Letter to Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Our concerns about the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2005
To,
The Minister,
Ministry of Tribal Affairs
New Delhi
9th July 2005
Dear Sir,
Sub: Concerns re. the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2005
The Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2005 is lauded for finally providing recognition of rights of scheduled tribes. While we are highly appreciative of the fact that finally rights will be accorded to scheduled tribes and security of tenure will create a stake in conservation, we are concerned about many of the provisions lacking in clarity. The notes attached have listed out all our concerns but mainly:
a) While the process of recording rights was defined in the earlier draft of the Rules (which have not been included in the draft put up on the website), neither the Bill nor the said draft Rules laid out the process for the Gram Sabha to carry out its many responsibilities listed in the Bill. This weakness should be addressed so that the principle of rights and responsibilities going together is effectively upheld.
b) Words such as “unsustainability” have been used without being defined or articulating the responsibility for determining unsustainability.
c) A new category called “Community Forest Resource” has been created without being defined and assigning legality. This will create enormous conflicts regarding jurisdiction as most areas where rights of different kinds are granted would be in areas under Forest Department.
d) Most serious is the lack of clarity regarding which legislation applies to offences made by “right holders”. Many of the areas where the Bill will be applicable will also fall under the jurisdiction of the Forest Department, since the Forest Conservation Act, Indian Forest Act and the Wildlife Protection Act are also applicable to these areas. How do the responsibilities and penalties under this Act relate to the ones under FCA and WLPA? This lack of clarity will lead to chaos with loss to both forest dwellers and wildlife. Predictably such confusion can be misused by many to exploit forests in the name of tribal communities.
We would urge that these issues, elaborated in the two attached notes (Annexure 1 on general comments on the Bill and Annexure 2 on section wise specific comments), be dealt with in the final version of the Bill before placing it in Parliament. We would urge that the time for public discussion is extended and consultations amongst various sections of society are organised.
With regards
Ashish Kothari, Neema Pathak, and Shantha Bhushan
cc: The Prime Minister’s Office
Ministry of Environment and Forests
The Minister,
Ministry of Tribal Affairs
New Delhi
9th July 2005
Dear Sir,
Sub: Concerns re. the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2005
The Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2005 is lauded for finally providing recognition of rights of scheduled tribes. While we are highly appreciative of the fact that finally rights will be accorded to scheduled tribes and security of tenure will create a stake in conservation, we are concerned about many of the provisions lacking in clarity. The notes attached have listed out all our concerns but mainly:
a) While the process of recording rights was defined in the earlier draft of the Rules (which have not been included in the draft put up on the website), neither the Bill nor the said draft Rules laid out the process for the Gram Sabha to carry out its many responsibilities listed in the Bill. This weakness should be addressed so that the principle of rights and responsibilities going together is effectively upheld.
b) Words such as “unsustainability” have been used without being defined or articulating the responsibility for determining unsustainability.
c) A new category called “Community Forest Resource” has been created without being defined and assigning legality. This will create enormous conflicts regarding jurisdiction as most areas where rights of different kinds are granted would be in areas under Forest Department.
d) Most serious is the lack of clarity regarding which legislation applies to offences made by “right holders”. Many of the areas where the Bill will be applicable will also fall under the jurisdiction of the Forest Department, since the Forest Conservation Act, Indian Forest Act and the Wildlife Protection Act are also applicable to these areas. How do the responsibilities and penalties under this Act relate to the ones under FCA and WLPA? This lack of clarity will lead to chaos with loss to both forest dwellers and wildlife. Predictably such confusion can be misused by many to exploit forests in the name of tribal communities.
We would urge that these issues, elaborated in the two attached notes (Annexure 1 on general comments on the Bill and Annexure 2 on section wise specific comments), be dealt with in the final version of the Bill before placing it in Parliament. We would urge that the time for public discussion is extended and consultations amongst various sections of society are organised.
With regards
Ashish Kothari, Neema Pathak, and Shantha Bhushan
cc: The Prime Minister’s Office
Ministry of Environment and Forests
