Articles related to Forest Act and recent dilution in green norms

Govt. dilutes green norms further, scraps Wildlife Board clearance for projects

The move will help projects within demarcated eco-sensitive zones and 10Km range of wildlife zones secure clearances.To facilitate projects, the ministry of environment and Forests has further relaxed the process of granting forest clearances under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

Now, project developers will be able to secure clearances in areas around tiger reserves, national parks and sanctuaries, without awaiting the nod of the National Wildlife Board, as the process of securing a forest clearance has been de-linked from the assessment of the impact on wildlife by the board. This will help projects within demarcated eco-sensitive zones and a 10-km range of wildlife zones secure clearances.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had mandated projects within a 10-km radius of wildlife parks and sanctuaries be cleared by the wildlife board, as these could have a deleterious impact on biodiversity. Subsequently, it was made mandatory to secure a wildlife clearance before the impact of the project on forests, in its entirety, was assessed by the government's statutory appraisal body.

Ø  Wild life nod delinked from forest clearance for areas around wildlife zones

Ø  States powers to put additional safeguards done away with

Ø  Tribal rights diluted, favouring prospecting miners

Ø  Miners not in compliance for over 5 years to also get approvals

Ø  Forests can be cut before final clearance for linear projects such as roads and irrigation canals

This, however, won't be the case anymore. The government has justified the de-linking, saying the two assessments --- on wildlife and forest - fell under two separate laws and weren't legally connected.

From the ministry's notification, it is unclear whether project proponents will be able to cut forests on the project site once they secure the forest clearance but await a nod from the wildlife board.

In a separate notification, the government has given developers of linear projects such as irrigation canals, power lines and highways the permission to cut forests and trees even before the final clearance is secured. They will be allowed to do so as long as they deposit the funds sought, such as those mandated for compensatory afforestation.

In a third dilution, the ministry has done away with the need for the consent of tribals for opening forests to miners seeking to prospect in their traditional lands. Earlier, Business Standard had reported the National Democratic Alliance government was considering doing away with the consent provision for all types of projects.

The Centre has also barred state governments from putting any additional conditions to protect forests or biodiversity in the case of projects the central government has cleared. While giving clearances, the Centre usually puts a number of preconditions on projects. So far, state governments had the power to put additional safeguards in place for specific projects.

In another dilution, the environment ministry has created room to condone cases in which miners don't comply with laid-down conditions. Forest clearances are provided through a two-stage process-in the first, the government gives an in-principle approval, laying down a set of conditions to be met before the final nod is given. Now, the environment ministry has allowed miners who don't meet these compliance conditions for more than five years before the end of their leases to secure approvals.

The ministry has also allowed those who secure clearances to divert lands for road-building and expansion to build right of way for nearby buildings, lands and other facilities, without seeking additional approvals.

Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar has justified the changes and taken credit for clearing projects which, he claims, were held up under the United Progressive Alliance government. Earlier, he had announced a general approval for all defence roads within 100-km aerial distance of the Line of Actual Control. Now, these projects do not require to be assessed for alternative routes or impact by the statutory forest advisory committee.

While a couple of changes to the regulations were announced in July, the rest were put in place in August and September.

Speaking to the media on Tuesday, Javadekar said the proposed dilution of tribal rights over their traditional forestlands was still being discussed in the government and would be disclosed only after a final decision was taken. He added tribals, too, required development, but didn't reply to a question on why his ministry disagreed with its tribal affairs counterpart and wished to do away with tribals' rights over their forestlands.

He termed the changes in the regulations as steps that would continue to improve the health of the forests, as in many cases, land diverted for projects led to compensatory afforestation on twice the area.

Govt eases environment rules to attract investments: Rules for mining, roads, power and irrigation projects relaxed:

Through a quick series of notifications, the Union environment ministry has eased rules for mining, roads,power and irrigation projects and other industrial sectors. It has diluted a host of regulations related to environment, forest and tribal rights. Besides, sources in the ministry say, more changes in regulations are in the pipeline.

Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar had earlier done away with the requirement of public hearing for coal mines below 16 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) wishing to expand output by up to 50 per cent. This has now been extended to mines above 16 mtpa, permitting them to mine up to five mtpa more without consulting affected people. Public hearings, the only occasion when affected people are consulted for clearances, have in the past turned violent at times, or seen protests leading to litigation.

