Just 3% forest area under community governance: Study

Just 3% forest area under community governance: Study NEW DELHI: Millions of forest dwellers in the country still do not have rights to conserve forests or access to forest resources. Ten years after the forest rights act 2006 was passed by parliament—a law that secures rights of forest dwellers and empowers them to protect forests, only about 3% of the potential forest area for

community governance has been recognised according to a new study. The "Promise and Performance: Ten Years of the Forest Rights Act" to be released on Tuesday finds that the rights to manage, conserve and use forest resources by forest dwelling tribes could have been recognised over an area of 34.6 million ha—an area larger than Madhya Pradesh but has only been recognised in little over 1.1 million ha or only 3% of the potential. The report by Community Forest Rights-Learning and Advocacy (CFR-LA) uses data from Census 2011 to assess total forest area inside and outside village boundaries (34.6 million ha) as the minimum potential area over which community forest resource rights could be recognised. This includes the minimum estimated forest area outside revenue village boundaries under customary use. Large swathes of customary forests in Central Indian states are outside village boundaries. The authors rely on data from the ministry of tribal affairs and state governments to compute the actual area over which rights have been recognised and it is estimated that the law can deliver community forest resource rights to about 200 million tribals and other forest dwellers living in 170,000 villages across the country. The reason for such poor performance of the act, authors say is a "lack of political will" and opposition by "forest bureaucracy" or the ministry of environment and forests in handing over governance rights to the communities. But why is this law important? Because it transfers decision making powers and forest conservation responsibilities to the gram sabha. The Niyamgiri case in Odisha has already established how gram sabhas can play a powerful role in protecting the cultural and resource rights of indigenous communities after gram sabhas unanimously voted against bauxite mining in the hills inhabited by Dongria Kondhs. The report also documents why these rights are significant for conservation. For example, after recognition of rights of Soliga tribe in BRT tiger reserve, Karnataka they formulated a tiger conservation plan which according to reports even led to an increase in tiger population. Many communities managed to restrict commercial forestry in their areas as in Chilapata in Dooars of north Bengal leading to improvement in biodiversity. Baiga community in Dindori, Madhya Pradesh has similarly banned coupe cutting by forest department which led to an increase in availability of diverse forest foods. In more than 100 villages in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, villagers especially of the Gond and Maria tribes now have an income of Rs 1 to 2 crore annually by successfully exercising the rights to manage and market non timber forest produce, tribes in Payvihir village of Amravati district whose rights were recognised in 2012 devised forest protection rules which led to increased production of grass, custard apple and tendu leaves.

Authors also highlight that these tribes can play an important role in mitigating impacts of climate change.