On the one hand. while the local Adivasi community-led protests are being suppressed by the state government, the establishment –regardless of which party is in power, Indian National Congress (INC) or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) –is adamant on continuing the coal mining project.

Adivasi activists have alleged that the newly elected BJP government in the state has handed over thousands of hectares of forest lands to big corporate players. It is feared that these state-imposed policies may lead to further displacement of the indigenous community in the state. 

While axes fell the trees in Surguja districts in Chhattisgarh, it is police batons that are raining violence on the protesting Adivasis. News of large numbers of recent arrests of Adivasi activists by the police has also been documented. 

Given the huge protests, the state government has also arranged for a large deployment of security forces in the areas. Instead of initiating a dialogue and addressing the growing discontent of the people, the BJP government has approached the issue by intensifying armed security. 

According to the indigenous activists, both the police and the local administration are threatening the local Adivasi community against raising their voices against the ongoing deforestation projects. They have alleged that the local administration has been instructed by the state government to deal firmly with the protestors. –

The state government’s repressive policy is a tool to generate fear among the protestors, who are waging a life and death battle les against the greed-propelled and ecologically unfriendly models of development.

But Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai has, so far, appeared to be in denial mode by saying that so far no arrest had been made. He is unwilling to engage with the allegations that his government has failed to involve the indigenous community in the developmental process.  Even the Constitutionally-mandated laws giving special protection to the Adivasi community and the resources in their areas have been bypassed to facilitate the plunder of the natural resources. 

For example, a news story by the news agency PTI revealed that the state government has handed over a thousand hectares of forest lands for mining in the Surguja district to corporate players, triggering wide-scale protests. The Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Smiti, which is led by the Adivasi community, has been raising voices against the handing over of the forest lands to corporate players. 

The voices of protests against the deforestation of the Hasdeo forest are also being echoed in different places in the country. 

A public meeting was held in New Delhi’s Press Club of India on January 2 during which a large number of activists, civil society members and intellectuals, united under the banner of Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan (CBA), expressed their deep concern about “corporate takeover” of the natural resources.

Prominent among those who attended this press conference were Alok Shukla (Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan), Thawar Chand Meena (MLA from Dhariawad, Rajasthan), Umeshwar Singh Armo (Hasdeo Aranya Bachao Sangharsh Samiti), Prashant Bhushan (Supreme court advocate), Prafulla Samantray (activist), Sudiep Shrivastava (Chhattisgarh High Court advocate) Paranjoy Guha Thakurta ( author and journalist) and Professor Nandini Sundar (University of Delhi).

At the Press Club of India, the activists and the civil society members rightly linked the fight to save Hasdeo Aranya forest to other struggles to save nature and the life of the Adivasi community across the country. According to them, the corporate loot of minerals including coal and bauxite is happening at various places in India, particularly in the Adivasi regions.  

History is witness to the fact that since the colonial era, the vicious cycle of the exploitation of natural resources from the Adivasi areas and the displacement of the indigenous population has not stopped. 

The rise of the modern state and the profit-based economic model are some of the major factors for the destruction of the environment and the attacks on the indigenous community. With the introduction of the institution of private property during colonial time, the landlords, moneylenders and colonial administrators penetrated the Adivasi region to inflict ruins on them. 

Such exploitative colonial policies supported by the native landlords and money lenders were vigorously opposed by a series of revolts by the Adivasi community. One of them was led by Birsa Munda in the last phase of the nineteenth century. Birsa’s struggles were aimed at achieving self-rule for the Adivasi community and autonomy in their regions. 

After Independence, the promises made to the Adivasi community were largely forgotten. It was the Adivasi region which was chosen for the construction of the large-scale dams and the mining projects. This led to the destruction of the environment, loss of biodiversity and the displacement of the Adivasi community on a large scale. 

While the migration of non-Adivasi outsiders to the Adivasi areas has been substantial, leading to ae change in the demography, the ongoing policies of deforestation, mining and industrialization have also rendered Adivasis homeless, forcing them to migrate to urban areas where they have no social security. Nor are they often recognized as the Scheduled Tribes (ST) by the state.

Undoubtedly, the Adivasi community has been the worst sufferers of the developmental projects. The Constitution’s provisions for the protection of the Adivasi community continued to be violated to facilitate the corporate plunder of the resources. Worse still, the consent of the Adivasi community for the developmental project is either bypassed or obtained through coercive methods. Sadly, regions in central India, dominated by the indigenous Adivasi population are also among the most heavily militarised by the state. Yet, on the human development index, the same regions fall behind, are the most backward regions.  

What is happening with the Hasdeo Aranya forests is the cruel continuation of the process of colonisation in the Adivasi areas. But sooner or later such anti-Adivasi policy must stop to ensure the will of the people, and the future of Indian democracy. 

(Dr Abhay Kumar is a Delhi-based journalist. He has taught political sciences at NCWEB Centres of Delhi University.)

Disclaimer: Views and opinions expressed in this article is solely that of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views or position of Sabrang India and this site.

The post Chhattisgarh: Why we must save the Hasdeo Aranya Forest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Today senior activists from among the Adivasi communities and others participating in the struggle for land are facing repression, false cases and externment orders. A Delhi-based group, Janhastakshep had approached members of intelligentsia and social and political activists belonging to different organizations to lend their support to an open petition addressed to the Hon’ble President of India on the issue of attack on Adivasis asserting their forest rights and opposing atrocities against them for opposing illegal felling of forest in Burhanpur district of Madhya Pradesh.

“In order to crush the struggle of the Adivasis the local administration has externed the leader of the Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sangathan (JADS), Madhuri from the district. Around 150 signatories from India and abroad have signed the petition both in their individual capacity and also on behalf of their organizations. The petition sent to President Draupadi Murmu’s Secretariat, along with the signatures has been also released to the press.

Activists have alleged that these attacks by the forest department and other authorities are a continuance of the repression allegedly suffered by forest dwellers and Adivasis for over four months, since March 2023. Antaram Awase, a young Adivasi activist, has spoken to the media recently of the crackdown on villagers, filing multiple cases citing encroachment and deliberate disobedience of government orders. The most recent in the list of atrocities perpetrated against them, the villagers say, is an externment order against the human rights defenders who have been actively questioning the state in the region.

Strangely, even though a large part of the Burhanpur district is earmarked as a scheduled area, the tribal communities living there have for long been bereft of forest rights. Villagers of Siwal, along with residents of 15 other villages in the district, have been demanding they be recognised as forest dwellers and their rights under the Forest Rights Act be protected.

