INFLUENCE OF FOREST DEVOLUTION POLICY ON THE TRIBAL POPULATION OF

CHHATTISGARH DUE TO IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREST RIGHTS ACT

-Devjit Nandi1, Dr. Debashis Sarkar2 and

Dr. Bitan Mondal3

ABSTRACT

The paper critically looks at the Status of the Devolution process through Forest Rights

Act in Chhattisgarh. The implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional

Forest Dwellers Recognition of Forest Rights Act, 2006 (or FRA 2006) in Chhattisgarh,

by de-facto is being carried out by the Forest Department to escape the extra work load

the Chhattisgarh Tribal department is letting the Forest Department to carry out the

operations and the department is happy in being only the order signing authority. The

rights of the tribal and the Other forest dependent community has been deprived as the

hegemony of the forest department in the Central Province has been historical and there

are many instances of recorded conflict with the tribal and the Forest Department. The

paper explores process adopted by the state in giving the rights to the tribal people

which has been more political rather than adopting the legal processes. 425 Forest

Villages in Chhattisgarh have been converted to revenue villages without even the gram

Sabah’s consent as well as villages inside the protected areas have been displaced

without fulfilling the process mentioned in the Forest Rights Act. The forest Rights act

which had the mandate of providing Historical Injustice to the tribal and uplift their

standard of living have further made the life of Baiga Primitive Tribes inside the

Achanakmar Sanctuary miserable. Also the forest is gradually changing into monoculture

plantations of teak and commercial trees rather than looking at the bio diverse needs of

the community, which the forest rights act promises to. The paper looks into what the

Forest rights act meant for the tribal of the state and how it has drastically impacted the

livelihood of the Primitive tribes.

Key Words: Chhattisgarh, Achanakmar, Forest Rights Act 2006, Particular Vulnerable

Tribal Groups, Van Gram

______________________________________________________________________

_____

1. Devjit Nandi (devjeetn@gmail.com) is a Ph.D student , Department of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Statistics, Visva Bharati, Shantiniketan2. Dr. Debashis Sarkar is Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Statistics, Visva Bharati, Shantiniketan.3. Dr. Bitan Mondal is Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Statistics, Visva Bharati, Shantiniketan.

1. Introduction

The Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA), is considered an important landmark in the history of

forest resource use and management in India. The Act aims at restoring traditional rights

of forest dwellers on the one hand, and maintaining the ecological balance on the other

with a view to provide sustainable livelihood options to forest dwelling scheduled tribes

(STs) and providing other traditional forest dwellers, including those who were forced to

relocate their dwellings due to state intervention. Thus, the underlying objective of the

Act has been to strike a balance between the potentially conflicting interests of the forest

dwelling communities and protecting forests and wildlife resources. In 2004, one of the

items on the political agenda of the then newly elected national government (United

Progressive Alliance) was to put an end to the eviction drive against forest-dwelling tribal

and traditional communities and to overcome the shortcomings of JFM. In March 2005,

the ministry of Tribal Affairs tabled the forest draft Bill in Parliament on 13th of December

2005. The government of India issued rules under the act in January 2008. Chhattisgarh,

with a population of 2.3 crores (2011 census) has 31 % STs and 12 % SCs population is

one of the largest tribal dominated states in the country having one tenth of STs in the

country. The recorded forest area in Chhattisgarh is 42 % (around 59,772 sq. Kms).

2. Methodology:

The Study was conducted in Chhattisgarh. Secondary data were collected from the

districts and the State Tribal Department sources and also from MOTA website. The

Primary data was collected in 2014 July to October from 3 districts. The District wise

variations were (One PTG district, one TSP and One non-TSP districts) and the DLCS

and SDLC were selected with highest achievement under FRA. Within the SDLC the

villages having received CFR rights or having made CFR claims were selected

purposively for the study. The 30 FRA eligible household from each village were selected

randomly. The Maoist affected districts were avoided due to security reasons and lack of

Contacts for ease in data collection.

The rate of achievement was calculated considering two variables:

- Total no. of claims filed (Individual/community)

- Total no. of title issued.(Individual/community)

- State Overview On FRA

In Chhattisgarh, the implementation of FRA started soon after the state rule was passed

in January 2008. The SLMC, DLCs and SDLCs were formed by the end of February

2008. The FRCs was mostly constituted at panchayat level.

Status of FRA implementation

Implementation of FRA in the State has been done in several phases starting

immediately after notification of the rules. In 2012, the government had identified around

5299 villages of 18 districts for implementation of the law. However there has been little

progress in term of implementation of the law. An overview of MoTA status reports on

implementation of the Act shows that the number of community claims filed have only

been recorded for the years 2010-2014. No differentiation has been made between the

type of community claims filed Community Forest Resource rights (CFR) or Community

rights (CR) or developmental rights and titles received.

Table-1: Selection of VillagesChhattisgarh

District Category SDLC Block G.P VillageDhamtari Non- TSP Magarlod Magarlod Pathar Mulgaon

Khadma MadwapatraPahanda PahandaMadeli Budarao

Korba TSP Kathghora Pali Sapalwa RahaJemra BagdharaBariumrao BariumraoKartali Kartali

Bilaspur PTG Pendra Gaurella-1

Amadop Amadop

Saraipani SaraipaniPandripani PandripaniSaleghori Chirhitti

Table-2: Total no. of claims and title issued up to July 2012.

