Analyse the impact of the ‘Green India Mission’ under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). How effective has it been in enhancing carbon sequestration and restoring ecosystems?
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Impact of the Green India Mission under NAPCC
Introduction
Green India Mission which started in 2014 through the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) works to improve ecosystem functions and forest recovery and boost carbon storage. The climate mitigation strategy of India benefits strongly from GIM because it works to restore 5 million hectares (Mha) of degraded land and improve existing forests.
GIM demonstrates two key environmental benefits of enhancing the carbon storage capacity while simultaneously restoring ecosystems.
1. Carbon Sequestration
Through activities involving tree plantation and afforestation GIM enables the development of carbon sinks.
Development of forest and tree resources recorded a 2,261 sq. km expansion according to the Indian State of Forest Report (ISFR 2021) which attributes this growth to forest expansion projects.
The implementation of afforestation has been sluggish since 2023 because only 1.6 Mha of land was afforested against originally intended targets.
2. Ecosystem Restoration
Through eco-restoration of biodiversity-habitats GIM has dedicated itself to preserve natural ecosystems in disrupted terrain as well as wetlands and grasslands.
Watershed management programs together with better livelihood opportunities for forest-based communities run through initiatives operated in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka.
The delay in funding distribution and implementation setbacks have slowed down massive restoration activities.
Effectiveness and Challenges
Forest governance received a positive improvement through the process of increased awareness as well as enhanced community participation.
The program faces funding challenges because authorities only release less than half of their budgeted funds and execution proceeds at a slow pace yet it encounters resistance from mining operations and construction developments.
Conclusion
The limitations of the GIm project for carbon storage and ecological preservation exist because of insufficient funds and bureaucracy in executing its plans. The complete implementation of GIM in climate change battles requires improved budgetary support and effective monitoring systems and assemblies that deploy conservation practices through local communities.