Four months ago, in March 2023, two Adivasi activists associated with the Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sangathan (JADS) had claimed that they were threatened with arrest during police questioning following the arrest of 35 other Adivasi activists after a face-off with the Forest Department in Madhya Pradesh’s Burhanpur region. The two had also then been called for questioning.

The region has seen a history of violence against Adivasi communities by the notorious Forest Department. The Forest Department periodically attempts to illegally “evict” Adivasis of Pachayat Baldi from their land by using force, sometimes employing violence and intimidation tactics such as illegal detention, physical assault, and even money extortion. This is a violation of section 4 (5) of the Forest Rights Act which does not recognize eviction at all. These section of the emancipator law states that forest dwelling persons from a Scheduled Tribe or other traditional communities should not be evicted or removed from the forest land they occupy until the recognition and verification procedure is complete.

In a statement released by JADS then, they detailed the following: JADS activists received a call from the locals of Baldi Panchayat on February 2, 2023 informing them about the illegal arrest of four people – two men and two women. They were picked up from their homes and taken to an unknown location with no information given to their families, a violation of settled law and jurisprudence. At this stage when this happened, JADS activists immediately contacted the DFO (District forest officer) and District Collector, Burhanpur, asking them to intervene in the matter and ensure that due process of law was followed. Anxiously looking for those who were picked up, other villagers went to the Range Office in Burhanpur and heard shouts and screams and other sounds of torture from the office building. Thereafter there was a reported clash between villagers and the forest staff after this. It was after this ‘confrontation’ that around 20 men and 15 women were arrested by the police while they were on their way back to their village.

The very next day, Antaram Awase, a young Advissi activist, and Nitin, a graduate from TISS, went to meet the DFO, SP and District Collector, to find out what had happened. Instead, they found themselves implicated in the conflict for merely speaking to the arrested villagers on the phone. The two were in fact not in Burhanpur at the time.

These two activists, Antaram and Nitin have been working with JADS for over five years and are at the forefront of the campaign to spread awareness about legal Forest Rights. JADS, currently active with tribals across four districts in MP – Barwani, Khargone, Khandwa and Burhanpur – is a community led organisation and plays an important role in highlighting illegal fellings of trees on Adivasi land and underhanded attempts to suppress their forest rights. The attempt to implicate the two JADS activists can only be read as an attempt to suppress this campaign. It was in 2018, that this struggle demanding legitimate rights had intensified. So did the state’s crackdown.

A protest and its aftermath

In April this year, over a thousand women and men – all belonging to tribal communities – staged a three-day protest against the tacit support given to widespread and illegal tree felling by the Madhya Pradesh government, emphasising that felling at such a scale is impossible without the implicit support of the state government itself.

While the officials didn’t relent to the villagers’ demands at all, JADS accuses the forest and state administration of illegally evicting many eligible FRA claimants. The district has over 10,000 FRA claims pending, some even belonging to those illegally evicted, the villagers allege.

Every act of protest, the organisation claims, is met with state repression, they stress.

Among the state actions earlier this year was the externment of Madhuri Krishnaswami of the JADS. Krishnaswami, who has been actively involved in organising the community and agitations in the district, has been booked in as many as 21 forest offence cases for alleged offences between October 2022 and January 2023. It is these cases that the protests were against. However, Krishnaswami’s name was added only in May, after the protests.

Krishnaswami is additionally named in five police cases out of which two have been disposed of already and others are pending investigation. These cases, mostly accusing her of unlawful assembly, have triggered her externment from the district.

Rights activists from the region call this part of the administration’s tactic to break the movement. “They are going after the leaders one by one. Many Adivasi women, who are at the forefront, are also getting targeted by forest officials. Like the Britishers, the Madhya Pradesh government too is hellbent on criminalising the community for fighting for their rights,” Awase said.

Adivasi activists allege that, since 2019, there have been multiple instances of human rights violations in the region. Between August and September 2020, several persons from the region – all belonging to the Adivasi community – were picked up under alleged false charges, detained by the forest officials and allegedly tortured. In one such incident, two Adivasi youths were handcuffed to a window railing and allegedly beaten up all night, before they were produced in court.

Those booked in multiple cases mostly work as farmers or farm labourers. Appearance before court means missing out on a day’s earnings. “As it is we have been spending a great deal of time organising and agitating against the state’s unjust attitude towards us. And now we have an additional challenge of appearing before the court every other week,” said an activist, who too has been booked in multiple cases.

The villagers’ demand as lawful claimants of the forest land gets complex with the government’s allegation of felling of trees. The region over the past decade has witnessed deforestation on a massive scale.

Awase says that he, along with other members of the organisation, had moved to notify both the forest and the district administration about the large-scale destruction of the forest cover. “These are all Sagon trees. They sell for crores of rupees. As some people from nearby villages indulged in the criminal act of destroying the forest cover, we wrote to the officials. No action was taken against those involved,” Awase alleges.

Those allegedly involved in the felling of trees also belong to the tribal community, activists say. This, Nitin explains, is a parallel phenomenon seen in the region where many from the Adivasi communities make a desperate attempt to claim stakes on the land. “If the state were serious about implementing the FRA law in the region, destruction of forest cover could have been brought under control,” he adds.

Related:

Adivasis of Burhanpur rejoice as all demands get fulfilled, verification of claims for the entire district

Minister inquires about implementation of FRA in states, MoTA dodges any accountability

Tribals Allege Officials Use Forest Rights Act to Harass, Demand Money; Picket DM’s Office

First Fired Upon, Now Criminal Cases Registered Against Tribals in Madhya Pradesh

The post Externment orders, atrocities against Burhanpur Adivasis, activists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Determining Scheduled Areas under the Fifth Schedule of Article 244 of the Constitution has been left largely to administrative and political interpretations. Mired in ambiguities, most often adverse, this resulted in the denial of what this constitutional provision potentially could offer the Scheduled Tribes. About sixty percent of the Scheduled Tribes are unjustly denied and kept out of the purview of this constitutional provision. Judicial pronouncements and laws such as the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 and the Forest Rights Act 2006 clarify many of the ambiguities. These and more are attempted to be linked up here as an update to set clear well-defined tasks to address this long-standing unfinished agenda.

Introduction

Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities constitute 8.6% of the total population. STs constitute a majority in 110 districts out of 640 districts in the country, 20 to 50 % in 87 districts and 10 to 20 % in another 74 districts. Of the 5,97,483 villages, STs are a majority in 1,10,118 villages, 20 to 50 % in 45,902 villages and 10 to 20 % in another 29,800 villages (MoTA 2013).

