India and Canada have a common colonial past which deeply disturbed the close ecological relationship between Indigenous peoples and forests, with the colonial authorities restricting Indigenous peoples’ legitimate use of forest resources. Even during the post-colonial period, the forest policies in both these countries continued centralized conservation mechanisms that excluded Indigenous peoples. However, the past few decades have witnessed a shift towards decentralized governance in both jurisdictions. This recent trend manifests an attempt to devolve powers and authority to Indigenous institutions. In India, the constitutional recognition of decentralized governance and the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 emphasized the significance of traditional tribal institutions in resource governance. By contrast, in Canada, although the development of co-management regimes is sometimes highlighted as showing the changing face of forest resource governance, the devolution of power to traditional Aboriginal institutions in decision-making over resources remains unsettled.
The first chapter sets a background for the thesis by giving an introduction to the history of alienation faced by the indigenous peoples in India and Canada during colonial times. It further expands on the rationale for choosing both the jurisdiction as two comparable units. The second chapter provides a theoretical framework to the thesis by discussing various theories on decentralization. This part highlights the role of indigenous peoples and their institutions in forest resource governance. The third chapter examines the efforts towards decentralization in India through the Constitutional recognition and enactment of the FRA. Here it is argued that a radical shift in the tribal self-governance in India has achieved decentralization of forest resource governance. This argument is developed through an analysis of the implementation of the FRA at Mendha Lekha in Maharashtra. Some of the important judicial decisions that legitimized the decision-making powers of the tribal institutions in the forest resource governance are also discussed at this juncture. The fourth chapter analyzes decentralized forest governance in Canada through the evolution of co-management. Through an illustration of Clayoquot Sound in British Columbia, it is argued that there is an ongoing absence of strong decentralized institutional arrangements for decision-making on forest resource governance in Canada. Some of the important judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada on duty to consult and accommodation are also discussed here to argue that an absence of a Constitutional recognition of these rights as compared to India has limited the scope of judicial interventions that legitimizes Aboriginal consent in the resource governance. The fifth chapter offers concluding remarks by comparing both the jurisdictions. Through a comparative analysis, this part argues that the FRA provides a stronger platform for the decentralization of forest governance in India than the co-management efforts in Canada
