Status and Challenges of Individual Forest Rights Titleholders (in context of Andhra Pradesh) Gargi Das Introduction: After independence several acts, laws and rules made by the state and the principle of eminent domain, came in to effect which were directly in clash with the traditional and customary rules of the tribal s and all these rules made them exploited. The Panchayat Extension to Schedule Areas Act (PESA) 1996 and The Schedule Tribe and Other Traditional Forest dwellers Forest Rights Recognition Act 2006 (generally known as FRA) were categorically enacted to recognise the tribal s traditional rights which they have been enjoying for generations.. The Act is being implemented since 2008 to correct the historic injustice done to forest-dwelling communities. These forest-dwelling communities were cultivating /occupying forest land and using forest produce since ages but had no tenurial security. Broadly speaking, this Act recognizes and vests individual forest-dwellers with forest rights to live in and cultivate forest land that was occupied before 13 December 2005 and grants community forest rights to manage, protect and regenerate the forest and to own and dispose minor forest products from forests where they had traditional access The Community Rights (CR) and the Community Forest Resource Rights (CFR) of the local communities have been legally recognized by the Forest Right Act, 2006. The Act recognizes and vests forest rights which include rights to the local communities to sustainably manage the forests, wildlife and biodiversity. It empowers Gram sabha to determine rights over the forests and to establish community governance over the forests. Unfortunately, in many states, the process of implementation of CR and CFR has been hindered due to several reasons which are the biggest challenge before the authorities, civil societies and above all, the communities. The rules were amended in 2012 to fill the gap in the policy as well as implementation process to ensure rights to tribals in true spirit. Although tribal s are entitled for bona fide forest lands by this Act but land alone cannot produce crops unless it is provided with sufficient nutrients, water, or treated properly. Previously, the forest dwellers cultivated these lands by their own means, and were not eligible for any government support (irrigation facilities, seeds, and land development), that were available to revenue land as cultivation in forest land was considered as illegal. Now under the FRA, the forest title lands are eligible for all governmental supports. As per the recommendation from National advisory council, on Forest rights act in New Delhi, 2010 it was discussed that there is a need for post implementation support to title
holders and ensuring that they are integrated into all government schemes. The panelists and the representatives of the Ministry reiterated that rights holders should receive support from all government schemes after the process of recognition of rights is complete. Many State Action Plans covered aspects like linking forest rights holders to other schemes, such as Kisan Credit Cards (in the case of Madhya Pradesh), horticultural schemes, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) etc. As per the report of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, as on 31 st January 2015, extent of forest land for which titles were distributed is 75, 95,088 acres, across the country for 15,62,453 titles. Out of this approximately 30, 82,105 1 acres is recognised as individual rights and the rest as community titles. This paper looks into the measures proposed to develop the lands under IFR titles after the recognition of rights under FRA and looks into the state of affairs with the IFR title holders in the ground in the state of Andhra Pradesh, in the light of the measures taken up by the Government of India and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) to improve the overall status and living standards of the IFR title holders. Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) and the FRA As the nodal agency for the implementation of the Forest Rights Act, the MOTA issues guidelines to states regularly. As per the suggestions of the National Advisory Committee on FRA, the MOTA facilitated a discussion with representatives of all states in 2010, where it was decided to provide post implementation support to title holders and ensure that they are integrated into all government schemes. Further, in the amended Rules of FRA notified in September 2012, one rule 16 was inserted emphasising on the need to bring in convergence of schemes for the benefit of the title holders. The rule reads as 16. Post Claim support and handholding to holders of rights: The State Government shall ensure through its departments especially tribal and social welfare, environment and forest, revenue, rural development, panchayat raj and other departments relevant to upliftment of forest dwelling scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, that all government schemes including those relating to land improvement, land productivity, basic amenities and other livelihood measures are provided to such claimants and communities whose rights have been recognized and vested under the Act. IFR title lands in Andhra Pradesh As per Government records, 81800 IFR titles were issued across the state of Andhra Pradesh for an extent of 170731acres. Of the 13 districts, Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam districts recorded maximum titles. As such, CPF conducted a field study during November 2014 and February 2015 in Srikakulam and Visakhapatnam districts (Table -1), to understand the field 1 Some states have not given separate figures for individual and community rights and as such the above figure has been arrived at as an approximate value.
