Forest Rights and Conservation Strategies

Forest Rights Act, 2006

Now we arrive at the most people-centric forest law in India — the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA 2006).

Why Was the Forest Rights Act, 2006 Enacted?

For over a century, India’s forest laws — especially the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and later the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 — were:
→ State-centric
→ Control-oriented
→ Blind to historical injustice

Millions of → Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) were → Evicted, Criminalised, Denied legal recognition of their customary rights

👉 The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, commonly called FRA 2006, was enacted to correct this historical wrong.

📌 Core philosophy:

Conservation cannot succeed by excluding the people who have protected forests for generations.

What Makes FRA 2006 a Landmark Law?

For the first time in Indian legal history, FRA:

✅ Recognises Community Rights (not just individual rights)
✅ Recognises the right to protect, conserve, and manage forests
✅ Recognises traditional knowledge and intellectual property
✅ Recognises rights of displaced and development-affected communities

👉 FRA shifts forest governance from bureaucratic control to community stewardship.

Applicability and Administrative Framework

• FRA applies to:
  • Scheduled Tribes
  • Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
• Nodal Ministry:
  • Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA)

📌 This itself is symbolic:

• Forests are no longer seen only as an environmental issue
• They are recognised as a social justice issue

Rights Over Minor Forest Produce (MFP)

One of the most powerful provisions of FRA.

What does FRA say?

Forest dwellers have the right to → Own, Collect, Use, Dispose of Minor Forest Produce

What is Minor Forest Produce?

All non-timber forest produce of plant origin, including:
Bamboo | Tendu leaves | Honey, wax | Medicinal plants | Canes, tussar cocoon, etc.

📌 Economic significance:
MFP is the primary livelihood source for millions of tribal households.

Nature of Rights Granted

• Rights are heritable
• Rights are not alienable or transferable

👉 This ensures:

• Inter-generational security
• No land alienation to outsiders

FRA Applies Even in Protected Areas

A crucial clarification:

FRA applies to → Reserved Forests, Protected Forests, National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries

📌 But with an important condition:

• FRA does not create new rights
• It only recognises pre-existing rights

👉 These balances:

• Conservation objectives
• Human rights

The Four Types of Rights Under FRA

1️⃣ Title Rights

• Ownership of forest land cultivated by forest dwellers
• Maximum limit: 4 hectares
• Only for land under actual occupation

2️⃣ Use Rights

Includes rights to:

• Collect Minor Forest Produce
• Grazing
• Traditional seasonal access

3️⃣ Relief and Development Rights

• Rehabilitation in case of → Illegal eviction, Forced displacement
• Access to → Schools, Health centres, Roads
  (Subject to forest protection norms)

4️⃣ Forest Management Rights (Most Revolutionary)

• Right to → Protect, Regenerate, Conserve, Manage → Any Community Forest Resource (CFR) traditionally protected by the community.

👉 This legally empowers communities as guardians of forests, not encroachers.

Eligibility Criteria to Claim Rights

For Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDST)

Must:

• Be an ST in the area
• Have resided in forest land before December 2005
• Depend on forests for livelihood

For Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD)

Must:

• Have resided in forest land for 3 generations (75 years) prior to December 2005
• Depend on forests for livelihood

📌 Important provision:

• If a village proves OTFD status, individual proof is not required for each member

Gram Sabha: The Soul of FRA

Under FRA:

• Gram Sabha is the competent authority
• It initiates → Verification, Recognition, Determination of rights

📌 Decisions of the Gram Sabha:

• Can be accepted or rejected
• Are appealable in court

👉 FRA strengthens grassroots democracy like no other environmental law.

Community Forest Resource (CFR) Guidelines

CFR rights empower:

• Community-led forest management
• Local decision-making on land use

This model aligns with global experiences of → Nepal, Brazil, Indonesia, India

📌 Key idea:

Forests survive better when local communities have legal authority and responsibility.

FRA and the Northeast: A Special Case

Legal Position

FRA defines forest land very broadly, including:

→ Unclassified forests
→ Undemarcated forests
→ Deemed forests
→ Reserved and Protected Forests
→ Sanctuaries and National Park

This aligns with the Supreme Court’s interpretation in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India.