Union Power & Coal Minister Piyush Goyal had approached the environment ministry in May requesting similar rules for expansion of coal output in big and small mines. The environment ministry had on May 30 exempted public hearing if the increased mine output was up to four mtpa. The Centre, on the request of the coal ministry, had in June also decided to consider group clearances for Coal India Ltd mines that were in close proximity, rather than individual project proposals.

The need for consent from gram sabhas for prospecting in forests has also been done away with. This dilutes the Forest Rights Act, which requires the consent of tribals before forest land is diverted to industrial activity. Alongside, inspection of mining projects by ministry officials for plots less than 100 hectares has been removed. The ministry has also set aside the requirement of compensatory afforestation for prospectors.

The government recently laid down that instead of tribal village councils certifying their rights had been settled and they had consented to projects, the district administrations would be empowered to do so in 60 days, regardless of the number of villages affected by the projects. Settling of rights is a lengthy process and in many parts of the country it is far from complete.

Besides these, the government has also amended the environment impact assessment notification of 2006, letting several industries up to a certain size go to state governments for clearance, instead of approaching the Centre. Industry has usually found it easier to get clearance from state governments.

EASIER NORMS

COAL PRODUCTION ·         Coal companies’ expansion up to a fixed limit without mandatory public hearing ·         Clearance in clusters for nearby mines, instead of separate approvals MINE PROSPECTING ·         Prospecting in forest areas exempt from tribal rights settlements and consent ·         No govt. inspection for prospecting up to 100 hectares ·         Compensatory afforestation done away with TRIBAL RIGHTS ·         Tribal gram sabhas’ powers for securing rights over forest land diluted; settlement and consent for projects to be managed by district administration REGULATORY EASING ·         National Board for Wildlife (NBW), without independent forest and wildlife experts, to clear projects ·         Plan to dilute National Green Tribunal’s powers INDUSTRIAL BELTS ·         Ban on new industries in critically polluted industrial areas lifted; pollution index-based moratoriums stopped INDUSTRIES ·         Irrigation projects get easier route, separate from power components ·         Thermal, coal, paper pulp, mining and other polluting industries can, to a larger extent, get clearance from states * Norms for protective ring against polluting industries around wildlife areas diluted

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has also permitted mid-sized polluting industries to operate within five km of national parks and sanctuaries with state clearances, compared with the 10-km limit imposed by the Supreme Court. This has been done by changing the pollution-related classification of industries.

Also, the amended environment impact assessment notification allows coal tar processing units to get clearances from state governments. Mineral beneficiation projects up to 0.5 mtpa will also be cleared by state governments. Earlier, only those up to 0.1 mtpa capacity were allowed to approach the states.

Irrigation projects below 2,000 hectares need not apply for clearances anymore and those between 2,000 and 10,000 hectares can be cleared by state governments. By also separating power from irrigation projects, developers can now take projects piecemeal to different agencies for clearance.

Business Standard had previously reported that the NDA government had suspended a pollution index-based moratorium on new industries in critically polluted areas like Singrauli and Vapi. Instead, it has asked its experts to revise the index.

The government has also taken the teeth out of the National Board of Wildlife. The board's standing committee, now without independent wildlife and ecology experts, is slated to clear several dozen projects at its meeting on August 12.

A host of other changes in norms for environment and forest clearance are also being discussed within the environment ministry and the Prime Minister's Office, alongside a review of the powers of the National Green Tribunal.

Don’t take away Gram Sabha’s powers under FRA: activists petition Modi

 ‘Central government's attempts to do away with consent of Gram Sabhas for diverting forests unconstitutional’

Photo: Sayantan Bera

A group of activists and non-profits have written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, expressing concern over recent attempts by the government to do away with the mandatory requirement of Gram Sabha consent under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) for diversion of forestland for development. The proposed changes in the process of diversion of forests, the petitioners said, “will be unconstitutional and will impact the decisions taken by our august Parliament”.

The plea follows reports that the Union ministry of environment and forests is working to do away with the mandatory consent of the gram sabhas for clearing forest for non-forest uses.  “The proposed modifications are in direct violation of the Forest Rights Act, a historic legislation which was enacted by Parliament after a prolonged struggle by Adivasis and forest dwelling communities, with the intent of overturning 150 years of injustice done to this country's poorest communities,” said the petition signed by more than 30 organisations and individuals working on Forest Rights Act. The signatories to the petition include Y Giri Rao and Tushar Dash from Vasundhara, Neema Pathak and Meenal Tatpati from Kalpavriksh, Pune, and forest rights advocate Madhu Sarin.

