E-Paper
Review implementation of forest rights: Union ministries to state govts
The ministries of environment, and tribal affairs have jointly issued a circular to chief secretaries of all states, giving the responsibility of implementing the Forest Rights Act 2006 to state governments
The ministries of environment (MoEFCC) and tribal affairs (MoTA) jointly issued a circular to all states, giving the responsibility of implementing the Forest Rights Act 2006 to state governments that primarily recognises the rights of forest dwellers to live on forest land and have access to various forest resources.
Despite a considerable lapse of time since it came into force, the process of recognition of forest rights is yet to be completed, the circular states, adding that Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDSTs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) inhabiting forests for generations were in occupation of the forest land for centuries. “Forests are the source of their livelihood, identity. customs and traditions. However, their rights on their ancestral lands and their habitats had not been adequately recognized despite them being integral to the very survival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem.”
It notes that operationalisation of section 5 of the Act is an area of concern. Section 5 deals with the duties of recognised forest dwellers such as, protecting wildlife, forests and biodiversity; ensuring that catchments area, water sources and other ecological sensitive areas are adequately protected etc. Forest dwellers are often not allowed to perform these duties by forest departments according to independent experts.
“Issues related to implementation of the Act need to be resolved at the state level in terms of statutory provisions,” the circular issued by RP Gupta, secretary, MoEFCC and Anil Kumar Jha, MoTA, on Tuesday said.
Legal experts however said the joint circular was silent on large scale forest diversions for various infrastructure projects which have a huge impact on the rights of forest dwellers.
All states have been asked to review the implementation of the Forest Rights Act and intimate the Centre on issues and clarifications needed for smooth implementation. The circular states that for implementation of the Act, a high level of support from forest departments and state governments is required in verification of claims, mapping of forest lands involved, and necessary evidence required for recognition of forest rights etc.
In 2019, while hearing a petition by wildlife organisations and retired forest officials against the Forest Rights Act, the Supreme Court had asked authorities of 21 states to give affidavits explaining why evictions, wherever ordered, had not taken place. There remains a stay on eviction of forest dwellers whose rights were rejected.
“The joint communication was expected to address substantive issues of forest rights act implementation particularly the problems arising due to the obstructions created by the forest departments and the host of laws and policies framed by the ministry of environment and forests such as forest diversions, compensatory afforestation scheme etc but the advisory has not really addressed those issues. Instead, it has passed on the buck to the state govts to review and address the issues,” said Tushar Dash, member of the Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy (CFR-LA) group.
According to CFR LA, around 200 million forest dwellers in 177,000 villages can benefit from recognition of forest rights but only 3 to 5% of the population has benefited so far.
“A collective statement that recognises the historical failures and current shortfalls in the recognition of forest rights is important. But what follows is a deflection of responsibility on to the state governments, absolving the central government of any accountability. The statement is silent on the process of forest diversions. The environment ministry has given prior approval for industrial, extractive and infrastructure projects even though the rights recognition process has been allegedly fabricated, legally contested or is pending. To say that there has been “no conflict” with the legal framework “so far”, is neither factual nor a legitimate claim,” said Kanchi Kohli, legal researcher, Centre for Policy Research.
