Shared Natural ResourcesA compilation of our newsletter articles on natural resource management (2005-07)

Seva Mandir

Credits:

This publication is the pilot booklet of series ofbooklets to be published on articles compiled fromthe old Seva Mandir Newsletters. The articles willbe categorized on thebasis oftheme or authors.

covers all articles pertaining tothe Natural Resource Management Programmepublished in Newsletters in years 2005 to2007.

There is a blog also for Seva Mandir Newsletterwhich can be browsed on the SevaMandir website -

Shared Resources

sevamandir.org.

Section 1 - CommonPropertyResources

Section 2 - Issues BeforeForestRightsAct2006

Section 3 - Issues After Forest RightsAct2006

0. Integrating Common Lands in WatershedsKulranjan Kujurand ShailendraTiwari - December 31, 2005

0. Conflicts in JointForest ManagementVivekVyas - June 30,2006

0. Seva Mandir and the Land ReformCommittee Under the Ministry of Rural DevelopmentVivekVyas - March31, 2008

0. CollectiveApproachTowards Recognition of ForestRights of Scheduled Tribes & ForestDwellersKulranjan Kujur- June30,2005

0. Who Should Own the Forests?Liby Johnson and JayapadmaRV - December 31, 2005

0. The Tragedy of Transformation of Forest Lands From Commons to CommodityShailendra Tiwari - June 30, 2006

0. Our Environment - The Challenges Ahead...Ashish Kothari - June 30,2007

0. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dweller: (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 -Reflection & analysis on draft rules

S.N.Bhise- September 30,20070. EmpoweringCommunities forForestGovernance

S.N.Bhiseand Vivek Vyas -March 31, 2008

Seva Mandir has been involved with the forest dwelling communities in Udaipur District ever since the 1988 Forest policy aswell asthe JFMguidelines were releasedin theyear 1991 andtheWatershedguidelines in theyear 1994.

We have always been part of the larger policy dialogue concerning the commons as well as forest lands and it has been realisedthat this two-pronged approach to conservation of environment through (1) Direct interventions at the grassroots (2) Sharingof the Learnings at the wider policy podiums has the potential to bring about gradual but path-breaking changes in the waygovernment designs its legislations and policies as well as the executive deals with the implementation of the same. The presentcompilation is an effort to churn out and present the cream ofsuch learnings atvarious points oftime duringour work in the lastten years on issues related to Natural Resource Management, Common Property Resources and the Forest Rights debate inspecific.

Seva Mandir'sJoint Forest Management programme isone of theexamples ofhow programmes GO-NGO partnershipswith thecommunities have their crests and troughs. The article on the conflicts in JFM deals with the same. Likewise one of thehallmarks ofSeva Mandir's work on NRM has been the work on watersheds. This work has had far reachingpolicy implicationsfor relevance ofwatershed developmenton commonsas seen in the outputofthe parthasarthycommittees report. The pinnacle ofthe effortson the research on commonsaswell asthe advocacy waswhen Seva Mandir was invited to bepart ofthe committee onlandsreforms and convened thegroup on common property resources.

Seva Mandir's Efforts onCommon PropertyResources

Preface

Forest Rights Act 2006It was interesting to trace the path of the recent legislation on the forest rights act when the debate was on about how to deal withthe encroachments pre-and post 1980 as decided by the Indian forest act 1980. While we were doing the same in the 2000-2006period, the forest rights act 2006 was passed which gave a new dimension to thisdebate by diverting the onus onto the public (gramsabhas) for decidingthefate of their forests.

Therefore the articles pertaining to these issues in this handout are therefore divided into two groups (Pre 2006 and post 2006). Thesection called "Issues before the Forest Rights Act 2006 deals with the efforts/approaches for dealing with the issue ofencroachments on forest lands". The second half " Issuesafter the ForestRights Act 2006 dealswith the postenactmentscenario witha focuson the operationalisation ofthe Forest RightsAct."

Section 1

00

Several pieces of writing have elaborated the importance of common lands on the livelihoods of rural communities,especially on those of small and marginal farmers. These studies also point to the critical role that common propertyresources play in the lives of the poorest and on their livestock. Further, during periods of drought common land canbecome a critical cushion.

The proportion ofcommon lands in a watershedarea differs from region to region.In hilly, tribal regions the proportion ofthese common lands could be as high as 50 to 70 per cent of the total watershed area. For the purpose of this note, andfrom the point of discussion on watersheds, we have considered the following lands coming under the category ofcommon lands: pasture, forest and revenue lands. Proper development and management of these common lands iscritical tothesuccess of the watershed, andfor providing returnstothe poorer households. Since these categories of landsnot only constitute a significant proportion of the total watershed but are also often located along the watershed ridges,proper treatment and management of these lands are important technical and ecological considerations. Further, whenit comes to the landless and the poor, it is these common lands which can be used as levers for equity. The greatestpotential of these common lands lies in promoting and sustaining cohesion and solidarity within the village. Therequirementsof managingthese common propertiesare such that the village hastonecessarilycooperate. These lands, ifproperly developed provide a most attractive stake for communities to come together. The returns of working oncommon property resources are, therefore, indeed extremely significant and can be summarised as ecological, equity,solidarityand sustainabilityreturns.

Integrating Common Lands in WatershedsKulranjan Kujur and Shailendra Tiwari - December 31, 2005

01

However, due to common lands being highly contested and in a state of deterioration, their significance on sustaininglocal livelihoodandin protecting the community fabric isplummeting. The issue of landRights is more intricate and it isnotpossible to deal with the issue without involving the local community. Though there might be varied experiences ofdifferent organisations in dealing withthe issue, a more pragmatic andsuitable approach is needed. Keeping in mind thesensitivity and magnitude of the problem, we infer that resolving the issue of illegal privatisation of common lands needsto be converged with other land development initiatives, especially with watershed programmes. This would help inhavingan integrated land development approach.

The foremost reason for common lands being inaccessible is encroachment. A macro level study (EERN Study, 2003)carriedout in Rajasthan highlightedthat out of the total panchayat pastureland sites in the state, 69 per cent of them hadencroachments and were contested. Another study done within Udaipur district revealed that the proportion ofencroachment on forest, panchayat and revenue lands are 27, 54 and 100 per cent respectively (Bhise et.al. 2004). Thebook highlighted that of the total encroachers 62 per cent are economically sound. There is ample proof thatencroachment is not onlya manifestation ofpovertybut, more often, ofsocial statusandpower of the encroacher.

However, it is possible to break out of this slide and conflict situation. This requires clear and consistent regulation on thepartof the government and involvement ofthe community in the process ofresolving these disputes.

Keepinginmind the sensitivity and magnitude of the problem a more pragmatic stance isrequiredtoprotect the Rights ofpeople and the ecology. More deliberation is needed onthe issue for systematically involving the community inthe wholeprocess. Creating awareness about the issue would reinforce the village community for dealing withthe issue. Moreover,there is a fraction of people who abide with the law and oppose any approach that further leads to plight on thecommunity. Hence,devolution of authority tothecommunity for dealing with the issue can expedite theprocessof accessto common lands.

Watershed treatment programmes must respect the property Rights regime in relation to land. So far, watersheddevelopment has been done, mostly ignoring the perspective of common lands. In the region where majority of land is

02

common land, a different approach has to be followed. The common land should be delineated on the ground and itsentitlement should be well established before undertaking any interventions in a watershed region. This will bolster thesignificance ofcommon lands in the watershed programme. Fostering common lands in a watershed programme wouldunderpintheridge-to-valleynotion ofwatershed programme.

Additionally, if joint forest management is implemented in a proper way by the department/ non-governmentorganisations, so that regular benefits are accrued from the developed area, it could provide necessary impetus fordealing with the issue. It can help in checking further encroachment. Apparently, no fresh encroachment in the region isreported where village level forest protection committees are registered for joint forest management. In fact, thesecommittees donot allowpeople from outside toencroachon their land, whilst also restrictinglocalpeople from doing thesame. By constituting more than 3,000 committees in Rajasthan the forest department has morally bound people fromencroaching government lands. Finally, further reinforcing this programme could contribute in tackling the issue ofencroachment in forestlands.

Eventually, it is high time that government comes up with firm policy on encroachment -on panchayat, forest, revenueand wastelands to avoid further worsening of the situation in relation to common land. The cooperation of concerneddepartments issolicited in resolvinglandrelated conflicts.

In the discourse on commonlands,village institutionsplaya central role. Effective participation ofvillage institutions in thediscourse helps in resolving any inter- or intra-vil lage conflict. These institutions enter intoa dialogue with the encroacherand trytoevict encroachments from common lands for the interest of the village. Seva Mandir, from its longexperience ofworking on land, infers that addressing the issue of land governance in the country is of utmost importance beforeinitiatinganyintervention on commonlands.

To initiate development of these lands in the village, it is imperative that the ownership disputes are resolved at the initialstage. During the course of Seva Mandir's association with the common land, there are many instances where

03

encroachments have been evicted under pressure from the community for equitable distribution of benefits from theland.Some of the effective strategies followedbythecommunityare listedhere.

Sometimes a threat by the communitymembers to take legal action, or actually going in for legal action, has been fruitful.Forest protection committees have been successful in evicting encroachments after much persuasion and sustainedlobbying with the forest department to initiate legal action against the encroachers. Though the process is in compliancewith government rules, it is tedious and time-consuming. Moreover, intricate administrative procedures and socio-political considerationsaffecttheprocess.

In a few cases community members have negotiated with the encroachers to have land evicted, suitably compensatingthem ona case-by-case basisafter ascertaining the socio-economic conditionof the encroachers. More importantly, in thewhole process of negotiation the village communityacts as a catalyst.. Therefore, this method of evicting encroachmentsif adopted with an appropriate strategy is effective. The incentive component either can be monetary or throughdevelopingproductivityof existingland(agricultural fields, privatewaste lands,etc.).