situation with regard to convergence of different schemes for the development of IFR title lands. Table 1: Status of IFR in Andhra Pradesh: Source -Tribal welfare department, AP State/Districts Total IFR as per Government records Extent of land in acres Andhra Pradesh 81800 170731 Srikakulam 15823 32074 Vishakhapatnam 28808 54061 1002 IFR title holders (2.2% of the total) were surveyed out of 44631 title holders from both the districts (Table 2). Table 2: Sample size of the study Districts Total IFR recognized in the district as per ITDA records Extent of land recognized (in acres ) No of IFR title holders surveyed for the study Extent of land in acres Srikakulam 15823 32074 351 796.77 Vishakhapatnam 28808 54061 651 1196.32 Total 44631 86135 1002 1993.1
Table 3 and 4: Details of villages surveyed 2 : List of villages surveyed in Srikakulam Mandal Village No of IFR Title holders in the village Seethampeta Manapuram 66 Kottakota 55 Titukupaiguda 45 Kusumuru 65 Ambalagandi 46 Palkonda Voni 34 Srikonda 40 Total 351 List of villages surveyed in Vishakhapatnam Mandal Village No of IFR title holders in the village Paderu Ramulaputtu 50 Geddamputtu 70 Tumpada 79 Panasapalli 55 Gurupalli 37 Chintada 36 Dalimputtu 30 Veesamamidi 22 Kotlagaruvu 25 Bheemasingi 25 Gabbangi 31 Madugula banaveedhi 10 goppulapalem 42 Koyyuru Gamakonda 14 2 Sampling Method The sampling method adopted was Multiphase Sampling. In the first phase of selection, Districts were selected taking help from secondary sources of Individual Forest Rights (IFR) database held with Tribal welfare department. Mandals which show more number of IFR title holders were shortlisted and in second stage, number of villages taken as sample from each mandal is equal to five percent of total number of villages in each mandal. Further the villages were selected based on secondary data sources and from experience of field staff. Secondary data helped in assessing the work done in villages under various land development activities. Total 27 villages were selected which constituted the final sample of the study. In Srikakulam 7 villages are surveyed out of which 5 villages with 277 Title holders were getting support and guidance from a NGO and Similarly in VSKP 20 villages are surveyed where 11 villages with 460 title holders were getting guidance from NGO and 9 villages with 191 title holders didn t have any NGO presence.
Battapanukulu 21 Kamparegulu 13 Nadimipalem 24 Cheedikada Konam 46 rellakapalem 11 Cherukubilli 10 Total 651 Key Findings 1. Land utilization pattern - In Srikakulam district, 79 percent of land is under cashew plantation and 20.7 percent is into agriculture. Kottakota, Titukupaiguda, Ambalagandi and Kusumuru are the villages where all the title land is under cashew plantation, whereas in Visakhapatnam district, 100 percent of IFR land is under agricultural practices. 2. Land under convergence: Only 28.8 percent of total numbers of IFR land are under convergence. The convergence is mostly under MGNREGA (13.3%), Cashew rejuvenation programme (9.5), and irrigation facilities under APMIP (Andhra Pradesh micro irrigation project) and Indira Jala Prabha. It is noted that the convergence is more in Srikakulam districts i.e.39.8 percent (of the sample households) whereas it is only 22 percent (of the sample households) in Visakhapatnam. 3. Irrigation: Most of the farmers cited irrigation as the major obstruction in doing agriculture on Forest land. In the survey it was clear that it is the water shortage problem that acts as a hindrance in agriculture. Only 10 percent of the sample title holders land is under irrigation. In Srikakulam, there is almost no irrigation facility for IFR lands, it s a sloppy region and fully dependent on rain. Only 0.85 percent of total numbers of IFR title land under study is under irrigation from a natural flowing stream. It is therefore important that irrigation related schemes such as IJP (Indira Jal Prabha) and APMIP (Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project) get in convergence with IFR lands to get the farmer out of despair. 8 locations under the study were surveyed for IJP in 2014 Sep- Nov. But nothing has happened after that. It can be noted that water availability is the grave concern as respondents do not have any watering facility. During the interaction, ITDA PO, Seethampeta, informed that IFR title holders in the district are getting benefitted under plantation programme. Agriculture can be promoted but irrigation is major problem in the region. Government is also
