Indian laws and policies regarding forests

Introduction
The Indian Forest Act (1927
The Forest Conservation Act (1980)
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
Recognition of rights

Introduction

In India, a large share of the population resides in rural areas. The rural economy depends heavily on the forest industry. Forests and trees are frequently among the few resources available to those who live in rural areas. They offer a variety of advantages, including the employment and income necessary to supplement the meagre returns from agriculture, the production of goods like fuelwood, food, and fodder as well as the ability to build homes, as well as a number of environmental advantages without which other activities like agriculture might not be possible. (Papers by Biwas, IIFM, and FAO) After agriculture, the forest industry in India uses the most acreage. About 300 million tribal members and other locals live in remote forests' edge communities and rely on the forest for both their survival and livelihood. India's rural population relies on fuelwood for about 70% of its residential energy requirements. About 100 million of them rely heavily on forests as their primary source of fuelwood, non-timber forest products (NTFP), or financial revenue. The most disadvantaged group in society, India's 70 million tribal people, depend on the forest for more than half of their food. But for a variety of reasons, our forest areas are rapidly disappearing.

For more than a century, contradictory claims have been made over forest resources. The colonial government was primarily interested in timber and a few other commercially significant forest products. There have been several laws passed addressing the utilisation of forest resources. The Indian Forest Act, passed by the British administration, was the first of these regulations.

The Indian Forest Act (1927)

The Indian Forest Act (1927)'s primary goal was to guarantee exclusive governmental control over forests in order to supply the growing demand for forest products, particularly lumber, for commercial uses. The majority of these village lands had historically belonged to the communities who lived in the forests. The Act allocated the authority to replace or revoke customary rights, established state ownership, and restricted its use. The Act divided forests into three groups, including

Reserved forests
Village forests
Protected forests

The most protected of the three are reserved forests. In restricted forests, no rights may be obtained other than by succession or through a grant from or agreement with the government. The following activities were rendered punishable by a fine or imprisonment: quarrying, fishing, hunting, grazing cattle, and extracting forest products. Despite the fact that the Indian Forest Act is a federal statute, many states have passed forest laws with various variations. A Reserved Forest may not be cleared or set on fire by anyone. The Reserved Forest is off-limits to cattle entry. A six-month prison sentence, a fine that may reach Rs. 500, or both are imposed for cutting down trees or gathering their bark, leaves, or other forest products.

The process for acknowledging the traditional uses of the region by the locals was part of the designation of forests as Protected or Reserved. In a few occasions, "Nistar" rights were acknowledged. These are customary rights of entry and usufruct over certain types of forest products, such as timber, fuel, grazing, minor forest products, or other particular resource uses. It was necessary to resolve the disputes about the rights of people to the forest. However, many of the methods were insufficient. They also disregarded the local communities' long-standing management procedures. As a result, the act gave rise to several conflicts. The act was extremely onerous for the forest residents, especially tribals, because it restricted how they used resources. Unchecked local corruption became a significant issue.

A clause in the legislation allows State Governments to grant a village rights to a government forest for its use as pasture or for the production of forest products, as well as obligations for the maintenance and improvement of such forests. The Himalayan populations exploited this to gain management control over the forests they had historically used. However, the provision has been exploited in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh to create state forest regulations for panchayat management of the forest, which frequently conflict with the controls desired by tribal populations inside the panchayat.

The Forest Conservation Act (1980)

In 1952, India's first forest policy was announced. The extent of deforestation between 1952 and 1988 was so significant that it became clear that a new policy for forests and their exploitation was required. Forest land had already been used for other purposes on large scales. Prior forest policies had placed a sole emphasis on income creation. It became evident in the 1980s that forests needed to be maintained for their secondary purposes, including as preserving soil and water regimes. Importantly, the conversation centred on ecological issues.

The Forest Conservation Act is further strengthened by the National Forest Policy, 1988 (NFP), which is primarily concerned with the sustainable use and conservation of forests (1980). It represented a dramatic change from former forest policies, which prioritised defending government interests and supplying enterprises with wood products at the expense of regional subsistence necessities. The NFP made it clear that maintaining ecological balance was a top priority. This was done by preserving biological diversity, managing soil and water resources, increasing tree cover, making efficient use of forest products, replacing wood with other materials, and ensuring that people were involved in the process. As a significant goal, it also included a resolution to satisfy the natural resource needs of rural communities. The NFP affirms that the needs of the rural poor should take precedence over industrial and commercial demands for forest products, therefore validating the customary rights and concessions of communities that live near forests.

The process for converting forests into non-forest uses was outlined in the new policy framework. The new policy, which also addressed the protection of biological variety and genetic resources, made provision for the conservation of forests as natural heritage sites. It also places a high importance on providing the local population with the food, fuelwood, fodder, and non-wood forest products they depend on for survival. NFP places a high premium on preserving ecological harmony and environmental stability. Additionally, it explicitly emphasises that the Protected Areas network needs to be expanded and strengthened. The Indian Forest Act permits state governments to release forest lands for agriculture, industry, and other development projects, which has resulted in fast deforestation. To combat this, the Central government passed the Forest Conservation Act in 1980, with an amendment in 1988. The Act mandated that logging, the dereservation of reserved forests, and the use of forestland for non-forest activities all required prior consent from the federal government. Panchayat-based governance was made easier by the Constitution's 73rd and 74th Amendments in 1992. It gives all States the capacity to grant local panchayats authority over their own management of regional forest resources.