The activists and academicians also pointed out that the proposed changes are also against the directions of the Supreme Court of India. The court has affirmed the central role of Gram Sabhas in decision making and the statutory requirement of consent from Gram Sabhas in the landmark judgment in the case of diversion of forestland in customary habitat of Dongria Kondhs in Niyamgiri in Odisha, the letter stated (see ‘Battle for Niyamgiri’).

FRA was enacted to address the historical injustice meted out to Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, including those displaced by developmental projects. It mandates that no forest dweller can be evicted from forestland until his or her forest rights are settled. Drawing from the fact that FRA gives absolute authority to the Gram Sabha to take decisions on the forests under their jurisdiction, MoEF, in 2009, made it mandatory for industrial projects to take consent from the Gram Sabhas before applying to MoEF for the permission.

The petitioners pointed out that several states continue to violate the provisions of the MoEF circular regarding Gram Sabha consent. “To fulfill the 50 per cent quorum requirement, Gram Sabha resolutions have been forged by local level officials and project proponents, for instance, in Singrauli district of Madhya Pradesh, for the diversion of forestland for Mahan Coal Ltd, and in Hensamul village in Angul District of Odisha where no Gram Sabha meeting was conducted in the first place.  Often, project proponents themselves conduct Gram Sabha meetings without the knowledge of the district administration,” they said.

The activists said that they were deeply shocked that the Central government had not taken actions against such projects. “We seek your immediate and urgent intervention to prevent such violation of the letter and spirit of a historically significant Act and to fulfill your promises,” said the petition.
 

Forest title claims of over 50% tribals, forest dwellers rejected: report

0 Comments

Author(s): Kumar Sambhav S... @KumarSambhav_S 

Date:Jun 15, 2012

Where titles have been granted, average size of land holdings much smaller than what the Forest Rights Act provides for, says status report on implementation of the Act  

The latest status report of the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs on the implementation status of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 confirms the general perception that the law has not really benefitted tribal people and other forest dwellers of the country. The report shows that more than half of the total claims filed by the forest dwellers for land titles under FRA have been rejected. What’s more, though the Act has the provision for recognising rights for land parcels of up to 4 ha size to each legitimate claimant, the average size of the land holdings for which titles have been granted under the Act is only 1.4 ha.

The status report, which was released this week, shows that for a total 1,254,456 titles 1.8 million ha of forestland has been distributed so far. The implementation of the Act started in 2007 with the purpose of recognising rights of the forest dwellers over the forest resources they have been traditionally using. However, its implementation has been plagued with various problems, specially the resistance from the forest department in ceding control over the forest resources.

Forest rights at a glance Total number of titles distributed so far: 1,254,456 Forestland to which titles have been granted: 1.8 million ha Average size of the land holdings for which titles have been granted: 1.4 ha Total number of claims processed so far: 2.8 million Claims rejected: 54% Community forest claims granted: 0.5% of total claims processed

Only 0.5 per cent of the 2.8 million claims processed so far recognise community rights over forest resources while 46 per cent recognise individual rights over forest dwellings and farms in forestland. Community rights under the Act include the right to collect minor forest produce (MFP), like bamboo and tendu leaves, which accounts for half the forest departments’ revenue. According to an estimate by a committee of the ministry of Panchayati Raj, the production potential of these MFP’s is close to Rs 4,000 crore. However, the tribals in most of the forests still remain collectors of these produce and earn daily wages from the forest department or contractors. The community rights also include the right to manage and protect the community forest resources; however, this has hardly been implemented in the country.

Tribal affairs minister circulates list of corrective measures

A week before the release of the report, the tribal affairs minister V Kishore Chandra Deo had written to the chief ministers of the forested states, expressing concern over the poor implementation of the Act. He wrote that even after five years of enactment, the flagship scheme of the UPA government has not benefitted the majority of the tribal population. He said in his letter that the rejection rate of claims under the Act was very high and the rejected claimants were not given any reason for the rejection nor an opportunity to appeal against the rejection.

“Where land rights are recognised, the area for which the title is issued is often a fraction of the area of which the people are actually entitled to. Recognition of community rights such as, rights to minor forest produce, grazing areas, water bodies, habitats of primitive tribal groups, pastoralists routes etc are very low,” said the minister. As a result, he said, large numbers of forest dwellers are facing eviction or harassment by forest authorities. He asked the chief ministers to give “a clear signal” to the implementing authorities that “all rights of the forest dwellers must be adhered to and that the democratic process under FRA must be respected.”  For this, the minister also sent a list of corrective measures to the chief ministers to be taken for effective implementation of the Act. The ministry is also mulling amendments to the Act and its guidelines for its effective implementation.
 

