Forest Rights Act_Background: By Madhu Sarin

Why the Tribal Forest Rights Bill?

Recent roots: Spate of brutal evictions

MoEF’s May 3, 2002 order Evict all ‘encroachers’ by September 30 Cited Supreme Court’s concerns Bet May 02 & Aug 04, evictions from 1.52

lakh ha. – still continuing At 1 ha/hshld, 1.52 lakh families or 7.5

lakh impoverished people brutally evicted. No evidence of powerful land grabbers

being targeted

Nature of brutality and illegality

• Use of elephants to raze huts during drought

• Beatings, including some killings, children burnt alive in huts

• In many cases, people had evidence of longstanding occupation

• Total non-accountability of state landlord in remote areas (ref Endangered Symbiosis)

Outrage & birth of Campaign

Protests and demonstrations in several states.

• Lobbying with MPs, MLAs, state governments.

• Letters to PMO by Commissioner, STs. Issue reached Parliament Birth of CSD

MoEF and GoI response

• Clarification order of 30.10.02 saying all forest dwellers are not ‘encroachers’

• February 2004 orders• Affidavit in S Ct about ‘historical injustice’• 2 letters to states to stop evictions• Stopping evictions in UPA’s CMP• CSD’s lobbying with NAC• PM’s decision to get bill drafted.

Roots of the Problem: Construction of ‘National’ ‘Forests’

• Need to de-construct supposedly threatened ‘national’ forests.

• ‘Recorded forest area’ (RFA) and ‘forest cover’ (FC) used interchangeably although different from each other

• RFA = RF+PF+lands ‘recorded’ as forests

• FC = Over 10% tree canopy density

• RFA & FC do not necessarily overlap

RFA & FC – SFR 2003

• All India RFA: 774,740 km2 (23.57%) • RF = 51.6%; PF = 30.8%;17.6% =

‘Unclassed’ forest (not legally notified)• All India FC: 678338 km2 (20.64%) • Actual forest cover unclear as orchards,

tea/coffee/coconut/rubber/agroforestry plantations, sugarcane & cotton fields included in ‘forest cover’

• 20% of even RFs have no cover

Dismal condition of land records

• FD and RD records don’t tally

• Accdng to MoEF, RFA = 77 million ha

• Accdng to MoA, RFA = 67.87 mha

• 9.13 mha ‘disputed’ between them with millions of farmers caught in the middle

• 12.37 lakh ha disputed in MP alone

• 3 lakh ha disputed in just 4 districts of Maharashtra

Post-independence statization

• Between 1951- 88, ‘national’ forest estate was enlarged by 26 million ha (from 41 to 67 mha) through sweeping notifications

• Poorly surveyed tribal areas bore the brunt of this ‘statization’ spree.

• Sixty per cent of forest cover today concentrated in 187 tribal districts confined to only one-third of the country (a lot in the NE outside ‘state’ forests).

Post-independence statization

• Large numbers of STs disenfranchised of their customary resource rights through blanket notifications without even their knowledge and labelled ‘encroachers’ on their ancestral lands.

• FCA further trapped several million forest dwellers as illegal occupants of their own lands through freezing land use based on unsound paper records.

The Situation in Orissa -1

• Huge areas under princely states declared ‘deemed’ forests without any ecological surveys or settlement of rights;

• 40% of RFs never surveyed, predominantly shifting cultivation lands

• 55% of RFA under RD as it is in villages, Orissa revenue settlement rules require 10% of village area to be reserved as gramya jungle

• 100s of villages and lands cultivated since generations still unsurveyed but recorded as govt lands


• ST population = 22.2%

• Schedule V (tribal maj.) area = 44.7%

• BPL population (all Orissa) = 47%

• BPL – STs = 73%

• BPL STs in south Orissa = 87%

• 6 to 8000 villages protecting forests but no FD recognition


• Scheduled Areas – 74% land declared govt. land (48% forest, 26% revenue).

• Lands with over 10 degree slope not surveyed because ‘too expensive’

• 23% STs landless• 40.5% STs own under 2.5 acres• In PTG and shifting cultivation areas, almost all

land declared govt. property due to non-recognition of communal tenures

• Corrupt settlement officers recorded even irrigated paddy fields as RFs

The Situation in Orissa - 4

• Officially only 5113 ha pre-80 ‘encroachment’

• Only 29 ha ‘regularised’ in 25 years• Lakhs displaced without rehabilitation• Official records bear little relation with

ground reality; double displacement for ‘compensatory afforestation’

• In just last 5 years, 1224 ha of illegal forest diversion by mining cos regularised.

The case of Andhra Pradesh - 1

• RFA 63,821 sq km (23.2%); FC 44,637 sq km (16.15%)

• 62% of RFA in Tribal areas • 60% Sch V Tribal area been declared RF• 25.11.1978 GO extended AP Forest Act,

“All lands in the SAs containing trees, shrubs and coppice growth shall be forest”.

• 21,210 kms of forest boundary disputed

The case of Andhra Pradesh - 2

• Only 9.8% to max 33% area in Scheduled districts under cultivation

• Fallow shifting cultivation lands declared ‘forests’ and few pattas given for cultivated lands.

• 77,661 acres of pre-80 cultivated land not regularised but brought under JFM

• 3.25 lakh ha labeled ‘encroachment’

Overall situation

Poor procedures and unsound premises for defining and identifying forests: The national forest estate assembled through unsound processes, resulting in serious tenurial and land use conflicts, unclear boundaries, jurisdictional disputes between departments & communities & inappropriate management objectives for non-forest lands declared state ‘forests’ through sweeping notifications.

Is FD or Community Conservation more effective?

