
Chhattisgarh forest department withdraws circular on CFR rights after massive tribal protests
Activists working on forest and tribal rights highlighted that a letter issued by the Chhattisgarh Forest Department on May 15 seeking to designate the department as the nodal agency for implementing the FRA—an act that is not only legally untenable but also a direct encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Tribal Development Department.
'The forest department has invoked the National Working Plan Code 2023 under the guise of 'scientific forest management' to threaten the implementation of Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights, supported by Gram Sabhas and other state institutions. This move jeopardises community control and management over nearly 20,000 sq km of forests in the state', they claimed.
The forest department affirmed that its directive was advisory in nature as the field implementation of CFR rights was becoming inconsistent due to the lack of clarity on how to develop and integrate CFR management plans with the National Working Plan Code 2023.
Spontaneous and big rallies were taken place as the collective voice across tribal regions during the last couple of days, with memorandums addressed to chief minister Vishnu Deo Sai were submitted, seeking his intervention to refrain the forest department from obstructing the rights of forest-dependent communities and instead support the remaining 8,000 forest-reliant villages in securing their rightful CFR claims.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
a day ago
- Business Standard
Wildlife clearance not required for basic public facilities, MoTA clarifies
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) has written to the environment ministry clarifying that wildlife clearance is not automatically required for constructing essential public facilities such as schools, anganwadis and roads on forest land under the Forest Rights Act (FRA)- 2006, provided they are recommended by the Gram Sabha. In an office memorandum issued on July 2, MoTA offered a detailed clarification on Section 3(2) of the FRA, which allows diversion of forest land for basic facilities such as schools, roads, health centres and irrigation projects for the benefit of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs). "Section 3(2) of the FRA states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Central government shall provide for diversion of forest land for facilities (including schools, health centers, roads, etc)... on forest land. The clearance of such a developmental project shall be subject to the condition that the Gram Sabha recommends the same," it said. In a letter issued in October 2020, the environment ministry had said that Section 13 of the FRA, which says the law is "in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force", implies that "wildlife clearance will be required for implementing Section 3(2) of the Act". The environment ministry letter had said that provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, remain unaffected by Section 3(2) of the FRA. However, the Tribal Affairs Ministry has now made it clear that Section 3(2) of the FRA is rooted in constitutional rights and safeguards, including Articles 14, 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution, as well as the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, which protect tribal rights. The ministry cited landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Samatha vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) and TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India (1997), to emphasise that the FRA is a legal instrument to balance tribal rights, development needs and environmental concerns. The letter further said that the right to divert forest land under Section 3(2) must be read along with Sections 2(e), 4(1), 4(2), and 4(7) of the FRA. These provisions affirm that forest rights are "vested" in tribal and forest-dwelling communities to correct "historical injustices". Addressing concerns about potential conflicts with wildlife conservation, the ministry said, "Section 4(2) of the FRA specifies the permissible self limitation. It introduces the self-limiting exception, to the modification or resettlement of forest rights for wildlife conservation, only in Critical Wildlife Habitat." Referring to a joint 2009 guideline with the environment ministry outlining procedures for forest land diversion for non-forest purposes under Section 3(2) of the FRA, MoTA said that the stipulated procedure provides a "clear understanding that the wildlife clearance is not automatically mandated". The memorandum said that the rights granted under Section 3(2), when read with other relevant sections of the Act, are "a statutory entitlement deriving its mandate from the Constitution's Fundamental Rights, not contingent on external clearances unless explicitly stated in the FRA". Researcher C R Bijoy said a 2020 letter from the environment ministry has been widely used by forest officials to block basic facilities in forest villages under Section 3(2) of the FRA, despite no formal orders being issued to states. Forest rights experts claim forest villages have long been denied services like schools, roads and health centres that are available in regular revenue villages. Forest officials often block such projects, saying they are not legally allowed or citing forest conservation reasons. As a result, these villages remain some of the most neglected in the country. In many cases, even after the district-level committees approved the projects, forest officials stopped them, triggering protests. In some instances, courts have even issued stay orders based on the 2020 letter.


Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Ministry vs ministry on forest tribes claim
The ministry of tribal affairs has asked for scientific evidence from the environment ministry to substantiate claims that granting forest rights to tribal communities causes forest degradation, escalating a tussle over a landmark 2006 legislation that recognises traditional forest rights of tribal communities in protected areas. The intervention comes amid mounting criticism from forest rights activists who accuse the environment ministry of systematically undermining the 2006 law designed to recognise the rights of forest-dwelling tribal communities. (PTI) In an office memorandum issued on July 2, the tribal affairs ministry questioned the environment ministry's assertion in the India State of Forest Report 2023 that 'titles given to beneficiaries under the Forest Rights Act (2006) (FRA)' contribute to negative changes in forest cover. The State of Forest Report noted that 'forest cover changes observed during the two-year interval reflect actual changes on the ground,' encompassing conversions between forest and non-forest areas and shifts among different canopy density classes. However, it lists FRA titles alongside factors such as harvesting of short rotation plantations, logging, shifting cultivation practices, human encroachment, and natural calamities like storms and floods. The intervention comes amid mounting criticism from forest rights activists who accuse the environment ministry of systematically undermining the 2006 law designed to recognise the rights of forest-dwelling tribal communities. The tribal affairs ministry's memorandum specifically references volume 1 of the State of Forest Report. 'Therefore, the MoEFCC is requested to provide a detailed scientific analysis to support this claim with valid instances through field verification as the report mentions,' the memorandum states. It warns that 'without adequate scientific evidence, reporting the vesting of FRA rights to tribal communities is causing degradation of forests may reinforce stereotypes amongst governments including district administrations and forest administration, that could undermine the rights vested under the Act, as well as effectiveness of the implementation Act.' The ministry emphasised that the Forest Rights Act was enacted to recognise legitimate claimants present in forest areas before December 13, 2005, and does not regularise encroachments but acknowledges pre-existing rights already being exercised by eligible individuals and communities dwelling in forest areas, including national parks and sanctuaries. 'Beyond securing the tenure of existing forest dwellers, FRA does not create any new rights that could potentially affect the ecological balance within protected areas,' it added. The dispute highlights deeper tensions over the FRA's implementation since its enactment in 2006. The legislation was designed to correct historical injustices faced by forest-dwelling tribal communities who had been denied formal recognition of their traditional rights. The law acknowledges that these communities have been 'integral to the very survival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem' and seeks to strengthen conservation efforts through their involvement. The legislation was intended to address decades of displacement and marginalisation of tribal populations in the name of forest conservation, recognising both individual and community forest rights including the crucial right to protect, regenerate and manage community forest resources. HT sought a response from the ministry of environment, forest and climate change on the office memorandum by the ministry of tribal affairs, but did not receive a response immediately. HT also reached out to tribal affairs minister Jual Oram and the spokesperson for tribal affairs but did not get any response. The development follows a submission to the Prime Minister by nearly 150 organisations last week against alleged subversion of the FRA. The coalition of forest rights groups accused the environment ministry and forest bureaucracy of systematically resisting FRA implementation for the past 16 years. Their submission highlighted multiple developments, including a National Tiger Conservation Authority order dated June 19, 2024, directing eviction of 64,801 families from tiger reserves across India. The activists argued this contradicts the FRA's provisions recognising traditional rights in protected areas. The groups also criticised comments by environment minister Bhupender Yadav in a June 5 interview with HT, where he attributed primary forest degradation partly to 'titles given under Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006.' In that interview, Yadav had said: 'Although there is a net increase in dense forests in the country, there are areas where the dense prime forests have been affected with degradation. This may be due to encroachment, illicit felling and in the northeast region, due to shifting cultivation. And to a lesser degree, due to unregulated grazing, natural causes like storms and landslides, and also titles given under Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006.' The minister had suggested addressing degradation through 'stringent protection measures added with effective community involvement, and also by regulating shifting cultivation in the northeastern region.' Responding to that submission on Thursday, the environment ministry said the government remains committed to tribal welfare and active involvement in forest management through traditional knowledge whilst enhancing livelihood opportunities. The ministry also defended recent amendments to the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam against allegations that changes were made 'without an in-depth knowledge and understanding of its various provisions, the factual position and its implementation.' Critics have argued these amendments undermine institutional authorities established under the Forest Rights Act. The ministry insisted that amendments were carried out through proper constitutional processes and parliamentary procedures. It highlighted Rule 11(7) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules 2023, which requires state governments to settle all forest rights claims under the 2006 Act before allowing any forest land to be diverted for non-forest purposes. 'This clause ensures that forest rights are indeed recognised,' the ministry said, arguing that proper legal safeguards remain in place despite activist concerns about implementation delays and bureaucratic resistance. 'The most effective way to understand this is by analyzing satellite imagery and corroborating it through on-ground verification—particularly using land titles granted under the Forest Rights Act. Comparing these data points with historical data from previous decades can provide a clear and objective picture of any changes in forest cover in those areas, including the extent of such changes,' said Debadityo Sinha, Lead- Climate & Ecosystems, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.


New Indian Express
3 days ago
- New Indian Express
Changing the face of education
CHHATTISGARH : There is no wonder that teachers play a fundamental role in education. And a balance in the pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) is a must for students' academic success. All children deserve a good learning environment and adequate attention from teachers. The school education system in Chhattisgarh, unfortunately, was long plagued by an imbalance in the PTR. The teaching staff crunch had a detrimental effect on the academic experience of the students, particularly those across the rural and tribal belts. The state government, with a vision to plug the gap, took a comprehensive and meaningful initiative a couple of months ago to rationalise its schools and the teachers. The goal was to facilitate better access to education and equip students with superior learning for future. The state, countering differences of opinion on rationalisation, went ahead with the far-reaching school education reform in line with the provisions of the National Education Policy 2020 and the Right to Education Act, 2009. It was an effort to streamline the education system and resolve academic anomalies by addressing disparity in the number of teachers available in every school. And the impact of rationalisation became evident when schools across the state reopened last month, when the new academic session commenced after the summer vacation. It may be noted that prior to rationalisation, as many as 453 schools in the state had no teachers, while 6,872 primary schools and 255 upper primary schools (till Class VIII) were being run with only one teacher each. Such problems were particularly profound in remote and sensitive districts like Sukma, Narayanpur and Bijapur as well as other regions in south Bastar. But the number of schools without teachers in the state has now dropped to zero! The move has also restored the hustle and bustle of children in 211 schools, which had no students. Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai said, 'We have resolved that now no child in Chhattisgarh will attend school or study without a teacher. Through rationalisation, we are not only following the Right to Education Act but are also laying the foundation of a strong and fair education system. It's a restoration of justice in education.'