Reality on the Ground

Except for Assam and Tripura, FRA is largely not implemented in the Northeast.

Why Is FRA Seen as “Irrelevant” in the NE?

• Community ownership already exists
  • Clans, tribes, village councils already own forests
• Customary law dominates
  • Rights are exercised socially, not legally
• Low forest dependency
  • Fewer people are exclusively forest-dependent

👉 Communities fear FRA may dilute their customary autonomy rather than strengthen it.

Critical Wildlife Habitats (CWH)

Critical Wildlife Habitats (CWH) are a concept introduced under the Forest Rights Act (FRA, 2006).

Under the Act, CWH are defined as:

Areas within National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries that are required to be kept inviolate (free from human settlement and use) for the purpose of wildlife conservation.

📌 Key word: “Inviolate”

This implies:

• No permanent human settlement
• No resource use
• No livelihood activity

👉 CWH represents the strictest form of protection within protected areas.

Why Was the Concept of CWH Introduced?

India faced a real conservation dilemma:

• Some wildlife species (e.g. tigers, elephants) require:
  • Large, disturbance-free habitats
• At the same time:
  • Forest-dwelling communities live inside National Parks and Sanctuaries
  • Their rights are recognised under FRA

👉 CWH was designed as a compromise:

• Yes, wildlife needs inviolate spaces
• But, people cannot be displaced arbitrarily or unjustly

Hence, FRA laid down strict safeguards.

Who Is the Nodal Authority?

Although CWH is a people-centric concept under FRA, the Act identifies the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) as the authority to:
→ Notify guidelines
→ Oversee the process

📌 This dual control itself creates institutional tension between:
→ MoEFCC (conservation-centric)
→ Ministry of Tribal Affairs (rights-centric)

2011 Guidelines by MoEFCC: FRA-Compliant Framework

The 2011 guidelines were closely aligned with the spirit of FRA.

Core Safeguards in 2011 Guidelines

To notify a CWH, the State Government had to prove:

(a) Irreversible Damage Test

• Presence of right-holders must be shown to cause → Irreversible damage to wildlife and habitat

📌 Mere presence was not sufficient.

(b) Settlement of Rights First

• All forest rights under FRA must be → Recognised and settled → Before CWH notification

👉 No rights → no relocation.

(c) Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)

• Gram Sabha’s consent was mandatory
  • Without consent → Relocation could not proceed

(d) Multidisciplinary Expert Committee

The committee included:
→ Gram Sabha representatives
→ An ecologist
→ A tribal welfare NGO
→ A social scientist
→ Forest Department officials

👉 This ensured science + society + administration all had a voice.

Ground Reality

Despite being notified in 2011 → Not a single CWH was declared for more than a decade

📌 Why?

• Stringent conditions
• Strong community safeguards
• Administrative reluctance

2018 Guidelines by MoEFCC: A Procedural Shift

In 2018, MoEFCC issued new guidelines, significantly altering the process.

Let us see what changed.

Key Features of the 2018 Guidelines are as follows:

(a) New Expert Committee Structure

• A 7-member committee chaired by:
  • Chief Conservator of Forests (in-charge of NP/Sanctuary)
• Constituted by the Chief Wildlife Warden

📌 Compared to 2011:

• Reduced community representation
• Increased forest bureaucracy control

(b) Identification Based on “Scientific Criteria”

• Committee identifies CWH based on → Ecological and scientific criteria
• No explicit requirement to prove → Irreversible damage by right-holders

👉 This lowers the threshold for declaring CWH.

(c) Public Notice & Consultation

• Public notice issued 15 days in advance
• Notice must mention:
  • Area proposed as CWH
  • Criteria used
  • Implications
  • Resettlement options
• Open consultations with stakeholders are held
• Proceedings are documented

(d) Final Authority Shifted to NBWL

• Proposal sent to Chief Wildlife Warden
• Then examined by → Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL)
• A representative of Ministry of Tribal Affairs is invited
• Final decision → Notification in Official Gazette

📌 Final power lies firmly with wildlife institutions, not communities.