Total No. of Claims filed at

G.S level

Total No. of Titles Issued % of titles issued

Individual Community Individual Community Individual Community

659595 11135 244426 5590 37.05 50.36

Source: (GoG, 2012)

Table -3: Status of CFR Claims

Particulars 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 (July)

Claims received at GS NA NA 4042 4736 4736 NA NA

Claims forwarded to

SDLC

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Claims forwarded to DLC NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Claims approved by DLC NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Titles distributed NA NA 250 775 775 NA NA

Rejected NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Source: www.fra.org.in

Table- 4: Status of Community Rights as shared in Chhattisgarh Vidhan sabha

S. No

District Total ClaimsReceived

Titles distributed

Area of forest land distributed (in ha)

Average area of forest land distributed (acres)

1 Jagdalpur 2421 1890 491.159 0.662 Kondagoan 658 658 7721.45 29.813 Sukma 292 0 0 0.004 Dantewada 647 208 0 0.005 Bijapur 102 102 67.787 1.696 Kanker 761 262 418.94 4.067 Narayanpur 63 50 43.37 2.208 Dhamtari 471 224 359.06 4.079 Gariyaband 99 5 11.5 5.8410 Balod 0 0 0 0.0011 Rajnandgaon 671 671 22908.215 86.7212 Raigarh 90 79 183.8 5.9113 Jashpur 206 69 30.765 1.1314 Bilaspur 550 311 187.037 1.5315 Korba 1526 0 0 0.0016 Koriya 644 605 5072.88 21.3017 Mahasamund 0 0 0 0.0018 Sarguja 1080 248 367.682 3.7719 Balrampur 19 14 20.41 3.7020 Surajpur 566 0 0 0.0021 Balodabazar 129 55 38.02 1.7622 Mungeli 51 50 40.793 2.0723 Janjgir 0 0 . 0.0024 Kwardha 89 89 6998.993 199.75

Total 11135 5590 44961.861 20.43Source: Department of Tribal Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, 2014.

No clear information on the status of CR is available in Chhattisgarh. In February 2014,

according to the information provided in the state assembly, 7047 CR titles have been

provided in the state with no segregation of data as per rights provided under Section 3

(1) and (2), whereas in a meeting held on the 23rd of July, 2014 in Raipur, the officials of

Chhattisgarh Government informed the Tribal Advisory Council (TAC) that 6012 CR titles

have been distributed in the state by June 2014. Thus, there is a clear contradiction

between the numbers being reported. Moreover, there are many CFR titles overlapping

as some of the villages have received more than one development rights 3 (2) which has

been included in the numbers, also data creates confusion as it separates CR claims and

titles issued to STs and OTFDs. Chhattisgarh has 27 districts, but the FRCs have been

formed in 24 districts while 3 districts there are no FRCs, though these districts have

Sanctuaries and reserved forest. No title has been provided in 6 districts.

If average area of forest land recognised is taken as a basis, it can be clearly observed

that barring only few districts, the CRs recognised are actually developmental rights

under Section 3 (2). However field information suggests that in most cases, the JFM

areas have been recognised as CFR without following the due process of CFR rights

determination and recognition. In Rajnandgaon district about 250 CFR rights has been

given in the name of JFM committees.

In Sarguja District 27 CFR titles were distributed in 2014, but all the titles have been

imposed with conditions. Several titles have been issued over lesser area that claimed

by the communities. In Ghatbarra village of Sarguja district, lying on the fringes of a coal

mine operated by the Adani group, although the CR claim had been made over 8 forest

compartments, only 3 compartments were recognised in the titles, leaving out nearly 385

ha of the title. Also, some of their CFR area was taken over by the coal mine in 2012.

The village has filed an appeal to SLMC against five compartments being left out from

their CFR.

In Kantebasan in Korba district, CFR rights were taken back after giving the entitlement

in 2014 and the forest area was opened for mining operation by Adani. In Bagdhara

village in Korba district, CFR application which was pending for 3 years was hurriedly

passed by the SDLC and DLC within 2 weeks of filing the petition in Chhattisgarh High

Court and only grazing rights were given.

In Gajkanhar forest village of Dhamtari district, a ‘CFR’ title has been issued which has

rights over fish rearing, a nistari lake of 3.707 ha; a primary school, health centre,

community hall over an area of 0.559 Ha and cremation ground of 1.962 ha.

Interestingly, the villagers had not claimed any CFR area but had filed Form B and had

filed separate forms for all the developmental rights mentioned in their CFR title. The

filing process was also incorrect as the application was made area-wise for the

Community Rights (CR) claims under Section 3(2). The village had a reserved area for

future settlements. This area was taken over by the forest department and had

plantations over it, but it has not allowed the village file a claim over this area. Also the

CFR area reduced after one year the rights after Conversion of Forest village into

revenue village.

It has also been observed that most of the titles distributed pertain to developmental

rights or only few of rights that might constitute CFR rights, but have been distributed as

CFR rights. In Gariabandh district too, many CFR titles have been distributed but they

are developmental rights and rights over NTFPs, fire wood.

Results and Discussion

The under-cited tables depict the variations in community claims received, claims

approved and area allotted to the claimants in the studied PTG, Non TSP and TSP

districts of Chhattisgarh

Table- 5: Individual Rights

Particulars Bilaspur (PTG) Dhamtari (Non-

TSP)

Korba (TSP)

Claims received 60147 13235 47659

Claims approved 15804 10131 24674

Area distributed (in acres) 20119.83 36011.65 30929.35

% approved 26.28 76.55 51.77

Avg area/claim(in acres) 1.27 3.55 1.25

Table - 6: Community Rights

Bilaspur

(PTG) Dhamtari(Non-TSP) Korba (TSP)

Claims received 555 359 0

Claims approved 486 285 0

Area distributed(in acres) 645.06 391.40 0

% approved 87.57 79.39 0.00

Avg area/claim(in acres) 3.32 3.43 0

This is further represented in the following graphs:

Figure -1: Status of Individual claims

According to the above tables in the PTG district only 26% of the claims have been

approved with an average of 1.27 acres of land per claim. In TSP district the rate of

approval is 52% with an average of 1.25 acres of land allotted per claim. In Non TSP

PTG Non TSP TSP

Claims received 60147 13235 47659

Claims approved 15804 10131 24674

010000200003000040000500006000070000

No

of c

laim

s

Claims received & approved

district it has a higher rate .i.e.77% of claims approved with an average of 3.55 acres of

land allotted per claim.

