New Delhi (The Peepal): India launched the Green Credit Programme (GCP) to reward actions that help the environment and support the LiFE — Lifestyle for Environment movement. In legal terms, the programme rests on the Green Credit Rules, 2023, which the government notified on 12 October 2023 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Under those rules, green credit works as a market-based mechanism. In simple terms, it aims to encourage environment-friendly action and create credits for use in a domestic system. However, the rules also set an important limit. Specifically, if any person or entity uses green credits to meet an existing legal duty, those credits cannot be traded.

At first, the programme looked broad. Indeed, it did not focus only on forests. Instead, Rule 4 covered many fields, including tree plantation, water management, sustainable agriculture, waste management, air-pollution control, mangrove restoration, ecomark label development, and sustainable buildings and infrastructure. So, the legal design began as a wider environmental-credit framework, not merely as a plantation scheme. In other words, the original model was much broader than the current public-facing version. Therefore, any serious reading of GCP must begin with that wider legal base.

Why the programme matters now

In practice, the programme has moved in a narrower direction. The Union government told Lok Sabha on 16 March 2026 that the working model under GCP now focuses on tree plantation and eco-restoration of degraded forest land. Earlier, the government first notified the tree plantation and eco-restoration method on 22 February 2024. Later, it revised that method on 29 August 2025. Further, the same parliamentary reply said that an applicant can claim green credits only after five years of restoration work and only after the land reaches at least 40% canopy density.

For readers following the larger environment-policy picture, this issue also links with ABC Live’s earlier report, Critical Analysis: MOEFCC Demands for Grants 2026–27, which examined the ministry’s wider policy and budget direction.

Because of this shift, GCP now looks less like a broad market-facing promise and more like a specific forest-restoration model. On the one hand, that makes the programme more serious on ecology. On the other hand, it raises harder questions about law, transparency, public oversight, and long-term results. Therefore, the real issue is no longer whether India has created a green-credit idea. Rather, the real question is whether the programme can prove that its credits reflect real ecological recovery, avoid double counting, remain open to public scrutiny, and protect local ecological interests as it grows. Thus, the current debate is about credibility, not just launch design.

What the programme aims to do

The 2023 rules say the programme aims to reward environmentally positive actions through a market-based system. Likewise, the official Green Credit Programme portal says the scheme seeks to encourage voluntary plantation, issue green credits, and build an inventory of degraded land that can support afforestation work. In addition, the portal FAQ says the programme invites industries, companies, institutions, NGOs, philanthropists, and individuals to join such efforts, especially through tree plantation.

Meanwhile, in its Lok Sabha reply, available through the official PIB release, the government gave the current policy picture. It said the programme seeks to increase green cover, improve carbon sequestration, restore degraded land, cut carbon footprint, and encourage environment-friendly practices. Moreover, it confirmed that the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), Dehradun acts as the Administrator of the programme. Thus, the statutory structure and the implementation structure align on paper. Accordingly, the programme now has both a legal base and an operating institution.

Table 1: Core programme snapshot

Overall, this snapshot shows that the programme has moved beyond concept and into an operating framework.

The original design was much broader

The original rules did not limit GCP to degraded forest land. Rather, Rule 4 listed a wider set of eligible activities. So far, the official material in the public domain shows a strong tilt toward tree plantation and eco-restoration of degraded forest land parcels managed by State and UT Forest Departments. Therefore, the public version of the programme now looks far narrower than the rulebook first suggested.

Table 2: Activity categories under Rule 4 of the Green Credit Rules, 2023

So, the gap between the legal design and the live programme is central to this analysis. The rules promised a broad environmental-credit structure. By contrast, the system that people can presently see works mainly as a forest-restoration platform. That does not make the scheme invalid. Still, it suggests that the state has chosen a cautious path and has opened the easiest and most measurable part first. As a result, forestry has moved ahead of the other sectors. In turn, that narrow rollout now shapes how the public understands the entire programme. Consequently, public perception of GCP has become narrower than its original legal frame.

How the programme works on the ground

According to the official FAQ on the GCP portal, the programme uses degraded forest land parcels that State and UT Forest Departments control and manage. Registered Green Credit Applicants can choose a minimum area of 5 hectares from plantation blocks listed on the portal. Further, the FAQ says Forest Departments and Forest Development Corporations act as implementing agencies. They must finish plantation within two years after receiving payment and then maintain the plantation for another 10 years.

