Latest news with #MinistryofTribalAffairs
The Hindu
15-07-2025
- 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 The letter was withdrawn after a spirited grassroots mobilisation by gram sabhas, local elected representatives, and Adivasi rights groups.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
The Hindu
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
In a first, President Murmu sanctions grant for Eklavya school toppers
In a first-of-its-kind initiative, President Droupadi Murmu has sanctioned a discretionary fund to the National Education Society for Tribal Students (NESTS) for toppers from the Eklavya Model Residential Schools this year. Officials told The Hindu that the NESTS had disbursed ₹62.40 lakh of this discretionary fund to 823 meritorious students who have secured the highest marks in their respective streams across Eklavya schools in the country. The NESTS, under Ministry of Tribal Affairs, administers over 470 Eklavya schools across the country. Over 1.38 lakh students are enrolled in these schools with at least 85% of them from Scheduled Tribe communities. One official explained that this initiative provided a one-time financial assistance of ₹7,500 each to two top-performing students from each stream — Science, Humanities, and Commerce — in every school that has had students appear for the Class XII board examinations for the academic year ending in 2025. The discretionary fund was sanctioned to NESTS earlier this year, which was transferred through direct bank transfer to the students' account set up by their respective schools within 2-3 weeks of the results being announced, officials said. They added that the selection of meritorious students for receiving this grant had a tie-breaker mechanism as well which had worked in a preference for girl students and was used in one instance where 20 students from 10 EMRSs had secured the same marks. If the tie persisted, Class XI performance would be considered. A statement from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs on Monday said that the initiative 'underscores the shared vision of the Hon'ble President of India and NESTS to foster equitable access to quality education, incentivise scholastic achievement, and empower tribal youth to confidently pursue higher education and professional aspirations'. The EMRS programme to run residential schools for tribal children is among the main schemes implemented by the Tribal Affairs Ministry at the Centre and has been a key plank for the current administration to highlight its commitment to reaching Scheduled Tribe communities. The scheme, in existence since 1997-98, has seen major reforms beginning in the first term of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government, which included sanctioning over 600 new Eklavya schools across the country, and setting up the NESTS as a central administrator of the schools.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
08-07-2025
- Politics
- 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.
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.'
Indian Express
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Centre's outreach to tribal people can be starting point for bottom-up development. But it won't be easy
On June 15, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs launched an outreach programme, targeting around 1 lakh tribal-dominated villages, to ensure doorstep delivery of two welfare schemes: Pradhan Mantri Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan (PM JANMAN) and Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan (DAJGUA). It aims to provide tribals with basic documents like the Aadhaar and Ayushman Bharat cards, title under the Forest Rights Act, pension accounts, as well as Jan Dhan accounts, while helping them to get enrolled in the existing schemes. The campaign's objectives — to make tribal populations aware of the existing schemes while promoting 'participatory governance through community mobilisation' — are commendable. But there will be challenges. In the past couple of years, the Union government has taken measures to bridge the developmental gap between tribal populations and the rest. The PM JANMAN was launched in 2023, targeting the socio-economic development of 75 Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG) across 18 states and one UT. Last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched DAJGUA, which aims to fill the infrastructural gaps in 63,843 villages. Large sections, however, have yet to receive the benefits of the schemes. While difficulties in reaching geographically inaccessible terrain is a major barrier, landlessness remains a concerning issue, especially for the PVTGs. In November 2024, President Droupadi Murmu flagged it; she asked NITI Aayog to facilitate land provision in tribal areas. Another challenge is getting the required documents for accessing different schemes. Reports published in this newspaper in October 2024 showed how many from the Katkari Adivasi communities in Pune struggled to get the birth and death certificates necessary for accessing welfare benefits under the Tribal Sub Plans (TSP). The reason cited was the non-recognition of their village after displacement due to the construction of the Dimbhe Dam in 1984. In the decades after Independence, millions of tribal people have been displaced by dams, mines, wildlife sanctuaries and industries. A sustained effort is required to understand their special predicaments and needs. For that, governance must be prioritised over political symbolism. This outreach campaign can be a starting point.
