Two decades of the FRA: Why India must trust forest communities

By Palla Trinadha Rao 
Nearly two decades after the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, the promise of the legislation remains only partially fulfilled. Conceived to remedy the “historical injustice” suffered by forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, the Forest Rights Act (FRA) marked a decisive departure from the centralized model of forest governance inherited from the colonial era. It sought to transform the relationship between the State and indigenous communities by recognizing customary rights, empowering Gram Sabhas and promoting community stewardship of forests.
Yet, despite its transformative vision, the implementation of the Act continues to be constrained by administrative resistance, competing conservation paradigms and the incomplete realization of its democratic potential.
The FRA was born out of the recognition that communities that had protected and depended upon forests for generations were systematically alienated from their lands and resources through successive laws and policies. Colonial forest laws converted traditional custodians into encroachers, and independent India largely continued this framework. The Act sought to reverse this legacy by recognizing both individual and community rights over forest land and resources, while placing the Gram Sabha at the centre of decision-making. It envisioned a model of governance rooted in justice, participation and community responsibility.
The scale of implementation reflects the continuing relevance of the law. According to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ Monthly Progress Report of March 2026, more than 54 lakh claims have been filed across the country since the Act came into force. During the last five years alone, over 9.32 lakh claims were received and more than 6.82 lakh claims were disposed of, resulting in the distribution of approximately 5.45 lakh titles and the recognition of nearly 69 lakh acres of forest land.
These figures underscore the significance of the FRA in securing tenure rights and livelihoods for millions of forest-dependent households. Yet statistics alone do not tell the full story. Persistent claim rejections, delays in recognition, inadequate land demarcation and weak post-recognition support reveal that the challenge is no longer legislative—it is institutional. The success of the Act cannot be measured merely by the number of titles distributed or acres recognized. Its larger purpose was to establish a new relationship between the State and forest communities based on dignity, participation and self-governance.
One of the most enduring obstacles to this vision has been the tendency to subordinate tribal rights in the name of conservation. For decades, forest administration has operated on the assumption that conservation and community rights are inherently incompatible. This belief has informed policies that strengthen centralized control while weakening local institutions. Such an approach overlooks a fundamental historical reality: tribal communities have often been among the most effective custodians of forests. The survival of rich biodiversity across many tribal landscapes is testimony to the intimate and sustainable relationship indigenous communities have maintained with forests over centuries.
The tensions between conservation and rights are particularly visible in protected areas and tiger reserves. Across the country, conservation initiatives have frequently been accompanied by restrictions on access to resources and pressures for relocation. The experiences of Chenchu communities in the Amrabad Tiger Reserve illustrate the contradictions of exclusionary conservation models. The FRA itself provides safeguards against displacement and recognizes that conservation cannot be pursued at the cost of justice. Conservation without consent and participation is neither socially just nor ecologically sustainable.
Equally troubling is the continued marginalization of Gram Sabhas in decisions relating to forest diversion, compensatory afforestation and development projects. The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), and the FRA together envision a framework of democratic self-governance in Scheduled Areas. In practice, however, Gram Sabha participation is often reduced to a procedural formality. Decisions that profoundly affect the lives and livelihoods of communities continue to be driven by administrative processes that undermine the spirit of democratic decentralization. This raises important constitutional questions about the rights of communities to participate meaningfully in decisions concerning their resources and future.
Perhaps the most transformative, yet least realized, provision of the FRA is the recognition of Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights. The Act envisages communities not merely as beneficiaries of state programmes but as institutions capable of protecting, regenerating and managing forests through collective responsibility and traditional knowledge. Yet implementation in much of the country has focused overwhelmingly on individual rights, leaving the enormous potential of community rights largely untapped.
