Canopies and Corridors - International Fund for Animal Welfare

More documents

Recommendations

Info

area network would mean the substitution of the traditional authority of the priest/village chief etc. by a rational - legal authority represented by the forest department of the government. A possible consequence would be the decrease in whatever sanctity is left in the sacred groves. A scenario, which could be suicidal since only a fragment of the total area of the sacred groves in Meghalaya, is undisturbed. A strategy for conservation should be adopted which takes into account the following conditions: Unique condition prevailing in a particular sacred grove. The beliefs and practices prevailing among the people and whether the religious rituals related to the sacred groves are being practiced or not. The status of forests and vegetation around the sacred groves - This is an important factor, for there is bound to be pressure on the sacred grove if people are to depend on the sacred grove for meeting their biomass requirement. The religion followed by the people in the vicinity of the sacred grove - However, this is quite a complicated issue and depends on a multiplicity of factors. As we have seen in areas where the people have converted to Christianity, the belief in the sacredness is on the decline. However, there are many instances where the even the Christians subscribe to the beliefs, myths and legends associated with the sacred groves. Besides there are groves which are well preserved even when the bulk of the people around the sacred grove are Christians, since the Chief of the village still adhere to their traditional religion. The sacred groves may have lost their importance in terms of their religious significance, however the high rate of deforestation in the state has only increased their value in terms of harboring the last remnant biodiversity in the region. The traditional patterns of beliefs of the people served the latent function of protecting the forests. The recognition of this latent function as opposed to the manifest function of the sacred grove is what might hold the key to the survival of the sacred groves in Meghalaya. Forest acts of the Garo Hills district council The District Council of Garo Hills has for the management of forests other than Government controlled forests enacted the Garo Hills District Canopies and Corridors (Forests) Act, 1958. This Act differs from the Forest Acts of the Khasi Hills since it is shaped according to the Assam Forest Regulation Act, 1891. An important provision in the Garo Hills District (Forests) Act, 1958 is the setting up of a Council Reserved Forests (S.3). The procedure for constituting a Council Reserved Forests is similar to the procedure for setting up a Government Reserve Forests as given in the Assam Forests Regulation Act, 1891 (which in turn was structured in accordance with the Indian Forest Act, 1878). The only difference being that instead of a Government appointed Forest Settlement Officer there is a Council Settlement Officer for the settlement of rights etc. However no forest has been designated as Council Reserved Forest, and a possible answer to it could be the past experience of the Garos with Reserve Forests. Just as the Jaintia Hills District Council has adopted in toto the Forest Act of the Khasi Hills District Council, similarly the Garo Hills District Council has adopted many provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation Act 1891, mutatis mutandis for the Garo Hills. Thus Section 20 of the Garo Hills (Forests) Act 1958 applies chapter IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XI of the Assam Forest Regulations, mutatis mutandis for the management of District Council Forests and levy and collection of forests revenue. Thus the District Council of Garo Hills has not made any effort to bring out legislation keeping in view the specific requirements of Garo Hills. The confusion that arises because of the simultaneous operation of the customary laws of the tribal and the statutory laws of the District Council is also evident in the Garo Hills, similar to what prevails in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills. In the plain areas of the Garo Hills district which comprise roughly 5.75% of the total area the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act 1866 is applicable, whereas in the hilly lands the customary laws govern the system of land tenure. Most of the land in the hilly portion of Garo Hills (where also the bulk of forests exists) belongs to one clan, or the other, and in known as a "A' Khing land". The A khing land belongs to the clan but is under the control of the head of the clan known as “Nokma”. Even though theoretically a female is a “Nokma”, but in actuality the Akhing land is managed and controlled by her husband on her behalf. As Akhing land is clan- land any member of the clan can cultivate a portion of it without payment of any fees to the Nokma. However if a member of 41
