Answer

Introduction

India’s forest governance remains tethered to the Indian Forest Act of 1927, a colonial legacy designed for commercial timber extraction rather than conservation. This centralized authority creates a mismatch with local socio-ecological realities, leading to persistent conflicts over land rights, biodiversity loss, and the marginalization of tribal communities.

Body

Why Mere Modernisation is Insufficient

• Technological Tunnel Vision: Using drones and satellites for surveillance without addressing underlying land tenure issues merely “automates” colonial-style policing of forest dwellers.
  Eg: The Van Mitra app in several states has been criticized for digitizing exclusion rather than empowering local forest committees.
• Affinitive Silviculture Bias: Modernizing through monoculture plantations (like eucalyptus) focuses on “green cover” statistics rather than restoring the complex functional biodiversity of native forests.
  Eg: The Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA) often funds plantations on community lands, displacing traditional grazing zones.
• Centralised Carbon Creditism: Treating forests solely as “carbon sinks” for global trade ignores their role as “living landscapes” for millions of forest-dependent people.
  Eg: Experts warn that Article 6 of the Paris Agreement might lead to “green grabbing” if local rights are not legally secured.
• Bureaucratic Hegemony Persistence: Elevating the DFO’s (Divisional Forest Officer) power through digital tools doesn’t change the “command and control” mindset inherited from the British.
  Eg: Discrepancies between the Forest Conservation Amendment Act 2023 and the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 highlight this persistent legislative friction.
• Inadequate Community Consultation: Modern “Joint Forest Management” (JFM) often remains a top-down process where the Forest Department retains veto power over Gram Sabhas.

The Need for a Comprehensive Revamp

• Prioritising Community Rights: Shifting governance from “State-managed” to “Community-led” by strictly implementing Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights under the FRA 2006.
  Eg: Odisha has emerged as a leader by recognizing over 4,000 CFR titles, empowering tribes to manage and sell minor forest produce.
• Democratising the DFO: Redefining the role of the Forest Department from “landlords” to “technical facilitators” who assist Gram Sabhas in conservation science.
  Eg: In Chhattisgarh, the state has started integrating Gram Sabha-approved management plans into the official working plans of the department.
• Ecological Compensation Reform: Revamping the Net Present Value (NPV) mechanism to ensure that compensation for forest diversion goes directly to the affected local communities.
• Landscape-Level Management: Moving away from rigid administrative boundaries to “ecological corridors” that accommodate the migratory needs of wildlife and pastoralists.
  Eg: The Project Tiger 2.0 framework now emphasizes “co-existence” zones over the strictly “exclusive” core-buffer model.
• Inter-Departmental Convergence: Aligning the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the Environment Ministry to resolve the “dual-authority” deadlock over forest land.
• Legal Pluralism Recognition: Integrating traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) into forest management laws to protect sacred groves and indigenous conservation practices.

Conclusion

The path to resilient forests lies in democratizing conservation. A comprehensive revamp must replace “protection through exclusion” with “governance through partnership.” By legally empowering the Gram Sabha as the primary custodian of forest wealth, India can resolve colonial-era conflicts and build a sustainable socio-ecological future that respects both biodiversity and human dignity.

DOWNLOAD PDF