The Forest Rights Act seeks to rectify historical injustices faced by forest-dwelling communities and promote democratic forest governance. 

• However, challenges in its implementation, including political and bureaucratic resistance and slow recognition of community forest rights, persist.

Forest Rights Act (FRA) 

• The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, commonly known as the Forest Rights Act (FRA), was passed by the Lok Sabha and endorsed by the Rajya Sabha on 18 December 2006. 
• It marked a significant step in India’s socio-environmental legislation, aiming to resolve the longstanding conflict over alleged ‘forest encroachments’ and promote a democratic, bottom-up forest governance system. 

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Colonial Injustice and the Roots of the FRA

• Pre-Colonial Forest Governance: 
  • Before British colonialism, local communities in India had customary rights over forests, including the use and management of resources and rights to shifting cultivation. 
  • Even when local rulers claimed certain forest rights, such as hunting privileges, local communities continued to have access to the forests’ other benefits.

• 1878 Indian Forest Act: This act marked the start of widespread displacement and disenfranchisement of forest-dwelling communities.
• Imperial Forest Department: The Imperial Forest Department was created to manage forests for timber and revenue, and its job was also to protect state-owned forests from local communities, who were now considered trespassers.
• Injustices: The British government viewed forests primarily as a timber resource for revenue generation, leading to several forms of injustice:
  • Shifting cultivation was banned.
  • The survey and settlement of agricultural lands were incomplete and biased in favour of the state.
  • To ensure labour for forestry, ‘forest villages’ were created, where land was leased to mostly Adivasi families in exchange for (virtually) bonded labour.
  • Since forests became state property, access to forest resources was restricted, temporary, and chargeable, controlled by a forest bureaucracy with police powers.
    • Any rights to use forest resources were seen as ‘privileges’ that could be changed or taken away. 
  • Even when access was allowed, local communities had no say in managing the forests, as the state exploited the land and treated it as open-access for logging.

Post-Independence Continuation of Injustices

• Integration of Princely States and Forest Land Ownership:  In the hurry to assimilate princely States and zamindari estates into the Union, their forest areas were declared state property without proper inquiry into who was residing in them. 
  • Legitimate residents and cultivators became ‘encroachers’ overnight. 
• Unregulated Leasing of Forest Lands: Later, during the ‘Grow More Food’ campaign and other initiatives aimed at meeting the needs of a growing population, forest lands were leased out but never officially regularised. 
• Displacement of Communities: Communities displaced by dams were not provided with alternative land, and many ended up encroaching on forest land elsewhere. 
  • Meanwhile, forest exploitation continued as before, now justified in the name of national development.
• New Acts Deeping Injustices: The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, designed with the same concept of “eminent domain,” further deepened the injustices. 
• Ignoring Local Communities for Development Projects: Many communities were forcibly resettled for wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. 
  • When forests were diverted for development, local communities’ views or consent were ignored, and despite high fees under the Net Present Value framework, they received no compensation for lost livelihoods.

Check Out UPSC NCERT Textbooks From PW Store

Key Provisions of the FRA

The FRA was introduced to address these historical injustices and establish a more equitable framework for forest governance.

• Recognition of Individual Forest Rights (IFRs): The FRA recognizes individual rights of forest dwellers to continue habitation, cultivation, and other activities they have been engaged in prior to December 2005.
• Forest Villages to Revenue Villages: Forest villages are to be converted into revenue villages, allowing legal recognition of forest dwellers’ rights.
• Community Forest Rights (CFRs) and Decentralisation: Communities are granted the right to manage forests within their customary boundaries, even in sanctuaries and national parks.
• Democratic Procedures for Wildlife and Forest Diversion: The FRA establishes a democratic procedure for wildlife conservation and forest diversion that involves local community consent.                                      
  • Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Niyamgiri case reaffirmed these rights, granting communities a say in whether their forests should be diverted for development projects.

Challenges in FRA Implementation

• Political Opportunism: Many politicians have viewed the FRA as a means to regularise ‘encroachments’ rather than address the historical injustices of forest governance. Some even encouraged illegal cultivation.
• Forest Department Resistance: There has been resistance from the forest bureaucracy, which has viewed the recognition of community rights as a threat to its control over forest management.
• Bureaucratic Apathy: The implementation process has been slow and plagued by inefficiencies, with communities facing obstacles such as non-transparent rejections and arbitrary partial recognition of claims.
• Exceptions: Some states, like Maharashtra and Odisha, have made progress in recognizing CFRs, with Maharashtra leading the way by allowing villages to manage their own forests. 
  • However, widespread recognition and activation of CFRs remain a distant goal, and in many states, CFRs have been systematically ignored or rejected.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Conclusion

The Forest Rights Act, despite its progressive intent, has struggled with political will, bureaucratic resistance, and misimplementation, hindering its potential to rectify historical injustices. A renewed commitment to community rights and decentralised forest governance is essential, requiring stronger political leadership to ensure meaningful change.

DOWNLOAD PDF