Securing Forest Rights and Livelihoods of Tribals

1
T. Haque

2
 SRSC Policy Paper Series - 2/2020

SECURING FOREST RIGHTS AND LIVELIHOODS OF TRIBALS

Challenges and Way Forward

T. Haque

S. R. Sankaran Chair (Rural Labour)

National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
(Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India)
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500 030
www.nirdpr.org.in
August 2020
 Securing Forest Rights and Livelihoods of Tribals

Securing Forest Rights and Livelihoods of Tribals

Challenges and Way Forward
T. Haque

Tribal communities in India, especially in Vth and VIth Scheduled Areas, substantially depend on forest resources
for livelihoods. However, in the absence of legal recognition of customary forest rights of tribals, there is always a threat
to their livelihood security. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (FRA),
2006, which recognises their individual and community rights over forest resources, should have ended such insecurity,
but its implementation faced multiple challenges. Besides, the government has subsequently passed several laws, rules and
executive orders which dilute the key provisions of FRA. The success stories of secure community forest resource rights in
about 1,500 villages in Vidarbha region of Maharashtra and 31 villages in Narmada district of Gujarat show how it
can unlock huge development and livelihood opportunities and also result in sustainable regeneration and conservation of
forests. What is needed is secure forest tenure with unambiguous legal framework, decentralised governance and supportive
forest bureaucracy. In addition, capacity building of communities for leveraging technologies for productivity improvement,
sustainable harvesting of timber and non-timber forest products, and access to remunerative prices for non-timber forest
products, their local processing and value addition is of crucial importance.

I. Introduction cultivation of single crop in a year on tiny holdings

Tribals constitute about 8.6 per cent of India’s total with low productivity and poor returns, and some wage
population. The absolute number of Scheduled Tribe earnings. In fact, their incomes from forests could be
population in India, according to 2011 census, was more if their forest rights become legally and practically
104.3 million of which 94.1 million live in remote rural secure, but their forest rights and livelihoods have been
areas. Based on trend growth, the total and rural tribal quite a concern for several centuries. Despite the recent
population in India in 2020 is about 125 million and 112 tribal-friendly laws such as Panchayats Extension to the
million, respectively. Above 50 per cent of the tribal Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996 and the Scheduled
population live in forests (GoI, TRIFED, 2019), and Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act, 2006
derive their livelihoods from land and forest resources. (FRA) de facto insecure forest tenure regime continues
It has been estimated that nearly 40 to 60 per cent due to multiple factors. This policy paper analyses the
annual earnings of tribals, especially tribal women, is key challenges to securing forest rights and livelihoods
from the collection and sale of minor forest produce of tribals and also suggests the way forward.
(GOI, TRIFED, 2019). Additionally, they depend on

* Distinguished Professor, Council for Social Development, New Delhi. He is also Chairman, Centre for Agricultural Policy Dialogue,
New Delhi, and Chairman, Advisory Committee of S.R. Sankaran Chair (Rural Labour), NIRDPR, Hyderabad. Earlier, he was Chairman,
Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Government of India, Chairman, Committee on Minor Forest Produce, Government of
India, and Chairman, Land Policy Cell, NITI Aayog. This paper is based on a keynote address delivered by the author in a Webinar on
“Securing Forest Rights and Livelihoods of Tribals amidst COVID-19 and Post-COVID Challenges”, jointly organised by S.R. Sankaran
Chair (Rural Labour), NIRDPR and Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, New Delhi on 15th June 2020. The author is grateful to
Dr. N. C. Saxena, a renowned civil servant and former Secretary to Government of India, Mrs. Radhika Rastogi, IAS, Deputy Director
General, NIRDPR and Mr. C.R. Bijoy, Social Activist for their valuable observations during the webinar. He also thanks Dr. Rajendra P.
Mamgain, Professor, S.R. Sankaran Chair, NIRDPR for organising the webinar and persuading to write the paper. The views expressed here
are personal.