Scheduled Areas have been notified vide Para 6 (1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution in 10 States viz. Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Himachal Pradesh. They cover some 11.3 % of the total land area of the country (Wahi 2018:28). Of the 640 administrative districts, 104 districts have Scheduled Areas; 45 districts are fully notified and 63 are partially notified. They cover 77,564 villages of 22,040 panchayats in 664 blocks (MoPR 2023). These Scheduled Areas have 5.7 % of the country’s total population and 35.2 % of ST population. About 53 % of the total population in the Scheduled Areas are STs (Wahi 2018).

There are numerous ST habitations across the country that are not notified as Scheduled Areas. These STs are denied the constitutional rights and empowerment under Article 244 and the provisions in various laws as are applicable to the Scheduled Area such as the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Area) Act 1996 (PESA), 1 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20132, and where ‘local bodies’ are empowered as the Biological Diversity Act, 20023  and the related court orders.

There have been several sustained demands and campaigns from Adivasi (tribal) organisations to the concerned State governments for inclusion of the villages left out in the 10 States that have Scheduled Areas, and from other States that have ST populations, both large and small, but no Scheduled Area. The Bhuria Committee which was constituted to recommend provisions for the extension of panchayat raj to the Scheduled Areas had recommended to this effect. There have been a few positive initiatives from the State governments and fewer still have fructified. These tardy responses have often been explained away primarily with the argument that the demands and proposals do not consist of viable ST majority administrative units that may be considered eligible for notifying as Scheduled Areas. Parallel to this are the demands, both surreptitious and open, to denotify existing areas within Scheduled Areas. These demands have been made using the very same argument that several administrative units in existing Scheduled Areas no longer hold Scheduled Tribe majorities.

The legal basis for notifying Scheduled Area as to who can decide and what constitutes a Scheduled Area is examined here in order to determine whether the demands for inclusion of more areas as Scheduled Area and its reorganisiation, and exclusion of certain areas from Scheduled Areas are compatible with the law.

Who decides the area to be notified as Scheduled Area?

Article 244 (1) of the Constitution of India provides for the administration of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in States (other than Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura) in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule. ‘Scheduled Areas’ in Para 6 (1) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution means such areas as the President may by order declare to be Scheduled Areas. The Constitution does not provide any norm defining the administrative unit that ought to be the basis for declaration of Scheduled Area. The minimum percentage of ST population that must be contained in such area and a cut-off date for this are also not prescribed under Article 244, or in any law.

Further, Para 6 (2) of the Fifth Schedule confers powers exclusively on the President to declare any area as Scheduled Area. The Andhra High Court concluded that ‘neither the Executive Government nor the State Legislature, much less this Court, can declare an area to be a Scheduled Area’. Para 6 does not impose any limitation or restriction on the power of the President as to which areas are to be included or excluded in the Scheduled Area. This power is absolute and left to the discretion of the President. Therefore, the decision regarding the areas which are to form Scheduled Areas is not open to question or judicial scrutiny.

The Fifth Schedule unambiguously states that: ‘The President may at any time by order —

(a) direct that the whole or any specified part of a Scheduled Area shall cease to be a Scheduled Area or a part of such an area;

(aa) increase the area of any Scheduled Area in a State after consultation with the Governor of that State;

(b) alter, but only by way of rectification of boundaries, any Scheduled Area;

(c) on any alteration of the boundaries of a State or on the admission into the Union or the establishment of a new State, declare any territory not previously included in any State to be, or to form part of, a Scheduled Area;

(d) rescind, in relation to any State or States, any order or orders made under this paragraph, and in consultation with the Governor of the State concerned, make fresh orders redefining the areas which are to be Scheduled Areas’.

The Supreme Court has held that ‘the identification of Scheduled Areas is an executive function and we do not possess the expertise needed to scrutinize the empirical basis of the same,’ that ‘there has been a considerable influx of non-tribal population in some of the Scheduled Areas’ and ‘that persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes should occupy at least half of the seats in Panchayats located in Scheduled Areas, irrespective of whether the ST population was in a relative minority in the concerned area’.

A  Public Interest Litigation challenging the 2007 notification declaring the Scheduled Area in Jharkhand on the ground that the percentage of ST population is less than 50 % in some blocks was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court observing that the declaration of Scheduled Area ‘being within the exclusive discretion of the President neither violates any constitutional provisions, nor is the exercise of power has been done on extraneous considerations so as to be amenable to judicial scrutiny’.

The criteria for determining Scheduled Areas

The 1961 Dhebar Commission Report (GoI 1961) suggested four criteria for declaring new areas as Scheduled Area. They are:

(a) the preponderance of tribal population,

(b) compactness and reasonable size of the area,

(c) under-developed nature of the area and

(d) marked disparity in the economic standard of the tribals living in the areas.

The Ministry of Tribal Affairs largely agreed to the above recommendations9 which have generally been used for declaring Scheduled Area resulting in the Constitutional Orders since 1950 till 2007. All that the above recommendations mean is that the

• STs are to be greater in number, preponderant, not a majority, as compared to other social categories of peoples as the Other Backward Classes (OBC), Scheduled Castes (SC) and the residual ‘Other’ category. and
• that the area proposed should be a viable administrative entity. Therefore, the administrative entity or unit to be considered for scheduling is left to political and administrative decision grounded in social reality.

The Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission 2002 constituted under the Article 339 (1) of the Constitution had recommended that ‘All revenue villages with 40 % and more tribal population according to 1951 census may be considered as Scheduled Area on merit’ (GoI 2004). The Tribal Affairs Ministry communicated this recommendation in 2018 for consideration by the States for declaration of Scheduled Areas.10

The Bhuria Committee in 1995 (MoRD 1995) recognised the face-to-face community in the tribal areas managing its affairs to be the basic unit of the system of self-governance in tribal areas. A hamlet, or a group of hamlets or a village, as the case may be, is the natural unit of the community; this is distinctly different from the administrative units as the revenue village, the Panchayat, Taluk or the District. The Committee observed that the present administrative boundaries were drawn during the British period keeping their administrative convenience in mind. It took no note of the tribal situation in the country. Most of the country’s tribal population is located on the margins of different administrative units.

Moreover, the recommendations of various Government-appointed Committees were to include the remaining Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) applicable in 21 States and 2 Union Territories with 193 Integrated Tribal Development Projects/ Integrated Tribal Development Agencies, Modified Area Development Approach (MADA) areas numbering 259, as well as similar pockets of 82 clusters, under the Scheduled Areas notification. Most states have ignored this till date.

