Can Tribals Continue to Depend on Forests

1
Can Tribals Continue to Depend on Forests ?

• International Conference on Poverty Reduction
  and Forests Tenure, Market and Policy Reforms,
• 3-7 September 07
• --------------------------------------------------
  --
• Sanjoy Patnaik
• Regional Centre for Development Cooperation,
• INDIA

2
Focus of Discussion

• Conservation and commercial industrial approach
  to forestry both during British India and there
  after has substantially curtailed rights and
  privileges of forest dwelling tribals and in the
  process has alienated them from forests.
• The ability of progressive legislations in
  dealing with such alienation.
• Consultative processes in law making and the
  final outcome.
• Varied and convenient interpretations of law,
  classification and definition of forests to suit
  commercial interests enhancing state control
  vis-à-vis Forest Dwellers, esp Tribals.

3
Structure of Presentation

• Tribals, forests and extent of dependence.
• Growth and evolution of forest legislations
  Forest Rights in British India and Independent
  India, and impact on forest dwelling tribals.
• PESA and Forest Rights Act 2006.
• Definition and classification of forests to suit
  commercial needs.
• Departmental control and influences on forest
  dependence
• Concluding thoughts

4
Tribals, forests and extent of dependence

• About 65 of the forest cover is in 187 tribal
  dominated districts, out of 50 districts which
  have dense forest cover, 49 are tribal districts.
  (MoEF).
• About 260 million people live below poverty line,
  out of which 100 million are partially or wholly
  dependent on forests, out of which 70 million are
  tribals. (FSI).
• Out of the total number of forest fringe villages
  of the country, 60 percent belongs to the Central
  Indian states. Similarly more than half of the
  forest area of the forest fringe villages of the
  country is in these states, so are the forest
  dwelling and dependent populace.

5
Tribals, forests and extent of dependence

• More than half of the population of Orissa are
  dependent on forests who constitute about 60 per
  cent of the total villages of the state (FSI).
• These central Indian states apart from having
  good area under forest cover also have major
  portion of the Schedule V areas of the country.
• Forest produces supports tribals for more than
  6-8 months a year - from Nov to June - both in
  terms of subsistence and cash benefit.
• Studies have established that forest produces
  supplement upto 40 of their income.

6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• Forest Rights in British India
• Ownership of forests with local chiefs in
  medieval India with access rights to local
  communities.
• Teak a rich substitute to Oak Shipbuilding,
  Railways and other colonial infrastructure
  requirements.
• Royalty rights on teak to East India Company in
  1807
• Unauthorized teak felling was prohibited
• Conservator became the sanctioning authority for
  teak felling and selling.
• By 1846 such sanctioning power got extended to
  all forests.
• By 1860, the Companys sovereignty extended from
  teak to the total forestland.
• Rights and privileges to fuel, fodder and other
  local uses were prohibited.

9
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• Imperial Forest Department brought into being in
  1864 to consolidate state control on public
  forests and forestry was made a scientific
  operation.
• Legal framework through1865,1878 and1927 Forest
  Acts.
• Forest Administration for national development to
  be used by the whole body of taxpayers.
• Prioritized conservation over livelihoods through
  classification of forests and prohibition of
  customary use rights over forests.
• No settlement of rights, no space for meeting
  local needs, reservation of valuable trees, set
  of punitive sanctions,
• Thus started a purposive state intervention in
  forests.
• The 1927 Forest Act with minor modifications is
  still operational.

10
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• Forest Rights in Independent India
• Post-colonial forest management in India can be
  classified under three broad phases
• I Phase 1947 to early 70s
• Forest for achieving national objectives -
  commerce, industry and agriculture - no space for
  locals.
• II Phase 1970s to mid 80s
• Conservation pitted against livelihoods,
  powerful instruments for conservation developed.
• III Phase 1988 till date
• Forest a local resource, partnership,
  complimentarity of conservation and livelihoods.
  

