Lost in the Jungle

A NOTE ON THE FOREST RIGHTS ACT

Samata

INTRODUCTION

As far as the implementation of Forest Rights Act is concerned the state misses the opportunity to converge several factors with regard to adivasi people and the forests and proceeds as if it were yet another welfare scheme. In particular:

• The Forest Rights Act should be implemented in total.
• Proper surveys should be conducted within a reasonable time frame.
• Tribal people should benefit from this process, particularly those who do not have other sources of livelihood.
• Some major issues that have been identified with regard to the adivasi-land relationship need to be considered, such as a) the tribal population has increased since 1951, whereas land availability has declined, b) a lot of land has also been transferred towards development projects like constructing dams, industries, and for mining activities, and c) the expansion of non-tribal population in the neighbouring areas will also eat into land availability. Keeping these in mind, the Act makes it easier for the tribal communities to earn a livelihood by cultivation rather than shifting to other areas of employment.

AMBIGUITY

In several instances the Forest Rights Act is surrounded by ambiguity. For example, in Hukumpeta and Paderu mandals of Vishkapatnam District of Andhra Pradesh the people are still not very clear about the Act. In fact, in many villages the Forest Rights Committee has put forth a demand for a resurvey and in a few places resurveys are taking place. People demanded resurveys in areas where they were dissatisfied with the way that the surveys were initially conducted; apparently, the government officials did not go into the forest areas to measure the land under cultivation. The officials only surveyed the forest areas close to the villages and left out areas cultivated even a short distance from the village. Furthermore, the claimants say that the allocated lands are less in area than they claimed for.

The confusion continues in the matters of forms A and B to be filled in by the claimants. These are two different formats of filing an application for a claim over land in the forest area. Form A pertains to individual pattas for land which is cultivated by individual families; this primarily includes land under podu cultivation (shifting agriculture). Form B is applicable to community pattas, on land which is commonly used by the entire community. The official records state that few claims have been made for community pattas; the villagers claim that they were unaware of this provision of community pattas.

The government departments entrusted with the implementation of the Act are also unsure of providing individual lands and community lands. The Forest Department pushes for the Community Forest Management lands to be categorized under community lands; in some cases they deny the same proposition as it hinders individual claims. The government is divided on its stand and views about the Act. The two major departments of the government who were given the responsibility of implementing the Act were the Forest Department and the Revenue Department. Unfortunately, the age old conflict between them causes a setback in the implementation and the settlement of pattas proceeds haphazardly. Differing opinions about the methods to conduct a survey is also an obstacle. The maximum area being cultivated by an average household is not more than 3 to 5 acres (1-1.5 ha) equal to about one and a half hectares (the Act sets a maximum limit of 4 hectares). The Department is in favor of using the latest technology (GPS) for surveying the lands for efficiently. The people want the survey done in the traditional way as it provides scope for participation of the community; it is also visible, understandable and amenable to instant corrections.

THE FOREST AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS

The Forest Department feels that the Act has completely neglected the environmental aspect as it is not in line with the national forest policy inmaintaining 33% of land area under forest cover (Indian Forest Policy, 1952). The FRA will lose forest lands to cultivation, which in turn might create loss of species of medicinal importance. Moreover, it will lead to soil erosion and depletion of flora and fauna. The Department does not believe that the Act will be of much benefit to the beneficiary communities as these lands are not suitable for podu cultivation; however it ignores the cultural link between tribal heritage and podu cultivation.

The Revenue Department is in favor of the Act and granting title deeds to the forest dependent communities. They have all the records regarding the number of claims (by individual families, villages, Panchayats, and Mandals); they also acknowledge that it is the right of these communities to get land titles as they have been residing and cultivating these lands for more than 30 to 40 generations.

This tussle between the Forest and Revenue Departments is one of the main reasons responsible for the ambiguity, confusion, and the delay in implementation of the Act. Many people believe that “the government departments did not carry out the surveys properly out of laziness. As most of the land under podu cultivation are on hill slopes, they did not bother to take the effort. Instead, they only surveyed the forest area near the village settlements; there are several villages which are located within the reserved forests”

The government caused many problems to the people by trying to push them off their land. In this context Samata negotiated with the Forest Department to involve them in the JFM program. Now with the new Act, the situation in these villages has again become confusing. They had lost their land to the VSS under the Resettlement Action Plan Scheme, and VSS still holds that land. Their villages should be recognized and they should receive pattas for their lands.

The main problems identified in the Act are:

1. First, the inclusion of the category, “Other Forest Dwellers”, particularly in the context of Scheduled Areas such as Andhra Pradesh. Using this Act, many non-tribal people will claim rights over forest land. But the law clearly says that in a scheduled area non-tribal people do not have any right to own land (Fifth Schedule).

2. Second, there are issues with the time frame for the implementation of the Act. In its hurry to give land to the people, the government has not properly surveyed the land.

