Shared Natural Resources
A compilation of our newsletter articles on natural resource management (2005-07)
Seva Mandir
This publication is the pilot booklet of series of
booklets to be published on articles compiled from
the old Seva Mandir Newsletters. The articles will
be categorized on thebasis oftheme or authors.
Shared Resources covers all articles pertaining to
the Natural Resource Management Programme
published in Newsletters in years 2005 to2007.
There is a blog also for Seva Mandir Newsletter
which can be browsed on the SevaMandir website sevamandir.org.
Credits:
Section 1 - Common Property Resources
0. Integrating Common Lands in Watersheds
Kulranjan Kujurand Shailendra Tiwari - December 31, 2005
0. Conflicts in Joint Forest Management
VivekVyas - June 30, 2006
0. Seva Mandir and the Land ReformCommittee Under the Ministry of Rural Development
VivekVyas - March 31, 2008
Section 2 - Issues Before ForestRights Act2006
0. CollectiveApproach Towards Recognition of Forest Rights of Scheduled Tribes & Forest Dwellers
Kulranjan Kujur- June30, 2005
0. Who Should Own the Forests?
Liby Johnson and Jayapadma RV - December 31, 2005
0. The Tragedy of Transformation of Forest Lands From Commons to Commodity
Shailendra Tiwari - June 30, 2006
Section 3 - Issues After Forest Rights Act2006
0. Our Environment - The Challenges Ahead...
Ashish Kothari - June 30, 2007
0. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dweller: (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 Reflection & analysis on draft rules
S.N. Bhise- September 30, 2007
0. Empowering Communities forForest Governance
S.N. Bhiseand Vivek Vyas -March 31, 2008
Preface
Seva Mandir has been involved with the forest dwelling communities in Udaipur District ever since the 1988 Forest policy as
well asthe JFMguidelines were releasedin theyear 1991 andtheWatershedguidelines in theyear 1994.
We have always been part of the larger policy dialogue concerning the commons as well as forest lands and it has been realised
that this two-pronged approach to conservation of environment through (1) Direct interventions at the grassroots (2) Sharing
of the Learnings at the wider policy podiums has the potential to bring about gradual but path-breaking changes in the way
government designs its legislations and policies as well as the executive deals with the implementation of the same. The present
compilation is an effort to churn out and present the cream ofsuch learnings atvarious points oftime during our work in the last
ten years on issues related to Natural Resource Management, Common Property Resources and the Forest Rights debate in
specific.
Seva Mandir's Efforts on Common Property Resources
Seva Mandir'sJoint Forest Management programme isone of theexamples ofhow programmes GO-NGO partnershipswith the
communities have their crests and troughs. The article on the conflicts in JFM deals with the same. Likewise one of the
hallmarks ofSeva Mandir's work on NRM has been the work on watersheds. This work has had far reaching policy implications
for relevance ofwatershed developmenton commonsas seen in the outputofthe parthasarthycommitteesreport. The pinnacle of
the effortson the research on commonsaswell asthe advocacy waswhen Seva Mandir wasinvited to bepart ofthe committee on
landsreforms and convened thegroup on common propertyresources.
Forest Rights Act 2006
It was interesting to trace the path of the recent legislation on the forest rights act when the debate was on about how to deal with
the encroachments pre-and post 1980 as decided by the Indian forest act 1980. While we were doing the same in the 2000-2006
period, the forest rights act 2006 was passed which gave a new dimension to thisdebate by diverting the onus onto the public (gram
sabhas) for decidingthefate of their forests.
Therefore the articles pertaining to these issues in this handout are therefore divided into two groups(Pre 2006 and post 2006). The
section called "Issues before the Forest Rights Act 2006 deals with the efforts/approaches for dealing with the issue of
encroachments on forestlands". The second half" Issuesafter the ForestRights Act 2006 dealswith the postenactmentscenario with
a focuson the operationalisation ofthe Forest RightsAct."
Section 1
00
Integrating Common Lands in Watersheds
Kulranjan Kujur and Shailendra Tiwari - December 31, 2005
Several pieces of writing have elaborated the importance of common lands on the livelihoods of rural communities,
especially on those of small and marginal farmers. These studies also point to the critical role that common property
resources play in the lives of the poorest and on their livestock. Further, during periods of drought common land can
become a critical cushion.
The proportion of common lands in a watershed area differs from region to region.In hilly, tribal regions the proportion of
these common lands could be as high as 50 to 70 per cent of the total watershed area. For the purpose of this note, and
from the point of discussion on watersheds, we have considered the following lands coming under the category of
common lands: pasture, forest and revenue lands. Proper development and management of these common lands is
critical to thesuccess of the watershed, and for providing returns to the poorer households. Since these categories of lands
not only constitute a significant proportion of the total watershed but are also often located along the watershed ridges,
proper treatment and management of these lands are important technical and ecological considerations. Further, when
it comes to the landless and the poor, it is these common lands which can be used as levers for equity. The greatest
potential of these common lands lies in promoting and sustaining cohesion and solidarity within the village. The
requirements of managingthese common properties are such that the village has to necessarily cooperate. These lands, if
properly developed provide a most attractive stake for communities to come together. The returns of working on
common property resources are, therefore, indeed extremely significant and can be summarised as ecological, equity,
solidarity and sustainability returns.
01
However, due to common lands being highly contested and in a state of deterioration, their significance on sustaining
local livelihood and in protecting the community fabric is plummeting. The issue of land Rights is more intricate and it is not
possible to deal with the issue without involving the local community. Though there might be varied experiences of
different organisations in dealing withthe issue, a more pragmatic and suitable approach is needed. Keeping in mind the
sensitivity and magnitude of the problem, we infer that resolving the issue of illegal privatisation of common lands needs
to be converged with other land development initiatives, especially with watershed programmes. This would help in
havingan integrated land development approach.
02
The foremost reason for common lands being inaccessible is encroachment. A macro level study (EERN Study, 2003)
carried out in Rajasthan highlighted that out of the total panchayat pastureland sites in the state, 69 per cent of them had
encroachments and were contested. Another study done within Udaipur district revealed that the proportion of
encroachment on forest, panchayat and revenue lands are 27, 54 and 100 per cent respectively (Bhise et.al. 2004). The
book highlighted that of the total encroachers 62 per cent are economically sound. There is ample proof that
encroachment is not only a manifestation of poverty but, more often, of social status and power of the encroacher.
However, it is possible to break out of this slide and conflict situation. This requires clear and consistent regulation on the
partof the government and involvement of the community in the process of resolving these disputes.
Keepinginmind the sensitivity and magnitude of the problem a more pragmatic stance is required to protect the Rights of
people and the ecology. More deliberation is needed onthe issue for systematically involving the community inthe whole
process. Creating awareness about the issue would reinforce the village community for dealing withthe issue. Moreover,
there is a fraction of people who abide with the law and oppose any approach that further leads to plight on the
community. Hence,devolution of authority to thecommunity for dealing with the issue can expedite theprocess of access
to common lands.
Watershed treatment programmes must respect the property Rights regime in relation to land. So far, watershed
development has been done, mostly ignoring the perspective of common lands. In the region where majority of land is
common land, a different approach has to be followed. The common land should be delineated on the ground and its
entitlement should be well established before undertaking any interventions in a watershed region. This will bolster the
significance of common lands in the watershed programme. Fostering common lands in a watershed programme would
underpintheridge-to-valley notion of watershed programme.
Additionally, if joint forest management is implemented in a proper way by the department/ non-government
organisations, so that regular benefits are accrued from the developed area, it could provide necessary impetus for
dealing with the issue. It can help in checking further encroachment. Apparently, no fresh encroachment in the region is
reported where village level forest protection committees are registered for joint forest management. In fact, these
committees do not allowpeople from outside to encroachon their land, whilst also restrictinglocalpeople from doing the
same. By constituting more than 3,000 committees in Rajasthan the forest department has morally bound people from
encroaching government lands. Finally, further reinforcing this programme could contribute in tackling the issue of
encroachment in forestlands.
Eventually, it is high time that government comes up with firm policy on encroachment -on panchayat, forest, revenue
and wastelands to avoid further worsening of the situation in relation to common land. The cooperation of concerned
departments is solicited in resolvingland related conflicts.
In the discourse on commonlands,village institutions play a central role. Effective participation of village institutions in the
discourse helps in resolving any inter- or intra-village conflict. These institutions enter into a dialogue with the encroacher
and try to evict encroachments from common lands for the interest of the village. Seva Mandir, from its longexperience of
working on land, infers that addressing the issue of land governance in the country is of utmost importance before
initiatingany intervention on commonlands.
To initiate development of these lands in the village, it is imperative that the ownership disputes are resolved at the initial
stage. During the course of Seva Mandir's association with the common land, there are many instances where
03
encroachments have been evicted under pressure from the community for equitable distribution of benefits from the
land.Some of the effective strategies followed by thecommunity are listed here.
Sometimes a threat by the community members to take legal action, or actually going in for legal action, has been fruitful.
Forest protection committees have been successful in evicting encroachments after much persuasion and sustained
lobbying with the forest department to initiate legal action against the encroachers. Though the process is in compliance
with government rules, it is tedious and time-consuming. Moreover, intricate administrative procedures and sociopolitical considerations affecttheprocess.
04
In a few cases community members have negotiated with the encroachers to have land evicted, suitably compensating
them ona case-by-case basis after ascertaining the socio-economic conditionof the encroachers. More importantly, in the
whole process of negotiation the village community acts as a catalyst.. Therefore, this method of evicting encroachments
if adopted with an appropriate strategy is effective. The incentive component either can be monetary or through
developingproductivity of existingland (agricultural fields, privatewaste lands,etc.).
