Latest news with #CFRR
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Contesting the future of forest governance
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. CFRR, a transformative provision of the FRA, recognises the right of gram sabhas to manage their customary forests. It seeks to rectify the injustices of colonial forest consolidation which dispossessed local communities and supplanted their traditional management institutions with centralised state control. Not only was this usurpation of the nodal role contrary to the FRA, but the letter violated gram sabhas' statutory authority to implement locally developed management plans in their community forest resource (CFR) areas by insisting on a model plan from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA). This is not required by law. It also prohibited other departments or NGOs from supporting gram sabhas in CFRR management planning. The letter was withdrawn after a spirited grassroots mobilisation by gram sabhas, local elected representatives, and Adivasi rights groups. Still, the persistent attack on gram sabhas' autonomy in managing their forests demands a closer look at how forests should be managed under the FRA. Forest management Historically, forests under government control (excluding wildlife sanctuaries or national parks) have been managed through forest departments' working plans. These plans are rooted in the colonial misnomer of 'scientific forestry', i.e., planning and harvesting to maximise timber production. Ecologists, starting with Madhav Gadgil, questioned this approach, especially since early working plans even included clearfelling natural forests and replacing them with single-species plantations. The decline in India's forests, evidenced by the spread of invasive species and the increase in degraded forest areas, has fuelled doubts about the appropriateness of working plans. But for forest departments, they remain an article of faith to structure their operations and mobilise financial resources. In forest-rich central India, the continuing emphasis of working plans on timber extraction, which restricts communities' access and alters the composition of forests, was met with resistance even before Independence. While working plans have begun to consider restoration and wildlife conservation objectives, they remain products of bureaucratic writ, largely detached from local livelihoods and closed to independent scientific scrutiny. The FRA's radically different vision recognises the integral role of local communities in the 'very survival and sustainability' of forests. CFR management plans are to be developed by gram sabhas to prioritise local needs and address current problems. These plans shall be 'integrated' with working plans by the gram sabha. In other words, working plans will no longer apply in CFR areas, because communities will manage forests with a different objective and at much finer scales. Over 10,000 gram sabhas have received CFRR titles in India, but perhaps less than 1,000 have prepared their CFR management plans. Even their implementation is constrained by the refusal of forest departments to recognise their legitimacy and support gram sabhas. Instead, they have pursued a strategy of attrition, delaying or rejecting CFRR claims, attempting to revoke CFRR titles, and denying funds to CFRR-holding gram sabhas. Their aim to retain colonial power is concealed under arguments that communities lack the ability to manage forests scientifically. MoTA's vacillating responses have not helped. In 2015, it issued guidelines that gram sabhas can use simple formats for their plans, but later came under pressure to alter its stand. A 2024 joint letter with the Environment Ministry required CFR management plans to conform to the National Working Plan Code (NWPC) and even suggested the involvement of foresters in their preparation. This violates the FRA's letter and spirit. Addressing the bogeyman Even according to the NWPC, a working plan should outline 'the purpose with which a forest should be managed so as to best meet the interests and wishes of the owner, and indicate the means by which the purpose may be accomplished.' Yet, the lengthy processes and data-intensive formats that the NWPC prescribes carry the hangover of maximising timber yield. In contrast, forest management by gram sabhas will likely pursue multiple livelihood needs, for which the NWPC provides little guidance. Significant portions of working plans are devoted to cataloguing local conditions, but they abstract their complexities to focus on the forest crop (not ecosystem). A gram sabha's plan need not do the same because these insights are part of their lived experience. The variable impacts of climate change also challenge the linear trajectories of working plans, which need more adaptive responses that gram sabhas offer. CFRR demands shedding historical baggage and embracing new possibilities. The path forward is