Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Denial of Rights Continues: How Legislation for ‘Democratic Decentralisation’ of Forest Governance was Subverted in the Implementation Process of the Forest Rights Act in India

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The European Journal of Development Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is argued that, in the absence of legislation, the outcome of decentralisation initiatives in forestry remains limited in terms of devolution of power and assigning authority to politically weak forest-dependent communities are concerned. In this context, the ongoing implementation process of the Forest Rights Act provides an opportunity to examine the institutional arrangements for devolution of power and authority, and measures the extent to which this Act offers space for democratic and inclusive forest governance by the local people. Based on micro-level field work in parts of West Bengal, India, the paper argues that understanding roles of institutions under ‘democratic decentralisation’ framework is not enough for meaningful democratic decentralisation, particularly for forest resources. If democratic decentralisation of natural resources is to succeed, a variety of factors embedded in the institutions, like actor, power and accountability, is to be recognised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For details, see Kumar and Kerr (2012). They used the CSD as an illustration of a networked movement created by combining grassroots struggles of poor and marginalised people with flexible, open-ended networking across space and scale.

  2. As per Section 2(a) of the FRA, CFRs are “customary common forest land within the traditional or customary boundaries of the village… to which the villagers had traditional access”. In addition to rights to protect, conserve or manage community forest resources (CFRes), Section 5 empowers forest dwellers to protect wildlife, forest and biodiversity as well as catchment areas, water resources and other ecologically sensitive areas.

  3. CFRe 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, to which the community had traditional access” (Tatpati 2015).

  4. As per Section 2(g) of the Act, GS means a village assembly, which shall consist of all the adult members of a village … with full and unrestricted participation of women.

  5. (1) as defined in PESA comprising of a hamlet or a group of hamlets in schedule V areas; (2) as defined in any state law relating to Panchayats in non-scheduled V areas; (3) forest villages; and (4) the traditional village in cases of states where there are no Panchayats.

  6. Department of backward class welfare, Memo no. 672 (18)-BCW/GM (MC)—5/2006 (1) dated 10 March 2008, issued by Joint Secretary and P& RD Department Order no. 1220/PN/O/1/iA-2/07 dated 17 March 2008, issued by principal secretary.

  7. Gram Sansad is a body constituted with all the voters at GP level under the West Bengal Panchayat Act 1973. The GP may comprise several villages based on the size of the adult population.

  8. Interviewees were block development officers as well as officers in charge of the FRA at the sub-divisional level in West Midnapore, and Bankura.

  9. As per villagers’ responses and focus group discussion in the Banspahari, Belpahari and Simlipal GPs of the Binpur II block of West Midnapore, the Taldangra GP of the Taldangra block of Bankura, and the Ayodhya GP of the Baghmundi Block of the Purulia districts.

  10. As per discussions with the officers in charge of FRA implementation at the sub-divisional and district level in the study districts.

  11. Based on records of meeting of SDLCs in the study districts.

  12. Based on the leaflet entitled ‘Guidelines of FRA implementation and associated rules’ distributed by the district administration.

  13. Based on responses from ex-Panchayat functionaries of the Belpahari GP of the Binpur II block of West Midnapore and the Routera GP of the Ranibadh block of Bankura.

  14. Revitalisation of three tier Panchayat system and land reform were two most important agenda in the initial period of Left Front Government, but these programme hardly benefitted the populations of these regions (Chakrabarti 2012). Development programmes meant for tribals as well as the public distribution system in these areas failed during the last phase of Left Front rule due to high corruption. Lack of development and the state’s apathy provides fertile ground for revolt against government. The anger against the state was used by the Maoists who had been active in the Bankura, Midnapore and Purulia regions, bordering Jharkhand, during the initial period of FRA implementation and engaged tribals in their movement.

  15. The project is of 8 years duration, from 2012–2013 to 2019–2020. The programme is being implemented among 220 FPCs from 22 Divisional Management Units based on areas under JFMs, available plantation area, SC/ST population and distance from forest (Annual Report 2013–2014, Dept. of Forests, GoWB).

  16. Based on records of rights holders at the BCW department at block levels under study as well as responses from lower level implementing officials.

  17. Responses from officer in charge of the BCW department in the Binpur II block of West Midnapore, the Ranibandh block of Bankura, the Baghmundi block of Purulia district.