1
T. Haque

II. Why Secure Forest Rights? affected by left-wing extremism (LWE), of which 69
Tribal communities in India, especially in Vth and districts have high community forest resource rights
VIth Scheduled Areas substantially depend on forest potential and also where development projects tend to
resources for subsistence and income needs. This is get stalled due to land conflicts, arising from insecure
because they do not have much alternative; neither land and forest tenure. Implementation of FRA in
do they have effective sources of livelihoods because LWE districts will not only reduce land conflicts, but
of the absence of quality education and skills. Hence, also lead to development of tribals, dalits and other
secure access to forests is essential for their food and forest dwellers, and help develop a relationship of trust
livelihood security. Although the importance of forest and bond between the tribals and government, thereby
resources in household incomes of tribals varies from containing extremism.
region to region, depending on factors such as peoples’ Moreover, secure forest tenure can help achieve
secure access to such resources, resource productivity some of the sustainable development goals to which
and prices, most field studies acknowledge this to be India is committed. These are SDG-1 for poverty
very common in most places (RCDC). There is greater alleviation, SDG-2 for elimination of hunger, SDG-
involvement of tribal women in the collection and sale 13 for combating climate change and SDG-15 for life
of Non-timber Forest Products (NTFPs). Way back on land. There is global evidence to suggest that when
in the 1980s, women’s employment in forest-based indigenous people and local communities have no or
enterprises in India was estimated to be 571.5 million weak legal rights, their forests tend to be vulnerable to
days, in a year, of which 90 per cent was in small scale deforestation and thus become the source of carbon
enterprises, using NTFPs (Khare, 1990). Besides, all dioxide emission. For example, deforestation in
aspects of tribal life in India are closely linked to the indigenous community forests in Brazil from 2000 to
forests in such a way that forests are the life support 2012 was less than 1 per cent as compared with 7 per
system of tribals and vice-versa. This relationship is cent outside them. The higher deforestation outside
symbiotic in nature, as the tribals depend on forests indigenous community forests led to several times more
as a child depends on the mother (Government of carbon dioxide than were produced from deforestation
India, 2004). Securing forest rights of tribals is essential in indigenous community forests (Caleb Stevens et al.,
because insecure forest tenure arrangements undermine undated report). The local tribal communities have
forest investment and protection, fuel conflict and large stake in preserving and recreating them, as they
jeopardise the tribal communities’ livelihoods and derive their livelihoods from forest resources. Recently,
development prospect (RRI, 2017). Secure forest the inter-governmental panel on climate change clearly
right is crucial for poverty alleviation in tribal areas, recognised that insecure land tenure affects the ability
for containing extremism and also for achieving some of people and organisations to make changes to land
of the sustainable development goals. Nearly 45 per that can advance adaptation and mitigation.
cent tribal population in rural India is reported to be Besides, secure community forest tenure results
below the official poverty line, based on the Tendulkar in increased community cohesion, improved social
Methodology (Government of India, 2019). In the capital and enhanced capacities of the communities
absence of secure forest rights, tribal communities lack to govern forests democratically, as in Mexico (FAO,
incentive to invest for improvement in the productivity 2017). Mexico has about 45.6 million hectare of land
of timber and non-timber forests produce that could owned by indigenous peoples and local communities.
help reduce their poverty. The incidence of poverty Only 3.6 million hectare of forest in Mexico is
among tribal households in rural Madhya Pradesh (55.3 government-administered and 17 million privately-
per cent), Jharkhand (51.6 per cent) Chhattisgarh (52.6 owned by individuals and firms (RRI, 2018). Similarly,
per cent), Odisha (63.5 per cent) and Maharashtra (61.6 China has about 124 million hectare forest under
per cent) is comparatively higher. Besides, Government community management, against 75 million hectare
of India has identified 106 districts in ten States as under government management. India has nearly 138

2
 Securing Forest Rights and Livelihoods of Tribals

million hectare of potential for forest protection colonisation of the forests and tribals. The National
and landscape restoration (Chaturvedi et al, 2018). Forest Policy, 1952 put rigid restrictions on the tribals
However, secure tenure is necessary for sustained and others on accessing timber and non-timber forest
involvement of local communities in forest protection products. Freedom from colonial rule in independent
and landscape restoration. India resulted in a new form of slavery of the tribal
people (Government of India, 2004). With the passage
III. Evolution of Forest Policy of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, exclusionary wild life
Tribals are the original inhabitants of India for and forest conservation became a major concern for the
which they are called Adivasis. Because of their long government and tribals were treated as criminals and
association with forests, they are known as vanyajati encroachers of their own forest lands (Government of
(forest dwelling communities) and vanabasi (inhabitants India, 2004). It delegitimised forest dwellers and part of
of forest). During the pre-colonial period i.e., prior to the forest habitat including derecognition of customary
the firm establishment of British colonial rule in the rights and eviction of tribal communities from dense
mid 19th century, various tribal communities in India forests. During the 1970s, important non-timber forest
had more or less settled in deep natural forests. They products were nationalised. The Wild Life Protection
had established their customary rights over forest land Act, 1972 adopted exclusionary approach to wild life
and other resources. They lived in forests and also conservation i.e., the setting aside of large tracts of land
derived their livelihoods from forest resources, without where little or no human presence was to be permitted.
any restrictions (Government of India, 2004). Forest The WLPA also vested extraordinary power in the State
took care of the livelihood needs of the tribals, while to declare any area as a protected forest area, without
tribal communities protected forests and forest ecology any process of public consultation or concern for the
against degradation by men and nature (Roy Burman, right of affected people to file their objections (Madhu
1982). Sarin, 2014).
During the British colonial period, the customary In fact, non-recognition and non-settlement of
forest rights of tribals were hugely disrupted, as the rights of tribals and adoption of exclusionary
the British forest policy was aimed at commercial enclosure conservation and liberal diversion of forests
exploitation of the forests at the cost of secure for infrastructure and development projects presented
livelihoods of the tribals. The government gradually a grim scenario. The evolution of Joint Forest
increased its control over the forests. The Forest Management Programme (JFMP) through the 1970’s
Department was set up in 1864 and the Indian Forest created some hope for participatory management of
Service was created in 1867, mainly with a view to forests, but lack of legal sanctity and dominance of
regulate people’s rights over forest lands and produce. forest officials in Joint Forest Management Committees
This period also witnessed several tribal protests and (JFM) dashed this hope.
uprisings against the colonial encroachment of their With the 1988 Forest Policy, PESA, 1996 and FRA,
rights. The waves of revolts of forest dwellers forced 2006, there is substantial improvement on the policy
the British to enact some pro-tribal laws such as the front, in so far as legal protection of people’s livelihoods
Scheduled District Act, 1874, which was the pre-cursor and participatory forest conservation and management
to the Vth and VIth Schedule under Article 244 and are concerned. But tribals and other forest dwelling
regional laws such as Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 communities continue to feel insecure about their forest
and the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949. Besides, resource rights, especially due to hostile, albeit colonial
the Indian Forest Act, 1927 which is the bulwark for mind-set of forest bureaucracy as well as prolonged
forest governance even today, was used for colonising litigations against the forest rights of tribals in several
forests and the tribals (Bejoy, C.R. 2017). high courts and also in the Supreme Court. Since the
In the post-colonial and early post-independence filing of famous civil writ petition by Godavaram in
period from 1947 to 1987, there seemed to be an internal the Supreme Court, seeking its intervention to protect

