"In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous."
Aristotle
The Forest Rights Act (2006) was intended to resolve a prolonged conflict between multiple perspectives regarding the settlement of lands classified as “forests.” Such areas were tracts of land that may or may not have included actual forests, and many were classified as such without properly recording the presence of communities indigenous to the area. In Madhya Pradesh, for example, 82% of areas that were later classified as government forests were never surveyed. The same was true for 40% of government forests in Orissa. Even today, 60% of India’s National Parks have not underwent the full process of enquiry. The legacy of this “historical injustice” is the eviction of 300,000 families from their ancestral homes. In Madhya Pradesh alone more than 125 were completely destroyed.
Prior to the Forest Rights Act in 2006, all Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDST) were governed according to two pre-existing laws. The first of these laws was the Indian Forest Act, passed in 1927. This act was not concerned with environmental conservation, despite the implications of its title, but rather was a proxy for enabling the ruling British government to access the forest resources of India in order to meet their need for timber. The government could declare any tract of land to be a reserved forest, a protected forest, or a village forest. The second piece of legislation became the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, which gave the government the power to designate any area as a protected area. Under these laws, any individuals residing on such lands would have to be “settled” by a “forest settlement officer.” These government officials were intended to review the claims of the residents to the land and then decide whether to legitimize or reject their claim. In the case of the latter outcome, those individuals would be forcibly evicted from their ancestral homeland without compensation or alternative options. Individuals who had not yet undergone the process of enquiry were liable to be evicted at any moment. Unsurprisingly, this led to widespread abuse of power by the forest settlement officers, who subjected the FDSTs to a number of indignities. It was precisely such indignities that the contemporary Forest Rights Act is aimed at addressing.
The new act now officially recognizes the rights of traditional forest dwelling communities, and attempts to allow these communities the means of self-representation in government. In order to qualify for the benefits of the act, there are certain criteria that must be met. Firstly, the individual must reside within the boundaries of an area that has been designated to be a government forest. The individual in question must further depend on said forest as a means of livelihood. Then the individual must prove one of two criteria; if the two aforementioned conditions have remained true for the past 75 years, that individual may be given the status of an “Other Traditional Forest Dweller.” The alternative is to prove membership in a Scheduled Tribe. In the latter case, the individual must also be residing in an area in which the Scheduled Tribe is, in fact, scheduled.
The Act also grants a number of rights to the FDSTs, and now even extends those rights to Non Tribals also dwelling in government forests. Use rights pertain to minor forest produce, grazing grounds, and encompass traditional areas utilized by nomadic and pastoral communities. Land rights ensure that the individual members of the FDSTs receive the land that they have been cultivating prior to 13 December 2005. It should be noted that the amount of land that they may receive is limited to four hectares. Finally, the Act extends the right of protection and conservation, a capacity that previously had been exclusively held by the forest department. Until this law, the forest department monopoly on protection and conservation was absolute; had they intended to destroy the forest the attempt to stop them would have been a criminal offense.
The implementation of the Forest Rights Act presents a prodigious challenge to India. By placing more power in the Gram Sabha, the government is essentially accepting a move toward decentralization. Increased power at the community level is expected to counter the former monopoly of the forest department. Furthermore, it is the Gram Sabha that has been given the authority and responsibility to settle FDSTs. This process will be performed in conjunction with the Panchayati Raj, forest department, and select state agencies.
The Act has been met with controversy by competing interests, including the environmentalist perspective, corporate interest, and that of social justice advocates focused on protecting the FDSTs and Non Tribals. Social advocates view the Act as a weapon of struggle that provides the opportunity to reach a balance between conservation and the rights of communities. They cite attempts by government to undermine the law (specifically community power) as evidence of its continued attention to large scale projects such as mines, dams, and special economic zones. Environmentalists, too, view this Act as a weapon against the commercialization of India’s natural resources and land.
