Presentation in Taking stock of smallholder and community forestry workshop at session Smallholder and community forestry in South and Southeast Asia by Oliver Springate-Baginski and Madhu Sarin 24-26 March 2010 Montpellier, France

1. Oliver Springate‐Baginski & Madhu Sarin

2. Can local people in the
forest landscapes of
India secure
India secure
recognition of their
right to community
forestry (established
forestry (established
de jure by the FRA
2006) against the
entrenched interests
h di
of the forest
bureaucracy?y

3. 1. Context
2. Forest Rights Act 2006 emergence
3. Study of implementation
4. State experiences
5. Conclusions

4. Forest
Forest
Survey of
India 2003
India 2003

5. 1. Context
~320mha land area
Indian forest cover –
67.71mha of which ‘good’
forest cover est. 48mha [FSI
2008]
Legal forest estate –
’recorded forest area’
’ d df ’
~76.96mha (23%) [source &
date?]
1.1Bn popl
1 1B l
>80m indigenous
Poverty across forest areas
Poffenberger & McGean 1997

6. History of state forest appropriation
Historically customary CPRs widespread
State appropriated forest post 1864 for timber:
On colonial principle that customary tenures were based on states
On colonial principle that customary tenures were based on states
acquiescence, a ‘privilege’ which could be withdrawn. (Guha 1984 ‐ EPW)
Through due legal process of ‘settlement’: 1878 & 1927 Forest Acts
Post independence continued appropriation
Even due process often not completed especially post independence
(Ghosh et al. 2007 ODG)
Local people’s customary forest rights were widely deprived
Both collective & private extinguished, committed to insecure privileges
Both collective & private extinguished committed to insecure ‘privileges’
or ignored
Even those not evicted have been criminalised for normal livelihood
practices
Extreme conflict and numerous risings ensued
Extreme conflict and numerous risings ensued
‘Forest Department most unpopular arm of colonial regime’
continuing with Maoist groups, for whom forest rights are a major
manifesto issue.
Expropriation process has continued to present
E i ti h ti dt t

9. The Forest Administration
Composition and control of forest estate
23% of land area
Extensive staff
Extensive staff
over 90,000 formal staff plus labourers
Policing and quasi‐judicial powers
to apprehend, judge and punish based on 1927 Forest Act
Revenue generation ability
Timber & NTFP (plus govt. & donor funds)
(p g )
Own knowledge production
(research, training, survey) – appropriating the object of
knowledge (forest) with legitimating terms such as scientific
knowledge (forest) with legitimating terms such as ‘scientific
forestry’
Decisive influence over forest policy
A durable semi‐autonomous power structure
A durable semi‐autonomous power structure

10. The Range of Forest Rights Deprivations
The Range of Forest Rights Deprivations
Forest rights have been deprived in a range of different processes
Rights deprived during settlement / forest reservation process disputes /
Rights deprived during settlement / forest reservation process disputes /
unsurveyed villages
Estate acquisition
Shifting cultivation
g
‘Encroachment’
‘Forest villages’
‘Primitive Tribal Groups’
Tribals without Scheduled Tribe status
Sacred groves
National parks / sanctuaries
Revenue forest boundary disputes,
R f tb d di t
Joint Forest Management
Self‐initiated forest protection (CFM)
Earlier evictions
Earlier evictions
Displacement / ‘diversion’ of forest lands

11. Kumar et al. 2008

12. FRA emergence
Many millions severely negatively affected by forest rights
deprivations
Hard to separate from wider context of marginalisation
The most seriously affected are those rural communities living in and
The most seriously affected are those rural communities living in and
depending on forests for cultivation, habitat and forest products.
‘Scheduled’ tribes ‐ ~80M.
Forest governance affects the livelihoods of perhaps as many as 25% 275m
Khare / WB / ...
/ /
Extreme livelihood insecurity: routine oppression / bribe seeking;
imprisonment, eviction & destitution; starvation deaths
Voluntary bureaucratic reform? SF, JFM not CF (despite WB CFM
Voluntary bureaucratic reform? SF JFM not CF (despite WB ‘CFM’
inflation of terms):
no rights reform – ‘participation’ on FD terms
Some donors withdrew (WB, DFID); some persisting in supporting (JICA)
( , ); p g pp g( )

