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

Savarkar 'criminally betrayed' Netaji and his INA by siding with the British rulers

By Shamsul Islam* RSS-BJP rulers of India have been trying to show off as great fans of Netaji. But Indians must know what role ideological parents of today's RSS/BJP played against Netaji and Indian National Army (INA). The Hindu Mahasabha and RSS which always had prominent lawyers on their rolls made no attempt to defend the INA accused at Red Fort trials.

India reaches 8th of 10 stage genocide: US Muslim advocacy group raises 'alert'

By Hena Zuberi* India has reached the 8th stage of genocide with the persecution of the Muslim community. Stating this, Professor Greg Stanton, who heads Genocide Watch, declared a Genocide Emergency Alert for India today at Justice For All online briefing.

Anti-poor? 'Cumbersome' to link aadhaar, voter ID for people sans internet access

By Prashant Kumar Chaudhary, Ajit Kumar Jaiswal*  At present, technology plays an increasingly crucial part in modelling human existence by offering a variety of solutions to many of the challenges individuals confront in the real world. As a result, every branch of research works to provides means to solve these difficulties precisely and efficiently. The Central government works along the same lines as well.

'Dargah site was a temple': Claim in Gujarat following post-Babri verdict demands in UP

By Rajiv Shah  Will Gujarat also see demands to replace mosques and dargahs with Hindu temples? It would seem so, if a new fact-finding team conclusion is any indication. Apprehending the “danger” of communal conflagration, it has cited the claim on a 15th century dargah was originally a Hindu temple – allegedly quite on line with what has been happening in UP following the Supreme Court verdict on Babri Mosque.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Why Church in India today needs a Rutilio Grande, martyred for stance on social justice

By Fr Cedric Prakash SJ*  For the people of El Salvador, January 22, 2022 will be more than just a red-letter day. Three of their sons, Jesuit Fr Rutilio Grande and his two lay associates 72-year-old Manuel Solorzano and 15-year-old Nelson Rutilio Lemus (and Italian Franciscan missionary Fr Cosme Spessotto who was also martyred) will be beatified in San Salvador.

Sweden-backed study: India won't achieve 2030 UN goals, officials can't recognise SDG

By Rajiv Shah  A Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC)-sponsored study, carried out by the advocacy group Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS) India, seeking to analyse the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) No 12, Responsible Consumption and Production (RCP), has regretted, it is "very unlikely" India will achieve any of the targets of SDG 12 by 2030 "unless some serious measures are taken by the government to reverse the present trend."

Gender insensitive? Model Gujarat's cyclone relief package ignores 40,000 fisherwomen

CSJ volunteers talking to fisherwomen By Rajiv Shah  A Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) note on the Gujarat government’s compensation package to the victims of the devastating Tauktae cyclone, which hit the coastal belt of Saurashtra's Amerli, Rajula, Una, and Gir-Somnath districts in May 2021, has said, the relief offered was so terribly inadequate that many of the fisherfolk were not able to fish for the rest of the year.

Savarkar 'opposed' Bhagat Singh's, Netaji's dream of India, supported British war efforts

By Shamsul Islam* In a shocking development, the student wing of the RSS put the busts of martyrs Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose with Savarkar's on one pedestal at the University of Delhi late in the night on August 20, 2019. Bhagat Singh sacrificed his life for a socialist-democratic-secular republic and Netaji raised Azad Hind Fauj (INA) consisting of people of all religions and regions for armed liberation of India.

Haridwar call for genocide direct result of Modi 'tolerating' Islamophobic policies

By Our Representative  A high-level briefing organised in Washington DC, in which as many as 17 human rights and interfaith organizations -- including Amnesty International USA, Genocide Watch and Hindus for Human Rights, apart from several persons in their individual capacity -- participated, has come down heavily on what they called "Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Islamophobic policies and tolerance of open incitement by Hindu extremists for a genocide of Muslims."