3
T. Haque

a patch of forest in Nilgiri district in Tamil Nadu, the dispose of minor forest produce, (iv) other community
Supreme Court has effectively taken over the day-to- rights of uses or entitlements such as fish and other
day governance of Indian Forests (Cruz and Lele, products of water bodies, grazing and seasonal access
2008) of nomadic or pastoralist communities, (v) right to
The 1988 forest policy clearly recognised that the protect, regenerate/conserve or manage any community
rights and concession enjoyed by the tribals and other forest resource which they have been traditionally
forest dwelling communities should be fully protected. dwelling and conserving for sustainable use and (vi)
It recognised that conservation and peoples livelihoods right of access to bio-diversity and community right to
are equally important. Following the 1988 policy, the intellectual property and traditional knowledge related
Ministry of Environment and Forest issued a circular to bio-diversity and cultural diversity, etc. (Government
on June 1, 1990, highlighting the need and process of India and UNDP, 2014). In addition, FRA shifts the
for involving village communities in the protection, control over governance of forests from the Forest
development and rehabilitation of degraded forests. Departments to Gram Sabhas, thereby removing the
It encouraged village level institutions for forest colonial system of forest governance.
management. The rules and guidelines for implementation of
The PESA, 1996 bestowed absolute power on FRA came as late as 2008 and revised guidelines were
Gram Sabhas to deal with matters that affect the lives notified in 2012.
and livelihoods of tribals, including the ownership of
minor forest produce, and control over local plans IV. Status of Implementation of FRA
and resources. But PESA was applicable mainly to Like all other pro-poor land reforms, implementation
Vth Scheduled Areas, while the States coming under of FRA has been highly unsatisfactory. According to
its purview were not serious about its implementation. the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India,
Many of them did not make rules and guidelines for up to March 31, 2019, only about 4.2 million claims,
it. A decade later, the FRA, 2006 comprehensively comprising 4.09 million individual and 0.15 million
recognised the individual as well community forest community claims were received, of which 1.75 million
resource rights of tribals and other traditional forest i.e., about 41 per cent claims were rejected (Figure-1).
dwelling communities. These include (i) right to It would be seen from Fig. 1 that the percentage of
hold and live in the forest land under the individual claims rejected was very high in Bihar, Chhattisgarh,
or common occupation for habitation or for self- Karnataka, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and
cultivation for livelihood, (ii) community right such as West Bengal.
nistar (iii) right of ownership, access to collect, use and

Figure 1: State-wise Percentage of Total FRA Claims Rejected

4
 Securing Forest Rights and Livelihoods of Tribals

Only about 1.9 million individual titles and 76 Forest Resource), benefitting about 150 million people
thousand community titles were distributed, covering including over 100 million tribals (Vasundhara, RRI
about 5.24 million hectare (Government of India, and NRMC, 2015). So far, after more than a decade of
TRIFED, 2019-20). It has been estimated that 35- implementation of FRA, total forest area over which
40 million hectare of India’s forest area in 1.7 lakh CFR rights have been recognised is 3.56 million hectare
villages should be recognised as CFR (Community i.e., about 8.9 per cent (Table-1).

Table 1: Details of Claims Received, Rejected and Titles and Extent of Forest Land
Distributed under FRA in India up to March 31, 2019

No. of individual claims received 4.09 million

No. of community claims received 0.15 million
Total no. of claims received 4.24 million
Total no. of claims rejected 1.75 million
No. of individual titles distributed 1.90 million
No. of community titles distributed 76.1 thousand
Total no. of titles distributed 1.96 million
Extent of forest land distributed to individuals 1.67 million Ha.
Extent of community forest land distributed 3.56 million Ha.
Extent of total forest land distributed 5.24 million Ha.
Source: TRIFED, Annual Report, 2019-20

In many places, the area settled with the tribals is being recognised (Saxena,2015; Madhu Sarin, 2014).
much less than their occupation (Saxena, 2015). In It can be noted from Table -2 that four States namely
addition, diversion of small areas of forest land for Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and
community facilities requiring a different procedure Odisha accounted for 83.5 per cent of the total number
has been reported as recognition of community of community titles distributed and 73.5 per cent of
forest rights, creating a false impression of such rights total area of community forest land distributed.

