Om Sai Ram
Q. Discuss the major challenges for the implementation of Forest Rights Act in India, especially for community forest rights (CFR)?
Major Challenges – implementation of FRA – Focus on CFR
Abstract: This paper begins with a brief introduction of the obstacle course the implementation of FRA has been, particularly with reference to CFR. Followed by a section on a few of the specific challenges in its implementation. The final and concluding part of the paper provides evidence for these obstacles.
I. Introduction:
The scope of the act is enormous, with around 150 million forest dwellers in India. The Community Forest Resource-Learning and Advocacy estimates that 34.6 million ha, (45%) of the total forest area in India, should be recognised as CFR (‘High potential, slow start’, p37).
The CFR provision read with Section 5, recognizing and restoring the Gram Sabha’s authority and making it responsible for the protection, management & conservation, sustainable use of forests has been hailed as the most empowering one of the FRA, but this ‘empowerment’ may only be on paper. A large majority of forest dependent villages, for instance, have not been able to claim or get their CFR rights recognized. (Agarwal & Chakravartty, 2018; Citizens’ Report as part of Community Forest Rights-Learning and Advocacy, 2016).
Only about 4.2 million IFR, community and CFR claims have been filed and title deeds on over 1.7 million claims have been granted till July 31, 2017. (MoTA, 2017)
II. Following are a few challenges in the implementation of FRA:
Absence of political will at State and central levels – evidenced by:
a. Insufficient efforts towards capacity building in the Central Nodal agency, the MoTA.
b. Resistance from MoEFCC and forest bureaucracy, in the form of avoiding CAFA, support to JFM and VFRs, persistent opposition at the ground level
c.Insufficient investments made towards implementation and monitoring by State and Central Governments
Role of Forest Departments – implementation of parallel schemes in CFR areas, this undermining the act
CFR title deeds issued under JFMC, not GS as the law dictates.
Conflicts between MoTA and MoEF&CC
Lack of awareness and support in establishing claims
Institutional loopholes
Prescription of invalid procedures for filing claims
Information asymmetry and lack of transparency
Gender equality concerns
III. Evidence:
Absence of political will at State and central levels – evidenced by:
a. Insufficient efforts have been made towards capacity building in the Central Nodal agency, the MoTA. The nodal MoTA has failed to provide dedicated budgetary support for the implementation of FRA owing to the lack of human capital and financial resources required. In many states, Forest officials take on roles in tribal departments which often hampers the implementation of FRA.
b. Resistance from MoEFCC and forest bureaucracy, in the form of avoiding CAFA, support to JFM and VFRs, persistent opposition at the ground level
c.Insufficient investments made towards implementation and monitoring by State and Central Governments
Role of Forest Departments – implementation of parallel schemes in CFR areas, this undermining the act
CFR title deeds issued under JFMC, not GS as the law dictates.
Conflicts between MoTA and MoEF&CC
Lack of awareness and support in establishing claims
Local communities, representatives of Panchayati Raj Institutions, and government officials are not aware of the CFR provisions of the act in most states. One of the reasons for this is that copies of the Act and rules have not been made available in the local language.
Barring some areas where district administration proactively facilitates filing of claims by the Gram Sabhas or provides supporting documents, many areas the FRA mainly focuses on IFR, with no distribution of Claim form B (for CFR) (COMMUNITY FOREST RIGHTS UNDER FOREST RIGHTS ACT A Citizen’s Report on Status and Recommendations)
6. Institutional loopholes:
The institutions required for adequately supporting and facilitating the process of recognition of rights under the FRA are either not in place, not working as they should be, at central, state and the ground levels.
The forest department unduly influences and is relied upon through the process of recognition of rights. At the ground level, for example, Gram Sabhas new held at the Panchayat Level in states such as Rajasthan and FRCs are formed at the Panchayat level. In areas where the implementation process has not yet started, the SDLCs and DLCs have not been constituted. In Gujarat for example, the Tribal department has only implemented it in the Tribal districts, neglecting areas such as Kachchh, where Maldharis of Banni (the local communities) are demanding their forest rights.
Even if these SDLCs and DLCs are formed, they have not been meeting on a regular basis, nor
Are the State Level Monitoring Committees sitting regularly to monitor the implementation, thus creating a gap in addressing grievances and appeals from the communities on issues such as violation of rights and implementation.
In conflict zones such as Chattisgarh, where villages have been moved to camps, the CFR recognition process has not yet begun. In other areas of the state where the Tribal department is the nodal agency, the first department takes over the implementation of the act.
In areas of West Bengal, the SDLCs have created lower level committees (Block Level Task Force Committee) to implement the FRA although it does not exist in the implementation process of FRA.The BLTF, along with the forest department, decides village lists where FRA is to be implemented (in this case, the forest department has absolute control, and select only permanent forest villages and publicly announce only tribal families are to receive pattas. They do not even discuss community claims.
In Himachal Pradesh, the nodal agency, the Tribal Development Department lacks the required human capital. The Revenue Departments and the officials of PRIs have been trained for its implementation at the village level. In this case, filing of claims has only taken place in Kinnaur with no available information on any right recognized.
Uttarakhand’s nodal agency, the Samaj Kalyan Department lacks adequate interest and/or information of the act and sees its implementation as an overburdening of responsibility added to a lack of human capital for its implementation.
The coordination between the tribal departments and other relevant departments of forest and revenue affairs is poor, and the forest department unduly influences the decisions about claims in states of Maharashtra and Rajasthan.
There appears to be a gap in the required support and information at the central minister’s level, and the MoTA, MoEF, MoRD and other relevant ministries appear to be working in silos (COMMUNITY FOREST RIGHTS UNDER FOREST RIGHTS ACT A Citizen’s Report on Status and Recommendations)
).
Prescription of invalid procedures for filing claims
Information asymmetry and lack of transparency
Many times, CRs overlap CFRs.
9. Poor implementation of Gender equality provisions of the FRA:
Gender disaggregated data is not maintained on FRA implementation. If it was not for information from activists, movements and civil society organizations, title issue on names of both spouses would not be known.
Due to this gap in maintaining data, there is no way to know if the women’s rights are recognized. The status of 1/3rd composition of women in FRCs or how they are selected also remains a mystery, save a few movements by a few CSO movements which promoted gender equality and empowered women. Most movements and CSOs have hardly paid attention to ensure that FRA’s provisions for gender equality are implemented.
It has been reported that in areas where women have been empowered, CFR and their status in their communities grew under their management. For instance, efforts by BhakarBitrot Adivasi VikasSangh reaped fruit in 22 villages in Sirohi district of Rajasthan where they filed their IFR claims with women’s names as first claimants. Claims have also been filed separately by 60 Single women (Promise and Performance Report.pdf).