Legal Pathways for Gender-Inclusive Circular Enterprises: Forest Rights and The Protection Of Traditional Ecological KnowledgeIn Northeast India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66635/q5bw9z97Keywords:
Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Circular Economy, Forest Rights, Intellectual Property, GenderAbstract
Forest-based livelihoods in Northeast India follow circular practices grounded in Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) held by tribal women, who use selective harvesting, rotational gathering and low-waste processing to maintain ecological balance. However, TEK remains invisible in Indian law. Patent law excludes it, the Biodiversity Act documents species but not decision rules, and the GI Act recognises products without recognising women’s knowledge. Forest rights law grants access but not knowledge-based rights. Customary institutions further limit women’s participation in governance. Recent amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act weaken Gram Sabhas and reduce community control, affecting TEK-based enterprises. This chapter argues for recognising TEK as collective knowledge, integrating gender-sensitive procedures across forest and IP systems, and aligning FRA with livelihood schemes to support sustainable, women-led circular systems.
References
1.Agarwal, B. (1992). The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies, 18(1), 119–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178217
2.Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender. World Development, 29(10), 1623–1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00066-3
3.Agarwal, B. (2010). Gender and green governance. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199569687.001.0001
4.Antons, C. (2013). Traditional knowledge and intellectual property law in Asia. Kluwer Law International. https://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/store/product/traditional-knowledge-traditional-cultural-expressions-and-intellectual-property-law-in-asia/
5.Bavikatte, K., & Robinson, D. (2011). Towards a people's history of the law: Biocultural jurisprudence. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 7(1), 1–20. https://lead-journal.org/content/11001.pdf
6.Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred ecology (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Sacred-Ecology/Berkes/p/book/9780415517310
7.Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional Ecological Knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2.
8.Bijoy, C. R. (2020). Response to “Undoing historical injustice...”. Law and Other Things. https://lawandotherthings.com/response-to-undoing-historical-injustice-the-role-of-the-forest-rights-act-and-the-supreme-court/
9.Borah, S. (2021). Gender patterns in GI registrations in Northeast India. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 26, 212–222. http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/58659
10.Bose, P. (2019). The uncertain landscape of forest rights. Economic and Political Weekly, 54(2). https://www.epw.in/journal/2019/2/special-articles/uncertain-landscape.html
11.11Cairns, C., & Das, P. (2019). Customary law and democratic governance in Northeast India. Indian Law Review, 3(1), 64–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2019.1580567
12.Centre for Environmental Law, WWF–India v. Union of India & Others, (2013) 8 SCC 234 (India). Full text: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27900105/
13.Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). (2025). How the FCA 2023 amendments undermine Adivasi land protections. https://cjp.org.in/how-fca-2023-amendments-seek-to-undermine-adivasi-land-protections-guaranteed-in-forest-rights-act-2006-sc/
14.Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). Completing the picture: How the circular economy tackles climate change. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/completing-the-picture
15.Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/epistemic-injustice-9780198237907
16.Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. AMBIO, 22(2/3), 151–156. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4314060
17.Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N., & Hultink, E. (2017). The circular economy: A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
18.Geographical Indications Registry of India. (2021). GI Journal & resources. https://ipindia.gov.in/gi.htm
19.Government of India. (2006). The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/8311/1/a2007-02.pdf
20.Griffiths, J. (1986). What is legal pluralism? Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 24(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.1986.10756387
21.Gupta, A. (2002). Rewarding traditional knowledge and grassroots innovation. Current Science, 82(1), 5–10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24106660
22.India Development Review (IDR). (2025). IDR explains: The Forest Rights Act. https://idronline.org/features/rights/idr-explains-forest-rights-act-fra/
