Will the Forests' Act destroy the forests?

While The Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers Act is all set to be notified soon, the issues around it are yet to be settled.

HIMRAJ DANG,
Writer on environmental issues

"The electorally-seductive palliative will not provide any lasting benefit to forest dwellers, but will result in large deforestation"

It is likely the aforementioned Act will finally be notified, with rules duly approved, on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti/wildlife week, ending three years of efforts by the government and its supporters from the NGO community.

The question remains whether this new legislation will fulfil its stated objective of righting historical wrongs, and whether the claims of the proponents will stand the scrutiny of actual settlements on the ground. The fate of tribal and forest-dwelling populations and the survival of our remaining forests depends on the changes to be set in motion by this Act.

The Act suffers from serious structural weaknesses which have persisted: The members of gram sabhas sit in judgement on their own cases; there is no remedy if a gram sabha fails to stop or causes deforestation; differential penalties are imposed by existing legislation and the Act which will weaken existing conservation legislation; it ignores the fact that substantial claims prior to 1980 have been settled [MP alone has undergone five forest settlements since 1947 losing 60,000 sq km of forest land (the size of Haryana)]; expedient recognition of 'historic' claims after 1980, now to 2005; inclusion of National Parks and Sanctuaries, most of which are already free of settlements; ignores the fact that deforestation is taking place in tribal districts, in tribal Bastar and in the entirely tribal-managed North-East alike; ignores the fact that standing healthy forests are the last resource for tribal populations, not rain-fed agriculture on marginal/hilly soils.

The view among conservationists persists that the Act may lead to competitive deforestation and settlement, with the BJP governments in the states and Maoist forces getting more credit and license for land distribution than the Centre, leading to demands for perennial settlements, and increased land areas made available per capita.

This electorally-seductive palliative will not provide any lasting benefit to forest dwellers. What the government should consider is initiatives to address the most critical needs of forest dwellers "" livelihood. These include sharing of revenues from forest produce (the annual forest revenues of the states of Rs 3,000 crore could actually be enhanced by engaging local communities in conservation); filling up 12,000 vacancies for forest guards across India with recruits from tribals and other forest-dwelling communities; instituting a revenue share of tourism earnings from all protected areas for local communities, and using the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme to help in the regeneration of degraded forest lands.

Perhaps this is what a well known political figure meant when he indicated recently that tribals should get rights over forest resources and not simply land as per this Act.

BRINDA KARAT,
CPI(M) Politbureau Member and MP

"At one time it was said the Bill would mean 50 million hectares of forest land would be lost "" the real figure is closer to one million hectares"

Thousands of tribals in different states are being evicted from forest land that has been in their possession for decades. Recently in Madhya Pradesh's Ratlam district, tribals had a three day sit-in at the collectorate to demand that the forest department stop digging pits on their land. In Chattisgarh and Jharkhand, similar efforts are being made by the department. There seems to be a concerted move to preempt the Tribal Rights Bill by dispossessing tribals of the land in their occupation before the Bill is implemented.

The Bill was unanimously adopted by Parliament in December 2006 but shockingly, the Rules have not yet been finalised and notified. The committee for drafting the Rules gave its report in May 2007 and they were put up for public comment in June 2007. The last date was July 31. Now, almost two months later, the Rules have not been notified and tribals in the absence of the law are being evicted from their land.

The well networked lobbies working in the name of wild life protection tried but failed to prevent the passage of the Bill. Today they are, once again, active to delay the notification of the Rules. Those following the debates on the Bill would be aware of the earlier disinformation campaign. The most atrocious of the many falsehoods was that the Bill was meant to distribute 2.5 hectares of forest land to each tribal family "" so, if the Bill was passed, it would mean 50 million hectares of forest land lost to wild life! They were strangely silent when the government revealed, in a Supreme Court case, that mining companies had taken over 5 lakh hectares of forest land in just the last five years! In fact the committee assessed that 10 lakh hectares of tribal land was to be legally recognised, which is just 1.3 per cent of forest land.

Having failed to prevent the Bill, a new bogey has been raised which is that the Rules should not be notified unless all tribals living in protected areas are relocated. The Act is clear on this score. The need for relocation has to be established by a process that involves consultation with the communities involved and a scientific and objective identification of critical wild life habitats by an expert committee, etc. But all this follows, not precedes, recognition of the rights.

Tribals had welcomed the passage of the Act which addresses the historical injustices they have been subjected to. Recent attempts to turn the logic of the Act on its head by trying to misinterpret its provisions to evict tribals from protected areas without recognising their rights must be resisted. It is essential for the Government to notify the Rules without delay so that tribals may access the rights so long denied to them.