Upload
roderick-junior-gordon
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Realisation of Community Rights under FRA in Madhya
Pradesh and Chhattisgarh
Challenges and Ways Forward
Objectives • Ascertain whether the implementation of the Act is according to
its spirit (in case of Forest Community Rights).
• Ascertain the validity of the reasons of rejection of applications of Forest Community Rights.
• Reasons if some of the eligible (if there) candidates or groups could not claim / get the ownership rights even after making an application.
• Identify the potential claims which can still be made.
• Identify other bottlenecks (procedural, structural, capacities) in the implementation of the Act.
• Provide recommendations on the shortcomings.
• Document the best practices in granting the Forest Community Rights.
Methodology
• 10 Districts ( 6 from MP and 4 from CG)
• Selected on the basis of – ST population
• High – >40%, Med -20 to 40%, Low - <20%
– Number of community claims made till November 2009 and
• High > 150claims, Med -50-150claims, Low-<50 claims
– The existence of area of National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary
Selected Districts - MP
Selected Districts - CG
Study Area
• 2 blocks with highest number of community claim
• 12 villages from each block (1 where community claim was made and 1 where community claim was not made from each of below categories)– High Tribal Population (>60%)– Low Tribal Population (<20%)– Near Block HQ (Within 10 – 15 Kms)– Far from Block HQ (>40 Kms)– Near Forest (<10 Kms)– Far from forest (>20 Kms)
Sample of Respondents
Respondent Category Target Sample in One Unit
MP CG Total
Community Members 10 (Each Village) 720 480 1200
FRC Members 5 (Each Village) 360 240 600
Panchayat Secretary 1 (Each Village) 72 48 120
Official Who Conducted Gram Sabha 1 (Each Village) 72 48 120
SDLC Members (Non – Official) 3 (Each Sub-division) 36 24 60
SDLC Members (Officials) 3 (Each Sub-division) 36 24 60
DLC Members (Non-official) 3 (Each District) 18 12 30
DLC Members (Official) 3 (Each District) 18 12 30
State Level Officials (Tribal) 2 (Each State) 2 2 4
State Level Officials (Forest) 2 (Each State) 2 2 4
State Level Officials (Revenue) 2 (Each State) 2 2 4
Methods Used
• Semi structured questionnaire
• Focused Group Discussions
• Participatory Appraisals
• Interviews with stakeholders
• Case Studies
Achievements • MP and CG have been better in implementation of FRA• GoI has named MP as the leading state in overall
implementation of the Act• Initiatives by MP• State level software monitoring systems
– Claims forms are being accepted even without a caste certificate– 8 lakh copies of claims forms sent to gram sabhas free of cost– Quick verification of claims, comprising of officers from the
Forest and Revenue departments– Training on the FRA was imparted to master trainers and
members of the survey teams through video conferencing– PDA for mapping the asset
Achievements
• Community Claims Sanctioned (till Dec 2009)– Madhya Pradesh : 2556– Chhattisgarh : 287
Defining Community Assets
• As per the definition of the Act• Based on the purpose of use
– Places of worship – Khirkai – Forest for Nistar – Collection of minor forest produce – Use of water structures – Quarries – Funeral/burial grounds – Connecting Roads and approach roads – Community halls and government infrastructure