13. Renewed evictions
From 1996 public interest litigation (PIL) led to the Supreme Court pushing
full enforcement of forest laws across India.
In 2002 Forest Departments interpreted a Supreme Court directive to evict
all so called encroachers in a time bound manner. (estimated to cover
all so‐called ‘encroachers’ in a time‐bound manner. (estimated to cover
1,250,000ha forest area under encroachment in eight states)
Evictions of forest dwellers and forest adjacent populations (seen as illegal
‘encroachers’) were attempted in many states
‘… more than 300,000 families across India were forcibly evicted. More than a
‘ th 300 000 f ili I di f ibl i t d M th
hundred villages were burned in Madhya Pradesh, eight people killed in
police firings and 40,000 families left homeless in Assam, and elephants
used against villagers in Maharashtra and Assam. In many cases those
evicted had been cultivating from prior to 1980 ‐ and hence were legally
i t dh db lti ti f i t 1980 dh l ll
entitled to their lands.’
CSD November 2007 – from depositions made at a public hearing

14. From: Campaign for Survival and Dignity 2005

16. Th E f FRA 2006
The Emergence of FRA 2006
2002 evictions led to concerted action under the national umbrella
2002 evictions led to concerted action under the national umbrella
‘Campaign for Survival and Dignity’ as well as through numerous other
groups
National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers (NFFPFW),
Lok Sangharsh Morcha ‐ Gujarat,
Jan Sangharsh Morcha ‐ MP
NAPM, ‐ Maharashtra
Three years of complex drafting process and intense contestation from
Three years of complex drafting process and intense contestation from
Ministry of Environment and Forests, and hard‐line ‘fortress
conservationists’
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Rights) Act was passed in December 2006
of Forest Rights) Act was passed in December 2006
After further delays the Act came into force with issuing of Rules on Jan 1st
2008
CSD Website: www.forestrightsact.com

17. Breakthrough?
g
‘… the forest rights on ancestral lands and their habitat were not
adequately recognized in the consolidation of State forests
during the colonial period as well as in independent India
resulting in historical injustice to the forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers’
Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers’
aim: ‘to recognise and vest the forest rights and occupation in
forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such
traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such
forests for generations but whose rights could not be
recorded; to provide for a framework for recording the forest
rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for such
rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for such
recognition and vesting in respect of forest land’ (FRA 2006)
The nodal agency for implementation is the Ministry of Tribal
The nodal agency for implementation is the Ministry of Tribal
Affairs NOT the Ministry of Environment and Forests

18. C. The rights: Key Sections of the Act
‘3 (1) For the purposes of this Act the following rights which secure individual or community
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the following rights, which secure individual or community
tenure or both, shall be the forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers on all forest lands, namely:‐
right to hold and live in the forest land … for habitation or for self‐cultivation for
livelihood …
livelihood …
community rights such as nistar [forest product collection] …
right of ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce …
other community rights of uses or entitlements such as fish and other products of water
bodies, grazing (both settled and transhumant) …
bodies grazing (both settled and transhumant)
rights including community tenures of habitat and habitation for primitive tribal groups and
pre‐agricultural communities
rights in or over disputed lands …
rights for conversion of Pattas or leases or grants …
i h f i f l
right of settlement and conversion of all forest villages, …
right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage and community forest resource …
Rights of access to biodiversity and community right to intellectual property ..
g y y g p p y
Any other traditional right customarily enjoyed by the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes or
other traditional forest dwellers …
Right to in situ rehabilitation …
6(1) The Gram Sabha shall be the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature
6(1) The Gram Sabha shall be the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature
and extent of individual or community forest rights or both …