Meanwhile, the PIB note adds an extra safeguard. It says the Divisional Nodal Officer (DNO) and the State Nodal Officer (SNO) verify the land parcels. They check that the land is neither already under plantation nor already marked for another afforestation scheme, including compensatory afforestation. In this way, the government aims to prevent double counting. Further, the reply says the programme must use a mix of indigenous species suited to the site. Accordingly, the design tries to combine administrative checks with ecological suitability.

Table 3: Current operational design

Taken together, these features show that the programme rests on both land verification and post-plantation upkeep.

The biggest change in the scheme

The strongest improvement in the revised framework is clear. It no longer relies mainly on a “plant-and-count” approach. The 2025 revised methodology says an applicant can submit a claim only after five years of restoration work and only after the land reaches at least 40% canopy density. Further, it says the system will issue one Green Credit for each surviving tree that is more than five years old within the restored parcel.

That marks a major shift from the older plantation-heavy logic that still appears in the official FAQ. The FAQ says the Administrator awards green credits based on the total number of trees planted and the plantation completion certificate uploaded by the implementing agency. So, the public material now shows two different stages of the scheme: an older input-based approach and a newer outcome-based approach. In other words, the scheme now looks more focused on ecological establishment than on simple plantation reporting. As a result, the revised method reduces the risk of treating plantation activity as success in itself.

Table 4: Earlier plantation logic vs revised restoration logic

In The Peepal’s assessment, this correction is the programme’s biggest strength so far. It lowers the risk that green credits will reward only the act of planting rather than the success of restoration. Even so, canopy density alone cannot measure the full health of a forest. It tells us something about cover. However, it tells us much less about biodiversity, soil health, water retention, and long-term resilience. Therefore, the canopy test improves the scheme, but it does not answer every ecological question. For that reason, the scheme still needs wider ecological indicators over time. Moreover, future monitoring will need to show quality, not only cover.

The latest state-wise data

The latest official data from Parliament, reflected in the PIB release, shows that the programme still remains limited in scale. The government said that 4,391 hectares across 12 States have been selected under GCP for eco-restoration. Gujarat leads with 975 hectares, while Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh follow with 640 hectares and 536 hectares respectively.

Table 5: State-wise area selected under GCP for eco-restoration

Table 6: Concentration pattern

These numbers matter for two reasons. First, they show that the programme is still small. Second, they show that the programme is unevenly spread across States. Nearly half of the selected area lies in just three States, while almost 70% lies in the top five. Therefore, The Peepal reads the current phase as an early implementation stage, not as a mature nationwide environmental-credit system. Put simply, the programme has advanced, but it has not yet scaled widely across the country. Overall, the data suggests movement, but not yet broad transformation. Consequently, scale remains one of the programme’s central weaknesses.

Timeline of the programme

Table 7: Policy timeline

Chronologically, the programme has moved from legal creation to methodological tightening.

The main policy tension

The 2023 rules clearly describe green credit as part of a market-based mechanism and allow trading on a domestic platform. Yet, the same rules also impose an important limit: credits used to meet an existing legal duty cannot be traded.

The revised 2025 methodology narrows the tree-plantation track even more. It says that green credits created for compensatory afforestation or tree plantation under the programme are non-tradable and non-transferable, except for transfer between a controlling entity and its subsidiary companies. Further, it says that such credits may be exchanged once for certain uses, including compensatory afforestation compliance under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, and for some CSR-linked purposes tied to forest-restoration spending.

Table 8: Tradability question

This is the scheme’s biggest conceptual tension. On the one hand, the rules present a tradable environmental-credit model. On the other hand, the live forestry method now looks much closer to a restricted compliance tool. So, The Peepal’s view is simple: the government should explain this shift much more clearly. Otherwise, the programme may appear broader in theory than it works in practice. For that reason, this tension sits at the heart of any serious review of the scheme. Indeed, it shapes the entire debate over what green credit now means in practice. Accordingly, policy clarity here is essential.

Cost and compliance burden

The revised methodology places a clear burden on the applicant. It says the applicant must bear the verification fees and must also deposit maintenance costs upfront before the system issues green credits for the remaining maintenance period. In addition, the system issues credits only after verification and only for each surviving tree that is older than five years.

Table 9: Applicant-side burden under revised methodology

As a result, the programme looks more disciplined. At the same time, it may also become harder for smaller or less patient actors to participate. So, the same design that improves ecological credibility may also narrow the pool of likely participants. Meanwhile, larger entities may find it easier to absorb the waiting period, compliance steps, and verification burden. Therefore, access to the scheme may become uneven across applicants. In short, discipline and accessibility may now pull in opposite directions.