another clan wants land, then the Nokma can give him land if available and also realizes a small amount of fees which is called “A wil”. The District Council has however passed the Garo Hills District (A Wil Fees) Act, 1960, for the regulations, collection of “A’ Wil” fee in the District. In this Act “A’Wil” fee in described not only as fees paid by any outsiders who is allowed to Jhum in a particular A’Khing, but also as fees assessed on timbers or other forest produce extracted from the A’Khing. Under Section 5 of the Garo Hills District (A’Wil Fees), Act, 1960, the Nokma of the A’Khing gets 25% of it, and 75% goes to the District Council. The A’ Wil fees, which has been made applicable to timber and other forest produce, is a major factor contributing to the depletion of forests in the Garo Hills. This is because both the District Council and the Nokma, derive monetary benefit if trees and other forest produce are exploited by people who are not members of a particular class to which the land belongs. Under customary law, A’ Wil fees was levied only on the tribals who were not clan members and that to for cultivation. The District Council has, by making A’wil fees applicable to any person, other than those to whom the A’Khing land belongs, in fact has legitimised the exploitation of forests by tribals, who have turned into professional timber contractor and traders. Another major reasons for the mismanagement of forests in the Garo Hills is the confusion that arises because of the overlapping authority of the Nokmas and the District Council. As has been said earlier, most of the land in Garo Hills belong to one clan or the other (under the control of the Nokma) in accordance with the customary law. However, under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, all forests other than Government Reserved Forests, are to be managed by the District Council. Since the bulk of the forests are in the hilly region of the district where the customary law on land is applicable this has led to confusion, as it is difficult for the District Council to effectively manage the forests, if the land on which the trees exists are not under its control. The District Council has sought to end this confusion through a Rule, according to which, even though the Nokma has the right to grant permission for felling of trees, however until the District Council approves it, the permission given by the Nokma has no validity. But in actuality the District Council has no proper mechanism to see whether the number of trees felled are in accordance with the permit granted. This is borne out by a note prepared by the State Forest Department and submitted to the Commission of Inquiry on Autonomous District Administration – 1984. It was stated in the note that :- “In the Garo Hills the timber traders obtain permission from the Nokmas for extraction of timber from the clan forests under its custody. The contractors then obtain timber operation permits from the District Council on the strength of the Nokmas consent letters. Because of the lack of adequate field supervision the contractors operate many more trees than are authorised by the permits. The District Council has to remain satisfied in the collection of revenue at forest depots. This practice has resulted is systematic and ruthless removal of all marketable trees from the forest forests under the control of the Garo Hills District Council”. Conclusions The above analysis of the District Council laws on the management and control of forests brings us to the following important conclusions: - (1) All the laws together with the subsequent Rules with regard to forests have been made keeping in view the requirements of trade and commerce and looks at forests as a source for generating revenue for District Councils. This is exemplified by the fact that in the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and Control of Forests) Rules 1960, “Forests” have been defined as – “An area shall be deemed to be a forest if there are a reasonable numbers of trees, say not less than 25 trees per acre or any forest produce growing in such area, which are capable of being exploited for the purpose of business and trade”. (2) Even though the District Councils have been constitutionally given the power to manage all forests other than Government Reserved Forests, in actuality it has only a notional control over most of the forests. This is most acute in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills. Thus the District Council has failed to assert its authority as the sole manager of forests, and as such a large percentage of forests are managed in accordance with the customary laws. 42 Canopies and Corridors