19. Duties of holders of forest rights.
5. The holders of any forest right, Gram Sabha and village level
institutions in areas where there are holders of any forest right
under this Act are empowered to‐
under this Act are empowered to
protect the wild life, forest and biodiversity;
ensure that adjoining catchments area, water sources and other
ecological sensitive areas adequately protected;
ecological sensitive areas adequately protected;
ensure that the habitat of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and
other traditional forest dwellers is preserved from any form of
destructive practices affecting their cultural and natural heritage;
p g g ;
ensure that the decisions taken in the Gram Sabha to regulate
access to community forest resources and stop any activity which
adversely affects the wild animals, forest and the biodiversity are
complied with
complied with ;

20. Key rights:
Private rights to land in forests (up to 4ha)
Collective rights to control manage and use forest land around
village under gram sabha
village under gram sabha
NTFP harvesting and marketing rights
Conservation safeguards: Critical Wildlife Habitats’ (CWH)

21. Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006
g g
Implementation process/mechanism elaborated in Rules:
Nationally (federal) ‐ Ministry of Tribal Affairs
State ‐ 3 departments: Tribal / Rural Development, Revenue,
Forest
Local ‐ based on the village gram sabha. This will elect a Forest
Rights Committee to identify, verify and recommend claims
National reform came into effect 1st Jan 2008
National level MoTA directed state governments...
N i l l l M TA di d
BUT implementation responsibility to state govt.s ‐ requires
transfer of control from FDs, who have long tradition of
transfer of control from FDs who have long tradition of
paternal exclusionary relationship. ... to forest
communities, who have long history of marginalisation
and weak political organisation ...

22. Local implementation
involves five key stages
1. The initial Gram Sabha meeting and formation of Forest
Rights Committee
2. FRC awareness‐raising, training
3. Distribution of claim forms and receipt.
3 Di ib i f l i f d i
4. Verification of claims (review, survey, mapping)
5. Final Issuing of titles
5 Fi l I i f titl

23. Potential Livelihood prospects?
Freedom from harassment, rent seeking,
destruction of assets
Reduced livelihood vulnerability ‐ very high
where households are liable to eviction
Improved income streams from range of rights
to manage forests and secure access to their
harvest.
Incentive for investing in land and forest ‐ land‐
based investment depends on security of tenure
Recognition of cultivation rights over forest land
through its conversion to revenue land should
permit the right holders to gain access to
development inputs from other departments
which they are currently deprived of.
which they are currently deprived of
May allow access to credit on basis of patta (as
collateral) (although, since the titles will be
inalienable, special arrangements will be
required to facilitate access to formal credit)
required to facilitate access to formal credit)
The benefit of land reform may be increased
with credit or other complimentary inputs (e.g.
water).

24. 3. Research issues
3 Research issues
FRA came into force Jan 1st 2008
1. To what extent are legislated forest rights being
secured?
2. What are the obstacles for local people to access their
2 Wh h b l f l l l h i
CF rights?
Modest research programme funded by DFID Institutions
Modest research programme funded by DFID ‘Institutions
for Pro‐Poor Growth’ Research Programme Consortium
Late 2008‐10

25. Field study:
Field study:
23 study sites
selected across 3
states
West Bengal – 9
Orissa – 8
AP – 6
Reflecting range
Reflecting range
of agro‐ecological
conditions,
administrative
d i i t ti
structures and
rights deprivations

26. AP Context

27. FRA implementation process in
A dh P d h
Andhra Pradesh
Jan 2008 – Chief Minister issued ‘road map’ for rapid
implementation (& cut‐off):
titles to be granted within 10 months
focus on private claims – as if land grant patronage
f l fl d
inevitably this had to slide – still proceeding
Extremely hasty local Committee formation (at panchayat
Extremely hasty local Committee formation (at panchayat
level), ‘awareness raising’ and training
The officials informed the villagers two days before their
visit,
the ‘Gram Sabha’ meeting for electing the FRC was held in
April 2008 at the Panchayat.