The ambiguity in deciding on what should be the basic unit for consideration for notifying as Scheduled Area was finally settled when the fundamental administrative unit was defined under the PESA 1996.  PESA defined ‘village’ as: ‘a village shall ordinarily consist of a habitation or a group of habitations, or a hamlet or a group of hamlets comprising a community and managing its affairs in accordance with traditions and customs’. Following this, the ‘Gram Sabha’ got defined as ‘consisting of persons whose names are included in the electoral rolls’ of the village thus defined. This radically departs from the definition of the village which is generally the revenue village with a number of habitations, and the Gram Sabha which is at the Gram Panchayat level with a number of revenue villages and numerous habitations, resulting in a totally unwieldly area and population that intrinsically makes such Gram Sabhas non-functional, at best nominal.

The definition of ‘village’ under PESA, 1996 was adopted in the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA) applicable across the country making their Gram Sabha as the statutory administrative entity with reference to forest. Further FRA requires all ‘forest villages’, whether notified as a village or not, to be treated as ‘village’ in FRA and converted to revenue village. The definition of the village as the habitation or group of habitations as defined in PESA has now expanded its application beyond the Scheduled Area to the forest fringe areas and forest villages inside the forest.

Geographical jurisdiction and compactness of area

The territorial jurisdiction or the geographical limit of the ‘village’ has expanded under FRA to include the ‘Community Forest Resource’ (CFR). CFR is defined as the ‘customary common forest land within the traditional or customary boundaries of the village or seasonal use of landscape in the case of pastoral communities, including reserved forests, protected forests and protected areas such as Sanctuaries and National Parks to which the community had traditional access’ where FRA is applicable. The collective control of the Gram Sabhas and command over the CFR and its resources has now become lawful, although limited to forest land. The traditional or customary boundaries on revenue lands remain to be determined and demarcated by the Gram Sabhas.

Having identified the villages where STs are the major social group, the notion of compactness of the area is generally equated to whether the villages constitute a contiguous area, or are contiguous to existing Scheduled Area, if any. The Constitution does not prescribe that the area that is being scheduled has to be compact and contiguous. Contiguity is not a mandatory criterion adopted for demarcating administrative units. Rather, it is flexible though desirous, contingent on the ground reality. For instance, the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and Daman and Diu are not contiguous. The Union Territory of Puducherry consists of four small geographically unconnected districts, namely Puducherry and Karaikal (enclaves of Tamilnadu), Mahé (an enclave of Kerala) and Yanam excluding Chandranagar (an enclave of Andhra Pradesh). There are enclaves of non-Autonomous District Council areas within the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council Area.

Moreover, by policy recommendations, the Scheduled Area is to be coterminous with Tribal Sub-Plan and MADA areas. Many of these are not contiguous with each other, and to the existing Scheduled Areas in the States that have Scheduled Areas. In effect, contiguity is not a required criterion for notification of Scheduled Area. The Government of Kerala proposed the notification of Scheduled Area in 2015 comprising of 2,133 habitations, also called colonies or oorus, 5 Gram Panchayats and 2 wards which are enclaves in 5 different districts. This proposal is awaiting Union Government approval and Presidential notification. These are not contiguous areas.

Conclusion

The basic building unit of Scheduled Areas that is now well established in law applicable to Scheduled Areas is the ‘village’. A ‘village’ is defined as ‘a habitation or a group of habitations, or a hamlet or a group of hamlets’. All such villages outside of the existing notified Scheduled Areas in any State and UTs, where STs are greater in number as compared to other social categories of peoples as the OBC, SC and the residual ‘Other’, are to be notified as Scheduled Area. This step has to be initiated post-haste as the majority of STs continue to be denied the constitutional rights and empowerment under the Fifth Schedule provisions regarding the administration and control of Scheduled Areas and STs under Article 244 (1) despite the Constitution coming into force in 1950, and the passage of PESA a quarter century ago.

The geographical limit of these villages extend to the Community Forest Resource area in Scheduled Area and outside it as well on forest land under FRA where applicable. Therefore, the Gram Sabhas of the villages in Scheduled Areas should be empowered in law through suitable amendments to the relevant State/Union Territory laws, rules, regulations and manuals to determine and demarcate the geographical limit on revenue lands based on their customary and traditional boundaries. This has to be followed up by redrawing the geographical limits at the Gram Panchayat, Sub-Divisional and District level whether contiguous or not in the Scheduled Area.

The completion of the unfinished task of identifying villages and the area to be covered under the Fifth Schedule by the State and Union governments is a constitutional requirement that ought not to be delayed any further.

(The author examines natural resource conflicts and governance issues)

1     See https://tribal.nic.in/actRules/PESA.pdf

2     See https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2121?sam_handle=123456789/1362

3     See https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2046/1/200318.pdf

4     Andhra High Court, WP Nos. 15688 OF 2011, Mandava Rama Krishna & Seven Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Eight Ors on 17 April, 2014, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127746566/

5     Patna High Court, Amarendra Nath Dutta And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 23 December, 1982, AIR 1983 Pat 151, 1983 (31) BLJR 609, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/201364/

6     See https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/S5.pdf

7     Supreme Court of India. Union Of India vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors on 12 January, 2010,  Civil Appeal Nos. 484-491 of 2006, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1356187/

8     Jharkhand High Court. Md.Ashique Ahamed vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 February, 2016,  W.P. (PIL) No. 689 of 2010, 2016https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1356187/

9     Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India. Criteria for declaring Scheduled Areas, Declaration of Scheduled Areas, https://tribal.nic.in/Clm.aspx

10    Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Letter No. 18016/04/2017-C&LM dated 1 January 2018 on redefining criteria for declaration of Scheduled Areas under Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.

11    See https://tribal.nic.in/downloads/FRA/FRAActnRulesBook.pdf

12   Principal Secretary, SC/ST Development Department, Government of Kerala. Declaration of Scheduled Area, Letter to Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India No. 3432/D1/15/SCSTDD dated 07-04-2015.