Double counting and compensatory afforestation

The government says the DNO and SNO checks help ensure that land under GCP is not already under plantation and not already marked for another afforestation scheme, including compensatory afforestation. That safeguard matters because any environmental-credit system loses trust quickly if it counts the same land or activity twice.

At the same time, the GCP portal and scheme material show that GCP output may be swapped or exchanged for compensatory afforestation compliance in some cases involving diversion of forest land under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980. That creates a sensitive legal zone. Compensatory afforestation is not only a symbolic offset. Instead, it forms part of the legal response to forest diversion. Therefore, any exchange system must prove that it protects equivalence, location, ecological fit, and public accountability.

In The Peepal’s assessment, this is one of the areas where the programme needs the clearest public explanation. The safeguard against double counting is useful. However, the real test is whether people can independently verify that safeguard in practice. Until then, the claim of protection against overlap remains only partly tested in the public domain. Consequently, this issue remains a live credibility risk. Thus, verification must become more visible, not merely more formal.

Transparency is still weak

The official Green Credit Programme portal sits at the centre of the programme’s design. The rules require electronic registration, verification, and award of green credits. Likewise, the portal and FAQ present the digital platform as the backbone of the whole system.

However, the public-facing transparency layer still seems weak. The main portal page showed incomplete or blank values for some eco-restoration statistics at the time of review, including visible entries such as “undefined parcels” and “NaN ha.” That does not necessarily mean the backend has no data. Even so, it does suggest that the public-facing side of the registry still needs serious improvement. For a scheme built on verification and credibility, that gap matters. In short, the programme has a portal, but the public dashboard still does not fully match the transparency burden that such a scheme creates. Accordingly, public trust may lag behind administrative design. Therefore, dashboard quality matters as much as backend process.

Community benefits need clearer grounding

The Lok Sabha reply says that forest restoration under GCP should improve biodiversity, raise forest productivity, and help local communities through better access to timber, non-timber forest produce, fodder, water, and other ecosystem services.

That is an encouraging claim. Yet, the public-facing framework still says much less about how the programme will protect, consult, or involve local communities in design, monitoring, and benefit sharing. The portal and FAQ focus mainly on applicants, land selection, implementing agencies, maintenance, reporting, and credit issuance. By contrast, they say much less about local governance and community participation.

So, in The Peepal’s assessment, this gap may become more serious as the programme expands. Restoration can create public value. However, it can also change access patterns and local ecological relationships if authorities do not design the process with enough social accountability. Accordingly, community governance should become a more visible part of the programme’s next phase. Otherwise, ecological claims may outpace social legitimacy. Ultimately, long-term success will depend on both ecological and social trust.

The Peepal risk assessment matrix

Table 10: The Peepal risk assessment matrix

Taken together, this matrix shows that the programme’s strengths and weaknesses now sit side by side.

Key data points

Table 11: Key data points

Overall, these figures show a programme that has structure, but not yet national depth.

The Peepal Assessment

The Green Credit Programme deserves credit for one major change. It now appears to value survival, canopy, and restoration outcomes more than simple plantation numbers. Because of that, the scheme now looks more ecologically credible than many headline plantation drives.

However, the programme still faces five major tests. First, it must reconcile the original tradable market story with the narrower reality of tree-plantation credits as a restricted forestry-compliance tool. Second, it must improve the public registry and transparency layer. Third, it must show that exchange with compensatory afforestation does not weaken ecological accountability. Fourth, it must build a stronger community-facing governance structure. Finally, it must prove itself at a scale beyond a few thousand hectares. These concerns are not abstract. Instead, they arise directly from the rules, the revised method, the portal, and the state-wise data disclosed by the government. Overall, the programme has improved, but it has not yet resolved its hardest design challenges. Therefore, success will depend on implementation quality, not only policy intent.

Conclusion

India’s Green Credit Programme is no longer just a policy slogan. It now has a statutory base, a notified administrator, a portal, a revised eco-restoration method, and a measurable, though still limited, implementation footprint. More importantly, the 2025 revision made the forestry track stronger by linking credit issuance to five years of restoration and 40% canopy density instead of plantation completion alone.

Even so, the programme’s real credibility will not depend on how often officials call it innovative. Instead, it will depend on whether the government can show, in public and verifiable form, that green credits reflect real ecological restoration, do not hide double counting or overlap, and do not reduce environmental compliance to a bookkeeping exchange. Therefore, in The Peepal’s assessment, GCP today is best understood not as a mature environmental-credit market, but as a still-small, forest-centred restoration mechanism that has improved its ecological design while still carrying unresolved questions on transparency, scale, and legal clarity.

The Peepal is the Environment and Green Knowledge Partner of ABC Live.