An uphill struggle to grow the Forest Rights Act

1. Historical Injustices

Colonial Forest Policies

Before colonialism, local communities enjoyed customary rights over forests, with traditions allowing them various benefits. However, the colonial Indian Forest Act of 1878, based on the notion of 'eminent domain,' marked a significant disruption. The act empowered the Imperial Forest Department to exploit forests for timber and revenue, treating local communities as trespassers.

Forms of Injustice

1. Shifting cultivation was banned, affecting traditional practices.
2. Biased survey and settlement of agricultural lands favoured the state.
3. The creation of 'forest villages' subjected Adivasi households to compulsory labour.
4. Limited and chargeable access to forest produce under the control of the forest bureaucracy.
5. Deprivation of the right to manage forests, turning valuable forests into de facto open access.

Post-Independence Challenges

The Princely States and Zamindari estates were assimilated into the Union without proper inquiry into legitimate residents. Residents and cultivators were labelled 'encroachers.'

Forest lands leased for development projects ignored local views and consent. Communities displaced by dams were not provided alternative lands, leading to 'encroachment' elsewhere.

Legal Frameworks as New Forms of Injustice

1. Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972: Led to forced resettlement for creating sanctuaries and national parks.
2. Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 (FCA): 'Diverting' forests for development projects neglected local consent and compensation for impacted livelihoods.
3. Forest Rights Act (FRA) as a Redress: The FRA acknowledges colonial injustices and their continuation post-independence.

The Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 stands as a landmark legislative effort in India, recognizing the historical injustices faced by forest communities and granting them fundamental rights over their traditional lands and resources. Before the FRA, colonial forest policies and subsequent post-independence regulations marginalized forest communities, treating them as trespassers in their own ancestral lands. The Act aims to correct these historical injustices by recognizing and upholding the customary rights of communities over forests, ensuring their sustainable management and livelihood security.

Key Provisions

• Individual Forest Rights (IFRs): Recognizes individual rights to cultivate land, collect forest produce, and build dwellings within forest boundaries for those residing there before December 2005.
• Community Forest Rights (CFRs): Grants communities the right to access, manage, and protect forests within their customary boundaries, including rights to non-timber forest produce, traditional knowledge systems, and biodiversity conservation.
• Gram Sabhas: Empowers village councils (Gram Sabhas) as the primary decision-making bodies for forest-related matters within their jurisdiction, promoting participatory governance.
• Process of Recognition: Establishes a process for communities to claim and document their forest rights through Gram Sabhas and Forest Committees, with provisions for appeals and dispute resolution.

3. Challenges and Injustices in FRA Implementation

Despite the Forest Rights Act (FRA) being a significant step towards recognizing individual and community rights, the implementation has faced distortions and challenges. In many states, the focus on individual rights, coupled with bureaucratic resistance, technology misuse, and political apathy, has led to an inadequate realization of the Act's intended objectives.

Challenges in Individual Rights Recognition

• Politicians in several states projected the FRA as an 'encroachment regularisation' scheme, emphasizing individual rights over broader community empowerment.
• Claimants faced hardships during claim filing due to faulty and non-transparent rejections, and arbitrary partial recognitions, contributing to a flawed implementation process.
• Imposing digital processes, like the VanMitra software in Madhya Pradesh, in areas with poor connectivity and literacy further marginalized claimants, continuing the injustice.
• The straightforward issue of 'forest villages' has not been adequately addressed in most states, perpetuating historical injustices.

Lacuna in Community Rights Recognition

• The recognition of Community Forest Rights (CFRs) has been slow and incomplete, with the forest bureaucracy resistant to these rights, fearing a loss of control.
• The colonial structure of the forest bureaucracy vehemently opposes CFRs, limiting the autonomy of forest dwellers and hindering the intended community forest governance.
• Only a few states, such as Maharashtra, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh, have substantially recognized CFRs. However, even in these cases, the activation of these rights faces challenges.
• Maharashtra stands out for enabling the activation of CFRs by denationalizing minor forest produce, allowing communities in scheduled areas to manage their forests. However, this practice is not widespread.

• The non-recognition of community rights serves the interests of hardline conservationists and the development lobby.
• Communities in Protected Areas become vulnerable to 'voluntary rehabilitation,' and forests can be handed over for mining or dams without community consent.
• Non-recognition places communities in Protected Areas in a precarious situation, making them easy targets for involuntary resettlement and jeopardizing their autonomy in managing their own forests.

4. The Essence of FRA

Despite the transformative potential of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), calls to halt its implementation have surfaced with changing political landscapes. In some states, the concept of 'saturating' rights recognition in a mission mode has been discussed. However, experiences from Chhattisgarh reveal that such accelerated approaches often lead to distorted implementation and reinforce technocratic control. Political leaders, bureaucrats, and environmentalists must grasp the spirit and intent of the FRA to address historical injustices, democratize forest governance, and unlock the vast potential for community-led conservation and sustainable livelihoods.

Challenges in Implementation Approaches

• Changing political dynamics have given rise to calls for shutting down the FRA's implementation, risking the neglect of its fundamental objectives.
• States adopting a 'saturating' rights recognition approach in mission mode risk falling into the trap of expedited implementation, often influenced by the Forest Department.
• Accelerated implementation may lead to distorted recognition of rights, potentially compromising the intended empowerment of forest-dwelling communities.

Preserving the Intent of the FRA

• Political leaders, bureaucrats, and environmentalists need to fully appreciate the spirit and intent of the FRA to ensure its objectives align with justice, empowerment, and sustainability.
• Recognizing the historical injustices embedded in colonial forest policies and post-independence actions is essential for meaningful implementation and redressal.
• Grasping the essence of the FRA paves the way for democratizing forest governance, fostering a more inclusive and participatory approach to decision-making.
• Understanding the true intent of the FRA unlocks the enormous potential for community-led forest conservation and sustainable livelihoods, fostering a harmonious relationship between communities and their natural surroundings.

5. Conclusion

To ensure the FRA's success and avoid distorted implementation, a collective effort is needed to uphold its original intent. This involves fostering a deep understanding of the Act's principles, addressing historical injustices, and committing to empowering forest-dwelling communities for sustainable and equitable forest governance. Advocacy, awareness, and continuous dialogue are vital components of preserving the true spirit of the FRA.