Figure-2 : Variation in area recognized under individual right

Figure -3: Community claims received vs. approved

Figure -4: Variation in area recognized under community rights

According to the above tables, in the PTG district around 88% of the claims have been

approved with an average of 3.32 acres of land per claim. In TSP district there is no

community claims whereas in the Non TSP district 79% of claims approved with an

average of 3.43 acres of land allotted per claim.

Analysis of claims

The average area recognized per individual claim is 1.1 Acre approximately whereas for

community rights it is 2.29 acres per claims. This also indicates that the community rights

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

PTG

Non TSP

TSP

PTG Non TSP TSP

Avg area/claim(in acres) 1.27 3.55 1.25

Variation in area alloted

Bilaspur Dhamtari Korba

Claims received 555 359 0

Claims approved 486 285 0

0100200300400500600

Axis

Titl

e

Claims received & approved

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Bilaspur

Korba

Bilaspur Dhamtari Korba

Avg area/claim(in acres) 3.32 3.43 0

Variation in area alloted

have been recognized for 13 developmental facilities under sec 3(2) only as areas for

community forest resource rights would have been much bigger.

The achievement rate in case of individual claims is 37% and for community claims it is

only 16%.

Figure-5: Claim Status over the period of Five years at Gram-sabha level

The Five year data shows the status of new claims filed at the level of gram sabha which

shows that the number of the new claims has got reduced every year and there was a lull

in 2011. There was resumption of claims in 2012 particularly due to renewed initiative by

the government during the end period of the year.

Figure -6- Claims approved by DLCs for Titles

The trend analysis explains the number of claims approved by DLC for titles every year

which show increase in approval up to 2010. FRA implementation appears to have

reached a low in 2011 with things not moving at any level.

1 2 3 4 5

Claims received 400000 77309 10023 0 172263

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

0200000400000600000

No

of c

laim

sClaims received over a period of 5 years at GS

1 2 3 4 5

Claims received at GS 400000 372309 48046 0 259595

Claims approved by DLC 99392 103513 13862 0 30230

% approved 24.85 27.80 28.85 0.00 11.65

0100000200000300000400000500000

No

of c

laim

s

Claim approval status

Figure -7-: Claims approval at different level

The difference between claims received and the claims approved got reduced every year

up to 2010. It can be further observed that most of claim rejections/ retentions have

happened at the level of gramsabha

Approach and strategies adopted by the State government for implementation of

FRA

Phases of implementation

In Chhattisgarh, thrust of the State on FRA implementation geared up after the National

review organized by MoTA in the month of December, 2012 and the amendment of rules

coming into force. The CG govt. set up a time bound plan to complete FRA

implementation by June 2013. This was for the first time there was a stated focus on

recognizing community rights with directions and orders being issued by the Secretary to

all District Collectors

Planning & Review/ Monitoring

The State Level Monitoring Committee (SLMC) meetings were initiated not before 2013,

due to pressure from MOTA and only in this year 3 meetings were held. Infrequent

meeting of SLMC has resulted in inadequate monitoring of FRA implementation in the

State. This has also affected proper and time bound implementation of FRA. In the

meetings, the SLMC has issued directions on raising wider awareness, forest village

conversion, ensuring rights of PTGs, convergence, emphasis on claims as per Sec 3(1),

claims related to seasonal landscapes (pastoralist in this case) and other provision of the

law and rules, most of these directions find little implementation on the ground.

Involvement of civil society organisations

There has been no initiative on the part of the State to involve civil society organisations

in implementation of FRA. However several civil society organisations are active across

most of the districts of the State on FRA implementation. However their initiatives are

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Claims received at GS 400000 372309 48046 0 259595

Claims forwarded to SDLC 105000 146125 17300 0 30230

Claims forwarded to DLC 99392 117531 13862 0 30230

Claims approved by DLC 99392 103513 13862 0 30230

050000100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000

No

of c

laim

sClaims approved at diff levels

concentrated in small patches and there is little effort for out-scaling of such efforts

primarily due to lack of resources and also due to lack of coordination between civil

society organization. Around 280 Community Forest Rights (CFR) under section 3(1)

applications passed through the Gram Sabhas has been filed at the SDLC with the help

of Civil Societies, which has not been processed by the government.

Awareness regarding FRA

Unless FRA becomes a community demand driven process, implementation of FRA will

remain incomplete. Our analysis of awareness levels amongst key stakeholders about

the law, rules and procedures confirms this.

Given that now five years have passed since implementation of FRA began, general

awareness about the law, especially related to individual tenure is better, while detailed

understanding about the law and its objective is extremely low especially at the level of

stakeholders from frontline government department who are involved with FRA

implementation at the village level and at the level of potential claimants.

The status on the level of awareness of different stakeholders is briefly presented in the

following table:

Table -7: Status of level of awareness amongst surveyed stakeholdersType of Respondent

Total General Awareness Awareness about law No Awareness

IFR CR & CFR

Amnd. Rules

IFR CR & CFR

Amnd. Rules

IFR CR & CFR

Amnd. Rules

Claimants 240 100 0 0 12.5 0 0 0 100 100FRC Members

98 100 12.24 12.24 18.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.76 87.76

PRI Members

19 100 15.79 15.79 42.11 0.00 42.11 0.00 84.21 84.21

Revenue Officials

6 100 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Forest officials

6 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0

TDD officials 6 100 50 100 100 50 100 0 50 0

The general awareness amongst all stakeholders on about individual forest rights while

government officials were found to be knowledgeable about the act and procedure,

however this is only limited to higher level officials at the district or division level. The

awareness level with regard to community rights under Section 3(1) and (2) and about

the amendment rules is extremely low amongst community level stakeholders. While

officials have been found to be well aware about these provisions, officials from tribal

department were found to be less aware about community rights and procedures related

to it. Within the bundle of community rights, awareness about habitat rights of PTGs was

found to be completely missing.

