EDITORIAL ANALYSIS : An uphill struggle to grow the Forest Rights Act

Source: The Hindu

• Prelims: UNESCO, SC/ST, Forest Rights Act (FRA) etc
• Mains GS Paper I and II: Conservation of Environment, Environmental impact assessment, FRA-positives and negatives etc

ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

• In 2006, Rajya Sabha endorsed the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, enacted by the Lok Sabha.

INSIGHTS ON THE ISSUE

Context

Forest Rights Act:

Advantages of the Act:

• It recognises the rights of the STs because of their overall backwardness.
• The illegal tree-felling and poaching have come down following the stringent implementation of rules in the ‘protected areas’.
  • Most forest dwellers acknowledged this fact.

Issues with the Act:

• Ceiling of four hectares permitted under the Forest Rights Act (FRA): The majority of the forest dwellers claimed land measuring not more than one acre.
• The rejection rate of the other traditional forest dwellers was two times more than the STs.
  • In the case of the STs, the reasons were attributed to fresh encroachments
• Claimed lands being on ‘ paisari bhoomis’: wasteland and forest lands which have not been notified as protected forests or reserved forests) or revenue lands
• Multiple applications made in a single family.
• In the case of other traditional forest dwellers, failure to produce evidence of dependency and dwelling on forest land for 75 years.

Importance of the Act:

• It attempts to put an end to the long-drawn conflict over supposed ‘forest encroachments’.
• It seeks to create a much more democratic, bottom-up forest governance.

Background of FRA:

• The colonial takeover of India’s forests, however, resulted in a massive disruption of traditions.
• The Imperial Forest Department was established to harvest and transform the forest to maximize timber and revenue
• It was tasked with protecting ‘state’ property against local communities, now deemed trespassers.

Injustices imposed by colonial forest policy:

• Forests were seen as primarily a timber resource, shifting cultivation was banned.
• The so-called survey and settlement of agricultural lands was incomplete and biased in favor of the state.
• To ensure labor for forestry operations, ‘forest villages’ were created, wherein forest land was leased for agriculture to (mostly Adivasi) households in return for compulsory (virtually bonded) labor.
• Since forests were now state property, all access to forest produce was limited, temporary and chargeable, and always at the mercy of the forest bureaucracy that was armed with police powers.
  • Any concessions to local livelihood needs were termed ‘privileges’ that could be modified or withdrawn any time.
• The local community had no right to manage the forest, as the state logged valuable forests and made heavily used forest de facto open-access.

Post-Independence:

• In the hurry to assimilate princely States and zamindari estates into the Union
  • The forest areas were declared state property without proper inquiry into who was residing in them.
• Legitimate residents and cultivators became ‘encroachers’ overnight.
• Forest lands were leased out under the ‘Grow More Food’ campaign and other initiatives
  • To meet the needs of a growing population, but were never regularized.
• Communities displaced by dams were not given alternative lands, and ended up ‘encroaching’ forest land elsewhere.

Issues with The Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 (FCA):

• Lakhs of communities were forcibly resettled when creating sanctuaries and national parks.
• In ‘diverting’ forests for development projects, neither were the views or consent of local communities taken into consideration, nor, in spite of imposing hefty Net Present Value fees on the project, were the local communities compensated for the impact on their livelihoods.

Positives of FRA:

• It first of all acknowledges these historical (colonial) injustices and their continuation post-Independence.
• The issue of so-called ‘encroachments’ is addressed through recognising individual forest rights (IFRs) to continue habitation and cultivation or other activities that existed before December 2005.
• Forest villages are to be converted into revenue villages after full rights recognition.
• The issue of access and control is addressed by recognising the rights of village communities to access and use forests and to own and sell minor forest produce
  • To manage forests within their customary boundaries, including in sanctuaries and national parks.
• It ensures decentralized forest governance, linking management authority and responsibility to community rights.
• The Act lays down a democratic procedure for identifying whether and where wildlife conservation may require curtailing or extinguishing community rights.
• Having community rights over a forest translates ipso facto into the community having a say in, if not veto over, any diversion of that forest and a right to compensation if diverted.
  • This right was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the Niyamgiri case
  • Although the Forest Conservation Rules 2022 and FCA Amendment 2023 seek to bypass this right
  • States can still put in place such consent mechanisms.

Way Forward

• The politicians in most States focused solely on individual rights and projected the Act as an ‘encroachment regularization’ scheme.
  • Some even encouraged illegal new cultivation in a few pockets.
• Imposing absurd digital processes in areas with poor connectivity and literacy, such as the VanMitra software in Madhya Pradesh, is just a continuation of injustice.
  • Even the open-and-shut case of ‘forest villages’ has not been addressed in most States.
• The extremely slow and incomplete recognition of community rights to access and manage forests (loosely, community forest rights or CFRs).
• Maharashtra, Odisha, and, more recently, Chhattisgarh, are the only States to recognise CFRs substantially.
  • Only Maharashtra has enabled their activation by de-nationalising minor forest produce, at least in Scheduled Areas
    • Thousands of villages manage their own forests.
  • Unless political leaders, bureaucrats and environmentalists all appreciate the spirit and the intent of the FRA
    • The historical injustices will remain unaddressed
    • forest governance will remain highly undemocratic
    • The enormous potential for community-led forest conservation and sustainable livelihoods will remain unrealised.

QUESTION FOR PRACTICE

How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?(UPSC 2020) (200 WORDS, 10 MARKS)