In Chhattisgarh, the Forest Department's use of 'scientific forest management' is seen as a strategy to undermine Gram Sabha autonomy and indigenous knowledge.
The vague concept lacks clarity and appears to be a bureaucratic tool to bypass community-led governance, contradicting the Forest Rights Act 2006.
The FD's actions have sparked protests, demanding transparency and respect for tribal stewardship.
In the dense forests of Chhattisgarh, a new battle is brewing—one that pits bureaucratic control against the hard-won rights of tribal communities. The Forest Department (FD) has draped its latest interventions in the respectable cloak of “scientific forest management,” invoking the National Working Plan Code (NWPC) 2023 to justify its actions. But beneath this veneer of ecological concern lies a troubling reality: an attempt to undermine Gram Sabha autonomy and side-line indigenous knowledge, both protected under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.
What exactly is “scientific forest management”? The FD has offered no clear definition. Srinivas Rao, principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF), claims it ensures “ecological safeguards” by aligning Gram Sabha plans with the NWPC. But this vague justification raises more questions than answers:
Does “science” mean imposing monoculture plantations over bio-diverse indigenous practices?
Does it prioritise timber extraction over sustainable livelihoods?
Or is it simply a bureaucratic tool to bypass the FRA’s mandate of community-led governance?
The NWPC itself is silent on how it applies to community forest resources (CFR) areas, leaving room for arbitrary enforcement. Meanwhile, global conservation science increasingly recognizes that indigenous knowledge is often more sustainable than top-down state management. From Amazon rainforests to central Indian highlands, communities have preserved ecosystems for centuries—without FD interference.
The term “scientific forest management” has emerged as a buzzword in India’s forest governance discourse, particularly in Chhattisgarh, where the FD wields it to justify its interventions. On the surface, it suggests a systematic, evidence-based approach to forest conservation, aligning with the NWPC 2023 to ensure ecological sustainability. However, the Chhattisgarh FD’s recent actions—upholding its May 15, 2025, advisory and June 23 corrigendum without quashing them, pending a Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) response—reveal a troubling agenda. This article argues that, far from promoting science, the FD’s invocation of “scientific forest management” serves as a pretext to undermine the autonomy of Gram Sabhas and the indigenous knowledge of forest-dwelling communities, including tribal groups, as enshrined in the FRA 2006. The FD must clarify this vague concept transparently, or its claims risk being exposed as a colonial relic masquerading as progress.
The FD has not provided a clear, public definition of “scientific forest management,” leaving it open to interpretation. PCCF Srinivas Rao’s statement to The Times of India on July 3, 2025, suggests it involves aligning community management plans with the NWPC 2023 to prevent ecological mismanagement. Yet, this lacks specificity—does it mean imposing uniform silvicultural practices, prioritising timber yields, or integrating indigenous ecological knowledge? The absence of a transparent framework raises suspicions, especially given the FD’s history of resisting FRA’s decentralisation mandate. The NWPC, approved by the Environment Ministry, emphasises scientific consistency, but its application to CFR areas remains undefined, fueling speculation that it’s a tool for bureaucratic control rather than genuine conservation. Critically, global scientific consensus on forest management, as reflected in community-led models worldwide, values local knowledge alongside empirical data. The FD’s silence on how it harmonises these elements suggests a top-down imposition, contradicting the FRA’s empowerment of Gram Sabhas. Without a public, peer-reviewed definition, “scientific forest management” appears more a rhetorical device than a substantiated policy, begging the question: what exactly is the FD hiding?
The FRA 2006 vests supreme authority in Gram Sabhas to manage CFR, a right rooted in their traditional stewardship. Section 3(1)(i) and Section 5 empower them to protect, regenerate, and sustainably use forests, reflecting decades of struggle against colonial exclusion. Yet, the FD’s upheld advisory, which mistakenly labeled it the “nodal agency” and restricted NGO support, directly challenges this autonomy. By halting CFR plan implementation until MoTA provides model plans aligned with the NWPC, the FD asserts a gatekeeping role, delaying Gram Sabha decisions and eroding their legal mandate. This move echoes colonial forest policies that prioritised state control over community rights. The FD’s claim of ensuring “ecological safeguards” rings hollow when it side-lines the very communities whose knowledge has sustained Chhattisgarh’s 20,062 square kilometres of CFR land across 4,349 titles. The recent protests on July 1-2, 2025, with thousands demanding the advisory’s withdrawal, underscore this resentment, yet the FD’s refusal to quash it pending MoTA’s response suggests a stalling tactic rather than a genuine rethink.