Baigas cheated of community forest rights

Madhya Pradesh village given rights over agricultural and residential land instead of forestland

Residents of Ranjra village spent months collecting tubers and medicinal plants which they want to propagate after they get community rights to manage their forest. Photos by Aparna PallaviResidents of Ranjra, a Baiga tribal village in Dindori district of Madhya Pradesh, spent many months of 2011 collecting a variety of edible tubers, roots and medicinal plants found in their forest. The idea was to propagate these plants since the village was finally going to get its community forest rights (CFR) papers. “Our forest has lost a lot of its diverse wealth due to the forest department’s policy of saal tree monoculture. We were hoping that since we were getting the management rights, we would work Hariao Bai of village Ranjra winnows banjeera, a valuable medicinal herb. She has saved the seeds to grow the plants in the forestto regenerate the lost forest produce useful to us,” says village resident Hariaro Bai. “But now we do not know what to do,” she says.

When the CFR claim papers finally arrived, the Baigas were speechless with surprise. The land they had been given as community forest was not forestland at all, but the agricultural and residential land of the village, the titles for which they had already received under individual forest rights claims. “We realised this because all the forest compartments given to us are ‘B’ compartments, signifying residential and agricultural land in forest department's terminology,” says Barelal Rathuria, president of the village forest rights committee. “When we examined the claims closely, we found that the compartment numbers were the same as those mentioned in individual claims given under the Forest Rights Act (FRA).”

No forest for tribal villages

One would think that the subject of a community forest rights claim under FRA would be…well, forest. But in the tribal district of Dindori, all except one of the 380 claims that the administration says it has distributed till date do not relate to forestland. They simply bestow all of a village’s agriculture and utility land to it all over again, as common property.

Worse, the authorities are completely unapologetic about this futile exercise, insisting that this is the right way to go about giving CFR rights, that this is what is being done elsewhere, and that villages have not demanded forestland in any case.

However, a visit to several tribal villages in the district, especially in the Baigachak area dominated by Baiga tribals, reveals that district authorities, despite repeated requests, failed to provide villages with relevant documents to file CFR applications, and that villages do want forestland.

Rights not under relevant Act

Dhaba, a Baiga village in Samnapur tehsil, is the only village to have received forestland under CFR in the entire district, but the rights granted to it have not been given under the Forest rights Act 2006. “We have been given two claim papers,” says Sukkal Singh Rathuria, FRA committee president. “One gives 1,827.89 ha to the village joint forest management (JFM) committee for minor forest produce (MFP) collection under the Indian Forest Act 1927, and the other gives 205.27 ha for nistaar purpose (right to collect minor forest produce, including fuelwood, for self-consumption) under the Van Gram Sthapana Niyam 1971.”

“The claim papers make no sense,” says Balwant Rahangdale, forest rights activist from the non-profit National Institute for Women, Youth and Child Development at Dindori, which has helped villages apply for CFR. “Why are claims being given under legislations that have denied people rights over forests for more than a century, when a law for correcting the historical injustice exists? And anyway CFR is a part of FRA, and the manner in which these claims have been granted is not legally valid, says Rahangdale.

“We want a clear-cut CFR claim that gives all rights including management and conservation rights to the gram sabha, in the spirit of the FRA,” says Rathuria, “We do not believe in JFM and we can’t be content with MFP collection and nistaar alone.” The village has appealed against the decision, but has not received any response from the officials till date.

“Why do we need this fresh ‘patta’ for our agriculture and utility land, when we already have pattas for this land ?” asks Bir Singh Sarodia of village Ajgar, putting his finger on a fact that does not appear to have occurred to the officials. “We had applied for right to the forest that our village had been protecting since generations, but what we got is something else altogether.”

Residents of village Phitari, close to Ajgar, also expressed similar views.

Asked for comments, district collector G V Rashmi says there is nothing wrong with the titles. “The land has been given to the people as collective community resource. That is how it is being done everywhere. We did the same in Sehore,” she says. Informed that people had applied for forestland under Section 3(1) of FRA, she made the surprising declaration that people had not demanded forestland at all.

