Forest Rights Act
Benefits of the Act:
- Since the STs are generally seen to be backward, it acknowledges their rights.
- Poaching and illegal tree-cutting have decreased as a result of the strict enforcement of regulations in the “protected areas.”
- The majority of woodland inhabitants agreed on this.
Problems with the Act:
- The Forest Rights Act (FRA) allows a ceiling of four hectares. Most forest inhabitants claimed no more than one acre of land.
- Compared to the STs, the rejection rate of the other traditional forest residents was twice as high.
- Regarding the STs, new encroachments were cited as the cause.
- Revenue lands or “paisari bhoomis,” or wasteland and forest areas not designated as protected or reserved forests, are considered claimed lands.
- In a single family, multiple applications were made.
- Failure to show proof of dependency and 75 years of residence on forest land apply to other traditional forest inhabitants.
The significance of the Act:
- It aims to resolve the protracted dispute over purported “forest encroachments.”
- It aims to establish a bottom-up, far more democratic system of forest governance.
FRA’s historical context:
- However, the colonial occupation of India’s woods severely disrupted customs.
- The Imperial Forest Department was founded to maximise revenue and timber harvesting by transforming the forest.
- Its job was to keep local communities from trespassing on what was now considered “state” property.
- Inequalities brought about by colonial forest policy:
- It was forbidden to shift farming since forests were mostly considered a source of lumber.
- The so-called agricultural land settlement and survey was unfinished and skewed in the state’s favour.
- “Forest villages,” where forest land was leased for cultivation to (mainly Adivasi) households in exchange for forced (nearly bonded) labour, were established to secure labour for forestry activities.
- Any accommodations made to local livelihood needs were referred to as “privileges,” which were subject to change or withdrawal at any time.
- Since the state cleared significant forests and declared heavily used woodlands to be de facto open-access, the local community had no legal authority to manage the forest.
Following Independence:
- In a rush to include zamindari estates and princely kingdoms into the Union
- Without conducting a thorough investigation to determine who was residing there, the woodland tracts were proclaimed state property.
- Overnight, legitimate occupants and farmers turned into “encroachers.”
- Under the “Grow More Food” campaign and other measures, forest tracts were leased out.
- to accommodate a population that was expanding, but they were never made regular.
- Communities uprooted by dams found themselves “encroaching” on other forest lands because they were not provided with alternative lands.
Concerns regarding the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 (FCA) and the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972:
- When national parks and sanctuaries were being established, thousands of communities were forcibly relocated.
- Local communities’ opinions and agreement were not taken into account while “diverting” woods for development projects. Despite the project incurring high Net Present Value fees, the communities were not compensated for the impact on their livelihoods.
Benefits of FRA:
- First and foremost, it recognises the persistence of these historical (colonial) injustices after independence.
- 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.”
- Recognising village residents’ rights to use and access forests, as well as their ownership and sale of small amounts of forest products, helps to address the issue of control and access.
- to maintain woods in national parks and sanctuaries as well as inside their traditional borders.
- By connecting management authority 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 automatically has the right to compensation in the event that the forest is diverted, as well as the ability to vote on and even veto any changes made to it.
- In the Niyamgiri case, the Supreme Court upheld this right.
- Despite the fact that the FCA Amendment 2023 and the Forest Conservation Rules 2022 aim to circumvent this right
- States are still able to implement these consent procedures.
The Way Ahead:
- Politicians in the majority of States portrayed the Act as a “encroachment regularisation” programme, focusing only on individual rights.
- In certain areas, some even promoted illicit new cultivation.
- It is unfair to impose ridiculous digital procedures, like Madhya Pradesh’s VanMitra software, on communities with low literacy and internet access.
- In most States, not even the straightforward topic of “forest villages” has been addressed.
- The recognition of community rights to access and manage forests (also known as community forest rights, or CFRs) has been incredibly sluggish and incomplete.
- Only Maharashtra, Odisha, and, more recently, Chhattisgarh are States that have given CFRs significant recognition.
- Only Maharashtra, at least in Scheduled Areas, has made it possible for them to be activated by denationalising small forest products.
- Countless communities look after their own woodlands.
- The historical wrongs won’t be made right.
- The management of forests will continue to be deeply undemocratic.
- There will be no realisation of the huge possibilities for sustainable lives and community-led forest conservation.