Networks and federations of village institutions such as forest protection committees and their federation or watershed
committees often provide an additional input in dealing with the issue of common property resources, especially forest
lands which constitute the bulk of common lands in the country. Such networks can help in advocacy at multiple levels
and also ininterfacing with governmentdepartments.However, building up suchnetworks takes time.
1.
There is provision of treating forestland under joint forest management by the project implementing agency
through constitution of forest protection committees. However, the process of sanction of joint forest
management is tedious - it takes a year or two to get sanction from the forest department. The implementing
agency should have legal access to treat the forestland falling under the watershed. The sanction to treat such
forestland inthewatershed should be granted in a time-bound manner onpriority basis.
2.
The government should settle the issue of encroachments by either handing over land to the encroacher or
evicting the encroacher. This should be done in a time bound manner all over the country and not be subjected
to continuous negotiations under political pressures from time in water shed to time. There is a need to give a
clear signal to the village communities about the status of these lands.
3.
From the ecological point of view the forests are considered as reservoirs of water. Moreover,since the location of
forests is on uplands, leaving forestland untreated would reduce the longevity of watershed treatment benefits
downstream. It is suggested that priority should be given to treat forest lands for the larger interest of the tribal
and respectingthe notion of watershed concept.
There is a provision under which by digging of trenches and construction of check dams, revenue wastelands can be
treated under watershed programmes. However, if the community or project implementing agency wants to enclose
these lands, it is not permitted to do so. Such lands cannot be made productive by planting of trees or other sort of
vegetation, since they cannot beenclosed.
There is a legal provision under which the revenue land can be converted into village pasture. However, this process of
conversion is very tedious and time consuming. This process can be made simple so that investments can be made to
makerevenuelands more productive.
1.
The authority on these lands is the gram ponchayat, which generally is reluctant in giving sanction for their
development. Sharing of benefits from pastures is a bone of contention between the village and the gram
panchayat. It is recommended that the legal authority of village pasture betransferred to thegram sabha to avoid
these complications.
2.
The jurisdiction of a gram panchayat is spread over several hamlets and several pieces of pasture lands. Different
hamlets ina village havetraditional rights over thesepieces of pasture lands. It would indeed be better if authority
over these pastures is vested with the concerned gram sabha rather thanthepanchayat.
05
To sum up, considering the importance and magnitude of common lands which covers a significant portion of a
watershed area, it is necessary to have appropriate arrangements for its treatment. It is also important to voice the
concerns of the community, and to have a legal framework for inclusion of developing common lands in watershed
regions.
Eventually, it is recommended that the entire watershed land under the purview of different state departments should be
legally accessible to project implementers. In some states such as Maharashtra, collaborative approach of government
departments and non-government organisations has sanctioned access to forest lands to project implementing agencies
for treatment under government order. Therefore, such provision can be made in all the states covering all categories of
land falling in a watershed region. It is also recommended that a single window legal clearance to treat all sorts of public
lands for treatment onwatershed basis would beeffective.
06
Background- The National Forest Policy of 1988 and the Joint Forest Management resolution of 1991 acknowledged the
need to give greater rights and authority to community groups. The policy envisaged a process of joint management of
forests by the state government and the local people, who would share the responsibility for managing the resource and
the benefits accruing from this.
As per the guidelines of the National Forest Policy (1988) the local people along with the Non-Governmental
Organizations can come together in an effort to conserve and manage their forests under Joint Forest Management
(JFM) project. This would be done through the formation of village forest protection and management committee. To
regenerate the degraded and barren forest areas, NGOs and villagers could cooperate in order to bring about
improvements in the condition of the forestland as well as improvingupon the benefits it can provide in its role of a CPR.
Seva Mandir undertook one of the first JFMs in Rajasthan in 1991 in association with the Shyampura Forest Protection
Committee (FPC). Subsequently, under this scheme, it tried to develop 15 more sites and conducted plantations on about
810 hectares of degraded forest lands and closed 200 hectares of good forests for natural protection.
07
Interestingly each of these sites and each JFM implementation with the brought forth issues that highlight dynamics,
which can disturb a functional institutionand impede protectionor developmentof the community resource.
The paper attempts to document the experiences of Seva Mandir in the field of JFM and the various conflicts that arose in
the process. Theseconflicts recounted here illustrate
08
o
Firstly, the constraints to community based natural resource management options such as JFM at the level of
policy - formulation as well as implementation that fails to address issues like encroachment and boundary
disputes.
o
Secondly they bring to the fore the limitations of a framework like JFM at the level of the community itself due to
conflicts arising between external players like the forestdepartment and the FPCor betweentwo or more FPCs.
o
Thirdly, Capacity and leadership development in the FPC for management of the developed resources can get
weakened sometimes due to intra-institutional conflicts triggered by politics or erratic benefit sharing
mechanisms.
Traditional rights refer to the user rights being exercised by the community because of being proximal to a particular
natural resource. Legal right pertains to the rights and concessions given to the villages by the forest department during
its settlement operations. Besides because of the Joint forest management exercises this issue has become all the more
pertinentas only the people who are part of the FPC canexercise usufruct rights.
Thus in a nutshell it means that even if the people have beentraditionally using a particular patch of forests but if they are
not registered as legal users or right holders thanit might lead to conflict as happens in the followingcase.
Issue - This case documents the negotiations
over rights to a forest patch amongst three
villages: Kojon Ka Guda, Saharia and Padtal.
After decades of peacefull coexistence, the
communities found themselves pitted against
each other when the forest that was seen as
being common to all three villages was
enclosed under joint forest management with
only one village represented in the forest
protection committee constituted for the
pu rpos e because legal rights had been
accorded to only one village under the forest
settlement.
The entire case can be seen as being a case of
tussle between the rights of traditional users
and that of the legal users of the forest.
Traditionally, for years, the three villages Kojon
Ka Guda, Padtal and Saharia (hamlets of
Lalpura) had traditional rights for grazing and
collection of fuelwood over the forest in block
Phalet B. However, legally only Kojon Ka Guda
could be givenrights over the forests as the FPC
constituted to protect and manage the forest.
This sparked off a conflict between the three
villages who were coexisting peacefully earlier
enjoyingrights ona traditional basis.
09
Resolution - Later, the dispute was resolved by the villagers themselves. A consolidated list of villagers from all three
villages was drawn up and an FPC was reconstituted. In 2003 this FPC received sanction to work on 50 ha areas of
forestland under the JFM programme. Seva Mandir also used a bit of coercion by suspending all its development
activities in these villages to bring the parties to the negotiating table. In 2005, the committee started work on
another patch of 50 ha of Forest land. Though the conflict now stands resolved it took nearly 7-8 years for the
villagers and Seva Mandir to find a resolution suitable for everyone.
10
Most of the forest blocks in Rajasthan have been constituted by including land of 4-5 or even more revenue villages.
Though in the forest settlement maps and record, the area of the village included in the block is demarcated but on
physical demarcation exists on the ground. Even the FD officials are ignorant of these boundaries on the land. This
becomes a major point of contention between villages especially when usufruct rights are giveninthe forest block.Under
the JFM programme the village can form a FPC to protect and develop forests where they have been given usufructuary
rights. There are many instances where conflicts have occurred in JFM sites due to boundary disputes between two
villages which has resulted indamages to the JFM protected areas.
Issue - The forest boundary between the villages of Madia and Upli Sign' are not clear, and therefore, the Madia villagers
are unable to exert social pressure onthe encroachers from Sign' to evict them. The contentionrelated to encroachments
in Madia springs from the fact that Madia residents resent the advance of Sigri people on forest land traditionally
belonging to Madia, with the support of some powerful local communist leaders. The encroachments of the Sigri
residents seem to be in the customary forest boundary of Madia village, while those of some Madia residents are just on
the fringe of forestand revenue land within Madia.
Resolution - In 2001, Madia villagers proceeded to enlist the assistance of the forest department in vacating encroachers
from forestland. The local forest committee was in regular contact with the forest officials to clarify the limits of Madia's
forests. This clarification of forest boundaries would provide the Madia villagers with moral and legal rights to ask
encroachers to vacate from the village forestlands. At the samuh meeting in May 2002, ten of the twelve encroachers
willingly promised to move out of their encroachments. After sustained pressure from the community the forest
department officials from the forest range and beat along with the Patwari of Madia decided to demarcate forest
boundary on site on June 24, 2002. The patwari of Upli Sigri also came to the site along with the patwari of Madia and
forest officials on the designated day. The revenue maps of both villages were matched and the boundary dividing the
forestof bothvillages was laid out. Now the Madiavillagers have enclosed the reclaimed land as a protected model JFM.
Recent developments - Madia & Sigri - Another dispute has been going on between Madia and Sigri villages. While Sigri
villagers are working in collaboration with another NGO called FES, Madia villagers have been working with Seva Mandir
for its JFM programme. The issue concerns the boundaries between the two villages and got highlighted when the
people of Sigri beat up the guard Prabhulal appointed by the FPC of Madia. Attempts shall be made to organize a joint
meetingbetweenthe two villages.
11
Issue - The issue in this case is about rights of multiple revenue villages on a Forest Block. The area of Som village falling
under Som II Forest block includes land of six villages, which is not demarcated on the ground. This multiplicity of rights of
many villages over a particular forest block without clear-cut demarcation of village land leads to inter-village
encroachments and subsequent boundary disputes.
