A year after the Tribal Forest Rights Act* Stephen David Bangalore,
January 1, 2009
Exactly a year ago on this day a landmark act was enacted by the Union
government that sought to restore forest dwellers' rights to their
environment and a real home to the tribal population of approximately 90
million that has always made forests their home.
The January 1, 2008, forest act had also pitted campaign groups – those
fighting for forest dwellers and big conservation groups campaigning for
human-free spaces for wild animals and elephants – against each other, both
advocating for their sincere causes in various forums around the world.
Forest-dwellers' activists say the environmental laws inherited by India
from the British Raj historically excluded the *adivasi* (tribals) – India
has the world's largest indigenous population in them – from the forests. It
was their long struggle that resulted in Parliament passing the Tribal
Forest Rights Act in December 2006 and after a two-year-long process of
debates and protests from both sides of the issue, the act was notified into
force on January 1, 2008.
India's forest dwellers, with key support locally from groups like Campaign
for Survival and Dignity and backed by global organisations like Friends of
the Earth (FoE) Finland, the FoE International Forest and Biodiversity
Program and the World Rainforest Movement and a dozen other green groups had
appealed to the Indian law makers to enshrine the rights of India's tribal
forest communities under the new law.
"There is a lot that needs to be done," points out Environment Support Group
coordinator Leo Saldanha, who has been tracking the government initiatives
in the environment sector for close to two decades.
Karnataka, for example, home to 60 per cent of one of the world's global
diversity hotspots the Western Ghats has nearly a 38,000 sq km forest area.
Almost a quarter of the state's geographical area is covered by forest. And,
possibly, home to close to 1 lakh tribals and forest dwellers.
Forest department officials have admitted the forest rights act has been a
challenge to them considering its far reaching effects. "It is a tough task
trying to maintain the fine balance between conservation and taking care of
the welfare of the tribals and the forest dwellers," a top conservation
official told *India Today*. "The only option is to work with the forest
dwellers to preserve the forests."
Even for those who live on the fringes of the forest area close to cities
like Bangalore the act would mean easier access to graze their cattle in the
forest areas. At the 104 sq km Bannerghatta national park near the Karnataka
capital officials have struggled to maintain a balance between keeping the
wild animals' critical habitat a safe distance from encroachers. At the same
time, people living on the fringes of the park have also had to put up their
own innovative ways of warding off invasion of elephants or other animals
into their territory. Some have fenced off their lands with electric wires
while some have used other methods advocated by conservation groups that are
working around the nearly 7,000-odd forest fringe villages in Karnataka.
Experts like M.B. Krishna point out to the huge challenge for government's
to follow the Centre's January 1, 2008 diktat, especially the assertive
Ministry of Tribal Affairs, to form village forest committees at the *gram
sabha *level, sub-divisional committees at the *taluk *level and
district-level committees. In Karnataka, tribal organisation Budakattu
Krishikara Sangha (BKS) has actively campaigned to include its members in
the committees to be constituted for implementing the tribal forest rights
act.
One fear is that since the onus on determining the real beneficiaries under
this act lies at the sole discretion of the nearly 5,700 *gram panchayats *–
in Karnataka alone –undeserving persons should not become beneficiaries.
Wildlife groups have their own take on the matter. Karnataka is home to
quarter of India's elephant population and is also home to 10 per cent of
India's tigers, the national animal.
Praveen Bhargav, managing trustee of Wildlife First and member of the
National Board for Wildlife, points out that this act was in addition to and
not in derogation of the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006, the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and other state forest acts.
Bhargav says the Act provides for recognition and vesting of rights only to
Scheduled Tribes people and other forest dwellers, who had been primarily
residing and depending on forestland for three generations (one generation
as defined in the act is 25 years) and were in actual occupation of the
forestland before the cut off date of December 13, 2005.
Experts also point out that the Act provides for declaration of Critical
Wildlife Habitat in national parks and sanctuaries that required to be
managed as inviolate areas in which case the act would pave way for
resettlement of villages and settlements.
Vijay Anand, who is studying the human-elephant conflict at Bannerghatta
National Park, Karnataka, points out: "In the case of project elephant
reserves, human-elephant conflict is one of the serious threats to the
survival of the Asian elephants. The problem involves the people who live
inside and outside such areas. As a management strategy in several areas the
human enclosures are being relocated to avoid confrontation with wildlife.
The illegal cattle grazing by these settlers are perceived as one of the
major problems in the management of forest and wildlife. Even with the
present Forest laws we have been grappling to protect our forest and
wildlife and with the introduction of this Act, things may become even
tougher to protect our forests and wildlife. While ensuring livelihood and
food security of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes is important – at
what cost and through what means should be debated."
On January 1, 2008, the Union government took what many say a small step for
indigenous rights by enacting the Tribal Forest Rights Act. Whether that
small step has translated into a giant leap in correcting historical
injustice as it was sought to have is a question that will only continue to
be debated as the fight to maintain India's green cover continues by all the
lobbies — the wildlife and the peoples groups included.
*URL for this article :*
http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/content_mail.php?option=com_content&name=print&id=24153