References

  • Agarwal, A., and J. Ribot. 1999. Accountability in decentralisation: A framework with South Asian and African cases. Journal of Developing Areas 33: 473–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. 1999. Decentralisation in Nepal: A comparative perspective. San Francisco: ICS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A., S. Ghosh, and O. Springate-Baginski. 2010. Obstructed access to forest justice in West Bengal: State violations in the mis-implementation of the Forest Rights Act 2006. IPPG Discussion paper series, August 2010.

  • Baviskar, A. 2004. Between micro-politics and administrative imperatives: Decentralisation and the Watershed Mission in Madhya Pradesh. European Journal of Development Research 16 (1): 26–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bera, S. 2013. Battle for Niyamguri: Results from India’s first referendum: 12 Nays, 0 Ayes. Down to Earth, 25 July 2013.

  • Berry, S. 1993. No condition is permanent: The social dynamics of Agrarian change in Sub Saharan Africa. Madison and London: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, S. 1997. Tomatoes, land and hearsay: property and history in Asante in the time of structural adjustment. World Development 25 (8): 1225–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, B. 2012. Contested Identity of Jangle Mahal Maoists: State hegemony, political theatre and the process alternative representation. The Eastern Anthropologist 65 (1): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleaver, F. 2000. Moral ecological rationality, institutions and the management of common property resources. Development and Change 31 (2): 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crook, R.C., and J. Manor. 1998. Democracy and decentralisation in south East Asia and West Africa: Participation, accountability and performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • CSD. 2010. Summary Report on Implementation of the Forest Rights Act. Delhi: Centre for Sustainable Development. http://www.forestrightsact.com/component/k2/item/15, Accessed on 5 April 2015.

  • Das, B.K. 2017. Forest Rights Act 2006 Implementation process: A comparison between West Bengal and Odisha. Kolkata: Tagore Centre for Human Development Studies and Institute of Development Studies Kolkata.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, T., and A. Kothari. 2014. Forest rights and conservation in India. In Rights and responsibilities, ed. H. Jonas, H. Jonas, and S.M. Subramanian. New York: Natural Justice and United Nations University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desor, S. 2013. Community forest rights under Forest Rights Act: Citizen’s Report 2013. New Delhi: Kalpavriksh and Vasundhara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds, D., and E. Wollenberg (eds.). 2003. Local forest management: The impact of devolution policies. London: Earthscan Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • GOI. 2006. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, No. 2 of 2007. The Gazette of India; Government of India, New Delhi.

  • Hickey, S., and G. Mohan. 2005. Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring New approaches to Participation in Development. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha, S. 2010. Process betrays the spirit: Forest Rights Act in Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly 45 (33): 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, S. 2003. Deep in the woods. New Delhi: Down To Earth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jena, M. 2010. Law on Forest Rights Fails to Deliver. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50652, Accessed on 21 September 2015.

  • Jain, S. 2006. ‘Green Light for Tribal Bill Changes’, Indian Express, December 3.

  • Kashwan, P. 2013. The politics of rights based approaches in conservation. Land Use Policy 31: 613–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klooster, D. 2000. Institutional choice, community and struggle: A case study of forest co management in Mexico. World Development 28 (1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, K., N.M. Singh, and Y.G. Rao. 2017. Promise and performance of the forest rights act: A ten year review. Economic and Political Weekly 52: 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, K., and J.M. Kerr. 2012. Democratic Assertions: The making of India’s recognition of forest rights Act. Development and Change 43 (3): 751–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, K., N.M. Singh, and J.M. Kerr. 2015. Decentralisation and democratic forest reforms in India: Moving to a right based approach. Forest Policy and Economics 51: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, A.M., and J.C. Ribot. 2004. Democratic decentralisation through natural resource lens: Countering central resistance, fostering local demand. European Journal of Development Research 16 (1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, A. 2003. Decentralisation and forest management in Latin America: Towards a working model? Public Administration and Development 23: 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, M., R. Mearns, and I. Scoones. 1999. Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and institutions in community based natural resource management. World Development 27 (2): 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahapatra, R., K.S. Srivastava, S. Narayanan, and A. Pallavi. 2010. How government subverting forest rights act. New Delhi: Down to Earth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meynen, W., and M. Dornbos. 2004. Decentralizing natural resource management: A recipe for sustainability and Equity. European Journal of Development Research 16 (1): 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosse, D. 1997. The symbolic making of common property resource: History, ecology and locality in a tank irrigated landscape in south India. Development and Change 28 (3): 467–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muherezza, F.E. 2003. Environmental decentralisation and the management of forest resources in Masindi district, Uganda. Environmental governance in Africa, Working paper no 8.Washington: Institutions and Governance programme, World Resource Institute.

