Majority Report of the Committee Constituted to ... - Forest Rights Act

More documents

Recommendations

Info

19. It is important to note that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests categorically gave instructions to his DFOs that claims of nontribals which cannot be settled under the ST and OTFD (FRA) Act, 2006 may be taken up under pre-25-10-80 forest encroachments for regularizations under the Forest Conservation, Act, 1980. VII. Resolutions of the palli sabhas in the project affected area. 20. As stated above, the Collector of Jagatsinghpur on 19th December, 2009 wrote to the BDO, Ersama to organize Palli Sabhas and get their consent for forest diversion for POSCO steel plant. In turn the BDO, Ersama wrote to the Sarpanches of Dhinkia, Nuagaon and Govindpur on January 19th, 2010 requiring them to hold Palli Sabhas before Febuary 10th, 2010 to discuss and approve the POSCO diversion proposal. In response the Palli Sabhas of Dhinkia, Govindpur and Nuagaon met on Feb 5, Feb 6 and Feb 4th, 2010 respectively. They all passed similar resolutions rejecting diversion of forest land for establishing the POSCO steel plant, asserting their eligibility as other traditional forest dwellers (OTFDs) under the Forest Rights Act and invoking their powers under section 5 of the Act to protect forests, wildlife, biodiversity and their cultural and natural heritage. VIII. Letter of Collector, Jagatsinghpur recording that there are no tribals or OTFDs in the project affected areas. 21. Despite these resolutions by the Palli Sabhas, shortly afterwards in Feb 23, 2010 (Annexure A 20) the Collector of Jagatsinghpur wrote a letter no 139 to the state government which mentioned, “It is pertinent to mention here that Palli Sabhas have been conducted in all 3 GPs covering the POSCO project area and no claim for settlement of rights from tribals and traditional forest dwellers have been received. Since no tribals or traditional forest dwellers are residing in the aforesaid area, the question of settlement of rights of tribal people /other traditional forest dwellers under the Forest Rights Act does not arise.” He enclosed certain Gram Sabha documents in Oriya. On March 16, 2010 (Annexure A 21) the state government sends this certified information of the Collector, Jagatsinghpur to the MOEF. In reply to this MOEF wrote to the State Government on April 15, 2010 (Annexure A 22) asking for English translations of the Oriya documents that had been sent. The Special Secretary, Government of Orissa sent the English translations of the proceedings of Palli Sabhas of the three Gram Panchayats of the project affected area on 29-6-2010 (Annexure A 23).
These Palli Sabha proceedings only covered the constitution of Forest Rights Committees and their members. There were no certificates giving consent of the Gram Sabhas/Palli Sabhas to the diversion of forest land in their areas. IX. Protests against land acquisition and announcement of revised R&R package. 22. On 11th May, 2010 there was a conflict between police and the communities blockading land acquisition in the area for the POSCO project. A number of people were injured in these clashes. 23. On July 8, 2010 (Annexure A 24) second RPDAC meeting was convened after an interval of 4 years (the first one was in 2006) and a revised R&R package announced which was declared to be better than the R&R package under the Orissa R&R policy, since higher compensation was given to the displaced and the price for agriculture land being acquired substantially increased. The new package also included betel vine growers and those with cashew trees in forest land. In the earlier R&R these people were not compensated. However they continue to be defined as encroachers by the government. X. Report of the Ashish Kothari sub- committee. 24. On 24th July, 2010 (Annexure A 25) a three member team of an MOEF/ MOTA constituted larger Committee (Chairperson is N.C.Saxena) set up to look into the implementation of the Forest Rights Act visited Jagatsinghpur in connection with the committee’s work on FRA process implementation. The team was led by Mr Ashish Kothari. The team reported that FRA process had not been completed and concluded that archival, documentary and oral evidence existed that the people living there were OTFDs and were thus eligible to stake their claims under FRA Act, 2006. The team reported that the State government had not accepted their claims that they had been cultivating for more than 3 generations . In addition the Palli Sabha resolutions rejecting diversion of the forest land for the POSCO project had not been acknowledged by the State government. Hence, the team concluded that the MOEF should ask the Orissa government to stop all such work till the required processes under the FRA are completed , and till and if Palli Sabha consent is obtained. The team further recommended that the forest clearance granted by the MOEF should be withdrawn . XI. Taking over of forest land by Orissa government.
Page 1 and 2: Majority Report of the Committee Co
Page 3 and 4: governments were asked to provide c