13   Land and land revenue are subjects of State list (List II), listed at Sl. No.18 & 45.

References

1. Government of India (GoI) (1961): “Report of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission”, Vol. 1, 1960- 61, p.63, https://indianculture.gov.in/flipbook/1761
2. GoI (2004): “Report of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission”, Vol. 1, 2002-2004, p.76, https://ncst.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021/Report/Report.pdf
3. Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India (MoPR) (2023): “Annual Report 2022-23”, p.120, https://panchayatgyan.gov.in/documents/448457/0/Annual+Report+2022-2023+%28English%29.pdf/4b1a9e49-0832-8138-7ab7-f5c8165b1e4b?t=1677130886320
4. MoPR (2023): “State-wise details of notified Fifth Schedule Areas”, https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s316026d60ff9b54410b3435b403afd226/uploads/2023/03/2023032444.pdf
5. Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India (MoRD) (1995): “Report of the Committee of Members of Parliament and Experts Constituted to make Recommendations on Law Concerning Extension of Provisions of the Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992 to Scheduled Areas”, https://ncst.nic.in/sites/default/files/2021/Report/Report_1.PDF
6. Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India (MoTA) (2013): “Statistical Profile of Scheduled Tribes in India”, p.8, https://tribal.nic.in/downloads/statistics/StatisticalProfileofSTs2013.pdf
7. Wahi, Namita and Ankit Bhatia (2018): “The Legal Regime and Political Economy of Land Rights of Scheduled Tribes in The Scheduled Areas of India”, Centre for Policy Research, p.28-9, https://cprindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-legal-regime-and-political-economy-full-200418.pdf

The post Delineation of Scheduled Areas has been left to narrow political & administrative compulsions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 22, 2021, the environment ministry invited consultancy organisations to express interest in preparing a draft comprehensive amendment to the draconian and colonial Indian Forest Act 1927. The government has used this draconian law of colonial origin to weaponise the forest department and control land and produce actually devolved to traditional forest dwellers under the Forest Rights Act of 2006.

This announcement comes after unsuccessful attempts to push through an amendment to this Act in 2019. The announcement may be read here.

In March 2019, it was the same ministry that circulated a draft amendment to the Indian Forest Act 1927, to overhaul the 1927 version. This had invited widespread protests and sharp criticisms. These controversial amendments included provisions that allowed the officers of the forest department to shoot anyone in the name of forest protection, with little threat of criminal action. They could even terminate the forest rights of any forest-dwellers by paying them a paltry sum of money (section 22A (2), 30(b)). Forest officials could also raid and arrest without warrants and confiscate the property of any forest-dweller. If the forest department accused anyone of possessing any illegal objects, the accused would have to prove their innocence, not the accuser. The proposed amendments may be read here.

If this draft had become law, it would have ended the rule of law in India’s forests and turned them into grim battlefields. It would have deviously overridden the Forest Rights Act 2006 (FRA), a law enacted after a century and a half long battle of indigenous peoples of the country.

Prakash Javadekar, the then environment minister, was quick disowned this draft in November 2020, in the face of widespread criticism. With an eye on that, Javadekar said, “We are completely withdrawing the draft amendment to the Indian Forest Act to remove any misgivings; the tribal rights will be protected fully and they will continue to be the important stakeholder in forest development.” Jawdekar’s statrement may be read here. 

It was then that the onus on drafting the changes was passed from government and its bureaucrats to private companies. The FRA 2006 recognises all conceivable forest rights except hunting, whether listed in the law. These pertain to the rights of individuals and the community and territorial rights of habitations. It effectively shifted the authority to protect forests, wildlife and biodiversity from the forest department to the gram sabha of these habitations. The law was enacted because “forest rights on ancestral lands and their habitat were not adequately recognised in the consolidation of State forests during the colonial period as well as in independent India resulting in historical injustice”.

Eighteen years before in a significant policy shift, the National Forest Policy, 1988 –in tune with national and international evolving understanding around forest conservation and the rights of India’s indigenous peoples– also recognised “the symbiotic relationship between the tribal people and forests”. Then, the passage of the FRA gave fuller expression to this goal.

It was under the NDA II government, with its inherent policy to transfer public resources to private capital that the central environment ministry, in March 2018, released the draft National Forest Policy as a replacement of the 1988 document. This draft completely ignored the FRA and its gram sabha-based governance structures. It brazenly promoted commercial plantation-centric investments that sought to manage forests through private entities, under the rubric of private-public participation. The aim was to increase tree cover and productivity to meet industrial and other needs – at the cost of negating the fact that more than half of India’s forests are currently within the jurisdiction of gram sabhas. This draft policy may be read here. 

It was several months and several protests before the tribal ministry responded. In June 2018, the tribal affairs secretary wrote to the environment secretary that the environment ministry doesn’t have “exclusive jurisdiction” to frame policies related to forests. In actual fact, 12 years before, on March 17, 2006, “all matters, including legislation, relating to the rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes on forest lands” had been carved out from the subject of forests from the environment ministry, and transferred to the tribal affairs ministry’s jurisdiction through an amendment to the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961.

These may be read here. This put an end to the environment ministry’s perceived monopoly over forests. MOTA is on record saying that the draft National Forest Policy 2018 “disregarded the traditional custodians and conservatives of the forests, namely, tribals” and that it gave “a thrust to increased privatisation, industrialisation and diversion of forest resources for commercialisation”. What is to follow now is a fresh confrontation between the MoEF and MOTA as can be gleaned in the New Forest Policy (2020), not public yet.

A recent joint communication by the tribal and environment ministries signed a ‘Joint communication for more effective implementation of the Forest Rights Act’ on July 6, 2021. This is what former environment minister Javadekar called this “a paradigm shift from one of working in silos to achieving convergence between ministries and departments”. Apparently, the result of discussions between the two ministries since August 2020, the ‘joint communication’ said that, henceforth, “both ministries may take a collective view on the matter including issuing joint clarification, guidelines, etc.”

However, all matters relating to forest rights on forest land are today under the tribal ministry. It is in fact the nodal ministry for FRA implementation. And it has asked frontline forest staff to assist the gram sabhas with preparing conservation and management plans for the forests under their respective jurisdictions. They are to “integrate such conservation and management plans with the micro plans or working plans or management plans of the forest department”. This is contrary to the law. Gram sabhas have a free hand to make their own plans and also “to modify the micro plan or working plan or management plan of the forest department”.

State governments have also been asked “to give suitable instructions” to the gram sabhas to harness the joint forest management committees to protect and manage forests. These are admittedly entities under the control of the forest department – but ultimately the gram sabhas have the authority to “protect the wildlife, forest and biodiversity”.

Taken together, the tribal affairs ministry has asked the forest bureaucracy to take control of FRA implementation at all levels – again contrary to the law. India’s traditional forest dwellers and Adivasis are closely observing what the environment ministry will do next, and how the tribal affairs ministry will respond.

Related:

Compendium of Judgments on the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (June 15, 2016)
Counter Affidavit filed by MoTa in support of tribal rights in the FRA

The post Two ministries and India’s traditional forest dwellers, Adivasis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Uttarakhand diverted over 50,000 hectares of land for various development and defence projects over the last 30 years, with Chamoli district recording the second-highest forest area diversion in the state, reported The Hindu on February 11, 2021. The Himalayan state is still reeling from the after-effects of the flash floods on February 7 in the Alaknanda river system, that resulted in multiple deaths and the destruction of two major hydropower projects in Chamoli. 

