The tribal communities must be involved in the initiatives concerning forests conservation and tribal welfare. Their absence in implementation of these schemes could harm forest health, environmental sustainability and impact ecological future of the whole country
Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) admittedly administers the Forest Rights Act 2006 (FRA) legislated with the laudable objectives of recognition and vesting of Forest Rights in Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDSTs) & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) and their communities, their empowerment, and sustainable management and utilisation of forests and forest resources.
While recognition of individual forest rights commonly called as grant of ‘patta’ became a priority item for obvious reasons, the CFR Guidelines (CFRG) for management of Community Forest Resources got issued in September 2023. An analysis of these guidelines along with the “Consolidated Guidelines for FRA related initiatives under Pradhan Mantri Janjatiya Unnat Gram Abhiyan (PM-JUGA)” also issued by MoTA in September 2024 reveals several key issues that suggest the need to rectify significant disconnects between the guidelines and the fundamental principles behind FRA.
Notwithstanding some of the apparent legal and factual inaccuracies in the CFRG that create confusion and may allow incorrect implementation on the ground, the major ones are an incorrect mention of the section for recognition and vesting of forest rights, and the statement that land is “vested in a community” under FRA.
This is contrary to the actual legal position that FRA vests ‘forest rights’ and does not grant ownership of the forest land. The CFRG also appears to expand the scope and authority of the Gram Sabha and other institutions beyond what is stipulated in the FRA. It declares “deemed replacement”, by the Community Forest Resource Management Committees (CFRMCs) created by Gram Sabha, of all existing non-statutory forest management committees that are formed under various state Government’s authorities for forest areas under forest department’s occupation and management.
Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) that include management are applicable only for a specific category of forest area, defined as a Community Forest Resource and further elaborated as “customary common forest land” within village’s traditional and customary village boundary.
The customary common land is, in fact, a unique entity. It is land under the collective occupation of a community. On such lands, rights are shared, with specific uses like grazing or gathering minor forest produce determined by community norms rather than individual claims. Further, the land is managed through traditional practices and rules, not formal laws, and its use and management are guided by the community’s established traditions and needs. In consonance with these characteristics, FRA mandates that the forest area eligible for CFRR must be in the occupation of the claimant community before 13-12-2005 and also that the community must have been protecting and conserving the same for sustainable use.
FRA, through its section 3(1)(i), intended to formalise the management of customary common forest lands and empower the concerned occupant community of FDSTs and/or OTFDs for the purpose. The guidelines, in contrast, authorise a Gram Sabha’s committee i.e. CFMRC to manage CFRR and deprive, ironically, the eligible communities from CFRR as also from the potential empowerment under section 5 of the FRA. Some customary common forest lands that could fulfil the criteria of ‘community forest resource’ but have been left out could be shamlat forests in Himachal Pradesh, Van Panchayats in Uttarakhand, community-managed areas in the Northeast, and Gairans and Sacred Groves in forest lands. The current recognition of CFRR, in contrast to the above, is being done on forest lands in the possession and management of the Forest Department which are, in fact, ineligible for CFRR. This illegality, if allowed to continue, is not only going to breed a rift between people and the Government creating potentially a fertile ground for undesirable elements but also harm the sustainability of the forest resources in the long run.
PM-JUGA FRA’s strong focus on achieving “saturation” through digitalisation and potential area mapping prioritises quantity over quality. MoTA itself had used the plank of the need for considerable qualitative improvement in FRA’s implementation nationwide to get a stay on the order for eviction of individuals with rejected claims in the Hon. Supreme Court WP No. 109/2008 (Wildlife First vs Union of India and Ors.).
Considering the currently prevalent implementation situation in various states and especially regarding that related to community forest resource rights, the proposed approach risks overlooking robust, on-ground verification and may legitimise past errors in legacy data without a clear mechanism for correction or auditing already granted titles.
The guidelines apparently foster a parallel bureaucratic centralisation keeping the institution and domain knowledge of the forest department out of the scheme of things. The creation of FRA Cells and transfer of the role and responsibilities of drafting and implementing Community Forest Resource management plans (CFRMP) to “technical partners”, with centralised financial approval from the Government of India level, sidelines even the authority of such FDST and OTFD communities that have traditionally been managing the customary common forest lands. Such attempts amount to serving the interest of outside groups to the disadvantage of actual beneficiaries and their empowerment.
Funding priorities for CFRMP lean heavily toward development-focused activities and activities like constructing check dams and storage buildings, with a notable absence of specific, enforceable safeguards ensuring ecological improvement, monitoring, and impact assessment. The accountability framework is primarily centred on financial compliance and progress reports, not substantive ecological outcomes.
The negative outcomes in some areas under CFRRs include overexploitation of resources, illegal fellings, frequent forest fires, and the emergence of middlemen in minor forest produce trade. Gadchiroli district, for example, has a huge area under CFRR, though recognised without fulfilment of the necessary statutory criteria for the same. It suffers today, however, with the highest occurrence of forest fires in the country as reported by the Forest Survey of India in its latest two consecutive State of Forest Reports. There is no system of data management in the zilla parishad office to assess, monitor and act on various parameters eg. exploitation of minor forest produce and specifically bamboo despite reported cases of its over-exploitation.
Without proper oversight and a clear framework for sustainable management, the dual objective of the FRA of empowering the communities of FDST & OTFD and sustainability of forest resources cannot be met. The guidelines should be amended to correct inaccuracies and align the powers of the FDST and OTFD Communities vis a vis that of the Gram Sabha within the explicit provisions of the FRA for the honestly determined community forest resource areas. Further, rights’ recognition needs to be balanced with long-term forest conservation and sustainability in the interest of genuine beneficiaries of FRA. Without these critical adjustments, there is a risk that the PM-JUGA initiatives also, despite their significant investment and noble intent, may inadvertently perpetuate the flaws of past FRA implementation, leading to the erosion of forest resources and a missed opportunity for true conservation aligned with tribal welfare.
The mass scale recognition of CFRRs on inherently ineligible forest lands under Forest Department’ occupation, governance, and management under working plans is breeding conflicts whose benefits are taken by undesirable elements. While streamlining of both the guidelines is a must to ensure sustainability through genuine, community-led, and ecologically sound interventions, the previously granted CFRRs also need to be revisited to ensure they are legally tenable; and the forests, our national wealth, do not suffer the impact of any overreach and contradictions.
Avoiding associating Forestry sector in such initiatives will do little to serve the dual objectives of tribal welfare and forest conservation and would risk over-extraction and other practices that could harm forest health and sustainability impacting not just the local stakeholders but the ecological future of the whole country.
BKP Sinha is Former PCCF, UP and Arvind Kumar Jha is Former PCCF, Maharashtra