Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Tribes,Forest Ifs Ak
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Tribes,Forest Ifs Ak

726
views

Published on

The presentation questions the current and future policy directions with respect to the Scheduled Tribes and Forest in India. It also suggests a model for future direction. …

The presentation questions the current and future policy directions with respect to the Scheduled Tribes and Forest in India. It also suggests a model for future direction.
This presentation was made to the senior Indian Forest Officers in Indira National Forest Academy,Dehradun

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
726
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
41
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Forest Land and Rights of Tribal March 16, 2010 Dr. Avanish Kumar Public Policy Management Email: [email_address]
  • 2. Its not to freeze, but to show future dynamism
    • Erosion of Forest Land Or Traditional Rights of the Tribal ?
    ?
  • 3. Key Concerns
  • 4. Development Social Inequity Source: Planning Commision,2008 Incidence of overall under-nutrition (under weight) is significantly higher among ST children than among others. ST children also have a much higher incidence of anaemia. Incidence of stunting and wasting much higher among ST children. The proportion of ST children, aged 12-23 months who received basic vaccinations, is much lower than the rest of the population. 18% STs 51 % Deliveries in a health facility 43.8 STs 36.1 Infant mortality rate (2005/6 National Family Health Survey 3 ) 47% Rajasthan 37% Orissa 37% Andhra Pradesh 52% Chhattisgarh 41% Madhya Pradesh 41% Jharkhand 28% Bihar 47% Overall for tribal people 65% Proportion of literates (Census 2001 National Average
  • 5.
    • Approx. 900 Tribes (8.2%)
    • STs traditionally lived in about 15 % of the country’s area.
    • Forest Dept. controls 23 % the country’s territory
    Tribes, Forest and Spatial Inequity North East Low(< 20%) Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Rajasthan Moderate (20 to 30 %) West Bengal, Maharsshtra, Assam, U.P. (including Uttaranchal) High (30 to 50%) Orissa, Jharkhand, M.P. (including Chattisgarh) Extremely High (>50%) Spatial Conclave Incidence of Poverty among STs
  • 6. Report of National Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, Government of India, 2005 Health Inequity
  • 7. Forest, Land, Tribes & Occupation
    • 70 % of their total income is from collection and marketing of MFP.
    • Only 3.5 % of the total employment in the group of A and B
    • About 35% of STs are below the poverty line
    • Out of 58 districts , which have 67 % of forest cover, 51 happens to be tribal districts.
      • A survey of 2001-03 forest cover shows net increase of 321,100 ha in tribal districts.
    ? 11.76 38.04 Other Workers 1.04 2.56 Household Industry 32.69 19.66 Agricultural Labourers 54.50 39.74 Cultivators Amongst STs Amongst total population Items (Distribution in %)
  • 8. Tribes Development is not necessarily forest Dependent/Philanthropy Low Cost Technology, Equitable Market and Inclusive Policies Strengthen Culture Nature Nurture
  • 9.
          • On one hand by inequalities in contemporary living conditions, &
          • On the other, by real threats to the prospects of human life in future.
    One of the Key Concern is…
  • 10. Rights of the Scheduled Tribes
    • 13 listed forest rights includes rights
      • to land under individual and communal occupation for habitation or self cultivation
      • Usufructs & grazing including the right to protect, regenerate and/or conserve/manage
      • Settlement of disputed claims, pattas/leases, and conversion of forest villages to revenue villages ( as per 1990 circular)
      • Rights over minor forest produce, intellectual property rights on traditional knowledge &
      • Habitat & habitation rights of primitive tribal groups and pre-agricultural communities.
    • These rights are
      • Heritable but not alienable
      • Subsistence and livelihood purpose, &
      • Not for exclusive commercial use
  • 11. Policy Assumptions Before 31 st December 2008 and After 4 th November 2009 - ? Homogeneous Management Capability Panchayat “ Whose Brain & Brawn” Homogeneous demands of forest/land products Tribes “ Stomach of Poor” Homogeneous Supply of public good Forest “ Lungs of Earth” Assumptions Stakes
  • 12. Key Challenges
  • 13. Contextualizing Tribes and Forests Incentives Adopted from Olson Forest Tribes Key Incentives Purposive incentives - Accomplishment of a significant goal for the common good Solidarity incentives - Intangible rewards available only to coalition members Material incentives -Rewards of money, products, jobs, collective platform
  • 14. Contextualizing Tribes & Forests Partnership Adopted form Ostrom High Medium Low Key Activities Dispersion - extent to which members live in geographic proximity to one another Homogeneity - extent to which overlaps in knowledge, interest, status Multiple Function - extent to which social relationships serve economic and emotions Reciprocity - extent to which resource/support are both given and received
  • 15.
    • … why incur costs when the benefit is provided to all regardless of who participates/contributes?
    Contextualizing Tribes & Forests Participation Costs of participation with respect to time Benefits C Less cost high benefits A ? High cost, equal benefits B End
  • 16. Value of Public Good + Selective Benefits - Cost of Participation = Individual Benefits Contextualizing Tribes & Forests Concern and Consequence
  • 17. 165 Districts Now 222 Contextualizing Tribes & Forests Concern and Consequence
  • 18. Common Endeavor
  • 19.
    • According to Fried, tribes…“are the product of specific political and economic pressures emanating from already existing state-organized societies.”
    Target & Definitional Challenges
  • 20. Rethink Definition of the ST
    • Primitive Traits – What is the expression of
    • Geographically isolated
    • Distinct culture
    • Shyness of contact with community at large
    • Economically backward
    Communities are notified as ST under Article 342 of the Constitution based on the following Characteristics
    • Not Primitive Traits
    • Geographically Knitted
    • Distinct culture
    • Symbiotic contact with community at large
    • Economically not backward
    After 40-50 years
  • 21. Evolve a New School of Thought Realistic Tribes & Peasants exercise sovereign rights over woodland Populist Guha,1990 State Management of ecologically sensitive & strategically valuable Forest, allowing other areas to remain under communal system of management Pragmatic Total State Control over forest Annexationist
  • 22.
    • Scientific & Local Realities
    • Equity and Environment Principles
    • Short Term & Long-term Interest
    Realistic School of Thought require Three Consensus & Convergence
  • 23. Required Changes for Realistic Model
      • Decision Making
      • Technical Inputs
      • Value Chain Creation
      • Benefit Distribution
  • 24. This would require to create…
      • Common understanding of “Strain”
      • Crystallization of Beliefs
      • Quality control through social collateral
      • Structural Conduciveness
  • 25. It will mainly depend upon
    • Strong Credible leadership
    • Compelling mission/purpose
    • Well informed/knowledgeable Membership
    • Incentives for stakeholder involvement
  • 26. “ The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them”… Albert Einstein Thank You !