My brother, the tree

Sikkim government legalises the tradition of adopting trees, but remains silent over people's rights over them, reports ISHAN KUKRETI

The Sikkim government gives legal sanction to a traditional system through which humans can form kkin relationsy with trees

WHEN LAKIT Lepcha of Lingee Payong village in South Sikkim gave birth to a son, nobody, including Lepcha, knew who the father was. Soon, a tree came to her rescue. Under the state’s age-old mith (friend) tradition, a chilawany, or Schima wallichii as the tree is known in scientific lexicon, was declared the child’s father. “It was a way of socially accepting the mother and her child,” says Sunita Khatiwara, a conservation researcher from the district. “The tradition allows a person to forge ties with others they are not related to. The relation can also extend to trees,” she adds. Khatiwara’s family too has adopted a tree. It was adopted by her grandfather, following whose demise others in the family are taking care of it.

This tradition has recently received impetus from the Sikkim government, which in May last year introduced the Sikkim Forest Trees (Amity and Reverence) Rules, 2017. The rules legalise people’s relations with trees: Mith, when a man declares a tree his brother; mitini, when a woman declares it her brother; and smriti, when adopted in the memory of a departed relative. These relations do not restrict to trees on one’s own land. If a person wants to forge ties with trees on someone else’s land, he or she must compensate the owner value of the timber. One can adopt trees on public places with the approval of forest authorities.

The forest department has issued specific forms which the would-be-guardian can fill up and submit to the forest authori-

ties. Once the assistant conservator of forests, who has jurisdiction over the land where a tree is to be registered, approves of the relation, the guardian will shoulder the responsibility of the tree till the end of his life. “No person shall fell or damage a tree registered as mith/mit or mitini, adopted or smriti tree except with the approval of the government,” reads the notification. Violators will pay four times the value of the timber if the tree is on the public land and two times if on private property, it says.

On a practical level, the rules add a layer of check against felling by making individuals responsible for their adopted trees. “The rules make conservation work easier for us,” says Thomas Chandy, principal chief conservator of forests. If half the population adopts one tree each, then that many trees remain protected, he says.

Surprisingly, no tree has been adopted under the new rules so far. Chandy says his department plans to organise van mahotsav to make people aware about the rules.

But experts wonder whether there was a need for the rules. First, the state already has the Sikkim Forests Private and Other Non-Forest Land Tree Felling Rules, 2006 in place to limit felling on private or nonforest land. Second, the Sikkim Forest Trees Rules are silent about people’s rights over their adopted trees, though Chief Minister Pawan Kumar Chamling says people can depend on them for fruits and flowers (see ‘It’s needed for sustainability of nature’). This raises doubts about the intention of the government, which has been dragging its feet over granting forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (fra).

Under fra, communities that traditionally live in forests and are dependent on it for livelihood have rights over the forestland. But the Sikkim government claims no community in the state are dependent on forests for living. “Most STs of Sikkim hold revenue land in their own name and they are not solely dependent on the forests for their livelihood,” reads a government report submitted to the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs in November 2017. But activists do not agree with the claim. Gyatso Lepcha, general secretary of the Affected Citizens of Teesta, a citizens group protesting Teesta Stage IV dam project in Lepcha village, says, if there are no forest dwelling communities in Sikkim, why did the government initiate the process of settling fra rights in Lepcha in July last year? “We are dependent on forests for generations, and so are pastoral communities like Gurungs, Sherpas, Lachungpas and Lachenpas,” he adds.

So, is the Sikkim Forest Trees Rules truly a conservation measure, or a way to deceive the disgruntled?