Ambrish Mehta ARCH, Gujarat Passing of Law is no guarantee that it would be properly implemented. All powerful Forest bureaucracy can create obstacles at every stage of implementation and easily defeat the very purpose of the Law.

1. India – Land and Development Conference 2017
An Example of FRA Implementation in Dediapada, Gujarat
IIC, New Delhi
5-6 April, 2017
Ambrish Mehta
ARCH, Gujarat
Security of Tenure and Resource Rights Incentivizes
Landscape Restoration

2. FRA Implementation in Narmada
District of Gujarat
Lesson 1
• Passing of Law is no guarantee that it would
be properly implemented.
• All powerful Forest bureaucracy can create
obstacles at every stage of implementation
and easily defeat the very purpose of the Law.

3. Lesson 2
• Despite these hurdles, it is possible for civil
society groups and communities to work to
influence the course of events and change
things for better…
• Provided they are willing to put in lots of
efforts without getting tired and more
importantly, without loosing hope

4. Lesson 3
• And once the rights (both IFRs and CFRs) are
recognized, people’s incentives are radically
transformed – Instead of considering short-term
benefits, they start taking a long term view and
start taking various measures for the same.
• This is good not only for improving their own well
being but also that of forests and environment,
forming a positive feed back loop between the
two.

5. The Area
Taluka Dediapada, Dist. Narmada, Gujarat

6. Good Beginning in March 2008
– Meetings of Gramsabhas held in more than 3000
villages of eastern Tribal belt in Just 15 days to form
Forest Rights Committees (FRCs)
– Claim Forms A and B printed and distributed by State
Government in large quantities
– Main Provisions of the Act and Rules translated into
Gujarati
– Trainings camps held for FRC members
– FRCs allowed to function autonomously
– Meetings with NGOs and Civil Society Organizations

9. FRCs did meticulous work
• Gave notices to the FD requesting copies of all records
• Carried out proper field verification of each claimed
plot in presence of FD officers
• Examined evidences and took statements from
witnesses
• Carried out record verification to cross check Examined
government
• Gave their findings to the Gramsabhas
• Prepared CR / CFR Claims
• And Gramsabhas then passed resolutions for both IFR
and CFR claims.

11. Status of IFR Claims as on 30-4-2010
Sr. District Claims Filed
Claims
Approved
Claims
Rejected
Claims Pending % Approved
1 Banaskantha 9,488 1,422 12 8,054 15%
2 Sabarkantha 19,625 2,726 471 16,428 14%
3 Dahod 23,666 271 1,729 21,666 1%
4 Panchmahals 20,150 845 0 19,305 4%
5 Vadodara 17,557 1,741 0 15,816 10%
6 Narmada 17,783 2,862 26 14,895 16%
7 Bharuch 4,076 432 836 2,808 11%
8 Surat 7,747 1,909 1,737 4,101 25%
9 Tapi 11,947 702 623 10,622 6%
10 Dangs 7,341 77 106 7,158 1%
11 Navsari 9,322 1,197 1,469 6,656 13%
12 Valsad 34,167 2,963 0 31,204 9%
Total 182,869 17,147 7,009 158,713 9%

12. Status of CR/CFR Claims as on 30-4-2010
Sr. District Claims Filed
Claims
Approved
Claims
Rejected
Claims Pending % Approved
1 Banaskantha 784 43 0 741 5%
2 Sabarkantha 953 50 0 903 5%
3 Panchmahals 637 0 0 637 0%
4 Dahod 651 0 25 626 0%
5 Vadodara 350 3 10 337 1%
6 Narmada 2,034 0 0 2,034 0%
7 Bharuch 134 0 0 134 0%
8 Surat 1,275 55 0 1,220 4%
9 Tapi 506 0 0 506 0%
10 Dangs 608 10 0 598 2%
11 Navsari 700 107 0 593 15%
12 Valsad 277 0 0 277 0%
Total 8,909 268 35 8,606 3%

13. Status of IFR Claims as on 30-6-2011
Sr. District Claims Filed Claims Approved Claims Rejected Claims Pending % Approved
1 Banaskantha 9,488 3,665 2,891 2,932 39%
2 Sabarkantha 19,625 3,425 12,438 3,762 17%
3 Panchmahals 23,666 972 19,251 3,443 4%
4 Dahod 20,150 692 18,300 1,158 3%
5 Vadodara 17,557 2,116 5,546 9,895 12%
6 Narmada 17,783 4,310 10,164 3,309 24%
7 Bharuch 4,076 1,062 2,988 26 26%
8 Surat 7,747 3,492 4,051 204 45%
9 Tapi 11,947 1,053 7,327 3,567 9%
10 Dangs 7,341 197 4,524 2,620 3%
11 Navsari 9,322 1,979 7,343 0 21%
12 Valsad 34,167 13,897 20,270 0 41%
Total 182,869 36,860 115,093 30,916 20%