providing support through MGNREGA and recently; they are planning to support IFR farmers under Neeru - chettu scheme In Vishakhapatnam it s mostly the rain fed agriculture, a few of the farmers i.e. 54 IFR title lands gets irrigated with bore well.43 IFR lands gets water from other natural sources i.e. streams in some places. IJP survey was done for 23 locations last year but none of them has got sanctioned yet. And there is no financial support for maintenance of the bore wells. 4. Land development activities: For years Forest dwellers have been living in the depths of inaccessible forest. Only providing land to them is not a constructive solution. They require complete handholding for converting the physical asset into a profitable asset. It is therefore required the land asset to getting converged with MGNREGA that ensures the provision of land development activities on IFR lands. 22.9 percent of the IFR land has undergone land development activities in the both the districts. In Srikakulam, it is 37.3 percent and in Visakhapatnam only 15.2 percent of land has got developed. Among the ones who received support for land development activities, 15% of them expressed that the work assigned is not the one they asked for.the major land development activities include pruning, Pits for horticulture plantation, stone removal, trenches, stone packing, stone bonding etc. Seven sample villages from vishakhapatnam,i.e. panasapalli Dalimputtu,Veesamamidi, Kotlagaruvu, gabbanggi, kamparegulla and 3 villages from Srikakulam, i.e. Ambalagandi, kottaguda mannapuram are such villages where no IFR title holder farmer got any such activity converged with their IFR lands. During interaction Program Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Authority, Paderu asserted that the first priority of ITDA is to work on IFR land. Activities like Land leveling, Boundary trenches, boulder removal, stone bunding, stump removal and small water ponds are currently undertaken on IFR land under MGNREGA program. Plantation such as Teak and coffee plant is provided along with maintenance cost. But there is a complete failure on account of lack of awareness and motivation among farmers. PO is not much aware about other schemes that can be brought in convergence with the IFR lands. He emphasized mostly on MGNRGA, Plantation and few irrigation schemes. Land development activity in Srikakulam is provided mostly under cashew rejuvenation programme and is not available for land under normal agriculture. Here is a need to expand the services and reach out to a few villages which are still not covered under MGNREGA scheme. In Vishakhapatnam, the MGNREGA work for land development is available in places where the community demand and their voice is loud and any hand holding support is there from NGO, whereas in other parts the MGNREGA work is very insignificant. 5. Linkages with Financial institutions: Before Forest Rights act when forest dwellers did not have any legitimate rights on their agricultural land, they used to suffer a lot while arranging for finances. It was believed that people have gained strength in mobilizing finances after possessing land titles but in reality even less than one
percent of title holders of the sample respondents have access to financial support from the banks. It is required to scale up the financial inclusion process and reach out to more number of people..mostly such farmers are large farmers with revenue lands as well. Farmers who did not get loan, claim that Bank does not consider forest patta for giving loans and it gives loans only on revenue lands and not on forest lands. This leads one to think that it is the discretion of a particular Bank if they wish to give loans on IFR lands or not. When interacted with the bank manager he said that, they provide loans only to the large farmers who have the potentials to repay the loan amount in due time. He asserted that Bank has no problem in giving loans to forest land holders as long as borrowers keep repaying the loan and the bank is not willing to take risk as the Forest land that does not even belong to them. 6. Status of monitoring and support: It was observed that although there was support in terms of land development from the Government but there is no facilitation of handholding and capacity building of the farmers for effective plantation activities or agricultural activities. In Srikakulam farmer use their own traditional practice in cashew plantation. Case Study While working with tribal community handholding support is the backbone of any project and can only be thought to be withdrawn once it reaches the stage of self sustainability. It is seen that the villages where Hand holding support from KVK through training programmes, arranged by local NGO, the yield of the plantation crops has increased in comparison to others. Thus there is a need for institutional building which is supposed to provide for constant hand holding support to the farmers. Ms, Arika Pagadalamma of Titukupaiguda village, Seethampeta Mandal, Srikakulam district is one among 45 IFR farmers, who have cashew