Decentralising the forest: The promise and peril of Madhya Pradesh’s CFRR drive

In late September 2025, the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department issued an ambitious directive: a list of 26,555 villages across 55 districts had been identified as potentially eligible for Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) under the Forest Rights Act (2006). Each district was asked to complete CFRR identification for at least 10 per cent of these villages by 30 December 2025.

The move marks a major policy shift in forest governance — from State-led management to community-led stewardship. Yet the speed and scale of the rollout have left many field officers wondering whether the ground is ready for such a sweeping change.

Big ambition, thin readiness

In May 2025, a series of statewide expert-led workshops were organised to train officials and civil society groups on the new framework. Participants included the Divisional Commissioner, Conservator of Forests, District Collectors (DCs), Divisional Forest Officers (DFOs), Chief Executive Officers of Zila Panchayats, and Assistant Commissioners for Tribal Affairs. While they appreciated the intent of the initiative, many found the process unclear, as the expert leading the sessions was unable to satisfactorily address their fundamental concerns. His presentation primarily focused on the positive outcomes of CFRR implementation, drawing examples mainly from the success stories of Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra.

The discussions managed to capture the spirit of CFRR but fell short on the mechanics — questions such as who would conduct the mapping, who would verify claims, and how conflicts would be resolved remained unanswered. However, such uncertainty is not new to Madhya Pradesh; the state has already experimented with several decentralised forest governance models in the past — each leaving behind both inspiration and cautionary lessons.

The PESA experience

In 2022, Madhya Pradesh rolled out the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) in 89 tribal blocks across 20 districts. One of its flagship measures was to give Gram Sabhas direct control over tendu-leaf collection, a key source of forest income.

The first year, under the Forest Department’s guidance, communities managed well. But by the next season, most Gram Sabhas were not much inclined to take up the enterprising role as they realised the process was more complex than expected because it needed logistic, quality control, accounting, and marketing — an expertise entrepreneurship. Some Gram Sabhas withdrew and asked the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta Federation to resume operations, while a few having strong institutional support and cohesive working with the forest department continued performing well. The experiment showed that transfer of power without a well-designed institutional support mechanism is fragile. CFRR risks repeating that pattern if it moves faster than communities can adapt.

The IFR fallout

Earlier experiences with Individual Forest Rights (IFR) offer an important cautionary lesson. The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 envisions that families granted forest rights would remain integral to the survival and sustainability of forest ecosystems, thereby strengthening conservation while ensuring livelihood and food security. However, field studies in several areas have revealed a contrasting reality. In many places, forest plots were illegally expanded, and ecologically rich forests were converted into agricultural fields, leading to accelerated fragmentation and a loss of forest contiguity.

The most striking examples come from the Burhanpur, Guna, and Dhar districts of Madhya Pradesh. During my posting as DFO Burhanpur, I witnessed firsthand how large tracts of biodiverse forest were cleared due to encroachment and converted into farmland. The ecological cost of poorly supervised rights recognition has, therefore, resulted in a serious erosion of shared responsibility.

The enforcement trap

Encroachment continues to be one of the most sensitive issues in the state’s forests. Anti-encroachment drives often trigger social and political backlash. Officers who act firmly face pressure; cases escalate quickly. If enforcement shifts entirely to Gram Sabhas they might face the same pushback — but without administrative protection. Without clear backup mechanisms, community enforcement could end up paralysed by local politics instead of being strengthened by autonomy.

One forest, many mindsets

A crucial yet often overlooked factor is that communities are not homogenous. In some tribal regions, conservation values remain deeply rooted; in others, socio-economic and cultural pressures tend to override ecological restraint. From my field experience as DFO North Seoni and DFO Burhanpur, I have observed that the Mahakausal belt of southeastern Madhya Pradesh continues to uphold strong community-based forest protection traditions, whereas parts of the Nimar region in the southwest often struggle with recurring encroachments.

It is therefore high time that policies acknowledge the social and behavioral diversity of communities. A uniform “10 per cent per district” target assumes identical readiness across the state — an assumption that reality does not support. Rights must evolve from capacity, not be imposed through arithmetic.

Learning from JFM

Madhya Pradesh’s Joint Forest Management (JFM) legacy stands as a national model. With over 14,000 Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs) operating across the state, it effectively combines community participation with professional oversight. The CFRR framework should build upon — not bypass — this well-established institutional foundation.

A co-management model could allow Gram Sabhas to set priorities, JFMCs to implement management plans, and the Forest Department to provide technical guidance and legal support. This three-tier structure — decision, execution, and oversight — would harmonise community voice with scientific accountability. Such a balance should form the foundational premise of the CFRR framework.

Maps, data, and accountability

On the ground, the first major obstacle is determining how to verify that a particular tract of forest land has been traditionally managed by a Gram Sabha, along with accurately demarcating CFRR boundaries on forest maps. In several districts of Madhya Pradesh, long-standing discrepancies between forest and revenue boundaries remain unresolved. As DFO Dewas, I observed significant discrepancies between the notified areas of forest blocks and their digitalised boundaries, along with major mismatches and shifts between forest and revenue boundaries. This issue also surfaced during FCA diversion cases, notably in the NHAI project and the Nemawar (Hatpipliya) Multi-Village Rural Water Supply Scheme. This raises a critical question: how can IFRs, CRs, and CFRRs coexist—both on maps and in the field—without overlap or conflict?

To prevent such confusion, the state should establish a digital forest rights registry portal — an open, data-driven platform integrating satellite imagery, GIS boundaries, biodiversity indices, and social datasets. By making rights recognition evidence-based, future decisions can be guided by performance rather than paperwork or political pressure. Moreover, such a system would enable policymakers to monitor both ecological and livelihood outcomes for every CFRR area with greater transparency and accountability.

Devolve with patience, not haste

Forest governance reforms involve subtle technicalities and naturally take time to mature. Instead of pursuing numerical targets, the rollout should be phased according to the readiness of communities. Districts and communities that exhibit strong conservation values — reflected through local leadership, past JFM success, and social cohesion — should lead the pilot phase.

Each pilot must be supported through capacity-building, financial and technical handholding, and ideally, third-party evaluation. Once measurable success emerges — in terms of canopy growth, biodiversity indicators, and livelihood stability — the model can be gradually scaled up. The guiding principle is clear: decentralisation should grow like a forest — season by season, not through a single administrative order.

Balancing rights and responsibility for sustainability

It should be clear that empowerment alone is not protection rather it must come with checks and support such as providing capacity building for Gram Sabhas, a grievance redressal mechanism, market and livelihood linkages and an independent oversight to prevent misuse or elite capture. Especially in high-risk areas, NGOs, cooperatives, or research institutions can play a role of neutral facilitators.

The whole purpose of CFRR is to strengthen shared ownership. If handled carefully and tactfully, it can certainly redefine the relationship between communities and forests, turning dependence into stewardship. On the contrary, if handled hastily it could result into forest loss, administrative paralysis, and disillusionment among both people and officers.

The way ahead

Every such socio-political reform experiment carries its own ramifications. From a practical standpoint, we cannot rely solely on the rosy picture presented in the spirit conveyed by the expert during the workshop. We must approach it with realism and utmost openness. 

Now, Madhya Pradesh stands at a crossroads. The CFRR can either emerge as a symbol of democratic forest management or turn into yet another missed opportunity. Its success will hinge on one quality that policy implementation often lacks — patience. Forests do not grow overnight, and the governance meant to protect them must also evolve slowly, with care and persistence. 

Pradeep Mishra is an Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer posted in Madhya Pradesh. He writes on forest governance, community forestry, and environmental policy

Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth or official departmental positions