14. Status of CR/CFR Claims as on 30-6-2011
Sr. District Claims Filed
Claims
Approved
Claims
Rejected
Claims Pending % Approved
1 Banaskantha 784 187 578 19 24%
2 Sabarkantha 953 91 0 862 10%
3 Panchmahals 469 0 0 469 0%
4 Dahod 651 0 578 73 0%
5 Vadodara 314 3 0 311 1%
6 Narmada 2,034 0 1,761 273 0%
7 Bharuch 134 0 4 130 0%
8 Surat 1,275 119 4 1,152 9%
9 Tapi 506 210 296 0 42%
10 Dangs 626 626 0 0 100%
11 Navsari 700 107 593 0 15%
12 Valsad 277 0 0 277 0%
Total 8,723 1,343 3,814 3,566 15%

17. Districtwise Analysis of Rejected Claims by SDLCs with Reasons
District
Claims Rejected with Reason Codes
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
01 Banaskantha
380 50 10 41 2 854 0 1,237 127 2,701
02 Sabarkantha 2,513 3,146 376 368 905 434 75 34 526 8,377
03 Panchmahal 1,358 2,228 368 208 50 5,101 7,231 197 2,787 19,528
04 Dahod 8,390 1,383 635 901 38 2,240 1,357 226 755 15,925
05 Vadodara 5,404 92 495 212 0 2 152 1,075 854 8,286
06 Narmada 10,099 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255 10,354
07 Bharuch 693 115 528 5 12 0 2 800 0 2,155
08 Surat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,051 0 4,051
09 Tapi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,959 0 6,959
10 Dangs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,524 9 4,533
11 Navsari 0 0 1 99 0 0 0 7,343 0 7,443
12 Valsad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,270 20,270
Grand Total 28,837 7,014 2,413 1,834 1,007 8,631 8,817 46,716 5,313 110,582
Code Description Code Description
4No Recordbased Evidence 8Not dependant on Forest Land
5Land not in Possession of Claimants 9No 75 years Possession in OTFD Claimants
6Land Recd before or Relatives Claim Approved 10NO ST Certificate and / or Incomplete Papers
7Claim on lands Deleted from Forest or Non Forest Area 11Claim Not Supported by BISAG maps
12Other

28. Status of IFR Claims as on 30-6-2016
Sr. District Claims Filed
Claims
Approved
Area Approved
Ha.
Ave Area per
Claim Ha.
Claims
Rejected
Claims
Pending
% Approved
1 Banaskantha 9,488 6,584 3,526 0.54 0 2,904 69%
2 Sabarkantha 19,625 6,679 3,730 0.56 0 12,946 34%
3 Panchmahals 23,666 4,771 2,074 0.43 0 18,895 20%
4 Dahod 20,150 5,185 4,489 0.87 0 14,965 26%
5 Vadodara 17,557 6,545 4,528 0.69 0 11,012 37%
6 Narmada 17,783 7,363 6,148 0.84 0 10,420 41%
7 Bharuch 4,076 2,034 1,994 0.98 0 2,042 50%
8 Surat 7,747 4,070 2,619 0.64 0 3,677 53%
9 Tapi 11,947 5,286 5,220 0.99 0 6,661 44%
10 Dangs 7,341 2,584 1,409 0.55 0 4,757 35%
11 Navsari 9,322 3,447 2,699 0.78 0 5,875 37%
12 Valsad 34,167 25,992 8,012 0.31 0 8,175 76%
Total 182,869 80,540 46,448 0.58 0 102,329 44%

29. Status of CR/CFR Claims as on 30-6-2016
Sr. District Claims Filed
Claims
Approved
Area Approved
Ha.
Average Area
per Claim Ha.
Claims
Rejected
Claims
Pending
% Approved
1 Banaskantha 784 784 53,936 69 0 0 100%
2 Sabarkantha 953 153 32,930 215 0 800 16%
3 Panchmahals 639 227 50,150 221 0 412 36%
4 Dahod 651 89 6,278 71 0 562 14%
5 Vadodara 377 103 24,950 242 0 274 27%
6 Narmada 273 190 64,476 339 0 83 70%
7 Bharuch 141 131 5,547 42 0 10 93%
8 Surat 1,275 833 19,060 23 0 442 65%
9 Tapi 506 506 49,682 98 0 0 100%
10 Dangs 626 626 20,378 33 0 0 100%
11 Navsari 700 700 30,737 44 0 0 100%
12 Valsad 257 257 74,509 290 0 0 100%
Total 7,182 4,599 432,633 94 0 2,583 64%

51. Action Research in
Community Health &
Development (ARCH-Vahini)
E-702, Samrajya Complex,
Fatehgunj, Vadodara 390002
Gujarat
Tel: 91-265-2782053
Email: m_ambrish@hotmail.com
www.archgujarat.org