India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2023

The India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2023 has sparked controversy by attributing part of the negative change in forest cover to the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. The claim has been contested by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA), which has expressed concerns about the scientific validity of the ISFR's findings. This has led to a broader debate on the relationship between tribal rights, forest conservation, and sustainable forest management.

Key Findings of the ISFR 2023:

• The ISFR 2023, which is a biennial assessment of India’s forests, showed a major drop in dense natural forests:

  • Over 1,200 sq km of Mid-Dense Forest (MDF) and an equal area of Open Forest (OF) were lost within the Recorded Forest Area (RFA).

  • 64 sq km of Dense Forest and over 416 sq km of Mid-Dense Forest were lost outside RFA.

  • On the positive side, Very Dense Forest increased by over 2,400 sq km.

The report attributes the loss to:

1. Human encroachments

2. Natural calamities (storms, floods, landslides)

3. Harvesting of short-rotation plantations and logging

4. Titles granted under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006

Key Features of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006:

Objective:

• The FRA acknowledges and grants the forest dwelling rights of Scheduled Tribes (FDST) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD) who have lived in the forests for generations.

• It aims to reverse historical injustices faced by these communities who were dispossessed of their forest land and resources without proper recognition of their rights.

• The act ensures the livelihoods of these communities, recognizing their role in sustainable forest management over centuries.

Eligibility:

• Rights can be claimed by individuals or communities who have lived in forests for at least three generations (approximately 75 years) prior to December 13, 2005.

• The act applies to those forest-dwelling communities who are dependent on forests for sustenance, including non-timber forest products (NTFPs), grazing land, and agriculture.

Recognition of Critical Wildlife Habitats:

• The FRA also stipulates that critical wildlife habitats, including national parks and sanctuaries, must remain inviolate (protected) for wildlife conservation.

• This means that tribal rights are respected, but wildlife conservation remains a top priority in these areas.

Authorities for Vesting Forest Rights:

1. Gram Sabha (Village Assembly):

   • The Gram Sabha is the primary body that initiates the process for recognizing individual or community forest rights.

   • It is tasked with determining the nature and extent of rights for each community based on their historical occupation and use of forest resources.

2. Sub-Divisional Level Committee:

   • Constituted by the state government, this committee examines the resolutions passed by the Gram Sabha.

   • The committee checks whether the claims are in line with the legal requirements under the FRA.

3. District Level Committee:

   • This is the final authority responsible for approving forest rights claims, based on the work done by the Gram Sabha and sub-divisional committees.

   • Once the claims are approved, the rights are officially granted.

Types of Rights Granted:

The FRA recognizes two main categories of rights:

1. Individual Rights:

   • These are rights granted to individuals or families to access forest resources such as land, timber, water, and non-timber forest products for their livelihood and sustenance.

2. Community Rights:

   • These rights are granted to the community as a whole, enabling them to use and manage common forest resources, such as grazing grounds, water sources, and sacred groves.

   • It also includes rights to conserve and protect forests, making communities active participants in forest governance.

Points of Contention:

1. ISFR 2023 Blames FRA for Forest Loss:

   • For the first time, the FRA is explicitly mentioned as a factor contributing to the loss of forest cover in the ISFR.

   • The report suggests that the granting of titles under the FRA could lead to encroachments or other activities that negatively impact forest areas.

2. Rebuttal from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA):

   • The Ministry of Tribal Affairs strongly rejected the ISFR’s claim, arguing that:

     • The report lacks scientific evidence and does not involve sufficient “ground truthing”.

     • The FRA does not legalize encroachments but acknowledges pre-existing rights of forest-dwelling communities.

     • It does not grant new rights that could damage the ecological balance of forests.

     • The FRA aims to empower tribal communities, not to contribute to forest degradation.

3. Civil Society Reaction:

   • Over 150 organizations mobilized to condemn the ISFR’s assertion that the FRA contributes to forest loss.

   • They criticized the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) for what they saw as unverified conclusions aimed at delegitimizing the FRA.

4. Ministry of Environment’s Clarification:

   • The MoEFCC responded by clarifying that, despite some forest losses, the ISFR 2023 shows a substantial increase in forest cover, suggesting that community-led conservation efforts, facilitated by FRA, have had a positive impact.

   • They also dismissed civil society’s concerns as “devoid of merit”, reinforcing that the overall forest cover has increased and local communities have played a key role in forest management.

Broader Implications:

1. Balance Between Tribal Rights and Conservation:

   • The debate highlights a delicate balance between tribal rights and environmental conservation. While it’s important to protect forests, it’s equally important to ensure that tribal communities who have lived sustainably in these forests for centuries are not unfairly penalized.

   • The FRA is meant to empower these communities, but the concerns about forest degradation suggest that inter-ministerial coordination is needed to ensure that forest conservation and tribal welfare can coexist harmoniously.

2. Scientific Backing and Evidence-Based Policymaking:

   • The Ministry of Tribal Affairs has rightly questioned the scientific validity of the ISFR’s conclusions. Evidence-based policymaking is crucial when implementing measures that affect both environmental and social factors.

   • The lack of “ground truthing” (field validation) in the ISFR’s findings makes it difficult to assess whether encroachments linked to the FRA are a significant factor in the loss of forest cover.

3. Role of Civil Society and Grassroots Movements:

   • The mobilization of over 150 organizations underscores the importance of civil society engagement in forest governance. It also reflects the critical role of grassroots movements in holding the government accountable for policies that affect tribal populations and the environment.

Conclusion:

The controversy surrounding the ISFR’s claims about the FRA highlights the need for transparent, evidence-based policymaking in managing India’s forests. It is essential that the scientific community, government ministries, and civil society organizations work together to address both the concerns of tribal communities and the urgent need for forest conservation. As this issue unfolds, it underscores the importance of inter-ministerial coordination, scientific validation, and holistic forest management approaches that consider social, environmental, and ecological factors.