Myth of the Pristine Forest

Context: Provision of Critical Wildlife Habitat (CWH) under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 provides possibilities of Human-wildlife co-existence.

Provisions of Critical Wildlife Habitat CWH 

• It is a provision under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA).
• Recognises historically-denied rights of forest-dwellers to use and manage forests and addresses concerns of wildlife conservationists. 
• Provides avenues for co-existence: For E.g. Over the past decade, the number of tigers in BRT Tiger Reserve in Karnatka has steadily gone up even as the Soligas continue to live inside and gather non-timber forest products as per Community Forest Rights
• Strengthens the rights of forest dwellers in Protected Areas (PA) and ensures their relocation through a participatory process like
• A multi-disciplinary expert committee, including representatives from local communities. 
• Scientific and objective criteria based consultative processes for determining the possibility of human-wildlife co-existence.
• In absence of co-existence or other reasonable options, relocation is taken up with informed consent of the concerned gram sabhas. 

Flaws in the Implementation of CWH Provisions

• Incomplete process of recognising of rights: of the forest dwellers under the FRA.
• Many are resettled when they had rights claims pending, others had their claims illegally rejected or incompletely granted, and several had not even applied.
• Denied Rights: False claims of Forest Department (FD) regarding the absence of human habitation in PA, so they can be declared as CWHs immediately, denying the rights to the forest dwellers.
• Delay in completion of rights recognition process by FD.
• Faulty constitution of the expert committees, as they do not contain expert social scientists familiar with the area. 
• Wildlife enthusiasts are sometimes substituted for experts in life sciences. 
• Non-consensus based extreme criteria, for determining the threat of “irreversible damage” to wildlife.
• CWH provision should not be used for evicting forest-dwellers to create so-called “inviolate” spaces. 
• Relocation should be seen as the absolute last resort.

Conclusion: Human-wildlife co-existence is generally possible and must be promoted if we are to have “socially just conservation”.