evident. The Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan, launched by the Central government last year, introduced an indicative framework for CFR management plans. While the framework can be improved, it can be achieved through flexible and iterative practice by gram sabhas. MoTA must reject any attempt to derail CFR management through the red herring of NWPC compliance. And forest departments must provide funds and protection when required and discard a timber-oriented science in favour of a different science of a people-friendly forest management. Gautam Aredath, policy analyst at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment; Sharachchandra Lele, distinguished fellow at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment. Views are personal
Hindustan Times
07-07-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Ecostani: From Chhattisgarh to Sariska, mining takes precedence over conservation
India's lush forests have often been a source of greed for politicians and industrialists who see them, not as biodiversity hotspots, but as a revenue source. From pristine forest land in mineral-rich Odisha and Chhattisgarh to the Sariska Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan, forests have been diverted for environmentally hazardous mining activities with impunity. Last week, the Chhattisgarh forest department felled trees in 200 acres of forest between Mudagaon and Saritola villages in the Tamnar tehsil of Raigarh district to operate a coal mine in the Gare Palma Sector II coal block, the latest example of trees being felled for mining despite protest by locals. The mine has been allotted to Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited (MAHAGENCO) and the Mine Developer and Operator (MDO) is the Adani group. Local villagers have opposed the mining. On Thursday, the Chhattisgarh forest department withdrew its directive that barred other government departments, NGOs, and private entities from undertaking any work related to Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) issued under the Forest Rights Act (FRA). The directive issued on May 15 had put community forest resources under the forest department, taking away the rights of the village bodies to administer these resources. The move in May was met with severe backlash with protests reported in several districts such as Ambikapur, Kanker, and Bastar that termed the order contrary to the FRA's spirit. The forest department said referring to the forest department as the 'Nodal Agency' was a typographical error, which had already been corrected through a corrigendum dated June 23. However, due to the confusion and unrest that followed, both the original letter and the corrigendum have now been formally withdrawn, officials said. The decision was seen as the state government's attempt to execute its plan to expand mining activity in the state. In Chhattisgarh, the state government has started exploration of 13 new minerals such as bauxite, limestone and graphite, across forests. Around 44 new mineral blocks were auctioned in 2024-25 financial year, according to official records. 'The new mines would face difficulty in getting approvals if the community rights are with gram sabhas as was the case with Raigarh project. Gram Sabha consent is necessary for mining and diversion of the forest land,' said a senior retired Indian Forest Service (IFS) official. He added that by taking away the village body's right and giving it to the forest department would have made gram sabha consent redundant. In Rajasthan's Sariska Tiger Reserve, the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife this month approved the plan to de-notify 48.39 square kilometres of the reserve area and include 90.91 square kilometres of degraded forests in the reserve. The area being de-notified includes the core and buffer of the tiger reserve. The denotification, according to documents seen by HT, shows that it would provide mining for 50 marble and dolomite mines within Sariska. The Rajasthan mining department has already listed the mines that can be operated in the denotified areas. As per the documents, the de-notification of prime forest land in Sariska would witness a retreat at multiple points of the boundary allowing mining. It will also interrupt internal tiger movement corridors in Sariska hampering tiger conservation. Sariska falls in Rajasthan's Alwar district, whose member of Lok Sabha is Bhupender Yadav, union environment minister, and legislator is Sanjay Sharma, the state environment minister. The proposal to rationalise the boundaries of Sariska Tiger Reserve was approved by the central environment ministry in a month. Both Yadav and Sharma have said that the decision will benefit Sariska because land double the size of the denotified forest area will be added to the tiger reserve. However, environmental activists claim that the forest being added is highly degraded and has a huge human presence making it unfit for tiger habitat. In