Networks and federations of village institutions such as forest protection committees and their federation or watershedcommittees often provide an additional input in dealing with the issue of common property resources, especially forestlands which constitute the bulk of common lands in the country. Such networks can help in advocacy at multiple levelsand also ininterfacing with governmentdepartments.However, building upsuchnetworks takestime.

1. There is provision of treating forestland under joint forest management by the project implementing agencythrough constitution of forest protection committees. However, the process of sanction of joint forestmanagement is tedious - it takes a year or two to get sanction from the forest department. The implementingagency should have legal access to treat the forestland falling under the watershed. The sanction to treat suchforestlandinthewatershed shouldbe grantedin a time-bound manner onprioritybasis.

04

2. The government should settle the issue of encroachments by either handing over land to the encroacher orevicting the encroacher. This should be done in a time bound manner all over the country and not be subjectedto continuous negotiations under political pressures from time in water shed to time. There is a need to give aclear signal tothe village communitiesabout the statusof these lands.

3. From the ecological point of view the forests are considered as reservoirs ofwater. Moreover,since the location offorests is on uplands, leaving forestland untreated would reduce the longevity of watershed treatment benefitsdownstream. It is suggested that priority should be given to treat forest lands for the larger interest of the tribalandrespectingthe notion ofwatershed concept.

There is a provision under which by digging of trenches and construction of check dams, revenue wastelands can betreated under watershed programmes. However, if the community or project implementing agency wants to enclosethese lands, it is not permitted to do so. Such lands cannot be made productive by planting of trees or other sort ofvegetation, since theycannot beenclosed.

There is a legal provision under which the revenue land can be converted into village pasture. However, this process ofconversion is very tedious and time consuming. This process can be made simple so that investments can be made tomakerevenuelandsmore productive.

1. The authority on these lands is the gram ponchayat, which generally is reluctant in giving sanction for theirdevelopment. Sharing of benefits from pastures is a bone of contention between the village and the grampanchayat. It is recommended that the legal authority ofvil lage pasture betransferred tothegram sabha toavoidthese complications.

2. The jurisdiction of a gram panchayat is spread over several hamlets and several pieces of pasture lands. Differenthamlets ina village havetraditional rights over thesepiecesof pasture lands. It wouldindeed be better ifauthorityover these pastures isvestedwith the concerned gram sabha rather thanthepanchayat.

05

To sum up, considering the importance and magnitude of common lands which covers a significant portion of awatershed area, it is necessary to have appropriate arrangements for its treatment. It is also important to voice theconcerns of the community, and to have a legal framework for inclusion of developing common lands in watershedregions.

Eventually, it is recommended that the entire watershed land under the purview ofdifferent state departmentsshouldbelegally accessible to project implementers. In some states such as Maharashtra, collaborative approach of governmentdepartments and non-government organisations has sanctioned access to forest lands to project implementing agenciesfor treatment under government order. Therefore, such provision can be made in all the states covering all categories ofland falling in a watershed region. It is also recommended that a single window legal clearance to treat all sorts of publiclandsfor treatment onwatershed basis would beeffective.

06

Background- The National Forest Policy of 1988 andthe Joint Forest Management resolution of 1991 acknowledged the

need to give greater rights and authority to community groups. The policy envisaged a process of joint management offorests bythe state government andthe local people, who would share the responsibility for managing the resource and

the benefits accruing from this.

As per the guidelines of the National Forest Policy (1988) the local people along with the Non-Governmental

Organizations can come together in an effort to conserve and manage their forests under Joint Forest Management

(JFM) project. This would be done through the formation of village forest protection and management committee. Toregenerate the degraded and barren forest areas, NGOs and villagers could cooperate in order to bring about

improvements in the condition of the forestlandaswell as improvingupon the benefits it can provide in its role ofa CPR.

Seva Mandir undertook one of the first JFMs in Rajasthan in 1991 in association with the Shyampura Forest Protection

Committee (FPC). Subsequently, under thisscheme, it tried to develop 15 more sites and conductedplantationson about

810 hectares of degraded forest lands and closed200 hectares ofgoodforests for natural protection.

07

Interestingly each of these sites and each JFM implementation with the brought forth issues that highlight dynamics,which can disturb a functional institutionandimpede protectionor developmentof the communityresource.

The paper attempts to document the experiences of Seva Mandir in the field ofJFM and the various conflicts that arose inthe process. Theseconflicts recountedhere illustrate

o Firstly, the constraints to community based natural resource management options such as JFM at the level ofpolicy - formulation as well as implementation that fails to address issues like encroachment and boundarydisputes.

o Secondly they bring to the fore the limitations of a framework like JFM at the level of the community itself due toconflictsarising between external players like the forestdepartment and the FPCor betweentwoor more FPCs.

o Thirdly, Capacity and leadership development in the FPC for management of the developed resources can getweakened sometimes due to intra-institutional conflicts triggered by politics or erratic benefit sharingmechanisms.

Traditional rights refer to the user rights being exercised by the community because of being proximal to a particularnatural resource. Legal right pertains to the rights and concessions given to the villages by the forest department duringits settlement operations. Besides because of the Joint forest management exercises this issue has become all the morepertinentasonly the people who are part of the FPC canexercise usufruct rights.

Thus in a nutshell it means that even if the people have beentraditionally using a particular patch offorests but if theyarenot registeredaslegal usersor right holders thanit might leadto conflict as happens in the followingcase.

08

Issue - This case documents the negotiationsover rights to a forest patch amongst threevillages: Kojon Ka Guda, Saharia and Padtal.After decades of peacefull coexistence, thecommunities found themselves pitted againsteach other when the forest that was seen asbeing common to all three villages wasenclosed under joint forest management withonly one village represented in the forestprotection committee constituted for thepurpose because legal rights had beenaccorded to only one village under the forestsettlement.

The entire case can be seen as being a case oftussle between the rights of traditional usersand that of the legal users of the forest.Traditionally, for years, the three villages KojonKa Guda, Padtal and Saharia (hamlets ofLalpura) had traditional rights for grazing andcollection of fuelwood over the forest in blockPhalet B. However, legally only Kojon Ka Gudacould be givenrights over the forestsasthe FPCconstituted to protect and manage the forest.This sparked off a conflict between the threevillages who were coexisting peacefully earlierenjoyingrightsona traditional basis.

09

Resolution - Later, the dispute was resolved by the villagers themselves. A consolidated list of villagers from all threevillages was drawn up and an FPC was reconstituted. In 2003 this FPC received sanction to work on 50 ha areas offorestland under the JFM programme. Seva Mandir also used a bit of coercion by suspending all its developmentactivities in these villages to bring the parties to the negotiating table. In 2005, the committee started work onanother patch of 50 ha of Forest land. Though the conflict now stands resolved it took nearly 7-8 years for thevillagers andSeva Mandir to finda resolution suitable for everyone.

Most of the forest blocks in Rajasthan have been constituted by including land of 4-5 or even more revenue villages.Though in the forest settlement maps and record, the area of the village included in the block is demarcated but onphysical demarcation exists on the ground. Even the FD officials are ignorant of these boundaries on the land. Thisbecomesa major point of contention between villages especially when usufruct rights are giveninthe forest block.Underthe JFM programme the village can form a FPC to protect and develop forests where they have been given usufructuaryrights. There are many instances where conflicts have occurred in JFM sites due to boundary disputes between twovillages which has resulted indamagesto the JFM protectedareas.

Issue - The forest boundary between the villages of Madia and Upli Sign'are not clear, and therefore, the Madia villagersare unable toexert social pressure onthe encroachers from Sign' to evict them. The contentionrelated to encroachmentsin Madia springs from the fact that Madia residents resent the advance of Sigri people on forest land traditionallybelonging to Madia, with the support of some powerful local communist leaders. The encroachments of the Sigriresidents seem to be in the customary forest boundary of Madia village, while those of some Madia residents are just onthe fringe offorestandrevenue landwithin Madia.

Resolution - In 2001, Madia villagers proceeded to enlist the assistance of the forest department in vacating encroachersfrom forestland. The local forest committee was in regular contact with the forest officials to clarify the limits of Madia'sforests. This clarification of forest boundaries would provide the Madia villagers with moral and legal rights to askencroachers to vacate from the village forestlands. At the samuh meeting in May 2002, ten of the twelve encroacherswillingly promised to move out of their encroachments. After sustained pressure from the community the forest

10

11

department officials from the forest range and beat along with the Patwari of Madia decided to demarcate forestboundary on site on June 24, 2002. The patwari of Upli Sigri also came to the site along with the patwari of Madia andforest officials on the designated day. The revenue maps of both villages were matched and the boundary dividing theforestof bothvillageswaslaidout. Now the Madiavillagers have enclosed the reclaimed land asa protected model JFM.

Recent developments - Madia & Sigri - Another dispute has been going on between Madia and Sigri villages. While Sigrivillagers are working in collaboration with another NGO calledFES, Madia villagers have been working with Seva Mandirfor its JFM programme. The issue concerns the boundaries between the two villages and got highlighted when thepeople of Sigri beat up the guard Prabhulal appointed by the FPC of Madia. Attempts shall be made to organize a jointmeetingbetweenthe twovillages.

Issue - The issue in this case is about rights of multiple revenue villages on a Forest Block. The area of Som village fallingunder Som II Forest block includes land of six villages, which is not demarcated on the ground. This multiplicityof rights ofmany villages over a particular forest block without clear-cut demarcation of village land leads to inter-vil lageencroachmentsandsubsequent boundary disputes.

