DAW 10th November 2025, Mains Answer Writting 2026

DAW 10th November 2025, Mains Answer Writting 2026

Question

Explain the gaps in the implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 and the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972 that have necessitated the new policy framework. (250 Words, 15 Marks). 

Model Answer

Approach: Introduction:  

  • FRA (2006) ensures community rights, while WPA (1972) emphasizes wildlife conservation. Implementation overlaps created conflict between the two, prompting MoTA’s 2024 policy for balanced relocation and coexistence in tiger reserves. 

Body: 

  • FRA, 2006  and WPA, 1972 – Key Provisions in brief 

  • Implementation Gaps 

  • FRA Gaps 

  • WPA Gaps 

  • Consequences 

  • Need for 2024 Framework: Policy: “Reconciling Conservation & Community Rights” 

  • Key Features 

  • Way Forward 

Conclusion: 

  • FRA & WPA represent two governance pillars — rights vs. conservation. 

  • Conflicts led to 2024 framework promoting community-centred conservation for sustainable coexistence of people and wildlife. 

  •  Introduction: 

  • India’s forest governance rests on two key laws — the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 and the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972. While the FRA secures land and livelihood rights of forest dwellers, the WPA focuses on wildlife conservation through protected areas. However, gaps and overlaps in their implementation have caused conflicts between conservation and community rights, leading the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) to propose a new “Policy Framework for Relocation and Co-existence in Tiger Reserves” (2024). 

 Body: Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 – Key Provisions:  

  • Recognizes forest rights and occupation for FDST(Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes) and OTFD (Other Traditional Forest Dwellers) who have lived in forests for generations. 

  • Empowers Gram Sabha to determine and manage forest rights. 

  • Provides four types of rights: 

  • Title Rights – Ownership of up to 4 hectares of cultivated land. 

  • Use Rights – Grazing, collection of Minor Forest Produce (MFP). 

  • Relief and Development Rights – Protection from illegal eviction and access to amenities. 

  • Forest Management Rights – To conserve and manage community forest resources. 

 Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972 – Key Provisions: 

  • Provides a legal framework for wildlife conservation and regulation of hunting and trade. 

  • Establishes Protected Areas (PAs) - National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Tiger Reserves. 

  • Empowers the State to relocate communities for wildlife protection. 

  • Seeks to align with global obligations such as CITES, though with limitations. 

 Gaps in Implementation:  

FRA Implementation Gaps: 

  • Individual vs. Community Rights Conflict: 

  • Political focus on individual land titles rather than community forest rights (CFRs) has diluted the Act’s intent. 

  • For example, in Odisha and Chhattisgarh, community rights remain under-recognized despite strong tribal presence. 

  • Poor Recognition of IFRs: 

  • Bureaucratic resistance, technical hurdles, and faulty digital claim systems (e.g., VanMitra, Madhya Pradesh) have limited access to rightful claims. 

  • Incomplete and Uneven CFR Recognition: 

  • Only a few states like Maharashtra and Odisha have operationalized CFRs effectively (e.g., Gadchiroli’s model of community forest management). 

  • Resistance from Forest Bureaucracy: 

  • Forest Departments often view FRA as diluting their control, creating institutional friction. 

  • Lack of Recognition in Protected Areas: 

  • In many tiger reserves, FRA rights are not settled before relocation, violating the law - as seen in the Jenu Kuruba community case, Nagarhole Tiger Reserve (Karnataka). 

  • Neglect of Forest Villages: 

  • Traditional forest villages have not been adequately converted into revenue villages or granted legal recognition. 

 WPA Implementation Gaps: 

  • Weak Enforcement and Corruption: 

  • Illegal wildlife trade persists due to inadequate enforcement. 

  • Mismatch with International Standards (CITES): 

  • Many species protected under international law lack equivalent domestic protection. 

  • Limited Coverage of Threatened and Migratory Species: 

  • Several IUCN-threatened or migratory species remain unlisted in WPA schedules. 

  • Exacerbation of Human-Wildlife Conflict: 

  • Expansion of protected areas without community consultation increases conflicts and displacement. 

  • Lack of Scientific Documentation: 

  • Indigenous and lesser-known species (e.g., Himalayan Black Bear) remain poorly studied or protected. 

 Consequences of These Gaps: 

  • Forced Relocations: Communities often coerced into relocation without FRA rights settlement           

  • (e.g., protests following NTCA’s June 2024 directive to prioritize relocations). 

  • Livelihood Insecurity: Loss of access to forest produce and traditional livelihood. 

  • Erosion of Trust: Conservation seen as anti-people rather than participatory. 

  • Administrative Overlaps: MoTA and MoEFCC lack coordination, resulting in contradictory directives. 

 Need for a New Policy Framework: 

  • The Tribal Affairs Ministry’s 2024 Policy Framework, titled “Reconciling Conservation and Community Rights”, was formulated to bridge these governance gaps. 

  • Key Features: 

  • Rights First Principle: FRA rights must be settled before any relocation in tiger reserves. 

  • Voluntary Relocation: Consent to be verified at both Gram Sabha and household levels. 

  • Coexistence Models: Enables communities to continue living inside reserves with biodiversity management roles. 

  • Joint Governance: Calls for a National Framework jointly managed by MoTA and MoEFCC. 

  • Transparency Mechanisms: Creation of a National Database on Conservation-Community Interface (NDCCI) to monitor relocations and compensations. 

  • Annual Independent Audits: To ensure compliance with FRA, WPA, and human rights standards. 

 Way Forward: 

  • Empower Gram Sabhas: Recognize them as primary forest governance institutions. 

  • Integrated Planning: Align conservation and livelihood goals through participatory micro-planning. 

  • Capacity Building: Train local communities and forest officials on FRA procedures and co-management. 

  • Independent Oversight: Strengthen accountability through external audits and public reporting. 

  • Scientific Conservation with Social Justice: Ensure ecological preservation without undermining constitutional rights. 

  • Policy Synchronization: Institutionalize cooperation between MoTA and MoEFCC for coordinated implementation. 

    Conclusion: 

  • The FRA (2006) and WPA (1972) form key pillars of India’s environmental governance—balancing rights-based development and species conservation. Their conflicting objectives have marginalized forest communities, prompting the 2024 policy framework to promote community-centred conservation for harmonious coexistence of people and wildlife.