How Do the 2018 Guidelines Dilute the FRA?

This is the core analytical part — very important for GS Mains.

1️⃣ Gram Sabha Consent Replaced

• FRA requirement: Free, Prior, and Informed Consent
• 2018 guidelines: Public hearing / open consultation

👉 Consent ≠ Consultation

• Consent gives veto power
• Consultation only gives voice

2️⃣ No Mechanism to Address Objections

• Objections raised during consultations:
  • Have no binding force
  • No clarity on:
    • How many consultations?
    • At what stages?

👉 Participation becomes procedural, not substantive.

3️⃣ No Mandatory Public Scrutiny After Consultation

• Unlike Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs):
  • Draft CWH notifications are not placed in public domain for long scrutiny (60 days)
• Once consultations are over:
  • Process becomes opaque

4️⃣ Silence on Settlement of Rights

• 2018 guidelines do not clearly mandate → Settlement of FRA rights before notification

📌 This directly contradicts → The letter and spirit of FRA, 2006

Why Is This Conflict So Important?

Because CWH sits at the fault line of two constitutional goals:

• Article 48A → Protection of wildlife
• Fifth & Sixth Schedules + FRA → Protection of tribal rights

👉 The question is not → Should wildlife be protected?

The real question is → Can wildlife be protected by weakening legal rights of forest dwellers?

National Forest Policy, 1988

Why Do We Need a National Forest Policy?

A forest policy is not a law.

It is a statement of intent and direction — it guides → Law-making, Administration, Budgetary priorities, Judicial interpretation

India has had forest policies since:

• 1894 (colonial, revenue-centric)
• 1952 (post-Independence, state-centric)
• 1988 (ecology-centric)

National Forest Policy, 1988: A Paradigm Shift

The National Forest Policy marked a fundamental break from the colonial mindset.

Core Philosophy (Most Important Line)

Environmental stability and ecological balance shall be the principal aim.
Direct economic benefits must be subordinated to this aim.

📌 This single sentence changed the soul of forest governance in India.

Forests as a National Asset (First Time)

For the first time, the 1988 Policy declared:
→ Forest land and tree cover are a national asset
→ Diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes must undergo: Most careful examination

👉 This thinking later strengthened:

• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
• Supreme Court’s Godavarman jurisprudence

The 33% Forest Cover Target

The policy mandated → 33% of India’s geographical area → To be under → Forest cover or Tree cover

📌 Rationale:

• Ecological stability
• Soil and water conservation
• Climate moderation

Other Aims and Objectives of the 1988 Policy

(a) Ecological Protection

• Conservation of natural heritage
• Prevention of:
  • Soil erosion
  • Land degradation
• Protection of catchment areas
• Checking:
  • Desertification in Rajasthan
  • Coastal sand dune expansion

👉 Forests as ecological shields, not timber stock.

(b) People-Centric Forestry (Revolutionary Element)

• Recognised the symbiotic relationship between:
  • Tribal communities
  • Forest ecosystems
• Mandated:
  • Participation of tribal people in:
    • Protection
    • Regeneration
    • Development of forests

📌 This thinking later crystallised into:

• Joint Forest Management (JFM)
• Forest Rights Act, 2006

(c) Livelihood Security

• Meeting basic needs of rural and tribal populations → Fuelwood, Fodder, Minor Forest Produce, Small timber

👉 Shift from: Commercial forestry → Subsistence and livelihood forestry

(d) Social Forestry & People’s Movement

• Massive afforestation and social forestry
• Creation of a people’s movement
• Special emphasis on → Women’s participation

📌 This acknowledged → Women’s central role in fuel, fodder, and water management

(e) Capacity Building

• Greater emphasis on → Forestry education and Forestry research

👉 Recognised forests as a scientific and interdisciplinary subject, not just administration.

Why Was a New Forest Policy Proposed in 2018?

