This issue of Kalpavriksh' s newsletter marks one year of implementation of the Forest Rights Act. A lot has moved, but also a lot has remained motionless. Newsletter 5 reported that over 8 lakh claims have been received from forest-dwelling communities. Almost two lakh titles to forestland and resources have also been recognized. Of course, the pace and system of the claims and recognition of rights process has varied hugely between and within states. However, looking back at the year, a few issues jump out as being significant. These are worth our reflection.
"Tribal Land Rights Act"
This law has been strongly perceived and acted upon as a law primarily to grant individual land pattas to Scheduled Tribes. As a result, two key results are apparent. Firstly, important provisions of the Act dealing with community forest resource (including biodiversity conservation) , rights to minor forest produce, traditional knowledge, and empowerment of gram sabhas for conservation, have remained neglected. Secondly, in many areas, non-tribal forest-dwellers have expressed either a disinterest to engage with the claims process or anger at being excluded. Technically, the responsibility of accurate information outreach lies with State Tribal Welfare Departments (TWD) and in a few cases, TWD material has been factually incorrect. However, the perception of the Act as a land rights Act is also rooted in larger socio-political issues: vested political interests, the culmination of a long-standing struggle for land tenure and so on.
* Implementation robust where civil society is active
The implementation of this Act, i.e. processes of distribution of claims forms, information dissemination to forest-dwelling communities, support for filling claims forms, verification of claims, intimation to Sub-Divisional and Divisional Committees and action against violations, have been most robust where civil society (NGOs, community-based organizations and movements) are active. In some districts, Forest Department officials and proactive District Collectors have also taken the initiative for effective implementation. One such example in point is the application of "gram sabha" at either a panchayat or hamlet level. As we have reported in previous newsletters, civil society groups have been strong enough to demand gram sabhas at a hamlet level, arguing that the panchayat is a large and political institution. This is converse to cases where groups are not active. Here, gram sabhas have been constituted at a panchayat level.
* Legal clarifications needed from State and Central Governments
In spite of a year having gone by, a number of legal ambiguities continue to pester implementation of the Act. For example, Section 2 of the Act stipulates a list of basic development facilities (anganwadis, hospitals, schools, fair price shops etc.) that forest-dwelling communities are entitled to under this law. However, it is still unclear whether communities can claim these facilities or whether they have to be negotiated with relevant government departments. This is especially ambiguous given that the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has stated that it is preparing guidelines on how forestland will be diverted for this purpose. Till date, the MoEF has not issued any guidelines and our understanding is that no communities have submitted claims for development facilities. There also remains a lack of clarity on the institutional arrangements between communities that claim community forest management rights and the Forest Department that has jurisdiction (under the Forest Act) over the areas being claimed; this would be compounded in the case of protected areas where the Wild Life Act also comes into play.
* Writ Petitions and stay orders pending disposal
Two writ petitions in the Supreme Court and seven in state High Courts have been filed calling for the annulment of the Act. While some State High Courts have issued stay orders against distributing of titles under the Act, there has been no stay from the Supreme Court. This issue of the newsletter also reports about the failure of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to adequately deal with the petitions. So far, the petitions have not blocked implementation. However, as the claims processes come to a close and forest-dwelling communities expect quick responses to their submissions, State Governments will be forced to deal with the stay order against pattas.
* Invisible Critical Wildlife Habitats
Critical Wildlife Habitats were welcomed as a conservation opportunity. They were viewed as the chance to revaluate important wildlife areas and develop adequate management strategies. However, very little movement has taken place vis-à-vis these habitats. As per official information from the MoEF, the Central Level Expert Committee for the declaration of Critical Wildlife Habitats was constituted on 31st October 2007. Furthermore, as of 21st January 2009, 14 States and two Union Territories have constituted State Level Committees for the identification of Critical Wildlife Habitats. However, no proposals from the State Governments have been received for consideration of the Central Expert Committee. No meetings have occurred and consequently, no wildlife areas have been declared Critical Wildlife Habitats.
As the year proceeds, it is difficult to predict if the above issues will remain, intensify, or get ironed out. However, whether this law will actually empower forest-dwelling communities or be an opportunity to re-strategize our conservation methods, remains to be seen.