Page 5 and 6: for claims after constitution of FR
Page 7 and 8: have worked with people, to help in
Page 9 and 10: 29. Concerns regarding the impact o
Page 11 and 12: coordinates it would be impossible
Page 13 and 14: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PREFACE CONTENTS
Page 15 and 16: as a whole (as opposed to for the i
Page 17 and 18: INTRODUCTION- Time Line of Events P
Page 19 and 20: government to hear all the applicat
Page 21 and 22: II. Recommendations of the Central
Page 23: V. Forest clearance given without c
Page 27 and 28: ii) Investigation and ascertainment
Page 29 and 30: The Sairat income of the estate was
Page 31 and 32: V. Rights of `encroachers’ not se
Page 33 and 34: in the Schedule annexed hereto whic
Page 35 and 36: 9. Karonj Pongamia glabra 10. Sanar
Page 37: subdivision is supplied with betel
Page 40 and 41: 5. Aquaculture Ponds 0.79 0.20 6. A
Page 42 and 43: are interpreted as the remnants of
Page 44 and 45: VI. Impact of loss of coastal mangr
Page 46 and 47: to keep them at a middle income cla
Page 48 and 49: 25. Another source of income is fro
Page 50 and 51: vi) Status of ownership showed that
Page 52 and 53: v) All families in these villages (
Page 54 and 55: SECTION 3 Forest Rights and the For
Page 56 and 57: (4) He goes on to say that under su
Page 58 and 59: one must note that this is not limi
Page 60 and 61: proviso to section 29(3) and theref
Page 62 and 63: 20. It must first be noted that whe
Page 64 and 65: obtained by the resident tenants at
Page 66 and 67: of Polanga lies within the project
Page 68 and 69: esolutions in the registers but onl
Page 70 and 71: 53. In light of the above, the Comm
Page 72 and 73: (4) District Welfare Officer (5) Th
Page 74 and 75:
68. It is not clear if the resoluti
Page 76 and 77:
anywhere in the State after June 20
Page 78 and 79:
- Both points have certified by the
Page 80 and 81:
3) Finally, the certification of co
Page 82 and 83:
98. The Committee finds that, even
Page 84 and 85:
112. The Orissa government's takeov
Page 86 and 87:
extent to which the Orissa R & R Po
Page 88 and 89:
(wherever applicable) in the Commit
Page 90 and 91:
18. Approximately 32 villages, most
Page 92 and 93:
Majority Report of the POSCO Enquir
Page 94 and 95:
the minor port. It is against this
Page 96 and 97:
12. The tests for evaluating adequa
Page 98 and 99:
Paradeep port area in a region desc
Page 100 and 101:
26. The proposed project is to set
Page 102 and 103:
33. The Schedule to the 2006 Notifi
Page 104 and 105:
August 2006 (Annexure E - 3 ) as pe
Page 106 and 107:
een annexed to the main text.” On
Page 108 and 109:
54.The committee members are of the
Page 110 and 111:
fragile coastal area which has repe
Page 112 and 113:
Board should stipulate appropriate
Page 114 and 115:
67. In the Letter No. WP-IWS-135/07
Page 116 and 117:
ii) Coastal Regulation Zone map ind
Page 118 and 119:
78. As far as the impact on the Pra
Page 120 and 121:
from the site. Since mangrove veget
Page 122 and 123:
potential hazardous units in this r
Page 124 and 125:
photographs and voucher would be pr
Page 126 and 127:
a) The project is highly significan
Page 128 and 129:
have not been followed through by t
Page 130 and 131:
dispensed with in the peculiar fact
Page 132 and 133:
conduct of public hearings is elabo
Page 134 and 135:
n Impact Identificatio n Mitigation
Page 136 and 137:
hazards and affect their livelihood
Page 138 and 139:
ecause of other industries in the a
Page 140 and 141:
2 Dredging would affect Atharbanki
Page 142 and 143:
6 Dredging of sand dumping it in th
Page 144 and 145:
were accepted or negatived. Failure
Page 146 and 147:
118. As per the Interim Operational
Page 148 and 149:
Para 14.0 Para 15.0 Par a 15. 0 Par
Page 150 and 151:
Director, Department of Disinvestme
Page 152 and 153:
Officials has committed any mistake
Page 154 and 155:
For these amongst other reasons, th
Page 156 and 157:
Introduction Section 6 Compliance o
Page 158 and 159:
Some activities are permissible wit
Page 160 and 161:
provided by POSCO-India Pvt Ltd and
Page 162 and 163:
5th December, 1989; except transfer
Page 164 and 165:
Location of slag yard in CRZ area p
Page 166 and 167:
that any of these issues were discu
Page 168 and 169:
In view of the above observations t
Page 170 and 171:
Conclusions and Recommendations Par
Page 172 and 173:
9. Though the MoEF is not the nodal
Page 174 and 175:
concerned authorities to such poten
Page 176 and 177:
As this report has demonstrated, wh
Page 178 and 179:
A. Preparation of EIA. 1. EIA shoul
Page 180 and 181:
e available to members of public el
Page 182 and 183:
REFERENCES / ANNEXURES Annexure No.
Page 184 and 185:
2010 Report. A-26 July 27 th , U.N.
Page 186 and 187:
FRA and compliance. C-7 July, 2004
Page 188 and 189:
Ghauj Jungle, Plot Nos. 1293 & 1294
Page 190 and 191:
Members in Bhubaneshwar E - 18 4.10
Page 192 and 193:
Annexure - H : CRZ serious concerns
Page 194:
Finance Minister, GoO. Note : The c
show all

Majority Report of the Committee Constituted to ... - Forest Rights Act

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?