Contesting the Future of Forest Governance: Revisiting CFR Rights Under FRA, 2006
Context
- Recently, the Chhattisgarh Forest Department designated itself as the nodal agency for implementing Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.
- This move violated the autonomy of gram sabhas, which are the rightful authorities under the Act.
- It also mandated adherence to a model plan and prohibited support from other institutions — undermining decentralised forest governance.
About CFR and FRA, 2006
- Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) under Section 3(1)(i) of FRA empower gram sabhas to:
- Protect, regenerate, conserve and manage customary forest lands.
- Prepare CFR management plans based on local needs and ecological wisdom.
- The law seeks to correct colonial forest injustices, where the state took control of community forests, displacing traditional forest management systems.
Legal and Institutional Violations
- The forest department’s move:
- Contradicts the FRA, which designates gram sabhas as the authority.
- Imposes external templates (e.g. model plans), violating community autonomy.
- Prevents collaboration with NGOs or experts, weakening grassroots capacity.
🔁 The letter was withdrawn after resistance from Adivasi groups, panchayats, and civil society—but signals persistent institutional resistance to community forest rights.
Forest Management: Contrasting Visions
️ Working Plans (Forest Department)
- Origin: Colonial “scientific forestry”, focused on timber maximisation.
- Still central to forest governance despite:
- Promotion of monoculture plantations.
- Neglect of local livelihoods and biodiversity.
- Little external scientific review.
- Reforms exist (e.g., focus on restoration), but bureaucratic control remains intact.
CFR Management Plans (Gram Sabhas)
- Designed to prioritise local livelihoods, ecology, and adaptive responses.
- Recognises local ecological knowledge and non-timber values.
- Integrated with working plans only by the gram sabhas, not overridden by them.
- But adoption is limited: of 10,000 CFRR titles, fewer than 1,000 communities have prepared plans — due to lack of support and sabotage by forest departments.
Challenges to Implementation
- State resistance: Attempts to revoke CFR titles, deny funds, reject plans.
- MoTA’s inconsistency: Issued people-friendly guidelines in 2015, later diluted by aligning CFR plans with the National Working Plan Code (NWPC).
- NWPC is:
- Complex, data-intensive, and rooted in timber-oriented goals.
- Ill-suited for diverse livelihood needs and local knowledge.
Reclaiming Governance: What Needs to Be Done
Recommendations from the Author:
- Reject NWPC-based conformity for CFR plans.
- Strengthen Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan as a flexible planning tool.
- Enable iterative, locally-driven planning
- Forest departments should:
- Provide logistical and financial support.
- Shift from timber-centric science to people- and ecosystem-centric management.
Key Principle:
“CFRR demands shedding historical baggage and embracing new possibilities.”
— Emphasis on adaptive, democratic, and ecologically grounded governance
Related Posts
One-Stop Centres For Zero Waste
Posted on
