The genesis of Forest Rights Act (FRA) lies in the historical deprivation of rights of tribal and other forest dependent communities in India. It started with the colonial rule in the 19th century. This policy of reserving forests and restricting people’s rights continued even after independence. The Forest Rights Act seeks to recognize and vest the Forest Rights and Rights for occupation of forest land on forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded. It goes beyond the “recognition’ of Forest Rights and empowers the forest rights holders, Gram Sabhas and local level institutions with the right to protect, regenerate, conserve and manage any community forest resource.

Rights Available Under the Act:

• Right to hold and live in the forest land under the individual or common occupation for habitation or for self-cultivation for livelihood by a member or members of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers.
• Community rights such as nistar, including those used in erstwhile Princely States, Zamindari or such intermediary regimes.
• Right of ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce which has been traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries.
• Rights of settlements and conversion of all forest villages, old habitation, unsurveyed villages and other villages in forest, whether recorded, notified or not into revenue villages.
• Right of access to biodiversity and community right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and cultural diversity.

Even though till February 2016, out of 44.15 lakh claims that have been filed, 17.20 lakh titles have been distributed over 89.90 lakh acres of forest land, the full implementation of FRA have been fraught with challenges--many of them genuine and others a consequence of bureaucratic and political inertia, incompetence and malice. The following depicts to its limited success:-

• Limited recognition of community rights: This is sometimes attributed to a lack of evidence on the ground for the stated joint ownership. (Though there are solutions like physical land surveys and mobile apps that offer a solution)
• Poor utilization of forest resources: In absence of infrastructure such as roads and markets tribals continue to struggle to make good use of the forest even in developed states like Kerala.
• Non-recognition of un-hindered absolute rights over the minor forest produce (MFP): this is done by imposing several restrictions like transit permit for transportation of MFPs, levy of fees, charges, royalties on sale of MFPs, exclusion of certain types of MFPs in contravention of the definition of MFP given in the Act, continuance of monopoly of the State Agency in the trade of MFP, especially in the case of high value MFP, such as, tendupatta etc.
• Lack of demographic details of tribal population dwelling in the reserved and protected forests in different States and Union Territories; it is compounded by stark mismatches between state and central data.
• States in the North-East being cold to the FRA as local communities there already enjoy far more powers than what the FRA confers.
• Misinterpretation of FRA by forest bureaucracy as an instrument to regularize encroachment. This is seen in its emphasis on recognising individual claims while ignoring collective claims.

There is a clear need to strengthen the nodal tribal departments, provide clear instructions to the State and district administrations, and encourage civil society actors for a robust implementation of FRA. Without a strong political will, this historical transformation is unlikely to take place.