18 July 2024 – The Indian Express

Details about the Forest Rights Act

• The Lok Sabha’s Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act was approved by the Rajya Sabha on December 18, 2006. The Forest Rights Act, also referred to as the FRA, is a landmark piece of socio-environmental legislation in India that aims to resolve the long-running dispute over alleged “forest encroachments.” It also aims to establish a bottom-up, far more democratic system of forest governance.
• Therefore, the FRA has only just started to fulfil its promise of releasing forest people from historical injustices and democratising forest governance, 17 years after it was passed.

What are the provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006?

• The Act grants forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDST) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD), who have been living in these forests for many generations, recognition and the right to occupy forest land.
• Any individual or group that has lived mostly on forest land for legitimate subsistence needs for at least three generations (75 years) prior to December 13, 2005, may also claim forest rights.
• It guarantees the FDST and OTFD’s means of subsistence and food security while fortifying the forest conservation regime.
• The process of identifying the kind and scope of the individual forest rights (IFR), community forest rights (CFR), or both that may be granted to FDST and OTFD may be started by the Gramme Sabha.

The Act separates rights into four categories:

• Title rights: Up to a maximum of 4 hectares of land farmed by tribal people or forest dwellers, it grants FDST and OTFD the right of ownership. No new land will be awarded; ownership is limited to the property that the concerned family is currently cultivating.
• Use rights: Dwellers have the ability to use areas for grazing and the extraction of minor forest products.
• Rights to relief and development: The ability to rebuild after being forcibly or illegally evicted, as well as the right to necessities, subject to limitations for the preservation of forests.
• Rights related to forest management: These include the ability to preserve, replenish, maintain, and manage any community forest resource that has historically been preserved and conserved for long-term usage.

What Justification existed for the FRA’s 2006 Implementation?

• The FRA, 2006 was put into effect to acknowledge and grant Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been living in these forests for generations—but whose rights could not be documented—the right to occupy and enjoy the forest.
• The Act also attempted to rectify the past injustices inflicted on the communities living in forests as a result of colonial and post-colonial India’s forest management practices, which failed to recognise these populations’ symbiotic relationship with the woods.
• The Act also aimed to safeguard forest inhabitants from forcible evictions and displacement, to enable them to access and utilise forest resources in a sustainable way, and to preserve biodiversity and ecological balance.

What injustices did the communities of forest dwellers face?

• Pre-Columbian Period: Local communities possessed customary rights over forests within their borders or perhaps extending farther afield prior to colonialism. Local communities retained access to all other benefits from the forests, even in cases when monarchs or chieftains claimed hunting rights in particular forests.
• Colonial Era: The Indian Forest Act of 1878 was enacted by the colonial government and was founded on the principle of “eminent domain,” which holds that the monarch is always the owner of all property.
• The Imperial Forest Department was founded to increase revenue and timber harvesting by transforming the forest.
• It was also charged with defending’state’ land from nearby villages, who were now considered trespassers.
• This colonial forest policy resulted in a variety of injustices. Viz:
• With woods being viewed mainly as a source of timber, shifting cultivation was outlawed.
• The so-called agricultural land settlement and survey was unfinished and skewed in the state’s benefit.
• “Forest Villages,” where households (mainly Adivasis) rented forest land for cultivation in exchange for forced labour (essentially bound), were established to secure workforce for forestry activities.
• Forests were now state property, therefore access to forest products was restricted, time-limited, fee-based, and always subject to the police-like forest bureaucracy.
• Any accommodations made to local livelihood needs were referred to as “privileges,” which were subject to change or withdrawal at any time.
• The state logged valuable forests and made heavily exploited areas de facto open-access, so even in cases where access was allowed, the local population had no say over how the forest was managed.

After Independence Period:

• Following Independence, not much changed. In a rush to unite princely States and zamindari estates, the government annexed their forest regions without first determining the legal status of the local population.
• Individuals who had been there for many generations were suddenly perceived as “encroachers.”
• Then, in an effort to accommodate a burgeoning population, the government leased out forest tracts under several initiatives including “Grow More Food,” although these were never adequately regulated.
• Without alternate areas, people uprooted by dams eventually found themselves “encroaching” on other people’s forest land.
• Eminent domain was again the basis for the creation of the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 and the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972.
• National parks and sanctuaries were established by coercing several communities.
• The locals’ opinions were disregarded when woods were used for development, and even though they were charged hefty fees, they weren’t fairly compensated for the disruption to their way of life.

