Missing the 145;should146; for the trees

Critics of the above forest conservation measures have pointed out two major drawbacks. First, it was unfair to forest-dwelling communities who were suddenly denied traditional access to these areas, thereby deprived of livelihood. Second, as result of the exclusionist approach, the tribals no longer felt any sense of ownership towards the forests around them. This led to the 8220;tragedy of the commons8221; with encroachments, poaching, logging and other activities that hurt the forests. In short, the old conservation approach was seen as both unfair and counter-productive.

The proposed Tribal Bill seeks to remedy the above ills by giving every tribal the title to 2.5 hectares of forest land. The legislation also plans to confer other rights such as those for grazing, non-timber forest produce, etc. In theory, the bill does recognise the need for some environmental regulation but the authority is largely vested in village councils rather than with the Forest Department. Champions of the bill see this as a necessary step for providing economic freedom to the adivasis.

Conservationists, however, argue that the new legislation will merely legitimize creeping encroachments into already dwindling forest areas. There is also no credible mechanism for monitoring and imposing penalties for non-sustainable use of forests by the councils 8212; especially in the context of the competitive populism that affects Indian politics at all levels. Finally, there is a real fear that the new law will legitimize the principle that forest conservation is politically negotiable and thereby open the door to further dilution in conservation laws.

Tribal versus Tiger?

The debate over the proposed Tribal Bill has been dubbed by the press as 8220;Tribal versus Tiger8221;. However, this depiction completely misses the point. The real tussle is between the needs of the present generation and those of future generations which includes the children of the tribals as well. Forest cover already serves the current generation in innumerable ways by providing soil conservation, water retention, flood control, etc. However, forests are also irreplaceable to future generations because they hold the key to sustainable sources of water, carbon sequestration, etc. Not even the supporters of the Tribal Bill will deny the importance of forest to future generations.

Thus, we need to assess whether or not the land titles will benefit the current generation to an extent that justifies endangering the resource pool available to future generations. To make this judgment, we should look at past experience with de-reservation of forests in India and in other places around the world. The results are clear: de-reservation of forests without a strict management system usually leads to degradation of the forests and delivers little value to the poor. More often than not, the forest land is cleared by logging/farming but the land quickly degrades and delivers no sustained income stream. Thus, we will have a perpetual cycle of poverty and environmental degradation. Note that it is the tribal poor who hurts most from the deterioration in water/soil quality, declines in non-timber forest produce and so on.

Recent experience with forest de-reservation in Assam is a good illustration of the process. Just four years ago there was a large tract of primal forest north of Tezpur, near Arunachal Pradesh. This area was opened up for the re-settlement of Bodo groups as part of a political settlement and, within a short span of three years, the area was completely cleared of forest, making the Arunachal border visible as the tree-line. However, the land has degraded rapidly and is affected by flash-floods. As a result, it is not being used for meaningful agricultural activities but has simply become useless, barren land. Future generations have lost a valuable resource while the tribals are no better off than before and probably worse off. In short, the evidence suggests that the loss to future generations is not compensated by gains to current generations.

Similar examples abound and have been documented in detail. Large tracts of tribal lands at Yeoor, Thane just outside the Sanjay Gandhi National Park have been appropriated by powerful individuals who have built bungalows on these plots. Tribal land in Chenna Thane north of SGNP has been sold to quarry operators. In Mathikettan, a pristine 8220;shola8221; forest identified for adivasis was grabbed by land-sharks who used the tribals as a front. Such experience has in fact been repeated all over the world and it is no wonder that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment clearly states that 8220;Reduced ecosystem services have directly led to poverty.8221;

The Alternative

The point of the above discussion is that the 8220;historical wrongs8221; that may have been done to the tribals cannot be put right by perpetrating a 8220;historical blunder8221;. The alternative is to find a way that does not pit the tribal against the tiger, but engages forest-dwelling communities in the process of conservation. The recently enacted National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 NREG provides one mechanism to achieve this. In our view, the legislation should be used to employ the tribal poor in afforestation, eco-restoration, forest-fire prevention, watershed development, etc. There is ample degraded or recently deforested land in India 8212; culturable wasteland is estimated at 14 million hectares and there are 24 million hectares of fallow land. Forest-dwelling communities can be encouraged to locate to these areas and the NREG should be used to support these communities through the process of nursing these lands back to health. Ancillary businesses can also be encouraged such as sustainable harvest of these newly restored eco-systems.

Even in states where there is no suitable land for relocation, tribal communities can be engaged in ecological management under the supervision of the Forest Department and NGOs. These could even included higher valued added activities such as nurseries for local plant species especially medicinal plants and eco-tourism.

The above suggestion is not new. In the early eighties, barely ten years after Project Tiger began, some conservationists realized that innovative strategies were needed to involve people in regenerating lands so that tiger habitat could expand. The approach above is also gaining acceptance internationally as a sensible way to alleviate poverty, and was recognised by the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. In our view, this will be a far more meaningful answer to the economic needs of the tribal poor. We, therefore, propose an Alternative Tribal Bill that ties spending on the NREG with the economic needs of forest-dwelling communities and with environmental restoration.

Pavan Sukhdev is a career banker with Deutsche Bank AG, London, is also Director, Green Indian States Trust, Chennai. Sanjeev Sanyal is Director, Green Accounting for Indian States Project and with Deutsche Bank AG, Singapore. The views expressed here are personal.