Table 2: State-wise Details of Titles Distributed and the Extent of Forest Land
for which Titles Distributed (as on 31/03/2019)
States No. of Titles Distributed up to Extent of Forest Land for which titles
31.03.2019 distributed (in Ha.)
Individual Community Total Individual Community Total
Andhra 96675 1374 98049 96985.43 183556.28 280541.70
Pradesh
Assam 57325 1477 58802 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bihar 121 0 121 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chhattisgarh 401251 21967 423218 341336.31 825160.38 1166496.70
Goa 17 8 25 31.01 4.15 35.16
Gujarat 83699 3516 87215 52458.14 470182.79 522640.93
Himachal 129 7 136 2.41 1890.91 1893.33
Pradesh
Jharkhand 59866 2104 61970 62103.59 42007.68 104111.27
Karnataka 14667 1406 16073 8426.52 11399.09 19825.61

5
T. Haque

States No. of Titles Distributed up to Extent of Forest Land for which titles
31.03.2019 distributed (in Ha.)
Individual Community Total Individual Community Total
Kerala 24599 24599 13367.66 0.00 13367.66
Madhya 226313 27962 254275 328884.69 593122.74 922007.43
Pradesh
Maharashtra 165032 7084 172116 159080.46 1107959.79 1267040.25
Orissa 430212 6564 436776 260138.51 95225.06 355363.57
Rajasthan 38007 103 38110 23372.57 1212.00 24584.57
Tamil Nadu 6111 276 6387 3484.72 0.00 3484.72
Telangana 93639 721 94360 121572.47 183827.94 305400.40
Tripura 127931 55 127986 186254.72 36.91 186291.63
Uttar Pradesh 17712 843 18555 7633.20 48907.72 56540.91
Uttarakhand 144 1 145 0.00 0.00 0.00
West Bengal 44444 686 45130 8507.80 231.59 8739.39
Total 1887894 76154 1964048 1673640.22 3564725.02 5238365.24

V. Key Challenges after implementation of FRA and with the consent

Securing forest rights and livelihoods of tribals and of Gram Sabhas. Between 2008 and 2016, about 3.1
other traditional forest dwelling communities’ face million hectare of forest land was diverted for non-
multiple, as well as complex challenges. First, despite forest purposes without the consent of Gram Sabhas.
having progressive laws such as PESA, 1996 and FRA, Often a favourable report from District Administration
2006, there is no de facto security of forest tenure and sufficed to justify forest diversion for development
decentralised forest governance for the tribals and other projects (Bejoy, 2017). Besides, the Indian Forest Act,
forest dwelling communities, because the Government 1927 which was used as the legal instrument by the
of India has subsequently or simultaneously passed British for colonising the Indian forests, continues to
several laws, rules and executive orders which dilute be the bulwark for forest governance till today. The
the key provisions of both PESA and FRA. These WLPA, aside from vesting extraordinary power with the
include (a) Wild Life Protection (Amendment) Act, State to declare any area a protected area also provides
2006, allowing the Wild Life Protection authorities to for settling only the recorded rights even though few
deny or curtail rights of tribals as provided under FRA; customary rights of tribal are recorded (Madhu Sarin,
(b) Forest Conservation Act (Amendment) Rules, 2014). Similarly, the provision of the CAFA rules restrict
2014, which further strengthens the exclusionary the area where the FRA will be applicable to rights
conservation policy; (c) guidelines of the Ministry of which have been settled i.e., where a patta has been
Environment, Forest and Climate in August 2015, to issued, thereby restricting the rights of forest dwellers
lease out 40 per cent of the degraded forest in the to the least possible area (Saxena, 2019). Moreover, the
country to private companies for afforestation; (d) MOEFCC guidelines now require that non-forest land,
constitution of Compensatory Afforestation Fund used for compensatory afforestation must be notified
Management and Planning Authority under the as protected forest or reserve forest, and the records
Supreme Court order, since 2002; (e) enactment of should be mutated in the name of forest department.
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act (CAFA), 2016 The guidelines specifically recommend bringing the
and (f) CAFA Rules, 2018 and also (g) policy decisions few surviving community lands as well as disputed
taken at the inter-ministerial meetings in 2012 as well land like in the case of Madhya Pradesh, orange areas
as 2015, allowing diversion of forest land for certain under forest department’s control through notifying
categories of projects without the consent of Gram them as State forests (Madhu Sarin, 2014), and denying
Sabha. As per FRA, forest land can be diverted only the tribal communities, any legal rights over them. In

