The CAG report finds that an amount of Rs 13.86 crore was diverted for unrelated purposes, such as the renovation of buildings of the forest department and purchasing iPhones and computers. This happened in Uttarakhand
An audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) found that the state’s forest division misappropriated funds meant for compensatory afforestation in Uttarakhand to pay for a number of unrelated expenses, including building renovations, legal fees, and the purchase of iPhones, laptops, refrigerators, and coolers.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="1080px" width="1920px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
The report outlines the operation of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) between 2019 and 2022, and the same was presented to the state assembly on Thursday.
CAMPA Fund Mismanagement and Issues
The CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority), which works under the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, manages funds raised from developers who utilize forestland for non-forest purposes.
The major objective of the funds is to aid afforestation and regeneration on an equal area of land. Nonetheless, there has recently been a report of some challenges in accomplishing this task.
Low Survival Rate of Afforestation Projects
The startlingly low survival percentage of trees planted through afforestation activities is one of the main concerns brought up in the research.
The average survival rate was only 33.51%, which is significantly lower than the 60–65% target range that the Forest Research Institute (FRI) in Dehradun had established. The effectiveness of the afforestation is called into question by this poor survival rate.
Unauthorized Diversion of Forest Land
The report additionally cited the fact that 188.62 hectares of forest area were diverted for non-forest use, like road construction, in 52 instances.
These were done without the due sanctions of the central government, contrary to the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act. The forest divisions also failed to act as they should have over these illegal uses of forest land, not applying necessary regulations.