The recently prepared Andhra Pradesh FRA Potential Atlas highlights the scale of this unfinished agenda. Prepared using the methodology adopted by the Forest Survey of India and the framework prescribed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, the Atlas identifies 7,193 potential FRA revenue villages, including 6,322 Scheduled Tribe-inhabited villages, covering an estimated 10,170 square kilometres of forest area. These villages account for more than 2.72 million households and a population exceeding 10.76 million. Notably, the districts of Alluri Sitharama Raju, Parvathipuram Manyam, Tirupati, Chittoor, SPSR Nellore, Prakasam, Srikakulam, Annamaya, Eluru and YSR Kadapa account for nearly 83 per cent of the State’s potential FRA villages.
The findings demonstrate that, even after two decades, substantial scope remains for recognizing both individual and community rights. They point to the need for a mission-mode approach involving coordinated action by Tribal Welfare, Revenue and Forest Departments alongside Gram Sabhas. More importantly, the Atlas reinforces a central principle of the FRA: conservation and community rights are not competing objectives but mutually reinforcing processes essential for ecological sustainability and climate resilience.
At a time when climate change and biodiversity loss have emerged as defining global challenges, community stewardship of forests is not merely a matter of social justice; it is a critical strategy for sustainable environmental governance.
Livelihood security is equally important. The FRA was never intended to be a mere land distribution programme. It sought to secure economic dignity through access to minor forest produce and community resources. In states such as Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, where forests remain a vital source of subsistence, recognition of rights must be accompanied by measures that strengthen livelihoods. Value addition, market access, community enterprises and institutional support are essential if legal rights are to translate into meaningful economic opportunities.
Large development projects have also exposed the inadequacies of prevailing approaches to rehabilitation and resettlement. The experience of communities displaced by the Polavaram Project demonstrates that monetary compensation alone cannot replace the intricate social, cultural and ecological relationships people maintain with their lands and forests. Inclusive development must be grounded in the principles of free, prior and informed consent and must acknowledge the multidimensional nature of tribal identity and well-being.
Another neglected dimension of implementation is gender justice. Tribal women play a central role in household economies, collection of minor forest produce and conservation practices. Although the Act recognizes their rights, social and institutional barriers continue to limit their effective participation. Strengthening the role of women in Gram Sabhas and community institutions is essential not only for advancing social justice but also for ensuring sustainable management of natural resources.
The growing discourse on climate change and biodiversity conservation further underscores the relevance of indigenous knowledge systems. Across the world, evidence increasingly shows that indigenous peoples are among the most effective custodians of biodiversity and ecosystems. Traditional ecological knowledge offers valuable lessons for climate adaptation and resilience. Ironically, while global conservation discourse is moving toward community-based approaches, many forest governance systems in India continue to operate within centralized frameworks that underestimate local capacities.
At its core, the debate surrounding the FRA is not merely about forests. It is about the character of Indian democracy. The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, PESA and the FRA together embody a vision of governance founded on justice, dignity, equality and participation. Weakening these institutions would weaken the constitutional commitment to some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens.
The experience of the past two decades suggests that the future of the FRA depends less on legislative reform and more on political and administrative commitment to implementing existing provisions in their true spirit. Recognition of Community Forest Resource rights, review of rejected claims, strengthening of Gram Sabhas, support for forest-based livelihoods and harmonization of conservation policies with the FRA are essential to realizing its transformative potential. Equally important is the integration of indigenous knowledge systems into climate and biodiversity policies and the recognition of forest-dwelling communities as equal partners in environmental governance.
Ultimately, the success of the Forest Rights Act should not be measured by the number of titles distributed or the extent of land recognized. Its true significance lies in its capacity to restore dignity, deepen self-governance and transform the relationship between the State and indigenous communities. India’s forests and its tribal communities share a common destiny. Protecting forests while undermining the rights of those who have historically conserved them is neither feasible nor desirable.
The choice before India is not between conservation and rights. It is between exclusionary governance and democratic stewardship. The future lies in recognizing that ecological sustainability and social justice are not competing goals but mutually reinforcing pillars of constitutional democracy.
As the Forest Rights Act approaches its twentieth anniversary, the task before the nation remains what it was in 2006: ensuring that historical injustice is not reproduced through contemporary policies and that the constitutional promise of justice reaches those who have protected India’s forests for generations.