COMMUNITY FOREST RIGHTS: STATUS ISSUES & STATUS, ISSUES, & RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS Presentation by Ashish Kothari (with inputs by Tushar Dash, Shiba Desor, Trupti Parekh, Subodh Kulkarni, Mohan Hirabai Hiralal, Dilip Gode, Purnima) N ti National Workshop on CFRs l W k h CFR March 2013
STATUS OF CFR IN THE STATES AS ON 31st December, 2012 (MOTA) St t State N No of f N No of community f it E t Extent of t f community titles issued forest land in claims acres A dh Andhra Pradesh P d h 6 714 6,714 2 106 2,106 Assam 5,193 860 Chhattisgarh 4,736 775 Gujarat 8,723 1,608 Karnataka 2,917 53 Kerala Kerala 1395 1395 4 4 Madhya 13,125 Not available Pradesh Maharashtra Maharashtra 5,041 5 041 1033 1033 3 77 776 25 3,77,776.25 Odisha 3,304 879 55,251.65 Rajasthan 346 53 4,19.53 Tripura T i 277 2 55 56.79 6 9 Uttar Pradesh 1,135 814 West Bengal 7,824 108 50.29
ISSUES WITH THE MoTA MONTHLY REPORTS MONTHLY REPORTS • Dependent on poor/incorrect reporting by states; now improving under MoTA-UNDP project • Most of the reported community forest rights are development facilities; no disaggregation between Sec 3(1) and Sec 3(2); now sought by MoTA Sec 3(1) and Sec 3(2); now sought by MoTA • Area covered by CFR claims is not available for many states many states
Some stories of success… •Mostly where civil society organisations have facilitated •Some places, pro-active help by revenue/forest officials •Helpful government circulars/orders at district ( Gadchiroli Mah) state ( Odisha MP MoTA on CFRs ) ( Gadchiroli, Mah), state ( Odisha, MP, MoTA on CFRs ) and national level ( 2012) •Experience exchange through national CFR Learning/Advocacy Network (also some state networks) Learning/Advocacy Network (also some state networks)
Maharashtra (Dec 2012) (Dec 2012) CFR claims: 4955 CFR claims: 4955 Accepted: 2745 Titled: 1571 Titled: 1571 Area: 705869 acres Highest in India, but mostly in 2 districts, g , y , and mostly conditional
ODISHA Over 10,000 self-initiated community , y forests Claims: 5391, over ~ 2,50,035.93 acres Approved: 2908, over ~ 2,25,332.84 acres Titled: >972, over 57,794.47 acres Recently issued titles in Recently issued titles in Kandhamal reflect customary/traditional boundaries; many other titles have illegal conditions
Other states… Several thousand accepted in Andhra, over ~1 lakh acres ( but mostly conditional, restricted to JFM boundaries, or titled to VSS ) Almost 2000 CFR titles in Gujarat, including Shoolpaneshwar Sanctuary (area 3,00,000 acres?) 381 claims over 126 998 381 claims over 126,998 acres accepted, Baiga chak, Madhya P Pradesh (but conditional d h (b t diti l & titled to VSS)
JHARKHAND JHARKHAND • CFR claims mostly from CFR ST OTFD West Singhbhum Godda West Singhbhum, Godda, Claims Khunti and Titles Titles • Many of the CFR titles are • Many of the CFR titles are for development facilities Claims 3571 147 filed at • In West Singhbhum, CFR • In West Singhbhum CFR Gram titles issued to each Sabha individual household Number 542 Number 542 10 10 • State govt has informed of titles that since CNTA/SPTA given laws have already laws have already recorded rights, progress on FRA/CFR is slow
Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Sanctuary & (illegal) Tiger Reserve Karnataka & (illegal) Tiger Reserve, Karnataka 25 CFR titles to Soliga, over ~25,000 ha (>half of sanctuary); community-based wildlife/tiger conservation plan process initiated
MOSTLY, THOUGH, CFR IMPLEMENTATION HAS BEEN EXTREMELY WEAK; BEEN EXTREMELY WEAK; IN MANY STATES, NOT MOVED AT ALL MOVED AT ALL Total potential area: >75 m. acres Accepted/titled: <1 m acres Accepted/titled: <1 m.acres
PROBLEMS WITH CFR PROCESS (with exceptions) (with exceptions) • Inadequate awareness and training • Poor facilitation by govt depts (e.g. in providing evidences) incl. Tribal/Social Welfare Depts • Use of different formats for CFR claims • Use of different formats for CFR claims • Undue influence of or reliance on Forest Department • Lack of clarity in verification and mapping process • Lack of clarity in verification and mapping process • Artificial restrictions on extent of claims (e.g. JFM), or titles to inappropriate institutions (VSS/Panchayat) titles to inappropriate institutions (VSS/Panchayat) • Titles with improper or illegal conditions (e.g. IFA)
RIGHTS TO PROTECT, CONSERVE, MANAGE COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGE COMMUNITY FOREST RESOURCES •Missing Section 3(1)i in MoTA CFR format ( added in 2012 Rules) Mi i S ti 3(1)i i M TA CFR f t ( dd d i 2012 R l ) •Management/protection rights not recognized in many CFR titles
RIGHTS OF HABITAT FOR PTGs & PRE- AGRICULTURE COMMUNITIES AGRICULTURE COMMUNITIES No clarity on ‘habitat’ rights (e g No clarity on habitat rights (e.g. do they include non-forest lands?); National Workshop (2010) recommendations ignored Guda Raija-Habitat rights of Niyamgiri-Sacred hill of Niyamgiri Sacred hill of Chuktia-Bhunjia, Odisha & Chuktia Bhunjia, Odisha & Chhattisgarh Dongrias, Odisha 2012 amended 2012 amended rules: No move in most PVTG claims to be states re. PTG filed before gram habitat rights g sabhas recogni ing sabhas, recognizing Maria in Bhamragarh & floating nature of Kolam in Yavatmal have their gram sabhas made habitat claims, Mah.