Unmet Demand for Community Assets
Potential Vs Claimed Community Assets
80 120 61 111 145 250 220 175
48 37 8 35 29 31 25 45
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Ch
ha
ttis
ga
rh
Ma
dh
yaP
rad
esh
Ch
ha
ttis
ga
rh
Ma
dh
yaP
rad
esh
Ch
ha
ttis
ga
rh
Ma
dh
yaP
rad
esh
Ch
ha
ttis
ga
rh
Ma
dh
yaP
rad
esh
Infrastructure Livelihood Nistar Religious/Cultural
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Potential Claimed
Community Assets Claimed
Types of Community Assets Claimed - CG
Infrastructure, 43.6
Livelihood, 7.3Nistar, 26.4
Religious/ Cultural, 22.7
Community Assets Claimed
Types of Assets Claimed - MP
Infrastructure, 25.0
Livelihood, 23.6Nistar, 20.9
Religious/ Cultural, 30.4
Sanctioned Claims in Sample Villages
District Community Claims
Claims received
Sanctioned Claims
% sanctioned
Chhattisgarh
Bastar 56 56 100
Koriya 25 25 100
Bilaspur 28 28 100
Rajnandgaon 8 2 25
Total - CG 117 111 95
Sanctioned Claims in Sample Villages
District Community Claims in Sample villages
Claims received
Sanctioned Claims
% sanctioned
Madhya Pradesh
Dhar 32 32 100
Khandwa 15 6 40
Mandla 4 0 0
Umaria 16 16 100
Sheopur 6 3 50
Sagar 34 19 56
Total – MP 107 76 71
Assets Claimed• Chhattisgarh,
– Large proportion for different types of infrastructure (43.6%) – 26.4% claims in Chhattisgarh were for nistar by the
community– Very few cases (7.3%) related to livelihood
• Madhya Pradesh – Appears balanced as far as the types of community claims
are concerned. – The largest proportions (30.4%) of claims are on places of
religious importance. – Claims for livelihood resources also have significant
proportion (23.6%).
Reasons for not claiming Community Assets
• Use of the asset was not prohibited ever, therefore no “felt-need” to apply under FRA- Individual claims were more important
• Extremely low knowledge of the community for claiming community rights
• Inappropriate information was provided to the community to claim only one or two assets under community rights.
• The evidence or proof in case of community claim was not clearly defined and explained
• Lack of clarity on the rightful users (ST alone or others as well)
Assets Claimed – MP and CG Combined
Assets category Rank on no. of hh depend on
per assetsNo of Assets
ClaimedNTFP/Forest Produce 1 26Market 2 1Pasture Land 3 8Road & Connectivity Related 4 12Water harvesting Structure 5 5Funeral Spot 6 15Play Ground 7 10Health Infrastructure 8 6Mines 9 14Other Infrastructure 10 4Temple/Worship Place 11 39Panchayat Building 12 7Community Building 13 24School Building 14 22Gothan 15 13Pond 16 34Nalla 17 1River 18 3Kirkai 19 2Anganwadi 20 11PDS Shop 21 1
Effectiveness on roles performed by different structures
• The implementation was handled by officials alone with practically no role played by the elected representatives. This resulted in very limited claims on community resources.
• The FRC were formed in accordance with the Act in most villages however the process of forming these committees was not democratic.
• Poor dissemination of information resulted in very few claims from the community.
• Lack of availability of the required documents like Wazib-ul-arz, nistar partrak, the map of the village etc. In absence of these documents, the process of verification could not be done properly.