6
 Securing Forest Rights and Livelihoods of Tribals

addition, in many protected areas, several tribal villages Eighth, community forest rights claims have been
have been relocated by the Forest Department even the victim of lack of proper demarcation of revenue
before implementation of FRA. As per the FRA, and forest lands. Some CFR claims, in order to
communities should be given the option of remaining qualify for verification need the forest departments’
in a protected area with their rights and responsibilities recommendation and the same are being turned down
with a mutually-agreed modification of rights where for not being forest lands (Upadhaya et al., 2009). It
necessary (Sarap et al., 2013). has also been observed that the customary boundaries
Second, as per the FRA rules, the Forest Departments delineated by Gram Sabhas are not generally accepted
have a negligible role in the implementation process by revenue and forest departments. The rejection rates
of FRA. However, in practice, they are seen to be are very high. There is already a pending Supreme Court
functioning as veto by denying rights to the people and order, dated February 13, 2019, asking States to evict
rejecting their claims at the screening stage itself (GoI, all those from forests, whose claims have been rejected.
Manthan Report, 2010). They have been rejecting Once and if the present stay order gets vacated, lakhs
claims without authority on flimsy grounds (Madhusari, of tribals and other forest dwellers would lose their
2014; Kailash Sarap et al., 2013). forest rights and forest-based livelihoods.
Third, the meetings of VLCs, SDLCs and DLCs Ninth, the FRA does not mention shifting cultivation
which decide the outcomes of claims submitted are not as one of the rights to be recognised (Kumar, 2014). In
held regularly in most places, thereby slowing down the a States like Odisha, land under shifting cultivation by
pace of implementation of FRA. tribals is considered government land even though the
Fourth, there is strong reluctance of the forest cultivators treat them as their own land. Infact, shifting
bureaucracy to recognise community forest resource cultivators are the most insecure people in terms of
rights (Citizens Report, 2016). So far, the focus has land and forest rights and livelihoods.
been on individual forest rights, claimable under the Tenth, the Forest Dependent and other traditional
Forest Rights Act, ignoring the community forest forest dwelling claimants are largely being left out of
rights. the purview of implementation of FRA due to their
Fifth, many States have not yet devolved power to inability to produce documentary evidence in support
the Gram Sabhas, as required under the FRA or PESA. of 75 years of residence (Madhu Sarin, 2014).
Rather, Section 2(f) of CAFA rules define village Eleventh, litigation against FRA in various high
forest management committee as one constituted for courts and also in the Supreme Court has created
joint forest management, which is equated with Gram uncertainty and insecurity about the future of forest
Sabha (Saxena, 2019). It should be noted that the joint rights of tribals. The constitutional validity of the Act
forest management committees are largely initiated itself has been questioned by several former bureaucrats,
and dominated by forest officials, without any sanctity forest officials and exclusionary conservationists (Bejoy,
or security of the statute (Lele, 2014), whereas Gram 2017). In January 2015, all such cases were transferred
Sabha consists of all adult members of a village or to itself by the Supreme Court in response to transfer
hamlet, and have the legal sanctity of both PESA and petition filed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Although
FRA. the apex court has not stayed the implementation of
Sixth, there has not been any progress to convert FRA so far, uncertainty persists about the future of
forest villages to revenue villages, as required and FRA and forest tenure security of the tribals and other
despite the direction from the Supreme Court (Saxena, traditional forest dwelling communities.
2015). Twelfth, there is a huge challenge of building
Seventh, many States have not ensured one-third capacities including knowledge and awareness of tribals
representation of women in the FRCs and have issued and other forest dwellers to submit claims accurately and
titles in only men’s name instead of the names of both get their rights recorded in an expeditious manner. In
spouses (Bandi, 2013; Madhu Sarin, 2014). many villages, tribal communities are not simply aware