Lack of proper awareness at different levels, especially at the level of community

stakeholders and frontline government staff has been one of the key factors constraining

implementation of variety of forest rights under FRA.

Comparison of awareness level of different stakeholders within the three studies shows a

similar situation. This can be clearly observed from the following table:

Process and Approach Adopted for Filing, Verification and Recordings of

Individual Claims.

Call for claims by Gram Sabha

The study found that the knowledge about calls for claims has been found to be high.

However such announcements have been found to be restricted to core village or GP

headquarter villages and only households living in those areas have access to such

information. In a rapid survey of 100% household of the study village (in addition to the

detailed sample survey which only covered such HHs who have actually filed claims), it

was found that 51.07% of the potential claimants have not even filed claims.

It was observed that in the study villages under Bilaspur, 54.25% of potential claimants;

in Korba, 40.48% and in Dhamtari, 53.97% of potential claimants are yet to file their

claims.

Table – 8: Status of overall level of awareness amongst different stakeholders in three study districtsType of Respondent

Bilaspur Korba Dhamtari

General Awareness

Awareness about law

General

Awareness about law

General Awareness

Awareness about law

Claimants 33.33 4.17 33.33 4.17 33.33 4.17FRC Members 42.22 11.11 41.67 11.11 40.74 3.70PRI Members 42.86 28.57 44.44 28.57 44.44 33.33

39.47 14.62 39.81 14.62 39.51 13.73Revenue Officials 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00Forest officials 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00TDD officials 83.33 83.33 83.33 83.33 83.33 83.33

Submission of claims at FRCs and acknowledgement

The claim forms have been filled and collected by different entities in the villages. It has

been normally collected by the staff of Forest Department or the GP Secretary. Active

involvement of FRC in getting the claims forms submitted was not found. It was also

observed that the concerned FRCs were actually unaware of any such role of theirs in

the first place.

Evidence used in the claim process

The majority of claims pertain to individual tenure, where the most common evidences

used has been voter ID, caste certificate and submission by village elders. For

supporting OTFD claims, the government has taken a remarkable initiative to issue

genealogy certificates (locally known as missal) to local communities as proof of their

establishment and officials suggested that a more relaxed approach will be adopted for

OTFD cases in future.

The study found a major role of FD in supplying claim forms. The claim forms have been

printed in different colours: the pink one for STs and the yellow one for OTFDs and white

form for community claims. This was a good approach to sort the forms, however it had a

divisive effect at the village level.

Recording of claims by FRC

The list of claimants has been prepared as a part of the FRC proceedings. The claims

were invited and processed without any procedure. The applications were taken to the

forest department who finalised the list and entered in the Panchayat Register to make it

officially showed that the gram sabha has rejected the claims. In many case the list

appears to be partial or the list has not been made for different phases. Most of the GP

secretaries who were involved in the first phase have been transferred and in some

cases have not handed over the documents to the subsequent person. For this reason,

FRC documentation has been found to be missing in many cases.

Verification and mapping

In the first phase of FRA implementation in 2008, only pre-1980 encroachers (whose list

forest department had) were picked up for providing titles. There has been procedural

flaw in dealing with claims where many claims were not even admitted for consideration

without carrying our proper physical verification. However for claims that were admitted

for consideration, physical verifications were carried out for some claims and not carried

out for all claimants. The process of verification is obstructed due to non-availability staffs

from revenue or forest department and the FRC is not fully aware about the procedures

as laid down under the rules under the Act. The FRCs were not guided to do the

verifications of the land and it was the forest department who verified and decided the

status of the land and not the FRCs or the Gram sabha. In Bilaspur, only 47.5 of the

respondent claimants expressed their knowledge about prior intimation, while in

Dhamtari and Korba situation was much better with 85 and 95 % of the respondent

claimant having prior information of verification process.

Approval by Gram Sabha and recommendation to SDLC

The gramsabha processes have not been democratic and decisions of approval or

disapproval are mostly influenced by GP secretaries or external agencies like forest

department. The overall rate of approval at the State level has been very low at 37.06%

of the claims being approved.

Table - 9 : District approval rate vs. approval rate in study villages

Average approval

rate at State level

District Avg. approval rate Average approval

rate in study

villages

37.06 Bilaspur 26.28 21.25

Dhamtari 76.55 46.25

Korba 51.77 37.5

Rejection and appeal

As found in, all rejections have happened at the level of gramsabha. Data from the

household survey reveals the following:

It could be observed from the above table that 100% of the rejections have taken place

at the gramsabha level. While in 93.71% cases for the surveyed household, the reasons

for rejection remain unclear.

Throughout the state as the data shows, rejections were of 2 types: first by the FRC

members or the GS Secretary guided by the Forest department/ patwari and second of

the following type

Non-proximity of the claimed land to the homestead land

Multiple claims from the same family

New clearances (post cut-off date)

Occupation over revenue land

Lack of proof for OTFDs

Incorrect filling up of forms (in spite of they being genuine right holders)

Post claim support and convergence

There have been instances of convergence initiatives in the study areas, though it is not

wide spread. Major convergence activities include providing Indira Awas (IAY), bund

repair, land leveling and provision of seeds and fertilizers. It was notable to find in the

study villages to give preference to women headed households who have got titles under

FRA, under convergence initiatives. An overview of the district and the study areas

provide the following status of convergence initiative in the State:

Table -10: Status of coverage of titleholders under different convergence initiativesDistricts1/Sample Villages 2

Distributed Title (nos.)

