India’s FRA vs. Global Conservation Laws
Kartavya Desk Staff
Syllabus: Governance
Source: TH
Context: At CBD COP-16 (2025), a permanent subsidiary body for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) was created to uphold rights in biodiversity conservation.
• Amid global exclusionary trends, India’s Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 stands out for linking community forest governance with conservation.
About India’s FRA vs. Global Conservation Laws:
• FRA – A Rights-Based Conservation Model: The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 legally recognizes 13 categories of forest rights, empowering gram sabhas for community-led biodiversity conservation. It acknowledges historical injustice faced by tribal communities and integrates tenure security with ecosystem protection.
• The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 legally recognizes 13 categories of forest rights, empowering gram sabhas for community-led biodiversity conservation.
• It acknowledges historical injustice faced by tribal communities and integrates tenure security with ecosystem protection.
• Global Trends – Fortress Conservation Model: Many global laws (e.g., Wildlife Acts in Africa and Latin America) adopt an exclusionary “protected area” model, displacing 10–20 million IPLCs worldwide (g.: Batwa in Uganda, Masai in Kenya). This “fortress conservation” criminalizes traditional users and centralizes forest control under the state or private actors.
• Many global laws (e.g., Wildlife Acts in Africa and Latin America) adopt an exclusionary “protected area” model, displacing 10–20 million IPLCs worldwide (g.: Batwa in Uganda, Masai in Kenya).
• This “fortress conservation” criminalizes traditional users and centralizes forest control under the state or private actors.
• Constitutional and Legal Backing in India: India’s Constitution provides Articles 244 & 244A, enabling tribal governance in Scheduled Areas. Complemented by PESA (1996) and BDA (2002), the FRA remains a rare global example linking local autonomy with biodiversity stewardship.
• India’s Constitution provides Articles 244 & 244A, enabling tribal governance in Scheduled Areas.
• Complemented by PESA (1996) and BDA (2002), the FRA remains a rare global example linking local autonomy with biodiversity stewardship.
Limitations of FRA Implementation:
• Weak Institutional Convergence: Despite FRA’s decentralized vision, updated National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs 2024) still prioritize forest departments, marginalizing gram sabhas.
• Incomplete Recognition of Rights: Over 1.4 crore claims filed under FRA; however, only a fraction has been approved, often diluted or denied by forest authorities.
• Non-Recognition of “Indigenous”: India avoids using “indigenous” in law, weakening its alignment with UNDRIP (2007) which India supported globally.
• Biodiversity Monetisation Risks: BDA 2024 Draft Rules may commercialize biodiversity via Bioprospecting, risking corporate capture of traditional knowledge, unless integrated with FRA safeguards.
• OECM Concerns: Without clarity, Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) risk becoming parallel protected areas, unless grounded in prior informed consent of forest communities.
Way Ahead: Strengthening FRA Through Global Learning
• Integrate UNDRIP Principles: Legally recognize cultural autonomy of IPLCs in national law, as done in Peru’s Ashaninka law or Canada’s Indigenous Protected Areas framework.
• Institutional Synergy: Merge BDA’s Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) with gram sabhas under FRA to reduce conflict and enhance community participation.
• Implement Article 8(j) of CBD: Fully implement CBD’s provision on traditional knowledge and benefit-sharing, ensuring community-led documentation and control.
• Expand Legal Literacy and Tenure Mapping: Invest in community-led forest rights mapping, using platforms like Van Gujari GIS or Gram Sabha Biodiversity Registers (GSBRs).
• Include IPLCs in Protected Area Governance: Involve local communities through co-management models like Joint Protected Area Committees (as in parts of Mexico and Nepal).
Conclusion:
India’s Forest Rights Act 2006 remains globally unique for integrating community rights with conservation goals. Aligning global safeguards with FRA’s democratic spirit and ensuring institutional coherence can foster inclusive, sustainable forest governance rooted in justice and ecological wisdom.