Forest Rights and Heritage Conservation
Context:
- Karnataka is home to ten of the 39 Western Ghats regions that UNESCO designated as being important for biodiversity in 2012. UNESCO consults the local population before designating areas as world historic sites to ascertain how the designation will effect their way of life and source of income.
- In the Karnataka grame panchayats near the world heritage sites, a survey of numerous groups, including Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), minorities, and the general category, was conducted (GC). The process for designating UNESCO historic monuments is unknown to the vast majority of respondents, who asserted as much.
The Forest Rights Act of 2006 (FRA):
- The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (FRA) recognises the rights of tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers to the forest resources they rely on for a variety of needs, including habitation, subsistence, and other sociocultural necessities.
- It recognises and grants other traditional forest dwellers (OTFD) and scheduled tribes of forest dwellers (FDST) who have lived there for many generations the right to occupy forest land.
- It strengthens the forest conservation regime while safeguarding the FDST and OTFD’s way of life and food security.
- The Gram Sabha must initiate the process for determining the type and extent of Individual Forest Rights (IFR), Community Forest Rights (CFR), or both, that may be awarded to FDST and OTFD.
As stated by the Forest Rights Act:
Possession rights:
- Up to a maximum of 4 hectares, it gives FDST and OTFD ownership rights to any land used for cultivation by tribal people or forest dwellers.
- Ownership only extends to land that the concerned family is actively cultivating; no new lands will be provided.
Use rights:
- The residents’ rights include having access to grazing areas and small-scale forest products.
Rights to development and assistance:
- Depending on restrictions for forest protection, access to necessities, and recovery in the event of an unauthorised eviction or forcible relocation.
Forest management rights:
- The power to regenerate, preserve, or manage any community forest resource that has historically been safeguarded and kept for future use is a part of this right.
Original occupants’ rights:
- The majority of those who inhabited the forest claimed parcels of land no bigger than an acre. It is clear that the claims were much smaller than the four hectares maximum permitted by the FRA.
- The rejection rate for the other indigenous forest dwellers was twice as high as it was for the STs. The following was identified as the cause in the case of the STs:
New intrusions:
- The territory that the claimants are claiming is deserted.
- The ones that have been claimed are “Paisari Bhoomis” (wasteland and forest lands not designated as protected forests or restricted forests) or revenue lands.
- many entries from the same family.
- The biggest problem with other traditional forest dwellers was that they couldn’t show documentation of their reliance and 75 years of residence on forest land.
Additional problems faced by forest residents include:
- The FRA is a respectable law that acknowledges the rights of the STs in view of their general lack of advancement, according to the officials. The majority did, however, concur that this Act should end and that the procedure could not go on endlessly with new claims always emerging.
- Residents of the ESZ-affected areas said that their access to the forest had started to be severely restricted. The construction and other development projects have been put on hold.
- Normal farming is not allowed, and using fertiliser is not allowed.
- For the purpose of making repairs or moving earth, it is illegal for citizens to cut down trees that are falling onto their dwellings.
- The growing animal uprising is harming the crops of the farmers who live in the forest.
- Those whose rights to their lands are not recognised do not receive compensation.
- In comparison to areas with steady revenue, villages close to forests present additional challenges for livestock owners.
- In order to make up for the forest land lost to such projects, according to residents in the irrigation project-affected areas, the government has taken over grazing pastures.
- Many forest dwellers are already relocating to new dwellings given by the government and permanently leaving “protected zones.” People worry that it would be impossible for the remaining villagers to lead normal lives if half of them left.
- The majority of forest people are excluded from basic services and other government benefits offered under various plans and programmes because they lack the “Records of Rights, Tenancy, and Crops” that are required along with the ownership of the land.
Moving ahead:
- It is clear from the foregoing that the FRA needs to be liberalised while simultaneously being clarified in order to provide forest dwellers with enough benefits in a timely manner.
- The gramme sabha appears to have the final word in the Act when deciding on the “planned relocation” because it must grant “free informed agreement.” However, this doesn’t happen. The government must make the Act more clear in order to avoid conflicts between organisations dedicated to protecting biodiversity and those who have lived in the forest for decades or centuries.
- The preservation of biodiversity must get special attention. The right to dwell in the forest must be granted to a person. Many of them follow the regulations of the eco-sensitive zone because they are not reliant on modern development requirements like the use of fertilisers and mobile phones. In accordance with their preferences for a new site and an acceptable package, those who want development must also be relocated.
- This is only possible if discussions with the local population take place before designating a region as “protected.” This did not take place in a transparent manner when protected areas were informed of the designation as a world heritage site or earlier.