23.Kapur, R. (2018). Gender, alterity and human rights: Freedom in a fishbowl. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788112530
24.Karlsson, B. G. (2011). Unruly hills: A political ecology of India’s Northeast. Berghahn Books. https://www.berghahnbooks.com/title/KarlssonUnruly
25.Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 127, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
26.Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others, (2011) 7 SCC 338 (India). Official PDF (IELRC): https://www.ielrc.org/content/e1157.pdf
27.MacKinnon, C. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674896468
28.Merry, S. E. (1988). Legal pluralism. Law & Society Review, 22(5), 869–896. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053638
29.Ministry of Tribal Affairs. (2018). Status report on the implementation of the Forest Rights Act. https://tribal.nic.in/FRA/Data/Reports/StatusReportFRA2018.pdf
30.Mukherjee, S., & Sruthi, P. (2020). Women, nature and culture: An ecofeminist reading of matrilineal culture. Cultura de los Cuidados, 58, 165–184. https://doi.org/10.14198/CUID.2020.58.15
31.National Biodiversity Authority. (2021). Guidelines on Access and Benefit Sharing. http://nbaindia.org
32.NITI Aayog. (2021). Circular economy in India: Sector papers. https://www.niti.gov.in/circular-economy-series
33.Nongbri, T. (2003). Gender and the Khasi political system. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(43), 4551–4557. https://www.epw.in/journal/2003/43/commentary/gender-and-khasi-political-system.html
34.Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests & Others, (2013) 6 SCC 476 (India). Official PDF (IELRC): https://www.ielrc.org/content/e1337.pdf
35.PRS Legislative Research. (2023). Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 – Analysis. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-forest-conservation-amendment-bill-2023
36.36Pushpangadan, P. (2010). Protection of traditional knowledge. Indian Journal of Natural Products and Resources, 1(1), 8–16. http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/10393
37.Ramakrishnan, R. (2024). The Forest Rights Act and the 2023 Amendment to the Forest Conservation Act. Ecology, Economy and Society, 7(1), 45–67. https://ecoinsee.org/journal/ojs/index.php/ees/article/view/1371
38.Roy, S. (2015). Women and natural resource management in Northeast India. In Gender and Environment in India. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com
39.Saxena, K. B. (2024). The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023: A threat to forest lands and forest dwellers. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 70(1), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/00490857231222101
40.Schröder, P., et al. (2020). The circular economy in the Global South. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/04/circular-economy-global-south
41.Shangpliang, R. M. (2012). Forest legislations and livelihood strategies of Khasi women. Sociological Bulletin, 61(3), 402–422. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26290637
42.Shiva, V. (1988). Staying alive: Women, ecology and development. Kali for Women. https://books.google.com/books?id=gLLbAAAAMAAJ
43.Swiderska, K. (2016). Traditional knowledge and the sustainable use of biodiversity. IIED. https://pubs.iied.org/17464iied
44.Swiderska, K., et al. (2009). Protecting community rights over traditional knowledge. IIED. https://pubs.iied.org/14556iied
45.T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others, (1997) 2 SCC 267 (India). Authenticated via SCC citation; text available at Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/741638/
46.Talukdar, N. R., Choudhury, P., Barbhuiya, R. A., & Singh, B. (2021). Importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood. Trees, Forests and People, 3, 100042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100042
47.Tiwari, B. K., & Singh, S. (2015). Traditional knowledge-based forest management in Meghalaya. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 14(1), 156–162. http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/32980
48.Tynsong, H., & Tiwari, B. K. (2010). Traditional knowledge associated with bamboo management in Meghalaya. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 9(1), 163–168. http://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/7080
49.UNDP India. (2022). Circular economy for sustainable development. https://www.undp.org/india/publications/circular-economy
50.Upadhyay, S. (2019). Women, forests and participation in Meghalaya. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 26(1–2), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971521518825382
51.Wildlife First & Others v. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change & Others, W.P. (C) 109/2008 (Interim Order, 13 Feb 2019).
Supreme Court PDF: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2008/8640/8640_2008_Order_13-Feb-2019.pdf
52.WIPO. (2017). Protecting traditional knowledge: A practical overview. https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/resources/tk_overview.html
