top of page
Search

How New Forest Rules Are Impacting Tribal Land Rights in Gadchiroli, Bhandara and Amravati

How New Forest Rules Are Impacting Tribal Land Rights in Gadchiroli, Bhandara and Amravati
How New Forest Rules Are Impacting Tribal Land Rights in Gadchiroli, Bhandara and Amravati

Vidarbha's forests have long been homes and sources of survival for millions, particularly tribal communities whose identities and livelihoods are deeply rooted in these ecosystems.


Recent changes in India's forest conservation rules, however, have stirred uncertainty among tribal populations in the eastern Maharashtra regions of Gadchiroli, Bhandara, and Melghat in Amravati.


While the new rules aim to fast-track development projects, they have also shifted how forest rights and tribal land claims are managed. The friction between the drive for rapid infrastructure growth and protecting indigenous rights now places communities in these districts on uncertain ground.


Policy Shifts and the Tribal Reality


The Indian government notified the Forest Conservation Rules (FCR) 2022 on 28 June 2022, significantly altering the previous 2003 and 2017 frameworks.


The central aim behind these new rules was to streamline approvals for projects needing forest land.


However, one notable aspect immediately drew criticism. The requirement for obtaining explicit consent from Gram Sabhas, the local village councils representing tribal and forest-dwelling communities, was removed. Previously, consent from these local councils was mandatory before diverting forest land for any developmental activity.

Under the revised rules, state authorities now hold the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 after projects receive initial approval from the central government. Critics argue that shifting consent procedures from a mandatory pre-approval process to a post-approval formality weakens tribal communities' rights.



This shift risks reducing their legally recognised land and forest rights to mere administrative checkboxes.


In practice, this procedural change has profound implications. Before, communities in places like Gadchiroli or Melghat could oppose projects they considered harmful by withholding consent.

Now, the opportunity for effective opposition has diminished because decisions to divert forest land can proceed even without prior local approval. While the government maintains that communities’ rights are still safeguarded, on the ground, tribal voices are increasingly marginalised, creating tension in forest-rich regions of Maharashtra.



The Ground Reality in Gadchiroli

The Ground Reality in Gadchiroli
The Ground Reality in Gadchiroli

Gadchiroli district, with approximately 78% forest cover, is among India's best examples of successful community-led forest governance. Over the last decade, hundreds of villages here have secured rights over their forests under FRA, enabling sustainable local management.


Villages like Mendha-Lekha have become iconic examples of indigenous-led conservation, managing their forests sustainably and benefitting economically through regulated harvesting of forest produce such as bamboo, mahua, and tendu leaves.

However, recent infrastructure projects and mining activities, particularly iron ore mining in the Surjagarh hills, have reignited tensions. Surjagarh's iron-rich hills, sacred to local Madia Gond tribes, are now increasingly threatened. Mining leases granted without comprehensive local consent have resulted in deforestation, land degradation, and pollution.



Local communities strongly opposed these projects, organising prolonged protests, but with the removal of mandatory Gram Sabha consent, their voices have become increasingly sidelined.


Moreover, infrastructure projects such as highways and railway lines are being pushed ahead rapidly in Gadchiroli with less community engagement than before. For instance, a significant road project, NH-353C, requires the diversion of 186 hectares of forest land.

Although the project promises better connectivity, it threatens to fragment vital wildlife corridors. Villagers fear losing resources like medicinal plants and minor forest produce, crucial to their subsistence and economy.


Tribal representatives and environmentalists argue that projects without proper community participation not only risk environmental harm but also jeopardise social harmony. Grassroots mobilisation against such unilateral decisions continues, highlighting the region's tensions between rapid development and traditional livelihoods.



Uncertainty over Forest Commons in Bhandara


In the Bhandara district, tribal communities face unique challenges related to Zudpi Jungle lands, patches of degraded forests historically used as common resources.


Recently, the state government initiated measures to classify large areas of these Zudpi Jungles into reserved forests, restricting local access. Tribal communities, having historically depended on these lands for grazing livestock and collecting firewood, find their customary rights increasingly threatened.

The notification process was carried out administratively without adequate consultation. Many villagers, including those in Tawepar, learned only after official announcements that lands already granted to them under FRA would revert to state-controlled forests. This sparked widespread protests and village assemblies, passing resolutions opposing the changes.


For Bhandara’s tribal inhabitants, the revised rules exacerbate a situation where administrative convenience and conservation priorities override community rights. This perceived breach of trust threatens long-term relations between forest authorities and locals, potentially causing deeper governance and environmental issues.



Melghat's Tribals: Conservation or Displacement?

Melghat's Tribals: Conservation or Displacement?
Melghat's Tribals: Conservation or Displacement?

In Melghat Tiger Reserve, located in the Amravati district, the issue revolves around conservation-induced displacement. Over decades, tribal communities, predominantly Korkus, have been relocated out of core tiger habitats. Initially carried out under the Wildlife Protection Act, relocations intensified even after FRA guaranteed tribes explicit rights over their ancestral lands.


With the new forest rules simplifying clearance processes, concerns have resurfaced that authorities might accelerate relocations without properly recognising FRA rights.


Historically, many relocations from Melghat lacked genuine consent or adequate compensation. Villagers who remained inside core areas faced hardships, including restrictions on accessing basic forest produce or agricultural activities.

Despite some successful claims under FRA, tensions persist as wildlife conservation authorities and tribal communities continue to differ over forest management philosophies. With simplified forest diversion rules, conservation priorities could further overshadow tribal rights.



Local NGOs and tribal activists continue advocating for fairer treatment, better rehabilitation, and genuine participation in conservation management. However, uncertainty around future forest policy directions remains high, leaving Melghat’s indigenous population anxious about potential displacement and cultural erosion.


Broader Environmental and Social Implications


The policy changes have broader environmental and socio-economic implications. Speeding up clearances may temporarily boost development but risks longer-term ecological damage. Forest fragmentation threatens biodiversity and wildlife corridors vital for species like tigers and elephants.


The loss of forests can also disrupt local climate patterns and river systems essential for agriculture.

Socially, while infrastructure and mining projects might offer limited employment, the loss of traditional forest livelihoods is severe. Tribal communities often find promised economic opportunities insufficient compensation for losing forests that provided food security and cultural identity.


Without effective consent mechanisms, such trade-offs become more common, leading to economic marginalisation and displacement pressures on tribal populations.


Activists and experts argue for stronger integration of community rights into forest governance. Empowered communities typically protect and sustainably manage forests better than distant authorities.



By sidelining tribal consent, new forest rules risk reversing gains achieved through FRA in participatory conservation.

India's revised forest conservation rules were introduced with promises of efficiency and streamlined development. Yet, for tribal communities in Gadchiroli, Bhandara, and Melghat, these changes represent a retreat from the consultative governance promised by the Forest Rights Act.


Local tribal populations, whose lives intertwine closely with forest ecosystems, now face uncertainties over land rights, livelihoods, and cultural identities.


Addressing this dilemma will require policies acknowledging tribal communities not merely as stakeholders but as custodians of the forests.


Inclusive decision-making processes that balance ecological conservation, infrastructure needs, and indigenous rights could offer lasting solutions.

Until then, tribal communities in these regions navigate an uncertain future, caught between accelerating developmental ambitions and the pressing need to protect their ancestral forests.



References




Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating
bottom of page