Global Context: Exclusionary Conservation Models
- Conservation laws globally are often exclusionary, marginalising Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs).
- Rooted in colonial ‘fortress conservation’ models, these laws create protected areas with centralised control.
- Such models have led to displacement of 10–20 million people globally by severing their ties to native lands.
Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)
IPLCs as Natural Custodians
- Most biodiverse regions are where IPLCs have traditionally lived, governed, and nurtured ecosystems.
- Communities like the Masai, Ogiek, Batwa, Ashaninka, and Adivasis are time-tested custodians of biodiversity.
- Laws that recognise their tenure and traditional knowledge can improve conservation outcomes.
India’s Conservation Legal Frameworks
- India is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and enacted the Biological Diversity Act (BDA), 2002.
- BDA established institutions like the National Biodiversity Authority and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs).
- However, historical laws like the Wildlife Protection Act (1972) and Project Tiger (1973) used exclusionary models—displacing over 6 lakh people.
Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 – A Paradigm Shift
- FRA is a landmark legislation linking Adivasi rights with forest governance and conservation.
- It empowers gram sabhas (village councils) for democratic, decentralised management of forest resources.
- FRA recognises 13 types of rights, especially:
- Access to biodiversity and related knowledge.
- Right to protect, regenerate, conserve, or manage community forest resources.
International Support for IPLC Rights
- CBD’s Article 8(j) promotes traditional knowledge preservation.
- UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) affirms IPLC rights globally.
- India voted in favour of the declaration but avoids using the term “indigenous” domestically—asserts all Indians are indigenous.
Indian Constitutional and Legislative Support
- Scheduled Tribes are protected under Articles 244 & 244A.
- Laws like PESA (1996) and FRA (2006) enhance tribal self-governance and conservation roles.
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), 2022
- KMGBF promotes equitable IPLC participation and includes “30 by 30” target (protecting 30% of land and marine ecosystems by 2030).
- While inclusive in theory, “30 by 30” risks expanding exclusionary protected areas unless implemented with IPLC safeguards.
India’s NBSAP (National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan), 2025
- Lists 23 biodiversity targets aligned with KMGBF, aiming for a bottom-up approach.
- In practice, the plan favours state-led models over community-led ones like FRA.
- BMCs are underdeveloped; synergy with gram sabhas remains weak.
OECMs – A New Opportunity or Threat?
- India to notify Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) soon.
- OECMs are meant to:
- Go beyond formal protected areas.
- Involve IPLCs or other stakeholders in conservation.
- Risk: Without legal clarity, OECMs might exploit biodiversity or traditional knowledge for corporate interests.
Need to Strengthen FRA in Practice
- FRA can safeguard 4 crore hectares of forest land.
- Other frameworks like BDA or CBD must align with FRA, not override it.
- Ministry of Tribal Affairs insists that:
- Rights under FRA be settled before any biodiversity sites are declared.
- Gram sabha consent be mandatory.
Key Takeaways
- India’s FRA offers a global model for inclusive, rights-based conservation.
- Recognition of community tenure + local governance = effective biodiversity conservation.
- Implementation gaps and overlapping legal frameworks need urgent policy synergy to avoid undermining tribal rights.