Type of convergence initiative (% of title holders covered)

Land levelling and bund repair

Fertiliser & seed support

Agricultural Equipments

Irrigation facility3

Achievement Rate

Bilaspur1 13484 11.35 23.04 0 0.23 8.65Bilaspur2 17 5.88 0.00 0 0.00 1.47Dhamtari1 10337 2.27 22.06 0 0.22 6.14Dhamtari2 37 21.62 0.00 0 0 5.41Korba1 24674 2.25 25.15 0 0 6.85Korba2 30 10 0 0 0 2.50

1. Overall District Data ; 2. Study Districts Data; 3.Irrigation facility(Tube well, well, stop dam, check dam)

It can observed from the above table that overall achievement rate on convergence is

very low across the three study districts. As against the district average, convergence

achievement rate in study villages is further lower where title holders have been covered

under land development interventions. There has been no support for agriculture

equipments and coverage under irrigation is negligible. Relatively higher coverage at the

district level is found towards distribution of seeds and fertilisers, which was found to be

a one-time support. Distribution of seeds and fertilisers have been made only once to the

right holders and there is lack of adequate plan and steps to ensure sustained support to

such farmers. Input of agriculture chemicals in this fertile forest lands enriched by

biomass is detrimental to farming in long run .It was commonly found that rights holders

covered under convergence initiatives lack adequate information about the scheme,

amount of fund allocated, period of the project and areas of expenditure, etc.

Facilitation in filing claims

The State Level Monitoring Committee has constituted a sub-committee headed by the

PCCF, State Forest Department to help regularly review FRA implementation process

and expedite its implementation. , Allowing forest department (an interested party under

the law) in such a key role has further side-lined the role of tribal department and helped

FD gain control of FRA processes on the ground (Please refer to minutes of meeting of

the sub-committee held on 4th January, 2013). Analysis of SLMC meeting minutes

indicates its decision to involve VSS during the process of formation (and reconstitution)

of FRCs which should be coordinated by the concerned DFO (refer Meeting of SLMC

‘sub-committee’ on 4th January 2013). It should be noted that the SLMC sub-committee

has met most of the time in place of full SLMC .Despite the tribal department being the

nodal agency; the official marginalization of the nodal department from the beginning of

implementation of the Act has been problematic. Several SLMC decisions have vested

the forest department with certain responsibilities to file status report on FRA

implementation in sanctuaries and other areas which shows how the role of the tribal

department has been undermined. Thus, the nodal agency continues to remain

marginalized and relatively inactive on FRA implementation. This situation is reflected in

functioning of DLCs and SDLCs as well. In many villages, panchayat secretaries are

filing claim forms without the village Gram Sabha being involved, thus making the entire

process of filing claims illegal.

Issues in filing and verification of claims

One of the main problems affecting the recognition of rights in most of the villages

mentioned above is that the FRCs had been constituted at the panchayat level, even in

many scheduled districts, involving several Gram Sabhas. In the three villages of

Pandariya tehsil of Kabirdham district, the FRCs refused to accept the CFR claims and

thus, the Gram Sabhas of these villages have themselves filed the claims with the SDLC.

Most claims facilitated by civil society organisations are pending with the SDLC without

any intimation to the Gram Sabhas about the progress of the claims.[

Process and Approach adopted for filling, verification and recording of community

claims.

In Chhattisgarh, the claims recognized as CFR mostly pertain to developmental rights as

provisioned under Sec 3 (2) of the act. This is evident from the average area allocated

for such rights. The average area recognized under such rights in the sample SDLCs

range between 0.83 to 1.37 acres. The process adopted for making claims for such

rights have not been in accordance with the provisions of the act and rules and similar

process as in the case of dealing with individual claims has been followed:

Process and approach adopted for filing, verification and recordings of community

forest resource rights

There have been no initiatives on facilitating recognition of community forest resource

rights as mentioned under Sec 3 (1). By government’s own admission, 70% of GS have

not claimed for community forest resource rights (Source: CoG, 2012).

Process and Approach Adopted for Filling, Verification and Recordings of PTG

habitat Rights. (for only PTG Districts)

In Chhattisgarh, there have been no initiatives to facilitate habitat rights for PTGs though

there has been emphasis on recognizing individual tenure of PTGs. In one of the recent

presentation in the national review, the Government of Chhattisgarh stated that it

considers that demarcation of their habitation is not required and the matter has been

referred to TRI for conducting a survey for determining habitat areas of PTGs. Even in

the case of recognition of individual tenure, PTGs like Baigas and Kamars who also

happen to be the most marginalized amongst tribal’s, appear to be lagging behind. The

key factors behind this relate to their forest based lifestyles and low integration with

mainstream village affairs.

The males from the family would often venture out in the forest for 3-4 days for collection

of NTFPs and would be left out when announcements for gramsabha meetings are held

or FRA application forms are being distributed. It is observed to see that women from

PTG groups like Baigas are completely unaware of FRA and its provisions about PTGs.

The FRA implementation also provides an opportunity to understand how tribal societies

are not equal and how dominant tribal groups have been able to apportion benefits. E.g.

in the case villages, forward tribal groups like Gonds and Oraon (mostly Christians and

more exposed to education etc.) have been able to ensure recognition of rights over their

forest lands. In contemporary times with more exposure to markets, it is observed that

PTGs of nomadic nature have shown willingness to settling down. This has brought them

to village fringes and occupation of nearby forest lands.

These tribes have been moving inside the forest and occupying lands temporarily as

forest department would often evict them and carry out plantations in those patches. The

Baiga people have gone back to the same patches they had occupied earlier. Also it was

seen that against most of the PTGs encroachment case (POR) were filed post 2005

making them encroachers after the deadline and have not been considered for

recognition. Also most of the PTGs have not been able to show their caste certificates as

they do not have any lands to prove their caste status.