7
T. Haque

of FRA provisions. (Sahu, Dash and Dubey, 2017). MFP such as tendu leaf, the State fixes prices arbitrarily
More specifically, training on how to undertake a basic to the disadvantage of tribal collectors/gatherers. While
forest inventory, and use simple tools such as GPS in tendu leaf is a nationalised product in most States, and
order to mark the community land boundaries and GIS there is a State monopoly over its trade, individual State
maps for designating areas for agriculture, housing, exercises monopoly control over certain other MFPs
forest conservation, etc., remains a challenge. Equally too, thereby restricting their free trade in open markets.
challenging is the capacity building of government The exercise of monopoly encourages illicit trade as
officials and civil societies working on implementation well as exploitation of gatherers (Government of India,
of Forest Rights Acts for leveraging appropriate 2011).
technologies, institutions, and participatory forest
governance and management of community forest VI. A Few Success Stories
resources. Despite the poor implementations of FRA in
Thirteenth , even though forests and forest products most States, there are some success stories. In places
are presently important for livelihoods of tribal where District Collectors have played a pro-active role,
communities, it is not certain whether the forest sector tribals and other forest dwellers benefitted hugely from
in its present form can create sustainable livelihoods, recognition of both individual and community forest
especially when accessibility of tribal communities rights. A recent study of 246 villages in 2017-18 by Sahu
to minor forest produce in protected areas is highly (Sahu, 2020) shows that due to legal recognition and
restricted. Besides, there is very little post-harvest effective realisation of community forest resource rights,
processing and value addition at the local level due to more than 1,500 villages in Vidarbha region, i.e., in the
poor infrastructure, and there is little incentive for the districts of Gadchiroli, Gondia, Amravati, Yavatmal
tribal communities to invest in improved production and Nagpur have asserted their rights over non-timber
and marketing (Brain Belcher et al., 2017). In addition, forest products by opting out of the traditional NTFP
tribal youth may no longer be interested to stay in the regime of Maharashtra Forest Department and brought
forestry business, unless the production/collection and about substantial socio-economic benefits to forest
marketing of timber and non-timber forest products dwellers. The communities earned about Rs. 32.98
become remunerative. Although Government of crore from the sale of kendu/tendu leaf, using their
India fixes minimum support prices for 49 minor new negotiating power with the contractors for better
forest produce, only a few States like Chhattisgarh, price in 2017. The success story of Menda Lekha village
Maharashtra, Nagaland and Jharkhand have shown is well documented (Deshpande, 2016). Menda Lakha
some interest in implementing it. During 2018-19, was India’s first village to secure CFR in 2009, in over
about 151 tons of MFPs was procured at minimum 1,800 hectares of its nistar forests. In 2011, it earned
support prices in Chhattisgarh, 80 metric tons in Rs. 1.15 crore from the sale of bamboo alone. Similarly,
Maharashtra, 45 metric tons in Nagaland and 26 metric Padboria village, with about 75 inhabitants, nearly 50 km
tons in Jharkhand (Government of India, TRIFED, from Gadchiroli earned Rs. 2.71 crore during 2015-16
2019). Other States did not show much interest in this. from sale of bamboo harvest from 508 hectare of CFR
In fact, there is no suitable institutional mechanism land it had got in 2012. Besides, there was significant
for procurement of minor forest products at minimum improvement in the productivity and sale of bamboo
support prices, with a system of timely payment in due to legal recognition of community forest resource
most places. Providing support through Van Dhan right. For example, the Panchgaon village in Chandrapur
Vikas kendras does not help much as there are hardly district with a mere population of 250 received CFR
1,126 such kendras in the country, most of which are title over 1,006.4 hectare land in 2013 and earned Rs
non-functional. Also, unlike agricultural commodities 1.46 crore during 2013-17 (Agarwal and Chakravarty,
which are priced based on the cost plus 50 per cent 2018]. The employment that it has generated due to
margin, there is no such remunerative pricing of minor bamboo harvesting in a sustainable manner decreased
forest products. Besides, in the case of nationalised the distress of out-migration to almost nil [Gutgutia
8
 Securing Forest Rights and Livelihoods of Tribals

et al., 2017). Besides, there was an increase in bamboo must not be lost and therefore, all concerned citizens
productivity from 0.94 tonne per hectare per year in and governments should ensure that key provisions of
2013 to 1.89 tonne per hectare per year in 2015. This FRA/CFR are not diluted, under any circumstances.
indicates that even if half the CFR potential area in Second, there is a need to review some of the recent
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and laws, rules and executive orders which have diluted
Odisha is brought under bamboo, the production of specific provisions of FRA and suggest corrective
this resource will at least be two-fold in the country, measures, including amendment in rules and guidelines
creating local employment opportunities and bamboo- for effective and expeditious implementation of FRA.
based industries to contribute significantly to the Removing conflicts between various laws and policies
socio-economic well beings of tribals and other forest would be of utmost importance.
dwelling communities. Amravati experience provides Third, the role of forest bureaucracy as conservator
another example on how the village communities in of forests, vis-à-vis the local communities should
Nayakheda, Upatkheda Pey Vihar and Khatijapur be critically reviewed. This is because the forest
regenerated degraded forest lands and are growing department seems more interested in commercial
species such as bamboo, amla and teak along with production of timber and not in regeneration and
intensive soil and moisture conservation and wild life production of MFPs for either securing livelihoods of
protection. Regeneration of natural resources has led tribals or protecting biodiversity and environment. In
to the increased availability of fodder for livestock, the fact, appropriate choice of tree species and growing
wild life returned to CFR areas and the rights over CFR timber and non-timber species in a balanced manner
have provided round the year livelihood to people. is generally missing in the forest development plans of
Beyond Maharashtra, the Vasava community in Shool forest departments. We should acknowledge the fact
Parmeshwar Wild Life Sanctuary of Narmada district in that community participation and planning alone can
Gujarat is also reaping the livelihood benefits from the improve the situation.
CFR area. During 2013-17, a total of 31 villages earned Fourth, the entire compensatory afforestation fund
Rs. 28 crore from the sale of bamboo. In addition, the should be transferred to Gram Sabhas or the forest
potential of CFR to provide economic benefits has departments should use this fund in close collaboration
created incentives for the communities to invest in with Gram Sabhas for sustainable afforestation and
the management of CFR (Agarwal and Chakravarty, employment generation in tribal areas. However, there
2018). Using integrated watershed approach, they are is a need to bridge the trust deficit between the forest
improving the health of the forests. Additionally, the officials and Gram Sabhas for this purpose.
communities are identifying and mapping locations Fifth, the success stories of community forests
in their CFR areas that need intervention using GPS resource right in quite a few places such as Gadchiroli,
devices. Amravati, Chandrapur and Gondia districts in
In fact, these success stories explode the myth Maharashtra and Narmada district of Gujarat should
that forest bureaucracy conserves forests better than be closely studied for replication in other areas. There
the local communities themselves, especially when the is a need for sustained advocacy for up scaling and
communities have secure forest tenure. replicating these in other areas with necessary context-
specific adaptations.
VII. The Way Forward Sixth, building capacities of tribals and other forest
Keeping in view the enormous economic, social dwellers to submit claims accurately and get their
and ecological benefits of individual and community rights recorded, in an expeditious manner is of crucial
forest management, the Centre in co-operation with importance. In the absence of capabilities to participate
State governments should implement the Forest Rights among possible beneficiaries, it is unlikely that the
Act, 2006 in its right spirit. It has the potential of FRA will be effectively and expeditiously implemented.
unlocking various development opportunities in tribal Equally important will be the capacity building of
areas on win-win basis for all. These opportunities government officials and civil societies working on
9
T. Haque