plantation in FRA land. Her land is under cashew plantation since 2000. In 2012, her land was brought under convergence with ITDA cashew rejuvenation programme. She was given training on preparation of pits, spacing (distance between two trees) and pruning techniques, methods of organic fertilizers, manure, and sustainable harvesting techniques by KVK, facilitated by a local NGO. In 2012-13, in one acre of land she has 107 trees, which yielded 223.55 kg of cashew, giving income of Rs 13, 413. In following financial year the yield increased to 323 kg for same no of trees giving an income of Rs 22,610. The average yield per tree was 2.09 kg in the year 2012-13 and 3 kg in the year 2013-14. Whereas for other farmers, where they didn t receive any technical and hand holding support the yield ranges from 1 kg - 1.3 kg. It was seen that because of handholding support from the Government institution and NGO there is increase in income level. Table: Difference in yield per tree in IFR land with convergence and without convergence.
Discussion - The action taken by the State Government on the National Advisory Committee s recommendations which were reiterated in the amended rules of FRA of 2012 were reviewed hereunder:
Recommendation of national advisory committee on FRA in 2010 Develop the forest lands granted under FRA so that such lands are utilized to the optimum level of production. Status and remarks from the State officials of Andhra pradesh In Andhra Pradesh the MNREGS land development work is available for IFR title holders, i.e. 28 percent (of the study sample). Support to irrigation facility is available to 12 percent (of the study sample). Although land development and irrigation facilities are available to the title holders, it needs to reach all the title holders. Convergence of various developmental schemes operating in the areas of education, training, health, employment The vocational training should be provided on priority basis to the right holder and their family members. In Andhra Pradesh, under the convergence of developmental schemes, no specific work has been done in areas of education; training and health.employment under MNREGS has been linked to the IFR title holders. The tribal commissioner responded that because of state bifurcation and settlement of new capital, they couldn t focus on implementation of FRA. Now they will first of all try to settle all pending IFR claims and then proceed for convergence. Put in place such monitoring system both at the district as well as State level so as to deliver all proposed services to the right holders speedily and smoothly Till date, the state governments have not issued any circulars 3 to field officials for convergence or vocational training. Neither anything has proceeded to set up a monitoring system 3 Though a GO (No 57 dt. 01-03-2014) issued by the General Administration department mentioned that the responsibility of FRA implementation is of the PO - ITDA, points specific to convergence, support and monitoring have not been included in that
Conclusion After looking into the FRA implementation and guidelines issued, the status of support being offered at the ground level and the case of tribal agriculture in general the study concluded that, the needs and priorities of tribal communities are not a main concern to the policy makers or the field level implementing agencies. Only issue of titles will not help the tile holders unless there is regular and focused support to them to make best possible utilization of the land. It is observed that complete handholding and constant monitoring is required at every successive stage for achieving the desired results. The support has started seeping down at the community level but if not that support is accompanied by monitoring and handholding, the actual benefits will not reach to the tribal s. and other places where there is less or no convergence of related Government schemes with IFR title holders, it is necessary that Government or locally based NGOs should take learning from other areas and be proactive in facilitating the process of convergence. Recommendations There should be awareness among the implementing agency about the convergence that can be taken up at IFR lands. Convergence activities should be local specific instead of being generic. Constant handholding and monitoring support should be provided to IFR land holders. Accessing credit should be made convenient for IFR title holders. Awareness and capacity building programmes should take place among the community to know and avail the government schemes. Monitoring mechanism should be in place to pursue post title follow up. Acknowledgements The author express their deep sense of gratitude to Dr D. Suryakumari for her guidance and support through out the study and report documentation.