Divisional forest officer (DFO) of Dindori, L P Tiwari, took an even more bewildering stand. “People here don’t need rights like in Mendha Lekha where people were demanding bamboo rights. Here there is no bamboo in the forests.” Asked if this was the reason why forestland had not been given, he denied it. However, he could not give the exact reason for denying the Baigas their community forest rights.

Documents not provided

“The administration has taken advantage of people’s ignorance of official procedures in issuing claims,” says Rahangdale. In 2008, 20 villages from the Baigachak area wrote to the tribal development department, asking for their nistaar and other documents with the help of which they could fill their CFR claim forms. But for one whole year the documents were not provided despite repeated reminders. Finally, in February 2009, the people filed claims, using the traditional names of forests, and now administration is saying people did not demand forestland, says Rahangdale.

Barelal of Ranjra confirms this. “We do not know the compartment numbers of the forest area we have been traditionally protecting, so we had asked administration to provide us the information. But we were given nothing, so in the end we had to simply mention the traditional names by which we know our forests.”Sukkalal Singh Rathuria of village Dhaba holds up a leaflet given by a forest guard, warning village residents not to indulge in forest offences. These were distributed immediately after community forest claim papers were distributedDhaba village, which had made a more thorough follow-up, is the only exception to this rule, says Rahangdale.

There are other irregularities in the manner in which the claims have been given, informs Rahangdale, “While administration claims that all 380 claims in the district have been cleared, only nine out of the 20 villages in the Baigachak region which applied for CFR have received papers. What is more, the papers have come two full years late, issued in December 2011 when the issuing date is 2009, and only xerox copies of the claims have been given, not the original claim papers.

Assistant commissioner for tribal development, P N Chaturvedi was not available for comment.

Also, inform villagers, immediately after the CFR papers were distributed, a mysterious pamphlet threatening dire consequences of “forest produce-related offences”, and claiming to be issued by the divisional forest officer, was circulated in the villages by forest guards. While officials are silent about whether such a document was circulated by them, villagers feel it was done to intimidate them and discourage them from claiming forest rights, says Sukkal Singh Rathuria.

Conflicts continue

Ranjra village residents are opposing forest department's plant to fell sal trees in their forestEven as villages have supposedly been given CFR claims, conflicts between the forest department and villages over the thorny issue of coupe felling have not been been resolved, as the department continues to implement a one-sided, non-participatory working plan. Village Ranjra is at present locked in yet another coupe felling war with the forest department.

In mid-January this year, barely three weeks after the CFR claims were distributed, the department marked a coupe comprising some 2,000 saal trees in the village forest, but the gram sabha and FRA committee opposed it. Says Fulwati Ningunia, FRA committee member, “the department says that they are going to fell only old saal trees, but we know these trees can live up to 100 years or more.” The village does not want the trees felled because they are all in the seed-bearing age, and saal seeds are an important source of both food and income for them. “It is the most lucrative MFP, because it is available in abundance and sells at Rs 10 per kg,” says Ningunia, “And it also supplies us with food for almost a month every year.”

The village, says Ningunia, has given the administration and forest department five gram sabha resolutions opposing felling but still villagers are being threatened to comply with the working plan. Deputy range forest officer R K Patel and DFO Tiwari insist that the felling is part of the working plan and cannot be stopped. Villagers, however, insist that before any working plan operations, the village’s forest rights claim must be settled in the spirit of the FRA. “We have been threatened with arrests, cancellation of the CFR claim paper given to us and so on, but we will not have our forests destroyed by the department any more,” says Ningunia.

Forest dwellers march for their rights

State governments reject 50 per cent of the 3.15 million claims filed under Forest Rights Act

Around 5,000 forest-dwellers from across the country gathered to demand their rights and smooth implementation of the Forest Rights Act . (Photo: Sayantoni Palchoudhuri)Around 5,000 forest-dwellers from across the country gathered in the capital on December 15 to demand their rights and smooth implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA). 

The Act that recognises the traditional rights of the forest-dwelling communities on forest resources came into force on December 15, 2006. But, its implementation has been plagued with several problems, specially opposition from the state forest departments. They are reluctant to give away the forest lands to tribals. So far, only 12.3 lakh titles of forest rights have been distributed. More than 50 per cent of the 31.5 lakh claims filed under the Act have been rejected by the state governments. 

To protest this, tribals from 18 states marched from Mandi House to the Parliament Street. The rally was organised by National Forum for Forest Peoples and Forest Workers (NFFPFW), an alliance of non-profits working on tribal issues and National Forest Rights Campaign. Around 80 per cent of the participants were women.