By the 2010s, new challenges emerged:
→ Climate change
→ Carbon sinks and NDCs
→ Urbanisation
→ Biodiversity loss
→ International environmental commitments

👉 Hence, a Draft National Forest Policy, 2018 was proposed as an update, not a rejection, of the 1988 vision.

Draft National Forest Policy, 2018: New Priorities

The Draft National Forest Policy tries to expand forest policy from ecology to climate governance.

Key Aims and Objectives of the Draft 2018 Policy are as follows:

(a) Climate Change as the Central Lens

• Reverse forest degradation
• Contribute to India’s NDC targets
• Create carbon sinks through → Forest conservation and Afforestation

👉 Forests are now seen as → Climate infrastructure, not just green cover.

(b) Water Security Through Forests

• Maintain forest health for → Groundwater recharge and Regulation of surface water
• Link forests to → River basins and Aquifers

📌 Forests as hydrological regulators.

(c) Biodiversity-First Wildlife Management

• Protected areas to be managed primarily for → Biodiversity conservation
• Ecosystem services to be → Enriched, not extracted

(d) Green Accounting & Ecosystem Valuation

• Introduces modern concepts like → Green accounting and Ecosystem service valuation
• Integrates → Climate risk and Long-term ecological costs

👉 Forest decisions to move beyond GDP-centric thinking.

(e) REDD+ and Climate Mechanisms

• Integrates REDD+ into forest management
• Focus on → Mitigation and Adaptation

📌 This aligns domestic forest policy with global climate finance mechanisms.

(f) Sustainable Use of NTFPs

• Emphasis on → Medicinal plants, Bamboo, Wild edibles, Fibres and grasses

👉 Strong continuity with → FRA 2006 and Livelihood-based conservation

(g) Urban and Peri-Urban Forestry

• Expansion of green spaces in → Cities and Peri-urban areas

📌 Recognises → Mental health, Heat mitigation, Quality of urban life

(h) Certification and Market Linkages

• Credible certification of → Sustainably harvested forest products

👉 Tries to align → Conservation and Market incentives

(i) Northeast-Focused Conservation

• Special emphasis on → Protecting forests of the Northeast

📌 Acknowledges → High biodiversity, High ecological sensitivity, Community-based ownership

(j) Institutional Mechanism

• Proposal to establish:
  • National Board of Forestry (headed by Environment Minister)
  • State Boards of Forestry

👉 Intended to → Ensure convergence and Resolve Centre–State conflicts

(k) Private Sector Participation

• Allows private intervention in → Maintaining forest quality

📌 This provision triggered debate:

• Supporters see efficiency
• Critics fear commercialisation

Big Conceptual Comparison

Aspect	Policy 1988	Draft Policy 2018
Core focus	Ecological balance	Climate change + ecology
Forest value	National asset	Climate & ecosystem capital
People	Tribal participation	Livelihood + markets
New elements	JFM, social forestry	REDD+, green accounting
Geography	Pan-India	Special focus on NE & urban areas

Afforestation Programmes

Afforestation in India is not a random plantation drive. It is a planned, participatory, and policy-driven process, implemented mainly by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).

Key Philosophy

• Participatory approach: Local communities are not passive beneficiaries; they are decision-makers.
• Species selection: Done by Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) based on:
  • Local needs (fuelwood, fodder, NTFPs)
  • Ecological suitability
• Preference to native, multi-purpose species → better biodiversity + livelihoods.

Three Major National Schemes

1. National Afforestation Programme (NAP)
   → Focus: Restoration of degraded forest lands
2. National Mission for a Green India (Green India Mission – GIM)
   → Focus: Improve forest quality and expand forest cover
3. Forest Fire Prevention and Management Scheme (FFPM)
   → Focus: Prevent and manage forest fires

Scientific Forest Management

• States prepare Working Plans (scientific blueprints for forests).
• These are approved by MoEFCC.
• CAMPA funds (collected as compensatory levies) are used for plantation and regeneration.

National Afforestation Programme (NAP): People at the Core

NAP is the flagship participatory afforestation scheme.

Objective

• Restore degraded forests with people’s participation, not against them.