Resolution - During August, some ofthe people from the nearbyvillage of Bhamti hadencroached uponthe forestland ofSom. With the efforts and motivation of the leaders of Van Uthan Sangh (VUS) , some 200 people from Som and samenumber from Bhamti tried to convince these people about the importance offorests. Ultimatelythese people were forcedto vacate the Encroachments.

Issue - In certain villages like Bada Bhilwada and Nayakhola in Jhadol block of Udaipur, enclosure of forest lands in ahaphazard manner has highlighted how it sometimes leads to problems related to grazing. These villages have forestpatcheswhichare already degradeddue tograzing but due to lack of alternatives continue to experience heavy livestockpressure on the forest land and the consequent tussles over grazing. Thus sharing of benefits from JFM area in terms ofgrazing is also an issue without which even a mature JFM can become unsuccessful as was reflected during a workshopconductedon 17-18 January2006.

12

o Delayed payment ofthe guardledto the plantation left vulnerabletograzing.

o Grazing being carried out by influential people.

o Social boycottingfrom the deathceremony for those whocut wood.

o Phala-wise responsibilitygiventopeople for guardingtheir portionof the forests.

The JFM guidelinesandthe need to adopt a participatory approach towards forest protection, management andsharingof benefits derived from the programme, has created an awareness among the rural people about the importance of theforest area over which they have traditional as well as legal rights. As such any encroachment or illegal cutting etc iscontested.One positive effect ofJFM has been that villagersare not allowing new encroachments in their forest areasandalso trying to evict old encroachments from their forest areas. This has resulted in intra-village conflicts. There are manyexamples ofsuchconflictsamongst FPCs,e.gShyampura,BadaBhilwada, Talai etc.

The people ofneighboringTumdar village as well as a few families ofBada Bhilwara village encroached on the forestlandof village Bada Bhilwara. The FPC members of Bada Bhilwara opposed this trend and lodged a complaint against theencroachers with the local FD beat office. The officials from the Beat office visited the site and convinced the encroachersto release the occupied land. However, after a few days the people encroached again. The FPC members thenapproached the Van Utthan Sangh and with their support contacted the Division office at Udaipur. They met theConservator Forests and apprised him of the situation. A FD team was sent to the site to evict the encroachers. Theencroachmentswere removed and the 712 hectares of forestlandbelonging to villageBada Bhilwara was reclaimed. The

FPC members then submitted a proposal to enclose the area and develop it under JFM in the year 1994-95. Another 100hectares have been taken up under JFM in the year 2002. On the day of Shilanyas of the JFM site people were goingtowards the JFM site when the people from Tumdar started throwing stones at them from a hillock. Soon stones werebeing thrown from both sides. Subsequently Bada Bhilwada filed a case against Tunder and hence resolved to get thecommonsfreed from encroachments at all costs. The people ofBadaBhilwadaare now more conscious oftheir resources.People from Tumdar have filed a police case against FPC members of Bada Bhilwada, which they are contesting. As fornow they have prevented Tumdar villagersfrom encroaching ontheir forestlands.

There are many ways in which a change in leadership can bring conflict in the running of FPCs and management of JFMareas. It has been observed that wherever FPCs have been constituted and works carried out local leadership has

emerged who controls the implementation, protection and management of JFM sites and even the FPC members. Theexecutive committee is there but much depends on the local leader. Sometimes such local leadership takes undueadvantage of his position and any attempt to remove him causes conflict in the FPC. Consequently JFM related activitiessuffer as it takes time for the emergence ofnew leadership.

In Mohandungri village, a local leader who was active in the activities of Seva Mandir in the village was entrusted to formthe FPC for implementation of the JFM programme, and to implement the physical activities and manage the assetscreated with the support of the executive committee formed. The programme was implemented successfully initially.However, it was soon observed that he was taking undue advantage of his position and was involved in wrongful acts.Following thisdiscoveryhe was relievedof the responsibilities Seva Mandir hadentrusted on him. The emergence of newleadership tooksome time since he had a stronghold on the people and he was also present in the village, and until thensome mismanagement in the JFM areas happened. But things improved once new leadership took over theirresponbilities.

13

The members of the Van Utthan Sangh undertook reelection ofVillage forest protection committees at the behest of theforest department (1991 JFM order requires renewal of the FPC every two years). In one such village Amod, the forestdepartment wasconducting physical works. Butsurprisingly even after the re-electionof the committee, the RangersandForesterscontinuedtopatronize theex- (what position did he hold?),Nandu Singh,(amateinthe village)

During a training of the VFPMCs organized by the Van Utthan Sansthan, officials from the forest department werequestioned by the villagers as to why the VFPMC was being ignored. VUS members also met the officials of the forestdepartment like the DFOs, ACFs etc to sort out this issue. The forest department officials objected to the so-called "ad hocformation of committees by VUS". Thereafter Seva Mandir clarified to the department that all such re-elections wereundertaken at the behestof the forest department communication.

Further investigation revealed that the major bone of contention was the political factionism within the village. The twofactions wanted their representation in the FPC so that they could have some command over the allocation of labor,village fundsetc.

The conflict and factionalism in Talai village date backtothe time when a big dam called Mansi-Vakal was proposed nearthe village. The village got divided over the issue of getting rehabilitated elsewhere. Some people who were against itjoined hands to form the Chandeshwar Samiti, which later on gave birth to another NGO called Ankur. At the same timemany people accepted the rehabilitation proposal for the dam. This sowed the seeds of mistrust in the village. Thissituation was further exasperated by the scattered settlement pattern of the village which has 14 hamlets many of whichsomehow or the other got left outinthedevelopmentinterventions.

Thus the village became divided along the lines of affiliation to the NGOs, headed bytwo personalities - Naranyanji (withSeva Mandir) and Jeevaba (with Ankur). Panchayat elections were also fought along these lines. While the first election

14

was won by Narayanji, the last election was won by the group led by Jeevaba. Therewere many other developmentrelated factors that might have contributed to the factionalism. The declaration of the village Chandwas (with a Brahminstrongholdandsupport ofAnkur group) as aPanchayatbears testimony tothis fact.

However, Talai vil lage had exhibited significant awareness about the need for protecting trees and forests through thevarious other developmental programmes that Seva Mandir had initiated at the village since 1982. By ensuring socialcohesion within the village, they have been protecting, with great success, plantations on private land and commonpasturelands since 1988. Seva Mandir, therefore, decided to follow up with the forest department for developing theforestland of the village. Since some people hadencroachments near the forests, the villagers proposed the forestland onthe upper reaches of the hills surrounding the village skipping the land occupied by the encroachers. This land (50 ha)became the first JFM site in the village. Til lthisdaythissite is being protectedwell.

But this protection was not without itsset of hiccups. The encroachers didtheir best to spoil the closure and tried to evenburn the grass etc. Subsequently FIRs were filed and the matter was settled. However this only widened the gap

However, around this time, the social tensions within the village was enhanced. During re-election of the FPC, Jeevabaceased to be the President. Some people alleged that the reelection was not conducted fairly as they did not have priorinformation regarding the same. Moreover, some of the houses near the JFM Site II also got cut-off from the rest of thevillage due to the influx of water following closure of the gates of the Mansi-Vakal dam. These people had set their eyesuponthegrasslandin the sitefor their animalsandhadample support ofthe Ankur group. Due to the closure ofthe accessroad to the JFM site, it also became a major hurdle to reach the site for monitoring the area. Now the only way it couldhave been protected was through social fencing and self-inhibition. But that was not going tohappen as was evident bythe destruction brought aboutby a few people byallowing their animalsto graze inside the plantedarea.

Although the villagers had forgotten their mutual distrust of each other to come together for the sake of the plantationand for gaining wage labor, yet somewhere the ambers of revenge seemed to have remained and burning. Given the

mentioned above. But once the vil lagers realized the potential for fodder output from these areas, further support wasmobilized and the village decided to work on another patch of forest land called the JFM Site II (92 ha). This happened in2003. The first year was marked by physical works like construction of the boundary wall while the second year saw theplantation activity.

15

16

nature of deep-rooted hatred and grudges between the people it was decided to put all personal issues on the backburner and talk only about the development related issues. Seva Mandir thus tried hard to bring all the parties ona singleplatform (three meetings were arranged over a period of one month) and now it seems that the issue has been resolvedgiventhatworkhasbeenproposedfor JFM Site III on 50 ha offorestland.

Through these myriad experiences it has become amply clear that the institutional dynamics are never static and acontinuous process of dialogue is what is needed to keep them in close cohesion. The forest department has often beenaccused of fail ing to make its procedures and actions participatory, while being technically perfect in the developmentworks.But somehow therehasalways been apprehensions about the approach to institutionbuilding.

With a background of 15 years in implementing the JFM programme, Seva Mandir which prides itself in its capacity toengage people at the grassroots in meaningful dialogue triedto analyze whatkindofconflicts makesthese institutions failor succeed. Though we have derived most of these experiences from Seva Mandir's own JFM efforts, the learning can begeneralized to a considerable extent. Also it has become imperative to not only study these conflicts but also to pursuethem through meaningful discourse and toengage the communities in negotiations. Therefore, it also becomes a test ofthe institutions as tohow theyrespondto external stimuli and encouragements.

This issue of encroachments on the forest lands can only be resolved if the communities and the institutions realize thecriticalityofthe commons.