ROLE PLAYERS AND STAKEHOLDERS

Looking at forest management as a process involving various stakeholders, the following analysis emerges:

Government: Forests is a subject of the Union and hence a concern of the Central GovernmentHowever, for effective management, each state has its Forest Department responsible for the preservation and management of forests (in this case the APFD). The government, particularly the Central Government, is a very important stakeholder in forest management; it also wields much power and influence in the process.

Forest Department: The APFD has an obvious stake in forest management because it is responsible for the conservation of forests in AP, maintaining a vegetative cover, and preventing soil erosion. But the State Forest Departments are subordinate to the laws made by the Central Government. Therefore it is the Central Government that has more power with regard to forests and forest management as compared to the states.

Revenue Department: The Revenue Department is the administrative wing of the State Government and responsible for control and transfer of land, issuing of titles/pattas. Thus with regard to the Forest Rights Act it becomes an important stakeholder.

ANDHRA PRADESH FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (APFDC)

APFDC focuses mainly on development activities in the forest like coffee plantations, etc. The Forest department is not involved in coffee plantations as it is prohibited to transfer forest land for non-forest purposes. The Coffee Board also plays some role here with regard to marketing of coffee. These may be important stakeholders, but they do not exercise much influence in forest management decisions.

GIRIJANA COOPERATIVE CORPORATION (GCC)

The GCC is an important body of the government responsible for the procurement and marketing of non-timber forest produce (NTFP). The government fixes a particular rate at which the GCC procures the NTFP from the forest dependent communities. However, over time it has led to a monopoly of the GCC as private buyers are willing to buy only at a lower rate. The people and the gram sabha do not have much bargaining power with the GCC. The GCC being a body of the government exercises monopoly over the sale and purchase of NTFP. Therefore in a sense it makes the government’s stake more powerful.

PRIVATE COMPANIES

Private companies like Birlas, Jindal, Posco, and others have been interested in forests for the rich mineral reserves that the forests have. With regard to Visakhapatnam District, a lot of mining leases have been sold to private (including foreign) companies. Such an act is completely banned in a Scheduled Area (Samata Judgment, 1997). Despitethis, mining leases are sold to private companies in the name of the government, ‘Benami’ contracts. Private companies are motivated by self interest and the growing government-corporate nexus has led to these companies having an important say in forest management.

WORLD BANK AND FOREIGN AGENCIES

The World Bank has been interested in forest management in developing countries like India, Africa, Cambodia, and other countries. The World Bank explicitly states that effective forest management is essential for the goal of poverty reduction and environment conservation is essential for achieving the Millennium Development Goals set by the UN. However, the World Bank forest programs have been under a lot of criticism. The Bank has also been criticized for financing large scale logging operations in several countries. The revised forest strategy of the bank focuses on both ‘Protection’ and ‘Productive use’.

NGOS AND CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS

This category of stakeholders has a stake in people and not a direct stake in forests and forest management. These organizations raise a voice in favor of the people to help them achieve greater control over natural resources. Though important in the process and holding immense potential, they have not been able to influence forest management decisions to a very large extent. Their limitation is that they can only act as facilitators; it is the people affected who have to participate in the struggle for their rights.

TRIBAL COMMUNITIES

Tribal communities are the most important and yet the most neglected stakeholders in the forest management. They are also the most powerless and exercise the least influence in decisions and policies regarding forest management. A major cause is their non-literacy and political articulation at the national level.

The paradox lies in the fact that the group which has the biggest stake wields the minimum power. In addition, the Act gives a usufruct right but not legitimate ownership; the claimants can enjoy using the land and can transfer it to their progenies but are not entitled to dispose it. In a way this safe guards them from certain threats but not from losing it to the state under the proposition of d e v e l o p m e n t projects. It is therefore important to listen to what people like Vasant ([tooltip content=”An adivasi view of the Act Vasanth Kumar, a tribal youth said that they calculate the amount of land through the quantity of crop yield and not by physical space alone. This aspect has been totally ignored in the Act and in its implementation. “The intricate relation between podu lands and us is that all aspects of our life and is interwoven with the forest and the utilization of forest; podu is a major niche in that. All civilization and domestication began with that. Now a mere Act of Forest Right cannot look into this process of life and living by just measuring and granting bits and pieces of land and pretend they have done us a favour. An Act which says enjoyable rights but not hereditary or permanent is nothing as we are still perceived as stewards of this land only, and the state can take it away from us in the name of development at any time” The general perception of the people regarding the Act is that now at least they will get official rights and titles over the forest land where they have been residing and cultivating for generations. They want to receive the right over the land as soon as possible. After getting pattas, they would most probably carry out podu cultivation on this land, mainly ragi and other pulses. Most of the beneficiaries said that they would prefer individual pattas over community pattas. They feel that if people have individual rights over something, they take good care of it and it is the same with land.” url=”” ]see Box[/tooltip]) about forests, policies and their management