"Tracking the Social and Ecological Impacts of the Forest Rights Act"
L.Thanga
Secretary, Information Publicity Department,
ZHRF
.::. All my articles can be view here: MELTED HEARTS .::.
"Tribal Land Rights Act"
This law has been strongly perceived and acted upon as a law primarily to grant individual land pattas to Scheduled Tribes. As a result, two key results are apparent. Firstly, important provisions of the Act dealing with community forest resource (including biodiversity conservation) , rights to minor forest produce, traditional knowledge, and empowerment of gram sabhas for conservation, have remained neglected. Secondly, in many areas, non-tribal forest-dwellers have expressed either a disinterest to engage with the claims process or anger at being excluded. Technically, the responsibility of accurate information outreach lies with State Tribal Welfare Departments (TWD) and in a few cases, TWD material has been factually incorrect. However, the perception of the Act as a land rights Act is also rooted in larger socio-political issues: vested political interests, the culmination of a long-standing struggle for land tenure and so on.
* Implementation robust where civil society is active
The implementation of this Act, i.e. processes of distribution of claims forms, information dissemination to forest-dwelling communities, support for filling claims forms, verification of claims, intimation to Sub-Divisional and Divisional Committees and action against violations, have been most robust where civil society (NGOs, community-based organizations and movements) are active. In some districts, Forest Department officials and proactive District Collectors have also taken the initiative for effective implementation. One such example in point is the application of "gram sabha" at either a panchayat or hamlet level. As we have reported in previous newsletters, civil society groups have been strong enough to demand gram sabhas at a hamlet level, arguing that the panchayat is a large and political institution. This is converse to cases where groups are not active. Here, gram sabhas have been constituted at a panchayat level.
* Legal clarifications needed from State and Central Governments
In spite of a year having gone by, a number of legal ambiguities continue to pester implementation of the Act. For example, Section 2 of the Act stipulates a list of basic development facilities (anganwadis, hospitals, schools, fair price shops etc.) that forest-dwelling communities are entitled to under this law. However, it is still unclear whether communities can claim these facilities or whether they have to be negotiated with relevant government departments. This is especially ambiguous given that the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has stated that it is preparing guidelines on how forestland will be diverted for this purpose. Till date, the MoEF has not issued any guidelines and our understanding is that no communities have submitted claims for development facilities. There also remains a lack of clarity on the institutional arrangements between communities that claim community forest management rights and the Forest Department that has jurisdiction (under the Forest Act) over the areas being claimed; this would be compounded in the case of protected areas where the Wild Life Act also comes into play.
* Writ Petitions and stay orders pending disposal
Two writ petitions in the Supreme Court and seven in state High Courts have been filed calling for the annulment of the Act. While some State High Courts have issued stay orders against distributing of titles under the Act, there has been no stay from the Supreme Court. This issue of the newsletter also reports about the failure of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to adequately deal with the petitions. So far, the petitions have not blocked implementation. However, as the claims processes come to a close and forest-dwelling communities expect quick responses to their submissions, State Governments will be forced to deal with the stay order against pattas.
* Invisible Critical Wildlife Habitats
Critical Wildlife Habitats were welcomed as a conservation opportunity. They were viewed as the chance to revaluate important wildlife areas and develop adequate management strategies. However, very little movement has taken place vis-à-vis these habitats. As per official information from the MoEF, the Central Level Expert Committee for the declaration of Critical Wildlife Habitats was constituted on 31st October 2007. Furthermore, as of 21st January 2009, 14 States and two Union Territories have constituted State Level Committees for the identification of Critical Wildlife Habitats. However, no proposals from the State Governments have been received for consideration of the Central Expert Committee. No meetings have occurred and consequently, no wildlife areas have been declared Critical Wildlife Habitats.
As the year proceeds, it is difficult to predict if the above issues will remain, intensify, or get ironed out. However, whether this law will actually empower forest-dwelling communities or be an opportunity to re-strategize our conservation methods, remains to be seen.
"Tracking the Social and Ecological Impacts of the Forest Rights Act"
L.Thanga
Secretary, Information Publicity Department,
ZHRF
.::. All my articles can be view here: MELTED HEARTS .::.
No comments:
Post a Comment