29. Addariveedi Tribal hamlet,
Panasanpal village
some villagers have ‘patta’ land for
settled agriculture
most depend on ‘podu’ where no
most depend on podu where no
rights are recognised.
On village forest land under JFM,
they have only tenuous usufruct
rights.
rights

30. Koluturu hamlet

31. O t i AP t d t
Outcomes in AP to date (31 Aug 2009)
Private rights claims:
In 6 AP study villages:
d ll
63% private claims approved (176 claims ‐ mean 4.1 acres)
Overall in state:
53% private claims approved (173,382 claims ‐ mean ~3.5 acres)
Collective rights claims:
In 6 AP study villages:
In 6 AP study villages:
4 of 6 making range of collective claims (mean 71ha) status undecided
Overall in state:
Unclear picture: 2276 community certificate of titles issues to 784 949
Unclear picture: 2276 ‘community certificate of titles’ issues to 784,949
acres
Through RTI it was discovered the majority are JFM committee claims!
(
(who have no right to claim) Forest Dep't attempting ‘coup’ t
g ) p p g p

32. AP FRA process review
Local implementation through village (panchayat) not
hamlet (gram sabha)
Forest guard accompanying and interfering at the point of
f f
verification (have no authority to do so)
FD taking over community forests through VSS ( CF coup )
FD taking over community forests through VSS (‘CF coup’)
Schemes emerging to force people to have plantations on
granted lands
granted lands
Challenge to abuses from grass‐roots groups

33. FRA Implementation process in
l
West Bengal
state forest area: 12,343 sq. km.
t t f t 12 343 k
forest dependent est. ~8.3
million, ( 10% of state
million (~10% of state
population)
North: ‘Forest villages’ bonded
g
labour
SW: virtually all forest under
JFM

34. Process so far
4 month delay in commencement – local elections
Violations from the start – FD exerting controlling
influence
FRC hastily formed on multi‐village not on gram
sabha basis – quorum rarely achieved,
FRC ‐ Membership on ad hoc selection ‐ G t
FRC M b hi dh l ti Govt
officials made members!
V. Poor awareness raising & training
N. Bengal:
Conversion of ‘Forest Village’ not proceeding
Community challenging FD control
SW Bengal:
Virtually no recognition of rights in JFM villages
Wider political conflict has overtaken FRA
Wider political conflict has overtaken FRA
process

35. West Bengal
West Bengal
UNAMBIGOUSLY WORST STATE FOR FRA
the implementers are taking recourse to delay, non‐
transparency and different obstructions
The affected people are becoming conscious of the
wrongs with the information being passed on to them
We expect that the implementation will improve with
the protests and objections of the people as already
seen in North Bengal.
seen in North Bengal
Grassroots group has filed case against GoWB for
violating law
violating law

36. FRA Implementation process in
FRA Implementation process in
ORISSA
Context
Large scale self
initiated CF

37. process
Slow start but increasingly responsive state
State has issued best guidelines
Dynamic NGO networks engaged with state
administration
Proactive process from Sec. Tribal Welfare – challenging
P i f S T ib l W lf h ll i
FD staff hegemony effectively
Proliferation of awareness raising / training facilitation
Proliferation of awareness raising / training facilitation
going on.
Belated but now good attention to community rights
g y g
PROBABLY BEST STATE

38. Conclusions
Co c us o s
Symbolic and substantive victory:
‘historical injustice’ finally recognised
Law fundamentally changed.
Law fundamentally changed
Rights being accorded ‐ Some individual rights ‐Very limited community
rights yet
‘Window of redress’ sought to be narrowed at every stage by
bureaucracy
Pressure to complete process rapidly – distorting
Poor awareness and understanding, even across implementers
Focus on number targets not process quality – l d
F b li leads to corruptions /
i /
rent seeking / ‘time up’ / denial
FDs seeking to curtail ‘window of opportunity’ and foreshortening
schedules
No central interest in common rights
MoTA extremely weak – pressure has been from Prime Ministers office
Marginalised groups finding it hard to access justice ...
But people are fighting

39. Policy / strategy recommendations:
Policy / strategy recommendations:
Where to from here?
Social mobilisation to secure rights remains essential
BUT forest tribal groups remain poorly organised
compared to other hitherto marginalised groups
NGOs, umbrella organisations and concerned individuals .
Need for civil society capacity development
N df i il i i d l
raise awareness at different levels, independently monitory,
transfer learning s between states
transfer learning’s between states
Use of parliamentary fora