Endangering our forests and natural wealth

The Forest Rights Act is largely open to exploitation, says Lakshmy Raman. Poaching, tree-cutting and commercial use of forest lands will be the fallout
     
In the past, both tribals and wildlife have undoubtedly been acceptable collateral when it came to paving the way for social forestry, dams, mines, and other mega-projects. Now, will handing over large chunks of forested land right the 'historical injustice' against forest communities?
Read Shankar Gopalakrishnan's article

In a scenario where Protected Areas account for just 4.7% of India's total land area and most wildlife areas are already under intense pressure from a rapidly-growing human population and livestock, the moot question is: shouldn't the solution for tribal welfare be within the context of the survival of natural forests and wildlife? Our wilderness areas are the catchment areas of our rivers and the gene pools of food and medicinal plants; they offer benefits as varied as drought prevention, flood loss mitigation, soil conservation, nutrient recycling for agriculture and carbon storage -- our last respite from the impending disaster of climate change.

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, in its current form, is largely open to exploitation. All non-tribal traditional forest dwellers have been included and the Forest Rights Act (FRA) recognises the rights of tribal and traditional forest dwellers even in Protected Areas.

The FRA leaves the word 'traditional' open to interpretation, and this could potentially result in the transfer of over 60% of India's forests into the hands of 8.2% of its population. The FRA also includes a clause that notifications of "inviolate`` conservation areas and curtailment of rights in PAs in the future would require people's consent. No penal provisions for punishment of forest dwellers have been included and no conservation responsibilities have been assigned to either the right-holders or the gram sabhas. It also allows claimants to fell up to 75 trees per hectare for a range of 14 activities without obtaining environmental clearances from the MoEF. Suggestions to delete clauses that could promote the misuse of the new law by commercial interests have been dismissed. Parliamentarians have also refused to order the mandatory Environment Impact Analysis.

With no mechanisms to recognise the huge economic values of undisturbed forests, the only realistic option for new and impoverished owners will be the conversion of these forests to farms and real estate.

The government and social groups are also ill-equipped to handle the risk that some corrupt leaders in such forest communities will not monetise illegal forest land assignments. Urban profit-seekers will offer duplicitous promises to lay their hands on prime real estate and there is no guarantee that these lands will not be resold to commercial interests. With no clear guidelines for the FRA with respect to existing forest and wildlife laws and  enforcement, and no fear of retribution, poaching, tree-cutting and using the land for non-forest needs will be a free-for-all.

In the past, community traditions were strong, and forests extensive. While there are tribal communities that still value nature conservation, the majority are irreparably distanced from their traditional cultures. These are not low-density populations of the past, but rather entire villages that seek permanent agricultural land, that want to raise livestock and hope to educate their children and improve their economic status. Undoubtedly, they must be given the opportunity to achieve this, but diluting existing wildlife laws and introducing new ones that will privatise forested land, including PAs, is not the solution.

Tribal communities must certainly be the first beneficiaries of forest biomass for their bonafide use. The revenue generated from forested areas through tourism or any other sources must be channeled back into local communities. Consensual relocation, without coercion, must be encouraged with satisfactory packages. Fair, logical and intelligent site-specific solutions that are respectful of indigenous people and do not imperil what little is left of our natural wealth is the way ahead.

(Lakshmy Raman is the Executive Editor of Sanctuary Asia)

Shankar Gopalakrishnan responds:

Like much of the opposition to the Forest Rights Act, Lakshmy Raman's article is unfortunately a mix of erroneous information, half-truths and contradictory positions.  She begins by claiming that it is the handover of large chunks of forested land.  But the Act does not hand over forest - or, for that matter, land - to anyone.  It only recognises forest-dwellers' rights to the lands that they were cultivating as of December 13, 2005.  It gives people the title to their own farmlands, which in many cases should never have been government land - and in all cases certainly is not forest!   She further claims that the Act includes "all non-tribal traditional forest dwellers" and does not define 'traditional', whereas the definition cannot be clearer: only those who have been residing in forest areas for a minimum of 75 years are eligible. 

But these errors - just two of several in the article -- are only indicative.  A much more revealing point is Raman's self-contradictory position on relocation.  She implicitly criticises the Act because it requires that relocation from protected areas must be voluntary; then, in the last paragraph, she calls for "consensual relocation, without coercion".  But this is precisely what the Act says. 

So, which is it?  Does Raman support consent or not?  This is not simply an inconsistency; it is fundamental.  For too long, elite conservationists and the forest bureaucracy have treated forest communities as dispensable commodities - to be brushed aside whenever the forest is deemed necessary for any purpose -- be it tiger protection, dam construction or mines.  The language of Raman's last paragraph is a good example.  It refers to forest communities as "beneficiaries", needing "satisfactory packages", that are "respectful".  One word is conspicuous by its absence: rights.

There are valid concerns regarding this Act, which we too by no means consider ideal.   Moreover, conservationists and forest communities are natural allies in the fight against the rampant destruction of forest and wildlife in India today.  But neither alliance nor dialogue is possible if forest communities are regarded as subjects rather than citizens.