The Resources and Rights Initiative, along with the Kalpravriksh Organization, have provided an informative commentary into the challenges of implementation that the Forest Rights Act currently faces. While the Act does present the opportunity to strengthen economic, social, and political advances for the forest dwelling communities, these communities must be made aware of the law first and foremost. Secondly, they must be organized in such a manner in which they may effectively register and prove their claims. Gran Sabhas must be free from the influence of special interests, and committees that review the claims should be held accountable to fulfilling such reviews in a timely manner. Kalpravriksh has already observed a lack of adherence to the Act via a lack of seriousness given to the claims. The imposition of arbitrary deadlines has complicated the process, and indeed such deadlines even lack consistency between different departments. Furthermore, state interference in Gram Sabha elections severely threatens the efficacy and political orientation (read: sympathy) of its members to these claims. Violations of the Act have already occurred in Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh. Finally, the inclusion of Non Tribals in the act may create tension between these communities, as Non Tribals may encroach upon the ancestral lands of FDSTs.
More significantly is the opposition from environmental conservationists, who view the allowance of land to Tribals and other Forest Dwelling peoples as a direct threat to the overall health of the forest and its long-term sustainability. The law itself has been criticized as amounting to little more than a land distribution scheme, with forest dwellers assuming the legal rights to use of the land and forest produce to the detriment of the local fauna. Of paramount concern is, in fact, the wildlife (namely tigers) whose living area will become drastically reduced by increased human presence in these areas.
The Forest Rights Act is a highly controversial law, and it is clear that the balance of social justice and environmental protection has not yet been universally agreed upon. Its importance lies in the consideration of this balance, and how the protection of the environment and its species can be protected while ensuring that the rights of indigenous communities are upheld. This act has profound repercussions in other parts of the world as well. To cite one such example, the existence of the un-contacted Panoan tribe deep in the Amazon rainforest in Brazil presents an ethical dilemma for Brazilian officials. Should the government intervene in the small, three hundred member tribe in order to safeguard it from illegal commercial logging activity? Or should it refrain from making contact for fear that the tribe may not be acclimated to modern diseases or other illnesses?
The previous example provides a rationale into why such legislation is important. Until humanity can devise a system in which equal consideration is given to protecting the rights of its citizenry along with the safeguarding of natural ecosystems, the controversy will remain in place. The international importance of this problem is highlighted in the amount of legislation in other parts of the world. In the United States, there is Title 16,2104, which is based on forest health protection. The act is oriented towards protecting the growth of forests and promoting the stability of forest related industries. Likewise, in Canada, Forestry Act RSC c. F-30 (1985) is targeted at encouraging public cooperation in the protection and wise use of forest resources in Canada, as well as research and development purposes. Australia’s National Forest Policy Statement (NFPS) acts as a “blueprint for the future of public and private forests,” while the United Kingdom’s Forestry Standard is a collection of legislation regarding the protection of forests both from domestic law and from UN conferences.
Resolving the issue of government forests in India will require an exhaustive, national effort to settle the areas that have yet to undergo the process of enquiry and to accommodate the communities who live within their boundaries. It is a process that has socio-political as well as environmental significance, and as such it cannot be ignored. Though competing ideologies each contain their own perspectives on the best solution for these forests, the ultimate result will inevitably include reconciliation for the Tribal forest dwellers and heightened attention paid towards respecting the forest and its rich collection of life. It is the process of finding this balance that will provide the steepest challenge to the government, yet it is also this very process that will ensure that such a balance is eventually reached.
Bibligraphy
Bhullar, Lovleen . "THE INDIAN FOREST RIGHTS ACT 2006: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL." Lead Journal. School of Law, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) - University of London , n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2011. <http://www.lead-journal.org/content/08020.pdf>
Ghosh, Soumitra, and National Forum of. "India: The Forest Rights Act, a weapon of struggle." World Rainforest Movement. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/115/India.html
IUCN - the world's largest conservation. "Truths and Falsehoods About the Forest Rights Act." Understanding the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. http://forestrightsact.awardspace.com/myths.htm#mozTocId600030
Kothari, Ashish, Neema Pathak, and Arshiya Bose. "FORESTS, RIGHTS, AND CONSERVATION." Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group. Kalpavriksh Organization, n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2011. http://www.kalpavriksh.org/images/LawsNPolicies/IGES_FRApaper_Aug2009.pdf
"Welcome to Forest Rights Act." Welcome to Forest Rights Act. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. http://www.fra.org.in/
"What is the Forest Rights Act about?." The Forest Rights Act. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. http://www.forestrightsact.com/what-is-this-act-about
No comments:
Post a Comment