CRITIQUE OF FOREST LAWS

Forest Myths, Jungle Laws and Social Justice

A variety of forest myths and a jungle of forest laws have over the years served to deny social justice to the forest-dwelling tribals. Two commissions, one on tribal matters and the other on forests, are presently reviewing these subjects and this is a golden opportunity for both to meet and resolve all the land issues relating to tribals and forests and the issue of tribal access to their own forest resources which alone can bring peace and prosperity in the tribal areas. 

Excerpts:
The prime minister while addressing the National Development Council (NDC) on December 21, 2002 emphasised the need for a review of “a jungle of laws, in particular, municipal, police and forest laws” many of which had not been reformed since many decades. This is particularly the case with Forest Laws.  

(1) Forest Act  

Considering that it is largely enforced in tribal and rural areas (except the transport rules) some of the provisions are draconian and drive the villagers into the clutches of the staff at the cutting edge. Section 26 of Indian Forest Act provides penalties for trespass, pasturing cattle, kindling or carrying any fire, or… removing any forest produce, etc. Trespass means no villager can enter the Reserved Forest without permission! He cannot carry a lighted torch even if he is going on a dark night! He cannot collect medicinal herbs for his own needs; these simple acts can land him in jail; tribals and others living inside the forests have to go through the forests or into the forests to collect medicinal plants; it is confirmed by recent market surveys that 90 per cent of medicinal plants used in the pharmaceutical industry, presently come from forests. By the letter of the law the tribal collectors have to take permission though the foresters themselves have little knowledge of the hundreds of herbs being collected. It is quite likely that these provisions have never been invoked and if so they need not be on the statute book. At the time of notification of the area as reserved forests (50 to 100 years back in many cases) several rights and concessions were recognised with regard to grazing, collection of Minor Forest Produce (now termed as Non-Timber Forest Produce) and timber in some instances and also the right to shifting cultivation; these were all recorded in the original settlement papers; in some states like the old Madras Province they were codified in manuals. However with the passage of time and a general erosion of respect for community rights particularly of the poor since independence most of these came to be ignored by the forest departments. It is essential that these rights are recorded and revived in the interests of forest communities. Similarly the system of supply of domestic needs of firewood and bamboo on seigniorage rates which was in vogue was also abolished. This was a healthy system to meet domestic needs of communities living in and around the forests. Today there is no way for a community living in a forest to meet their bona fide requirement of wood except through the good offices of the forest guard. Water, water everywhere not any drop to drink, sums up the situation.  

(2) Forest Conservation Act 1980  

This is a corollary to the ‘33 per cent under forests’ syndrome; since area under legal forests has to be increased to one-third land area of the country any transfer of forest land to non-forestry purpose should be compensated by providing equal area of land outside the forests with funds – as demanded by the forest department – to afforest the area. Once upon a time there lived a king in a palace with most of the outer portions in a dilapidated condition and whenever any person approached him to purchase some of these crumbling portions he would insist that an equal area of dilapidated structure anywhere be given to him with funds to repair it! Government of India under this act is like this king. More than 40 per cent of the Reserve Forest area in the country is in an extreme state of degradation and is in need of funds for reforestation; the funds given for compensatory reforestation should be used to reforest these existing degraded RF areas. Perhaps the government should sell some of the degraded RFs to raise funds for reforestation instead of approaching foreign funding agencies. As in all matters, it is quality that matters and not quantity even in forests. Besides, the isolated bits and pieces of land afforested under this scheme have very little prospect of long-term survival. Further it is impinging on issues of equity and social justice as forest land is generally in demand in progressive districts and land in compensation is given from backward districts, where government departments are involved, and private enterprises purchase the cheapest land from the poor often depriving them of their only asset. After the government reforests all the degraded areas in the RF it can look for compensatory areas. The mindset of 33 per cent of land should be under forests is to be overcome for an objective understanding.  

(3) Wildlife (Protection) Act  

Section 18 (1) of the Wildlife Protection Act dealing with the procedure for declaring protected areas exempts areas included from a Reserved Forest from the provisions of sections 19 to 25 dealing with settlement of rights of people, as the section reads: “The state government may, by notification declare its intention to constitute any area other than area comprised with in any reserve forest…as a sanctuary” (emphasis added).  

This is bad in law as the declaration of a protected area does involve imposing additional restrictions on the local people than was done under the Forest Act, regarding entry into it, grazing, and right to forest produce as per rights and concessions conceded at the time of notification of the forest under the Forest Act. Further the section also prescribes that areas of “adequate ecological, faunal, geomorphological, natural or zoological significance, for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wildlife or its environment” should be considered for declaration as protected areas. So far over 500 protected areas were declared in the country and more are in the pipeline. It is a moot point as to how many of these fulfil adequately the criteria of ecological and natural significance. The national wildlife action plan recognises 10 biogeographic zones in the country and considering the need for quality than quantity, there is a strong case for a second look at the protected areas and to even denotify some, that do not have natural vegetation nor ecological significance and are similar in biogeographic status.  

for full article of EPW click here.