The Forest Rights Act does not pit people against forests, says Shankar Gopalakrishnan. It facilitates a more democratic and just system of forest management, as against colonial principles of total, centralised control  
 
There was a time when the English media had never heard of forests or forest dwellers.  Now that has changed.  In the last two years, the newspapers have been rife with arguments that India's forests are being sold, parcelled out, hived off or destroyed.  TV channels run public interest ads with forlorn children lamenting the loss of India's natural heritage.
Read Lakshmy Raman's article

The source of all this sound and fury is a new legislation, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.  Contrary to the allegations made against it, this Act has nothing to do with "distributing" or "handing out" forests or forest land to people.  It is about recognising the rights of forest communities. 

Millions of people live in forests and have done so for generations, but most are deemed "encroachers" because they aren't on record.  Forest management plans and wildlife protection plans ignore them.  Official policy sees them as obstacles, inconveniences at best and criminals at worst, and tries to evict or resettle them where possible.

But this hasn't worked.  Our wildlife is disappearing.  Poachers are free to move when there are no people; they even get help from impoverished locals, while forest guards turn corrupt because it is so easy to extort money from these same locals.  Meanwhile, forests erupt in violence as people turn against the official "conservation" that subjects them to such brutality. The result?  Animals, forests and people die, in what the Tiger Task Force called the "war within".

This law is the first step towards addressing this situation. It does not distribute lands.  It only recognises the rights of forest dwellers over land that they are already cultivating, with a cutoff date of December 13, 2005 (in the case of tribals; non-tribals have to additionally prove that they have resided in the forest for 75 years).  It also recognises their rights to other forest resources.  Further, it recognises their right to protect the forests and wildlife that are their homelands.

This last right is the key.  Tens of thousands of villages across India today are defending forests and wildlife against mafias and the government - as in Orissa, where the Dongaria Kondh tribals are fighting to keep their sacred mountain from being destroyed by the Vedanta mining corporation.  In current law, this is a crime, and people have been arrested, jailed and sometimes killed for doing it. This Act would for the first time make this a legal right.

But this is not just one more legal proviso.  It is a pointer to the fundamental issue in the struggle.  This law does not pit people against forests.  It takes the first faltering steps towards a more democratic, more just system of forest management, as against colonial principles of total, centralised control.  Those who so fiercely oppose this law tend to assume that the only way to protect a forest is to make sure that all control is kept in the hands of a few.  This does not work, and it cannot work.  Five lakh hectares of forest have been destroyed in the last five years alone under the current centralised system, in which no one can hold the government accountable.

It is not that this law does not have flaws.  Powerful interests have managed to dilute some key democratic aspects of the law.   But to attack this law in this manner, to seek to restore the once-omnipotent forest bureaucracy to its pedestal, is not to defend the forests.  It is to strengthen those for whom both forests and forest dwellers are commodities - to be sold when valuable and to be brushed aside when not.

(Shankar Gopalakrishnan is a representative of the Campaign for Survival and Dignity, a collective of organisations fighting for the recognition of the rights of traditional forest dwellers and indigenous peoples.)

Lakshmy Raman responds

Declining tiger populations, degraded forest corridors, sanctions for ports and mines, and unsustainable tourism practices - those responsible for wildlife management have undoubtedly failed us on many counts.  However, providing land rights in forested areas, particularly Protected Areas, even under the guise of recognising the rights of forest dwellers, will mean jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Allowing land rights would work if these were low-density populations with minimal forest dependence. The Forest Rights Act offers instant gratification without considering the long-term implications on global climate change, on our environment, biodiversity, water security, and the future of the same forest-dwelling people that it claims to benefit. Estimates for CO2 emissions from total forest conversion, which will be triggered by the FRA, range from 4.8 billion tonnes to 6.25 billion tonnes. Deforestation is already responsible for an estimated 18% of greenhouse gas emissions globally (Stern Review), and over 26% in India. How will large tribal communities be able to protect forests and use them in a sustainable manner when even stringent laws, in the face of vested interests, have not been completely effective?

Increasing human-animal conflict is already a huge problem, one bound to increase if forest dwellers are given land rights. How can one presume that corruption is prevalent only in forest departments and will not afflict gram sabhas? There is no guarantee that these lands will not be resold to commercial interests.

While there are examples of forested areas where tribals have fought large corporations, there are also several examples where encroachment and poaching have been instigated by locals. Consider the Kawal Sanctuary in Andhra Pradesh where locals have encroached large tracts of forest and destroyed thousands of trees.

Our forests and wildlife are indeed the inheritance of our children - ads showing their loss if the FRA is implemented have got it right. Wildlifers and social activists need to work together to fight the common enemies - large-scale commercial projects, international poaching gangs and real estate and timber mafias. There is no universal formula and the focus must be to work on a case-by-case basis. The power balance is overwhelmingly against forests and wildlife and the decisions we take will decide their and our fate.

---