Recently, the Chhattisgarh forest division issued a letter designating itself because the nodal company for implementing neighborhood forest useful resource rights (CFRR) beneath the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. CFRR, a transformative provision of the FRA, recognises the correct of gram sabhas to handle their customary forests. It seeks to rectify the injustices of colonial forest consolidation which dispossessed native communities and supplanted their conventional administration establishments with centralised state management.
Not solely was this usurpation of the nodal function opposite to the FRA, however the letter violated gram sabhas’ statutory authority to implement regionally developed administration plans of their neighborhood forest useful resource (CFR) areas by insisting on a mannequin plan from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA). This isn’t required by regulation. It additionally prohibited different departments or NGOs from supporting gram sabhas in CFRR administration planning.
The letter was withdrawn after a spirited grassroots mobilisation by gram sabhas, native elected representatives, and Adivasi rights teams. Nonetheless, the persistent assault on gram sabhas’ autonomy in managing their forests calls for a more in-depth have a look at how forests must be managed beneath the FRA.
Forest administration
Traditionally, forests beneath authorities management (excluding wildlife sanctuaries or nationwide parks) have been managed by forest departments’ working plans. These plans are rooted within the colonial misnomer of “scientific forestry”, i.e., planning and harvesting to maximise timber manufacturing. Ecologists, beginning with Madhav Gadgil, questioned this strategy, particularly since early working plans even included clearfelling pure forests and changing them with single-species plantations. The decline in India’s forests, evidenced by the unfold of invasive species and the rise in degraded forest areas, has fuelled doubts in regards to the appropriateness of working plans. However for forest departments, they continue to be an article of religion to construction their operations and mobilise monetary sources.
In forest-rich central India, the persevering with emphasis of working plans on timber extraction, which restricts communities’ entry and alters the composition of forests, was met with resistance even earlier than Independence. Whereas working plans have begun to think about restoration and wildlife conservation targets, they continue to be merchandise of bureaucratic writ, largely indifferent from native livelihoods and closed to unbiased scientific scrutiny.
The FRA’s radically totally different imaginative and prescient recognises the integral function of native communities within the “very survival and sustainability” of forests. CFR administration plans are to be developed by gram sabhas to prioritise native wants and tackle present issues. These plans shall be “built-in” with working plans by the gram sabha. In different phrases, working plans will now not apply in CFR areas, as a result of communities will handle forests with a special goal and at a lot finer scales.
Over 10,000 gram sabhas have acquired CFRR titles in India, however maybe lower than 1,000 have ready their CFR administration plans. Even their implementation is constrained by the refusal of forest departments to recognise their legitimacy and assist gram sabhas. As an alternative, they’ve pursued a technique of attrition, delaying or rejecting CFRR claims, trying to revoke CFRR titles, and denying funds to CFRR-holding gram sabhas. Their intention to retain colonial energy is hid beneath arguments that communities lack the flexibility to handle forests scientifically.
MoTA’s vacillating responses haven’t helped. In 2015, it issued pointers that gram sabhas can use easy codecs for his or her plans, however later got here beneath stress to change its stand. A 2024 joint letter with the Atmosphere Ministry required CFR administration plans to adapt to the Nationwide Working Plan Code (NWPC) and even urged the involvement of foresters of their preparation. This violates the FRA’s letter and spirit.
Addressing the bogeyman
Even based on the NWPC, a working plan ought to define “the aim with which a forest must be managed in order to finest meet the pursuits and needs of the proprietor, and point out the means by which the aim could also be completed.” But, the prolonged processes and data-intensive codecs that the NWPC prescribes carry the hangover of maximising timber yield. In distinction, forest administration by gram sabhas will seemingly pursue a number of livelihood wants, for which the NWPC gives little steerage.
Vital parts of working plans are dedicated to cataloguing native circumstances, however they summary their complexities to concentrate on the forest crop (not ecosystem). A gram sabha’s plan needn’t do the identical as a result of these insights are a part of their lived expertise. The variable impacts of local weather change additionally problem the linear trajectories of working plans, which want extra adaptive responses that gram sabhas provide. CFRR calls for shedding historic baggage and embracing new potentialities.
The trail ahead is clear. The Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan, launched by the Central authorities final 12 months, launched an indicative framework for CFR administration plans. Whereas the framework will be improved, it may be achieved by versatile and iterative apply by gram sabhas. MoTA should reject any try and derail CFR administration by the crimson herring of NWPC compliance. And forest departments should present funds and safety when required and discard a timber-oriented science in favour of a special science of a people-friendly forest administration.
Gautam Aredath, coverage analyst on the Ashoka Belief for Analysis in Ecology and the Atmosphere; Sharachchandra Lele, distinguished fellow on the Ashoka Belief for Analysis in Ecology and the Atmosphere. Views are private
Revealed – July 16, 2025 01:55 am IST
