Forest Management in India and Future of Forest Governance

Context: Recently, the Chhattisgarh forest department issued a letter designating itself as the nodal agency for implementing community forest resource rights (CFRR) under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. Later, the letter was withdrawn after a spirited grassroots mobilisation; however, it highlights the persistent attack on gram sabhas’ autonomy in managing their forests.

Historical Background of Forest Management in India

• Colonial Legacy of State Control: Under British rule, large tracts of forests were brought under centralized state control through acts like the Indian Forest Act, 1865/1927.
  • Local communities were dispossessed of their traditional rights, and forest management shifted to maximize timber production.
• Scientific Forestry Model: Introduced by colonial foresters, this model emphasised working plans that prioritized commercial logging, often through clear-felling and monoculture plantations.
  • Ecologists like Madhav Gadgil later criticized this model for being ecologically destructive and ignoring biodiversity and community livelihoods.
• Post-Independence Continuity: Even after 1947, state forest departments continued to follow colonial models, with forests managed through top-down working plans and little local participation.

Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR)

• CFRR is a key provision of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which recognizes the rights of Gram Sabhas to govern, protect, and manage customary forests.
• Objective: To correct historical injustices caused by colonial forest policies and to empower local communities in forest governance.
• Key Features:
  • Gram sabhas can draft and implement CFR management plans based on local knowledge.
  • These plans are meant to prioritize local livelihoods, biodiversity, and cultural practices, and not merely timber extraction.
• Integration with State Mechanism: CFR plans are to be “integrated” with state working plans on Gram Sabha terms, not overridden by them.

Significance of Gram Sabhas in Forest Management

• Democratic Decentralization: Gram Sabhas represent direct democracy at the village level and embody local self-governance in forest resource management.
• Ecological Understanding: Their knowledge of local ecology is lived, adaptive, and fine-grained, offering a more resilient response to climate change than rigid working plans.
• Livelihood Linkages: Gram Sabhas prioritize fuelwood, fodder, medicinal plants, and non-timber forest produce, addressing actual community needs.
• Customary Institutions: They preserve traditional conservation systems, often more sustainable than scientific forestry.
• Restoring Rights: Their authority under the FRA is a legal recognition of their stewardship, reversing colonial alienation.

What Needs to Be Addressed

• Violation of Autonomy: Forest departments and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) have tried to impose working plan templates (via National Working Plan Code (NWPC)), undermining Gram Sabha-led planning.
• Administrative Resistance: Forest departments continue to delay or reject CFR claims, deny funds, and challenge CFRR titles, clinging to colonial control.
• Misuse of “Scientific Forestry”: The timber-focused science used by forest departments does not align with CFRR’s livelihood and conservation goals.
• Lack of Institutional Support: Many Gram Sabhas lack resources and capacity, and are denied help from NGOs or allied agencies under departmental pressure.
• Poor Implementation: Of the 10,000+ CFRR titles issued, fewer than 1,000 villages have prepared management plans, largely due to a lack of support.

Way Forward

• Reject NWPC Imposition: CFR plans must not be forced to follow National Working Plan Code formats, which are complex and timber-oriented.
• Strengthen MoTA’s Role: MoTA must act as the protector of community rights, not a passive observer swayed by the Environment Ministry.
• Support Gram Sabha Planning: Allow flexible, iterative, and context-specific planning rooted in traditional knowledge.
• Provide Financial & Institutional Support: Forest departments must fund and protect CFR-holding Gram Sabhas rather than obstruct them.
• Shift the Science: Embrace a people-friendly forest science that values local stewardship, biodiversity, and ecosystem services over timber extraction.

Sharing is caring!