We found that the process of dialogue, negotiation and conflicts have taken their own time and course. We have theexample ofKojon kaGuda that tookalmost five years before the twopartiescouldbe broughtto a platform toresolve theirissues amicably. While in some cases the issues got resolved, in others it took a while before the people could realise theimportance of reinstillingfaith in collective action. In all such cases of negotiation the role of the external agencyassumesimportance in two ways. While in some cases the agency failed to ensure the institution with adequate incentives anddisincentives, in other cases it was because of failure on the part ofthe JFM programme itself to stand uptoits promises ofimproved livelihoods. The other important role oftheagencycan be thatof a facilitator that can bring the varied and evenequal stakeholders to one common platform for the purpose of negotiation. This might not be possible if the institutionwere left along to fend for itself because of the strong cultural underpinnings, which encourage the embers of revengeand rivalryto be sustainedover aperiod oftime. The thirdrole ofthe NGOor thenegotiating agent can be that of a bridgebetween the rigid andlackadaisical forestdepartmentandthe preemptive institutions.

Good governance in land administration and effective management of agrarian relations has been considered, sincelong, to be imperative for reaching the desired level of economic growth and sustainable development. It has been anaccepted fact that socially-just access to land, land related services and security of land rights can go a long way inimproving the economic condition of the primary sector. Not only this, land reforms can change the current culture ofexclusion to enable the poor gain access to land, credit, technology, markets etc in the development of governmentpoliciesand programmes affectingtheir livelihood.

With a view tolooking into the unfinished tasks inland reforms, a committee, "StateAgrarian Relations andthe unfinishedtask in Land Reforms" has been set up under Minister for Rural Development consisting of officials from Department ofLand Resources, NGO representatives and subject matter Specialists. Seva Mandir has also been invited to be part of thesame. The recommendation of this committee would be considered by the "National Council for Land Reforms"constituted under the Prime Minister to lay down broad guidelines and policy recommendations on agrarian relationsand land reforms. The council comprises of the Ministries of Rural Development, Agriculture, Environment and Forests,Panchayati Raj, Tribal Affairs, Social justice and Empowerment, Dy. Chairman of Planning Commission, Chief Ministers ofvarious states in India like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tripura, UttarPradesh,andWest Bengal,andother eminent citizens.

17

The committee will visit the statesandhold consultationswith them in order to finalize the recommendations for effectiveimplementation of land reforms. The committee is expected to tender its recommendation to the national council withinone year of formation the deadline for which has been set as mid-September 2008. Also for the same purpose seven (7)sub-groups/task forces have been formed. Seva Mandir has been appointed to convene the group that shall worktowards (1) Ensuring access of the poor to common property and forest resources (2) To look into land use aspects,particularly agricultural land, and recommend measures to prevent/minimize conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.

One of the critical components of land reforms identified was CPRs or "Common Property Resources" which have beendefined as those resources accessible to and collectively owned\held\managed by an identifiable community and onwhich no individual has exclusive property rights. "Rural common property resources are broadlydefined as resources towhich all members of an identifiable community have inalienable use rights. In the Indian context CPRs includecommunity pastures, community forests, Govt wastelands, watershed drainages, village ponds and rivers etc. The firstthree resources are particularly important because oftheir large area and their contributionto people'ssustenance."

Presently the percentage of CPR/Total geographical area of the country is 15 %. If the Forest lands are included in thisdefinition of CPRs, then there is another 23.38 % of the country's geographical area. The beginning of the studies of theCPRs in India can be traced back to early 1980's. Studies covered a fairly large number of villages scattered over the vastarea of the country but majority of those were case studies. NSSO study, 1999 (report no 452) of the 54th round isone ofthe first attempts to provide comprehensive state- andnational- level estimates ofsize, util isationandcontributionof CPRs.It says in the pre-British India, a very large part of CPRs was freely available under the control of the local communities.Extension of state control over these resources, resulted in decay of the community management system, and CPRsavailable to the villagers declined substantially over the years. Despite this, CPRs still play an important role in the life andeconomy ofthe ruralpopulation.

However, all these studies stil l fall short of suggesting measures required to improve the administration of CPRs as well asto facilitate their development for the future generations. There are two ways of looking at CPRs: De Jure or by legaldefinition - officially allocated figures and De Facto or actual ground reality - in terms of actual usage and access whichdiffer significantly.

The second aspect onwhichthe sub-group has to give its recommendation is regardingland use- particularlyagriculturalland and recommend measures to prevent or minimize conversion of agriculture land for non-agriculture purposes. Theconversion of agricultural land intonon-agriculture use is highly debated and is attributed asone of the factors leadingtofood insecurity. On the other hand, it is also true that lot of forest land not fit for cultivation is being transferred forcultivation. There isa needto look intothiscritical aspect of landuse and suggest measures to minimize the conversion.

The purpose for which agriculture land is being transferred vary from Infrastructure development projects like roads,housing colonies; Industrial purposes like Special Economic Zones, allotment of land for bio-diesel plantations, etc.; andCommercial interests whereby due to increasing land prices farmers find it more lucrative to dispose of their agriculturallandrather than farming ontheir own.

18

19

21

Kulranjan Kujur - June 30, 200523

Keeping the sensitivity and magnitude of the problem at a more pragmatic stance is required to protect the rights of thePeople and Tiger (Ecology). This can be achieved by drawing inferences from both the views on the bill. Experiences ofSeva Mandir, a non-government organisation based in Udaipur (Rajasthan), shows an effective manner for dealing withthe issue. The experiences of the organisation could be fruitful in deeming for a consensual approach. The District(Udaipur) Statistic Book reflects that 42 per cent of land in the region is owned by the State (Forest Department). Aresearchhandled bySeva Mandir highlighted that out ofthe total forestland, 24 per centof the landis in il legal possessionbythepeopleand62 per cent ofthe encroachersare economically sound (Decolonizing the Commons, 2004).

Further, the research indicates that possession of forestlands led to hardships on small and marginal households of theregion, whose livelihood is based on these lands. To initiate development ofthese lands in the village, it is imperative thatthe ownership disputes are resolved. During the course of Seva Mandir's association with the common land, there aremany instances where encroachments have been evicted under pressure from the community for equitable distributionofbenefits from the land. Sometimes a threat bythe communitymembers to take legal action, or actually going infor legalaction, has been fruitful. Forest Protection Committees have been successful in evicting encroachments after muchpersuasion and sustained lobbying with the Forest Department to initiate legal actionagainst the encroachers. There area few cases where community members have negotiated with the encroachers to have land evicted, suitablycompensating after ascertaining socio-economic condition ofthe encroachers.Thisevictionhasbeendone irrespective ofthe nature of possession of the land prior to 25 October 1980. The major influencing factor for evicting encroachment ismakingcommon land available for community for better landgovernance.

Though the above process might sound easy, there are many debilitating factors making the process more complicated.These are socio-political considerations and conflicting motivations of the different stakeholders, complexadministrativeprocesses that make the issue even more tedious and time consuming. More deliberation is needed on the issue forhaving a systematic, people-centred approach. It won't be so straightforward to have rational information consideringthe above impediments. Generous effort is requiredfor ascertaining the periodof possession of the landand researchingsocio-economic conditions of80 millionforest dwellers.It isof paramount importance that insteadof having an emotionaloutburst on the issue, we all need to have a collective approach (government, non-government, academic and researchinstitution partnerships). This approach can generate rational information for validating the stance and addressing theissue in a moreeffective, holistic manner.

24

These are samples of what we heard when we asked people in the adivasi villages of Udaipurdistrict about their forests. The four quotes in many ways, sum up the praxis of the complexrelationship between human beings and their natural surroundings. One may shout from therooftop about how symbiotic the relationship between adivasis and nature, particularly forests, is.One mayalsotake the side oftigers and putthem on a pedestal above human beings, and demandthat all human intervention in forests be banned. One could also find peace, and logic in theintersticesbetweenthese two rooftops.

There are sufficient numbers of activists and organisations that adhere to one of the two extremepositions. This sharp divide is quite visible when one follows the debate around the proposedScheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, drafted by the ministry of tribal affairs, whichthe government of India proposes to enact. As the statement of objectsandreasons to the Bill says,"Forest dwellingtribalpeopleandforests are inseparable. One cannot survive withouttheother.

The conservation of ecological resources by forest dwellingtribal communities have been referredto in ancient manuscriptsandscriptures. The colonial rule somehow ignoredthisreality for greater

What the Billproposes

25

economic gains and probably for good reasons prevalent at the time. After independence, in our enthusiasm to protectnatural resources, we continued with colonial legislation and adopted more internationally accepted norms ofconservation rather than learning from the country'srichtraditions where conservation isembeddedintheethos of triballife. ...This historical injustice now needs correction before it is too late to save our forests from becoming abode ofundesirable elements".

The Bill sets out, in order to correct the injustice, "to recognise and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land inforest dwelling Scheduled Tribes who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not berecorded; to provide a framework for recording the forest rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for suchrecognition andvesting inrespect of forestland".

The Bill needstobe seen also in light of some measures initiated by the government of India, fifteen years ago, in the formof circulars issued by the ministry of environment and forest. These circulars, had they been implemented, would haveaddressed the 'historical injustices' inseveral ways. The six circulars issuedwith No.13-1 /90-FP dated September 18 1990are:

FP (1) Review ofencroachments onforestland

FP (2) Review ofdisputedclaimsover forestland, arising out offorest settlement

FP (3) Disputesregarding pattas/ leases/ grants involving forest lands

FP (4) Eliminationof intermediaries andpayment offair wagestothe labourerson forestryworks

FP (5) Conversionof forest villages into revenue villagesandsettlement ofold habitations

FP (6) Payment ofcompensationfor lossof life and propertydue to predation/depredationby wild animals

Of the different issues dealt with in these circulars, the current Bill covers inter alia, the issues in circulars 1, 2, 3 and 5. As aresult of faulty forest settlement processes, disputes between the revenue andforest departments and those between theforestdepartment andpeople,many villages indifferentparts ofthecountryhave beendeprivedofsome basic Rightsandfacilities. These include access to social security schemes, access to basic education, health services, infrastructure like

26

roadsor electricity - almost everything an average villager in India can take for grantedasRights (irrespective of whether itis actuallyavailable). All the while,forest dwellerscontinue to use forest resources for everydaysurvival, shelling out bribesand fines toforest officials in almostroutine regularity.

