Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 16 July 2025

Content :

1. More than symbolic
2. Contesting the future of forest governance

More than symbolic

Context & Immediate Developments

• Health Ministry directive (2025):
  All govt departments to display oil, sugar & trans-fat content in common Indian snacks (e.g. samosas, jalebis, laddoos).
• Pilot city: AIIMS Nagpur → Gradual national rollout.
• CBSE move (May 2025):
  Schools to install “sugarboards” — show:
  • Daily sugar limits
  • Sugar content in food
  • Related health risks
  • Healthy alternatives

Relevance : GS 2(Governance and Policy)

Practice Question : “Behavioural nudges are important, but insufficient in addressing India’s growing public health challenges related to food.” Examine in light of recent government initiatives on food labelling and regulation. (250 words)

Data Behind the Policy Push

• Obesity Trends (NFHS Data):
  • Men: ↑ from 15% (2005–06) → 24% (2019–21)
  • Women: ↑ from 12% → 23%
• Unlabelled Local Foods:
  • Traditional snacks are high in hidden oils, sugar, and fats.
  • Visual cues (like tobacco-style warnings) can serve as behavioural nudges.

Symbolism vs. Structural Change

• Current moves = educational & symbolic.
• But lacking: Binding regulations on packaged and marketed foods.

Gaps in Existing Food Policy

– Front-of-Package Labelling (FOPL)

• Delayed implementation despite FSSAI’s 2020 amendment.
• Supreme Court direction (July 15, 2025): Enforce FOPL.
• No definition yet by FSSAI for:
  • Safe upper limits for sugar, salt, and fat.
  • HFSS (High Fat, Salt, Sugar) thresholds.

– Marketing to Children

• No national-level regulation on:
  • Junk food advertising
  • Promotions targeting children
• Children remain highly vulnerable to HFSS marketing across digital/TV platforms.

– Taxation Measures

• No ‘sin tax’ on HFSS foods, unlike in Mexico, Chile, or Hungary.
• Global evidence shows fiscal disincentives reduce consumption of unhealthy food.

What Global Evidence Shows

• ICMR-NIN Study (2022):
  • Warning labels and Nutristar ratings helped reduce consumption, even of moderately unhealthy foods.

• International Meta-Study (2022):
  • Warning labels outperform other labelling styles (GDA, Nutri-Score, etc.) in dissuading HFSS intake.

• Mexico & Chile:
  • 10–20% tax on sugary drinks & junk food → reduced sales and obesity trends.

National Frameworks That Call for Action

• National Multisectoral Action Plan (NMAP) for NCDs (2017–22):
  • Mandated FSSAI regulation reform → FOPL & nutrient warning labels.

• FSSAI 2020 Amendments:
  • Remain under-implemented due to:
    • Industry pushback
    • Lack of defined nutrient thresholds

Why Symbolism Isn’t Enough

• Awareness is necessary but insufficient.
• Without:
  • Regulatory caps on sugar/salt/fat
  • Mandatory FOP labels
  • Advertising restrictions
  • Fiscal disincentives (taxes)
    → Impact of behavioural nudges will be limited and class-biased.

The Way Forward

• Finalise nutrient cut-offs for HFSS food categories.
• Enforce mandatory FOP warning labels (not just voluntary/interpretive).
• Ban or restrict child-targeted junk food ads (especially online).
• Levy health taxes on HFSS food and beverages.
• Ensure compliance at the level of street food vendors and informal eateries.
• Expand school-level interventions (e.g. healthy canteens, regulated menus).

Conclusion

• The Health Ministry’s new initiatives are important awareness milestones.
• However, without strong legislative teeth, they risk being performative.
• India needs a robust, rights-based, regulation-driven approach to food policy, aligned with public health imperatives and the growing NCD burden.

Contesting the future of forest governance

Context: CFRR and Chhattisgarh Incident

• In July 2025, the Chhattisgarh Forest Department attempted to designate itself as the nodal agency for implementing Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR).
• This violated the FRA, 2006, which vests management authority in Gram Sabhas, not government departments.
• The department also:
  • Mandated a centralised model plan (from MoTA) for CFR management — not required by law.
  • Prohibited support from NGOs and other departments to Gram Sabhas.
• Outcome: Letter was withdrawn following grassroots mobilisation by Adivasi rights groups, local representatives, and Gram Sabhas.

Relevance : GS 3(Environmental Governance)

Practice Question : The implementation of Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, remains constrained by institutional inertia and policy contradictions. Critically analyse. (250 words)

Forest Rights Act, 2006: Core Vision

• Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) under FRA:
  • Recognises the customary rights of communities to manage forest resources.
  • Aims to reverse colonial forest consolidation that excluded locals from governance.

• Gram Sabha’s role:
  • Central to forest governance.
  • Empowered to formulate, implement, and integrate CFR management plans.
  • Plans must reflect local needs — livelihood, ecosystem conservation, cultural values.

Legacy of Forest Working Plans: Colonial Hangover

• Forest Working Plans (FWPs):
  • Rooted in “scientific forestry” focused on timber maximisation, not ecological sustainability.
  • Often included clearfelling and monoculture plantations.
  • Criticised by ecologists like Madhav Gadgil for promoting degradation, invasive species spread, and undermining biodiversity.
• Despite ecological and social criticism, FWPs remain central to forest department operations and fund mobilisation.

Conflict Between FRA and Forest Bureaucracy

• Forest Departments continue to:
  • Delay CFRR recognition and reject titles.
  • Block funding and question local competence to manage forests.
  • Push for NWPC (National Working Plan Code) compliance, imposing complex, data-heavy templates unsuited to local realities.
• This is seen as an attempt to retain bureaucratic control over forest resources under the guise of “scientific management”.

Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA): Inconsistencies

• 2015 MoTA Guidelines: Allowed simple, locally developed formats for CFR plans.
• 2024 MoTA + MoEF Letter: Reversed course — called for NWPC conformity and forester involvement.
• This shift undermines FRA’s decentralised governance model and contradicts its legal spirit.

Why NWPC is Incompatible with CFRR

• NWPC structure:
  • Designed to optimise timber yield.
  • Data-intensive and linear; poorly suited to adaptive and participatory management.
  • Emphasises forest crop, not ecosystem or community needs.

• Gram Sabha plans, by contrast:
  • Based on lived experience and multi-livelihood objectives.
  • More capable of responding to climate variability and local conservation challenges.
  • Don’t require abstraction of local knowledge into bureaucratic jargon.

Current Ground Realities

• CFRR Titles Issued: Over 10,000 Gram Sabhas.
• Management Plans Developed: Fewer than 1,000 (due to resistance from forest bureaucracy).
• Implementation Hurdles:
  • No access to financial resources.
  • Constant delegitimisation of local planning efforts.
  • Bureaucratic insistence on outdated, centralised forest science.

The Way Forward

• Reject NWPC compliance for CFR areas — legally unjustified under FRA.
• Scale up the Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan:
  • Offers an indicative, flexible framework for CFR planning.
  • Encourages iterative learning by Gram Sabhas.
• Role of MoTA:
  • Must stand firm in support of decentralised governance.
  • Avoid compromising to pressure from forest departments or MoEF.
• Forest Departments must:
  • Provide funding and legal protection to CFR-holding communities.
  • Transition from timber-centric to ecosystem and livelihood-centric science.

Broader Significance

• CFRR is not just about forest management — it is a constitutional decentralisation of power to marginalised, Adivasi communities.
• The shift from colonial forest science to community-based ecological governance is central to achieving climate resilience, biodiversity conservation, and social justice.