State govts slam the door on forest rights claimants
NEW DELHI: Eight out of 10 claims for land title by forest dwellers under the Forest Rights Act were rejected last year, tribal affairs ministry data shows.
The Opposition is on an offensive against the Centre in Rajya Sabha over passage of the Compensatory Afforestation Bill, which critics say will undercut tribal rights and harm environment by introducing government plantations in areas traditionally used by tribal communities.
The Forest Rights Act (FRA), in force since 2006, was intended to “undo the historic injustice” towards tribals by giving them legal titles to forestland and resources. A 2015 study by Rights and Resources Initiative estimates tribals hold legal titles to less than 5% of the land they have traditionally used.
Individuals and communities can file title claims before the gram sabha under FRA. These are approved by a sub-divisional committee and finally by a divisional committee at the district level.
Rejection of FRA claims has spiked in the last two years, ministry data shows, but non-BJP states have been the least likely to grant titles. States rejected, on average, 54% of the 3.8 million claims adjudicated since the process began in 2008. But between May 2015 and April 2016, the rejection rate rose to 79% for 2.7 lakh claims decided.
Karnataka, Tripura, UP, Bihar and West Bengal turned down over 90% of the claims they decided in 2015-16. CENTRE’S ROLE UNDER SCRUTINY The Act requires gram sabha consent for mining and development projects in forestland.
But at least thrice in two years, the environment ministry issued orders to make certain project categories exempt. It backed moves in Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh to create new “village forest rules” that, according to the tribal affairs ministry, went against the law’s provisions.
Former minister of state for tribal rights Mansukh Bhai Vasava said states were not properly processing FRA claims.
Tribal rights activist Shankar Gopalakrishnan said, “During the UPA, FRA was a contested law with efforts by the environment ministry and government departments to undermine it. But in the past two years, bureaucracy and business lobbies are more dominant. This is reflected in several U-turns the tribal affairs ministry made on the dilution of FRA. State governments are also responsible for the high rejection of claims. But an overall pattern in year-wise rejection reflects a change in the national policy climate and the signals being sent from the Centre.”
The tribal affairs ministry, in an email to HT, insisted the rejection rate of claims was 47.66%, with 23% rejected last year. But these figures include all claims filed, including the 5.7 lakh not yet decided. HT’s figures are only for claims adjudicated.
“As per FRA, the responsibility for implementing the Act lies with the state/UT… The issue of rejection of claims has been reviewed with secretaries/principal secretaries of states… and they have been directed to review wrongly rejected claims,” a ministry spokesman said. States say they have issued titles to an aggregate 4.4 million hectares since the Act came into force — double the 2.2 million hectares they distributed in six decades of land reforms.
According to Forest Survey of India and Census data, 32 million hectares of forest land is used by villagers in mainland states, excluding the Northeast. An additional 8 million hectares is controlled by local communities in northeastern states where FRA hasn’t been implemented, says Rights and Resources Initiative.
The land allotted to forest dwellers under FRA constitutes 10% of this 40 million hectare. OTHER SHORTFALLS The FRA rules mandate every village with forest land in its boundaries should have community rights. There are over 1,71,000 such villages, but only a quarter of them have received community rights titles.
The Act also says a claimant can be granted up to four hectares, but the average size of land holdings for which titles have been granted is 1.6 hectares, according to the ministry.
CRITICS SAY AFFORESTATION BILL WILL UNDERCUT TRIBAL RIGHTS, HARM ENVIRONMENT