Though there is a provision of habitat rights for such groups, the concept of habitat has

little or no resonance with contemporary PTG societies. It was observed in the field sites

with the mainstreaming of Gram Panchayats under Panchyati Raj System, the traditional

institutions of the PVTGs in these panchayats have disintegrated, and the women have

lost their voice in decision making which was vital among the groups based on the forest

economy.

In most of the protected areas there has been noteworthy focus on recognition of

individual rights of the tribal. Since protected areas have predominant Primitive tribe

population, settlement of token individual rights is seen as possible future threats of

displacement from Sanctuaries as the trend has been. [

Issue of titles

The certificate of titles issued are found to be of varying quality ranging from minimal

information to more detailed information contained in them. The titles that were issued in

the earlier phases lack details about the land over which rights have been recognised.

Such details relate to unit of measurement of the land, location of the land, map etc. In

number of cases seen by us, there was over-writing on titles in the section where the

area of land have been mentioned. These over-writing have been under the signature

and stamp of forest department staff.

People allege that they have received recognition for less land that they have been

occupying. The government should take note of this issue and ensure proper verification

of grievances related to this issue. Initially the titles only came in the name of men.

However this appears to have been corrected and subsequent title have been issued in

the name of both wife and husband. Post 2012 the quality of titles has improved and

titles are now accompanied with trace maps of the recognised area.

Key Concerns

1. The forest rights committees and the gramsabha have failed to evolve as

empowered bodies/ authorities inspite passage of more than five years of

implementation of the Act. Lack of active participation of women in these units has

further restricted their active involvement in the right recognition process under FRA.

Grass root level empowerment is marred by, lack of proper education of potential right

holders on the Act, lack of proper facilitative support and guidance by local authorities

and proper sensitization of frontline staff of government departments about role of

gramsabha and forest rights committees.

2. The way panchayati raj institutions have been conditioned to function has in a

major way constrained evolution of empowered local bodies as envisioned under the Act.

In most cases, the implementation of the FRA has rested in the hands of same of set of

functionaries/ persons who have been historically party of the dominant regime and have

been contributors to the right deprivation process in the first place. This has led the Act to

be manipulated and tweaked to minimize the intended gains to potential right holders.

3. Undermining the role of tribal department in the State has been one of the key

factors responsible for lack of correct awareness at the community level and absence of

steps for protection of interest of tribal’s especially PTGs. The frontline officials involved

in facilitation are mostly from forest and other departments and not tribal dept which is an

obstruction for the tribal dept, as a nodal agency, to actively intervene and ensure proper

implementation.

4. Amongst upper level authorities, performance of SDLCs has been found to be

below par. This may be understood in terms of lack of sufficient meetings, absence of

proper upkeep of record, lack of monitoring and review of FRA progress in the region,

lack of steps towards creating awareness especially at the level of villages and

addressing specific issues of the region e.g. issues of displaced people’s claims; issue of

PA-relocated communities, proper investigation of ‘orange area’ issues etc.

5. There has been lack of proper focus for ensuring recognition of bundle of rights for

PTG communities. As detailed in the report, it was found that PTGs have been

marginalized even in the process of recognition of individual tenures amidst a growing

popular narrative of they being late settlers (post cut-off date) and forest destroyers. As

we have found in the study that though there might be stray cases of late a forest

clearance across different set of communities, the allegations against PTGs like Baigas

of mass forest clearance does not appear to be well-founded. However this has been a

dominant reason behind their exclusion in the process of recognition of individual tenure,

not to speak of community tenure or habitat rights. Though the government has shown

and reiterated commitment to facilitate recognition of different set of rights of PTGs, the

decisions and directions in this regard are yet to reflect on the ground.

6. The State is seriously lagging behind in taking initiatives towards recognition of

community forest resource rights as outlined under Sec 3(1) (i) of the Act and in the

Amendment Rules.

7. Short-sighted and short-timed action plans for FRA implementation has created

more problems than solutions. E.g. hurried and externally driven constitution of FRCs in

the first place has defeated the very purpose of facilitating community empowerment

process. Reconstitutions of FRCs have fallen in the same trap.

Protected areas

Chhattisgarh has 11 wildlife sanctuaries and 3 National parks. However, the status of

FRA implementation is not progressing in the protected areas. According to updates

placed before the Chhattisgarh State Assembly for the period 18th February to 22nd

March 2013, relocation of several villages has been planned from many protected areas

from across the state. In Barnavapara Wild life Sanctuary in Mahasamund district, 6

forest villages has been displaced from the sanctuary while 135 families from Rampur

village have already been relocated1. 6 villages from Achanakmar Tiger Reserve have

also been displaced2. However, there is no information provided by the state on whether

the rights recognition process under FRA was followed before these villages were

relocated. Meanwhile, there are reports of forced evictions from villages of Rajanacha

and Baijadhap around Bhoramdeo Reserve Forests of Kawardha district3. There are

reports of the huts of the villagers being razed to the ground. This was done by the forest

department to ensure safety for wildlife. The process of recognition of rights under the

FRA has not been followed and neither has a resettlement and relocation package been

announced for the same.

1 Information provided as reply by Minister of Forest to starred query no 1309/4 of 28th Feb and 2622/3 of 21st March 2013 raised by Dr Shiv Kumar Daharia and Dr Haridas Bhardwaj respectively. 2 Information provided as reply by Minister of Forest to starred query no 1663/28 of 07th March raised by Dr Haridas Bhardwaj.3 See: http://www.fra.org.in/new/document/In%20Chhattisgarh,%20a%20primitive%20tribe%20in%20trouble.pdf

However, in the 1580 sq km. area proposed under the Udanti and SitaNadi Wildlife

Sanctuary in Gariabandh district, community leaders of six panchayats in Chhattisgarh,

comprising 24 villages, have refused to be relocated from their villages and forests and

have pledged to take charge of forest management from the forest department, in order

to increase forest cover as well as wildlife numbers by 150 per cent within five years4.