• Nagaland: RFA 52.0%; FC 82%; notified forest –only 6% of FC

• Mizoram: RFA 79.3%; FC 87.4%; notified forest – 61% of FC but not ‘settled’

• Arunanchal Pradesh: RFA 61.5%; FC 81.2%; 60% of RFA is highly disputed ‘unclassed state forest’

• In Uttaranchal, VP forests as good as RFs despite no support

Widespread Community conservation across country

• Village communities are not only protecting forests but a whole range of ecosystems and habitats across the country. However, they have no legal rights or authority to do so.

• In most cases, community initiatives have come up after acute degradation and realisation of it’s impact on lives and livelihoods

What is the legal situation?

• Sep 1990 circulars of MoEF (still unimplemented)

• FP (1) Review of encroachments on forest land. • FP (2) Review of disputed claims over forest

land, arising out of (faulty) forest settlement.

• FP (3) Disputes regarding pattas/leases/grants involving forest land.

• FP (5) Conversion of forest villages into revenue villages and settlement of other old habitations.

Impact of the Godavarman case

• Aggravated crisis in forest and protected areas

• All regularisation and conversion of forest villages stayed (despite the 1990 orders)

• Feb 2000 order staying removal of any forest produce from PAs- livelihood crisis for 3.5 to 4 million people

• Evictions order of May 2002

Regularization and Diversion

• So far 3.66 lakh hectare pre-1980 eligible ‘encroachment’ regularized (out of this regularisation of about 2 lakh ha stayed)

• All occupants with disputed claims etc equated with ‘encroachers’ despite their being there since generations

• During same period, 9.55 lakh ha (increasing rapidly) of forest land diverted for mining, industry and hydro projects.

• Over 85,000 ha diverted in 2005 alone.

Dissonance between tribal and conservation laws

• widespread negation of communal tenures & role of forests in tribal livelihoods and culture through rigid application of conservation laws superimposed over tribal areas.

• Major violation of constitutional provisions for safeguarding tribal cultures, livelihoods and resource, including ecological rights

Dissonance between tribal and conservation laws

• By 1990 about 8.5 million tribals (about 12.6% of all tribals) had been displaced by mega projects and Protected Areas.

• Tribals only 8% of the population but at least 55% of those displaced.

• 6.4 million displaced adivasis left to fend for themselves without any rehabilitation.

• What is state accountability to those displaced after 1980 due to non-recognition of their rights?

CSD initiatives

• Been making affected communities aware of the 1990 guidelines and their rights

• Thousands of claims for recognition of rights filed in several states – empowers them to challenge FD eviction threats

• Provisions of the bill based on their priorities although recognition of several shortcomings

• 150,000 adivasis participated in rallies demanding early tabling of bill on 15.8.05

• 1000s participated in dharnas in Delhi and states

Tribal Forest Rights Bill

• to rectify the historical injustice done to tribal people in the consolidation of state forests

• “to recognise and vest the (listed) forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest-dwelling STs who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded”


• rights to include “responsibilities and authority for sustainable use, conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of ecological balance

• To strengthen the conservation regime while ensuring livelihood and food security

• make STs primary stakeholders in combining conservation with sustainable use.


• 12 listed ‘forest rights’ include:• rights to land under individual or communal occupation

since pre-80• to customary community lands for usufructs and grazing

including the right to protect, regenerate and /or conserve or manage ‘community forest resources’

• settlement of disputed claims, pattas/leases and conversion of forest villages to revenue villages (as per the 1990 circulars)

• rights over MFP, & habitat and habitation rights of PTGs & pre-agricultural communities.


• Max of 2.5 hectares of cultivated land per nuclear family even if they are in occupation of more land (contentious)

• rights shall be heritable but not alienable

• not a square inch of land not already under occupation, in the case of land under cultivation or habitation, is proposed to be vested


• Rights to be vested ‘only in those forest-dwelling STs living in the areas in which they are scheduled and in occupation of land since before October 25, 1980’

• This more restrictive than 1990 circulars and shall exclude all non-STs, STs who have moved outside their scheduled areas and the millions forcibly displaced after 1980


• Bill totally in line with existing forest and other policies

• In MoEF’s own words, “it should be understood clearly that the lands occupied by the tribals in forest areas do not have any forest vegetation”.

• That it’s Feb 04 circulars “do not relate to encroachers, but to remedy a serious historical injustice. It will also significantly lead to better forest conservation”


• In contrast to (typically non-tribal) settlement officers, the bill vests authority in the gram sabha to initiate action for determining and recording the forest rights that may be vested

• MoTA shall be the nodal agency for implementation

• As per MoEF, 13.43 lakh ha are under ‘encroachment’ (1.7% of RFA). Only a part of this will be eligible under the bill.

RFA & FC in Hills

• HP: RFA = 66.5%; FC = 25.8%; ie 40.7% GA ‘recorded’ as ‘forest’ has NO FOREST

• Uttaranchal: RFA = 64.8%; FC = 45.74%; ie 20% GA ‘recorded’ as ‘forest’ has NO FOREST

• Sikkim; RFA = 82.3%; FC = 45.97%; ie 36.2% GA ‘recorded’ as ‘forest’ has NO FOREST

RFA & FC in MP

• MP: RFA 95,221 sq km (30.9% of GA); FC 77,265 sq km (24.79% of GA); but 12,374 sq km i.e. 13% of RFA disputed bet FD & RD

• Serious discrepancies in land records• In 1956, 94.78 lakh ha of common lands

declared ‘national’ PFs• Maharashtra: RFA 61,939 sq km (20.1%); FC

47,482 sq km (15.23%); 3030 sq km in 4 districts disputed cultivated land; old tenures still not recognised

Forest Rights Act_Background: By Madhu Sarin

Business

Transcript of Forest Rights Act_Background: By Madhu Sarin