The Cabinet decision last week to bring the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Bill, 2008, before Parliament is a step that should have been taken at least six years ago. For, it was in 2002 that the Supreme Court directed the government to set up a Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) and a Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) to manage this fund, so as to reverse the damage done by the diversion of forest land to non-forest purposes. Unfortunately, all that has so far ensued as a follow-up to this judicial decree is the creation of an ad hoc body in 2006 to recover the money which the states had collected through a compensatory afforestation levy on the diverted forest lands; indeed, much of this money lies with the state governments, unused. Worse, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) discovered some years ago that several states were using the money for other purposes and (believe it or not) that most of the unspent money, reckoned then at around Rs 2,000 crore, was parked in non-interest bearing accounts. The total corpus of these idle funds has since bloated to over Rs 6,000 crore. Since the legislation that is now proposed seeks to put in place a mechanism for the proper use of such huge resources, in particular for the ambitious Green India Project that is intended to extend forest cover to 33 per cent of the country's land area, it merits favourable consideration. However, as everybody knows by now when it comes to the government, good intent is no guarantee of desired outcomes. From the beginning, states have been reluctant to part with these funds, claiming an inherent right over them. CAMPA, therefore, may not find it easy to get the money transferred into the CAF, despite the stipulation that the funds received from a state would be spent in that state only. This is also because, to regain access to these funds, the states will have to come up with viable afforestation proposals and find land for them. Going by the past record, this is not easy to do. It also needs to be appreciated that afforestation, especially through the common pit-and-plant method of putting seedlings in place, leads neither to the re-creation of original forests nor to the recovery of lost habitats. There should also be a sense of realism when setting goals, for the task of achieving 33 per cent forest cover by 2012 is a near impossibility, considering the fact that the present coverage is no more than 20 per cent. Indeed, the 33 per cent ideal has remained unrealised for half a century, and may never be achievable. But it is certainly possible to improve on the present position. Funds are unlikely to be a constraint, especially after the passage of the proposed CAF legislation, but care would have to be taken in the selection of plant species for re-plantation drives. Easy-to-maintain species like acacia, casuarina, eucalyptus and the like, which have commonly been used in afforestation and reforestation projects, will not serve the purpose. There has to be a broader mix of tree species, with a sprinkling of grasses, herbs and medicinal plants, if an area is to qualify as a forest. Equally important is the need to involve local communities in the whole programme, as the alternative of cordoning off all afforested belts will not be possible. Without these steps, both the money and the effort will go to waste.