Forest Diversion

Chhattisgarh is rich in mineral resources and has many existing and proposed mines and

industries overlapping with its forests. In light of this, recognition of rights under the Forest

Rights Act and the consent clause over forest diversion as stipulated in Sec 4(5) of the Act

and the August 2009 circular issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests plays an

important role in forest diversion. However, considering the real implementation of the Act in

the state, many violations of the Act have been observed. In Tamoda village of Kanker

district, part of the community forests, over which the Gram Sabha has filed a claim, has

been proposed to be leased to the Bhilai Steel Plant’s Kalver-Nangur Iron mines in 2012.

Although the village rejected the mine in a public hearing organised for the environmental

impact assessment of the mine on the grounds that community rights existed over the land

and they had not been recognised under the FRA, their claim remains pending with the

SDLC.

In other cases, there has been a violation of the August 2009 circular and fake Gram Sabha

resolutions have been submitted by the district administration. The Bhilai Steel Plant has

received final forest clearance for diversion of forest land from the Raoghat hills in Bhanu-

pratappur area of Kanker district in 2009. The project includes a 91 km railway line from

Dalli Rajahara to Raoghat, an open cast mine in the Rowghat hills under the Matla Reserve

Forests and setting up for 21 paramilitary barracks till mining continues in the area, since

the proposed railway line and mines are affected by left-wing extremism. According to local

claims, nearly 40 villages (including forest and revenue) in the area will be affected. Around

35 villages falling along the boundary of the mining lease area will lose complete access to

their forests. While no forest rights under the FRA have been recognised, it has been

revealed that fake Gram Sabha certificates denying religious and cultural rights in the area

have been submitted by the state government to get forest clearance5.

4Choubey, J. (2014, February 13). 24 Chhattisgarh villages pledge to develop wildlife sanctuary on their own.Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/24-chhattisgarh-villages-pledge-develop-wildlife-sanctuary-their-own5Guilty Until Proven Innocent? A fact finding report on unlawful police activities in the two panchayats of North Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (May 2013) People’s Union for Civil Liberties: Chhattisgarh. And Note on Objection to the proposed Raoghat Iron Ore Mines in of the Bhilai Steel Plant/SAIL in Kanker and Narayanpur Districts of Bastar Region of Chhattisgarh, dated 18th February 2014, by Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan. Copies available with CFR-LA.

In Dharamjaigarh tehsil of Raipur district, Balco and Dainik Bhaskar (DB) Power have

been allotted adjoining coal blocks for power plants over forest land of three panchayats

of Dharamjaigarh block —Sahpur (which includes Taraimarh), Baysi and Rupunga.

While no FRA claims have been filed or recognised over the area, for the BALCO coal

mine, serial Gram Sabhas were hosted in the three panchayats to obtain consent from

the villagers. All these Gram Sabhas were boycotted by the local villagers. In the case of

DB Power, RTI filed by one village in 2013 revealed that District collector had issued a

false certificate under FRA compliance for forest diversion for DB power coal block which

stated that that Gram Sabhas were held under Aug 2009 guidelines in the villages of

Taraimar, Bayasi, Medhmar, there were no claims raised and, thus no rights exist over

forest land. However, the gram panchayat office has no records of a Gram Sabha held

on the dates specified in the collector's certificate6.

Conversion of forest villages into revenue villages7

In Chhattisgarh, the process of conversion of forest villages into revenue villages began

early in 2013. The first order for conversion was issued on 17th July 2013, by Chief

Conservator of Forests, to the District Collectors of 20 districts, Block level Officers and

the Directors of 4 tiger reserves8 identifying 425 forest villages to be converted into

revenue villages. Thereafter, nodal officers for each group of villages to be converted

were identified to conduct Gram Sabhas to initiate the process of conversion. However,

this order was severely criticized for violating the process specified in the FRA and for

not considering the un-surveyed villages/settlements on forest land which also need to

be converted. The Chhattisgarh government restarted the process in December 20139,

and all the forest villages have already been converted to revenue villages by December

201410.

The process of conversion of forest villages to revenue villages in Chhattisgarh started

as per the guidelines issued by the forest department of the State, before MoTA issued

detailed guidelines. Thus, the process did not involve detailed discussions with Gram

Sabhas and was extremely top-down. The gram sabha and the FRCs have no

knowledge of these villages having been converted into revenue. The whole process of

conversion was started clearly as a result of a political intervention since the ruling 6 Shared by Mr. Sajal Madhu of Bayasi village where the fake gram sabha was held. This was shared during the National Consultation on the relevance of Forest Rights Act in Forest Diversion organised by CFR-LA on the 5th and 6th of March in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Report available at: http://www.fra.org.in/new/document/national%20consultation%20on%20relevance%20of%20forest%20rights%20act%20in%20forest%20diversion.pdf7 Compiled by Janisar Akhtar8 Copy of the order available with CFR-LA9http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/chhattisgarh-s-400-settlements to-be-revenue-villages-113123101078_1.html10http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/raipur/state-govt-declares-83-forest-villages-as-revenue-villages.html

government in the state in its 2013 manifesto had declared that it would give 400 forest

villages the status of revenue villages. Thus, the speedy nature of the conversion

process executed by the state under the broad brush of ‘ good governance’ left no time

for the Gram Sabha and FRC to collectively reflect and respond to the situation.

Orange area

In Chhattisgarh, there are many villages which are disputed areas as referred to as

‘orange areas’ in the government parlance. Influence of forest department in FRC / GS

decision making has especially added to the marginalization of PTGs in the study areas.