11
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• Developments of legal instruments in the second
  phase was a response to forest and wildlife
  depletion in the first phase.
• As a continuity of the colonial forest policies,
  the legal instruments made in India were
  extremely conservationist in nature, did not
  differentiate between local and external use,
  stressed on excessive state control, restricted
  and did not recognize existing local use rights.
• The assumption was, forest has been destroyed by
  the forest dwellers/tribals and it needs to be
  protected/conserved from them.

12
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• Diversion of forestland was not possible for the
  tribals when it came to settlement of rights but
  the rich and the influential could always use
  forests for non forest purposes with MoEF
  permission and with a high conversion rate.
• The Protected Area Network was enhanced but
  existing rights were not settled. The State
  reserved the right to evict local forest dwellers
  without settling their bonafide rights to
  residence.
• Gradually the Wildlife Protection Act becoming
  more and more stringent. Earlier it allowed
  continuance of rights within a PA, now it has
  been withdrawn.
• Conservation legislations like WLPA and FCA more
  powerful than rights providing legislations like
  the PESA, though the later is an amendment to the
  Constitution.

13
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• Developments before PESA
• 73rd Amendment to the Constitution
• Bhuria Committee to extend the provisions of the
  amendment to the schedule areas
• Major focus of Bhuria Committee Community
  Resource,
• Traditional/customary rights, Gram Sabha.
• Panchayats Extension to Schedule Areas Act
• PESA was to the basis of future law making.
• States were supposed to make/change their laws as
  per PESA.
• Relevant rules to be framed to carry PESA
  forward.

14
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• PESA in States
• States have diluted the provisions of PESA by
  changing the Central Act.
• Gram Sabha to manage community resources and
  resolve disputes as per the customs and
  traditions of the people.. in consistent with
  relevant laws in force.
• Majority of the powers entrusted with the Gram
  Sabha by the Central Act were subsequently
  transferred to the GP or Taluka Panchayat or
  Zilla Parishad, like Land acquisition, Grant of
  lease for minor minerals, minor water bodies,
  prevention of restoration of alienated tribal
  land,

15
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• Most of the states have not defined community
  resource, therefore rights provided by PESA is
  non-existent.
• As per the Central Act, forests of all types to
  be regarded as community resource but the
  official interpretation is reserve forests are
  outside the purview of PESA for which PESA is not
  operative within a protected area.
• As per PESA that came in 1996, GPs in the
  schedule areas have ownership rights over MFPs. A
  year after, responding to a PIL, Honble Supreme
  Court hold that no collection of dead, fallen,
  drift wood, grass etc can be made from the
  sanctuary area.
• In 1998, Government orders were passed for ban of
  MFP collection within the sanctuaries and in the
  2002 amendment of WLP, it has been incorporated.

16
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• This implies that even if in a schedule area, the
  WLP has overriding powers over PESA.
• In a plea to have a clear understanding of what
  does ownership over MFP actually meant, the MoEF
  came out with definition that had nothing to do
  with PESA prescriptions, 'ownership means revenue
  from sale of usufructory rights, i.e., right to
  net revenue after retaining the administrative
  expenses of the department, and not right to
  control'.
• States like Chattisgarh, Andhra did not give this
  ownership rights to GP. Whereas Gujurat devolved
  the ownership rights and restored it back to the
  FD on grounds of non performance by the GPs.
• Relevant Acts and rules were not changed.

17
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• Developments before Forest Rights Act
• JPC Recommendations
• Cut off date for settlement of rights be 13th Dec
  2005
• Forest dweller in the forest or in close
  proximity.
• Critical wildlife habitat be decided by an
  independent and participatory process with
  definite role for Gram Sabha.
• Possibility for co-existence in a protected area.
• Shifting cultivators to have full powers over
  land use of any land falling within their
  traditional boundary.

18
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• Developments before Forest Rights Act
• JPC Recommendations
• Gram Sabha was the final authority in rights
  settlement and forest diversion.
• Minimum Support Price for MFP
• Community to have right, authority to use,
  regenerate, control or management community
  forest resources.

