From superficial tinkering to unpacking state forests in india
-
Upload
center-for-international-forestry-research-cifor -
Category
Education
-
view
814 -
download
0
Transcript of From superficial tinkering to unpacking state forests in india
From Superficial Tinkering to Unpacking State forests
in IndiaPresentation for the conference on
Taking stock of smallholders and community forestryMontpellier FranceMarch 24-26, 2010
ByMadhu Sarin
Chandigarh, India
Indian context – Forests & wildlife conservation
• 23% area ‘recorded’ as forests• Progressive stringency of conservation
laws• Centralised management by territorial
bureaucracy• Continuation of colonial law for
enclosures
Forest Survey of India 2003
Indian context – Democratic Federal Republic
• Constitutional protection for equal rights
• Constitutional mandate for decentralization of governance
• Special constitutional protection for tribal cultures & resource rights
• Community resource management as per customs & traditions in tribal areas
Origins of ‘Participatory’ (Joint) Forest Management
• State forest protection in crisis• Increasing alienation & conflicts with
forest dependent people• General shift towards ‘participatory’
approaches• Donor – NGO driven
Basic framework
• No rights – only conditional entitlements
• No devolution of authority – only responsibilities
• Unilateral, non-enforceable MOUs between FDs & Village institutions
• Only on degraded forests
Research focus in early years
• Unequal partnerships – imbalance in power
• Gender & equity concerns• Livelihoods focused silviculture• Institutional autonomy & diversity• Lack of legal status
First major shift – centralised standardization
• Massive donor funding• FD back in command – NGOs
sidelined• Standardised undemocratic
framework extended even to lands under customary tenures
• Loss of creativity & diversity
Judicial Interventions didn’t help
• A forest PIL case since 1995• Supreme court issued sweeping orders,
most with drastic impacts on forest dwellers & forest based livelihoods
• Little attention to governance issues – further centralization of power in forest bureaucracy
Deconcentration instead of devolution
• Extension of FD control inside villages• Evictions of poor with help of elites• Further enclosure of tribal & common
lands as state ‘forests’• Little sharing despite promises
Cultural & ecological impacts of standardisation
• Further loss of institutional diversity• Delegitimization of indigenous land and
forest use practices• Loss of biodiversity due to focus on
trees & plantations• Destruction, rather than improvement
of livelihoods
Massive evictions as turning point - new questions, new
perspective MoEF’s May 3, 2002 order - Evict all
‘encroachers’ by September 30 Cited Supreme Court’s concerns Bet May 02 & Aug 04, evictions from
152,000 ha At 1 ha/hshld, 152,000 families or 750,000
impoverished people brutally evicted.
Outrage brought new issues into limelight
• Protests brought together people from diverse backgrounds - Issue reached Parliament
• Deconstruction of historical forest land assemblage
• MoEF admitted ‘historical injustice’ & that all forest dwellers without titles are not ‘encroachers’
• Ancestral tribal lands declared state forests without recognition of rights
Roots of the Problem: Unsound Land Classification as ‘Forests’
• Most forestry interventions a-historical • Unquestioning acceptance of official
‘forest’ land (mis)classification • Plantations on lands under other uses
destroy livelihoods, rights, & biodiversity
Legal Construction of Indian Forests
• Appropriation of commercially valuable forests & non-privatized commons during colonial rule
• Post independence, poorly surveyed tribal areas declared ‘state forests’ without ecological surveys or recognition of rights.
• Between 1951- 88, ‘national’ forest estate enlarged by 26 million ha (from 41 to 67 mha) through sweeping notifications
Poffenberger & McGean 1997
Disenfranchisement of Tribal Communities by conservation
laws• Major violation of constitutional provisions
for safeguarding tribal cultures, livelihoods and resource rights
• widespread negation of communal tenures, institutions & holistic land use systems without rigid forest-non-forest boundaries.
• labeled ‘encroachers’ on their ancestral lands.
Tribal impoverishment through large scale displacement
• By 1990 about 8.5 million tribals (about 12.6% of all tribals) had been displaced by mega projects and Protected Areas.
• Tribals only 8% of the population but upto 55% of those displaced.
• 6.4 million displaced adivasis left to fend for themselves without any rehabilitation.