Issues at Gram Sabha level
• Gram Sabhas were organised in a campaign mode lasting only a couple of hours
• Officials were not present in all the gram Sabhas• Lack of Availability of Documents
– Basic documents like revenue map, the forest maps, the voter list etc were not made available
• Lack of availability of forms was observed in the sampled villages
Processing the cases at the village Prior Information of 1st Gram Sabha to Community under
FRA
25
60
10
40 0
33
49
14
3 1 00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
No PriorInformation
One daybefore
Two daysbeofre
Three daysbefore
Four daysbefore
7 daysbefore
Days
Pers
en
tag
e o
f V
illag
es
Chhattisgarh Mahdya Pradesh
Attendance in 1st Gram Sabha
District Village Panchayat Block GS Date Attendance
Umaria Karhiya Guruvahi Manpur 15/4/08 9
Rajnandgaon Ghagra Gatapara Khairagarh 28/2/08 13
Sagar Nayakheda Kalraho Banda 18/8/09 15
Khandwa Hantia Hantia Khalva 29/1/08 16
Mandla Turur Pandiwada Nainpur 26/1/08 19
Sagar Dalpatpur Mahunajaat Khurai 27/1/08 28
Mandla Bargi Bargi Nainpur 26/1/08 32
Mandla Kodra Kodra Narayanganj 26/1/08 35
Khandwa Edhawadi Edhawadi Punasa 15/8/08 38
Rajnandgaon Devarsur Devarsur Chowki 25/2/09 39
Sagar Khajrabheda Khajrarbheda Banda 21/5/08 40
Rajnandgaon Kahgavn Kahvavan Manpur 23/5/08 40
Formation of FRCs
• FRCs were not constituted democratically as – Quorum for Gram Sabha could not be attained
• Panchayat Sachiv and the presiding officer often influenced the formation of the FRC
• In most of the villages Gram Sabha members were not sure about the members of the FRC
• FRCs formed hastily. In Chhattisgarh, JFM committees were converted as FRC in some villages
Issues with IEC • Material was produced in different languages, but
dissemination at the field level was poor• 1st gram Sabha was the only source of information
dissemination• Information gaps observed on
– Provisions of proof of ownership particularly for non-tribal families
– Meaning of community rights and entitlements associated with it
– Functions of village Forest Committee and other committees at block and district level
– Process of filing complaint in case of rejection of claims
Issues at Gram Sabha level
• Gathering of evidence– Lack of clarity of FRC and SDLC on evidences for
Community Claims– Only government documents were considered,
Statements from elderly community members and the Gram Sabha were not considered at all
• Verification of Claims– Due to lack of awareness of the FRC, they did not
play any role. The Sachiv led the process in most places
– The FRCs were not clear on their roles and responsibilities in verification
Attendance of Presiding officer in 1st Gram Sabha
• In more than 21% villages, no presiding officers were present
• In most places the Panchayat sachiv facilitated the first Gram Sabha
• In 53% studied villages, the first gram Sabha was presided over by officials from departments other than tribal/ forest/ revenue
• Officials could not give adequate time in the gram Sabha as the the officials had to attend several GS on the same date
Community Rights Claimed and Presense of Officials in the 1st Gram Sabha
38.5
48.4
90.0
55.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
No Official Present Officials only fromRevenue/Foredt/TribalWelfare Department
Officials from otherDepartments
Joint team of officials(Key dept and other
departments)
Per
cen
tag
e o
f vi
llag
es
Issues with Capacity Building
• Efforts of training was concentrated on Master Trainers level at State.
• The quality and duration of the training at district and SDLC level was lesser than required
• FRCs were not oriented at all in the studied villages
• Training at district and lower level was focused primarily on individual rights
Interdepartmental coordination
• The departments were of the view that FRA is applicable only on Forest Department land hence there was indifference by the other departments.
• Panchayat Sachiv played a major role but RD and Panchayat department was not engaged hence there was lack of coordination at the field level
• There was unclear role division among Tribal, Forest, Revenue or Rural development (Panchayat Secretary)
Key Findings
• The community claims are largely given as a supply side initiative rather than demand driven.
• Lack of awareness of the officials at district and below as well as the FRC for preparing community assets claims
• Significant gap between the claimed assets and the assets that community aspires to claim.
• The number of claims approved for infrastructure is high in the studied villages as compared to the needs.
Key recommendations
• Extension for time limit for claiming resources
• Design and organise large scale awareness drives
• The key documents like Wazib-Ul-Arz, Nistar Patrak, Revenue Map and Forest maps should be available at the Panchayat/FRA
• Intensive Capacity building of the stakeholders (particularly FRC and Government officials at district and below)
Key recommendations
• Long term planning and resource commitment on the claimed assets
• The resources of schemes like NREGS/ BRGF and Tribal Sub Plan needs to be converged with the benefits of FRA
• Develop demonstrable models where better livelihood conditions of the communities results in reduced dependence on forest resources
THANK YOU!