19
Growth and evolution of forest legislations

• Forest Rights Act
• Forest dwellers are the people residing in the
  forest and not in close proximity to forests
  and in recorded forests.
• Gram Sabha is neither the final authority in
  settlement of rights nor its consent is mandatory
  in forest diversion.
• The participatory process in deciding the
  critical wildlife habitat is lost by adopting a
  top down approach.
• Community will have no control rights over
  community forest resources.
• No minimum support price.

20
Increased Alienation Through Changing Nature of
Definition and Classification

• Changing nature of definition of forests and the
  classifications obstructed determination and
  settlement of forest rights.
• Indian Forest Act 1865, defined forest as a land
  covered with trees, brushwood and jungle
• Supreme Court 1996 Forest is an extensive area
  covered by trees and bushes with no agriculture.
• MoEF, 2007 - Forest is an area under Government
  control notified or recorded as forest under any
  Act, for conservation and management of
  ecological and biological resources.

21
Increased Alienation Through Changing Nature of
Definition and Classification

• Different laws, policies and orders defined and
  classified forests differently with definite and
  specific control regimes attached to it.
• 1865 - Underlying agenda was timber extraction.
• 1996 - Conservation at any cost increased
  departmental control.
• 2007 - Changing definition would change
  restrictions in FCA and allow industrial presence
  in afforestation

22
Increased Alienation Through Changing Nature of
Definition and Classification

• Remove private forestslands from the purview of
  forest laws In conflict with Supreme Court
  order of 1996 that brought all forestlands under
  provisions of forest laws.
• With this definition, diversion of a patch of
  land legally defined as forest can be possible
  huge implication for plantation sector
  Corporate.
• Implications on Forest Rights

23
Departmental Control Influencing Forest
Dependence

• Commercial plantation by depleting large tracts
  of natural forests for revenue and as part of
  plantation programmes.
• Limited local rights in carbon sinks since these
  plantation forests are grown strictly for
  conservation and being part of natural forests.
• National governments are attracting external
  donor support for creating such plantation
  forests.
• These plantation areas are earmarked for
  commercial and industrial use. Though no specific
  mention has been made about the exclusion of
  local use rights, apart from rights over NTFP, no
  specific right is expected to exist.

24
Departmental Control and Influencing Forest
Dependence

• Most of the shifting cultivation and community
  protected areas are now getting converted into
  Compensatory Afforestation spots.
• Forest dwellers have no decision making role to
  play in the utilisation of the funds received
  under Net Present Value for diversion of
  forestland for non forest purposes.
• Increased role of mines/industries and corporates
  in forest policies.

25
Developments influencing Dependence

• Promotion of non forestry livelihood options and
  absence of forestry component in wage work.
• Extent of possession of homestead and cultivable
  land as well as availability of inputs mainly
  irrigation is influencing nature and extent of
  forest dependence.
• Visible decrease in forest dependence due to
  supplementary rural livelihoods programmes.

26
Concluding thoughts

• Need to recast FR Act as per PESA provisions.
• PESA be made the basis for tribal law making and
  to have overriding powers.
• Central committee to review PESA and the State
  laws be changed as per PESA.
• A paradigm shift in forest policy making that
  would balance conservation, development and
  livelihoods.
• Need for clear and common understanding on
  definition of forests, forestland and forest
  area.
• Major problems relating to forest rights have
  been caused due to lack of forest settlement.
  Therefore, claim settlement through proper
  procedure before declaration of Government
  forests.

27
Concluding thoughts

• Support systems for developing and promoting
  forest based livelihoods including minimum
  support system for MFP be strengthened.
• In all the forestry support programmes in a
  schedule area, Gram Sabha to play a decisive
  role.
• On priority basis, forest settlement process has
  to be initiated that would help define forest
  rights as well as enable the deserving to benefit
  from the FR Act.
• Forest area outside reserve forests should be
  clearly delineated on ground to know the extent
  of forest rights.
• Forest usage pattern to be assessed to develop
  written rights and concessions to establish
  forest rights in case of dereservation.

28
Thank You