• No state accountability to those without recognised rights.
A Lot of legal ‘forest land’ is not legally notified
• All India ‘Recorded’ Forest Area (considered ‘legal forest’): 774,740 km2 (23.57% of country’s area)
• Reserve Forest = 51.6%; • Protected Forest = 30.8%;• ‘Unclassed’ forest (which not legally notified) =
17.6% (SFR 2003)• Rights not recognised even in many RFs &
PFs
“Unclassed state forest’ in Manipur or customary tribal land
Dismal condition of land records
• Forest and Revenue records don’t tally• Accdng to MoEF, RFA = 77 million ha• Accdng to MoAgri, RFA = 67.87 mha• 9.13 mha ‘disputed’ between them with
millions of cultivators caught in the middle. Revenue dept allocated the land to the poor but FD treats them as ‘encroachers’
Overall situation• Poor procedures & unsound premises for
defining forests and assembling the national forest estate
• Serious tenurial and land use conflicts, unclear boundaries, jurisdictional disputes between departments & communities
• Imposition of inappropriate management objectives on non-forest lands declared state ‘forests’ through sweeping notifications.
JFM priveleged over resolving tenurial conflicts
• 3 months after it’s June 1990 JFM circular, MoEF had issued circulars for:
• FP (1) Review of encroachments on forest land. • FP (2) Review of disputed claims over forest
land, arising out of (faulty) forest settlement.• FP (3) Disputes regarding pattas/leases/grants
involving forest land.• Tenurial issues known but ignored while JFM
attracted huge donor funding
JFM ignores rights & tenure
• Assumes FD hegemony on ‘forest’ lands• Converts disputed lands into state
property• Generates poverty thru de-legitimizing
existing land uses (agriculture, pasture, shifting cultivation)
• Provides no legal entitlements
FCA promotes structured Inequity
• All occupants with disputed claims on ‘forest’ land equated with ‘encroachers’ despite being there since generations
• Legal permission to destroy rich forests and tribal habitats for mining, industry and hydro projects granted liberally without even informing them.
Paradigm shift – challenging the macro framework
• Land classification – state forest or ancestral tribal lands?
• Governance institution – externally imposed or village assembly mandated by Constitution?
• Uni-functional versus multi-functional management?
• FD versus indigenous knowledge of biodiversity?
Premises of Campaign for new law
• Restoration of citizenship rights to survive with dignity
• Undoing historical injustice – not benevolent granting but recognition of pre-existing rights
• Reclassifying ‘national’ to ‘community’ forest resources
• Statutory community empowerment to protect, conserve and manage – dis-empower forest bureaucracy
Democratization of Forest Governance through FRA
• rights to include “responsibilities and authority for sustainable use, conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of ecological balance”
• To strengthen the conservation regime while ensuring livelihood and food security
• Making forest dwellers primary stakeholders in combining conservation with sustainable use.
Claimant Categories & types of Tenures
• Claimants can be individuals, families, groups & communities
• Granting of secure individual as well as community tenures
• Clear recognition of women’s rights• Rights to be heritable but inalienable
Categories of Rights to be Recognised
• rights to land for existing non-forest uses• to customary community lands for
usufructs and grazing including the right to protect, regenerate and /or conserve or manage ‘community forest resources’
• rights over NTFPs & habitat and habitation rights of PTGs & pre-agricultural communities.
• Other customary rights
Process
• Bottom up, demand driven law• Diluted hegemony of forest
bureaucracy- Ministry of Tribal Affairs responsible for implementation
• Transparent, village assembly based process for claiming rights
Shortcomings and obstacles
• Many eligible claimants likely to be excluded
• Ambiguous overlapping jurisdiction of other laws
• Sabotaging efforts of wildlife conservationists, foresters and MoEF
• Poor supportive capacity of Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Potential Outcomes
• Initiation of democratisation of forest governance 60 years after independence
• Poverty reduction thru massive redistribution of resources & livelihood & tenurial security
• Legal space for diverse community institutions managing their local resources
Challenges ahead
• Compelling entrenched forest bureaucracy & fortress conservationists to respect the law
• Ensuring complementary reform in conservation laws and programmes like JFM
• Ensuring right holders have voice in Climate change negotiations and agreements like REDD