National Forest Policy 1988
The principal aim of the Forest Policy is to ensure “environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance” (section 2.2). Direct economic benefits are “subordinated to this principal aim”. Basic objectives of the Policy include conserving natural heritage, preserving the “remaining natural forests”, and meeting subsistence requirements of rural and tribal populations (section 2.1).
The Forest Policy states that the country’s network of protected areas should be “strengthened and extended” (section 3.3), and that forest management plans should provide for corridors linking protected areas (section 4.5). It notes that forest management should “associate” tribal peoples in the protection, regeneration and development of forests, and should safeguard their customary rights and interests (section 4.6). These provisions support the idea of community-level conservation efforts, particularly with respect to tribal peoples.
The strategy outlined in the policy includes social forestry, recommending that village and community land “not required for other productive uses” should be used to develop tree crops and fodder resources, with the revenues generated from such activities going to local panchayats or communities (section 4.2.3). The policy suggests that vesting in individuals “certain ownership rights over trees could be considered”, with the beneficiaries entitled to “usufruct” and in turn responsible for “security and maintenance”. In this connection, it mentions “weaker sections” of the population “such as landless labour, small and marginal farmers, scheduled castes, tribal communities and women from all sections of society”.
Rights and concessions in state forests “should always remain related to the carrying capacity of forests” (section 4.3.4.1), and “should primarily be for the bona fide use of the communities living within and around forest areas, specially the tribals” (section 4.3.4.2). The rights and concessions enjoyed by “tribals and other poor living within and near forests” should be “fully protected”, and their domestic requirements should be “the first charge on forest produce” (section 4.3.4.3). Scheduled castes and other poor communities living near forests should be given similar consideration, but always “determined by the carrying capacity of the forests” (section 4.3.4.4). Holders of customary rights and concessions in forested areas should be “motivated to identify themselves with the protection and development of forests from which they derive benefits” (section 4.3.4.2).
Government-approved management plans are required for state forests “to be worked” (section 4.3.2). Schemes and projects that “interfere with […] ecologically sensitive areas should be severely restricted. Tropical rain/moist forests […] should be totally safeguarded” (section 4.3.1).
Although the Policy supports the recognition of customary and traditional rights, and endorses subsistence use by forest-dependent communities, it takes a dim view of the traditional practice of shifting cultivation, advising that it be discouraged and alternative livelihood activities provided (section 4.7). It also calls for the regulation of grazing in forest areas with the involvement of communities, some areas to be “fully protected” and the levy of grazing fees (section 4.8.3). The Policy notes that “encroachment” on forest lands must be curbed, and no regularisation of existing encroachments should be permitted (section 4.8.1).
It was under this policy that the Government Resolution on Joint Forest Management was issued in 1990. However, JFM continues to be implemented in project mode, without institutionalising legalising participation in forest management.
National Environment Policy 2006
As with most policy documents, the National Environment Policy contains many broad statements concerning the importance of community participation in various initiatives aimed at conservation. The Policy recognizes that communities have traditionally protected common resources such as “water sources, grazing grounds, local forests [and] fisheries” through “various norms” but notes that such norms have weakened (section 2). It acknowledges that the exclusion of local communities from the protected area declaration process and the loss of traditional rights in such areas have undermined wildlife conservation. It calls for expanding the country’s network of protected areas, “including Conservation and Community Reserves” (section 5.2.3), but does not specify how community rights and participation are to be ensured.
The eco-development model is to be promoted in “fringe areas” of protected areas, to compensate communities for access restrictions within protected areas (section 5.2.3). What may be of particular relevance to CCAs is the idea of ‘incomparable values’: “Significant risks to human health, life, and environmental life-support systems, besides certain other unique natural and man-made entities, which may impact the well-being, broadly conceived, of large numbers of persons, may be considered as ”Incomparable” in that individuals or societies would not accept these risks for compensation in money or conventional goods and services. A conventional economic cost-benefit calculus would not, accordingly, apply in their case, and such entities would have priority in allocation of societal resources for their conservation without consideration of direct or immediate economic benefit” (section 4.vi).