Several activists and organisationshave taken a less excited view ofthe Bill, in contrast to the two extreme positions takenby those opposing the Bill in the name of 'tigers' or supporting it in the name of 'tribals'. While accepting that Rights offorest-dwellingand-dependent communitiesare important,theyfear thattheBill maynot help inachieving this.

Among the seriousdefects ofthe Bill highlighted, is the fact that it deals with the different situations across the country asone homogeneous whole. In several parts of states like Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh forest-dwelling communitieshave been deprivedof fundamental rightsasdescribed above. However, this is not the reality everywhere. Inmany areas,encroachment of forest landby people - both out ofneedandgreed - is a burningissue. Faultysettlement of forest vil lagesand later day encroachments are two very different issues and would have required different regularisation processesand notthe blanket approach suggestedin the Bill.

It is worthwhile to note that the government of India issued a circular in early-2004, ordering regularisation ofencroachmentsup to31STDecember 1993. This circular, it is alleged, led to a new spate of encroachments, particularly bypeople withgood political or bureaucratic connections.

The Bill now proposesregularisation of encroachmentsmade before1980, thus virtuallyprivatisingpart ofthe forest land.At the same time, it wants to promote collective efforts to conserve forest resources, this through the instrument of gramsabha. How these are put into action is a matter of conjecture, in the absence of reliable records for assessment ofencroachments, and with inadequate definition of what the nature of powers vested with the gram sabha are.Furthermore, the concept ofgram sabha as the grassroots governance mechanism remains a paper-dream with very littleeffort on the part of the states to actualise what is envisaged in the 73rd amendment and Panchayat Extension toScheduled Areas Act (PESA). Empowering this institution to manage ecological resources as envisaged in the current Billis, at best, a statement ofnoble intentions.

27

28

The Jangal JameenJanAndolanisa platform of activist organisations insouthern Rajasthan that has beenin the forefrontof the struggle to obtain rights to forest land for tribal people in the region. Representatives of the Andolan have alsoplayed a role in the drafting of the Bill . As part of its preparation for implementation of the Bill when it is passed, theAndolan has identified about 17,000 claims for regularisation. We had discussions with activists of the Andolan thathelpedus understandtheir point ofview.

The villages we visited were in the operational area of Seva Mandir. They have been associated with Seva Mandir forvarying periods of time. The nature of association also varied across villages. Of the six villages we visited, three had jointforest management (JFM) mechanisms in place. The forest protection committees were functional here and already haddone work in earmarking their forest boundaries and building boundary walls. In a fourth village, the proposal for JFMwas in advanced stage of processing. Neither of the two villages in Kotra tehsil had JFM mechanisms. One of them,Adivada,falls under the Phulwari kaNal sanctuary, while the other, Hansleta, apparently isbeingproposed to beaddedtothissanctuary.

Both Pargiapada and Madia claim tohave convinceditspeople togive up the encroachmentsthey had made inthe forestportions, and brought them under JFM. While this in itself isanachievement, at least in the case of Madia the fact remainsthat the distance from the settlement to their forest (close to three kilometres) made it almost impractical for them to doanythinguseful on the encroachedplots.

In both these cases what alsocame to the fore in our discussions are the serious boundary disputes with the neighboringvillages. It sounded to us as serious conflicts with little scope for settlement in the immediate future. In case of Madia, theneighboring village of Sigri is in fact located very close to their protected forest. The people of Sigri have been regularlybreaking down the boundary wall to let their cattle infor grazing. Sigri, from whatwe understand, also has JFM promotedwithsupport from Foundation for Ecological Security.

Piplimala ismuchmore at peace with itself. Their forest consists of two distinct parts, the slopes and a plateau. The plateauhas been encroached upon in the previous generation and 22 families are now permanent residentson this encroachedportion. Other families too have farmlands in this area. The people are very clear that there is no chance of themabandoning this encroachment. They however have taken steps to form a forest protection committee (not yet

29

recognised by the forest department) and protect another patch along the slopes. The village has the experience ofmotivating people to give up encroachment on their common pastureland and developing it with the help of SevaMandir. But Khemchand the young and energetic sarpanch of Magwas gram ponchayot, also the leader of Piplimala hasno illusionsabout forests or people. He very clearly said "job tak insaon rahega, atikroman hoga hi" (As long asthere is life,there willbe encroachments).

Som is amore difficult case. Thevillagers arevery clear that the forest portionstheyhaveencroached upon are notsuitablefor growing crops. However, all of them claimed that the encroachments were necessary for them to raise their cattle asthe village did not have adequate pasturelands. Many of them mentioned landlessness as being the primary reasonbehind encroachments but on further enquiry this was linked again to land for grazing and not crop production. Somevillagersalsoreferredto the basic human need (greed) for moreland.

Adivada is a village right outside the Phulwari ka Nal sanctuary. In fact manyhouses thatwe saw were precariouslyplacedon the sanctuary boundary. This is the village where we experienced the omnipresence of the forest bureaucracy.Villagershadtopay the forest guards regularly. Inmost cases they would be told ofbeing given a receipt for the payment,but later as the guard would not have the receipt book with him at the time of paying the bribe. Villagers said thatthey donot normally cutanytree butonlycollect dry andfallenwood for fuel. They also collecthoney,gum, etc. butwouldhavetopay a fine (bribe) to get it out. However, they said that people from outside were regularly cutting wood from the forestsnear them and takingit away. Onbeing asked as to why these people were not being caught by the guards, their answerwasthat this happened at night and the guards would be fast asleep. One persondid however mention that such cuttingofwood happenedwith the guards knowing about it.

Theyalsonarrated incidentswhen they tried toprevent others from cuttingwoodor bamboofrom the forest. In one case,Lalaji an old man from the village tried to prevent a girl from another village from cutting bamboo from the forest behindhis house. He was eventually arrested by the police and had to spend more than Rs 3,000 to get out. Men and womenwhom we met repeatedlytold us that it is no usefor them trying to prevent outsiders from cutting woodinthe forests, as itwould only land them in trouble like Lalaji. As he asked, "Hamara to jimma nahi hai, hum kyon iski raksha karen?" (It is notour responsibility, whyshould we protect it?)

30

31

but collective effort supported by Seva Mandir succeeded in vacating these encroachments. Now these pasturelands are under community management, provide in large quantities what they are supposed to -fodder forcattle. This mayseem contradicting the statement made above,but it is in fact reinforcing the point made. Barawaand Nayakheda have families for whom animal husbandry is a very important source of livelihoods. And theyobviously have a vested interest in obtaining more fodder for their cattle. A resource that, as the villagers clearlyarticulate, diminishes whendivided.

o We encounteredclaims of landlessness in itsvaried formsduring these discussions. Som on one side and Hansletaon the other. Is either of these two, the reality for all times to come? Will the 'individual greed' as experienced inSom continue to be so? Andwill the 'collective spirit'of Hansleta remain sofor all days tocome even withstandingthe pressure for immediate survival?

o Except in the case of Piplimala, where the plateau in the forest had productive land, no village had any greatregardfor the quality of land in the foreststosupport increasedcrop production. Most of these were steep slopes,rocky with very little top soil or organic material and would require very high investment in bunding or terracingto put them toany productive use. What is the economic benefit tothe adivasi if such landsunder encroachmentare made regular? Other than thatof satisfying egos?

o Greed is a basic human instinct, as the villagers themselves said. Everyone wants more of what they have. Whateffortswouldbe required to motivate people to overcome greed and lookat common goodinall the villagesandnot justina few?

o In the villages where pasturelandsandforests are being seen as commons, 5eva Mandir has evidently investedinmore than a decade of concerted motivationandsupportedaffirmative action, both in removing encroachmentsand in developing the commons. In villages where such engagement is limited, people's articulation and feelingtowards the commons is limited. The correlation is stark. Seva Mandir workers and villagers seemed to feel thatorganic spread of such initiatives is limited. What does thisbode for bringing about widespread adoption of suchpractices?

o JFM couldbe an enabling mechanism for thespread of common interest inforests. Bureaucratic processes inJFMhave, however, played a serious deterrent in this. In several villages, we were unable to get a sense of whetherJFM is preferred from a long term perspective or for short term gains of wage employment. What needs to bedone to get more communities interested in JFM and the forest department more responsive to communitydemands?

32

o Wherever the forest department had a strongpresence, like in Kotra area, people were sure that the forests werenot theirs. It belonged to the department. In such areas, there were fewer encroachments. Where thedepartment had nominal presence, the feeling of ownership among people was stronger; and incidences ofencroachment larger. What do we learn from these - strengthen the department or remove it from the scene?

There are serious concerns on the efficacy of the proposed Bill or similar enactments in achieving the twin goals ofecological security ingeneralandlivelihoods security for the poor.

What looks clear tous is that a mere administrative measure of regularising encroachments on forest lands by applicationof either the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, ifandwhen it is passed or Circular FP (1) of the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests may not make life significantly better for forest-dependant communities, like those we met inJhadol and Kotra.

One could even ask if regularising of such encroachments is required at all in such areas. Would not strengthening ofmeasures like JFM and other collective management measures aid both -better conservation of the forests whileprovidingbetter access forthe people to itsproduce?

Our discussions with villagers, organisations and activists make it clear tous that the right waytoproceed is to distinguishbetween three different issues andmaking policiesto addresseach ofthese intheir specific contexts. The three issues are:

o Need for conservation offorest resources

o Recognising Rightsof forest dwellerstoa dignifiedlife

o Identifying and regularising encroachments that are legitimate and distinguishing them from opportunistic,illegitimate encroachments

Laws for thepoor?

