In a country where <a title="Forest" href="https://www.benefitnews24.com/legal/sc-felling-trees-worse-than-killing-a-human/8644" target="_blank" rel="noopener">forests</a> are more than just patches of green &mdash; they are lifelines, livelihoods, and cultural backbones &mdash; the question of whether our forest cover is truly increasing or silently degrading demands urgent attention. On paper, India appears to be doing well. The India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2023 claims a rise in total forest and tree cover. Yet, a striking study by IIT-Bombay paints a drastically different &mdash; and more troubling &mdash; picture.
It&rsquo;s a tale of two datasets, two perspectives, and a nation caught between numbers and nuance.
<h3 data-start="840" data-end="873">The Forest Grows&hellip; or Does It?</h3>
According to the ISFR 2023, India now boasts a total forest and tree cover of 8,27,357 sq km, accounting for 25.17% of its geographical area. That includes a 156 sq km rise in forest cover and 1289 sq km in tree cover since 2021. The data further reveals states like Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha and Rajasthan as leading contributors to this &lsquo;green surge&rsquo;. It&rsquo;s an impressive feat, one that seemingly aligns with India's climate commitments, especially its goal to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent by 2030.
But when IIT-Bombay&rsquo;s researchers crunched the numbers using high-resolution satellite data from the Copernicus Global Land Service (CGLS), the result was alarming. India lost 18 sq km of forest for every 1 sq km gained between 2015 and 2019. That&rsquo;s not just a discrepancy &mdash; it&rsquo;s a glaring contradiction.
&nbsp;
ALSO READ: https://www.benefitnews24.com/environment/the-environmental-cost-of-the-russia-ukraine-war/7325
<h3 data-start="1768" data-end="1804">Fragmentation: The Silent Killer</h3>
The study, led by Prof. Raaj Ramsankaran, along with Dr. Vasu Sathyakumar and Sridharan Gowtham of SASTRA Deemed University, found that the majority of new forest growth during 2015&ndash;2019 consisted of fragmented islets &mdash; small, scattered green patches that offer little ecological value. &ldquo;Our results clearly show that most of the newly added forests were highly fragmented and ecologically vulnerable,&rdquo; Dr. Sathyakumar said.
In essence, these patches are not forests in the true ecological sense. They lack structural connectivity &mdash; the very lifeblood that allows forests to thrive, regenerate, and support complex biodiversity. Tigers, elephants, and countless other species depend on large, contiguous forest corridors to survive. Fragmented landscapes, by contrast, invite conflict, restrict movement, and sabotage long-term ecological stability.
The problem isn&rsquo;t merely about how much green we see from above, but about how connected, healthy, and regenerative that green actually is.
<h3 data-start="2817" data-end="2839">Why the Disparity?</h3>
At the heart of this divergence lies methodology. The FSI defines forest areas using a 10% canopy cover threshold and relies on 23.5-metre resolution satellite imagery. The IIT-Bombay team, in contrast, used a 15% threshold and a 100-metre resolution, which is more suited for mapping broader connectivity patterns.
Crucially, FSI&rsquo;s reports do not distinguish between fragmented and continuous forests, nor are they publicly available in GIS-compatible formats, making independent, nuanced assessments nearly impossible. "If FSI&rsquo;s data were available in such formats, our methodology could be readily applied to it," Dr. Sathyakumar noted.
This lack of transparency is not just a technical oversight &mdash; it is a policy blind spot.
<h3 data-start="3598" data-end="3626">The Illusion of Greening</h3>
What we might be seeing is a cosmetic greening &mdash; an expansion of canopy cover that ticks afforestation boxes but misses the ecological mark. For instance, large-scale plantation drives in non-forest areas can inflate forest statistics while doing little to enhance real biodiversity or improve climate resilience. This kind of green accounting, while numerically satisfying, may lull decision-makers into a false sense of environmental security.
Moreover, urbanisation, infrastructure projects, and encroachments often go unnoticed under current monitoring frameworks. Linear infrastructure like roads and railways, which fragment forests but occupy narrow footprints, may be entirely missed in low-resolution imagery &mdash; further distorting ground realities.
<h3 data-start="4396" data-end="4420">What Does This Mean?</h3>
If India is indeed losing more meaningful forest area than it is gaining, the consequences are dire. We&rsquo;re not just losing trees; we&rsquo;re compromising carbon sinks, disrupting monsoon patterns, endangering wildlife corridors, and placing vulnerable communities at even greater risk of climate-induced displacement.
This also raises serious questions about how forest health is measured, and whether India is on track to meet its climate goals in any real sense. The promise of a greener India rings hollow if it comes at the cost of fragmentation, monocultures, and disconnected islets of foliage.
<h3 data-start="5049" data-end="5098">The Road Ahead: More Than Just Counting Trees</h3>
So, what needs to change?
<ol data-start="5127" data-end="6020">
<li data-start="5127" data-end="5271">
Transparency First: Make FSI data publicly accessible in GIS-compatible formats to allow independent and advanced ecological assessments.
</li>
<li data-start="5273" data-end="5412">
Quality Over Quantity: Shift from canopy-based metrics to connectivity-based assessments that prioritise biodiversity corridors.
</li>
<li data-start="5414" data-end="5556">
Collaborative Monitoring: Integrate diverse datasets like CGLS with local field knowledge for more reliable, dynamic forest governance.
</li>
<li data-start="5558" data-end="5727">
Policy Recalibration: Incorporate ecological integrity and structural health into afforestation and reforestation programmes &mdash; not just the area under plantation.
</li>
<li data-start="5729" data-end="5886">
Technology at Grassroots: Promote the use of open-source digital tools and remote sensing in local forest planning, especially in eco-sensitive zones.
</li>
<li data-start="5888" data-end="6020">
Ecological Restoration: Prioritise restoration of degraded, contiguous forests rather than creating disconnected plantations.
</li>
</ol>
<h3 data-start="6027" data-end="6070">&nbsp;The Forest Beyond the Trees</h3>
India stands at an inflection point. The stories told by satellites differ, but both whisper a common warning &mdash; not all green is good green. As the climate crisis accelerates and biodiversity loss intensifies, we can no longer afford to treat forests as statistics. They are living, breathing ecosystems, whose strength lies not just in numbers, but in connection, continuity, and care.
The real question is not how much forest India has, but how much of it is whole, thriving, and future-ready.

IIT-Bombay study reveals forest fragmentation despite FSI's claims of growing green cover

Is India’s Forest Cover Just an Illusion?

IIT-Bombay study reveals forest fragmentation despite FSI's claims of growing green cover

August 6, 2025 | 15:57 IST