More than 80 per cent of the participants were women. “FRA was enacted by the Parliament after a 200-year-long struggle of forest- dwelling communities. But still the Central and state governments have failed to correct the historical injustice to the tribals which was the objective of FRA,” says Munnilal of NFFPFW. Ashok Chaudhary, national convener of the forum, says, “It seems the government is not interested in implementing the legislation. Rather, it is caught up in the politics of the wildlife lobby and forest department.”  Guman singh of Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, a non-profit in northeast India, says whatever land titles the government has given to tribals under the Act is a propaganda to attract votes.

Later, leaders of the participanting organisations met Union minister of tribal affairs V Kishore Chandra Deo with their demands. As a follow up, a national conference of traditional livelihood and natural resources based communities was held on December 16. During the conference the communities dependent on natural resources formed a federation to fight for their cause

How government is subverting Forest Rights Act

1 Comments

Author(s): Richard Mahapatra @Richard20711534 , Kumar Sambhav S... @KumarSambhav_S , Sumana Narayanan, Aparna Pallavi @AparnaPallavi1 

Nov 15, 2010 | From the print edition

Does this official data betray a conspiracy? Only 1.6 per cent of the 2.9 million claims approved under the Forest Rights Act recognise community rights; the rest recognise individual rights over forest dwellings and farms in forestland. Now consider this: community rights under the Act include the right to collect minor forest produce, like bamboo and tendu leaves, which accounts for half the forest department revenue. Reason enough for states to scuttle community rights, which the Centre is trying desperately to enforce. The government of India views MFP rights as a means to curb Naxalism since the states most affected by Naxalism are also home to the maximum number of people dependent on forest produce. These states contribute more than 90 per cent of the MFP trade

Down To Earth correspondents travelled to six states to unravel the conspiracy to deprive forest people of their rights. Richard Mahapatrareports from Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, Kumar Sambhav Shrivastavafrom Madhya Pradesh, Sumana Narayanan from Odisha and Andhra Pradesh and Aparna Pallavi from Maharashtra

A tribal woman collects herbs for domestic use. Villagers resent they receive only a fraction of the market value of the forest produce (Photo: Aparna Pallavi)Two tribal villages in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra—Mendha Lekha and Marda— savoured victory when they won community rights over their forest resources in August last year. The rights conferred under the Forest Rights Act of 2006 include the right to collect and sell minor forest produce (MFP). These include tendu leaves used in beedis, and bamboo that have high commercial value and were under the forest department’s control. Winning the right to manage these resources meant economic liberation to the two villages.

Soon, 60 other villages in the district filed claims for similar rights with the district authorities. Only eight were recognised, that too with riders. The document transferring rights to villages was ambiguous and imposed seven conditions; one of them was the residents could collect MFP but only for self-use. People realized they still had to battle forest officials unwilling to relinquish control over MFP. The expectations raised by Mendha Lekha and Marda winning forest rights were short-lived.

The forest department’s attempt to dilute the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, also known as Forest Rights Act (FRA), triggered protests. “Imposing conditions are against the letter and spirit of the Act,” said Roopchand Dhakne, a community leader of Ghati village in Gadchiroli. Besides rights over MFP, community rights include rights to pasture, water bodies and diversion of up to one hectare (ha) forestland for community infrastructure like schools. Gadchiroli district authorities have clubbed all these rights to show they cleared 193 community claims, but only 10 of these gave the right to collect MFP.

“This is a common trick being played across the country,” said Mohan Hirabai Hiralal of the NGO, Vrikshamitra, in Gadchiroli. He has helped villages file forest claims.

Opportunity lost

The trick came to light in August 2010 when the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs, the nodal ministry for implementing FRA, released a status report. Of the 2.9 million claims settled under FRA, only 1.6 per cent (46,156) gave community rights and most of these did not include rights over MFP, the report said. All other titles were for agricultural land and dwellings in forestland. This is bad news for the 100 million forest dwellers in India who have been battling for community forest rights since colonial times (see ‘Many mutinies’,).

“I have not heard of any demand for rights over MFP; not from the MP, MLA, sarpanch or the people. I think this is the latest obsession of NGOs” A K Singh, Chhattisgarh’s principal chief conservator of forests

“The focus has mostly been on giving individual pattas (for agricultural land and housing) while ignoring rights over MFP,” said N C Saxena, member of the National Advisory Council, who is reviewing FRA implementation. “We are losing the opportunity to economically empower tribal communities,” he said.