33

The Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill is yet another legislative step in the lines of PESA and otherenactments, laden with noble intentions. We have seen how PESAhasremaineda 'paper dream'. Would not the new Bill,when made into a law, follow the same path? None of those raising their voices for or against the Bill seem to beconcernedabout this aspect.

For the moment, the debate on 'tigers vs. tribals' is l ikely to continue. Whether or not the Bill is passed, organisations likeSeva Mandir will find that their work on strengthening people's participation and ownership over forests and othercommonsis relevant,andwill continue tobe so.

Liby Johnson and Jayapadma RV have worked with rural development organisations in Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa.Over the past year, with support from National Foundation of India, New Delhi, they have been traveling across thecountry, in an attempt to understand different contexts and responses to poverty and under development, and thechallenges that NGOs facetoday. They canbe contactedat libytj@gmail.com andrvjayapadma@gail.com respectively.

34

Proclaiming correction of "historical injustice before it is too late to save our forests from becoming the abode ofundesirable elements", the Bill at one stroke seeks to return to the tribals their traditional rights on a host of issues, whichhave been at the heart of the conservation debate. At a high level meting on January 19, 2005 Prime Minister of Indiadecided that the Scheduled Tribes and Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) bill be drafted and tabled in theforthcoming budgetsessionof the parliament.

It proposes12 specific rights - "heritable but not alienable or transferable" - to tribals of forestvil lages.These include:

o Right to hold and live in the forestland under the individual or common occupation for habitation for self-cultivation for livelihood

o Right ofaccess, use or disposalof minor forest produce

o Rights of entitlement such as grazing and traditional seasonal resource access of nomadic or pastoralistcommunities

o Rights inor over disputedlandsunder anynomenclature in any state where claims are disputed

35

o Rights for conversion of pattas, leases or grants issued by any local authority or any state government on forestlandsto titles

o Rights ofsettlement ofold habitations and unsurveyed villages, whether notified or not.

o Right to protect, regenerate, conserve or manage any community forest resource which they have beentraditionallyprotectingandconserving

The Bill provides for two and a half hectare per nuclear family of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes (ST) that would beregistered jointly in the name of the male member and his spouse. Taken together, the proposed rights would entail the

involvement of the local community in conservation, insteadof leavingit to official agencies.

Existing Bill: Village gram sabha (residentsassembly) makesproposals, government officialsat district level decide.

Recommendation: Matters will be decided in village assembly. In case of disputes, a higher body will make arecommendationon resolvingthe dispute. If the dispute remains, thena finalsettlementcan take place atthe district level.

Both officials and non-officialswill beinvolved.

1. First of all this process would prove to be very cumbersome and time consuming. It may take several years to

complete.

2. Lookingtothe present state ofthe Gram Sabhas,which are non participatoryandexclusive innature, there is fear

thatthepeople wouldnot get justice but tothe contrarythe powerful and influential people willbenifit outof it.

36

37

Cut offdate

Existing Bill: 25thOctober 1980.

JPCRecommendation: 13thDecember 2005. Ceiling limit onlandclaimed

Existing Bill: 2.5 hectaresper nuclear family.

JPCRecommendation: No ceiling.

The law-abiding tribalsand non-tribals ofscheduledareaswouldconsider themselvesfoolish and wouldfollow the suit ofnon law-abiding villages immediatelyto rectify their mistake. From the peculiar behavior of JPC it appears that by the timeparliament passes the bill the deadline could well be extended to March 2010 (or any date the parliament/JPC mayconsider appropriate). Thus, thanksto JPCasithascreatedan opportunity for theinhabitants of schedule areaswhowereearlier deprived ofencroaching the forestland. Now they can grabanyamount offorestlandanytime as thisact wouldbeguaranteed by the lawmakers. Earlier encroachers should also not feel betrayed as removal of the ceiling beyond 2.5 haalsooffersthem anopportunity tobringmore andmore forestland under their possession.

The JPC was appointedafter andin lightof the enormous controversies shroudingthe bill. The JPC submitted its report onanalysis of various provisions of the bill on 23rd May 2006. Recommendations of the JPC constituted to review theproposed Tribal Bill, to extend the deadline of regularization of the encroachment and to remove the ceiling ofencroachment.I wouldliketodiscusstworelated issuesraisedby the Bill, whichare as follows:

1. All the political parties (andperhaps manycivil societyorganizations too) support this move of JPC asthe matter isconcerned to the rights of poor tribals. They all are sincerelycommitted to the cause of development of livelihoodof the poor. Definitelypoor tribals needresourcesfor development. The forestlandin the eye of lawmakers is thebest resource, which upon transfer to individual tribal households would open treasures of fortune throughfarming on such lands. So far the forestlands have failed to regenerate through state action (some times withparticipation of locals too under JFM). It is hoped that transfer of rights to individuals may result in re greening ofsuchlands.

38

2. However if we sensiblyanalyze the situation from animpartial viewpoint the JPC'sactionis tochangethe status offorestland from commontoa commodity. A commodity to harness the individual benefits. As we all know, tribalshad an intricate relationship with the forests, which is bit difficult to understand. Their farming systems are stillundergoing a process ofmaturation from their hunting gathering life style. Degradation of the their surroundingenvironment is extremely severe. Consequently, the tribal households are unable to make their living out ofagriculture andalliedfields(includingforestry)andresort to wage labour.

Most of the landunder their (il legal?) possession or to be brought under possessionisseverely degradedandissituatedinthe upper ridges. This landsurely cannot bring prosperity to them bydoing agriculture. Earlier experiences of the allottedland corroborate the fact that the allotted lands due to their bad quality were hardly of any help to the poor and thelandless. Evenfor making this land able to produce some grassand other NTFPs after a few years, we have to investatleastRs.15, 000.00 per hectare. So for making a patch of 2.5 hectare some useful a farmer has to invest roughly Rs.35, 000.00.Tribals are not even hand to mouth people.They would notbe able to make this investment at their own. We are not sure,whether along with the patta the JPC would also hand over a cheque of Rs. 35000.00 to the concerned people. Thereturnsfrom such lands would entirelydependupon the individualmotivation andregular monitoring, whichappearsbitdifficult leading to pressure of migration on the tribal households. In addition, tribals rank the lowest in terms of thedevelopment indicators; the land allotment is not the panacea to pull them out from deprivation and ill governance inother spheresofdevelopment(sayhealthand education).

Traditionally, the forest lands have existed as a common property resource where the people had well definedindividualand collective rights. Initially after the independence when Forest department took over the control of Forests, thepeoples stake in Forest management got weakened for quite some time. Nevertheless JFM programme emerged as animportanttool in reinstating the stake ofpeopleasshared responsibilityand rightover forestland. There are fair number ofexamples where tribal community itself has taken initiatives and made the encroachers vacate the forest lands to bring itin the purview of JFM with the Forest Department. Now the JPC move leaves no scope for "Joint" Forest Management.Scope exists only for addressing individual rights at the cost of traditional and community ones. It is mandate of thegovernmenttobring33%ofthe total geographical area under forests. The JPC should declare this tobe a foolishidea.

39

40

In today's politics, where palliatives have become the preference, the Tribal Bill does not seek to do anything different.What could have been a historic opportunity to address the issue of land governance in our country and building long-term community solidarity andstabilityaroundthat isbeingfritteredaway.

Issues After Forest Rights Act 2006

Section 341

I hesitate to begin,becauseI am both humbledandoverwhelmedbythe gathering today. Gatherings like this bringto theforefront the work occurring in all partsof our country by common citizens. While such activities are rarely reported in themedia, theybringhope amidsv all the destructionandsad newsone readsandseeseveryday.

Respected villagers, members of Shri Ummed Mai Lodha's family, my friends from Seva Mandir and other organisations,officersoftheForest Department, andcitizensofUdaipur...

I am indebted to you, and especially to Seva Mandir for the opportunity to present my thoughts. I do not consider myselfan expert, butit is the love ofmyfriends from Seva Mandir which has brought me here today forthis occasion.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit Talai village with Bhise saab and see the work occurring related to JFM, forestprotection, watershed, and pastureland protection. As I had mentioned earlier, any occasion to visit villages doing good

Ashish Kothari is the director of Kalpavriksha, a Pune based non-profit organisation.This key note address was delivered by him at the 8th Ummed Mai Lodha Award

Ceremony on 12 February 2007 at Vidya Bhawan Auditorium, Udaipur.th

42

work delights me because in India even today one can see a ray of hope. Today, the environmental destructionhappening in India and all over the world leaves a pessimistic view of tomorrow. Pollution is rampant all across our cities.Some villagers still have access to pure resources. People, like us, who live in cities, have to breathe polluted air and wehave to deal with water polluted to such an extentthat we must drink bottledwater. There is, as well, the challenge facingusall todayof climate change.

Human activitieshave pollutedthe environment to suchan extent that the climate, created bynature, is also changing. Itis raining when it should not be, and not raining when we needrains; summer temperatures are increasing while in UttarPradesh, the winter temperatures are decreasing at times when it shouldbe warming up. These alterations are caused bychanges occurring in the name of 'Development.' We all want to be developed; India wants to be called a developednation; America, Europe and Japan are all known as developed - but what kind of development is this? What kind ofdevelopment occurs at the expense of the forests, air and water on which our lives depend? The land both in India andabroad has been irrevocably changed as a result of development activities. The result is noticeable through mountainsmined and devoid of trees (as seen on the way to Talai village); water so polluted that it is not drinkable or even fit foragriculture or washing dishes or clothes; in Pune, the resultant air pollution has increased so much in the last few yearsthatitfeels like someone hasthrown acid intothe atmosphere.