TRADITIONAL RESOURCE ACCESS OF NOMADIC COMMUNITIES ( Mankirdias, Gujjars, Maldharis, Raikas, Dhangars … ) •No nomadic/seasonal pastoral community has yet got CFR rights •No mechanism to assist their claims in multiple gram sabhas in multiple gram sabhas FRA amended rules: FRA d d l DLC to facilitate claim filing by pastoralists, transhumants and transhumants and nomadic communities
RIGHTS ON SHIFTING CULTIVATION LANDS CULTIVATION LANDS mostly being treated as IFRs (e.g. Tripura); rest of jh jhum lands can then unjustifiably be treated by forest l d th j tifi bl b t t d b f t dept as ‘encroachment’
RIGHTS OF OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS (OTFD) FOREST DWELLERS (OTFD) So far a few accepted only in Gadchiroli dist So far, a few accepted only in Gadchiroli dist, Maharashtra, some in Jharkhand; everywhere else, very few claims, none accepted , y , p Some states (AP, Guj), process not started Problems of >interpretation of OTFD eligibility >getting evidence tti id >non-acceptance of claims by gram sabhas
FOREST VILLAGES FOREST VILLAGES Conversion to revenue villages and recognition of their CFRs unclear: no central guidance till recently (broad procedure now in Amended Rules) Unsurveyed/unrecorded (so-called ‘unauthorised’) settlements: poor identification, no claims process
RIGHTS IN PROTECTED AREAS AREAS • CFR recognised in v. few protected areas g p • CWH Guidelines not finalised; no guidelines on co-existence guidelines on co existence • FRA/WLPA 2006 violated in recent buffer notifications notifications
ILLEGAL RELOCATION: WITHOUT FRA IMPLEMENTATION, NOT OFFERING OPTION OF STAYING ON WITH RIGHTS (e.g. Simlipal, Achanakmar, Tadoba, Sariska, Melghat Tiger Reserves) Reserves) CTH relocation protocol doesn’t define ‘inviolate’, ignores crucial FRA issues Ambadiha relocation site relocation site Family moving (from Simlipal from Tadoba TR, TR) 2012
Notification of buffer areas in tiger reserves (Ajay Dubey Case) -Filed PIL in 2011 seeking implementation of Tiger Conservation Plan -Case goes to Supreme Court, temporary tourism ban is put Case goes to Supreme Court temporary tourism ban is put on India’s 41 Tiger reserve areas -Committee on Tourism is constituted to frame new guidelines on tourism -Despite objections from committee members, new guidelines finalized which violate provisions in FRA, and PESA, p , , threatening rights and livelihoods of forest communities with illegal relocation -Supreme Court makes interim decision to lift tourism ban, Supreme Court makes interim decision to lift tourism ban however objections to guidelines are yet to be addressed. The tiger reserve area has expanded to 41 tiger reserves (TR), covering an area g g ( ) g of around 63874.68 sq.km. with 35123.95 sq.km. of core/CTH and 28750.73 sq.km. of buffer in 17 tiger States. This amounts to 2% of the country’s geographical area
FRA violation in diversion of forest land for mining dams forest land for mining, dams, Vedanta- industries, etc Niyamgiri POSCO • MoEF circular (30.7.09) requires state govts to comply with ( ) q g p y FRA & seek gram sabha consent for diversion of forest land • But mostly violated by states and MoEF; 200,000 ha forest diverted without FRA process diverted without FRA process • Exemption for linear projects (roads, railway/ transmission lines); over-riding powers with Cabinet Committee on Investments Investments
Recommend
More recommend
