Rs 120.30 crore for agroforestry under a farmer scheme, Rs 20.88 crore for building a Van Bhawan, and Rs 7.13 crore for fresh forest recruit salaries. Despite state claims that these expenditures complied with guidelines, the CAG refuted this justification, emphasizing that the activities were outside CAMPA’s scope.
Moreover, funds were also used for commercial teak plantations in violation of CAMPA regulations. The Madhya Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited received Rs 29.58 crore for teak plantations, contradicting the guidelines that prohibit commercial timber projects. Further, the report flagged excessive spending on repetitive weed eradication, with expenses incurred five times over seven months at the Nauradehi Wildlife Division, a key area for the reintroduction of cheetahs. This unwarranted expenditure underscores the mismanagement of funds meant for conservation.
Structural Flaws and Ineffectiveness of CAMPA
In October 2002, the Supreme Court of India had directed the creation of a Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) to collect money from user agencies under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The fund was meant to support compensatory afforestation, enhance natural forest preservation, manage wildlife, and aid infrastructure development. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) notified the Compensatory Afforestation Management Funds Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) in April 2004 for the management of the CAF.
CAMPA funds are collected from industries undertaking non-forest activities as compensation for deforestation. These funds are then transferred to states for afforestation and conservation projects. However, the repeated misallocation of these funds exposes a structural flaw in their management. Instead of serving as an effective countermeasure to deforestation, they are frequently diverted to unrelated or inadmissible expenditures.
The consistent misuse of CAMPA funds raises fundamental questions about their effectiveness in mitigating forest loss. While the concept of compensatory afforestation aims to restore ecological balance, the execution appears deeply flawed. The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Uttarakhand case, along with the findings in Madhya Pradesh, highlight the urgent need for stricter oversight, transparency, and accountability in managing these crucial environmental funds.
