Presentation1 arv

Forest PolicIES in Colonial AND POST-COLONIAL India. :

Forest PolicIES in Colonial AND POST-COLONIAL India. Presented by Prashant Ranjan and Arvind Suraj .

Some facts..:

Some facts.. About 65% of the forest cover is in 187 tribal dominated districts, out of 50 districts which have dense forest cover, 49 are tribal districts. ( MoEF ). About 260 million people live below poverty line, out of which 100 million are partially or wholly dependent on forests, out of which 70 million are tribals . (FSI). Out of the total number of forest fringe villages of the country, 60 percent belongs to the Central Indian states. Similarly more than half of the forest area of the forestfringe villages of the country is in these states, so are the forest dwelling and dependent populace. Source:-http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/india-map-forest.jpg

Narratives behind Tribal and Forest Laws.:

Narratives behind Tribal and Forest Laws. Two conflicting narratives always have been used to describe the relationship between tribals and forests in India. One narrative picture depicts that tribals as encroachers on government forest land and thus an impediment to the protection of forests(encroachment school of thought). Second narrative picture argues that the Indian tribes are intimately connected to the forest-this being their natural habitat-and are thus the prime protectors of the forests(natural School of thought). The encroachment school had in the upper legislation of forest legislation.

Foerest Policy before Colonial period.:

Foerest Policy before Colonial period. There is enough evidence to show that dense forests once covered India. The stories are linkages to forests with mythological beasts( Danavas and Rakshas ) and later later as refuge for dacoits kept poachers out of forests and prevented out of exploitation. Religious hub as a large no of ceremonies were focused on trees and trees since the beginning of civilization of ancient times. Before 1800 resources fell under two broad social system Tribal and agrarian:- Kautilya Jurisprudence Ashoka and the decline of Mauryas . ( 5 th pillar Edict)

British Forest Policy in India : 1800-1947.:

British Forest Policy in India : 1800-1947. British Forest Policies in India devolved from or were framed to provide to the colonial agenda of extracting the maximum profit from its colonies. At the beginning of the 19th century more than two-thirds of the land mass in India was lying uncultivated (Singh, 1986). The British presence from the late 18th century onwards started making a difference to land and forest usage in India. Guided by commercial interests the British viewed forests as crown lands, limiting private property rights only to continuously cultivated lands. 1864-Creation of the Indian Forestry Service 1867-First Forestry students from India are sent to Germany and France

Contd..:

Contd.. Forest Act, 1865. Forest Act, 1878 Forest Act,1894 Forest Act, 1927

Motives behind the early clearance of forests and policies adopted to achieve this. :

Motives behind the early clearance of forests and policies adopted to achieve this. To increase revenue by extension of agriculture which was a prime and consistent source of revenue. To increase political control by increasing land under settled cultivation which was easier to administer than forests and wastelands. To meet increase in demand for timber for building dockyards, barracks, ordnance factories, and later and most importantly railway construction. To meet increase in demand for fuel for steamships, townships and later railways.

The impact Of Colonial Forestry. :

The impact Of Colonial Forestry. Colonial forestry has had wide ranging consequences. Apart from enriching the British and their collaborators, the impact was tremendously negative.. The Forest Department’s revenues rose from Rs.5.6 million in the five years between 1869-1874 (or Rs.1.12 million per annum approximately) to Rs.56.7 million in the two years between 1924-25 (Rs.28.35 million per annum approximately). The surplus or profit rose from Rs.1.7 million in the five years between 1869-1874 (or Rs.0.34 million per annum approximately) to Rs.21.3 million in the two years between 1924-25 (Rs.10.65 million per annum approximately). Between 1869 to 1925, annual revenues grew twenty five times, and profit grew thirty one times.

Forest policies in post-colonial era.:

Forest policies in post-colonial era. It was only in 1952, four years after Indian independence, that a new forest policy (FP) was launched . It was based on paramount National needs . This new policy was heavily indebted to the colonial 1894 NFPC and the 1927 IFA.

Contd..:

Contd.. Article VI of the 1952 policy is most enlightening: Two considerations, (1) Neighboring areas are entitled to a prior claim over a forest and its produce. (2) Agricultural requirement has a preferential claim over forest land. Going even further than the 1927 IFA, the 1952 FP (in the sixth and seventh articles)blamed forest dwellers for the destruction of India’s forests.

Contd..:

Contd.. Article XXI of the new policy contains once again a strong denunciation of the pasture practices of forest fringe villagers (“All grazing in forests, particularly unlimited or uncontrollable grazing, is incompatible with scientific forestry ” ). ArticleXXIII cites shifting cultivation, practiced by the “aborigines,” as “age-old and wasteful practices .” Forests were classified on a functional basis into:- ( i ) Protection forests, (ii) National forests, (iii) Village forests, and (iv) Tree lands.

