Latest news with #StateofForestReport
Hindustan Times
06-07-2025
- Politics
- 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.
Hindustan Times
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Ranthambore's tigers and their shrinking habitats
The tragic tiger-human conflict in Rajasthan's famous Ranthambore Tiger Reserve should wake up wild life experts in government for the damage they have done to the tiger reserves. In the early eighties, the famous Tiger Man, conservator Fateh Singh Rathore, fondly remembered as the only one to have given a ground strategy for tiger conservation in Ranthambore, is now lost to tiger experts in government. The tigers are in direct conflict with humans and Chief Wild Life Wardens (CWLWs) pacify them with live-baits rather than providing them a sustainable prey-base within their habitats. Segmental short-term and counter-productive solutions are often shot out as remedies to an ailing habitat. A copious loss of habitats and a decadal disappearance of forest cover is definitely the central cause of many frenzied man-animal conflicts. However, what escapes attention is the perfunctory attitude of CWLWs towards reintroduction of more predators from other habitats and different ecosystems without addressing the central cause of carrying capacity. An unresearched translocation and reintroduction disturbs prey base in forests besides many other forms of damages that it is likely to inflict both in a short-term and a long-term period. To manage predator populations. CWLWs bring live baits to forests and once this is not found enough, captive zoo animals which are no better than live baits are supplied under the cover of 'increasing prey base' in defiance of the guidelines given by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Central Zoo Authority (CZA). As predators get used to live baits, they give up hunting and fearlessly cross over to any human habitat in search of standing livestock. Only two days ago, a coalition of cheetahs had crossed the border of Kuna National Park and breached the human habitat of a village killing livestock. There are many questions looking for answers in this imbroglio. The available data speaks for itself and can explain the problem more accurately. As per the India's State of Forest Report (ISFR) of 2023, the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve where the tragic killing of the Forest Ranger has an increased tiger population of 80 but the tiger habitat has shrunk by 44.57 sq kms. Similarly, its adjoining Sariska has added 30 tigers from just two in the last 15 years but lost 15.95 sq kms of habitat. This imbalance within tiger reserves is faster in many other tiger reserves of India as well. Wildlife experts know it very well that an average tiger needs at least 60 to 100 sq kms to survive and similarly, a cheetah needs a minimum of 1500 sq kms for a sustainable prey base. Of the five largest tiger reserves in Rajasthan none exceeds an area of Ranthambore Reserve which is merely 1530 sq kms with roads and villages criss-crossing all over. This habitat area is in all fairness, suitable for not more than 15 tigers or even less as there are other competing predators on the same stock of prey. Many other tiger reserves are simply broken platforms or smaller segments of drying and wilting land masses of less than 500 sq kms and some even smaller like Darrah and Shargarh in Rajasthan. If this isn't enough, the foresters fail to account that prey base is a primary requirement before releasing new predators or conserving growth of pre-existing ones. The herbivore prey base is not a free gift in a forest. It is dependent upon grasslands which are almost non-existent in a true sense of grasses which prey can actually consume. Most grasslands are converted to non-forest use such as agriculture, cultivation and mining. A phenomenal loss of 56,500 sq kms of grasslands which one can find in an official statement of Indian government to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) in 2019 during COP 14 is a fact. The Aravali forest range which hold most of the Rajasthan's tiger reserves has suffered highest degradation, thereby making it impossible for deer, the main prey base to sustain its population. In coming times, tigers are going to face much heat and most zoos which are keeping deer for city's ecological life may convert to prey-base farms. Shrinking habitats will bring tigers close to human populations. Due to lack of a committed policy to expand tiger habitats, CWLWs would continue to depend upon short-cut measures like offering them live-baits, which will further weaken their hunting skills. At the same time, reintroduction of new predators in their habitats will increase brutal competition for food and water. The government should undertake at least three urgent measures to address the situation. One, take non-government tiger experts on board on how to lure the tigers back into the core of forests and stop offering live-baits. Two, stop reintroduction of any more predators till forest areas are restored to match the prey need of tigers. Three, ban any more deer parks or zoos from coming up till a cradle to grave policy for zoo animals becoming part of the contract for seeking licence for a zoo and is acknowledged within the framework of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972. Considering a rising fancy for wildlife and new business opportunities aligned to eco-tourism, wildlife may lose many more habitats to the construction of hotels, rail-tracks and roads. To stop man-animal conflicts, forests should be left to themselves, should not be fragmented and trespassed upon. This article is authored by Amita Singh, former professor of law and governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University and president, Asia Pacific Disaster Research Group.