Odisha, the BJP-led state government has announced the auction of 30 iron ore mines in 2025 to 'strengthen' the steel industry. The In Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, a central public sector undertaking, will soon start two new coal mines, Saubhadra and Balabhadra, having a combined reserve of 35 million tonnes. In addition, approvals for 636 minor mineral mines, mostly in forest areas, have also been granted. The government has diverted 1.7 lakh hectares of forest for projects between 2014 and 2023-24, according to a reply in Lok Sabha. Of this, during the period from 2021-22 to 2023-24, forest area measuring 59,882.07 ha was diverted for various non-forestry purposes including infrastructure projects. Between 2004 and 2013, around 3.43 lakh hectares of forest land was diverted for all types of developmental projects. To be sure, the difference in the forest diversion can be attributed to the rule change under which the Central government does not record forest diversion for projects whose approval are granted by the state governments. Rampant developmental activities have resulted in loss of 2.33 million of forest cover between 2000 and 2023, a 7.1% decline. According to a report by Global Forest Watch, the loss of trees within India's primary forests (having more than 30% canopy cover) have increased since 2014. The primary forests are mostly in the Himalayan region, in the tribal belt of Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Jharkhand and Western Ghats and some parts of Eastern Ghats. According to the report, which was based on Forest Survey of India reports, the highest loss of tree cover in primary forest was in the years 2014 and 2015 and then in 2023 and 2024. The main reasons for tree cover loss were agriculture, logging, settlements, mining and infrastructure development. Amid the increasing forest loss, India's record on compensatory afforestation is not very good. Less than half of the compensatory afforestation is actually done on ground and at the place of loss of trees. In 2022, the environment ministry brought changes in the Forest Conservation Act, allowing compensatory afforestation in unclassed and degraded forest claiming that there was not enough primary forest for this exercise. Studies have shown this would have triggered twin damages --- first trees will be lost in primary forest and second, genuine forest will be replaced by plantation. The amendment has been challenged in the Supreme Court. The Indian forests and wildlife conservation laws have been repeatedly diluted to suit the industries, who have been rarely held accountable for the damage they have caused. The government replacing punishment with fines has allowed the industry to more vigorously violate the norms. Only those who are being punished are the wildlife such as tigers in Sariska, who now have to live with the constant mining noise inside their home.
Indian Express
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Amid pushback, Chhattisgarh withdraws community forest rights
Amid protests from forest dwellers and activists, the Chhattisgarh forest department Thursday has withdrawn its directive barring all other departments, NGOs and private organisations from carrying out any work concerning Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) until the Centre passes a plan. The advisory was withdrawn on the directions of state Forest Minister Kedar Kashyap, the forest department said in a press statement. The department has written to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of India (MoEF&CC), to issue model CFR management plans, detailed guidelines and a training module for the master trainers and all stakeholders. The press statement said: 'The forest department had only issued an advisory to its field officers in light of the absence of model Community Forest Resource (CFR) management plans and corresponding guidelines.' It was necessary because of inconsistency in field-level implementation of CFRR due to the lack of clarity on how to integrate CFR management plans with the National Working Plan Code, 2023, the statement said. There was also confusion regarding coordination between Gram Sabhas, NGOs, and forest officials. The statement said the absence of this advisory would have resulted in ad hoc management plans being implemented without the working plan prescriptions. 'This would have jeopardized the ecological integrity of forests… and created inter-departmental and community-level disputes.' IFS officer V Sreenivasa Rao, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force (PCCF & HoFF), Chhattisgarh, said, 'The department has played a commendable role in the distribution Individual and CFR rights. Till now a total of 4,78,641 of Individual Rights and 4,349 of CFRR (20,06,224 hectares) have been given under the Forest Rights Act (FRA). As a result… Chhattisgarh has emerged as one of the leading states in the country in terms of CFRR recognition.'