Resolution - During August, some of the people from the nearby village of Bhamti had encroached uponthe forestland of
Som. With the efforts and motivation of the leaders of Van Uthan Sangh (VUS) , some 200 people from Som and same
number from Bhamti tried to convince these people about the importance of forests. Ultimately these people were forced
to vacate the Encroachments.
Issue - In certain villages like Bada Bhilwada and Nayakhola in Jhadol block of Udaipur, enclosure of forest lands in a
haphazard manner has highlighted how it sometimes leads to problems related to grazing. These villages have forest
patches whichare already degraded due to grazing but due to lack of alternatives continue to experience heavy livestock
pressure on the forest land and the consequent tussles over grazing. Thus sharing of benefits from JFM area in terms of
grazing is also an issue without which even a mature JFM can become unsuccessful as was reflected during a workshop
conducted on 17-18 January 2006.
o
Delayed payment of the guard led to the plantation left vulnerableto grazing.
o
Grazing being carried out by influential people.
o
Social boycottingfrom the deathceremony for those who cut wood.
o
Phala-wise responsibility givento people for guardingtheir portionof the forests.
12
The JFM guidelines and the need to adopt a participatory approach towards forest protection, management and sharing
of benefits derived from the programme, has created an awareness among the rural people about the importance of the
forest area over which they have traditional as well as legal rights. As such any encroachment or illegal cutting etc is
contested.One positive effect of JFM has been that villagers are not allowing new encroachments in their forest areas and
also trying to evict old encroachments from their forest areas. This has resulted in intra-village conflicts. There are many
examples of suchconflicts amongst FPCs,e.gShyampura,BadaBhilwada, Talai etc.
The people of neighboringTumdar village as well as a few families of Bada Bhilwara village encroached on the forestland
of village Bada Bhilwara. The FPC members of Bada Bhilwara opposed this trend and lodged a complaint against the
encroachers with the local FD beat office. The officials from the Beat office visited the site and convinced the encroachers
to release the occupied land. However, after a few days the people encroached again. The FPC members then
approached the Van Utthan Sangh and with their support contacted the Division office at Udaipur. They met the
Conservator Forests and apprised him of the situation. A FD team was sent to the site to evict the encroachers. The
encroachments were removed and the 712 hectares of forestland belonging to villageBada Bhilwara was reclaimed. The
FPC members then submitted a proposal to enclose the area and develop it under JFM in the year 1994-95. Another 100
hectares have been taken up under JFM in the year 2002. On the day of Shilanyas of the JFM site people were going
towards the JFM site when the people from Tumdar started throwing stones at them from a hillock. Soon stones were
being thrown from both sides. Subsequently Bada Bhilwada filed a case against Tunder and hence resolved to get the
commons freed from encroachments at all costs. The people of BadaBhilwadaare now more conscious of their resources.
People from Tumdar have filed a police case against FPC members of Bada Bhilwada, which they are contesting. As for
now they have prevented Tumdar villagers from encroaching ontheir forestlands.
There are many ways in which a change in leadership can bring conflict in the running of FPCs and management of JFM
areas. It has been observed that wherever FPCs have been constituted and works carried out local leadership has
emerged who controls the implementation, protection and management of JFM sites and even the FPC members. The
executive committee is there but much depends on the local leader. Sometimes such local leadership takes undue
advantage of his position and any attempt to remove him causes conflict in the FPC. Consequently JFM related activities
suffer as it takes time for the emergence of new leadership.
In Mohandungri village, a local leader who was active in the activities of Seva Mandir in the village was entrusted to form
the FPC for implementation of the JFM programme, and to implement the physical activities and manage the assets
created with the support of the executive committee formed. The programme was implemented successfully initially.
However, it was soon observed that he was taking undue advantage of his position and was involved in wrongful acts.
Following this discovery he was relieved of the responsibilities Seva Mandir had entrusted on him. The emergence of new
leadership took some time since he had a stronghold on the people and he was also present in the village, and until then
some mismanagement in the JFM areas happened. But things improved once new leadership took over their
responbilities.
13
The members of the Van Utthan Sangh undertook reelection of Village forest protection committees at the behest of the
forest department (1991 JFM order requires renewal of the FPC every two years). In one such village Amod, the forest
department was conducting physical works. Butsurprisingly even after the re-electionof the committee, the Rangers and
Foresters continued to patronize theex- (what position did he hold?),Nandu Singh,(amateinthe village)
14
During a training of the VFPMCs organized by the Van Utthan Sansthan, officials from the forest department were
questioned by the villagers as to why the VFPMC was being ignored. VUS members also met the officials of the forest
department like the DFOs, ACFs etc to sort out this issue. The forest department officials objected to the so-called "ad hoc
formation of committees by VUS". Thereafter Seva Mandir clarified to the department that all such re-elections were
undertaken at the behestof the forest department communication.
Further investigation revealed that the major bone of contention was the political factionism within the village. The two
factions wanted their representation in the FPC so that they could have some command over the allocation of labor,
village funds etc.
The conflict and factionalism in Talai village date back to the time when a big dam called Mansi-Vakal was proposed near
the village. The village got divided over the issue of getting rehabilitated elsewhere. Some people who were against it
joined hands to form the Chandeshwar Samiti, which later on gave birth to another NGO called Ankur. At the same time
many people accepted the rehabilitation proposal for the dam. This sowed the seeds of mistrust in the village. This
situation was further exasperated by the scattered settlement pattern of the village which has 14 hamlets many of which
somehow or the other got left outinthedevelopmentinterventions.
Thus the village became divided along the lines of affiliation to the NGOs, headed by two personalities - Naranyanji (with
Seva Mandir) and Jeevaba (with Ankur). Panchayat elections were also fought along these lines. While the first election
was won by Narayanji, the last election was won by the group led by Jeevaba. Therewere many other development
related factors that might have contributed to the factionalism. The declaration of the village Chandwas (with a Brahmin
stronghold and support of Ankur group) as aPanchayatbears testimony to this fact.
However, Talai village had exhibited significant awareness about the need for protecting trees and forests through the
various other developmental programmes that Seva Mandir had initiated at the village since 1982. By ensuring social
cohesion within the village, they have been protecting, with great success, plantations on private land and common
pasturelands since 1988. Seva Mandir, therefore, decided to follow up with the forest department for developing the
forestland of the village. Since some people had encroachments near the forests, the villagers proposed the forestland on
the upper reaches of the hills surrounding the village skipping the land occupied by the encroachers. This land (50 ha)
became the first JFM site in the village. Tillthis day this site is being protected well.
But this protection was not without its set of hiccups. The encroachers did their best to spoil the closure and tried to even
burn the grass etc. Subsequently FIRs were filed and the matter was settled. However this only widened the gap
mentioned above. But once the villagers realized the potential for fodder output from these areas, further support was
mobilized and the village decided to work on another patch of forest land called the JFM Site II (92 ha). This happened in
2003. The first year was marked by physical works like construction of the boundary wall while the second year saw the
plantation activity.
However, around this time, the social tensions within the village was enhanced. During re-election of the FPC, Jeevaba
ceased to be the President. Some people alleged that the reelection was not conducted fairly as they did not have prior
information regarding the same. Moreover, some of the houses near the JFM Site II also got cut-off from the rest of the
village due to the influx of water following closure of the gates of the Mansi-Vakal dam. These people had set their eyes
uponthegrassland in the sitefor their animals and had ample support of the Ankur group. Due to the closure of the access
road to the JFM site, it also became a major hurdle to reach the site for monitoring the area. Now the only way it could
have been protected was through social fencing and self-inhibition. But that was not going to happen as was evident by
the destruction brought aboutby a few people by allowing their animals to graze inside the planted area.
Although the villagers had forgotten their mutual distrust of each other to come together for the sake of the plantation
and for gaining wage labor, yet somewhere the ambers of revenge seemed to have remained and burning. Given the
15
nature of deep-rooted hatred and grudges between the people it was decided to put all personal issues on the back
burner and talk only about the development related issues. Seva Mandir thus tried hard to bring all the parties ona single
platform (three meetings were arranged over a period of one month) and now it seems that the issue has been resolved
giventhatwork has beenproposed for JFM Site III on 50 ha of forestland.
Through these myriad experiences it has become amply clear that the institutional dynamics are never static and a
continuous process of dialogue is what is needed to keep them in close cohesion. The forest department has often been
accused of failing to make its procedures and actions participatory, while being technically perfect in the development
works.But somehow therehas always been apprehensions about the approach to institutionbuilding.
16
With a background of 15 years in implementing the JFM programme, Seva Mandir which prides itself in its capacity to
engage people at the grassroots in meaningful dialogue tried to analyze whatkind of conflicts makes these institutions fail
or succeed. Though we have derived most of these experiences from Seva Mandir's own JFM efforts, the learning can be
generalized to a considerable extent. Also it has become imperative to not only study these conflicts but also to pursue
them through meaningful discourse and to engage the communities in negotiations. Therefore, it also becomes a test of
the institutions as to how they respond to external stimuli and encouragements.
This issue of encroachments on the forest lands can only be resolved if the communities and the institutions realize the
criticality of the commons.
