A blueprint for the new forest service

For far too long, the Indian Forest Service (IFS) has remained the “quiet” sibling among the three All-India Services. While the Indian Administrative Service manages the pulse of governance and the Indian Police Service safeguards internal security, the IFS is entrusted with something far more elemental: the stewardship of nearly 24 per cent of India’s landmass — its forests, biodiversity, wildlife and, most critically, its water systems, the very elixir of life. Yet, despite this centrality to India’s ecological and developmental future, the service continues to operate under a colonial-era framework, constrained by limited administrative authority and a narrowly defined mandate that often reduces it to a policing role.

In the context of 21st-century governance and escalating environmental crises, this mismatch has rendered the IFS underutilised, even as its relevance has never been greater. Historically, the performance of the Forest Service has been assessed through the prism of “forest offence cases” - the number of seizures, arrests, and prosecutions. While protection and enforcement are undeniably important, this metric is no longer sufficient. Forests today are valued not merely as timber reserves or protected territories, but as providers of ecological services: water security, carbon sequestration, climate resilience, biodiversity conservation, and livelihoods for millions of forest-dependent people. The performance evaluation of IFS officers must therefore shift decisively towards outcomes such as net gains in biodiversity, improvements in groundwater recharge, revival of forest streams, and enhancement of ecosystem services. If a Divisional Forest Officer succeeds in increasing the water yield of forest streams by 20 per cent or restores degraded landscapes into thriving ecosystems, that achievement should count far more than routine administrative compliance. To rise to these new challenges, the IFS must dismantle its internal silos.

At present, forest departments are fragmented into territorial, wildlife, social forestry, and other verticals, resulting in overlapping jurisdictions and diluted accountability. What India needs is an integrated landscape management approach, where a single officer is responsible for an entire ecological landscape — forest and non-forest lands alike — encompassing trees, wildlife, water systems, and the tribal and rural communities that depend on them. Such an approach would align ecological realities with administrative boundaries and foster holistic decision-making. At the grassroots, the conditions under which forest staff operate are both inadequate and unjust. A Forest Guard is often tasked with protecting 18 to 20 square kilometres of rugged, inhospitable terrain, frequently armed with nothing more than a wooden staff. Expecting such personnel to confront armed timber mafias, poachers, and smugglers is unrealistic and unsafe. Forest staff must be provided legal protection on par with police and magistrates, including coverage under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to shield them from malicious prosecution when acting in the line of duty. Equally important is upgrading infrastructure. Forest beats should no longer be dilapidated huts without electricity or sanitation. Instead, the country must invest in “Smart Beats” - well-equipped patrol units with solar power, satellite communication, rapid mobility, and basic forensic kits to document forest crimes in real time. Each beat should be headed by a forester-level officer capable of engaging communities and interpreting global developments in forestry, environment, and climate change.

Incentives are another neglected area. Performance-linked rewards such as a 13-month salary, area-specific hardship allowances, and a dedicated forest housing corporation - on the lines of the police department - can significantly improve morale. Guards and local communities who successfully prevent forest fires in high-risk zones should be rewarded through a Fire Protection Bonus, reinforcing collective responsibility for forest protection. Administrative restructuring can also yield results. The reorganisation of the Tripura Forest Department in 2014, which created forest subdivisions aligned with district boundaries and empowered State Forest Service officers, demonstrated how structural reforms can improve coordination, curb cross-border smuggling, and enhance overall performance. Diversification of the IFS is essential for its integration into broader environmental governance. At present, state environment departments lack a clear line hierarchy and technical leadership. Ideally, these departments should be headed by IFS officers, and the service itself should be renamed the Indian Forest and Environment Service (IF&ES). Every Tier-1 and Tier-2 city should have an independent IF&ES officer with statutory authority to safeguard urban green spaces, prevent soil and water pollution, and veto infrastructure projects that threaten ecological balance. Environmental regulation cannot remain subordinate to municipal or commercial interests. On the global stage, India urgently needs a specialised “green cadre” to engage with climate finance, carbon markets, and environmental diplomacy. IFS officers should be integral members of India’s delegations to international climate negotiations, including the Conferences of Parties (COPs). Domestically, the service should be designated as the regulator of India’s emerging carbon credit market. Rather than remaining a cost centre focused solely on afforestation, the Forest Department must develop expertise in quantifying carbon sequestration and monetising ecosystem services, transforming conservation into a revenue-generating enterprise. Eco-tourism, medicinal plant cultivation, and large-scale water harvesting should be promoted through dedicated wings, ensuring livelihoods for forest-fringe communities while safeguarding ecological integrity.

Technology must become a cornerstone of modern forest management. Managing forests in 2025 using outdated maps is untenable. Drones, satellite imagery, and artificial intelligence should be mainstream tools — not only for fire detection, but for real-time monitoring of encroachments, offences, and ecological health. Every Range Officer should have access to a digital dashboard synthesising historical and live data. Field staff must be trained in forensic techniques, including DNA sampling, to ensure that wildlife crimes and illegal logging cases lead to swift and certain convictions. The long-term success of the IFS, however, hinges on community partnership. Forest governance improves dramatically when forest dwellers become stakeholders rather than subjects. Joint Forest Management (JFM) demonstrated the power of community involvement, but second-generation reforms are long overdue. JFM committees should be legally empowered as forest officers under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, enabling genuine co-management. Conflicts between the Forest Rights Act and JFM must be resolved, and communities should receive a direct share of carbon credit revenues generated by their forests. When people perceive forests as a long-term asset — a "fixed deposit" — the need for coercive policing diminishes. Finally, no reform can succeed without a strong research foundation. The Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), despite its potential, remains underfunded and constrained. Originally envisioned as an autonomous institution akin to ICAR or CSIR, it must be transformed into a full-fledged Department of Forest Research with adequate resources, autonomy, and a national mandate for technology development and extension. A dedicated Central Forest Research cadre should be created, and institutional reforms such as shifting ICFRE’s headquarters to Delhi must be considered to enhance visibility and influence.

The time has come to remove the “wings” that constrain the Indian Forest Service and give it an “engine” that truly sings. Political and administrative leadership must provide vision, authority, and resources. In an era defined by climate change, water stress, and ecological uncertainty, a reimagined and empowered IFS is not a luxury; it is a national imperative.

The writer is former Director-General ICFRE in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; views are personal