This regulation has significantly reduced state governments' indiscriminate logging and release of forest land for non-forestry uses. There was a problem with this, though. The central government established severe regulations, but it did not develop a system to make up for the state governments' lost revenue from timber cutting at the same time. This oddity has caused substantial irritation within state governments, which has led to growing pressure to weaken the Act's restrictive provisions. It also comes at a time when demand for land is rising due to a growing population. At first, only the government-designated forest lands were covered by the acts' and policies' provisions. Nowhere was the definition of "forest" given. Additionally, it was seen that numerous forest sites, including sacred groves and private lands with woods, required preservation.

With the Supreme Court's decision in the case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, the discussion surrounding what constitutes a forest came to the fore in 1996. A petition was initially filed in the case to prohibit the illegal felling of trees in the Nilgiri highlands. The Supreme Court declared that woods would be interpreted in accordance with their "dictionary definition," but without going into further detail. With this new meaning, the order also took on the duty of putting the Forest Conservation Act into effect. The Supreme Court had ordered governments to identify, demarcate, and inform forest areas in the 1996 decision, but this effort is still in progress. Despite being intended to reduce forest damage, all of the aforementioned actions and regulations have come under fire from numerous social and environmental scientists. In actuality, it is alleged, they restrict marginalised and poor groups, which are already helpless, and favour powerful, wealthy corporations with governmental backing. A new Act was passed as a result of constant pressure from social activists, particularly those who deal with indigenous people.

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

Also known as the Forest Rights Act, it has caused equal parts elation, anxiety, and bewilderment in India. Millions of people reside in or close to India's forested areas, but they lack any legal claim to their houses, lands, or means of subsistence. This Act recognises the rights of forest residents and increases public accountability for conservation. Areas were frequently designated as "government forests" under the Indian Forest Act without any documentation of who lived there, what land they used, how they used the forest, etc. Up to 82 percent of the forests in Madhya Pradesh and 40 percent of the reserved forests in Orissa were never investigated for human rights. Similar to this, 60 percent of India's national parks have not yet finished the process of investigating and settling rights. Despite this, thousands of forest residents have been driven out of the Protected Areas, and many more who live close to woods face severe limitations on their ability to use the environment.

Millions of people are liable to being denied entrance, harassed, evicted, etc. since they are intruders in their own houses as a result of this predicament. There is a lot of corruption and brutality against both people and animals. The criminalization of entire populations in tribal areas is the biggest stain on our nation's liberal tradition, according to the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in his 29th Report.

The Indian Forest Act of 1927 initially favoured the government's harvesting of timber. By designating forests as state property and utilising their timber, it attempted to supersede customary rights and forest management practises. According to the Act, the Forest Settlement Officer was responsible for investigating and "settling" any land claims and forest rights that locals may have. However, they typically were unable to or did not document the rights of marginal groups. The Wild Life Protection Act of 1972 included the same model. It inevitably resulted in similar effects. Forest dwellers are facing increasing numbers of issues as a result of the loss of grasslands to commercial plantations, the conversion of forests for mining, dams, and industrial projects, and monoculture plantings used in afforestation programmes. Additionally, the prior community management and control systems are superseded by the forest laws. The Forest Rights Act is a statute that, according to its Statement of Objects and Reasons, is meant to make up for the "historical wrong" that occurred when forest residents' rights were not recognised.

The Act includes two provisions:

Granting traditional forest-dwelling groups' rights legal legitimacy. This helps to somewhat redress the injustice brought on by the forest regulations.
Gives communities and the general public a voice in forest and animal conservation
There are two conditions of eligibility for claiming rights under the Act:
1. Primarily residing in forests or forest lands;
2. Dependence on forests and forest land for a livelihood (namely “bona fide livelihood needs”)

The claimant (s) must also to prove

That the above conditions have been true for 75 years, in which case the claimant is an Other Traditional Forest Dweller (s. 2(o));
OR
That one is a member of a Scheduled Tribe (s. 2(c)); and
That one is residing in the area where they are Scheduled (s. 4(1)). In the latter case the claimant is a Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribe.

The law recognises three types of land rights:

Land Rights

No one gets rights to any land that they have not been cultivating prior to December 13, 2005 (see section 4(3)) and that they are not cultivating at present. Those who are cultivating land but do not have supporting documents can claim up to 4 hectares, as long as they are cultivating the land themselves for a livelihood (section 3(1) (a) and 4(6)).
Those who have a patta or a government lease, but whose land has been illegally taken over by the Forest Department, or whose land is the subject of a dispute between Forest and Revenue Departments, can claim those lands (see section 3(1)(f) and (g)).