We found that the process of dialogue, negotiation and conflicts have taken their own time and course. We have the
example of Kojon kaGuda that took almost five years before the two parties could be broughtto a platform to resolve their
issues amicably. While in some cases the issues got resolved, in others it took a while before the people could realise the
importance of reinstillingfaith in collective action. In all such cases of negotiation the role of the external agency assumes
importance in two ways. While in some cases the agency failed to ensure the institution with adequate incentives and
disincentives, in other cases it was because of failure on the part of the JFM programme itself to stand up to its promises of
improved livelihoods. The other important role of theagency can be thatof a facilitator that can bring the varied and even
equal stakeholders to one common platform for the purpose of negotiation. This might not be possible if the institution
were left along to fend for itself because of the strong cultural underpinnings, which encourage the embers of revenge
and rivalry to be sustained over aperiod of time. The third role of the NGOor thenegotiating agent can be that of a bridge
between the rigid and lackadaisical forestdepartmentand the preemptive institutions.
Good governance in land administration and effective management of agrarian relations has been considered, since
long, to be imperative for reaching the desired level of economic growth and sustainable development. It has been an
accepted fact that socially-just access to land, land related services and security of land rights can go a long way in
improving the economic condition of the primary sector. Not only this, land reforms can change the current culture of
exclusion to enable the poor gain access to land, credit, technology, markets etc in the development of government
policies and programmes affectingtheir livelihood.
With a view to looking into the unfinished tasks inland reforms, a committee, "StateAgrarian Relations and the unfinished
task in Land Reforms" has been set up under Minister for Rural Development consisting of officials from Department of
Land Resources, NGO representatives and subject matter Specialists. Seva Mandir has also been invited to be part of the
same. The recommendation of this committee would be considered by the "National Council for Land Reforms"
constituted under the Prime Minister to lay down broad guidelines and policy recommendations on agrarian relations
and land reforms. The council comprises of the Ministries of Rural Development, Agriculture, Environment and Forests,
Panchayati Raj, Tribal Affairs, Social justice and Empowerment, Dy. Chairman of Planning Commission, Chief Ministers of
various states in India like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tripura, Uttar
Pradesh,and West Bengal,and other eminent citizens.
17
The committee will visit the states and hold consultations with them in order to finalize the recommendations for effective
implementation of land reforms. The committee is expected to tender its recommendation to the national council within
one year of formation the deadline for which has been set as mid-September 2008. Also for the same purpose seven (7)
sub-groups/task forces have been formed. Seva Mandir has been appointed to convene the group that shall work
towards (1) Ensuring access of the poor to common property and forest resources (2) To look into land use aspects,
particularly agricultural land, and recommend measures to prevent/minimize conversion of agricultural land for nonagricultural purposes.
One of the critical components of land reforms identified was CPRs or "Common Property Resources" which have been
defined as those resources accessible to and collectively owned\held\managed by an identifiable community and on
which no individual has exclusive property rights. "Rural common property resources are broadly defined as resources to
which all members of an identifiable community have inalienable use rights. In the Indian context CPRs include
community pastures, community forests, Govt wastelands, watershed drainages, village ponds and rivers etc. The first
three resources are particularly important because of their large area and their contributionto people's sustenance."
Presently the percentage of CPR/Total geographical area of the country is 15 %. If the Forest lands are included in this
definition of CPRs, then there is another 23.38 % of the country's geographical area. The beginning of the studies of the
CPRs in India can be traced back to early 1980's. Studies covered a fairly large number of villages scattered over the vast
area of the country but majority of those were case studies. NSSO study, 1999 (report no 452) of the 54th round is one of
the first attempts to provide comprehensive state- and national- level estimates of size, utilisationand contributionof CPRs.
It says in the pre-British India, a very large part of CPRs was freely available under the control of the local communities.
Extension of state control over these resources, resulted in decay of the community management system, and CPRs
available to the villagers declined substantially over the years. Despite this, CPRs still play an important role in the life and
economy of the ruralpopulation.
18
However, all these studies still fall short of suggesting measures required to improve the administration of CPRs as well as
to facilitate their development for the future generations. There are two ways of looking at CPRs: De Jure or by legal
definition - officially allocated figures and De Facto or actual ground reality - in terms of actual usage and access which
differ significantly.
The second aspect onwhichthe sub-group has to give its recommendation is regardingland use- particularly agricultural
land and recommend measures to prevent or minimize conversion of agriculture land for non-agriculture purposes. The
conversion of agricultural land into non-agriculture use is highly debated and is attributed as one of the factors leadingto
food insecurity. On the other hand, it is also true that lot of forest land not fit for cultivation is being transferred for
cultivation. There is a need to look into this critical aspect of land use and suggest measures to minimize the conversion.
The purpose for which agriculture land is being transferred vary from Infrastructure development projects like roads,
housing colonies; Industrial purposes like Special Economic Zones, allotment of land for bio-diesel plantations, etc.; and
Commercial interests whereby due to increasing land prices farmers find it more lucrative to dispose of their agricultural
land rather than farming ontheir own.
19
21
Kulranjan Kujur - June 30, 2005
23
Keeping the sensitivity and magnitude of the problem at a more pragmatic stance is required to protect the rights of the
People and Tiger (Ecology). This can be achieved by drawing inferences from both the views on the bill. Experiences of
Seva Mandir, a non-government organisation based in Udaipur (Rajasthan), shows an effective manner for dealing with
the issue. The experiences of the organisation could be fruitful in deeming for a consensual approach. The District
(Udaipur) Statistic Book reflects that 42 per cent of land in the region is owned by the State (Forest Department). A
researchhandled by Seva Mandir highlighted that out of the total forestland, 24 per centof the land is in illegal possession
by thepeopleand 62 per cent of the encroachers are economically sound (Decolonizing the Commons, 2004).
24
Further, the research indicates that possession of forestlands led to hardships on small and marginal households of the
region, whose livelihood is based on these lands. To initiate development of these lands in the village, it is imperative that
the ownership disputes are resolved. During the course of Seva Mandir's association with the common land, there are
many instances where encroachments have been evicted under pressure from the community for equitable distribution
of benefits from the land. Sometimes a threat by the community members to take legal action, or actually going infor legal
action, has been fruitful. Forest Protection Committees have been successful in evicting encroachments after much
persuasion and sustained lobbying with the Forest Department to initiate legal actionagainst the encroachers. There are
a few cases where community members have negotiated with the encroachers to have land evicted, suitably
compensating after ascertaining socio-economic condition of the encroachers.This evictionhas beendone irrespective of
the nature of possession of the land prior to 25 October 1980. The major influencing factor for evicting encroachment is
makingcommon land available for community for better land governance.
Though the above process might sound easy, there are many debilitating factors making the process more complicated.
These are socio-political considerations and conflicting motivations of the different stakeholders, complex administrative
processes that make the issue even more tedious and time consuming. More deliberation is needed on the issue for
having a systematic, people-centred approach. It won't be so straightforward to have rational information considering
the above impediments. Generous effort is required for ascertaining the period of possession of the land and researching
socio-economic conditions of 80 millionforest dwellers.It is of paramount importance that instead of having an emotional
outburst on the issue, we all need to have a collective approach (government, non-government, academic and research
institution partnerships). This approach can generate rational information for validating the stance and addressing the
issue in a moreeffective, holistic manner.
These are samples of what we heard when we asked people in the adivasi villages of Udaipur
district about their forests. The four quotes in many ways, sum up the praxis of the complex
relationship between human beings and their natural surroundings. One may shout from the
rooftop about how symbiotic the relationship between adivasis and nature, particularly forests, is.
One may also take the side of tigers and putthem on a pedestal above human beings, and demand
that all human intervention in forests be banned. One could also find peace, and logic in the
interstices betweenthese two rooftops.
What the Bill proposes
There are sufficient numbers of activists and organisations that adhere to one of the two extreme
positions. This sharp divide is quite visible when one follows the debate around the proposed
Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, drafted by the ministry of tribal affairs, which
the government of India proposes to enact. As the statement of objects and reasons to the Bill says,
"Forest dwellingtribalpeopleand forests are inseparable. One cannot survive withouttheother.
The conservation of ecological resources by forest dwellingtribal communities have been referred
to in ancient manuscripts and scriptures. The colonial rule somehow ignored this reality for greater
25
economic gains and probably for good reasons prevalent at the time. After independence, in our enthusiasm to protect
natural resources, we continued with colonial legislation and adopted more internationally accepted norms of
conservation rather than learning from the country's richtraditions where conservation is embedded intheethos of tribal
life. ...This historical injustice now needs correction before it is too late to save our forests from becoming abode of
undesirable elements".
The Bill sets out, in order to correct the injustice, "to recognise and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in
forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be
recorded; to provide a framework for recording the forest rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for such
recognition and vesting inrespect of forestland".
26
The Bill needs to be seen also in light of some measures initiated by the government of India, fifteen years ago, in the form
of circulars issued by the ministry of environment and forest. These circulars, had they been implemented, would have
addressed the 'historical injustices' inseveral ways. The six circulars issued with No.13-1 /90-FP dated September 18 1990
are:
FP (1) Review of encroachments onforestland
FP (2) Review of disputed claims over forestland, arising out of forest settlement
FP (3) Disputes regarding pattas / leases / grants involving forest lands
FP (4) Eliminationof intermediaries and payment of fair wages to the labourers on forestry works
FP (5) Conversionof forest villages into revenue villages and settlement of old habitations
FP (6) Payment of compensationfor loss of life and property due to predation/depredationby wild animals
Of the different issues dealt with in these circulars, the current Bill covers inter alia, the issues in circulars 1, 2, 3 and 5. As a
result of faulty forest settlement processes, disputes between the revenue and forest departments and those between the
forestdepartment and people,many villages indifferentparts of thecountry have beendeprived of some basic Rights and
facilities. These include access to social security schemes, access to basic education, health services, infrastructure like
roads or electricity - almost everything an average villager in India can take for granted as Rights (irrespective of whether it
is actually available). All the while,forest dwellers continue to use forest resources for everyday survival, shelling out bribes
and fines to forest officials in almostroutine regularity.
