Date : 19/12/2023

Relevance: GS Paper 2 – Polity – Legislation

Keywords: FRA, IFRs, Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, De-nationalization of minor forest produce

Context-

On December 18, 2006, the Rajya Sabha endorsed the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, commonly known as the Forest Rights Act (FRA). This legislation aimed to rectify historical injustices perpetrated by colonial forest policies, acknowledging the customary rights of local communities over forests. Despite its transformative potential, the FRA's implementation has faced numerous challenges, including political opportunism, resistance from foresters, bureaucratic apathy, and widespread misconceptions.

Historical Injustices:

To comprehend the significance of the FRA, it is essential to understand the historical injustices that necessitated its enactment. Prior to colonialism, local communities enjoyed customary rights over forests, but the colonial Indian Forest Act of 1878 disrupted these traditions. The Imperial Forest Department, established during colonial rule, exploited forests for timber and revenue, treating local communities as trespassers. Shifting cultivation was banned, and forest access became limited and subject to the control of the forest bureaucracy.

Post-Independence, the injustices persisted and worsened. Forest lands were declared state property without proper inquiry, displacing legitimate residents and cultivators who were then labeled as 'encroachers.' Forest exploitation continued in the name of national interest. The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 further exacerbated the situation, forcibly resettling communities for conservation purposes and diverting forests for development projects without considering local views or consent.

The FRA addressed these historical injustices by recognizing individual forest rights (IFRs) to habitation and cultivation existing before December 2005. Forest villages were to be converted into revenue villages, and the Act granted rights to village communities to access and use forests, own and sell minor forest produce, and manage forests within their customary boundaries. This provision marked a significant shift towards decentralized forest governance, linking management authority to community rights. The Act also established a democratic procedure for addressing conflicts between wildlife conservation and community rights.

Distortions in Implementation:

Despite the FRA's progressive provisions, its implementation has been marred by distortions and challenges. Many states focused solely on individual rights, portraying the Act as an 'encroachment regularization' scheme. Shabby recognition of individual rights, resistance from the Forest Department, and arbitrary partial recognitions have created hardships for claimants. Digital processes imposed in areas with poor connectivity and literacy have further marginalized communities.

The recognition of community rights to access and manage forests (community forest rights or CFRs) has been slow and incomplete. The entrenched forest bureaucracy vehemently opposes these rights, fearing a loss of control. Only a few states, such as Maharashtra, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh, have substantially recognized CFRs, but even here, challenges persist, and illegal non-recognition in potential mining areas has led to unrest.

The non-recognition of community rights benefits hardline conservationists and the development lobby, allowing communities in protected areas to be vulnerable to 'voluntary rehabilitation' and facilitating forest handovers for mining or dams without community consent.

Fathom the FRA’s Intent:

As political regimes change and the memory of the struggle for the FRA fades, calls to shut down its implementation have emerged. Some states have discussed 'saturating' rights recognition in mission mode, but this risks playing into the hands of the Forest Department and distorting rights recognition. Without a genuine appreciation of the spirit and intent of the FRA by political leaders, bureaucrats, and environmentalists, historical injustices will persist, forest governance will remain undemocratic, and the potential for community-led forest conservation and sustainable livelihoods will go unrealized.

Challenges and Opportunities in Implementation:

The challenges in FRA implementation are multifaceted. Political opportunism and a focus on individual rights have led to a neglect of community rights. Forest Department resistance, bureaucratic apathy, and the misuse of technology have impeded the smooth recognition of rights. The complex issue of 'forest villages' remains unaddressed in many states, perpetuating historical injustices.

However, there are also success stories, particularly in Maharashtra, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh, where substantial recognition of community rights has occurred. In Maharashtra, the de-nationalization of minor forest produce has empowered communities to manage their own forests. These positive examples underscore the potential for genuine, community-led forest governance and the realization of sustainable livelihoods.

The Role of Political Leadership and Bureaucracy:

Political leaders and bureaucrats play a pivotal role in shaping the implementation of the FRA. Unfortunately, in many states, the focus has been on individual rights, often driven by short-term political gains. Bureaucratic resistance, influenced by a deeply entrenched colonial-era forest bureaucracy, poses a significant barrier to the recognition of community rights. The challenge lies in shifting perspectives from viewing forest-dwellers as mere beneficiaries to recognizing them as autonomous users and managers of their own forests.

Conservation and Development Dilemma:

The FRA strikes a delicate balance between conservation and development. While recognizing the historical injustices and providing mechanisms for community-led conservation, it also acknowledges the need for curtailing or extinguishing community rights in certain situations for wildlife conservation. However, this delicate balance is under threat, with some states attempting to bypass community consent mechanisms through legislative amendments. The tension between conservation imperatives and the rights of forest-dwellers remains a critical challenge.

Conclusion

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, enacted in 2006, represents a crucial milestone in India's socio-environmental legislation. Despite its transformative potential, the FRA faces formidable challenges in implementation, including political opportunism, bureaucratic resistance, and misconceptions. To realize the Act's true intent, there is a pressing need for political leaders, bureaucrats, and environmentalists to appreciate the spirit of the FRA and work collaboratively towards rectifying historical injustices, fostering democratic forest governance, and unlocking the vast potential for community-led conservation and sustainable livelihoods. Only through a concerted effort can the FRA fulfill its promise and pave the way for a more equitable and environmentally sustainable future.

Source- The Hindu