However, a closer look at the state’s forest land diverted between 1991 and 2021 shows that despite its little geographical area, Uttarakhand is the fourth highest state in terms of losing forest land. According to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the state lost 58,684 hectares (ha) of forest land. Meanwhile, Arunachal Pradesh that lost 1,54,134 ha land suffered the most in India followed by Madhya Pradesh (79,993 ha) and Telangana (63,657 ha).

While Uttarakhand’s deforestation may not seem as drastic when compared with Arunachal Pradesh, it still accounts for 2.4 percent of the state’s total forest area as of 2019. That is the fifth-highest share of deforested land among all states.

Another unique aspect of the state’s forest land diversion is that many of the development projects relate to defence, as opposed to mining, which is a major cause for deforestation in Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Telangana. Other major reasons for loss of forests in Uttarakhand are road and transmission lines, and hydel projects.

Within Uttarakhand, Tehri Garhwal districts lost the most forest land majorly due to hydel, roads, transmission lines, railway and school-related projects. Chamoli that suffered the most during the floods diverted its land largely because of transmission lines, road laying, hydel projects. Almora, Pithoragarh, Dehradun, Uttarkashi and Nainital districts followed closely.

Among locals, the loss of forest lands has been a cause for concern especially for the Van Gujjar community that fears losing its ancestral land and connection to forest environments if infrastructural or defence projects continue to lessen the greenery of the state.

Related:

Around 170 still missing in the tragedy in Uttarakhand’s Chamoli

EXCLUSIVE! River erosion washes away over 35 percent of Assam’s agricultural land

Flood-like situation in northern areas of Karnataka

Van Gujjar tribe plans annual tree plantation drive to keep forests green

‘Only Hydro Projects Can Feed India’s 24×7 Power Needs’

The post Uttarakhand lost over 50,000 hectares of forest land since 1991: MoEF data appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The lockdown is being used creatively to not only reap minor forest produce but to also benefit marginalised small gatherers and farmers.

In the rural areas of Chhattisgarh, the collection of minor forest produce (MFP) like mahua, tamarind and tendu leaves is on amidst the lockdown.

Ananda Babu, additional managing director at the Chhattisgarh Minor Forest Produce Federation, said that with the contraints of the lock down, the state government has put more emphasis on MFP collection, especially that of tamarind. “Initially, there was a huge survey where women’s self-help groups (SHGs) were identified for MFP collection. We thought this is the proper time to play a greater role and help poor, marginalised gatherers.”

There are some 18 MFPs traded in the state. The state government wants to increase the processing rate of MFPs as well. About 139 primary processing centres have been identified so far.

According to Kaushalendra Kumar, additional principal chief conservator of forests (monitoring and evaluation), apart from collection, hand sanitisers made from mahua flowers are also being popularised at present. As this is the mahua season, the product was launched last week. As there is a high demand for sanitisers, we decided to make it from a minor forest produce popular in this region, Kumar explained.

Procurement in villages

As of now, all haat bazaars (rural markets) are closed, yet procurement is on in the villages, according to the state government’s guidelines. Babu said 51,000 quintals of tamarind has been procured till now worth Rs 15.80 crore. Apart from procurement, cold storages have been identified as tamarind has to be stored quickly after collection.

Sundeep Balaga, the divisional forest officer of Dantewada, said earlier gatherers used to come to the village markets to sell their produce. “But this time, we activated the SHGs so that they can buy at the village level, following a government directive. These groups were directed to buy the produce at the government’s fixed rates. For tamarind, the MSP is Rs 31 per kg and the market rate is almost at par this year,” Balaga added.

Though the SHGs were formed much before the lockdown started, they were not active. They were engaged in nutrition programmes and other activities. About 1,000 such groups have been formed in the district out of which 60 are working on collection of MFP. Gradually, they are getting activated.

According to Balaga, as these SHGs have been activated, villagers have benefitted without even stepping outside. “Each village has a SHG. We are helping the groups in bringing the collected produce to cold storages at an interval of two to three days. The tribal economy solely depends on MFPs.” Till now, 10,000 quintals of tamarind has been collected in Dantewada.

Manivasagan, the divisional forest officer of Keshkal division of Kondagaon district, said in rural haats, the rates are really low. Normally, tamarind is sold at as low as Rs 20 per kg in these markets whereas we are offering Rs 31 per kg.

“In every village, the SHG is active. With SHGs buying the produce, traders are at a disadvantage. Now, they have to offer the same rate and are even compelled to move inside the villages. So, these groups have been empowered,” Manivasagan added.

“In my division, till now almost 6,800 quintals of tamarind has been procured. We have private cold storages as the government storage facility is far away. Tamarind must be kept quickly or else it gets blackened,” the DFO of Keshkal added.

Babu informed that the federation trained some 450 people and finalised 850 places which have good potential for MFP collection. “We feel that women’s groups are sincere and honest. More than 60,000 women are involved at the village level, at the haat bazaar level and finally at the primary processing centre level.” He added even though we cannot assemble many people for collection due to social distancing norms, tamarind collection will pick up even more eventually. Cold storage movement hardly covers 20 km and is thus safe.

“Earlier, the response was not good. Before Covid-19 happened, Rs 35-37 per kg was the local rate for tamarind and our MSP stood at Rs 31 per kg. We initially got 2,000 quintals. People did not know much. Meanwhile, the lockdown happened, the haats closed, and we thought that this is the time to play a vital role,” Babu told Sabrang-India.

Stylo Mandavi, the divisional forest officer of Bastar division, said that the overall collection of tamarind is 8,090 quintals. Overall, the collection of MFP is 9,207 quintals. Some 19,700 women are involved in the Bastar division.

Mahua collection

Gathering of mahua flowers is an integral part of Bastar’s culture. Even though the mahua collection season has started, the trade does not have the desired volume. Most villagers keep mahua for consumption in homes and for preparing liquor, unlike tamarind, which is sold off quickly.

The mahua MSP initially stood at Rs 17. “But because of the success of tamarind, a few people felt that prices should be hiked for mahua too. Now, it is Rs 30 per kg for mahua,” Babu said.

Uttam Gupta, the divisional forest officer of Kondagaon, said 165 SHGs have been selected for collection at homes. They were formed as part of the National Rural Livelihoods Mission. When the lockdown started, we planned door-to-door collection. But the mahua trade is still low. Till now, 150 quintals have been collected so far.