How does the 2006 Forest Rights Act aid in redressing these historical injustices?

• First and foremost, the FRA is noteworthy for recognising the persistence of these historical (colonial) injustices even after independence. There are then three main types of redress.
• Individual forest rights (IFRs) are recognised in order to continue habitation, cultivation, and other activities that were carried out prior to December 2005, so addressing the issue of so-called “encroachments.”
• Following complete recognition of their rights, forest communities are to be transformed into revenue villages.
• The rights of village communities to use and access forests, to possess and sell small-scale forest products, and—above all—to manage forests within their customary boundaries—including in sanctuaries and national parks—are acknowledged in order to address the issue of access and control.
• By connecting management power and accountability to community rights, it guarantees decentralised forest governance.
• The Act establishes a democratic process for determining when and if community rights must be restricted or eliminated in order to protect wildlife.
• A community that owns a forest immediately has the right to participate in and even veto any changes made to the forest. In the event that adjustments are made, they also have the right to reimbursement.
• States may still implement such consent processes, even though the FCA Amendment 2023 and the Forest Conservation Rules 2022 aim to circumvent this prerogative.
• What Problems Are There With the Forest Rights Act’s Implementation?
• Community Rights vs. Individual Rights: In several jurisdictions, politicians have prioritised individual rights over community rights, transforming the Act into a “encroachment regularisation” programme. The acknowledgement and defence of community rights, which are crucial for sustainable forest management, are ignored by this strategy.
• Individual Forest Rights (IFRs) Have Not Been Properly Recognised: The Forest Department’s opposition, other departments’ indifference, and improper use of technology have all contributed to the inadequate identification of IFRs. During the filing procedure, claimants are subjected to unfair partial recognitions and erroneous, opaque rejections.
• Digital Processes in Low Literacy Areas: In Madhya Pradesh, the implementation of digital processes, such the Van-Mitra software, has presented difficulties due to low literacy rates and insufficient connection. This makes already-existing injustices worse and makes it more difficult to file and process disputes efficiently.
• Inadequate Acknowledgment of Community Forest Rights (CFRs): One major weakness in the implementation of Forest Rights Acts (FRAs) is the tardy and insufficient acknowledgment of community rights to manage and access forests, or CFRs. Local people’ ability to manage their forests may be hampered by the forest bureaucracy’s opposition to these rights.
• Restricted Recognition of CFRs in other States: Although certain states, including Maharashtra, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh, have made some progress towards CFR recognition, other states have not. Maharashtra is a good example of how to activate CFRs by de-nationalizing small-scale forest products, but problems still exist, particularly in regions that could be used for mining.
• Convenient for Development Lobby and Conservationists: The development lobby and hardline conservationists benefit from the non-recognition of community rights. Protected area communities are susceptible to “voluntary rehabilitation,” which involves the exploitation of forests for mining or dam construction without the approval of the affected communities.
• The topic of “forest villages” has not received enough attention in the majority of states, which suggests a lack of thorough implementation.

What is the best course of action?

• Empowerment of Gramme Sabha: Make sure that the village-level self-government, or Gramme Sabha, is actively involved in making decisions about how to manage the forests.
• Promoting the involvement of right holders in decision-making procedures can help to guarantee that their requirements and viewpoints are taken into account.
• Education and Training: To educate forest inhabitants about their rights under the FRA, hold awareness campaigns and training sessions.
• Building Capacity: Increase the ability of civil society groups to defend and promote the rights of people who live in forests.
• Monitoring Mechanisms: Put in place monitoring procedures to make sure the Forest Department and other pertinent authorities follow the FRA’s goals and regulations.
• Accountability mechanisms: Make sure that accountable authorities are held accountable for any FRA infractions or non-compliance by putting accountability mechanisms in place.
• Integrated Planning: Create integrated plans that respect the rights and interests of forest inhabitants while taking into account the needs of forests for both development and protection.
• Consultation Procedures: To strike a balance between development and conservation objectives, consultative procedures involving all stakeholders should be used.

Way Forward:

• Some states want to recognise rights as soon as possible, but in places like Chhattisgarh, quick implementation frequently benefits the Forest Department, twisting rights and giving bureaucrats too much power. Political leaders, bureaucrats, and environmentalists must understand and support the FRA’s core principles in order to address this problem. In the absence of such measures, historical injustices will persist, democratic forest governance will be absent, and the potential for community-led conservation and sustainable livelihoods would remain untapped.