Why the Forest Rights Act is not only Constitutional but essential for Conservation

A Mahagatbandhan in the Forests is the need of the Hour

-->

In the brave new world that defines India today, if your biometrics fail to match those in the Aadhaar database, you don’t get your rations, and could even die.[1] Similarly, if the government fails to recognise your claims on forest land, not only do you not get the title to the land you have been cultivating for generations, but you even stand the risk of being evicted. Again and again, we see that it is the most poor and vulnerable who are at risk of being penalised for government failures.

When the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, generally referred to as the Forest Rights Act (FRA) was passed, there was hope that it would at last usher in some change in the undeclared civil war that has existed between the forest department and forest dwellers over the last century or more. The Act aimed to redress the ‘historical injustice to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes’ by recognising their property rights to land, as well as non-timber forest produce, and the community right of control and management which was appropriated by the forest department. However, recent events show that there is little likelihood of that, with the looming threat of Supreme Court mandated evictions and a highly problematic 2019 Forest Act that is proposed to replace the 1927 Indian Forest Act.

Violent Social Conflicts in India’s Forests –Society, State and the Market

Violent Social Conflicts in India’s Forests –Society, State and the Market

Conference on Indian Forestry: Key Trends and Challenges, 5 – 6 March 2009, New Delhi

This article looks at conflicts over meanings and objectives over forest use and control in and around India’s forests, ranging from everyday contestations over forest access between different communities in a village, to violent encounters between the forest department, police and villagers, to battles that are fought out in the court. Civil society responses to conflict cover a wide spectrum from advocacy with parliamentary parties, legal intervention, and political mobilisation to armed struggle. Within civil society, even those who believe in lobbying and legal intervention, must be differentiated by class and region, since they bring with them very unequal strengths and unequal access to government. The political clout of associations of retired foresters is, for example, quite different from that of associations of poor peasants. State responses equally vary between negotiation, indifference and severe repression, depending not just on the interlocutors, but on the political expediency of the moment. This chapter will include a typology of forest conflicts.

The full text is available at: 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46103035/Violent-Social-Conflicts-in-India-s-Forests

Is Devolution Democratisation

 

“Is Devolution Democratisation”. In World Development, 29 (12), 2001, 2007-2024.

Recent attempts at introducing new forms of governance in forest management in India have focussed on devolution to user-groups or village level “participatory committees”. Success or failure is attributed to the presence or absence of “social capital” among these groups. However, these groups have never existed outside the state, and social relations, including social capital, are continually being transformed by administrative and market forces. This paper argues that what matters is not the degree of government intervention, i.e. more or less devolution, or the degree of social capital among local communities, but state accountability. This can only be ensured through addressing questions of political reform.

Key words: Devolution, Social Capital, State, Forestry, Asia, India

 Full text available at: 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46103003/Is-Devolution-Democratisation

Unpacking the `Joint' in Joint Forest Management

 “Unpacking the `Joint' in Joint Forest Management.” In Development and Change, 31, 2000, 255-279. 

This article examines the concept of jointness in India’s joint forest management program, understood as an engagement between the state (in this case forest department) and people organised into `communities', with NGOs, where available, acting as the interface. By examining the commonalties between older examples of joint or co-management of resources and current practices of joint forest management, the paper challenges the notion that `jointness' is a new feature of forest policy, or that it represents a resurgence of civil society against the state. Further, insofar as the basic agenda of the program is pre-determined,  it is not very participatory. However, within the limited degree of choice that JFM allows, there is a new and joint construction of needs.

The full text of the article is available at: 

http://www.scribd.com/full/46103051?access_key=key-19k6kx09iyn1t94pp7pk