Several activists and organisations have taken a less excited view of the Bill, in contrast to the two extreme positions taken
by those opposing the Bill in the name of 'tigers' or supporting it in the name of 'tribals'. While accepting that Rights of
forest-dwellingand -dependent communities are important,they fear thattheBill may not help inachieving this.
Among the serious defects of the Bill highlighted, is the fact that it deals with the different situations across the country as
one homogeneous whole. In several parts of states like Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh forest-dwelling communities
have been deprived of fundamental rights as described above. However, this is not the reality everywhere. Inmany areas,
encroachment of forest land by people - both out of need and greed - is a burningissue. Faulty settlement of forest villages
and later day encroachments are two very different issues and would have required different regularisation processes
and notthe blanket approach suggested in the Bill.
It is worthwhile to note that the government of India issued a circular in early-2004, ordering regularisation of
encroachments up to 31STDecember 1993. This circular, it is alleged, led to a new spate of encroachments, particularly by
people withgood political or bureaucratic connections.
The Bill now proposes regularisation of encroachments made before1980, thus virtually privatisingpart of the forest land.
At the same time, it wants to promote collective efforts to conserve forest resources, this through the instrument of gram
sabha. How these are put into action is a matter of conjecture, in the absence of reliable records for assessment of
encroachments, and with inadequate definition of what the nature of powers vested with the gram sabha are.
Furthermore, the concept of gram sabha as the grassroots governance mechanism remains a paper-dream with very little
effort on the part of the states to actualise what is envisaged in the 73rd amendment and Panchayat Extension to
Scheduled Areas Act (PESA). Empowering this institution to manage ecological resources as envisaged in the current Bill
is, at best, a statement of noble intentions.
27
28
The Jangal JameenJanAndolanis a platform of activist organisations insouthern Rajasthan that has beenin the forefront
of the struggle to obtain rights to forest land for tribal people in the region. Representatives of the Andolan have also
played a role in the drafting of the Bill. As part of its preparation for implementation of the Bill when it is passed, the
Andolan has identified about 17,000 claims for regularisation. We had discussions with activists of the Andolan that
helped us understand their point of view.
The villages we visited were in the operational area of Seva Mandir. They have been associated with Seva Mandir for
varying periods of time. The nature of association also varied across villages. Of the six villages we visited, three had joint
forest management (JFM) mechanisms in place. The forest protection committees were functional here and already had
done work in earmarking their forest boundaries and building boundary walls. In a fourth village, the proposal for JFM
was in advanced stage of processing. Neither of the two villages in Kotra tehsil had JFM mechanisms. One of them,
Adivada,falls under the Phulwari kaNal sanctuary, while the other, Hansleta, apparently is beingproposed to beadded to
this sanctuary.
Both Pargiapada and Madia claim to have convinced its people to give up the encroachments they had made inthe forest
portions, and brought them under JFM. While this in itself is anachievement, at least in the case of Madia the fact remains
that the distance from the settlement to their forest (close to three kilometres) made it almost impractical for them to do
anythinguseful on the encroached plots.
In both these cases what also came to the fore in our discussions are the serious boundary disputes with the neighboring
villages. It sounded to us as serious conflicts with little scope for settlement in the immediate future. In case of Madia, the
neighboring village of Sigri is in fact located very close to their protected forest. The people of Sigri have been regularly
breaking down the boundary wall to let their cattle infor grazing. Sigri, from whatwe understand, also has JFM promoted
withsupport from Foundation for Ecological Security.
Piplimala is muchmore at peace with itself. Their forest consists of two distinct parts, the slopes and a plateau. The plateau
has been encroached upon in the previous generation and 22 families are now permanent residents on this encroached
portion. Other families too have farmlands in this area. The people are very clear that there is no chance of them
abandoning this encroachment. They however have taken steps to form a forest protection committee (not yet
29
recognised by the forest department) and protect another patch along the slopes. The village has the experience of
motivating people to give up encroachment on their common pastureland and developing it with the help of Seva
Mandir. But Khemchand the young and energetic sarpanch of Magwas gram ponchayot, also the leader of Piplimala has
no illusions about forests or people. He very clearly said "job tak insaon rahega, atikroman hoga hi" (As long as there is life,
there willbe encroachments).
Som is amore difficult case. Thevillagers arevery clear that the forest portions they haveencroached upon are notsuitable
for growing crops. However, all of them claimed that the encroachments were necessary for them to raise their cattle as
the village did not have adequate pasturelands. Many of them mentioned landlessness as being the primary reason
behind encroachments but on further enquiry this was linked again to land for grazing and not crop production. Some
villagers also referred to the basic human need (greed) for moreland.
30
Adivada is a village right outside the Phulwari ka Nal sanctuary. In fact many houses thatwe saw were precariously placed
on the sanctuary boundary. This is the village where we experienced the omnipresence of the forest bureaucracy.
Villagers had to pay the forest guards regularly. Inmost cases they would be told of being given a receipt for the payment,
but later as the guard would not have the receipt book with him at the time of paying the bribe. Villagers said thatthey do
not normally cutany tree butonly collect dry and fallenwood for fuel. They also collecthoney,gum, etc. butwould haveto
pay a fine (bribe) to get it out. However, they said that people from outside were regularly cutting wood from the forests
near them and takingit away. Onbeing asked as to why these people were not being caught by the guards, their answer
was that this happened at night and the guards would be fast asleep. One persondid however mention that such cutting
of wood happened with the guards knowing about it.
They also narrated incidents when they tried to prevent others from cuttingwood or bamboo from the forest. In one case,
Lalaji an old man from the village tried to prevent a girl from another village from cutting bamboo from the forest behind
his house. He was eventually arrested by the police and had to spend more than Rs 3,000 to get out. Men and women
whom we met repeatedly told us that it is no usefor them trying to prevent outsiders from cutting wood inthe forests, as it
would only land them in trouble like Lalaji. As he asked, "Hamara to jimma nahi hai, hum kyon iski raksha karen?" (It is not
our responsibility, why should we protect it?)
31
but collective effort supported by Seva Mandir succeeded in vacating these encroachments. Now these pasture
lands are under community management, provide in large quantities what they are supposed to -fodder for
cattle. This may seem contradicting the statement made above,but it is in fact reinforcing the point made. Barawa
and Nayakheda have families for whom animal husbandry is a very important source of livelihoods. And they
obviously have a vested interest in obtaining more fodder for their cattle. A resource that, as the villagers clearly
articulate, diminishes whendivided.
o
We encountered claims of landlessness in its varied forms during these discussions. Som on one side and Hansleta
on the other. Is either of these two, the reality for all times to come? Will the 'individual greed' as experienced in
Som continue to be so? And will the 'collective spirit' of Hansleta remain so for all days to come even withstanding
the pressure for immediate survival?
o
Except in the case of Piplimala, where the plateau in the forest had productive land, no village had any great
regard for the quality of land in the forests to support increased crop production. Most of these were steep slopes,
rocky with very little top soil or organic material and would require very high investment in bunding or terracing
to put them to any productive use. What is the economic benefit to the adivasi if such lands under encroachment
are made regular? Other than thatof satisfying egos?
o
Greed is a basic human instinct, as the villagers themselves said. Everyone wants more of what they have. What
efforts would be required to motivate people to overcome greed and look at common good inall the villages and
not justina few?
o
In the villages where pasturelands and forests are being seen as commons, 5eva Mandir has evidently invested in
more than a decade of concerted motivationand supported affirmative action, both in removing encroachments
and in developing the commons. In villages where such engagement is limited, people's articulation and feeling
towards the commons is limited. The correlation is stark. Seva Mandir workers and villagers seemed to feel that
organic spread of such initiatives is limited. What does this bode for bringing about widespread adoption of such
practices?
o
JFM could be an enabling mechanism for thespread of common interest inforests. Bureaucratic processes inJFM
have, however, played a serious deterrent in this. In several villages, we were unable to get a sense of whether
JFM is preferred from a long term perspective or for short term gains of wage employment. What needs to be
done to get more communities interested in JFM and the forest department more responsive to community
demands?
32
o
Wherever the forest department had a strongpresence, like in Kotra area, people were sure that the forests were
not theirs. It belonged to the department. In such areas, there were fewer encroachments. Where the
department had nominal presence, the feeling of ownership among people was stronger; and incidences of
encroachment larger. What do we learn from these - strengthen the department or remove it from the scene?
Laws for thepoor?
There are serious concerns on the efficacy of the proposed Bill or similar enactments in achieving the twin goals of
ecological security ingeneraland livelihoods security for the poor.
What looks clear to us is that a mere administrative measure of regularising encroachments on forest lands by application
of either the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, if and when it is passed or Circular FP (1) of the Ministry of
Environment and Forests may not make life significantly better for forest-dependant communities, like those we met in
Jhadol and Kotra.
One could even ask if regularising of such encroachments is required at all in such areas. Would not strengthening of
measures like JFM and other collective management measures aid both -better conservation of the forests while
providingbetter access forthe people to its produce?
