Skip to main content

Draft afforestation rules will lead to harassment, atrocities, crimes against tribals, forest dwellers

By Manohar Chauhan*
The draft Compensatory Afforestation Fund Rules, as notified on 16.02.2018, are in direct violation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (the Forest Rights Act); the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as amended in 2015; the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution; the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996; and several other applicable provisions of law and the Constitution.
As the Forest Rights Act (FRA) applies to all forest lands, any activity in any forest land needs to comply with the provisions of the Act as violating the same comprises an offense and denial of rights of STs & SCs is an atrocity under the Prevention of atrocities Act.
Further, remarkably, despite the Ministry of Tribal Affairs being the nodal ministry for the FRA, there is no provision for it being represented in any of the steering/management committees to be constituted for implementation of the CAF Act at either the central or state levels.

Violation of the Area covered by the Forest Rights Act

Instead of requiring compliance with the Forest Rights Act and specifying how such compliance should be achieved, the draft just generally says compliance with the Act should happen where it is applicable." The Forest Rights Act is applicable to all forest lands in India. The Rules seem to imply that the Act only applies in areas where rights have already been recorded - which is manifestly incorrect, given the language of section 5 (regarding protection of forests) of the Act in particular and also of sections 4(1) and 3(1) (regarding rights).
In fact the FRA Rules clearly require that community forest resource (CFR) rights under section 3(1)(i) must be recognised for all villages with forests. According to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Changes own admission, The Schedule Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 assigned rights to protect around 40 million hectares of community forest resources to village level democratic institutions. (Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. Government of India., Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study II, India Forestry Outlook Study, Bangkok, 2009, 75-6, available HERE)
Any activity under the CAF Rules by the State Forest Department on forest land and non-forest land (as referred to in provisos to CAFA draft Rule (5)) amounts to change in land use which inter alia results in violation of existing forest rights as referred to under FRA or any land rights under any other land laws in force and are offencesand, if they pertain to the Scheduled Tribes, also criminal offences under the ST and SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 as amended in 2015. Violations of rights under FRA are also offences under Sec.7 of FRA.
For local communities dependent on that land CA plantations can result in major changes in land use that negatively impact their forest dependent livelihoods. Widespread plantation of exotic tree species in natural grasslands classified as forests and considered blanks by forest departments, or replacement of diverse local MFP bearing species with commercial monocultures of teak, acacia and bamboo, have already been resulting in loss of access to fodder/grazing/MFPs besides such plantation areas being fenced off leading to total denial of access to such areas.
As per Article 300A of the Constitution, disturbing or destroying the rights of any forest dweller is illegal and a criminal offence unless there is a procedure established by law for doing so. Neither these Rules nor their parent Act make any reference at all to this requirement. This will lead to further illegal actions and to litigation.