forest rights. Besides, those who either have individual involving Gram Sabhas and the Forest Management
or community forest resource rights should be trained Committees as provided under the Forest Rights Act,
to improve production and productivity of minor forest 2006 with necessary financial and logistic support. The
produce through the use of improved technology, State monopoly in the procurement and sale of minor
marketing and value addition. forest products, especially in the case of tendu leaves
Seventh, there is a need to devise appropriate has proved to be exploitative and counter-productive.
institutional mechanism for effective implementation Therefore, a competitive marketing framework should
of minimum support prices of minor forest products, be developed, involving cooperatives, and private and
public enterprises.

Box 1: Keys to Secure Forest Rights and Livelihoods of Tribals

• Defend and close the on-going Supreme Court case against FRA and remove uncertainty about the future of forest
rights of tribals.
• Amend Indian Forest Act, 1927, Forest Conservation (Amendment) Rules, 2014, Wild Life Protection
(Amendment) Act, 2006, Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 and related rules and executive orders as
also various State forest laws and rules to bring them in harmony with FRA, 2006.
• Reorient forest bureaucracy to work in close cooperation with Gram Sabhas and tribal and other traditional forest
dwelling communities for ensuring efficient, inclusive and sustainable management of forest resources.
• Transfer the Compensatory Afforestation Fund to Gram Sabhas for sustainable afforestation and livelihoods
generation by the tribal communities.
• Build capacities of tribals and other traditional forest dwelling communities to submit FRA claims accurately, get
their rights recorded and use simple tools such as GPS/GIS to mark land boundaries and to prepare land use
maps.
• Ensure regular meetings of VLCs, SDLs and DLCs to decide FRA claims expeditiously.
• Empower tribal communities, especially the MFP gatherers through SHGs, cooperatives, producer companies, etc.,
to enable them to participate and benefit from organised marketing, processing and value addition at the local level.
• Provide adequate trained, albeit dedicated staff and financial resources at various levels for effective and expeditious
implementation of FRA because the speed and quality of implementation matters.
• Fix remunerative minimum support prices for minor forest products, based on cost plus 50 per cent margin, as in the
case of agricultural commodities, and devise appropriate institutional mechanism for their effective implementation
involving Gram Sabhas and Forest Management Committees.
• Abolish State monopoly in the procurement and sale of minor forest products and develop competitive marketing
framework involving cooperatives, private trade and public enterprises.
• Develop region specific and cluster-based business plans for harnessing the full potentials of minor forest products in
different States, ensuring the participation of tribal and other forest dwelling communities in production, marketing,
value addition and other forms of entrepreneurship.
• Set-up special cells in PMO at the Centre and CMO in States for close monitoring of implementation of FRA.

10
 Securing Forest Rights and Livelihoods of Tribals

Eighth, there is a need for region-specific and social well-being of tribals and other forest dwelling
cluster-based business plans for harnessing the communities by leveraging appropriate technologies,
potentials of minor forest products in different areas, institutions and policies. It can help ensure round the
ensuring the participation of tribal communities in year livelihoods and income security for the tribals, and
production, marketing, value addition and other forms can be the most important step towards making the tribal
of entrepreneurship. communities and the nation self-reliant as envisioned
Ninth, besides leveraging modern technology to by India’s Hon’ble Prime Minister, recently. What is
map and monitor the implementation of FRA, the needed is a holistic albeit inclusive and participatory
forest bureaucracy should be reformed to serve as approach to forest management and the keys are i)
service providers to Gram Sabhas. Unless the forest secure forest tenure, ii) unambiguous legal framework,
bureaucracy works in close co-operation with the iii) decentralised forest governance, iv) supportive
tribals and other forest dwelling communities, the forest bureaucracy, v) use of modern technology for
efficient, inclusive and sustainable management of productivity improvement, vi) appropriate choice of
forest resources will remain a distant dream. tree species for sustainable harvesting of timber and
non-timber forest products, vii) availability of market
VIII. Conclusions and remunerative prices for minor forest products and
To conclude, secure forest rights can unlock the their processing with local value addition.
huge untapped opportunities for economic and