Indigenous knowledge, honed over generations, is a cornerstone of sustainable forest management, as recognised by the FRA and global conservation frameworks like the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. In Chhattisgarh, tribal communities like the Gonds and Baigas have managed sacred groves and biodiversity hotspots, integrating practices that balance livelihoods with ecology. The FD’s push for “scientific” alignment with the NWPC risks dismissing this wisdom, favouring standardised, often monoculture-focused methods that ignore local contexts. For instance, the FD’s historical focus on timber extraction and exclusionary protectionism has been criticized for overlooking industrial encroachments, a bias that “scientific management” may perpetuate. The FD’s assertion that field officers can “scientifically harmonise” community plans with the NWPC lacks evidence of training in indigenous methodologies. Without public documentation of this process, it appears a unilateral imposition, undermining the FRA’s call for participatory governance. This top-down approach not only devalues tribal expertise but also risks ecological harm, as uniform policies may disrupt delicate local ecosystems.
The FD’s plea, articulated by Rao, frames the advisory as a temporary measure to avoid “unvetted or ad hoc” plans that could jeopardise wildlife and ecological balance. However, this narrative conveniently shifts focus from the FRA’s legal framework, which trusts Gram Sabhas to self-regulate. The FD’s request to MoTA and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for model plans suggests a desire to dictate terms, not facilitate. This aligns with historical bureaucratic resistance, where forest officials rejected over 50 per cent of claims without justification, a trend the FD seems poised to repeat under the guise of science. Moreover, the FD’s emphasis on “scientific consistency” mirrors global critiques of exclusionary conservation models that prioritise state control over community rights. In Chhattisgarh, where 478,000 individual titles and CFR recognition have empowered tribals, the FD’s actions threaten to reverse this progress. The protests’ intensity reflects a community unwilling to cede autonomy, challenging the FD’s self-appointed guardianship.
To counter the FD’s plea, transparency is non-negotiable. The department must publicly define “scientific forest management,” detailing how it integrates indigenous knowledge with the NWPC. This definition should be subject to global scientific review, as its current obscurity lacks legitimacy. The FRA did not envision CFR implementation contingent on FD-approved science; Section 6 empowers Gram Sabhas to lead, with state support limited to facilitation (Rule 12A(6). A collaborative model, reinstating NGO support under DAJGUA and training Gram Sabha members in NWPC basics, could bridge gaps without sacrificing autonomy. Chhattisgarh’s success in issuing 4,300 CFR titles in 1.5 years demonstrates community competence when facilitated, not regulated. The FD’s failure to quash the advisory, instead withholding it, suggests a reluctance to relinquish control, a stance activists decry as "damage control, not collaboration".
The FD’s “scientific forest management” must evolve into a partnership, not a power grab. MoTA should issue directives affirming Gram Sabha primacy, releasing NWPC-aligned models as guidance, not mandates. Training programs should prioritise indigenous practices, ensuring ecological and cultural preservation. The FD’s historical overreach, from colonial atrocities to recent nodal agency claims, and demands a paradigm shift toward trust-based governance. Chhattisgarh’s tribal communities, with their proven track record, are best positioned to lead forest management. The FD’s current stance risks alienating them, fostering resentment that could fuel further protests. By clarifying and democratizing “scientific forest management,” the FD can align with the FRA’s vision, turning a potential conflict into a model of sustainable, community-driven conservation.
The Chhattisgarh FD’s invocation of “scientific forest management” is a thinly veiled attempt to sabotage Gram Sabha autonomy and indigenous knowledge. Without a transparent definition or evidence of harmonisation, it serves as a bureaucratic tool to reassert control, contradicting the FRA 2006’s spirit. The upheld advisory, pending MoTA’s response, is a stalling tactic, not a solution. The FD must shed its ego, embrace collaboration, and let the forest’s true stewards—the Gram Sabhas—guide the way. Until then, its claims remain suspect, and the fight for justice continues.
Chitta Ranjan Pani is an independent researcher on livelihood and natural resource governance
Views expressed are author's own and do not necessarily express those of Down To Earth