FOREST GOVERNANCE
Where
does our system of forest governance stand? For this one has to start
from the 1850s when the British government began the process of taking
over direct control of the country’s forests. The structures they set up
the forest laws and the forest bureaucracy were aimed at fulfilling
colonial objectives, primarily of forest produce and revenues. The
British divided forest in to three kinds
RESERVE FORESTS- State has absolute control over the forest.
PROTECTED FOREST- Which can be used by the local people for specific purpose. People cannot go for commercial use of forest.
VILLAGE FOREST- Forests outside settlements of villages
More
than 150 years after the British began their takeover of the country’s
forests, almost 60 years after independent. India’s first government
reaffirmed the British approach in the name of national
development, 30 years after the centre began to regulate forests, and 20
years after it began a half –hearted attempt to change things through
joint forest management , the issue of “who decides “ is being finally
confronted head on. Who decides how much bamboo or firewood should be
harvested in the forests of Gadchiroli? Who decides that the nayamgiri
forests may be giving for mining? Who decides tigers and tribals cannot
coexist in the Biligiri Rangan hills? The answer to all such questions
was the same: the state forest department and the Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MOEF) had made tentative attempts to go beyond
this purely centralized system. The ministry has requested the states to
bring joint forest management committees (JFMCs) under the gram
panchayats.
Why govern forest at all?
Ecologically,
forests generate multiple benefits simultaneously they not only produce
tangible products such as timber, bamboo, fodder and wild honey, but
they also moderate hydrological behavior of watersheds, provide habitat
for wild life, and sequester CO2 and these benefits accrue to different
groups in the society. While tangible products may benefit villagers or
logging contractors hydrological regulations benefit s downstream water
users. Climate change mitigation due to CO2 sequestration benefits the
entire world and the wildlife is also seen today as a global heritage of
humankind.
Conservation gets priority:
The
wild life act of 1972 led to the Re-Designation of significant areas of
forests as Wildlife Sanctuaries and national parks. The forest
conservation act 1980 was an attempt by centre to introduce some
long-term thinking in to the otherwise short –sighted conservation of
forests to other users. The national forest policy adopted in 1988 was
the first coherent attempt by the government to formulate a new
perspective on the forest question “environmental stability was to be
the highest priority for forest-management, and diversion of direct
economic benefit was to be subordinate to this.
The
idea of joint forest management picked upon on a experiment in Arbari
in West Bengal, suggested that sharing the harvests from generated or
replanted forests would be the way to get communities involved in forest
protection and regeneration. The JFM program received enthusiastic
support from international aid agencies and several civil society
organizations as it seemed to mark a shift towards the pro-people forest
governance and involves participatory forest management.
Multi layered Democratic forest governance:
At
the outset, There is a need to recognize that those living next to and
manage these forests, and this is a natural right- similar to the rights
to self governance we all enjoy under the 73rd and 74th
amendment. This right cannot be seen as a concession, Privilege,
benefit. Or sub- contract conferred by the state and it cannot be
selectively conferred on “Well behaved communities “it accrues to all.
But the right comes with responsibility to maintain some minimum level
of environment benefits that go to larger society, a responsibility
towards future generations, and a responsibility that the benefits of
forest use are disturbed equitably within the local community. No
bureaucracy can manage a forest that is spread over 70 million hectares
and is in constant use by 250 million people. What is required is
vesting day-to- day use and management rights with local institutions
which function within well-defined frame work that is defined and
enforced in transparent manner by a state regulatory agency. Three
questions then arise.
1 .What should be the form of local institutions that manage these forests?
2. What kind of use rights should they have?
3. What should be the nature and structure of regulatory agency?
Answer
regarding first, the proposal to bring JFMCs under Gram panchayats
fails on several counts. On the one hand, retaining the Joint structure
defeats the idea of day-to –day autonomy. Gram panchayats are generally
large, dominated by an agrarian, mostly non- tribal, elite that tends to
be less forest dependent, and is set up to implement development
programs funded from above, rather than do bottom- up self governance.
The need therefore is to vest rights in hamlet level bodies or
panchayats extended to scheduled areas under JFM would have to be handed
over to such bodies but this process will have to be part of settling
community rights across the entire forested landscape that is under day-
to –day use. So, as to avoid future conflicts this is already proposed
in the Forests Rights Act, but should be extended to the whole country,
and taken up by the state suo-moto, as it took up JFM not waiting for
communities to come forward. The answer to the second
question tells the rights conferred must include all the rights to
harvest and sale of non timber forest produce (NTFP) including currently
nationalized ones such as some rights to timber. Ideally timber rights
should be preferentially allotted to the landless marginal peasants, who
have not benefited from land reform. Moreover, existing state level
control over valuable NTFPs will have to be replaced by price and
marketing programs. Thirdly, regarding the structure and functioning of
the regulatory agency, clearly a professional service will be required.
But the existing forest departments and service would have to be
restructured extensively to ensure that they shed their colonial history
and style and become more transparent and accountable to a body that
includes much greater downward accountability and voice for local
communities than provided by state governments so far. Given the size of
the country and the diversity of socio- ecological conditions, such
accountability structures are best set up at the district level. A
problem being faced by communities that have received community transit
permits for the sale of their produce outside the village. Mendha- Lekha
village in Maharashtra for instance, has not been able to sell bamboo
for over a year since it received CFRs. Finally when FRA listed bamboo
as minor produce and MOEF asked all state governments to facilitate sale
of bamboo by villagers and where CFRs are obtained to allow Gramsabhas
to issue transit permits.
Critical
wild habitat (CWH) as per FRA may only be established with in national
parks and sanctuaries. CWHs within these areas have to be established on
a case-by- case basis using scientific and objective criteria. The
Process of on ground identification will be undertaken by state
government appointed expert committee. CWH can be operationally
successful only if the demand of conservation is recon cited with the
individual and community rights of forest use. A dialogue that involves
civil society mediators and forest dwellers is crucial in striking the
right balance, securing a workable conservation paradigm. Protected
areas today comprise about 4% of India’s land area and most parks are
forest islands embedded in a matrix of human dominated land use. There
is perhaps little doubt that the increasing rate of forest resource use
and demands of a growing population is determined to preservation of
these remnant national parks and sanctuaries. The potential of the FRA
to stop destructive development process has already been shown by its
use by the Dongira Kondh to deny permission to Vedanta Corporation to
mine bauxite from its sacred hills in this regard MOEF rejected
Vedanta’s application for mining in 2010.
In
conclusion the Convergence of MGNREGA, Biological diversity act, The
Panchayat extension of scheduled areas act and others would help
dovetail various schemes and institutions together in to a comprehensive
livelihood and conservation frame work. Several villages in Maharashtra
Odisha have already moved towards such convergence. The powerful tools
like CFR, JFM, and CWH can ensure secure access to forest conservation,
protection and regeneration of India’s vast forest land requires a more
democratic multi layered approach that will necessitate a transformation
of mindsets, bureaucratic structures and powers, forest rights
assignments and community attitude towards taking on responsibilities
rather than just waiting for handouts.
No comments:
Post a Comment