This document discusses livelihood security for communities living near forests in India through the Forest Rights Act of 2006 and Joint Forest Management programs. It provides background on how local communities previously had no legal rights to forests or forest produces. The Forest Rights Act aims to grant legal recognition of traditional forest rights to communities and make them partners in forest conservation. It outlines various rights granted, like rights to hold forest land, grazing areas, collect minor forest produces. Issues in implementation include lack of awareness, unclear community boundaries, and tension with previous joint forest management structures. Recommendations include strengthening community involvement in claim recognition and management.

1. LIVELIHOOD SECURITY
IN THE WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION
Forest Right Act 2006
&
Joint Forest Management
Presented By :
Kovid Verma (17069)
Nehal Raj (17072)
Vikesh Kumar (17094)

2. Previous Scenario
 Local People living in or near the forest had no legal right on the forest &
forest produces
 They didn’t have any ownership or access to the forest produces
 Only Government officials had the full right over forest
 Their Livelihood was in danger as forest was one of the main source of
their livelihood
 Local people were treated as criminals

3. Forest Right Act 2006
To undo the effect of the historical injustice that has been suffered by
communities that resides in or near the forest and dependent upon the forest
for their livelihood in 2006, a solution came in the form of “Forest Right
Act 2006” which basically does two things-
A. Grants legal recognition to the rights of traditional forest dwelling
communities, partially correcting the injustice caused by the previous
forest laws.
B. Makes a beginning towards giving communities and the public a voice in
forest and wildlife conservation.

4. Right in or over
disputed lands un
der which any no
menclature in an
y state where clai
ms are disputed
Rights over
Grazing gro
unds and w
ater bodies
Right to h
old & live
in the fore
st land
Community
Rights
Right to
protect &
Conserve
Any other tra
ditional right
customarily
enjoyed by
the forest
dwelling ST
Rights includin
g community t
enure of habit
at & habitatio
n for PVTG &
pre-agriculture
communities
Right to intelle
ctual property
& traditional k
nowledge relat
ed to biodiver
sity & Cultural
diversity
The right to u
se or collect
MFP that has
been tradition
ally collected

5. Salient features of the Forest Right Act 2006
 Restitution of traditional forest rights.
 Safeguarding individual rights (Basically those who were living in or
near the forest)
 Collective rights to control, manage and use forest and its resources.
 Right to hold forest property and live in the forest.
 Right to protect the forest
 Right to intellectual property.

6. Problems with FRI
 Right for rightful ownership.
 Inefficiency in Formation of Forest Right Committee.
 Lack of awareness among stakeholders.
 Less awareness among the government bureaucrats about Forest Right Act 2006 has
results poor implementation of its provisions
 Lack of transparency between the Departments.
 There is no clear boundary of community rights area, where multiple villages are
dependent upon same forest.

7. Problems in defining boundaries
 Habitation rights and other such important rights are ignored.
 The customary rights and traditional boundary are ignored in provided titles for a
unilateral reduction in the size of land.
 GPS technologies are abused to manipulate maps and areas for which titles are being
given.
 It is also seen that few cases are hanged between Forest Rights Act, 2006 and Sub
Divisional Level Committee and are not taken to District Level Committee for further
action.
 Both IR and CFR rights are denied to Other Traditional Forest dwellers community

8. JFM as an aspect of livelihood and wildlife conservation
 JFM started as an approach to solve management of forest resources with an
emphasis on conservation.
 Livelihood and community remuneration was a major aspect apart from conservation.
 The structure of JFM led to a de-facto controller of resources and a de jure controller.
The former being the state forest department and the latter being PRIs.
 However now post FRA this structure seems to opposing the larger picture of liveliho
od and conservation.

9. Saxena Committee on FRA (NCFRA)
Issues raised
 Gram sabha formed at panchayat level.
 People’s participation in the recognition
of rights is not followed. Even if
followed then claims are accepted,
rights certificates are not recorded.
 Community rights are not protected leg
ally in many states, even if mentioned
then not implemented.
 JFM
 Rights over MFPs are not mentioned in
many states.
Solutions given
 At hamlet level.
 Civil society to be at all levels while
recognising rights.
 Flexible sharing of authority between
PRIs and government.
 JFM to be dissolved if community
claims accepted.
 MSPs for MFPs. De regularise the MFP
sector.

10. Recommendations
 PESA should be extended to all the villages.
 Delegation of accepting of claims as rights to the Gram Sabha rather than the forest
officials. Land rights be recorded and converted to revenue land.
 Villages should be presumed to have community forest rights.
 JFM to be converted to CFM with the state forest department being only an
intermediary in the process. MGNREGA be merged with livelihood programmes in
the forests.
 Freedom to collect and sell the MFPs by the individual possessing rights under FRA.
State governments should be mandated to procure selected MFPs at MSPs and then
move it forward in the value chain.

11. THANK YOU