It is not only our right to raise voices against such development, but also our responsibility to do work to save theenvironment. I am greatly inspired by all the work done by each one of the villagers honoured today and by what I haveseenat Talai.

The environmental loss occurring, affectsthe poor and the rural people the most. The wealthycan escape anywhere, anyday; but because the villagers must remain where they are, theyare impacted earlier and to a greater extent. It is thereforeyour right to fight against all the environmentally destructive activities and to question why your rights to a pureenvironment are beingtakenaway.

Several organisations, including Kalpavriksh, are undertaking work similar to Seva Mandir - working with villagecommunities - in different partsof the country. I willhighlight some successes-

43

The first is about two villages near Pune, Maharashtra named Ralegaon Siddhi and Diwre Bazar. Their names havebecome famous along withthe local worker Anna Hazare. In these two villages, the people haveaccomplished incrediblefeats by protecting the supply and storage of water within the village, constructing a check dam, achieving agriculturalgrowth and productivity, as well as advances in health and education. The results are so encouraging that villagers whohad previously migratedfrom the village are now returning totheir villages. In fact, these villages have become so famousthat they are now tourist attractions like Udaipur city. People want to know how this all happened? People want to beinspired and hear how people, formerly dependent on the government for water tankers, have been able to bring aboutsuchdramatic changesinthelast twentyyears?

Similarly inOrissa, people havebeenworking over the last10 to15 yearstoprotecttheir forests formingover 10,000 forestprotection committees. The difference these efforts have made in forest coverage can be seen by comparing currentsatellite images with those from 25 years ago. The Van Utthan Sangh in Udaipur district is a federation of more than 100villages. Also in this area, the 190 villages have come together on a platform, strengthening their ability to present theirdemands tothe government andsupport and resolve disputes with one another.

Another example is that of Nagaland; 10 to 15 years ago, despite the abundant forests, wild animals could not be founddue to large-scale hunting. Today, 100 to 150 villages have come together, banned hunting by anyone in their villages,and declared acommunity-protectedgame sanctuary. The governmentplayedno role in this activism.

In Andhra Pradesh, an NGO called the Deccan Development Society has prompted other successes. Its membership isprimarilycomprised ofsmall farmers and womenfarmers, majority ofwhom belong totheDalitcommunity.This NGOhasinitiated organic farming in 80 villages. Along with this change, they have revived the sustainable, traditional practice ofutil izingseeds available athome - bajra, jowar, rice, wheat, etc. The increase in productivity is of such magnitude that theyare supplying grains to the public distribution system. Today, local production has replaced wheat from Punjab in theration stores,benefitinglocal farmers.

I can spend the entire day providing examples from all over India. But more than these stories, I feel it is important toidentifysome of the importantchallengesfacing communities like yours in the near future.

44

The first issue is peoples' rights. If a roadis constructed in Pune, I expect the government to speakwith the local people tofind out if a road is necessary and also the effects on the surrounding environment. Those, whose livelihoods are tied tothe land and are concerned about its development, must have a right over the land. Recently the government has passeda regulation related to rights of scheduled tribes over forests. Over the last 55 years, it has been argued that tribalcommunities who have lived in the forest and cultivated the land for generations should be given back rights over suchland. While the law is good, it hurts that people do not discuss the responsibilities that accompany such rights. If peoplehave a right over the forest,thentheymust also have aresponsibility toprotectit.

Today the communities receiving awards, not only demand their rights to the forests, but also speak of the necessity toprotect that land. Theyhave led extraordinary efforts to prevent encroachment and destruction of their forests. But this isnot the case all over the country. Few people speak about the responsibilities and this is the largest challenge confrontingus. This challenge is more relevant as the law has now given rights over forests to forest people. The encroachment onforest land by outsiders and powerful villagerswithinthese communities has made the situation more complicated. Howwill the communities respondto such situations?

In states like MadhyaPradesh, Orissa, ChhattisgarhandUttaranchal, there are several instanceswherecommunities livingin the forest for hundreds of years have been denied rights over the lands; while outsiders have encroached over the lastfive to tenyears and are continuing to do soeventodaywith the hope that the new law will recognise their rights. But it isnot enough to just make sure these people are given their recognised rights. Establishing a balance between our rightsand responsibilities isa challenge in front ofallof us.

Along with this balance is deciding whether human beingshave a greater right to the natural resourcesthan the millionsof other living beings on this earth. This is the next big challenge. During my visit toTalai, I did not feel that there was anyspace left for wild animals. There may be a few cheetah, rabbits, wolves and partridges in the forests protected by thevillagers, but these numbers are much larger in the Phoolwari ka nal sanctuary, at Sariska and Kumbhalgarh. What is thereason for these differences? Have we taken over all the land available for our own usage? Is there even one hectare offorestsavailable where apeacock candance peacefully?

45

Great work is being done in some villages. I often visit Alwar to see the work of Tarun Bharat Sangh. Here in a local vil lagecalled Bhawata Kolyala, the villagers accomplished great successes in protecting the forest. Notably, they have declaredsome 800 hectares of forest as protected area, where their cattle are not allowed to graze. This forest is dedicated to thedeer, tigers and cheetahs of the forest. I bring this example to you with the hope that communities engaged in forestconservation will decide for themselvesthat it isworthwhile to leave some part oftheforests protectedfor wild life.

A third challenge is related to creating a wildlife corridor. The work of the forest protection committees mentionedpreviously in Orissa has created a forest patch rich in biodiversity. The 190 villages involved are all neighbouring villages,and their work has created a forest patch that looks like a necklace on land. This lush patch of forest helped create acorridor for the movement of wildlife which has increased the population. There are not similar projects in the villages ofUdaipur where people are as involvedin protecting their forests. Can neighbouring villages workwith each other insteadof on an individual basis? Can the Van Utthan Sonsh help join neighbouring forests just as it has brought neighbouringpeople together? AlthoughI am not aware ofthe conditionson the ground, I present a proposal inthe hope of creating anew corridor in this part ofthe country.

The fourth challenge is about self-reliance. For decades we are used to depending on others for our development. If thegovernment will not provide the help, then it will come from non-profit organisations like Seva Mandir. While we havebeen trained toexpect that either the government or non-profit organisations will provide aid, is it not our right to standon our own feet so we are capable of continuing our activities even when external institutions withdraw support? Thereare countless examples of villagers themselves successfully managing their own livelihoods, their own water and theirown land resources.

The final challenge is for residents ofa village to come together anddesign a management plan for developingthe entirevillage. Many villages have management plans for their forests and water resources. Have all the villagers sat downtogether to discuss the amenities necessary for within the next 25 years? Just as the government prepares a plan fordevelopment, we needtodo the same for the holistic development of the entire village. If the village isreceivingirrigationwater, we have to plan what crops to grow and how to improve productivity. If outsiders advise the usage of pesticidesand chemical fertilisers, we need to consider the impact it will have on our water and soil and our forests. The

46

repercussions of such actions need to be thoroughly evaluated and incorporated in our plan for overall vil lagedevelopment.

In conclusion, I wouldlike tosaythat we urban people are the cause of most of the environmentaldestruction andyet arethe ones who come to the villages and tell you what path of development to choose. It is not wrong for others to comeand inform the villages of certain processesof development, but ultimately the villagers must take on the responsibility todecide the processes they want to adopt. The biggest challenge for villages is to create a new model of vil lagedevelopment and totell the governmentandothers howtheycan helpyou.

Finally I want to congratulate the communities of Dulawato ka guda, Dhanodar, Karel, Amod, Chundawada, Raya,Parmada and Hansreta as well as Shrimati Ghisi bai, Shrimati Mani bai, Shri Kalaji, and Shri Lakhmaji who have beenhonored today. I want to thank you all for inspiring me with your work and to Seva Mandir for giving me the opportunityto behere today. 47

The Scheduled Tribes and other traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 received the assent ofthe President of Indiaon 29th December 2006.

The Act was enacted torecognize the forest rights of forest dwelling scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellerson their ancestral land and habitat which were not adequately recognized at the time of consolidation of State Forestsduringcolonialperiod aswell as in independent India althoughthey were integral to the very survival andsustainability offoresteco-systems.

The final version of the Act has incorporated many changes as suggested during the process of public comments on thedraft Act. The Joint Parliamentary Committee constituted to review the draft Act made many recommendations, whichfind place inthe final version.The Act has already been promulgated.

Some of the provisions had sparked intense concern. But of late the focus of civil society debate has been to consider theAct positively. There is a sincere attempt to move ahead and identify strategies for effective implementation. When the

48

draft rules were published and feedback was solicited from civil society, Seva Mandir in collaboration with ARAVALI -Jaipur held a consultation at Udaipur. This was attended by Govt, officials, especially from the Forest Department andNGOs. The recommendations determined through consensus were forwarded to the Ministry for consideration duringthe formulation ofrules for better implementation ofthe provisions of the Act. This article laysdown the salientfeatures ofthe Actandhighlightssome of the concernson the draftrules which were raisedby the participants.

1. Forest Rights are to be vested on members or community of scheduled tribes and other forest dwellers thatdepend on the forest or forestlands for bonafide livelihood needs but who need not exclusively or necessarilyreside onsuch forests or forestlands.