The Policy calls for the establishment of mechanisms and processes to identify such entities (section 5.1.2), and recommends the inclusion, under this nomenclature, of “forests of high indigenous genetic diversity” (section 5.2.3), “several charismatic species of wildlife” (section 5.2.3), “ancient sacred groves and ‘biodiversity hotspots’” (section 5.2.4), “particular unique wetlands” (section 5.2.5), and “particular unique mountain scapes” (section 5.2.6).
The Policy also states that “Environmentally Sensitive Zones” should be defined as areas with resources of ‘incomparable value’ (section 5.1.3). It recommends the formulation of “area development plans” for such zones, and the creation of “local institutions with adequate participation for the environmental management of such areas” (section 5.1.3).
National Wildlife Action Plan 2017-2031
A research paper on the draft of National Wildlife Action Plan 2017-2031.
Joint Forest Management
The Forest Policy of 1998 provided impetus for the introduction of joint forest management (JFM) in India. Two years after the policy was adopted, the central government issued a circular to all state governments (Circular No. 6.21/89-F.P. dated 1 June 1990), recommending the involvement of local communities in the management of degraded forests and urging state governments to involve non-government organisations to facilitate the process. The programme was promoted through the Forest Policy and implemented through resolutions at the state level. By the year 2000, JFM was operating in 22 of India’s 28 states.
Under JFM, local communities participate in the regeneration, management and conservation of degraded forests, in partnership with government forest departments, through the establishment of joint committees. Village communities are entitled to share in the benefits arising from such forests, but the extent and conditions of sharing arrangements are determined by state governments.
In general, JFM involves the handing over of degraded forest land to villagers for the purpose of raising valuable timber species. Plantations are created and forests regenerated, with forest departments and village communities jointly responsible for forest management. After a period of 5-10 years, timber is harvested and the villages involved are entitled to receive a share of the revenue generated. This amount varies from state to state, with some communities receiving as little as 25 per cent, as is the case in West Bengal.
JFM has had varying success in different parts of the country. Its success or failure has depended on individual state policies and methods of implementation, and often on individual forest officers or local communities. The local context has also played an important part in the outcome of JFM initiatives. In states where community rights over resources had been totally extinguished through earlier government actions, JFM has provided an opportunity for communities to participate in forest use and management . But where indigenous systems of forest use and management had survived, JFM has in many cases given rise to conflict and proved detrimental to community interests.59 As opposed to an entire village making decisions, under JFM, decisions were taken by a few selected individuals along with the forest staff concerned. This left ample scope for non-transparent financial dealings and corruption, consequently encouraging distrust and politicisation of the entire initiative. JFM has also been criticised for taking a top-down approach in general, and for not handing over decision-making power to communities .
In addition, many communities which participated in JFM received negligible or no benefits from the harvest. In the recent times some communities such as Mendha-Lekha, taking advantage of the transparency laws such as Right to Information Act (RTI) have asked the government to disclose the amount of profits received and share 50% (as per the resolution for Maharashtra state) with the local communities. After much resistance some figures have been released which “by no means present the real scenario” as per the local people.61 Much debate and discussion in the country in last few years about the FRA had taken away the focus from JFM, however, as more and more communities are filing claims for the CFR provision, which unlike JFM gives both use and management rights to the people, in an effort to continue its hold over the forests, has revived efforts to bring more areas under JFM. Department, therefore, has faced serious criticism for hindering implementation of FRA, while promoting JFM
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF ) that emerged from the Conference of Parties (COP15) in December 2022 places the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs ) as ‘custodians of biodiversity and partners in the conservation, restoration and sustainable use.’ In doing so, it builds upon the considerations for the implementation of Aichi Biodiversity Targets , which were adopted at COP10 in Japan in October 2010.
Understanding the significance of Community Conserved Areas in India vis-à-vis GBF
National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan
NBSAPs is the main instrument for implementing the convention at national levels.