Violation of the Authority of the Gram Sabha

The Forest Rights Act mandates that gram sabhas have both the right and the power to protect, manage and conserve forests (sections 5 and 3(1)(i)). The Act also recognises forest dwellers' rights over common and individual forest lands (sections 3(1) and 4(1)). Under the Act, the authority to initiate the process of recognition of rights is the gram sabha.
Reading all these provisions together, it is clear that any significant change in or damage to forest ecosystems requires, first, that the gram sabha certify that the process of rights recognition is complete, and, second, that it consents to such a change. Doing anything less than that amounts to saying state agencies can simply take away or destroy forests that forest dwellers have rights over and would amount to nullifying either section 4(1) or section 5 of the Forest Rights Act. It is on this basis that the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change had itself issued its order of 03.08.2009 requiring that these conditions must be met prior to any diversion of forest land.
Even the Supreme Court, in its judgment in the Niyamgiri case, has stated that it is the gram sabha which must decide whether any changes in its customary forests are acceptable to it or not. It is clear that the same conditions would apply to any afforestation or other activities undertaken under the CAF Act on forest land, and indeed this point was raised in the Rajya Sabha by the opposition parties.
Therefore the CAF Rules must make it mandatory that before undertaking any activity with CAF funds, the following must be ensured:
  • Recognition of all rights under FRA on forest lands and under relevant land laws in the case of non-forest lands are completed in all respects and entered into the record of rights,
  • Free and prior informed consent of the concerned rights holders, viz. individuals, communities and Gram Sabhas (as defined under FRA and not the Gram Sabha defined under CAFA draft Rule 2(m)), and on the agreed terms and conditions as the case may be with the Gram Sabhas through resolutions as per FRA Rule 4(2); and
  • Compensation for the acquired rights on market terms determined and agreed to by the concerned right holders.
The draft rules undercut the definition of the gram sabha. These Rules say gram sabhas should be taken to be as per Article 243(g) of the Constitution, which defines the gram sabha for its purposes as the assembly of all voters in a panchayat. This may be a very large number of people scattered over several revenue villages. Such a "gram sabha" is an impractical decision making body that may have many thousands of members spread across a large area, especially in tribal regions.
For this reason, the Constitution specifically excludes Fifth Schedule areas from this definition and mandated Parliament to provide a different definition for these areas - which in turn was done through the PESA Act, which defines the gram sabha to be the assembly of a hamlet or habitation.
The Forest Rights Act also utilises this definition in Scheduled Areas while providing that in other areas, including forest villages and unsurveyed villages on forest land, each village should have its own gram sabha comprising of all resident adults. These Rules return to a definition of an unworkable body, clearly in an attempt to ensure that the process can be rendered meaningless and easy to manipulate.
The definitions of both village and gram sabha provided in the FRA must be respected to ensure that the gram sabha can function as an effective forum for collective decision making.

Vague and Largely Meaningless Provisions on Consultation

While providing for consultation, the draft says nothing about how "consultation" should be done, and does not even refer to consent - or to the course of action that will be taken if gram sabhas refuse to give their consent. There is also no description of what proof will be required to show that consent was taken or, indeed, that gram sabhas were consulted at all. As a result, under these rules, plantations can take place and projects can be built on areas over which forest dwellers have rights or which they are managing and protecting. This is a direct incitement to illegal activities.
The draft offers officials the option of consulting either gram sabhas or "Van Sanrakshan Samitis" or Village Forest Committee or Joint Forest Management Committee. These Joint Forest Management committees have no basis in law. They are controlled by the Forest Department, since the forest guard is the secretary and joint account holder of such committees. In the past, including in its Frequently Asked Questions on the Act, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs has taken the clear stand that no equation can be drawn between JFM Committees and gram sabhas, which are statutory authorities under the Act. However, these draft Rules illegally provide for consultation with JFM Committees.
The CAF draft rules also define a community forest management plan, although there is no mention of the same in the main body of the rules. This seems to be an attempt to undercut the power of the gram sabha to elect its own forest conservation and management committee empowered to prepare CFR plans under the supervision and control of the gram sabha under FRA rules. This needs to be removed to prevent the misuse of this provision.

Exclusion of Compensatory Afforestation Funds

Finally, these Rules only refer to the money collected as the "net present value" (NPV) of forests being destroyed. There is no reference to the money collected for compensatory afforestation (CA) purposes under the Forest Conservation Rules. How are these funds to be spent, and will they be subject to any safeguards with respect to compliance with forest rights? It appears that they will not be.
In sum, these Rules, if operationalised in their current form, will lead to harassment, atrocities and crimes against tribals and forest dwellers, and hence to litigation, protests and conflict in forest areas. We request that they be withdrawn and reframed in accordance with law.
---
*Campaign for Survival and Dignity

Comments

TRENDING

World Bank clarifies: Its 26th rank to India not for universal access to power but for ease of doing business

By Our Representative
In a major embarrassment to the Government of India, the World Bank has reportedly clarified that it has not ranked India 26th out of 130 countries for providing power to its population. The top international banker’s clarification comes following Union Power Minister Piyush Goyal’s claim that India has “improved to 26 position from 99” in access to electricity in just one year.

"Misleading" satellite images being shared on Balakot surgical strike on Jaish camp

By Dr Vinay Kate*
With every passing day more questions are being raised about the surgical strike India did in Balakot as a response to Pulwama attacks. So far the Indian media has claimed mass casulaty of 300+ terrorists of Jaish-e-Mohammad in this surgical strike, but there is hardly any report from foreign media about the same.