Related:

1. Ground Report Assam: Covid-19 leads to mass starvation as water-starved farm lands run dry
2. Food prices surge, farm sector suffers as supply and transportation hit amid Covid-19
 

The post Lockdown benefits! SHGs involved in MFP collection: Chhattisgarh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Hindustan Times

In their letter, the protestors demanded that no mining project be allowed to proceed in the region, that land acquisition in the villages of Salhi, Hariharpur and Fathepur in the Parsa coal block be stopped, and that the forest clearance given to the project by Union Ministry Of Environment, Forest And Climate Change be cancelled.The protestors also demanded that the government must cancel the developer-cum-operator agreement as to the Paturia and Gidhmuri coal blockbetween the Chhattisgarh Power Generation Company (the contractor to which these areas have been allotted) and theAdani group.

The Forest

The Hasdeo Arand Coal field is spread over North Korba, south Surguja and Surajpur districts. At 170,000 hectares,Hasdeo Arand is one of the largest contiguous stretches of dense forest in central India.It is one of the largest contiguous forest areas in Central India outside of the protected area system. The catchment area of the Hasdeo Bango barrage irrigates 4 lakh hectares of prime agricultural land. The forest is extremely rich in bio-diversity reporting the presence of several endangered species. It is also part of a large elephant corridor stretching from supporting the migration of wild elephants from Gumla district in Jharkhand to Korba district of Chhattisgarh.

The Conflict

In 2010, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had declared the region a ‘no-go area’ for mining, meaning that the coalfield areas would never be opened to miners.A 2014 HABSS Report quotes the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC)which was setup in relation to Tara, Parsa, Parsa East &Kete Basan (PEKB) coal-fields in the Hasdeo Arandregion.On inspecting the forest land in Hasdeo-Arand coalfields, in a December 2009 statement, the FAC noted,“the major part of forest area is unsuitable for coal mining due to its high ecological and forest value and no fresh approvals should be granted to the blocks except the two ongoing mines.”

However, in June 2011, the Ministry granted forest clearance toTara and PEKB –three blocks within the area.The Hindu reported that the Environmental Minister of the time,Jairam Ramesh, had said this approval was contingent on the Chhattisgarh government not coming up with fresh applications for opening up the main Hasdeo Arand area, and on full compliance with the Forest Rights Act, which means that any dwellers in the area must have their forest land rights settled, and accept the mining projects.Jai nandan Singh Porte, a local tribal activist, said in 2017 that residents of the villages destroyed by the PEKB mine they have still not been rehabilitated properly in five years.

In 2015,twenty Gram Sabhas of Hasdeo Arand had passed a unanimous resolution to oppose all future auction/allotment of coal blocks and mining, and submitted it to the then chief minister and prime minister.They had raised concerns regarding the loss of their forest-based livelihoods, displacement, pending forest right claims and damage to local water bodies as a result of mining operations.

On March 21, 2019, the Union’s environment ministry gave environmental clearance for open cast coal mining in Parsa in Chhattisgarh’s dense HasdeoArand forests. This project required removing all the vegetation and soil from the area before they can begin digging for coal.

What’s At Stake

The Wire reported thatsince the diversion of forest lands for the various coal mines in the area, according to submitted proposals, would amount to 7,730.774 hectares, it would be nearly impossible to remediate the resultant loss from all the tree felling in the area.

Since the mining work started on the approved coal blocks, it has affected the migratory route of theelephants in the area and has resulted in an increase in the number of human-elephant conflicts in the region, to the detriment of the residents of Hasdeo Arand. Interestingly enough, the area had earlier been proposed for an elephant reserve, which would have prevented its use as a mining site, but the proposal never actually been notified by the state government. If these proposals are granted, the conflict will only increase.

Quartz reported that during the mine’s 34-year life span, around 3,70,000 trees will be felled. The damage caused to the region’s bio diversity as well as Hasdeo Arand’s tribal population will be irreparable.
 

The post When Trees Fall In The Chhattisgarh Forest, 20 Villages Make A Sound appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Odisha Wildlife Under Serious Threat as State ‘Celebrates’ Wildlife Week appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is a policy move and development that has sent tremours down environmental human rights activists. The conservation/ no-mining zone in Saranda and Chaibasa in West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand may be opened for iron ore mining. The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) has decided to form a committee to explore the prospect of opening up these zones.

The Saranda forests in the hilly regions of West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand are dense forests that stretch over an area of 82,000 ha. These forests were one of the most pristine in India, and are the largest Sal forests in the country. They support a large variety of floral and faunal biodiversity, and are an important elephant corridor. An expert panel appointed by the Government of India in 2011, identified 480 new species of fauna and flora in the region. The core area of these forests are also ancestral home to about 56 villages which are mostly composed of the Ho and MundaAdivasi communities. The 36,000 strong tribal communities have lived sustainably within the forests for centuries and have played a key role in the maintenance and protection of the forests.

The Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MSPM) which came into existence in June, 2018 may be amended for the purpose of opening up the no-mining zones. Earlier, there have already been a flurry of modifications made to the MPSM like merging Zone I and II mining areas, removal of the clause for Impact Assessment and scrapping of the role of the forest department in creating the mining plan. These modifications also opened up mineral blocks in the no-mining areas of Ankua and Chidia. In the MPSM, the allowing of the 13 mines in this area was dependent on the government. However, MoEF has deleted this clause to bring these under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR).

Reportedly, the Jharkhand Chief Secretary, DK Tiwari wrote to the MOEF&CC in March 2019 and had sought a reassessment study to open up the conservation zone for mining.

Tiwari wrote to CK Mishra saying, “The conservation zone is a repository to huge iron ore resources and so the stipulation in the MSPM report for complete ban on mining in conservation zone should be revisited”.

“The reassessment study requested by the state may be carried out by the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education with representation from Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, and Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad in the study team,” the MOEF&CC wrote to Tiwari.

Per Down to Earth, the Jharkhand Chief Minister, Raghubar Das also wrote to the ministry seeking permission for Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL). He had argued that MSPM has affected SAIL financially as it had made huge investments to mine that area. Based on this, “the CM has asked the ministry to dilute the MSPM,” a state official told Down to Earth on condition of anonymity.

The MPSM was finalised in June 2018, soon after, the state government wrote to the MoEF&CC requesting to amend the plan on August 14.
As per the MSPM, the Saranda forest was divided into three zones- mining zone I (approximately 10,670 hectares), mining zone II (approximately 2,161 ha) and conservation zone/no-mining zone (approximately 43,000 ha). The no-mining area has mining proposals from SAIL, JSW Group, Vedanta Ltd and others. 