Our discussions with villagers, organisations and activists make it clear to us that the right way to proceed is to distinguish
between three different issues and making policies to address each of these intheir specific contexts. The three issues are:
o
Need for conservation of forest resources
o
Recognising Rights of forest dwellers to a dignified life
o
Identifying and regularising encroachments that are legitimate and distinguishing them from opportunistic,
illegitimate encroachments
33
The Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill is yet another legislative step in the lines of PESA and other
enactments, laden with noble intentions. We have seen how PESA has remained a 'paper dream'. Would not the new Bill,
when made into a law, follow the same path? None of those raising their voices for or against the Bill seem to be
concerned about this aspect.
For the moment, the debate on 'tigers vs. tribals' is likely to continue. Whether or not the Bill is passed, organisations like
Seva Mandir will find that their work on strengthening people's participation and ownership over forests and other
commons is relevant,and will continue to be so.
34
Liby Johnson and Jayapadma RV have worked with rural development organisations in Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa.
Over the past year, with support from National Foundation of India, New Delhi, they have been traveling across the
country, in an attempt to understand different contexts and responses to poverty and under development, and the
challenges that NGOs facetoday. They canbe contacted at [email protected] and [email protected] respectively.
35
Proclaiming correction of "historical injustice before it is too late to save our forests from becoming the abode of
undesirable elements", the Bill at one stroke seeks to return to the tribals their traditional rights on a host of issues, which
have been at the heart of the conservation debate. At a high level meting on January 19, 2005 Prime Minister of India
decided that the Scheduled Tribes and Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) bill be drafted and tabled in the
forthcoming budgetsessionof the parliament.
It proposes 12 specific rights - "heritable but not alienable or transferable" - to tribals of forestvillages.These include:
o
Right to hold and live in the forestland under the individual or common occupation for habitation for selfcultivation for livelihood
o
Right of access, use or disposalof minor forest produce
o
Rights of entitlement such as grazing and traditional seasonal resource access of nomadic or pastoralist
communities
o
Rights inor over disputed lands under any nomenclature in any state where claims are disputed
o
Rights for conversion of pattas, leases or grants issued by any local authority or any state government on forest
lands to titles
o
Rights of settlement of old habitations and unsurveyed villages, whether notified or not.
o
Right to protect, regenerate, conserve or manage any community forest resource which they have been
traditionally protectingand conserving
The Bill provides for two and a half hectare per nuclear family of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes (ST) that would be
registered jointly in the name of the male member and his spouse. Taken together, the proposed rights would entail the
involvement of the local community in conservation, instead of leavingit to official agencies.
36
Existing Bill: Village gram sabha (residents assembly) makes proposals, government officials at district level decide.
Recommendation: Matters will be decided in village assembly. In case of disputes, a higher body will make a
recommendationon resolvingthe dispute. If the dispute remains, thena finalsettlementcan take place atthe district level.
Both officials and non-officials will beinvolved.
1.
First of all this process would prove to be very cumbersome and time consuming. It may take several years to
complete.
2.
Lookingto the present state of the Gram Sabhas,which are non participatory and exclusive innature, there is fear
thatthepeople would not get justice but to the contrary the powerful and influential people willbenifit outof it.
37
Cut off date
Existing Bill: 25thOctober 1980.
JPCRecommendation: 13thDecember 2005. Ceiling limit onland claimed
Existing Bill: 2.5 hectares per nuclear family.
JPCRecommendation: No ceiling.
38
The law-abiding tribals and non-tribals of scheduled areas would consider themselves foolish and would follow the suit of
non law-abiding villages immediately to rectify their mistake. From the peculiar behavior of JPC it appears that by the time
parliament passes the bill the deadline could well be extended to March 2010 (or any date the parliament/JPC may
consider appropriate). Thus, thanks to JPCas ithas created an opportunity for theinhabitants of schedule areas who were
earlier deprived of encroaching the forestland. Now they can grab any amount of forestland any time as this act would be
guaranteed by the lawmakers. Earlier encroachers should also not feel betrayed as removal of the ceiling beyond 2.5 ha
also offers them anopportunity to bringmore and more forestland under their possession.
The JPC was appointed after and in lightof the enormous controversies shroudingthe bill. The JPC submitted its report on
analysis of various provisions of the bill on 23rd May 2006. Recommendations of the JPC constituted to review the
proposed Tribal Bill, to extend the deadline of regularization of the encroachment and to remove the ceiling of
encroachment.I would liketo discuss two related issues raised by the Bill, whichare as follows:
1.
All the political parties (and perhaps many civil society organizations too) support this move of JPC as the matter is
concerned to the rights of poor tribals. They all are sincerely committed to the cause of development of livelihood
of the poor. Definitely poor tribals need resources for development. The forestland in the eye of lawmakers is the
best resource, which upon transfer to individual tribal households would open treasures of fortune through
farming on such lands. So far the forestlands have failed to regenerate through state action (some times with
participation of locals too under JFM). It is hoped that transfer of rights to individuals may result in re greening of
suchlands.
2.
However if we sensibly analyze the situation from animpartial viewpoint the JPC's actionis to changethe status of
forestland from commonto a commodity. A commodity to harness the individual benefits. As we all know, tribals
had an intricate relationship with the forests, which is bit difficult to understand. Their farming systems are still
undergoing a process of maturation from their hunting gathering life style. Degradation of the their surrounding
environment is extremely severe. Consequently, the tribal households are unable to make their living out of
agriculture and allied fields (includingforestry)and resort to wage labour.
Most of the land under their (illegal?) possession or to be brought under possessionis severely degraded and is situated in
the upper ridges. This land surely cannot bring prosperity to them by doing agriculture. Earlier experiences of the allotted
land corroborate the fact that the allotted lands due to their bad quality were hardly of any help to the poor and the
landless. Evenfor making this land able to produce some grass and other NTFPs after a few years, we have to investatleast
Rs.15, 000.00 per hectare. So for making a patch of 2.5 hectare some useful a farmer has to invest roughly Rs.35, 000.00.
Tribals are not even hand to mouth people.They would notbe able to make this investment at their own. We are not sure,
whether along with the patta the JPC would also hand over a cheque of Rs. 35000.00 to the concerned people. The
returns from such lands would entirely depend upon the individualmotivation and regular monitoring, whichappears bit
difficult leading to pressure of migration on the tribal households. In addition, tribals rank the lowest in terms of the
development indicators; the land allotment is not the panacea to pull them out from deprivation and ill governance in
other spheres of development(say healthand education).
Traditionally, the forest lands have existed as a common property resource where the people had well defined individual
and collective rights. Initially after the independence when Forest department took over the control of Forests, the
peoples stake in Forest management got weakened for quite some time. Nevertheless JFM programme emerged as an
importanttool in reinstating the stake of peopleas shared responsibility and rightover forestland. There are fair number of
examples where tribal community itself has taken initiatives and made the encroachers vacate the forest lands to bring it
in the purview of JFM with the Forest Department. Now the JPC move leaves no scope for "Joint" Forest Management.
Scope exists only for addressing individual rights at the cost of traditional and community ones. It is mandate of the
governmentto bring33%of the total geographical area under forests. The JPC should declare this to be a foolishidea.
39
In today's politics, where palliatives have become the preference, the Tribal Bill does not seek to do anything different.
What could have been a historic opportunity to address the issue of land governance in our country and building longterm community solidarity and stability around that is beingfrittered away.
40
Section 3
41
Issues After Forest Rights Act 2006
42
Ashish Kothari is the director of Kalpavriksha, a Pune based non-profit organisation.
This key note address was delivered by him at the 8th Ummed Mai Lodha Award
Ceremony on 12 th February 2007 at Vidya Bhawan Auditorium, Udaipur.
I hesitate to begin,becauseI am both humbled and overwhelmed by the gathering today. Gatherings like this bringto the
forefront the work occurring in all parts of our country by common citizens. While such activities are rarely reported in the
media, they bringhope amidsv all the destructionand sad news one reads and sees everyday.
Respected villagers, members of Shri Ummed Mai Lodha's family, my friends from Seva Mandir and other organisations,
officers of theForest Department, and citizens of Udaipur...
I am indebted to you, and especially to Seva Mandir for the opportunity to present my thoughts. I do not consider myself
an expert, butit is the love of my friends from Seva Mandir which has brought me here today forthis occasion.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit Talai village with Bhise saab and see the work occurring related to JFM, forest
protection, watershed, and pastureland protection. As I had mentioned earlier, any occasion to visit villages doing good
work delights me because in India even today one can see a ray of hope. Today, the environmental destruction
happening in India and all over the world leaves a pessimistic view of tomorrow. Pollution is rampant all across our cities.
Some villagers still have access to pure resources. People, like us, who live in cities, have to breathe polluted air and we
have to deal with water polluted to such an extentthat we must drink bottled water. There is, as well, the challenge facing
us all today of climate change.
Human activities have polluted the environment to suchan extent that the climate, created by nature, is also changing. It
is raining when it should not be, and not raining when we need rains; summer temperatures are increasing while in Uttar
Pradesh, the winter temperatures are decreasing at times when it should be warming up. These alterations are caused by
changes occurring in the name of 'Development.' We all want to be developed; India wants to be called a developed
nation; America, Europe and Japan are all known as developed - but what kind of development is this? What kind of
development occurs at the expense of the forests, air and water on which our lives depend? The land both in India and
abroad has been irrevocably changed as a result of development activities. The result is noticeable through mountains
mined and devoid of trees (as seen on the way to Talai village); water so polluted that it is not drinkable or even fit for
agriculture or washing dishes or clothes; in Pune, the resultant air pollution has increased so much in the last few years
thatitfeels like someone has thrown acid into the atmosphere.
