By Chiranjib Haldar
Exactly half a century ago, at the 1972 United Nations Stockholm Conference on environment, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had asserted ‘…unless we are in a position to provide employment and purchasing power for the daily necessities of the tribal people and those who live in or around our jungles, we cannot prevent them from combing the forest for food and livelihood; from poaching and from despoiling the vegetation. When they themselves feel deprived, how can we urge the preservation of animals?’ The notification of Forest Conservation Rules, 2022 can be seen as a reinstatement of the archaic school of thought that assures greater state control on forests. And in plain speak, the corollary being an ease of handing large tracts of land to corporates without the consent of India’s indigenous communities.
Does the proposed Forest Conservation Rules put forest dwellers in a quandary? The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes has asked the Ministry of environment and Forests to put in abeyance the recently notifies rules. It has asked the government to ‘reinstate, strengthen and strictly monitor’ the implementation of rules to grant Forest Rights Act, 2006 rights to STs and other traditional forest dwellers on forest land proposed for diversion. Under the new set of rules, collective thinking might be an aura of the past as the results can be both disastrous for indigenous communities and the environment.
Rahul Gandhi has accused the National Democratic Alliance government of disempowering adivasis and forested communities by bringing in the new forest conservation rules. In a strongly worded tweet, he retorted ‘Modi-Mitr Sarkar at its crony best! The UPA’s Forest Rights Act, 2006 has been weakened by the BJP government’s new FC Rules, 2022 for ease of snatching of forest land. Congress stands strongly with our adivasi brothers and sisters in their fight to protect jal, jungle and zameen.’ The Congress leader, Jairam Ramesh, has also vehemently opposed the new Forest Conservation Rules, 2022, alleging that its guidelines stifle the ease of living of the many in the name of ushering ease of doing business for a chosen few. The Union environment minister, Bhupender Yadav, has said that the new rules do not dilute or infringe upon the provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Would the new regulations endanger the rights of forest dwellers and tribals?
Worryingly, the ministry of environment, forest and climate change has delinked the processing of forest diversion applications from the requirement of the nod of the gram sabha. Moreover, the state government will not be able to tell its citizens that land has already been given for a project, becoming complicit in the Centre’s decision.
The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes has formed an expert committee to study the rules. This in itself is an acknowledgement that the FCR 2022 treads on the rights of marginalised communities dwelling in forest areas as defined in FRA 2006. The Congress’s bone of contention is that while the flagship FRA made it mandatory to seek prior approval of the gram sabha for diversion of forest land, the new FCR violates this statutory clause as the final clearance would be given by the Centre. To pacify those apprehensive about tribal displacement and our fragile ecology, the environment ministry has asserted that simultaneous compliance of FRA can be ensured with its nodal agencies to reduce the time lag.
But not everything is as hunky dory as it seems. According to FCR 2022, the transfer of forest land is sealed when a user hands over the net present value — a mandatory one-time payment made to divert forestland for non-forestry use. Most critics feel this could lead to the dilution of tribal rights and the grabbing of forest land.
There have been instances when the Supreme Court has stepped in to prevent the transfer of forest land. In Odisha’s Niyamgiri hills, the apex court had ordered that 12 gram sabhas of tribal communities would decide if they have the rights over the mountain and whether bauxite mining in Lanjigarh, situated below the peak, would affect their religious rights. In 2013, the Orissa Mining Corporation lost its bid when all gram sabhas spread across Rayagada and Kalahandi districts unanimously voted against its plan. There have been other success stories as well: indigenous communities had opposed POSCO’s project in Odisha.
FRA 2006 was enacted to rectify the imbalance of power between vulnerable forest-dwelling communities and the authorities since the State is a flagbearer of environmental protection. However, the provisions of FCR 2022 threaten to shove the agency of marginalised communities out of the land-clearance process. In 2009, the environment ministry had itself opined that consultation with gram sabhas was essential before any alteration was made to forestland. The idea was to ensure stipulated resettlement and an opportunity of redressal. Many ecologists feel that the present controversy is a case of the ministry of environment riding roughshod over the ministry of tribal affairs. The reason being compensatory afforestation for forest land diverted and the creation of a land bank.
Let us analyse in perspective why the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes has intervened to put the anti-tribal forest rules on hold. Assuming, land is not available for afforestation, a company can raise plantation on any tract held by the company, that can be traded off as compensatory land. It is an unfair barter and goes against ecological principles. It is the responsibility of the state to ensure a fair exchange. If any private plantation is allowed to be swapped and a company can raise any produce on any land, none can ensure proper land usage.
The company usually acquires a large area, some of which is not arable. That land is not handed back to the community by the companies. If they give the same land as compensation to another community, that creates a kind of ponzi grab. At the end of the day, the marginalised are going to be land losers. The dwellers are going to be bereft of their community forest land due to the new scheme. Critics feel the way this scheme is formulated will prove detrimental to the rights of forest dwellers.
(Chiranjib Haldar is a commentator on Politics and Society.)