In Chhattigarh, the ground reality is no different. Of the 214,918 claims processed in the state, only 250 relate to community rights and none of them grant rights over MFP. The state’s principal chief conservator of forests, A K Singh said he had not heard of a demand for rights over MFP.

Most lower level forest officials who are supposed to help process forest rights claims are not aware of the provisions of the Act. “The directive from senior officials was to go to forest villages and collect signatures on forms that identify agricultural land and dwellings. We were not told about MFP,” said a forest officer of Darbha in Jagdalpur district of Chhattisgarh.

A study on the implementation of FRA in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh by non-profit Samarthan in Bhopal goes beyond the Centre’s status report. No community claims were approved in districts that have dense forests and high concentration of tribal population, the yet-to-be-released report states. The Chhattisgarh government started processing community claims only after the tribal affairs ministry ordered it in July 2008; even then the rights did not include MFP, it adds. The study spanning 10 districts, including Naxalite-affected areas, says the authorities allowed only certain community rights under the Act like school buildings. Though tribals ranked MFP as the number one community asset in terms of relevance to their lives, only 7.3 per cent claims cleared in Chhattisgarh gave community rights; in Madhya Pradesh, approval for such claims accounted for 23.6 per cent (see infographic ‘Red flag’,).

While forest officials claim there is no demand for rights over MFP, community leaders say the officials hid the fact that FRA included community rights over MFP. “One can smell a conspiracy. I have been to many gram sabha meetings on filing forest rights claims; MFP was rarely discussed,” said Mamata Dash of the National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers in Delhi.

MFP sustains forest departments

The main reason forest department officials are not telling people about rights over MFP is that it is a major source of revenue for forest departments (see ‘Minor to major’,). Most states have nationalised certain MFP items— mahua, sal seeds and flowers, tendu leaves and certain gums. The produce accounts for 50 per cent of forest revenue, according to the forestry statistics of India; the states trade in them through cooperatives and corporations. FRA and the Panchayat (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), however, render state trading of MFP illegal (see below: ‘Colonial legacy stays’).

Most forest departments earn more from MFP than timber. For example,Andhra Pradesh, earns Rs 82 crore from MFP, while its earning from timber is Rs 43 crore. In Chhattisgarh, the tendu capital of India, MFP accounts for 60 per cent of forest revenue. After the Supreme Court banned tree felling in forests without working plans, MFP has emerged as the main source of revenue for forest departments.

“They don’t want to part with the profits they make from MFP trade,” said Gautam Bandopadhyaya, an activist in Raipur in Chhattisgarh who works on forest rights. In most states, the first gram sabha meeting mandated by the Act was the platform for informing people about the Act and start processing the claims. “Communities implemented a historic Act without knowing its key provisions and effectively lost their rights over MFP,” said Dash.

“The political commitment that the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act got, was not given to FRA,” a senior official of the Planning Commission’s perspective planning division said.

Bikash Rath of non-profit Regional Centre for Development Cooperation, in Bhubaneswar said even in places where communities have followed due process, community claims have been rejected. People in the villages of Odisha and Andhra Pradesh confirmed this. None of the villages Down To Earth (DTE) correspondents visited in these states had received rights over MFP; in some cases claims were rejected.

There are also instances where the forest officials prevent people from taking control over MFP. Mendha Lekha residents who have got rights over MFP were prevented from taking their produce to the market; forest officials told them they would need transit passes (see ‘Forest titles only on paper’, DTE, May 31, 2010). Sanjay Upadhyay, a partner in the Enviro Legal Defence Firm, an environmental law firm, said the dem - and for transit passes should be challenged in court so that the government issues a clarification that such passes are not needed when community claims have been approved under FRA. Marda residents said forest officials have been visiting them regularly and telling them their rights over MFP do not include tendu leaves and bamboo. A senior district official in Gadchiroli conceded loss of revenue from MFP is a major concern for forest and district officials.

Conspiracy of joint management

To retain hold over forests, various state forest departments are pushing for joint forest management (JFM) committees (first introduced in the 1990) to manage community forest rights. Such a committee is at the village-level and has a forest official as joint secretary. Minutes of a workshop of the Indian Forest Service officers on January 11 this year include a recommendation that these committees should be the new forest rights committees and declared village-level institutions under FRA.

In Balda panchayat in Koraput district of Odisha, the forest department tried to bring some of the forests used by the residents under JFM. “We did not allow it because we were worried it would curb our community rights,” said Jagdish Pangi of Parajaghindol village under the panchayat.

