IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v79y2018icp834-844.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Critical assessment of implementation of the Forest Rights Act of India

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Jocelyn I.
  • Wolf, Steven A.

Abstract

Under a centralized forest management system dating back to the start of the British colonial regime, forest-dwelling communities across India were denied formal rights to access forest resources, while large tracts of forest land were degraded or deforested. Enacted in 2006, The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, better known as the Forest Rights Act, was a landmark piece of legislation in India. Its attempt at righting a “historic injustice” and “strengthening the conservation regime” through recognition of forest dwellers’ right to sustainably use and manage forests is significant for socioeconomic, political and ecological reasons. Beyond implications for people and forests of India, the Forest Rights Act represents an important case study that informs analysis of a global trend toward decentralization of governance of forests as well as rights-based approaches to development. This study analyses implementation of the Forest Rights Act across India for the period 2008-2017. We examine rates of formal distribution of rights claims at the level of individual states, and we try to explain variance across states through reliance on political, economic and ecological considerations. In trying to make sense of the large variation in the outcomes of claims made under the Forest Rights Act across states, we find that extent of forest cover is positively associated with rate of distribution of claims, and presence of left-wing extremism is positively associated with claim rejection rates. These findings indicate constraints to wider and more even formal implementation of this legal foundation for development, and they highlight important governance tensions underlying prospects for environmental conservation through decentralization of forest management authority.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Jocelyn I. & Wolf, Steven A., 2018. "Critical assessment of implementation of the Forest Rights Act of India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 834-844.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:79:y:2018:i:c:p:834-844
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717311705
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.024?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arun Agrawal & Elinor Ostrom, 2001. "Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal," Politics & Society, , vol. 29(4), pages 485-514, December.
    2. Debnarayan Sarker, 2011. "The Implementation Of The Forest Rights Act In India: Critical Issues," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 25-29, June.
    3. Maitreesh Ghatak & Sanchari Roy, 2007. "Land reform and agricultural productivity in India: a review of the evidence," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(2), pages 251-269, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Milbank, Charlotte, 2023. "Associating dietary quality and forest cover in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    2. Lara Domínguez & Colin Luoma, 2020. "Decolonising Conservation Policy: How Colonial Land and Conservation Ideologies Persist and Perpetuate Indigenous Injustices at the Expense of the Environment," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-22, February.
    3. Samantha Balaton‐Chrimes & Sandeep Kumar Pattnaik, 2022. "The Rightful Share: Land and Effective Claim Making in Odisha, India," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 53(3), pages 623-646, May.
    4. Kujur, John & S., Irudaya Rajan & Mishra, Udaya S, 2020. "Land Vulnerability among Adivasis in India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Pathak, Ravi & Thakur, Shinny & Negi, Vikram S. & Rawal, Ranbeer S. & Bahukhandi, Amit & Durgapal, Kamini & Barola, Anjali & Tewari, Deep & Bhatt, Indra D., 2021. "Ecological condition and management status of Community Forests in Indian western Himalaya," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amrita Sen & Sarmistha Pattanaik, 2019. "The political agenda of implementing Forest Rights Act 2006: evidences from Indian Sundarban," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2355-2376, October.
    2. Alston Lee J. & Mueller Bernardo, 2018. "Priests, Conflicts and Property Rights: the Impacts on Tenancy and Land Use in Brazil," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-26, June.
    3. Aragón, Fernando M., 2015. "Do better property rights improve local income?: Evidence from First Nations' treaties," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 43-56.
    4. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    5. Sonia Bhalotra & Abhishek Chakravarty & Dilip Mookherjee & Francisco J. Pino, 2019. "Property Rights and Gender Bias: Evidence from Land Reform in West Bengal," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 205-237, April.
    6. Roy, Susmita, 2012. "Land reforms and social unrest: An empirical investigation of riots in India," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 249-251.
    7. Christopher Ksoll & Randall Blair & Seth Morgan & Caroline Lauver & Yiriyibin Bambio, "undated". "Evaluation of the Burkina Faso Agriculture Development Project: Interim Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 453bcac409384bf9817e4bb1b, Mathematica Policy Research.
    8. Besley, Timothy & Leight, Jessica & Pande, Rohini & Rao, Vijayendra, 2016. "Long-run impacts of land regulation: Evidence from tenancy reform in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 72-87.
    9. Angelingis Makatta & Lupala ZJ & Faustin Maganga & Amos Majule, 2018. "Forest Governance at Village Level with Potential for REDD+ in Participatory Forest Management, Tanzania," International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 8(2), pages 40-51, - January.
    10. Jagger, Pamela, 2014. "Confusion vs. clarity: Property rights and forest use in Uganda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 32-41.
    11. Soe, Khaing Thandar & Yeo-Chang, YOUN, 2019. "Perceptions of forest-dependent communities toward participation in forest conservation: A case study in Bago Yoma, South-Central Myanmar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 129-141.
    12. Nguyen, Hoa-Thi-Minh & Do, Huong & Kompas, Tom, 2021. "Economic efficiency versus social equity: The productivity challenge for rice production in a ‘greying’ rural Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    13. Long, Hexing & de Jong, Wil & Yiwen, Zhang & Liu, Jinlong, 2021. "Institutional choices between private management and user group management during forest devolution: A case study of forest allocation in China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    14. Vélez, Maria Alejandra & Robalino, Juan & Cardenas, Juan Camilo & Paz, Andrea & Pacay, Eduardo, 2020. "Is collective titling enough to protect forests? Evidence from Afro-descendant communities in the Colombian Pacific region," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    15. Ramirez, Matias & Bernal, Paloma & Clarke, Ian & Hernandez, Ivan, 2018. "The role of social networks in the inclusion of small-scale producers in agri-food developing clusters," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 59-70.
    16. Madrigal, Róger & Alpízar, Francisco & Schlüter, Achim, 2010. "Determinants of Performance of Drinking-Water Community Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Case Studies in Rural Costa Rica," RFF Working Paper Series dp-10-03-efd, Resources for the Future.
    17. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch & Edwin Muchapondwah, 2013. "Do the Poor Benefit from Devolution Policies? Evidences from Quantile Treatment Effect Evaluation of Joint Forest Management," Working Papers 201388, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    18. Xie, Lunyu & Berck, Peter & Xu, Jintao, 2016. "The effect on forestation of the collective forest tenure reform in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 116-129.
    19. Peña, Ximena & Vélez, María Alejandra & Cárdenas, Juan Camilo & Perdomo, Natalia & Matajira, Camilo, 2017. "Collective Property Leads to Household Investments: Lessons From Land Titling in Afro-Colombian Communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 27-48.
    20. Adhikari, Sunit & Kingi, Tanira & Ganesh, Siva, 2014. "Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forest management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-9.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:79:y:2018:i:c:p:834-844. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.