Time of India
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
After widespread protests, forest dept blinks, withdraws advisory on CFRR
Raipur: Succumbing to widespread protests and reports over an advisory issued about a month back over Forest Rights Act (FRA 2006) that limited the constitutional powers of Gram sabhas. Chhattisgarh Forest Department on Thursday clarified that the letter was only intended as a temporary procedural advisory due to the absence of a model management plan for Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) areas. "Our intention was never to curtail community rights," Principal Chief Conservation of Forest (PCCF) & Head of Forest Force (HoFF) Srinivas Rao told TOI. "The advisory aimed to ensure ecological safeguards and scientific consistency in forest management." The May 15 letter has now been formally corrected through a corrigendum issued on June 23, and both documents — the original and its clarification — have been withdrawn on the directions of Forest Minister Kedar Kashyap. HoFF Srinivas Rao in a detailed letter issued on Thursday, cited growing confusion at the field level regarding integration of community-prepared plans with the National Working Plan Code (2023), approved by the Environment Ministry. The statement adds that the department's letter was misinterpreted as a move to centralize control over CFR lands, and that opposition from NGOs and community groups likely stemmed from this misunderstanding. The clarification comes a day after TOI reported on massive protests across the state on July 1 and 2 by thousands of people, against forest department's order and Gram Sabhas, tribal organizations, and social activists, took place in multiple places including tribal districts. HoFF Rao reiterated that the department had formally withdrawn its letter dated May 15, 2025, which had mistakenly referred to the department as the "nodal agency" for implementing CFRR. He clarified that this was a typographical error, and that it serves only as a facilitator, not the decision-maker, in the CFRR process. The original advisory, now officially withdrawn through office letter no. 536 dated July 3, 2025, had sparked outrage among tribal groups and activists who viewed it as an attempt to undermine the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, and override the authority of Gram Sabhas, the rightful custodians of forest resources under the law. Corrected Course and Future Steps The Forest Department has written to the Ministries of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) and Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) requesting for a model community forest resource management plan aligned with national forestry codes, then detailed implementation guidelines for tribal welfare and forest officials and a standardized training module for local stakeholders including Gram Sabha representatives. The state currently leads the country with 4,349 CFRR titles, covering over 20,062 sq km, and over 4.78 lakh individual titles under FRA. These efforts, the department noted, were achieved through a "facilitative and inclusive" approach. While the department's latest clarification may help ease tensions, activists and community leaders say it's now time for transparent collaboration, not just damage control. "This retraction is a step in the right direction," said an activist who has been working with CFRR-recognized villages. "But the state must remember: CFR rights are not to be facilitated on paper — they are lived realities in our forests."
Time of India
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh forest department withdraws CFRR advisory after widespread protest over FRA
RAIPUR: In response to widespread protests and reports over an advisory issued about a month back over Forest Rights Act (FRA 2006) that limited the constitutional powers of Gram sabhas. Chhattisgarh Forest Department on Thursday clarified that the letter was only intended as a temporary procedural advisory due to the absence of a model management plan for Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) areas. 'Our intention was never to curtail community rights,' Principal Chief Conservation of Forest (PCCF) & Head of Forest Force (HoFF) Srinivas Rao told TOI. 'The advisory aimed to ensure ecological safeguards and scientific consistency in forest management.' The May 15 letter has now been formally corrected through a corrigendum issued on June 23, and both documents — the original and its clarification — have been withdrawn on the directions of Forest Minister Kedar Kashyap. HoFF Srinivas Rao in a detailed letter issued on Thursday, cited growing confusion at the field level regarding integration of community-prepared plans with the National Working Plan Code (2023), approved by the Environment Ministry. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo The statement adds that the department's letter was misinterpreted as a move to centralize control over CFR lands, and that opposition from NGOs and community groups likely stemmed from this misunderstanding. The clarification comes a day after TOI reported on massive protests across the state on July 1 and 2 by thousands of people, against an forest department's order and Gram Sabhas, tribal organizations, and social activists, took place in multiple places including tribal districts. HoFF Rao reiterated that the department had formally withdrawn its letter dated May 15, 2025, which had mistakenly referred to the department as the "nodal agency" for implementing CFRR. He clarified that this was a typographical error, and that it serves only as a facilitator, not the decision-maker, in the CFRR process. The original advisory, now officially withdrawn through office letter no. 536 dated July 3, 2025, had sparked outrage among tribal groups and activists who viewed it as an attempt to undermine the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, and override the authority of Gram Sabhas, the rightful custodians of forest resources under the law. Corrected Course and Future Steps Going forward the Forest Department has written to the Ministries of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) and Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) requesting for a model community forest resource management plan aligned with national forestry codes, then detailed implementation guidelines for tribal welfare and forest officials and a standardized training module for local stakeholders including Gram Sabha representatives. The state currently leads the country with 4,349 CFRR titles, covering over 20,062 sq km, and over 4.78 lakh individual titles under FRA. These efforts, the department noted, were achieved through a 'facilitative and inclusive' approach. While the department's latest clarification may help ease tensions, activists and community leaders say it's now time for transparent collaboration, not just damage control. 'This retraction is a step in the right direction,' said an activist who has been working with CFRR-recognized villages. 'But the state must remember: CFR rights are not to be facilitated on paper — they are lived realities in our forests.'