Chhattisgarh (part of undivided Madhya Pradesh before 2001), record of the Revenue

Department (missal) and a record of rights (missal haqaiyat) and the usufruct rights

records (nistar patrak) of each village mentioning the kind of activities and future land

use was prepared in 1910.However, after the abolition of zamindari in 1950, nistaar

lands were taken over by the revenue department, and subsequently the ownership was

passed to forest department through a notification with no changes made to the revenue

records (Garg, 2005). This has lead to a situation of dual and conflicting ownership of FD

and revenue department in Chhattisgarh which can be resolved if such rights are

recognised under the Forest Rights Act11.

Recommendations

For districts like Dhamtari, there is a need to specifically survey all villages in gramsabha

especially in non-tribal and low forest areas to find out families that might be in

occupation of forest lands. As in Magarlod (the study area under Dhamtari district), the

key focus has only been on forest villages.

Need for a separate professional body that facilitates implementation of the Act. A

long-term action plan for implementation of the act is a requirement.

For cross learning and peer pressure, national level interfaces are required more

at regular intervals – it is recognised that a physical meeting becomes very cost

extensive but use of technology can make it easy and cost effective. It is suggested that

a bi-monthly video conferencing of Chief secretaries of the State should be carried out at

regular intervals

1. All titles issued in the name of community rights/ CFR needs to be revisited and a

revised list may be prepared to ascertain the actual status of CFR rights

recognition in the State. Set up a team including members from reputed civil

society groups working on FRA to review the process of CFR recognition

11For a detailed report over conflicting forest land records, see: Garg, A. (2005). Orange Areas: Examining the Origin and Status. National Centre for Advocacy Studies: Pune. Available at: http://www.doccentre.org/docsweb/adivasis_&_forests/orange_areas.htm

2. All faulty CFR titles issued should be corrected and proper procedures may be

adopted in cases where there have been flaws and lapses.

3. Urgently consider the CFR claim applications lying pending with the SDLC for long

time and their disposal may be taken up in a time bound manner.

4. Take urgent steps to dismantle the SLMC sub-committee as it ultra-vires to the

law and restore full authority and give more powers to the Tribal Department as

nodal agency and provide all necessary infrastructural and human resource

support to them for effective recognition of CFR in the State

BIBLIOGRAPHY:1. Agarwal, A., “Implementation of Forest Rights Act, Changing forest Landscape and

Politics of REDD in India”-Resource Energy and Development 8(2), 131-148.2. Asher, M. and Agarwal, N., Rceognising The Historical Injustices: Campaign for the

Forest Rights Act, 2006, Natioanl Centre For Advocacy Studies (NCAS 2011)3. Choubey, J. (2014, February 13). 24 Chhattisgarh villages pledge to develop wildlife

sanctuary on their own. Down to Earth: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/24-chhattisgarh-villages-pledge-develop-wildlife-sanctuary-their-own

4. de Janvery, A. and Sadoulet, E.(2002), World poverty and the role of agricultural technology: Direct and indirect effects. Journal of Development studies, 38 (4), 1-26

5. Dev, M.S. (2004), How to make rural India shine, Economic and Political Weekly, 39(40), 4415-4422 Dev (2004)

6. Garg, A. (2005). Orange Areas: Examining the Origin and Status. National Centre for Advocacy Studies: Pune. Available at: http://www.doccentre.org/docsweb/adivasis_&_forests/orange_areas.htm

7. Hazell, P.B.R. and Haggblade, S. (1989)- Agricultural technology and farm non-farm linkages, Agricultural Economics, 3(4) 345-364.

8. Lasgorceix, A. and Kothari , A. (2009), “Displacement and Relocation of Protected areas: A synthesis and Analysis of Case Studies”, Economic and Political Weekly, XLIV (49): 37-47+1-6

9. Lawry, S. and Mclain, R.(2012), “Devolution Forest Rights and Sustainable Forest Management: Learning from Two Decades of Implementation ––Paper presented in Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty- The World Bank –Washington DC, April 23-26, 2012.

10. Mellor, J. (1976) New economics of growth-A strategy for India and the developing world. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

11. Munster, U and Vishnudas, S. (2012), “In the Jungle of Law: Adivasi Rights and Implementation of Forest Rights Act In Kerala Economic and Political Weekly, VolXLVII No.19, May 12, pp 38-45

12. Rajeev Sharma and Gurpreet Singh, Access to Modern agricultural technologies and farmer household welfare Evidence from India, Sage Publication

13. Somanathan, E., Jagdish Krishna Swamy, Francois, S. (April 2013), “The Impact of the Forest Rights Act,2006 on Deforestation, Tribal Welfare and Poverty”. International Growth Centre, Workshop Paper.

14. Sharma, M. 2012, “Dalit and Indian Environmental Politics”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.XLVII No.23, June 9, pp 46-52

15. http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/chhattisgarh-s-400-settlements to-be-revenue-villages-113123101078_1.html

16. http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/raipur/state-govt-declares-83-forest-villages-as-revenue-villages.html

17. Information provided as reply by Minister of Forest to starred query no 1309/4 of 28th

Feb and 2622/3 of 21st March 2013 raised by Dr Shiv Kumar Daharia and Dr Haridas Bhardwaj respectively.

18. Information provided as reply by Minister of Forest to starred query no 1663/28 of 07th March raised by Dr Haridas Bhardwaj. See: http://www.fra.org.in/new/document/In%20Chhattisgarh,%20a%20primitive%20tribe%20in% 20trouble.pdf

19. Guilty Until Proven Innocent? A fact finding report on unlawful police activities in the two panchayats of North Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (May 2013) People’s Union for Civil Liberties: Chhattisgarh. And Note on Objection to the proposed Raoghat Iron Ore Mines in of the Bhilai Steel Plant/SAIL in Kanker and Narayanpur Districts of Bastar Region of Chhattisgarh, dated 18th February 2014, by Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan. Copies available with CFR-LA.