NFP 1952 and civil society movements: Direction of new policies. :

NFP 1952 and civil society movements: Direction of new policies. The exceedingly strong language of the 1952 FP created a reaction from proponents of the natural school. Critiques by Verrier Elwin(advisor on tribal affairs to the Government of India). In A New Deal for Tribal India, he derides the “constant propaganda” that claims that “the tribal people are destroying the forest . In addi tion to Elwin, Ghandians such as Madeleine Slade (better known by her given name of Mira Behn ) tried to call attention to the plight of forest villagers under the postcolonial forest policy . Other Ghandians like Chandi Prasad Bhatt and Sunderlal Bahuguna were instrumental in organizing one of the most fêted environmental movements in India and the world: Chipko .

New concept :Social Forestry. :

New concept :Social Forestry. It defined a set of activities, which encouraged the growing of trees outside the forest reserve to supply fuel wood and other products to local people, and to reduce the burden on production forestry. Community forestry gained momentum and World Bank support in the National Commission on Agriculture’s acknowledgment of the importance of “ social forestry ” in 1976 ( a result of Chipko’s efforts, did nothing to supplant the image of the tribals as encroachers on official forest land_..) Social forestry programs pertained to afforestation not in state forests but in common lands outside the official state forests . Thus the new program can be regarded as a scheme to extend forest department control into new territories .

1980 Forest (Conservation) Act:

1980 Forest (Conservation) Act It was launched “with a view to checking further deforestation….” The act restricts the state governments power to de-reserve a forest, and it also restricts the use of forestlands for non-forestry purposes without the prior approval of the central government . The Act als o describes the penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act and also directs the Central Government to constitute a committee consisting of such number of persons, as it may deem fit, to overlook the same . The Act stated that the State could not without previous consent of Central Government assign by way of lease or otherwise any forestland to any private person, authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned or controlled by the Government. Clearing of naturally grown trees for afforestation purpose could be done only after prior approval of the Central Government.

Contd..:

Contd.. The resolution had a special article on tribal people and forest. It was stated that having regard to the symbiotic relationship between the tribal people and forest, all agencies responsible for forest management should see that the tribal people are closely associated in the protection, regeneration and development of forest so as to provide them gainful employment.

National Forest Policy 1988.:

National Forest Policy 1988. T he image of the tribal as encroaching naturalist, reminiscent of the 1894 FP resolution, came back with a vengeance in the National Forest Policy (NFP) (1988). It proclaimed that forests were not to be commercially exploited for industrial purposes, but they were to conserve soil and their environment and meet the subsistence requirements of local people . Environmental conservation gains priority over revenue generation. The new policy linked phrases such as a “symbiotic relationship between tribal people and forests” with strong language against shifting cultivation (“ shifting cultivation is affecting the environment and productivity of land adversely” ). And discourse on the “willing support… of the people” is set in contrast to connections between customary use, encroachment, and forest fires.

Contd..:

Contd.. Interesting in this regard is that from 1988 onwards the competing narratives would remain embedded forever in Indian forest policy: the goal being to stop encroachment and to minimize human (tribal) use of the forests by maximizing tribal involvement in this process through community.

Contd..:

Contd.. The choice to battle forest degradation and encroachment through people’s involvement, even disregarding problems in the implementation phase, did nothing to change the mindset of most foresters, as the goal of the program itself—saving forests from encroachment is still deeply imbued with the image of the tribal as encroacher. Rationale behind community forestry:- involving people so they will not encroach on forest tracts under community protection, was still lodged in the belief that these people would otherwise encroach freely, as it was in their nature to do so . The foresters moreover feel backed by international conservationist NGOs who, willingly or not, often stress the need for pristine habitats, devoid of human habitation. The persistent degradation of forests also strengthened calls for more protection and more restricted access to forest resources

Forest Rights Act 2006.:

Forest Rights Act 2006. After a long public debate for more than a year since tabling in the parliament on 13 December 2005, the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2005 which was re-christened as “The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006” was passed in the parliament, lower house of Indian parliament, on 13Dec. 2006. President of India assented to the Bill on 29 December 2006 and the Act came into force. Faced stiff opposition from some environmentalists and Ministry of Environment and Forest.

Contd..:

Contd.. Rationale behind the stiff opposition is that implementation of the bill will result in the depletion of the country's forest cover by 16 per cent. This is despite the fact that over 60% of the country's forest cover is found in 187 tribal districts where less than 8% of national population lives. This reflects the culture of the tribal peoples to conserve forest.

Contents of the law.:

Contents of the law. Provides a basic framework for three matters:- Eligibility, Rights and Process. Eligibility:-Two stages of of eligibility. First,any clamaint has to show that they “primarily reside in forests”and that they depend on forests and forest land for a livelihood( bonafied livelihood needs). Second,the claimant has to prove either that the above conditions have been true for 75 years.(for a member of ST community in the area which they are sheduled . As stated in sections 2(c)and 4(I).)

Contd..:

Contd.. Rights:- 3 basic types of rights are recognised To land of various types , with a cutoff date of December 13,2005 and if no other documents are present , a ceiling of 4 hectares per family. To minor forest produce, waterbodie , grazing grounds, etc. as traditionally used: and Finally, to protect and conserve forests and wildlife.

Contd..:

Contd.. The process:- Section 6 of the Act provides a 3 step procedure for deciding on who gets rights.(Screening committee at 3 stages;see figure.) The above process empowers the local communities in management of their natural resources in tune with the provisions of the PESA Act 1996. PESA stands for Panchayats Extension to Schedule Areas Act.

Problems with the Act.:

Problems with the Act. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 provides ownership and usage rights not only to tribals , but to all forest dwellers.. In effect, it qualifies not just tribals , but anyone who can establish residence in forests before 12 December 2005, to own land It will create competition for the same forest land among scheduled tribes, local non- tribals , settlers, migrants, encroachers At approximately 4 hectares per tribal family, India doesn’t even have enough forest land to accommodate all existing forest dwellers! ( 67 million hectares of remaining forest land, divided by 80 million tribals and forest dwellers as of 2005 )

Contd..:

Contd.. Further, the Forest Rights Act does not incorporate effective control mechanisms:- There is nothing to protect the forest land from being sold off through unrecorded assignments. The Act effectively takes away management of forests, including reserve forests & sanctuaries which are a national resource, from both the tribals and the forestry departments and hands it over to “Gram Sabhas ” or village panchayats . Trapped in a cycle of poverty & exploitation, tribal people will not be able to generate the resources to get the education, health or development opportunities they want and deserve.

Some views..:

Some views.. Report in The PIoneer dated 24 August 2007: “Senior Congress leader and AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh dropped a bombshell when he disassociated himself from the controversial Forest Rights Act passed by the UPA Government last December”. Ashish Kothari of Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group writing in The Hindu of 26 August 2007 says: As it now stands, the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest-Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 is likely to have very mixed results, with some substantial gains by adivasis and forests, and some disastrous losses.”

So far 3 broad phases…:

So far 3 broad phases… Forest Rights in Independent India Post-colonial forest management in India can be classified under three broad phases; I Phase: 1947 to early 70s Forest for achieving national objectives - commerce, industry and agriculture - no space for locals. II Phase: 1970s to mid 80s Conservation pitted against livelihoods, powerful instruments for conservation developed. III Phase: 1988 till date Forest a local resource, partnership, complimentarity of conservation and livelihoods.

Changing Nature of Definition and classification.:

Changing Nature of Definition and classification. Changing nature of definition of forests and the classifications obstructed determination and settlement of forest rights. Indian Forest Act 1865, defined forest as a ‘land covered with trees, brushwood and jungle’ – Supreme Court 1996 – Forest is an extensive area covered by trees and bushes with no agriculture. MoEF , 2007 - Forest is “an area under Government control notified or recorded as forest under any Act, for conservation and management of ecological and biological resources”.

Some conclusions…:

Some conclusions… • Need to recast FR Act as per PESA provisions. • PESA be made the basis for tribal law making and to have overriding powers. • Central committee to review PESA and the State laws be changed as per PESA. • A paradigm shift in forest policy making that would balance conservation, development and livelihoods. • Need for clear and common understanding on definition of forests, forestland and forest area. • Major problems relating to forest rights have been caused due to lack of forest settlement. Therefore, claim settlement through proper procedure before declaration of Government forests.

Contd..:

Contd.. Support systems for developing and promoting forest based livelihoods including minimum support system for MFP be strengthened. In all the forestry support programmes in a schedule area, Gram Sabha to play a decisive role. On priority basis, forest settlement process has to be initiated that would help define forest rights as well as enable the deserving to benefit from the FR Act. Forest area outside reserve forests should be clearly delineated on ground to know the extent of forest rights. Forest usage pattern to be assessed to develop written rights and concessions to establish forest rights in case of dereservation .

References.:

References. Sundar Nandini (2009); Legal Grounds: natural resources, identity, and the law in Jharkhand Oxford university press( New Delhi), Suykens , Bert(2009) 'THE TRIBAL-FOREST NEXUS IN LAW AND SOCIETY IN INDIA', Critical Asian Studies, 41: 3, 381 — 402. Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs. 2005. Note on the “Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill.” New Delhi: Government of India.

Slide 32:

Thanks and fuck off