Page 1 and 2: Eds: Rahul Kaul, Sandeep Kumar Tiwa
Page 3 and 4: The International Fund for Animal W
Page 5 and 6: FOREWORD February 12, 2008 Forests
Page 7 and 8: The report is an outcome of relentl
Page 9 and 10: The sixth schedule of the constitut
Page 11 and 12: conducted covering the whole of the
Page 13 and 14: Geographical location The state of
Page 15 and 16: Fig. 2 Map of the three Garo Hills
Page 17 and 18: Table 3 Population, child populatio
Page 19 and 20: Fig. 3 Map showing blocks of the Ga
Page 21 and 22: Table 7 Classification of area unde
Page 23 and 24: Table 8 Number of jhumias in Garo H
Page 25 and 26: To make recommendation for changes
Page 27 and 28: (c) In any matter relating to any s
Page 29 and 30: Management and administration of co
Page 31 and 32: Notes and comments The statement of
Page 33 and 34: Purpose Conservation and protection
Page 35 and 36: FCA was not applied to forest land
Page 37 and 38: should be a partnership of all the
Page 39 and 40: PART A 1. The United Khasi-Jaintia
Page 41: Sacred groves The sacred groves are
Page 45 and 46: Meghalaya, with its diverse habitat
Page 47 and 48: Fig. 2 Tiger in Balpakram National
Page 49 and 50: Ainsliaea latifolia, Panax pseudo-g
Page 51 and 52: B. West Garo Hills C. South Garo Hi
Page 53 and 54: Introduction There is an increasing
Page 55 and 56: Fig.1 Landuse map of Garo Hils dist
Page 57 and 58: Fig. 4 Land use map of South Garo H
Page 59 and 60: Fig 6 Map showing areas under diffe
Page 61 and 62: Table 6 List of woody species and i
Page 63 and 64: Fig 8 Dominance-distribution curves
Page 65 and 66: 64 Canopies and Corridors
Page 67 and 68: and invasion of weedy and other spe
Page 69 and 70: Balakrishnan, N.P. 1981-83. Flora o
Page 71 and 72: the first stage sampling units and
Page 73 and 74: Survey Survey was conducted on the
Page 75 and 76: engaged in forest resource collecti
Page 77 and 78: 87.2% birds and 79.5% fishes. Only
Page 79 and 80: industry. A large part of bamboo is
Page 81 and 82: Introduction Forest resources play
Page 83 and 84: 82 Canopies and Corridors
Page 85 and 86: Profile of the Sample Age-sex compo
Page 87 and 88: Initiatives for the conservation of
Page 89 and 90: Laws for legal protection of forest
Page 91 and 92: have done good work for forest cons
Page 93 and 94:
92 Canopies and Corridors Fig. 2 Fo
Page 95 and 96:
The conflict has also resulted in i
Page 97 and 98:
Fig. 8 Map of Ranggira- Nokrek elep
Page 99 and 100:
Fig. 9 Map of Nokrek - Imangiri ele
Page 101 and 102:
Fig. 10 Map of Imangiri -Rewak elep
Page 103 and 104:
Fig. 11 Map of Siju -Rewak elephant
Page 105 and 106:
Fig. 12 Map of Siju -Balpakram elep
Page 107 and 108:
106 Canopies and Corridors Fig. 13
Page 109 and 110:
area. The Nokma and local community
Page 111 and 112:
Fig. 18 Piglets distributed among A
Page 113 and 114:
Selbalgre village (about 20 kms fro
Page 115 and 116:
Fig. 4 Notification of Selbalgre Vi
Page 117 and 118:
Fig. 9 Fishery tank being prepared
Page 119 and 120:
(i) Careful steps should be taken t
Page 121 and 122:
communities. The major tribes of th
Page 123 and 124:
ANNEXURE II T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMU
Page 125 and 126:
foolproof institutional arrangement
Page 127 and 128:
16. Units who do not want to shift
Page 129 and 130:
tools and implements for prosecutio
Page 131 and 132:
e delegated to it by the Regional C
Page 133 and 134:
constituted by such Council in appe
Page 135 and 136:
(c) taxes on the entry of goods int
Page 137 and 138:
specify in the notification; (c) th
Page 139 and 140:
(3) Every order made under sub-para
Page 141 and 142:
(2) Every member whether elected or
Page 143 and 144:
(f) fisheries; (g) water, that is t
Page 145 and 146:
(d) prescribe that no person reside
Page 147 and 148:
Act, 2003 (44 of 2003), s. 2 , so a
Page 149 and 150:
consider the desirability of introd
Page 151 and 152:
Order: Insectivora Family: Soricida
Page 153 and 154:
Tiger Panthera tigris tigris (Linna
Page 155 and 156:
ANNEXURE V List of Birds reported f
Page 157 and 158:
Order: Coraciiformes Family: Alcedi
Page 159 and 160:
Family: Paridae Melanochlora sultan
Page 161 and 162:
Order: Testudines 1. Hardella thurj
Page 163 and 164:
Order: Primates Family: Cercopithec
Page 165 and 166:
ANNEXURE IX
Page 167 and 168:
A. OCCASIONAL REPORTS OTHER WTI PUB
Page 169 and 170:
Emergency Relief Network Digest 200
show all

Canopies and Corridors - International Fund for Animal Welfare

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?