Chittagong Hill Tracts: Land disputes, climate change and obstacles to forest conservation

There is nothing really new to say about the grave dangers the world faces as a result of environmental degradation and climate change. It is also widely understood that protecting forests is essential to addressing these challenges. Yet committed efforts toward this goal remain limited. Most of the initiatives that exist are largely confined to projects run by various NGOs.

Even so, there are still people who continue to protect forests without expecting any recognition. Members of indigenous and local communities have long worked quietly to safeguard forests that have become victims of political interests and corporate profit-making. Yet the land rights of indigenous people and local communities, which lay a crucial role, receive far too little attention.

On 14 May, Prothom Alo published an in-depth report on how protected forests in the hills are being destroyed, while mouza forests thrive. The report illustrates how these forests have survived for centuries through the know-how of local communities. In contrast, the condition of government-managed protected and reserved forests is alarming. The report also highlights the connection between ownership of these mouza forests and the effective protection of forests, as well as their role in addressing the impacts of climate change.

An article titled "Importance of Indigenous Peoples'' Lands for the Conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes," published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, finds that indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, and local communities safeguard more than one-third of the world's remaining intact forests and biodiversity. Remarkably, according to the New York–based Rainforest Foundation, the rate of deforestation in these areas is up to 26 per cent lower than the global average.

In 2023, the Rights and Resources Initiative published a report titled "Who Owns the World's Land?" An analysis of forests across 73 countries found that only about 11.4 percent of land and forest areas are formally recognised as belonging to indigenous peoples and local communities. Yet governments around the world have still not granted legal recognition to at least 1.375 billion hectares of the land they traditionally occupy.

The World Bank Group has conducted a systematic review of 18 impact evaluation studies, which found that recognising indigenous peoples' and local communities' land rights has reduced deforestation in many places. Government-managed forests can also draw important lessons from these findings. Forest conservation is difficult to sustain without involving local communities in forest management.

Governments cannot maintain constant oversight, particularly in remote and inaccessible areas where effective monitoring is often impractical. This is why community participation is essential. If these community-managed forests receive formal recognition, local communities may also become eligible for international climate and conservation funding, enabling them to play an even more effective role in protecting forests.

The question is: why are land rights or land ownership for indigenous communities necessary? Citing the eminent French socialist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, one might argue that "property is theft." In other words, the very concept of ownership is inherently an act of appropriation. In his 1840 book What Is Property? Proudhon elaborated on this idea, arguing that assigning exclusive ownership to an individual necessarily means that the property has been acquired at the expense of others through some form of dispossession.

Karl Marx, however, criticised Proudhon's argument in his 1847 work The Poverty of Philosophy. Marx contended that to describe property as theft, one must first accept the existence and legitimacy of property itself. In other words, by criticising property as theft, one is implicitly operating within the very framework of property rights that one seeks to reject.
Rather than describing property as theft, Marx argued for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. In essence, he advocated a community-based system of ownership, a principle that indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts have practiced for generations.

Their management of mouza forests is based on this communal tradition. Yet in the society we live in today, the institution of property ownership is firmly established. Consequently, securing legal ownership and land rights for Indigenous and local communities has become essential.

At the same time, the absence of formally recognised land rights prevents these communities from directly accessing international climate and forest finance. Such funding is typically channelled through national governments. A 2025 joint publication by the Rights and Resources Initiative and Rainforest Foundation Norway found that, between 2011 and 2024, less than one percent of international climate finance was allocated to programmes supporting indigenous peoples' and local communities' land tenure and resource management. Moreover, only a tiny fraction of that funding reached organizations directly led by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Of the US$1.8 billion pledged at the 2021 COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, only about 10 per cent reached indigenous peoples. The reason is that these funds are generally available only to those who are formally recognised by law as landowners. As a result, indigenous and local communities often lack the resources needed to protect forests effectively.

There are several other global funding mechanisms dedicated to forest conservation. One of the most significant is the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF). The initiative has been endorsed by 53 countries. Through this blended finance mechanism, valued at US$125 billion, forest-rich countries receive financial support. A key condition is that at least 20 per cent of the funding must be directed to indigenous peoples and local communities who are protecting forests through their own systems of management.

Forests are widely regarded as one of humanity's greatest allies in the fight against climate change. Numerous international agreements and conferences have set a target of halting deforestation by 2030. At the 30th UN Climate Change Conference (COP30), held in Brazil last year, participating countries made three global commitments on forests. These commitments recognise the vital role of indigenous peoples and local communities in forest conservation. They also include pledges to increase financial support for forest protection and to strengthen the formal recognition of Indigenous and local communities' land rights.