In Andhra Pradesh’s Paderu block in Visakhapatnam, the authorities carried out resettlement of 118 villages between 2002 and 2007, with funds from the World Bank. The plan was meant to compensate the tribals for the shifting agricultural land they lost under an earlier World Bank-funded JFM project. “People were told the money was for land improvement; they did not realise they would be signing away their land,” said P Devullu of non-profit Sanjeevini Rural Development Society in Visakhapatnam. The people who lost their land to the project could not claim rights under FRA.

“Such attempts by the forest department are unconstitutional,” said Subodh Kulkarni, a researcher in Pune who is studying implementation of FRA. But director general of forests in the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), P J Dilip Kumar, said JFMs draw their authority from the gram sabhas and give representation to all sections of society. “Panchayats tend to get politicised and weaker sections of society are left out,” he said.

Ghati residents use PESA to seize timber felled by the forest department (Photo: Aparna Pallavi)

PESA stalled

A battle for control over resources was witnessed when PESA was passed in 1996. The Act provides for community rights over MFP in tribal areas of nine states, which are also Naxal hot spots. PESA puts the gram sabhas in charge of MFP, but did not define what constitutes MFP.

Not a single state has drafted the rules under the Act to give effect to it (see ‘States retain control...’,). Maharashtra, Gujarat and Odisha tried to dilute the provisions of rights over MFP.

In Maharashtra, people were given rights over 33 MFP items. But within a year, these rights were transferred to the Tribal Development Corporation on the pretext that people were unable to manage MFP.

The Odisha government negated PESA by adding a clause in the corresponding state law that made the Act subject to existing laws. This includes the Non-Timber Forest Products Policy of 2000 that states panchayats shall have no control over MFP collected from reserve forests.

Technically, all laws that are in conflict with PESA ought to have been repealed after PESA came into force 13 years ago.

The Andhra Pradesh government bypassed PESA by giving rights over MFP to Van Suraksha Samitis (forest protection committees under JFM). The Madhya Pradesh government was prompt in effecting changes in the state laws in response to PESA. The state’s Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes department issued a circular to district collectors in April 1999 transferring powers to collect and sell MFP to gram panchayats. It also suitably amended the panchayat rules. But a few months later, the department issued another circular saying nationalised MFP items like tendu leaves would not be controlled by gram panchayats because PESA did not define MFP.

In these states, cooperative federations trade in nationalised MFP items.

War of words

Now the Centre views PESA and FRA as a means to curb Naxalism. Therefore, non-implementation of the provisions giving rights over MFP to people has triggered a fight between ministries. Secretary to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, G K Pillai, in a letter to MoEF in June this year, accused the forest department of atrocities against tribals in Madhya Pradesh and causing dissatisfaction among forest people. Copies of the letter were marked to the Prime Minister’s Office, the Planning Commission and the ministries for tribal affairs and panchayati raj.

MoEF responded by saying that it is poor governance that is spreading Naxalism and sought a ban on mining in forest areas.

It is learnt that the Planning Commission, which is finalising a Rs 13,000 crore development package for Naxalite-affected districts, proposes conditions for fund transfer under the programme: performance of the states in implementing PESA and FRA would be a major eligibility criterion. Media reports suggest the prime minister has asked the Commission to introduce stringent measures in the proposal to ensure transfer of power to panchayats. Planning Commission deputy chairperson Montek Singh Ahluwalia has said that forest department-sponsored corporations dealing in MFP are illegal and has called for a better business model to benefit collectors of MFP.

The director general of forests, defended his ministry. “Without protection of MoEF and the Forest Conservation Act, Naxalites and industries will take over forest resources,” said Dilip Kumar.

MoEF is planning a project that may prove to be another flashpoint in the battle for rights over forest resources. The ministry wants to rope in tribals for its Green India Mission, one of the eight missions under the National Action Plan on Climate Change. The mission aims to increase forest coverby five million hectares by 2020 to curb greenhouse gas emissions; the forest people will be involved in planning, execution and monitoring activities. The mission will promote tree plantation on all types of land including common lands and degraded forests.

A Parliamentary standing committee in its report in 2008 has criticised such programmes, saying they promote monoculture. MFP depends on plant diversity and provide income in all seasons.

In some villages like Mendha Lekha, people have been opposing tree plantation drives saying it affects MFP.

MFP worth Rs 13 lakh is traded in a day at the Darbha weekly market