The land cannot be sold or transferred to anyone except by inheritance (see section 4(4)).

User Rights

The law also grants the following rights to use and/or collect:

Minor forest produce like tendu patta, herbs, medicinal plants etc “that has been traditionally collected (see section 3(1) (c)). This does not include timber.
Grazing grounds and water bodies (sections 3)
Traditional areas of use by nomadic or pastoralist communities i.e. communities that move with their herds, as opposed to practicing settled agriculture.

Right to Protect and Conserve

This law also grants the community for the first time the authority to look after and manage the forest. While section 5 grants the community a broad power to safeguard wildlife, forests, etc., section 3(1) I grants the right and a power to conserve communal forest resources. This is crucial for the thousands of village communities defending their forests and wildlife from dangers posed by land speculators, industries, and forest mafias, the majority of whom work in tandem with the Forest Department.

Recognition of rights

The Act's Section 6 lays out a clear, three-step process for allocating rights. The suggestion is first made by the gramme sabha, which is the entire village assembly and NOT the gramme panchayat. This includes information such as who has been cultivating the land and for how long, which minor forest produce is collected, etc. The gramme sabha is required to carry out this function because it is a public body in which everyone participates, making it a wholly democratic and open institution.

The recommendation of the gramme sabha is reviewed by two screening committees at the taluka and district levels. The final decision is made by the district-level committee (see section 6(6)). Six people make up the Committees: three are elected officials and three are government employees. Anyone who thinks an allegation is untrue may appeal to the Committees at both the taluka and district levels. The right is denied if they can demonstrate their case (articles 6(2) and 6(4)). Finally, no sale or transfer is permitted for land recognised under this Act.

Application of FRA – a few examples of how communities have benefitted

In Maharashtra's Gadchiroli district, Mendha Lekha hamlet has been at the forefront of the conflict over forest products. Following FRA, Mendha Lekha village's CFR rights over more than 1,800 hectares of forest in Maharashtra's Gadchiroli district were recognised. Mendha Lekha established effective, socially just, and environmentally sound forest governance and management procedures.
In 2012, the Payvihir village in Maharashtra's Amravati district was awarded the designation of Certified Forest Village (CFR) and developed forest use and protection guidelines that led to forest conservation and improved production of tendu, custard apple, and grass.
33 towns in the BRT Tiger Reserve in Karnataka acquired their CFR titles. These were combined to create a strategy for tiger conservation.
More than 60 villages in Gujarat's Narmada area started modest governance systems to manage, maintain, and conserve forests.
Villages with CFR titles created straightforward, rule-based adaptive governance structures for their CFRs in the Simlipal Tiger Reserve in Odisha, and they are now defending their forests.

Many towns across have been successful in putting an end to commercial forestry activities in their CFRs. Through convergence programmes for housing (IAY), land development (MGNREGA), irrigation, and horticulture, Odisha alone has helped over 200,000 individual households get forest land titles. Additionally, there are reports on actions done to support Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups' (PVTGs') claims for habitat rights under Section 3(1)e. Claimants include Juangs in Keonjhar (Odisha), Baigas in Dindori (Madhya Pradesh), Khadia, Mankidias, and Lodhas in Mayurbhanj district (Odisha), Kutia Kondhs of Kandhmal district (Odisha), Bondas of Malkangiri district (Odisha), and Paudi Bhuyans of Sundergarh (Odisha).

Opposition to the act

There are significant obstacles to the Act's execution, including dissent and occasionally misuse. In fact, there are initiatives to delay its execution.

Because they saw the Act as a challenge to their authority and powers, which will limit their control over property and deter private investments, forest and revenue department personnel have been unwilling to engage with the proceedings. These conflicts of interest have not been resolved by the tribal departments in the states who oversee implementation.
The environmental lobby, particularly organisations that prioritise habitat and species protection, has opposed it because they believe it will expose all woods to human exploitation.
Non-eligible people have made claims all over the place, usually for personal rights.
The state and federal governments have established competing laws and regulations that frequently ignore the FRA's requirements and even work against the law's intended goals. There are numerous examples. One illustration is The Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act 2016, which, by establishing a particular provision for subsidising relocation, encourages the eviction of forest residents from protected areas. Another mechanism favoured by the forest bureaucracy that conflicts with the transfer of forest jurisdiction to gramme sabhas under FRA is joint forest management.

In August 2015, the MoEFCC published rules for leasing 40 percent of the nation's damaged forests to private entities for reforestation. These rules are blatantly against FRA and ignore the fact that the majority of these forests are either CFRs that have already been recognised, are being claimed as CFRs, or are potential CFRs that could be claimed in the future. According to reports, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh have already started talks with business to come to an agreement on how to utilise forest resources. The various laws and regulations pertaining to forest ecosystems in India have had a permanent negative influence on rural, particularly tribal inhabitants. Positive and negative comments have both been made. There are numerous options for the sustainable management of these resources, which can create chances for employment and improve people's well-being. However, given the variety of problems, regulations, and policies, a straightforward solution to every issue is not feasible.