A committee comprising MoEF&CC, Union Ministry of Mines, Union Ministry of Steel, Union Ministry of Coal and the Jharkhand government was created by MoEF&CC to look into modifications/ amendments to the MSPM. On February 4, the committee met and amended some provisions of the MSPM. It did away with the clause that mining zone II can only be accessed after the ores in mining zone I were exhausted. A detailed study was proposed by the state government. The purpose of the study was to undertake the reassessment of the biodiversity richness and ecosystem services rendered by the conservation area so as to extract iron ore to meet the future steel demands.

“Concern for SAIL is just a front, the state government wants to open up the no-go mining area because a major chunk of the good quality iron ore is just lying there,” the official said.

In 2014, the MoEF had stopped giving fresh mining clearances in the area after the Shah Commission report found major violation of the MMDR by the mining companies in the area. The MoEF had mandated that fresh lease would only be given after the MPSM had been created.  

The Justice M. B. Shah Commission submitted its ‘First Report on illegal mining of iron and manganese ores (four volumes) in the State of Jharkhand’ October 14, 2013. In its first report on illegal mining in Jharkhand, the Commission said that despite a delay in renewal of the mining licence by the Jharkhand Government, miners continued to exploit the area leased to them without fresh green approvals. The Commission hadfoundand highlighted illegal production in 26 iron and manganese ore leases. These leases include iron ore mines of, among others, Tata Steel, Steel Authority of India Ltd, Rungta Mines, Usha Martin, Rameshwar Jute Mills, and Singhbhum Minerals Co.

As a response, the MoEF&CC awarded the carrying capacitystudy in Saranda Forest Division to Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), Dehradun to suggest annual capacity for iron ore production. The ICFRE submitted its report on March 28, 2016, which was again examined by a committee constituted by the MoEFF&CC on April 4, 2016.Based on the committee’s recommendations the ICFRE report was accepted by the competent authority in the MoEF& CC. The ICFRE study was conducted to comply with the recommendations of Shah Commission of Enquiry.

Some of the observations included, “It was commented that IBM has approved mining schemes to increase production during the mining plan period without application of mind to the ingredient”

Further that, “For modification of mining plan, conditions mentioned in the Rules are required to be satisfied which was totally ignored and created multi fold environmental hazards to the Saranda Forest. The conditions have become more aggravated, since the mines are located in clusters and transport through common roads used by them. The roads cannot sustain this load and remain always in dilapidated conditions beyond repair, as observed by the Commission during its visit.”

In view of many such grave violations, the MPSM came up with an underlying principle “to divert minimum forest area for mining and producing maximum output depending upon the approved mining plan and Environment clearance (EC) under EP Act 1986”

The plan gave detailed outlines of forest area, conditions for sustainable mining etc.

However, the current BJP government in the state is all set to dilute many of these environment friendly provisions and make matters worse for one of the densest forests in India, a home to elephants and forest dwelling peoples.
 

The post Black clouds over Saranda: Centre set to open up 43000 ha of Jharkhand’s forests for mining appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A forest in Canada burns during the country’s 2014 wildfires. Stefan Doerr, Author provided

That wildfire season was the most severe on record in the region, which itself forms part of the wider boreal ecosystem that engulfs much of the Northern Hemisphere’s subarctic lands with coniferous forests shaped by fire.

Thanks in part to the carbon-hungry soils and peatlands they contain, they punch well above their weight as carbon sinks, covering 10% of the world’s land, but storing one-third of the land’s carbon.

According to a new study examining the impacts of Canada’s 2014 wildfires, that stored carbon is under threat. Wildfires are becoming so frequent and intense that they are already turning some boreal forest areas from carbon sinks into net emitters.

Most of the carbon in these ecosystems isn’t stored in the trees, but in the soils below. In the cold and often waterlogged boreal landscapes, organisms living in the soil aren’t able to “eat” dead organic matter that falls onto the forest floor as quickly as in warmer, dryer climates. This allows the soils to accumulate carbon over millennia, making boreal ecosystems some of the most important carbon sinks in the world.

Wildfires, mostly started naturally by lightning, interrupt this accumulation process by burning the trees and the top layer of this organic soil – the latter accounting on average for three times as much of the CO2 released during burning as from the trees themselves.

Cristina Santin inspecting burnt forest after Canada’s 2014 wildfires. Stefan Doerr, Author provided

As part of the natural carbon cycle, the lost carbon is stored again by new trees that use CO2 from the air to grow, as well as by the dead plants, leaves and branches that accumulate in the soil. It can take many decades until all the carbon that was emitted during a fire is recaptured by the ecosystem but – as long as the time between two fires is longer than the time required to recapture that lost carbon – boreal forests remain a carbon sink.

By sampling more than 200 locations, the new research found that more than a quarter of this Canadian forest burned in the 2014 fires was not more than 60 years old – much younger than the average historic time period between fires of one to two centuries in this region.

They used a clever carbon dating approach to show that, for around half of the area of this young forest burnt in 2014, the soil had lost more carbon in the 2014 fire than had accumulated since the previous fire in the 1960s. In other words, the interval between fires was so short that the fire also burned into organic layers that contained “legacy carbon” that was accumulated before the 1960s. Thus, half of the young forest soil had transformed from a carbon sink to a carbon source in this fire-recovery cycle.

Climate change is shortening the interval between fires in boreal regions, leaving less time for forests to regrow. It’s also increasing the intensity of individual fires, allowing them to burn deeper into the soil. These factors mean that more and more of an ecosystem on which we rely so much to remove carbon from the atmosphere could soon fall on the opposite side of the carbon ledger.

That’s true not just for North American boreal forests, but also the vast forests in Russia, China, and other sub-arctic regions covered by the sprawling ecosystem.

We’re currently studying boreal forests in little-researched north-eastern China, where worried forest managers are reporting decreased snow cover and burning of an intensity and extent they have not experienced before.

The team samples soil in China’s boreal peatland. Cristina Santin, Author provided

So what can we do to protect the boreal carbon sink? Given the vast size and remoteness of most boreal fires, comprehensive firefighting measures would require astronomical resources – as has been highlighted by Russian authorities in response to the extensive fires in Siberia this summer.

A better option would be to protect healthy peatlands and restore drained ones, as they can be very effective natural fire breaks – and if they do catch fire they recover carbon relatively fast.

But the reality is that we are powerless to substantially alter the effect of wildfires on the boreal forest system – other than by swiftly cutting our carbon emissions. It’s time for renewable energy to spread like wildfire.

Courtesy: The Conversation

The post Increasing wildfires threaten to turn Northern Hemisphere’s boreal forests from vital carbon stores into climate heaters appeared first on SabrangIndia.