  • Munster, U., and S. Vishnudas. 2012. In the Jungle of Law: Adivasi rights and implementation of forest rights act in Kerala. Economic and Political Weekly 47 (19): 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Planning Commission. 2011. Report of sub group I on Forestry in Forests and Sustainable Management of natural resources. Report of the Working for the Twelfth Five Year plan (2012–2017). New Delhi.

  • Pratap, D. 2010. Community participation and forest policies in India: An overview. Social Change 40 (3): 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramdas, S.R. 2009. Women, forest spaces and the Law: Transgressing the boundaries. Economic and Political Weekly 44: 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramnath, M. 2008. Surviving the Forest rights Act: Between Scylla and Charybdis. Economic and Political Weekly 43: 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, G.M., A.K. Kumar, P.T. Rao, and O. Springate-Baginski. 2011. Issues related to Implementation of the Forest rights Act in Andhra Pradesh. Economic and Political Weekly 46 (18): 73–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot, J.C., A. Agarwal, and A. Larson. 2006. Recentralising while decentralising: How national re-appropriate forest resources. World Development 34: 1864–1886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribot, J.C. 2002. Democratic decentralisation of natural resources. Washington DC: World Resource Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rights and Resources Initiative. 2015. Potential for recognition of Community forest resource rights under India’s Forest Rights Act: A preliminary assessment. RRI, Vasundhara and Natural Resources Management Consultants.

  • Sahu, G., T. Dash, and S. Dubey. 2017. Political economy of community forest rights. Economic and Political Weekly 52: 44–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, M. 2016. Retrieving Ancestral rights: The making of the forest rights act. In First citizens: Studies on Adivashis, tribals and indigenous peoples of India. M. Radhakrishna (ed.), New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, M., and Springate-Baginski (2010) India’s Forest Rights Act: The anatomy of a necessary but not sufficient institutional reform, IPPG Discussion papers, No 45.

  • Sarin, M., N. Singh, N. Sundar, and R. Bhogal. 2003. Devolution as a threat to democratic decision making in forestry ?Findings from three States of India. London: Overseas Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sathyapalan, J. 2010. Implementation of the forest rights act in the western ghats region of Kerala. Economic and Political Weekly 45 (30): 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satpathy, B. 2017. Forest rights act implementation in Odisha: Redressing historical injustices. South Asia Research 37 (3): 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springate-Baginski, O., and P.M. Blaikie (eds.). 2007. Forests, people and power: The political ecology of reform in South Asia. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundar, N. 2011. The rule of law and the rule of property: Law struggle and the liberal state of India. In The state of India after liberalisation: Interdisciplinary perspective, ed. A. Gupta and K. Sivaramakrishnan. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatpati, M. (ed.). 2015. Citizen’s report 2015: Community forest rights under the Forest Rights Act. Kaplavriksh and Vasundhara: Pune & Bhubeneswar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thakur, P. 2007. After IRS, now forest service questions elite status of IAS, The Times of India. April 27. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-04-20/india/278747571ias-officers-indian-forest-service-ifs-officers.

  • TTF. 2005. Joining the dots, the report of the tiger task force. Government of India: Ministry of Environment & Forests.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasan, S. 2016. Shifting the Terrain of struggle: Critically evaluating the Forest Rights Act. In First citizens: Studies on adivasis, tribals and indigenous peoples in India, ed. M. Radhakrishna. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on the minor research project entitled “Understanding Implementation process of FRA 2006 in Odisha and West Bengal”, sponsored by the Rabindranath Tagore Centre for Human Development Studies, Kolkata. I would like to acknowledge the support of Professor Achin Chakraborty, Director, Institute of Development Studies Kolkata, and thank Basudev Banerjee for his research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Anthropology, Institute of Development Studies Kolkata, 27D, DD Block, Sector I, Kolkata, 700 064, India

    Bidhan Kanti Das

Authors
  1. Bidhan Kanti Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bidhan Kanti Das.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Das, B.K. Denial of Rights Continues: How Legislation for ‘Democratic Decentralisation’ of Forest Governance was Subverted in the Implementation Process of the Forest Rights Act in India. Eur J Dev Res 31, 957–983 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-019-0195-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-019-0195-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation