Tribes,Forest Ifs Ak


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.
This presentation was made to the senior Indian Forest Officers in Indira National Forest Academy,Dehradun

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tribes,Forest Ifs Ak

  1. 1. Forest Land and Rights of Tribal March 16, 2010 Dr. Avanish Kumar Public Policy Management Email: [email_address]
  2. 2. Its not to freeze, but to show future dynamism <ul><li>Erosion of Forest Land Or Traditional Rights of the Tribal ? </li></ul>?
  3. 3. Key Concerns
  4. 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. 5. <ul><li>Approx. 900 Tribes (8.2%) </li></ul><ul><li>STs traditionally lived in about 15 % of the country’s area. </li></ul><ul><li>Forest Dept. controls 23 % the country’s territory </li></ul>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. 6. Report of National Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, Government of India, 2005 Health Inequity
  7. 7. Forest, Land, Tribes & Occupation <ul><li>70 % of their total income is from collection and marketing of MFP. </li></ul><ul><li>Only 3.5 % of the total employment in the group of A and B </li></ul><ul><li>About 35% of STs are below the poverty line </li></ul><ul><li>Out of 58 districts , which have 67 % of forest cover, 51 happens to be tribal districts. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A survey of 2001-03 forest cover shows net increase of 321,100 ha in tribal districts. </li></ul></ul>? 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. 8. Tribes Development is not necessarily forest Dependent/Philanthropy Low Cost Technology, Equitable Market and Inclusive Policies Strengthen Culture Nature Nurture
  9. 9. <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>On one hand by inequalities in contemporary living conditions, & </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>On the other, by real threats to the prospects of human life in future. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>One of the Key Concern is…
  10. 10. Rights of the Scheduled Tribes <ul><li>13 listed forest rights includes rights </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to land under individual and communal occupation for habitation or self cultivation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Usufructs & grazing including the right to protect, regenerate and/or conserve/manage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Settlement of disputed claims, pattas/leases, and conversion of forest villages to revenue villages ( as per 1990 circular) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rights over minor forest produce, intellectual property rights on traditional knowledge & </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Habitat & habitation rights of primitive tribal groups and pre-agricultural communities. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>These rights are </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Heritable but not alienable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subsistence and livelihood purpose, & </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not for exclusive commercial use </li></ul></ul>
  11. 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. 12. Key Challenges
  13. 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. 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. 15. <ul><li>… why incur costs when the benefit is provided to all regardless of who participates/contributes? </li></ul>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. 16. Value of Public Good + Selective Benefits - Cost of Participation = Individual Benefits Contextualizing Tribes & Forests Concern and Consequence
  17. 17. 165 Districts Now 222 Contextualizing Tribes & Forests Concern and Consequence
  18. 18. Common Endeavor
  19. 19. <ul><li>According to Fried, tribes…“are the product of specific political and economic pressures emanating from already existing state-organized societies.” </li></ul>Target & Definitional Challenges
  20. 20. Rethink Definition of the ST <ul><li>Primitive Traits – What is the expression of </li></ul><ul><li>Geographically isolated </li></ul><ul><li>Distinct culture </li></ul><ul><li>Shyness of contact with community at large </li></ul><ul><li>Economically backward </li></ul>Communities are notified as ST under Article 342 of the Constitution based on the following Characteristics <ul><li>Not Primitive Traits </li></ul><ul><li>Geographically Knitted </li></ul><ul><li>Distinct culture </li></ul><ul><li>Symbiotic contact with community at large </li></ul><ul><li>Economically not backward </li></ul>After 40-50 years
  21. 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. 22. <ul><li>Scientific & Local Realities </li></ul><ul><li>Equity and Environment Principles </li></ul><ul><li>Short Term & Long-term Interest </li></ul>Realistic School of Thought require Three Consensus & Convergence
  23. 23. Required Changes for Realistic Model <ul><ul><li>Decision Making </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical Inputs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Value Chain Creation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Benefit Distribution </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. This would require to create… <ul><ul><li>Common understanding of “Strain” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Crystallization of Beliefs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality control through social collateral </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Structural Conduciveness </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. It will mainly depend upon <ul><li>Strong Credible leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Compelling mission/purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Well informed/knowledgeable Membership </li></ul><ul><li>Incentives for stakeholder involvement </li></ul>
  26. 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 !