The definition offorest dwellers includes Scheduled Tribespastoralcommunities. Other traditional forest dwellers(TFD) is defined as any member or community who has for atleast three generations prior to 13th December2005 primarilyresided onandwho depend onthe Forest or forest landfor bonafide livelihood needs.

a) Right to hold and live in the forest for habitation and self-cultivation. But this right would be restricted to areaunder actual occupationandshallinno caseexceedanarea offour hectare.

b) Communityrights such as 'Nistar'.

c) Right ofownership, access, collection, use and disposal of all minor forestproduce.

d) Right for conversion of 'pattas'or 'leases'

e) Right ofsettlement and conversion offorestvillages intorevenue villages.

f) Right ofprotection, regeneration &managementof community forests.

g) Communityrights to intellectual property.

h) Right to 'in-situ' rehabilitation in cases where ST and other forest dwellers have been illegally evicted ordisplaced from forestlandprior to13th December 2005.

49

i) Other community rights of uses such as water bodies, grazing and access of nomadic and pastoralistcommunities.

3. Diversion of one hectare of forest landwhich do not involve felling of more than 75 trees per hectare for facilitieslike schools, dispensary etc with recommendation from Gram Sabha.

4. The Sub Divisional Committee will scrutinize and forward the clauses to the District Level Committee. The SubDivisional Committee willhavepower tohear appeals on the decision takenbyGram Sabha.

5. The District Level Committee will finally approve the record of past rights whose decision will be final. It also hasthe power to hear appeals onthedecisionstakenby Sub Divisional Committee.

6. There is aState Level monitoringCommittee.

7. Rights recognized in critical wild life habitats of National Parks and sanctuaries may subsequently be modified orresettled, provided that no forest right holder shall be resettled before consent of Gram Sabha for the proposedresettlement has been obtained in writing. No resettlement shall take place until facilities and land allocation atthe resettlementlocationiscomplete as per promised package.

The major concernexpressed, was regarding proper implementationof the provisionsof the Act especially with regardtothe right for self-cultivation and habitation and the role of Gram Sabha. Concern was also shown regarding the areaunder tree cover recommended by the previous National Forest Policy of 1988 vis - a - vis the provision of the current actthat rightshave to be accorded to scheduled tribes and other forest dwellers whoare in occupation of forest land prior to13thDecember 2005. If this criterion for forest landdistributionis followed, considerable forest area would be releasedforcultivation and habitation, which would further decrease the area under forests. Scattered regularization was felt as anadditional threat to forest vegetation.

To minimize this threat suggestion was incorporated in draft rules in the definition of bonafide livelihood needs . Thedefinition allowed for the felling and sale of timber for meeting sustenance needs. It was felt that such right should belimited to consumption needs of right holders and not for sale. The draft rules had incorporated right of sale of forestproduce for sustenance need. It was suggested that this right should be limited only to sale of minor forest produce.

50

Similarly, sale and quarrying of minerals should also be not included in the category of sustenance needs. To avoidscattered areas of forest land from being released for self cultivation, it was suggested that a function of the Gram Sabhashould be to negotiate with the claimants. They could either disown the existing claim on forest land in favor of fulfi llingcommunity needsor in favor of maintaining ecological stability, or compensate the claimants by recommending right onalternate forest land within the jurisdiction of Gram Sabha. The claimantsmay be accommodated in forest chunks wheremajority ofclaimants have been allotted landfor agriculture under the provisions ofthe Act. The Gram Sabha should alsohave authority to recommend settling such claimants on fringes of forestland as selected by them. This would ensureproper management of remaining forest area and the scattered claimants would also be able to benefit fromdevelopment activitiespursuedin these newly released forestareasdesignated as revenue villages.

The suggested draft rules for diversion of upto one hectare of forestland for construction of school, Anganwadi etc wasalso discussed and it was felt that this should be the last resort. Such development needs can be met in the same forestareas, whichare releasedfor cultivationandare tobe declaredas revenue villages.

Minor forest produce are the source of livelihood for tribals and other traditional forest dweller communities. It is a rightstep thattherightsfor access, collection, use and disposal has been given under theprovision of the Act for all minor forestproduce. But it was felt that disposal or sale by individual gatherers should be permitted for all minor forest produceexcluding bamboos and patta Tendu for which sale or marketing should be done through co-operatives or registeredForest Protection Committees under approvedmicro plans.

It was also suggested that wherever rights tocertainminor forest producehave been specificallyrestricted onsilvi-culturalgrounds, suchrestrictions shouldbe continued.

According to the rules, the pastoralists have to submit their claims to individual Gram Sabha. Discussion centered on thefact that the pastoralists pass through many States, Districts and Panchayats. As such it would be difficult for them to file

51

their claims with State Level Committees who would take further action for verifying their claims under the jurisdiction ofdifferent Gram Sabhas.It was felt thatimplementation ofthisprovisionwasdifficultandneededfurther deliberation.

The draft rules provide penaltiesfor offences by members or officers of authority or committees formed under Act but nopenalty or punishments is provided for contravention of duties like protectionof wild life, forests andbiodiversity etc. Thisneedsto beincorporatedinthe rules.

The Act states that it should be implemented in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for thetime being in force. It wasfelt that someclarification inrules wasneededtounderstand the implicationsof already existingActs like Indian Forest Act, Forest Conservation Act 1980, Wildlife Conservation Act and the provisions made there inwhich maydefeat the entire purpose ofthenew legislation.

As a follow upto the Udaipur-levelconsultation, a few of the importantrecommendations were forwarded to the Ministryfor inclusion as rules to be enacted for implementation of provisions of the Act. We are not sure whether they will findfavor with the policy makers. However, the outcome of the consultation process was that NGOs of the region havebecome familiar with the provisions of the Act; they would perhaps take an active role in its implementation; and help inmaking the Gram Sabha members understand their role in implementation such that people residing in the forest gettheir due rightsas envisagedintheAct.

52

Empowering Communities for Forest GovernanceS.N. Bhise and Vivek Vyas - March 31, 2008

53

4. Rights for conversion of pattasor leases or grantson forest land.

5. Conversion of all forest villages intorevenue villages.

6. Right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community forests resource which they have beentraditionallyprotecting.

7. Right ofaccess tobiodiversityor communityright to intellectual property.

8. Right to in-situ rehabilitationincluding alternative land where scheduled tribes or traditional forest dwellers havebeenillegally evicted without receiving legal entitlement torehabilitation prior to 13th day ofDec 2005.

The vesting of forest rights under this Act, with respect to forest land shall be subject to the condition that the scheduledtribes or other traditional forest dwellershadoccupiedforest land before 13thdayofDecember 2005.

The Forest RightsCommittee ofeach Gram Sabha after recovering the above referred claims will examine the claims, lookinto the evidence, visit and survey the site, demarcate, and then would put its recommendation for the claims before theGram Sabha. The Gram Sabha would then approve/disapprove the claims and would forward them with theirrecommendation to the Sub-Divisional Committee who in turn would send it to the District Level Committee who wouldfinalize the claims. The District and Sub-Divisional Committees are supposed to raise awareness through workshops andother meansandsensitize officialsandthe public, and membersof Gram Sabha about the provisions ofthe Act.

After the Act and Rulescame intoforce, the Rajasthan state government initiated activities at the Panchayat samiti level toinitiate and plan implementation of the provisions in the field. The first step was the election of Forest Rights Committee(FRCs) through the general assembly of the Gram Sabhas, who would be receiving claims of forest rights from theresidents of the concerned Gram Sabha. The forest department is supposed to play the role of a watchdog as well asfacilitator, givenits role in the various Sub-Committees who shall preside over the crucial decisions being made at variousjunctures.

54

55

an essential requirement so that eligible claimants will get their due rights. Need of the hour is that people should also bemade aware about theconcept of land use wherein the decisionabout defining the classification of landshouldbe basedon, firstly, the land capability and, secondly, the subsistence needs of the population. For e.g conversion of land-usepattern of the upper reaches of a hill from forest land to agriculture land might not yield much to the tiller and might endup damaging the ecology and watershed health ofthe region. Thus in a nutshell the focus would be on capacity buildingof members of Forest Rights Committee on the right interpretation and implementation of the Act for making itcommunity friendly.

This includes supporting Gram Sabha and Forest Rights Committee to settle claims as per their vision giving specificreasons for approval or rejection - this may include negotiation with claimants who claim land with low ecologicalcapability and/or scatteredpatchesandreallocate them on other suitablesites which maybe against the provisionsof Actbut will be in the interest of forest wealth and ecology. This might involve decisions which rationalize or balancecommunity land use and individual stakes. This also might require working on an action research mode to optimize thedecisions made so that they incur minimal ecological damage and at the same time are able to settlecommunity/individual rightful claims. Thus in a nutshell ideally our focus shall be on land use planning for the wholevillage taking the use of forest lands as CPRs for the coming generation. Therefore the approach suggested is to go for abalancedwin-win model (livelihood securityand conservationof ecology- not oneat the cost oftheother).

Finally, we would like to evolve a roadmap for dealing with all the land use related issues in the future and guidelines forclaim settlement. This would also include supporting the Gram Sabha in solving inter-village conflicts. Conflict Resolutioncan be based onproven methodologies and participatoryexercises like PRAsandRRAsto make collective decisionsaboutthe veracity of the claims. We also propose 'continuous dialoguing' as a guiding principle instead of for confrontationwhich would onlywiden the gap between the enactorsand the beneficiaries.

One of the major learnings can be through Processdocumentation of these activities, in few villages/regions, sothat theymaybe replicated/emulated.

56

About the Authors

57

Seva Mandir a secular,not-for-profit organization is working

for the empowerment oftribal communities in

Rajasthan, in Western India.Seva Mandir works with nearly600 village communities with

interventions in Education,Natural Resource Management,

Village Institution building,Women's Empowerment andHealth and Early Child Care.

More than 70,000 householdsare associated with

Seva Mandir's activities.

Seva Mandir,www.sevamandir.org

Old Fatehpura,Udaipur, 313004Rajasthan, India

Ph: +91 294 2450960 / 2451041Fax: +91 294 2450947

email: info@sevamandir.org