References

Agarwal, Shruti and Anupam Chakravarty (2018), Forest Governance, Down to Earth, January 2, New Delhi.
Bandi, Madhusudan (2013), “Implementation of the Forest Rights Act – Undoing Historical Injustices”, Economic
& Political Weekly, Vol. XLVIII, No. 31, PP 21-24, August 3.
Bejoy, C. R. (2017), “Forest Rights Struggle: The Making of the Law and the Decade After”, Law, Environment and
Development Journal, Vol. 13, No.2, p.73.
Brian Belcher, Ramdhani Achdiwan and Sonya Dewi (2015), “Forest Based Livelihoods Strategy, conditioned by
Market Remoteness and Forest proximity in Jharkhand, India”, World Development, Elsvier Ltd, Vol. 66, pp.269-
279.
Caleb Stevens, Robert Winter bottom, Jenny Springer and Katie Reytar (undated), “Securing Right, Combating
Climate Change”, Report Summary, Rights and Resources and World Resources Institute, Washington DC.
Chaturvedi,Rohini;M.doraisami;Jayahari ,Km; Kanchana C.; Ruchika Singh, S .Segarin and P .Rajagopal (2018),
Restoration Opportunities Atlas of India, Technical Note, World Resource Institute, India, Mumbai.
Citizens Report (2016), Promise and Performance – 10 years of the Forest Rights Act in India, December.
Cruz, Armin Rosen and Sharach Chandra Lele (2008), “Supreme Court and India’s Forests”, Economic & Political
Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 05, pp. 11-14.
Deshpande, Vikash (2016), “Grassroots Change, A Bamboo Revolution”, Indian Express, Nov. 10.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2017), “Community – Based Forestry, Extent, Effectiveness and
Potential”, Policy Brief, Rome.
Gutgutia, Sneha, Kavya Chowdhary and Rajesh Patil (2017), “Forest Conservation and Management in
Pachgaon”,Vikalp Sangam, June 20.
Government of India-(MoPR) (2011), Report of the Committee on Ownership, Price Fixation Value Addition and
Marketing of Minor Forest Produce, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, New Delhi.

11
T. Haque

Government of India-MoEFCC & MoTA (2010), ‘Manthan’, Report by National Committee on Forest Rights Act–
A Joint Committee of Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Ministry of Tribal Affairs,
December, New Delhi.
Government of India-MoRD (2004), Report of the Expert Group on Prevention of Alienation of Tribal Land and
Its Restoration, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi.
Government of India (2019), TRIFED -A Brief Note on Scheme for Marketing of Minor Forest Produce through
MSP and Value Chain Development, January.
Government of India-MoTA (2019), Annual Report, TRIFED, 2019-20 , New Delhi.
Government of India (MOTA) and UNDP (2014), Forest Rights Act, 2006, Act, Rules and Guidelines, 1990.
Kundan Kumar (2014), “Erasing the Swiddens : Shifting Cultivation, and Forest Rights in Odisha”, in Democratising
Forest Governance in India ,edited Sharach Chandra Lele and Ajit Menon (eds.) ,Oxford University Press, New
Delhi.
Khare, Arvind (1989), “Small Scale Forest Enterprises in India with special reference to the Role of Women”,
Wasteland News, Nov. 1989- Jan.
Lele, Sharach Chandra (2014), “What is wrong with Joint Forest Management?” in Democratizing Forest Governance in
India (eds.) Sharach Chandra Lele and Ajit Menon Oxford University Press.
Madhu Sarin (2014), “Undoing Historical Injustice: Reclaiming Citizenship Rights and Democratic Forest
Governance through the Forest Rights Act”, in Democratizing Forest Governance in India (eds.) Sharach
Chandra Lele and Ajit Menon Oxford University Press.
Regional Centre for Development Co-operation (RCDC) (2010), “NTFP Policy Regime After FRA – A Study of
Select States of India”, Bhubaneswar.
Rights and Resources Initiatives (2018), At a Cross Roads, Consequential Trends in Recognition of Community
Based Forest Tenure from 2002-2017, Washington DC Sept 2018 (Table – 1)
Rights and Resources Initiatives (2017), Securing Communities Land Rights, Washington D.C. October.
Roy, Burman, B.K. (1982), Report of the Committee on Forest and Tribals, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government
of India, New Delhi.
Sahoo, Gitanjoy (2019), “Wild Life and Forest Rights Groups Have Shared Interests: Why Don’t They Work
Together?” The WIRE, January 24.
Sahoo, Gitanjoy (2020), “Implementation of Community Forest Rights – Experiences in the Vadharba Region of
Maharashtra”, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. LV No. 18, May 2, pp. 46-52.
Sarap, Kailas, Tapas Kumar Sarangi and Joginder Naik(2013), “Implementation of Forest Rights Act, 2006 in Odisha
: Process, Constraints and Outcome”, Economic & Political Weekly, Sept, 7, , Vol. XLVIII, No. 36, pp. 61-67.
Saxena, K.B. (2019), “Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act and Rules: Deforestation, Tribal Displacement and an
Alibi for Legalised Land Grabbing”, Social Change, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 23-40.
Saxena N.C. (2015), “Are Tribals Really Benefiting from the Forest Rights Act”, Economic Times, August 9.
Upadhaya, Sanjay; Prodyut Bhattacharya; Surya Kumari and Sanjoy Patnaik (2009), Community Forest Resource and
Community Forest Rights, Report RCDC, LIFM, ELDS AND CTF, November.
Vasundhara Resource Right Initiatives and NRMC (2015), Potential for Recognition of Community Forest Resource
Rights under India’s Forest Rights Act-A Preliminary Assessment, July [Report ]

12
Securing Forest Rights and Livelihoods of Tribals

13
T. Haque

14