Source: The post Forest Rights Act returns forest stewardship to local communities has been created, based on the article “Contesting the future of forest governance” published in “The Hindu” on 16th July 2025
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 3 – Environment conservation
Context: The Chhattisgarh forest department recently claimed authority over community forest resource rights (CFRR), sparking protests. Though the letter was withdrawn, this episode revealed deeper conflicts between the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and centralized control, highlighting the need to reassess how community forest rights are implemented and managed.
Historical Mismanagement of Forests
- Colonial Legacy and Scientific Forestry: Government-managed forests followed “scientific forestry,” a colonial model focused on timber maximization. Early working plans often encouraged clearfelling and monocultures, disregarding local ecology and sustainability.
- Ecological and Social Concerns: Ecologists, including Madhav Gadgil, raised alarms about biodiversity loss and degradation. Working plans led to restricted access, undermining forest-dependent communities and biodiversity.
- Bureaucratic Resistance to Change: Despite ecological decline, forest departments still rely on working plans for operations and finances. Even when these plans added conservation goals, they stayed top-down and ignored local livelihoods.
Vision of the Forest Rights Act (FRA)
- Empowering Gram Sabhas: FRA mandates that gram sabhas, not forest departments, draft and implement community forest resource (CFR) management plans. These plans reflect local priorities and intimate forest knowledge.
- CFR vs. Working Plans: CFR plans are meant to be integrated into working plans, not overridden by them. In CFR areas, gram sabhas become the managers, shifting the focus from timber to community needs.
- Limited Implementation So Far: Though over 10,000 gram sabhas hold CFR titles, fewer than 1,000 have prepared plans. Forest departments often delay or reject claims, undermine titles, and deny resources.
Institutional Barriers and Legal Violations
- Chhattisgarh’s Controversial Move: The forest department’s attempt to become the nodal agency, impose model plans, and exclude NGOs violated FRA provisions. Community protests led to the letter’s withdrawal.
- MoTA’s Inconsistent Role: MoTA initially supported simple CFR formats but later issued a joint letter requiring conformity with the National Working Plan Code (NWPC), contradicting FRA’s intent.
- Efforts to Retain Control: Forest departments resist decentralization, citing lack of scientific ability in communities. In reality, their push for NWPC compliance serves to preserve colonial control.
Faultlines in the Working Plan Model
- Inflexibility and Timber Bias: NWPC prescribes rigid, data-heavy plans rooted in timber yield. It ignores local socio-ecological needs and the realities of changing climate conditions.
- Disconnect from Local Knowledge: Working plans simplify complex ecosystems into crop inventories. In contrast, gram sabhas manage forests using lived experience, offering more nuanced and responsive approaches.
- Need for Adaptive Practices: Gram sabhas are better suited to deal with climate variability. The flexibility and diversity in their methods contrast the linear and outdated nature of working plans.
Way Forward for CFR Management
- Recognising Gram Sabhas’ Role: The Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan offers a framework for CFR planning. It needs iterative improvements, not top-down imposition.
- Rejecting NWPC Imposition: MoTA must stand firm against efforts to impose NWPC on CFR plans. Such actions violate both the letter and spirit of the FRA.
- Supportive Role of Forest Departments: Departments must transition from control to support—offering funds, protection, and promoting a people-friendly forest science over timber-centric models.
Question for practice:
Discuss how the Forest Rights Act challenges colonial forest management and empowers gram sabhas to manage community forest resources.