Funding Pattern

• Centre : State = 60 : 40
• NE & Hilly States = 90 : 10

Three-Tier Institutional Structure

1. State Forest Development Agency (SFDA) – State level
2. Forest Development Agency (FDA) – Forest division level
3. Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) – Village level

👉 This ensures top-down planning + bottom-up execution.

Joint Forest Management (JFM): Community–Forest Partnership

Introduced through the National Forest Policy, 1988, JFM marks a paradigm shift.

What is JFM?

A partnership between → Forest Department and Local communities (through FPCs / JFMCs)

Institutional Features

• Forest Protection Committees (FPCs)
• Executive committees for daily management
• Women’s sub-committees → gender balance
• Communities get access to minor NTFPs as incentives

Real-Life Examples

• Gaddi & Gujjar tribes: Controlled grazing prevents invasive wild grass → biodiversity conservation
• Bishnoi community: Protection of Blackbuck in Rajasthan & Punjab
• Maldharis near Gir: Contributed to the revival of Asiatic lions

👉 These examples show that traditional wisdom + modern policy = conservation success.

Issues with Joint Forest Management

Despite its noble intent, JFM faces structural problems:

• High cost of afforestation (~₹20,000 per hectare)
• Poor economic returns to communities
• No strong legal status for FPCs
• Arbitrary powers of Forest Departments in some states
• Limited real participation of women
• Inter and intra-community conflicts
• Denial of rights over valuable NTFPs

👉 Participation without power becomes tokenism.

Social Forestry: Taking Pressure off Natural Forests

The term Social Forestry was introduced in 1976 by the National Commission on Agriculture.

Core Idea

• Use unused, fallow, and degraded lands
• Meet local needs → fuelwood, fodder, timber
• Reduce pressure on natural forests
• Formal recognition of community forest rights

Components of Social Forestry

1. Farm Forestry
   → Trees grown by individual farmers (commercial & non-commercial)
2. Community Forestry
   → Trees on community land for collective benefit
   → Government supplies seedlings & fertilisers
3. Extension Forestry
   → Trees along roads, canals, railways, wastelands
   → Woodlots on panchayat and government lands
4. Agroforestry
   → Trees integrated with crops or on farm boundaries

⚠️ Social forestry suffers from similar problems as JFM — governance, incentives, and participation gaps.

Compensatory Afforestation (CA)

What it is?

Under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:

Basic Rule: When forest land is diverted for non-forest purposes:
→ Plant equal area of non-forest (revenue) land, OR
→ Double the area of degraded forest land

Process

1. Project proponent identifies CA land
2. State Forest Department approves
3. Proponent pays → Net Present Value (NPV) of forests
4. Funds transferred to Forest Department for plantations

📌 Since 2019, CA is allowed on forest land with crown density < 40%.

Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) Act, 2016

The CAF Act gave legal backing to CAMPA.

Institutional Framework

• Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA)
• National Advisory Council headed by Union Environment Minister
• State CAMPA bodies implement projects

Funds Structure

• National CAF: 10%
• State CAFs: 90%
• Stored under Public Account (not Consolidated Fund)

Use of Funds

• Compensatory afforestation
• Assisted natural regeneration
• Catchment area treatment
• Wildlife protection
• Relocation from Protected Areas
• Human–wildlife conflict management
• Awareness & training
• Wood-saving devices

Net Present Value (NPV)

• Recognises that forests provide long-term ecosystem services
• Newly planted forests cannot immediately replace:
  • Carbon sequestration
  • Soil conservation
  • Water recharge
  • Biodiversity
• Hence, developers must pay for the lost ecological value

Problems with Compensatory Afforestation

Despite huge funds, CA faces serious criticism:

• Greenwashing: Legalising forest destruction by “planting elsewhere”
• Low fund utilisation
• Non-availability of suitable land
• Fragmented plantations instead of contiguous forests
• Monoculture plantations → poor biodiversity & resilience
• Biotic pressure from grazing and human settlements
• Negative edge effects:
  • Fragmentation of habitats
  • Damage to biodiversity corridors

📌 Carbon Insight:

• Highest carbon storage → species-rich evergreen forests
• Eucalyptus → low carbon storage
• Teak → comparable to deciduous forests

Green Credit Scheme

At the heart of this discussion is the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) — the apex body under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) that examines proposals for diversion of forest land.

