Put communities in charge of conserving sacred groves
For sacred groves and other ecosystems to thrive, a paradigm shift is needed: one that empowers local communities and embraces diversity in management practices
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment directing the government to adopt measures for the protection of sacred groves brings into focus the fundamental tension between the State and communities in environmental governance. Who is better placed to ensure effective outcomes, and how should each support the other? While emphasising the critical role played by communities in managing sacred groves, the judgment has tipped the scale in favour of the State taking the lead. With the government’s chequered record on the subject, it remains unclear if the apex court’s directions will make a meaningful difference. The judgment, though well-intentioned, deserves critical scrutiny. The case is related to orans, sacred groves in Rajasthan, which are sites of religious significance and essential pastures for livestock in this dry region. Land-use changes and weak governance have caused the deterioration of many orans, especially on public lands. With sparse tree cover, they lack the legal protection afforded to forests, easing encroachment. Recently, large solar power projects have emerged as a threat
While contrasting the historical stewardship of orans by communities with the State’s delayed and diluted efforts to protect them, the judgment places excessive reliance on the State for action. The implementation of the Court’s directions in 1996 to safeguard non-recorded forest lands by declaring them as deemed forests has, in the case of orans, been mired in bureaucratic delays. The state government notification came in early 2024, but it excluded many orans. The reluctance of the forest bureaucracy, which is usually keen to extend its jurisdiction through protected areas and plantations, stems most likely from the complex land tenures of orans, which limit the forest department’s (FD) role in their management, and high management costs due to their scattered nature. In this context, the Court reiterating its directions to the FD for a complete mapping and recording of orans may, ironically, suggest misplaced faith.
The deemed forests classification, while offering safeguards against diversion, does not address the questions of governance and the rights of local communities. The Court’s seeming endorsement of community management is most aligned with the community forest resource (CFR) rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), which empower tribal and traditional forest-dwelling communities to manage their customary forests. FRA’s democratic framework allows village-level gram sabhas to (re)claim their rights in a bottom-up manner, manage resources based on local needs and protect biodiversity and cultural practices. In fact, the central government recently introduced an indicative framework for CFR management that specifically includes the protection of sacred groves and cultural values.
In contrast, the Court has asked for the establishment of community reserves (CR) under the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA). CRs are sub-optimal as their focus is wildlife-centric and their recognition remains top-down at the State’s discretion. Their management is entrusted to nominees of gram panchayats, often disconnected from local resource users, and an FD representative, further shifting power away from communities. The Court’s suggestion to the environment ministry to create a national policy for the management of sacred groves broadens State control, contradicting even the WLPA which requires local committees to prepare and implement CR management plans. The Court has also overlooked the diverse forms and functions of sacred groves across the country, which makes them unsuitable for a uniform policy.
A final issue that has received only cursory attention relates to non-forested ecosystems. India’s environmental governance has historically prioritised forests, excluding open natural ecosystems (ONEs) like grasslands and deserts from its ambit or mis-characterising them as degraded lands requiring afforestation. However, semi-arid ONEs, spanning over 10% of India’s land, are distinct ecosystems supporting unique biodiversity and livelihoods specially adapted to them.
The judgment, however, has endorsed a recommendation to classify such areas in Rajasthan as “forest land”. While it may provide some protection to these neglected ecosystems, managing them as forests can do more harm than help. This underscores the need for communities to manage these lands based on their local environmental context through decentralised governance, under the FRA or similar laws.
For sacred groves and other ecosystems to thrive, a paradigm shift is needed — one that empowers local communities and embraces diversity in management practices.
Gautam Aredath is a policy analyst (forest governance) at the Centre for Policy Design,Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bengaluru.The views expressed are personal
