Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report were aggressive and shrewd, and soon occupied most of the tribal lands. Tribals were unable to assert ownership over these lands and were pushed further into remoter areas and forced to “encroach” upon other forests. This led to tribal rebellion in many parts of the state, forcing the Nizam to commission a study by the famous German anthropologist, Haimendorf. Haimendorf’s study revealed the pathetic condition of the tribals, with stories of exploitation, extortion and displacement of tribals by new settlers. The recommendations of the study led to the appointment of a special officer to look into the grievances of the tribals. Many steps were taken to prevent tribal alienation from the land, including redistribution of illegally-held land from non-tribals to tribals. A subsequent visit by Haimendorf in 1975 revealed a completely different story. By this time, the population ratio had reversed drastically in favour of nontribals from adjoining states, many of whom earned their living by smuggling timber from the forests. Tribals were once again in the grip of money-lenders, and dispossessed of their land. Their life-sustaining forests stood degraded. 95 Till date, the conflict between the tribals and non-tribals continues to affect the success of JFM in many parts of the state (further details below). Law and Policy Context in Post-Independence AP In the post-independence era the colonial policies and attitudes of mistrust and neglect of forest dwellers continued in AP as much as in the rest of the country. The forest policy of 1952 continued the process of expanding state control over forests and further curtailing community rights. As more forests were taken over either by the government or by other outsiders, such as traders and settlers from outside the region, more government forest came under “encroachment” by the tribals, mainly for shifting cultivation. Under political pressure the government had to regularise these encroachments in 1972 and again in 1980. This further encouraged the trend of encroachments. AP is believed to have about 50,000 ha of forest land under illegal occupation 96 . The post- independence governmental focus on managing forests for revenue generation rather than for meeting the requirements of the local people, led to nearly 600,000 ha of forestland being leased out to the Forest Development Corporation in AP (APFDC) meant for establishing commercial plantations on degraded lands for industrial needs 97 . These degraded lands are important for local livelihoods. Bamboo basket making alone is believed to generate partial employment for about 23,000 people in the tribal areas. Yet areas rich in bamboo are preferentially allocated to industries 98 while imposing restrictions on the local communities on extraction of bamboo. In the year 2000, the government mooted a proposal for leasing out degraded areas to industry, with a JFM arrangement between the local people and the industry. It faced strong opposition from all sectors and the idea was eventually dropped by the government. 99 Disputes over illegally occupied lands, forest reservation policies and increased restriction on the use of the forests by local people have created deep conflicts between the tribals and the government. These conflicts have provided fertile ground for the naxalite movement, an armed extremist leftist movement that started as a fight against land alienation of tribals and continues to be strongly anti-establishment in tribal dominated parts of the country. 100 95 Rangachari, C.S. and S. D. Mukherji. 2000. Old Roots New Shoots: A study of Joint Forest Management in Andhra Pradesh, India. Winrock-Ford Book Series. Winrock International and Ford Foundation, New Delhi. 96 Bharati and M. Patnaik 1998. Joint Forest Management in Andhra Pradesh. AP NGOs Committee on JFM, Hyderabad. 97 Pers comm. Satya Srinivas, co-convenor of AFNGOs Committee for JFM in Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad. 98 Bharati and M. Patnaik 1998. Joint Forest Management in Andhra Pradesh. AP NGOs Committee on JFM, Hyderabad. 99 Mahapatra, R. 2000. Seeking Reliance. Down To Earth.. September 15, 2000 Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi; Pers comm. with members of APNGOs Committee for JFM in Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad; Pers comm. with S.K. Chhottray, Conservator of Forests, Khammam, Andhra Pradesh. 2002. 100 Bharati and M. Patnaik 1998. Joint Forest Management in Andhra Pradesh. AP NGOs Committee on JFM, Hyderabad. 56
Learning from International Community Forestry Networks: India Report The Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 (PESA) has not yet been implemented in the state, and the state-level act has been diluted in comparison to the empowering provisions of the Central act. Commercially valuable NTFP continues to be extracted through contractors and/or government monopoly institutions such as the Girijan Cooperative Corporation (GCC), despite PESA vesting ownership of NTFPs in Gram Sabhas/Gram Panchayats. Meanwhile not much attention has been paid towards development, management and marketing of NTFP that is commercially less valuable but meets most local livelihood needs. 101 Social Forestry The Social Forestry scheme (supported by the Canadian funding agency, CIDA) was the first official step towards any kind of participatory management of natural resources in the state. The scheme was not very successful. Not enough community land was available for plantations, benefits were mainly going to big farmers, the communities were distrustful of the government and in many cases refused to take part in the programme for the fear of their limited common lands being taken over by the government. 102 However, the scheme did provide a space for positive action where local communities, supporting NGOs and interested government officials worked at it. The social forestry programme stopped in 1993 with CIDA funding coming to an end. This was unfortunate for the thousands of poor and landless families who had participated in this programme. Despite their efforts at plantation and regeneration of the degraded areas, they have been denied the promised benefits for the last decade or so. 103 Social Forestry to Joint Forest Management (JFM) In 1990, the Joint Forest Management (JFM) Resolution was passed by the Central Government. The resolution was adopted by AP in 1992, though the new concept of people’s participation was not much understood by the officers of the FD at the time. At the same time there was a great resistance to sharing power with the people. After the CIDA funds dried up, the World Bank agreed to fund the AP Forestry Project (APFP) only under the condition that JFM would be one of the strongest components in the project. In its original proposal the Andhra Pradesh Forest Department (APFD)had requested for arms and ammunition to overcome encroachments and other forest offences. However, since then the project has come a long way in terms of people’s participation as well as benefit sharing. Since 1992, 12 amendments to the JFM resolution have been made, based on feed back from NGOs and the JFM monitoring cell of the APFD. JFM is in fact now being seen as a means to resolve land conflict with the tribals. In many cases encroached land has been included in JFM. The APFD boasts of having cleared 68,000 acres of ‘encroachments’ during phase 1 of the project – this has currently become a highly contentious issue. 104 There are also indications that including land in JFM has led to the loss of livelihood for tribals dependent on shifting cultivation. NGOs are now demanding compensation and rehabilitation for such tribals. 105 Compensation is being planned in the second phase of the project, which started in 2002. 101 Bharati and M. Patnaik 1998. Joint Forest Management in Andhra Pradesh. AP NGOs Committee on JFM, Hyderabad. 102 ibid; Rangachari, C.S. and S. D. Mukherji. 2000. Old Roots New Shoots: A study of Joint Forest Management in Andhra Pradesh, India. Winrock-Ford Book Series. Winrock International and Ford Foundation, New Delhi; Sundar, N., R. Jeffery and N. Thin. 2001. Branching Out: Joint Forest Management in India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 103 Reddy, M.P. 2002. A Promise Unfulfilled, in Reddy, K.B.R. (ed). 2002. Vana Premi: Journal of the Association of Retired Forest Officers, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad. 104 Comments from Madhu Sarin, Independent Consultant, Chandigarh. 2002. 105 Pers comm. with V.R. Sowmitri, co-convenor of APNGOs Committee for JFM in Andhra Pradesh. 2002. Hyderabad; Bhanumathi, Samata. 2002. Hyderabad. 57
Page 1 and 2:
Learning from International Communi
Page 3 and 4:
Learning from International Communi
Page 5 and 6: Learning from International Communi
Page 55: Learning from International Communi
show all

Snapshots of International Community Forestry Networks: Country ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?