Extreme repression, corporate loot, cultural genocide "characterise" India's tribal belt

Counterview Desk
As Lok Sabha polls approach, there is considerable ferment in one section of the population -- India's Adivasis, forming about 8.6 per cent of India's population. Things became particularly critical following the February 14, 2019 Supreme Court order, allegedly seeking to evict lakhs of tribals from their forest lands.

Industry in India "barely growing", export growth 0%, whither moral anchors?

Counterview Desk
In a sharp critique of the Modi government, the Indian Institute of Management-Ahmedabad (IIM-A), one of world renowned economist Prof Kaushik Basu, who is Professor of Economics and Carl Marks Professor of International Studies at Cornell University, has told students at the IIM-A’s 54th Annual Convocation on March 16, 2019 that they have a “special responsibility” on their shoulders, “the responsibility to reject narrow sectarianism, uphold scientific thinking, openness to new ideas, and freedom of speech.”

Gujarat model? Industrial effluents "invade" borewells, discharge coloured water in farms

By Rajiv Shah
In a major embarrassment for Gujarat model, of the 21 samples taken by officials of the state government's environmental watchdog Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) in two villages of Vadodara district and analyzed by its laboratory in Gandhinagar, the state capital, to find out pollution level in groundwater, 16 were assessed as highly contaminated – these were, in fact, found to be discharging reddish, brownish, reddish, or yellowish water.

Refugees as criminals? US govt report blames Amit Shah for calling Bangladeshis termites

Counterview Desk
The chapter “Freedom of Movement” of the US State Department’s “India 2018 Human Rights Report”, released recently, has criticized BJP chief Amit Shah for terming alleged Bangladeshis who may be in Assam as “termites”, because their names were struck down from the list of National Register of Citizens, under preparation in the state.
Pointing out that four million residents were excluded from Assam’s final draft list, leading to “uncertainty over the status of these individuals, many of whose families had lived in the state for several generations”, the report regrets, the Indian law does not even contain the term “refugee,” treating refugees like Rohingiyas as “any other foreigners.”
“Undocumented physical presence in the country is a criminal offense. Persons without documentation were vulnerable to forced returns and abuse”, the report says.
Text of the Freedom of Movement chapter: The law provides for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, a…

Congress would win just 9 of 26 Lok Sabha seats: Gujarat Assembly segment-wise analysis

By Rajiv Shah
Even as the Congress plans its first working committee meet in Gujarat on February 28 after an almost 58 year gap, there is reason to wonder what is in store for India’s grand old party in a state which has been long been a BJP bastion – in fact ever since mid-1990s. Ahead of the then assembly polls in late 2012, talking with me, a senior Gujarat Congress leader, currently Rajya Sabha MP, frankly said he saw no reason why Congress would win.

"Pro-corporate" Supreme Court order on FRA would further marginalize Adivasis

By VS Roy David, JP Raju*
For millions of Adivasis and other traditional forest dwellers February 13, 2019 will go down in history as the day of apocalypse. This is like the proverbial Black Friday where millions of most marginalized people of India were ordered by malicious anti-people draconian Supreme Court order depriving them the life and livelihood by evicting them from their habitats.

Financial inclusion? Not micro-loans; India's poor "need" investment in health, education

By Moin Qazi*
India has grown into a global powerhouse. Its economy is soaring but the picture on the ground is still quite arid. The green shoots that you see are only a patch of its landscape. Most Indians are hapless victims of inequity. India is one country where intense poverty abounds in the shadow of immense wealth.

India, Pakistan told to eliminate nuclear weapons: N-war "would kill" 2 billion

Counterview Desk
The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), a non-partisan federation of national medical organizations in 64 countries, representing tens of thousands of doctors, medical students, other health workers, and concerned citizens, claiming to share the common goal of creating a more peaceful and secure world freed from the threat of nuclear annihilation, has warned that “an unprecedented global catastrophe” awaits the globe against the backdrop of warmongering in India and Pakistan.