Yet this is where the central challenge lies. The legal process for securing land ownership for indigenous peoples is often complex. In Bangladesh, it is well known that the unresolved land question lies at the heart of the conflict in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Although many provisions of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord have been implemented, the fundamental issue of land disputes remains unresolved. As a result, discontent in the region has never been fully addressed, and violent clashes continue to erupt at regular intervals.

Land in the Chittagong Hill Tracts is governed under a dual system. On the one hand, there is the formal, state-administered system; on the other, there is the traditional system. The state system is based on the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900, enacted by the British colonial government and commonly known as the CHT Manual. Under this legal framework, the Deputy Commissioner holds the ultimate authority over land transfers, lease allocations, and the distribution of government-owned (khas) land.

Alongside this operates the traditional system of governance, under which the Chittagong Hill Tracts are divided into three administrative circles: the Chakma Circle in Rangamati, the Bohmong Circle in Bandarban, and the Mong Circle in Khagrachhari. Each circle is headed by a traditional chief, under whom mouza headmen serve as local administrators. A mouza consists of several villages or hamlets. At the village level, the headmen are assisted by karbaris (village chiefs). In some mouzas, responsibility for managing forests now rests primarily with the karbaris. In other areas, the leadership of Village Common Forests (VCFs) includes not only headmen and karbaris but also other respected community leaders.

Under Section 34(5) of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900, any sale, transfer, or other transaction involving land requires the mandatory approval of the Deputy Commissioner. Furthermore, under Section 34(13), anyone who is not a resident of the Chittagong Hill Tracts must obtain the Deputy Commissioner's explicit consent before acquiring land ownership in the region.

The Chittagong Hill Tracts Land Dispute Resolution Commission was established under the 1997 Peace Accord to resolve longstanding land conflicts. Despite this, land governance in the region remains highly contested. The implementation of the Commission's decisions continues to face numerous challenges. Significant tensions persist between customary Indigenous land tenure systems and land ownership recognized under state law. Conflicts over the management of Village Common Forests (VCFs), or mouza forests, illegal logging, and the competing claims of state-led development projects and Indigenous land rights continue to shape the political landscape of the hill region.

Yet the hill communities need greater resources to protect forests more effectively. Without formal legal recognition of their land rights, however, these communities will remain ineligible for global forest conservation funding.

Protected areas managed by indigenous peoples and local communities have gained international recognition through several frameworks, one of the most prominent being Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs).

These conserved areas include ecologically significant and environmentally sensitive lands and waters that maintain deep historical and cultural connections with indigenous peoples and local rural communities. They are governed according to customary institutions, traditions, and rules. Rather than recognizing private ownership, ICCAs are based on the principle of collective stewardship. They also provide an institutional framework through which conservation funding and technical support can be channelled directly to the communities responsible for protecting these landscapes.

Many countries have granted legal recognition to ICCAs, and international donors continue to support them. Examples include the German International Climate Initiative and WWF-Canada. To access assistance from such organizations, however, the mouza forests of the Chittagong Hill Tracts would need to be registered in the global ICCA Registry, which was established in 2008.

The ICCA framework is closely aligned with internationally agreed conservation goals, including the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted by 196 countries at the 2022 United Nations Biodiversity Conference, as well as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Drawing on the example of mouza forests in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, the Government of Bangladesh could pursue recognition not only through the ICCA framework but also through other comparable international platforms.

Many countries have already recognized the ownership and governance rights of forests managed under customary systems, although the extent of legal recognition varies. Bangladesh's proposed Forest Policy, scheduled for adoption in December 2025, indicates that mouza forests will receive formal recognition. These forests in the Chittagong Hill Tracts have long been governed under customary law.

Article 152 of the Constitution of Bangladesh recognizes customary law, provided that it does not conflict with the Constitution or infringe upon any fundamental rights guaranteed by it. This creates an opportunity for policymakers to explore whether the country's mouza forests could become eligible for international forest conservation financing.
International climate negotiations increasingly recognize forest conservation as one of the most effective ways to mitigate global climate change.

If the commitments made at these global forums are to be translated into meaningful action, land rights must be placed at the centre of the discussion. Without securing indigenous peoples' and local communities' land rights and ensuring they receive adequate financial support, it will be impossible to achieve the most effective and strategic outcomes in forest conservation. Ensuring these rights is therefore essential—not only for protecting Bangladesh's forests, but also for safeguarding our shared future.

* Khalilullah is a writer and journalist.
* The views expressed here are those of the author.
* This article appeared in Prothom Alo print and online and has been translated by Ayesha Kabir for Prothom Alo English Online