An uphill struggle to grow the Forest Rights Act

Last Updated19/12/2023

The Forest Rights Act (FRA), enacted in 2006, marks a watershed in India’s socio-environmental legislation.
It aimed to rectify historical injustices imposed on forest-dwelling communities during the colonial era.
Simultaneously, it seeks to create a much more democratic, bottom-up forest governance.
However, its implementation has been hindered by political opportunism, resistance from forest officials, bureaucratic apathy and misinformation.

Prior to colonialism, local communities enjoyed customary rights over forests in their vicinity or even a large region.
The colonial Indian Forest Act of 1878 disrupted traditional rights of local communities over forests, leading to significant injustices.
- Shifting cultivation was banned
- Forest villages were created with compulsory labour
- Access to forest produce became limited and controlled by the state.
Post-independence, forest areas were declared state property without proper inquiry.
This led to displacement of legitimate residents who were then labelled as 'encroachers.'
The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 further exacerbated injustices.
They forcibly resettled communities for conservation projects and development initiatives without their consent.

The FRA acknowledged historical injustices and sought redress through three key measures.
Recognition of Individual Forest Rights (IFRs) to continue habitation and cultivation existing before December 2005.
Conversion of forest villages into revenue villages after full rights recognition.
Recognition of Community Forest Rights (CFRs) promoting decentralized forest governance
- To access, use, own, sell minor forest produce
- To manage forests within customary boundaries
Finally, it lays down a democratic procedure for identifying whether and where wildlife conservation may require curtailing or extinguishing community rights.

The focus on individual rights by states, resistance from forest officials, and flawed digital processes have hampered the effective recognition of IFRs.
The biggest lacuna in FRA implementation is the extremely slow and incomplete recognition of community rights.
This hinders the realization of community-led forest conservation and sustainable livelihoods.
Some states like Maharashtra, Odisha and Chhattisgarh have made progress in CFR recognition.
However, the non-recognition of community rights remains convenient for conservationists and the development lobby.

Calls to shut down FRA implementation and saturating’ rights recognition in mission mode have emerged.
However, mission mode implementation leads to distorted rights recognition and reinstatement of technocratic control.

The political leaders, bureaucrats, and environmentalists need to appreciate the FRA's spirit and intent.
This is to address historical injustices, democratize forest governance, and unlock the potential for community-led forest conservation and sustainable livelihoods.