The diversion of 1178.58 hectares of forest land in Jammu and Kashmir for non-forest purposes over five years should not be treated as merely another statistical entry in a government reply. It is a number that deserves public attention because, in a region as ecologically fragile and geographically sensitive as Jammu and Kashmir, every hectare of forest carries significance far beyond its physical size.

Government data presented in the Rajya Sabha shows that Jammu and Kashmir approved the diversion of 1178.58 hectares of forest land between April 2021 and March 2026 under India’s forest conservation framework. More worrying is the trend: after declining for two consecutive years, annual diversion rose sharply, reaching 292.09 hectares in 2024-25 and 310.39 hectares in 2025-26 – the highest annual figure in the five-year period.

The question, therefore, is not simply how much forest land has been diverted. The more important question is why the diversion is increasing, what it is being diverted for, and whether the ecological costs are being adequately accounted for.

There is no denying that Jammu and Kashmir needs infrastructure. Roads must be built, power networks expanded, strategic infrastructure strengthened and communities connected. The region’s difficult terrain and strategic location make some development projects unavoidable. The government also has a legitimate responsibility to improve public services and create economic opportunities.

But development and environmental protection should not be presented as mutually exclusive choices. The real challenge is to ensure that development does not destroy the very ecological foundations on which the region’s economy and society depend.

Forests in Jammu and Kashmir are not simply collections of trees. They are natural infrastructure. They regulate water flows, recharge springs, reduce soil erosion, protect slopes and help moderate local climate. They also support biodiversity and provide livelihoods to communities that depend directly or indirectly on forest ecosystems.

The mountains of the region are particularly vulnerable. Once vegetation is removed from unstable slopes, the consequences can extend far beyond the boundary of an individual project. Increased runoff, landslides, soil erosion and siltation of rivers and streams can affect settlements and infrastructure downstream. The economic cost of such ecological damage may ultimately exceed the immediate benefits of the project that caused it.

The government’s data also raises another important point. Jammu and Kashmir’s annual forest diversion has not followed a steady downward trend. It fell from 262.93 hectares in 2021-22 to 186.51 hectares in 2022-23 and further to 126.65 hectares in 2023-24. But the figure then more than doubled in two years, reaching 310.39 hectares in 2025-26.

That reversal deserves closer examination.

Is the increase primarily driven by strategic infrastructure? Roads? Transmission lines? Hydropower? Tourism-related projects? Urban expansion? Or a combination of several factors? The public deserves a clear project-wise account. Aggregate figures tell us what happened; transparency about individual projects can help citizens understand why it happened.

The government has rightly pointed out that forest diversion is not supposed to be an unrestricted process. Prior approval is mandatory, and projects are subject to mitigation measures such as compensatory afforestation, payment of net present value, soil and moisture conservation and, where required, wildlife management and catchment area treatment plans. Proposals are also processed through the PARIVESH online portal.

These safeguards are important. But the effectiveness of any environmental regulation ultimately depends not on the existence of rules, but on how rigorously they are implemented.

Compensatory afforestation, for instance, should not become a bureaucratic substitute for the ecological value of a mature natural forest. A naturally evolved forest ecosystem cannot simply be replaced by planting an equivalent number of saplings somewhere else. A plantation may take decades to mature, and it may never replicate the biodiversity, soil structure, water-retention capacity and ecological relationships of the original forest.

This is particularly relevant in the Himalayan region, where ecosystems are often highly specialised and fragile. The loss of a forest patch may have consequences that are not immediately visible on paper.

There is also a need to distinguish between necessary development and avoidable environmental damage.

A strategically important road may be essential. A critical transmission line may be unavoidable. But that does not mean every project should be allowed to follow the easiest route through forests. Modern planning can minimise ecological damage through alternative alignments, tunnelling where feasible, careful site selection and the use of existing infrastructure corridors.

The principle should be simple: avoid first, minimise second, compensate only as a last resort.

Jammu and Kashmir also needs a stronger culture of cumulative environmental assessment. Individual projects may appear manageable when examined in isolation. But when several roads, power projects, tourism facilities, transmission lines and other developments are concentrated in the same landscape, their combined impact can be substantial.

A forest may survive one project but become ecologically fragmented by ten.

This is why the five-year figure of 1,178.58 hectares should prompt more than a debate over whether the number is large or small compared with the national total. Jammu and Kashmir accounted for around 1.12 percent of the 105,594.32 hectares diverted across India during the period. On a national scale, that may appear modest. But environmental policy cannot be based solely on percentages.

For a mountainous region with limited ecological carrying capacity, the location of forest diversion may matter more than the national share.

The comparison with neighbouring Himalayan regions is also instructive. Himachal Pradesh recorded 2616.18 hectares of forest diversion during the same period, while Uttarakhand recorded 2692.85 hectares. Ladakh, by contrast, recorded only 0.94 hectares. These figures should encourage a deeper discussion about development models across the Himalayan belt rather than a simplistic ranking of who diverted more land.

The ultimate objective should be to build an economy that values forests as assets rather than treating them as obstacles to development.

Jammu and Kashmir is already witnessing the visible effects of environmental stress: erratic weather, intense rainfall events, landslides, soil erosion, shrinking water sources and pressure on fragile urban and rural ecosystems. No single phenomenon can be attributed solely to forest diversion, but the cumulative degradation of natural landscapes inevitably increases vulnerability.

The government must, therefore, ensure that every proposal involving forest land is subjected to the highest standards of scrutiny. Public disclosure should include the exact location, purpose, area involved, number and type of trees affected, mitigation measures, compensatory afforestation site and the status of compliance.

The public should also be able to track whether the promised safeguards were actually implemented years after approval.

The debate over forests is ultimately a debate over the future. Jammu and Kashmir cannot afford a model of development in which the immediate gains are visible but the long-term ecological costs are passed on to future generations.

The 1178 hectares diverted over five years may be only a fraction of India’s total forest diversion. But in Jammu and Kashmir, every hectare matters.

The government must continue to build roads, strengthen infrastructure and support economic growth. At the same time, it must recognise that forests are not empty land waiting to be used. They are living systems, natural defences and essential public assets.

The rising diversion figure in 2025-26 should therefore serve as a warning—not against development, but against development without ecological discipline.

The question Jammu and Kashmir must ask is not whether it can afford to protect its forests.

It is whether it can afford not to.

About the Author

Moien Darial writes with the precision of an analyst and sensitivity of a storyteller, exploring global economic shifts and emerging technologies.