Right
to live decently is what the tribals need, not perpetual poverty and
backwardness, which is what a life in the forests will mean.
In a nation that is the envy of the developed world, there are over 20
million tribals living below the poverty line. They live in the
interior and fringes of forests.
The nation populated by 1.13 billion has less than 20 per cent of its
geographical area under forests. This has been steadily eroded over the
years. No wonder a flagship species like the tiger has found it tough
to survive. From a mere 4,000 in 2002, the numbers are down to a
pathetic 1,400 in the latest census.
In the name of social justice, the government passed the Scheduled
Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act in 2006. It recognises not only their ownership of lands in
the forests, but also their livelihood rights that entitle them to
cultivate, graze, fish on the land allotted to them; collect and
dispose minor forest produce, besides the right to manage and protect
community forest resources.
To protect forests and tiger, the government allocated Rs 600 crore for
eight new reserves; of which Rs 500 crore was for relocation of tribes
living within.
Now consider this perplexing scenario: the Forest Rights Act entitles
each tribal family to have land under its occupation, which may not
exceed four hectares. Even at an average of 2.5 hectares, a total of 20
million tribals would carve out 50 million hectares out of a total of
68 million hectares of forests!
That would leave 18 million hectares of inviolate forest land. The Act
also provides for diversion of forest land towards schools, hospitals,
anganwadis, drinking water supply and water pipelines, roads, electric
and telecommunication lines, etc for the tribals.
At a time when climate change is a global concern, the role of forests
with its flora and fauna cannot be underplayed. At a time when the
tribes are no more living in seclusion, or living off the forests, but
are linked to market, it is anybody’s guess what happens if they
continue to live inside forests.
A recent research paper from Wildlife Conservation Society and
University of Kent, UK, argues that forest dwelling communities are
little benefited from harvesting and marketing non-timber forest
products (NTFP) such as fruit, seed, resin, medicine, thatching grass
and other products.
Authors Sanjay Gubbi and Douglas MacMillan did an economic study at the
Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala. Financial returns from collection of
NTFP was as low as Rs 40 per day for the poorer of the tribals. The
exploitation has been noted in how the same product that fetched them
Rs 18 per kg would be sold by the upper class community for Rs 55!
Almost 82 per cent of the NTFP collectors sought a better livelihood if
provided, and none wanted their children to be NTFP collectors! They
also expressed concern of danger from wild animals.
This study findings is contrary to what one of the provisions of the
Rights Act is about, that collecting and marketing of NTFP would help
the tribals.
As Gubbi points out, “In the changing economic scenario forest products
could loose out to factory made alternatives. For instance, bamboo/cane
baskets are being replaced by plastic baskets. Raising education levels
of forest dwelling communities would provide them better and more
stable livelihoods than pushing them towards economies that are
unstable.”
A C Lakshman, former secretary, forests and environment, who has worked
extensively at Nagarahole as DCF, among other rehabilitation projects,
calls the Forest Rights Act as a “draconian law that will undo all the
work we did.”
In his experience during four decades, he recounts how rampant
encroachment has taken a toll of forests with governments regularising
them. (In Karnataka, over 90,000 hectares of forest land has been
encroached since 1980.) During the Sharavathy project, for instance
some 50,000 acres was cleared for submersion and an equal amount of
land set aside for rehabilitation in surrounding areas. The impact of
destruction of habitats has not been studied, he adds. In the above
area, elephant numbers went down, the macaque is almost extinct and the
black ebony is not breeding.
Citing the Nagarhole rehabilitation, which he undertook in the 70s
against much outcry from politicians and media, Lakshman says that the
tribals are now a wealthy lot, living in Gudalur area!
What the tribals need is a “right to live decently” he says.
Agreeing to this is S S Joshi, secretary, Karnataka Retired Forest
Officers Association. “The act is a vote-catching gimmick, that
perpetuates poverty and backwardness among the tribals by keeping them
inside forests.” The association has gone to court against the Act.
Joshi is particularly critical of the inclusion of ‘other traditional
forest dwellers’ into the ambit of the Act. “It is a loose term and
included to expand the base. This is evidently a ploy by politicians to
gift away forest land to their henchmen.”
Forest land has always been easy for state governments to pawn off. It
was only when Indira Gandhi brought in the Forest Conservation Act in
1980 that the powers of the state government to dole out forest land
was taken away. But now the tribals welfare department has managed to
get the Forest Rights Act passed, all done without any consultation
with the forest department.
With a few other organisations like Wildlife First, Wildlife Society,
and states filing PILs against the Act, the hope is that it will be
pooled and moved to the Supreme Court.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/Jun102008/panorama2008060972596.asp