It is not only our right to raise voices against such development, but also our responsibility to do work to save the
environment. I am greatly inspired by all the work done by each one of the villagers honoured today and by what I have
seenat Talai.
The environmental loss occurring, affects the poor and the rural people the most. The wealthy can escape anywhere, any
day; but because the villagers must remain where they are, they are impacted earlier and to a greater extent. It is therefore
your right to fight against all the environmentally destructive activities and to question why your rights to a pure
environment are beingtakenaway.
Several organisations, including Kalpavriksh, are undertaking work similar to Seva Mandir - working with village
communities - in different parts of the country. I willhighlight some successes-
43
The first is about two villages near Pune, Maharashtra named Ralegaon Siddhi and Diwre Bazar. Their names have
become famous along withthe local worker Anna Hazare. In these two villages, the people haveaccomplished incredible
feats by protecting the supply and storage of water within the village, constructing a check dam, achieving agricultural
growth and productivity, as well as advances in health and education. The results are so encouraging that villagers who
had previously migrated from the village are now returning to their villages. In fact, these villages have become so famous
that they are now tourist attractions like Udaipur city. People want to know how this all happened? People want to be
inspired and hear how people, formerly dependent on the government for water tankers, have been able to bring about
suchdramatic changes inthelast twenty years?
44
Similarly inOrissa, people havebeenworking over the last10 to 15 years to protecttheir forests formingover 10,000 forest
protection committees. The difference these efforts have made in forest coverage can be seen by comparing current
satellite images with those from 25 years ago. The Van Utthan Sangh in Udaipur district is a federation of more than 100
villages. Also in this area, the 190 villages have come together on a platform, strengthening their ability to present their
demands to the government and support and resolve disputes with one another.
Another example is that of Nagaland; 10 to 15 years ago, despite the abundant forests, wild animals could not be found
due to large-scale hunting. Today, 100 to 150 villages have come together, banned hunting by anyone in their villages,
and declared acommunity-protected game sanctuary. The governmentplayed no role in this activism.
In Andhra Pradesh, an NGO called the Deccan Development Society has prompted other successes. Its membership is
primarily comprised of small farmers and womenfarmers, majority of whom belong to theDalitcommunity.This NGOhas
initiated organic farming in 80 villages. Along with this change, they have revived the sustainable, traditional practice of
utilizingseeds available athome - bajra, jowar, rice, wheat, etc. The increase in productivity is of such magnitude that they
are supplying grains to the public distribution system. Today, local production has replaced wheat from Punjab in the
ration stores,benefitinglocal farmers.
I can spend the entire day providing examples from all over India. But more than these stories, I feel it is important to
identify some of the importantchallenges facing communities like yours in the near future.
The first issue is peoples' rights. If a road is constructed in Pune, I expect the government to speak with the local people to
find out if a road is necessary and also the effects on the surrounding environment. Those, whose livelihoods are tied to
the land and are concerned about its development, must have a right over the land. Recently the government has passed
a regulation related to rights of scheduled tribes over forests. Over the last 55 years, it has been argued that tribal
communities who have lived in the forest and cultivated the land for generations should be given back rights over such
land. While the law is good, it hurts that people do not discuss the responsibilities that accompany such rights. If people
have a right over the forest,thenthey must also have aresponsibility to protectit.
Today the communities receiving awards, not only demand their rights to the forests, but also speak of the necessity to
protect that land. They have led extraordinary efforts to prevent encroachment and destruction of their forests. But this is
not the case all over the country. Few people speak about the responsibilities and this is the largest challenge confronting
us. This challenge is more relevant as the law has now given rights over forests to forest people. The encroachment on
forest land by outsiders and powerful villagers withinthese communities has made the situation more complicated. How
will the communities respond to such situations?
In states like MadhyaPradesh, Orissa, Chhattisgarhand Uttaranchal, there are several instances wherecommunities living
in the forest for hundreds of years have been denied rights over the lands; while outsiders have encroached over the last
five to tenyears and are continuing to do so eventoday with the hope that the new law will recognise their rights. But it is
not enough to just make sure these people are given their recognised rights. Establishing a balance between our rights
and responsibilities is a challenge in front of allof us.
Along with this balance is deciding whether human beings have a greater right to the natural resources than the millions
of other living beings on this earth. This is the next big challenge. During my visit to Talai, I did not feel that there was any
space left for wild animals. There may be a few cheetah, rabbits, wolves and partridges in the forests protected by the
villagers, but these numbers are much larger in the Phoolwari ka nal sanctuary, at Sariska and Kumbhalgarh. What is the
reason for these differences? Have we taken over all the land available for our own usage? Is there even one hectare of
forests available where apeacock candance peacefully?
45
Great work is being done in some villages. I often visit Alwar to see the work of Tarun Bharat Sangh. Here in a local village
called Bhawata Kolyala, the villagers accomplished great successes in protecting the forest. Notably, they have declared
some 800 hectares of forest as protected area, where their cattle are not allowed to graze. This forest is dedicated to the
deer, tigers and cheetahs of the forest. I bring this example to you with the hope that communities engaged in forest
conservation will decide for themselves that it is worthwhile to leave some part of theforests protected for wild life.
46
A third challenge is related to creating a wildlife corridor. The work of the forest protection committees mentioned
previously in Orissa has created a forest patch rich in biodiversity. The 190 villages involved are all neighbouring villages,
and their work has created a forest patch that looks like a necklace on land. This lush patch of forest helped create a
corridor for the movement of wildlife which has increased the population. There are not similar projects in the villages of
Udaipur where people are as involved in protecting their forests. Can neighbouring villages work with each other instead
of on an individual basis? Can the Van Utthan Sonsh help join neighbouring forests just as it has brought neighbouring
people together? AlthoughI am not aware of the conditions on the ground, I present a proposal inthe hope of creating a
new corridor in this part of the country.
The fourth challenge is about self-reliance. For decades we are used to depending on others for our development. If the
government will not provide the help, then it will come from non-profit organisations like Seva Mandir. While we have
been trained to expect that either the government or non-profit organisations will provide aid, is it not our right to stand
on our own feet so we are capable of continuing our activities even when external institutions withdraw support? There
are countless examples of villagers themselves successfully managing their own livelihoods, their own water and their
own land resources.
The final challenge is for residents of a village to come together and design a management plan for developingthe entire
village. Many villages have management plans for their forests and water resources. Have all the villagers sat down
together to discuss the amenities necessary for within the next 25 years? Just as the government prepares a plan for
development, we need to do the same for the holistic development of the entire village. If the village is receivingirrigation
water, we have to plan what crops to grow and how to improve productivity. If outsiders advise the usage of pesticides
and chemical fertilisers, we need to consider the impact it will have on our water and soil and our forests. The
repercussions of such actions need to be thoroughly evaluated and incorporated in our plan for overall village
development.
In conclusion, I would like to say that we urban people are the cause of most of the environmentaldestruction and yet are
the ones who come to the villages and tell you what path of development to choose. It is not wrong for others to come
and inform the villages of certain processes of development, but ultimately the villagers must take on the responsibility to
decide the processes they want to adopt. The biggest challenge for villages is to create a new model of village
development and to tell the governmentand others howthey can help you.
Finally I want to congratulate the communities of Dulawato ka guda, Dhanodar, Karel, Amod, Chundawada, Raya,
Parmada and Hansreta as well as Shrimati Ghisi bai, Shrimati Mani bai, Shri Kalaji, and Shri Lakhmaji who have been
honored today. I want to thank you all for inspiring me with your work and to Seva Mandir for giving me the opportunity
to behere today.
47
48
The Scheduled Tribes and other traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 received the assent of
the President of Indiaon 29th December 2006.
The Act was enacted to recognize the forest rights of forest dwelling scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers
on their ancestral land and habitat which were not adequately recognized at the time of consolidation of State Forests
duringcolonialperiod as well as in independent India althoughthey were integral to the very survival and sustainability of
foresteco-systems.
The final version of the Act has incorporated many changes as suggested during the process of public comments on the
draft Act. The Joint Parliamentary Committee constituted to review the draft Act made many recommendations, which
find place inthe final version.The Act has already been promulgated.
Some of the provisions had sparked intense concern. But of late the focus of civil society debate has been to consider the
Act positively. There is a sincere attempt to move ahead and identify strategies for effective implementation. When the
draft rules were published and feedback was solicited from civil society, Seva Mandir in collaboration with ARAVALI Jaipur held a consultation at Udaipur. This was attended by Govt, officials, especially from the Forest Department and
NGOs. The recommendations determined through consensus were forwarded to the Ministry for consideration during
the formulation of rules for better implementation of the provisions of the Act. This article lays down the salientfeatures of
the Actand highlights some of the concerns on the draftrules which were raised by the participants.
1.
Forest Rights are to be vested on members or community of scheduled tribes and other forest dwellers that
depend on the forest or forestlands for bonafide livelihood needs but who need not exclusively or necessarily
reside onsuch forests or forestlands.