What has FAC Approved?

FAC has approved the Green Credit Scheme, a mechanism that:

• Treats plantations as tradable assets
• Allows forests to be monetised and exchanged
• Permits private and non-governmental actors to raise plantations that can later be used for Compensatory Afforestation (CA)

In simple words:

The responsibility of reforesting may shift from the Forest Department to external actors — companies, communities, NGOs.

How Does the Green Credit Scheme Work?

Think of this scheme as a carbon–forest marketplace.

Step-by-Step Mechanism

1. Private players / communities raise plantations on non-forest land
2. After three years, plantations are evaluated by Forest Department criteria
3. If approved:
   • Plantation land qualifies as compensatory forest land
   • It is transferred to the Forest Department
   • Recorded officially as Recorded Forest Area (RFA)
4. The participating agency can trade this land parcel with:
   • Project proponents who need forest land for diversion

👉 In effect, forest clearance gets offset through market-based plantations.

FAC’s Rationale: Why Was the Scheme Recommended?

FAC presented three major arguments in favour of the scheme:

1. Encouraging Private & Individual Plantation

• Accept plantations on non-forest land
• Motivate individuals and institutions to plant trees

2. Meeting International Commitments

The scheme is projected as a tool to meet:

• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement

3. Supporting Green India Mission Targets

Under the Green India Mission:

• Target: 2.523 billion tonnes of carbon sequestration by 2030
• Expansion of forest/tree cover over 30 million hectares

FAC argues that Green Credit Scheme can accelerate these targets.

Criticism of the Green Credit Scheme

Now comes the UPSC-critical dimension — where aspirants must evaluate, not merely describe.

1. Forests Reduced to Commodities

• Forests are treated as tradable units
• Ignores:
  • Biodiversity complexity
  • Cultural & livelihood dependence
  • Ecological continuity

👉 A forest is not just trees; it is a living system.

2. Privatization & Incentivised Forest Destruction

• Instead of preventing forest diversion, the scheme may:
  • Legitimise forest loss
  • Encourage a “plant elsewhere, cut here” mindset

This mirrors the greenwashing critique seen earlier in CAMPA.

3. Threat to Agricultural Land

• If plantations become financially lucrative:
  • Agricultural land may be diverted to plantations
  • Food security and rural livelihoods could be affected

4. Monoculture & Invasive Species Risk

• Private players may prefer:
  • Fast-growing species
  • Short gestation cycles (only 3 years needed)
• Example:
  • Eucalyptus plantations
  • Ecologically weak, water-intensive, biodiversity-poor

👉 Carbon accounting may improve, but ecosystems degrade.

Aerial Seeding for Reforestation

Judicial Trigger

The Delhi High Court explored whether dart shots from helicopters could be used for reforestation.

Forest Department’s Response

• Aerial seeding is unnecessary in accessible areas
• Manual plantation remains preferable where feasible

What is Aerial Seeding?

Aerial seeding (aerial reforestation) is a method where:

• Seeds or seed balls (clay + compost + seeds)
• Are dispersed using → Helicopters, Drones, Aircraft

Key Features

• Success rate: ~50%
• Useful after → Wildfires, Landslides
• Effective in → Rocky terrain, High-altitude regions, Inaccessible landscapes

Advantages

• Faster than manual planting
• Covers large areas quickly
• Useful in disaster-affected zones

Dart Seeding: A More Targeted Approach

What is Dart Seeding?

• Seeds are packed in darts
• Thrown or fired onto the ground from helicopters

Why Is It Better Than Aerial Seeding?

• Seeds penetrate deeper into the soil
• Higher germination chances
• Reduced seed loss due to wind or predation

📌 Best Timing:

• Close to the onset of monsoon
• Ensures moisture availability for germination

Often, both aerial seeding and dart seeding are used together.