Commentaries
Keywords: Conservation, Tribal Rights, Wildlife Act, Forest Rights, Bhutan Model
Date: 26th August, 2024
The wildlife conservation and forest rights in India have huge implications on the lives of 104 million tribal population. This makes it imperative to maintain a sound balance between conservation efforts and the rights of indigenous communities.
The colonial roots of the conflict between tribal communities and the state over forest land and resources dates back to the 1860s. This marked the establishment of property rights over forest by the British to serve its commercial interest.
The Government Forest Act of 1865 was an attempt by the British to make up for the decades of environmental damage that they had inflicted. Even categorising the forests as ‘reserved’ and ‘protected’, a manipulation technique to exert control over forest resources, marginalized the indigenous populace.
When post-colonial India retained the ownership of forest lands, it perpetuated the injustice that the tribal communities had to bear in the name of economic development. Other South Asian countries such as Bhutan have adopted a unique approach that integrates conservation with socio-economic development.
The country’s Gross National Happiness (GNH) framework emphasizes environmental conservation as a core component of overall well-being. Bhutan's constitution mandates that at least 60 percent of the country's land area remain under forest cover, reflecting a deep commitment to environmental sustainability.
This approach shows that combining conservation with development is more effective and ensures sustainable outcomes. The community-based conservation programs implemented in Bhutan have empowered local communities to participate and benefit from them. For instance, the Bhutan Ecological Society works with local communities to manage and protect biodiversity hotspots, providing them with economic incentives and resources.
Involving local communities is important to enhance the effectiveness of these programs and encourage coexistence. India can strengthen its conservation strategies by involving tribal and forest-dwelling communities in decision-making processes. This would ensure that they have a stake in the successful management of Protected Areas.
The post-colonial era saw a shift in conservationist policies in India, characterized by the enactment of the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), which initially excluded indigenous people from forest rights. However, it was the landmark Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 that marked a significant turning point in forest governance.
The FRA's recognition of historical injustices faced by forest-dwelling communities is a crucial development as it acknowledges the deep-rooted inequities in forest management. The continuation of colonial laws such as the Indian Forest Act of 1927 and the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which overlooked the rights and concerns of forest-dwellers, highlights the persistent neglect of their rights.
This also highlighted the challenges faced by these communities under the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) of 1972. Despite its conservation goals, the Act has contributed to the displacement and disenfranchisement of indigenous peoples.
The WPA's framework, based on the IUCN's Protected Area definition, often excludes indigenous communities' traditional practices through strict protection measures in National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Tiger Reserves. This contradicts the spirit of balanced conservation.
This led to the enactment of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 to address the historical injustices by pointing out the rights of forest dwellers over their ancestral lands and involving them in conservation efforts.
Even after evolution, the conservation and forest laws have become more hostile toward the constitutional rights of the indigenous peoples to forest and land resources. The Indian government approved the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act of 2023 on August 4, amid strong criticism from academics, environmentalists, activists, and indigenous communities.
The Act granted the union government to allocate land from specific forest areas without requiring clearance. It relieves security, defence and public utility within 100 km from international borders from the need for forest clearance and in areas affected by leftist radicalism, up to 10 hectares.
According to the 2011 Census, 75 Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG's) in India are at risk of extinction. The government has launched Rs. 240,000 million (PM-JANMAN) Pradhan Mantri Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan to support their education, health, and livelihoods.
However, the Rs 41,000 crore International Container Transhipment Port (ICTP) project on Great Nicobar Island that involves a transnational port, airport, settlement, and power plant threatens the Shompens and Nicobarese PVTG tribes' very existence. On one hand, PM-JANMAN seeks to improve and safeguard these communities, while on the other, the ICTP project threatens their environment and possible displacement.
In Wildlife First v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court favoured wildlife conservation over the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006, ordering evictions based on rejected applications, despite the fact that rejection does not necessarily imply encroachment. This eviction was not sanctioned by the FRA until recognition and verification are complete.
The court's approach seems inconsistent in balancing forest rights with wildlife conservation. International bodies such as the UN and ILO advocate for cooperation between governments and tribal communities to resolve such conflicts. Countries like the US, through treaties and MoUs have attempted to recognise tribal rights and New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi and subsequent acts uphold Maori rights.
Studies have shown that wildlife is safer in tribal areas than other regions. The narrow approach and poor implementation of FRA have been criticized and reforms were suggested for hunting rights and awareness. Bhutan has developed effective mechanisms for resolving conflicts between conservation efforts and local needs.
This includes transparent dialogue processes and adaptive management strategies that address grievances and adapt to changing circumstances. Implementing similar conflict resolution mechanisms can help address the tensions between conservation policies and the rights of forest-dwelling communities. Furthermore, adaptive management practices can improve the effectiveness and fairness of conservation programs.
Bhutan’s conservation strategy places a strong emphasis on maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services, recognizing their role in supporting human well-being. These conservation efforts are designed to protect both species and the ecological functions that sustain them.
While the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 was intended to safeguard wildlife, it has frequently marginalized tribal communities, perpetuating a colonial legacy of forest management that excludes indigenous voices. This disjunction highlights the need for a more nuanced approach.
Recognizing the interconnectedness of biodiversity and ecosystem services can enhance the effectiveness of conservation policies. India can benefit from a more integrated approach that considers the full range of ecological functions and services provided by forests, ensuring that conservation efforts support both species protection and ecosystem health.
Drawing on Bhutan's model of integrating conservation with socio-economic development, India may adopt strategies that harmonize conservation goals with the rights of forest-dwelling communities.
By embracing inclusive dialogue, adaptive management, and community involvement, India can address historical injustices and improve conservation outcomes. Such reforms will ensure that both environmental sustainability and indigenous rights are effectively balanced and respected.
Developing a fine balance is the way forward for a cohesive and well-enforced legal framework that clearly delineates conservation goals and community rights. India may benefit from refining its legal instruments to better address the complexities of forest and wildlife management. Such an exercise should ensure that laws are clear, enforceable, and supportive of both conservation and community rights.
Rana Abhyendra Singh is currently working as a Research Assistant in the Department of History at Banaras Hindu University. He has completed his post-graduation in Sociology at South Asian University, New Delhi.
Disclaimer: The views expressed above and the information available are those of the author/s and can therefore in no way be taken to reflect the position of Asian Confluence
Sign in
New User
Register Now