The definition of forest dwellers includes Scheduled Tribes pastoralcommunities. Other traditional forest dwellers
(TFD) is defined as any member or community who has for atleast three generations prior to 13th December
2005 primarily resided onand who depend onthe Forest or forest land for bonafide livelihood needs.
a)
Right to hold and live in the forest for habitation and self-cultivation. But this right would be restricted to area
under actual occupationand shallinno caseexceed anarea of four hectare.
b)
Community rights such as 'Nistar'.
c)
Right of ownership, access, collection, use and disposal of all minor forestproduce.
d)
Right for conversion of 'pattas' or 'leases'
e)
Right of settlement and conversion of forestvillages into revenue villages.
f)
Right of protection, regeneration & managementof community forests.
g)
Community rights to intellectual property.
h)
Right to 'in-situ' rehabilitation in cases where ST and other forest dwellers have been illegally evicted or
displaced from forestland prior to 13th December 2005.
49
i)
Other community rights of uses such as water bodies, grazing and access of nomadic and pastoralist
communities.
3.
Diversion of one hectare of forest land which do not involve felling of more than 75 trees per hectare for facilities
like schools, dispensary etc with recommendation from Gram Sabha.
The Sub Divisional Committee will scrutinize and forward the clauses to the District Level Committee. The Sub
Divisional Committee willhavepower to hear appeals on the decision takenby Gram Sabha.
4.
50
5.
The District Level Committee will finally approve the record of past rights whose decision will be final. It also has
the power to hear appeals onthedecisions takenby Sub Divisional Committee.
6.
There is aState Level monitoringCommittee.
7.
Rights recognized in critical wild life habitats of National Parks and sanctuaries may subsequently be modified or
resettled, provided that no forest right holder shall be resettled before consent of Gram Sabha for the proposed
resettlement has been obtained in writing. No resettlement shall take place until facilities and land allocation at
the resettlementlocationis complete as per promised package.
The major concernexpressed, was regarding proper implementationof the provisions of the Act especially with regard to
the right for self-cultivation and habitation and the role of Gram Sabha. Concern was also shown regarding the area
under tree cover recommended by the previous National Forest Policy of 1988 vis - a - vis the provision of the current act
that rights have to be accorded to scheduled tribes and other forest dwellers who are in occupation of forest land prior to
13thDecember 2005. If this criterion for forest land distributionis followed, considerable forest area would be released for
cultivation and habitation, which would further decrease the area under forests. Scattered regularization was felt as an
additional threat to forest vegetation.
To minimize this threat suggestion was incorporated in draft rules in the definition of bonafide livelihood needs . The
definition allowed for the felling and sale of timber for meeting sustenance needs. It was felt that such right should be
limited to consumption needs of right holders and not for sale. The draft rules had incorporated right of sale of forest
produce for sustenance need. It was suggested that this right should be limited only to sale of minor forest produce.
Similarly, sale and quarrying of minerals should also be not included in the category of sustenance needs. To avoid
scattered areas of forest land from being released for self cultivation, it was suggested that a function of the Gram Sabha
should be to negotiate with the claimants. They could either disown the existing claim on forest land in favor of fulfilling
community needs or in favor of maintaining ecological stability, or compensate the claimants by recommending right on
alternate forest land within the jurisdiction of Gram Sabha. The claimants may be accommodated in forest chunks where
majority of claimants have been allotted land for agriculture under the provisions of the Act. The Gram Sabha should also
have authority to recommend settling such claimants on fringes of forestland as selected by them. This would ensure
proper management of remaining forest area and the scattered claimants would also be able to benefit from
development activities pursued in these newly released forestareas designated as revenue villages.
The suggested draft rules for diversion of upto one hectare of forestland for construction of school, Anganwadi etc was
also discussed and it was felt that this should be the last resort. Such development needs can be met in the same forest
areas, whichare released for cultivationand are to be declared as revenue villages.
Minor forest produce are the source of livelihood for tribals and other traditional forest dweller communities. It is a right
step thattherights for access, collection, use and disposal has been given under theprovision of the Act for all minor forest
produce. But it was felt that disposal or sale by individual gatherers should be permitted for all minor forest produce
excluding bamboos and patta Tendu for which sale or marketing should be done through co-operatives or registered
Forest Protection Committees under approved micro plans.
It was also suggested that wherever rights to certainminor forest producehave been specifically restricted onsilvi-cultural
grounds, suchrestrictions should be continued.
According to the rules, the pastoralists have to submit their claims to individual Gram Sabha. Discussion centered on the
fact that the pastoralists pass through many States, Districts and Panchayats. As such it would be difficult for them to file
51
their claims with State Level Committees who would take further action for verifying their claims under the jurisdiction of
different Gram Sabhas.It was felt thatimplementation of this provisionwas difficultand needed further deliberation.
The draft rules provide penalties for offences by members or officers of authority or committees formed under Act but no
penalty or punishments is provided for contravention of duties like protectionof wild life, forests and biodiversity etc. This
needs to beincorporated inthe rules.
52
The Act states that it should be implemented in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the
time being in force. It was felt that someclarification inrules was needed to understand the implications of already existing
Acts like Indian Forest Act, Forest Conservation Act 1980, Wildlife Conservation Act and the provisions made there in
which may defeat the entire purpose of thenew legislation.
As a follow up to the Udaipur-levelconsultation, a few of the importantrecommendations were forwarded to the Ministry
for inclusion as rules to be enacted for implementation of provisions of the Act. We are not sure whether they will find
favor with the policy makers. However, the outcome of the consultation process was that NGOs of the region have
become familiar with the provisions of the Act; they would perhaps take an active role in its implementation; and help in
making the Gram Sabha members understand their role in implementation such that people residing in the forest get
their due rights as envisaged intheAct.
Empowering Communities for Forest Governance
S.N. Bhise and Vivek Vyas - March 31, 2008
53
4.
Rights for conversion of pattas or leases or grants on forest land.
5.
Conversion of all forest villages into revenue villages.
6.
Right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community forests resource which they have been
traditionally protecting.
7.
Right of access to biodiversity or community right to intellectual property.
8.
Right to in-situ rehabilitationincluding alternative land where scheduled tribes or traditional forest dwellers have
beenillegally evicted without receiving legal entitlement to rehabilitation prior to 13th day of Dec 2005.
The vesting of forest rights under this Act, with respect to forest land shall be subject to the condition that the scheduled
tribes or other traditional forest dwellers had occupied forest land before 13thday of December 2005.
54
The Forest Rights Committee of each Gram Sabha after recovering the above referred claims will examine the claims, look
into the evidence, visit and survey the site, demarcate, and then would put its recommendation for the claims before the
Gram Sabha. The Gram Sabha would then approve/disapprove the claims and would forward them with their
recommendation to the Sub-Divisional Committee who in turn would send it to the District Level Committee who would
finalize the claims. The District and Sub-Divisional Committees are supposed to raise awareness through workshops and
other means and sensitize officials and the public, and members of Gram Sabha about the provisions of the Act.
After the Act and Rules came into force, the Rajasthan state government initiated activities at the Panchayat samiti level to
initiate and plan implementation of the provisions in the field. The first step was the election of Forest Rights Committee
(FRCs) through the general assembly of the Gram Sabhas, who would be receiving claims of forest rights from the
residents of the concerned Gram Sabha. The forest department is supposed to play the role of a watchdog as well as
facilitator, givenits role in the various Sub-Committees who shall preside over the crucial decisions being made at various
junctures.
55
an essential requirement so that eligible claimants will get their due rights. Need of the hour is that people should also be
made aware about theconcept of land use wherein the decisionabout defining the classification of land should be based
on, firstly, the land capability and, secondly, the subsistence needs of the population. For e.g conversion of land-use
pattern of the upper reaches of a hill from forest land to agriculture land might not yield much to the tiller and might end
up damaging the ecology and watershed health of the region. Thus in a nutshell the focus would be on capacity building
of members of Forest Rights Committee on the right interpretation and implementation of the Act for making it
community friendly.
56
This includes supporting Gram Sabha and Forest Rights Committee to settle claims as per their vision giving specific
reasons for approval or rejection - this may include negotiation with claimants who claim land with low ecological
capability and/or scattered patches and reallocate them on other suitablesites which may be against the provisions of Act
but will be in the interest of forest wealth and ecology. This might involve decisions which rationalize or balance
community land use and individual stakes. This also might require working on an action research mode to optimize the
decisions made so that they incur minimal ecological damage and at the same time are able to settle
community/individual rightful claims. Thus in a nutshell ideally our focus shall be on land use planning for the whole
village taking the use of forest lands as CPRs for the coming generation. Therefore the approach suggested is to go for a
balanced win-win model (livelihood security and conservationof ecology - not oneat the cost of theother).
Finally, we would like to evolve a roadmap for dealing with all the land use related issues in the future and guidelines for
claim settlement. This would also include supporting the Gram Sabha in solving inter-village conflicts. Conflict Resolution
can be based onproven methodologies and participatory exercises like PRAs and RRAs to make collective decisions about
the veracity of the claims. We also propose 'continuous dialoguing' as a guiding principle instead of for confrontation
which would only widen the gap between the enactors and the beneficiaries.
One of the major learnings can be through Process documentation of these activities, in few villages/regions, so that they
may be replicated/emulated.
About the Authors
57
Seva Mandir a secular,
not-for-profit organization is working
for the empowerment of
tribal communities in
Rajasthan, in Western India.
Seva Mandir works with nearly
600 village communities with
interventions in Education,
Natural Resource Management,
Village Institution building,
Women's Empowerment and
Health and Early Child Care.
More than 70,000 households
are associated with
Seva Mandir's activities.
Seva Mandir,
www.sevamandir.org
Old Fatehpura,
Udaipur, 313004
Rajasthan, India
Ph: +91 294 2450960 / 2451041
Fax: +91 294 2450947
email: [email protected]