Ending Adivasi Eviction: Protecting the Forest by Protecting Land Rights
Ending Adivasi Eviction
Protecting the Forest by Protecting Land Rights
By Hailey Shapiro
On February 13, 2019, the Indian Supreme Court (SC) ruled that state governments needed to evict about one million forest households.[i] The SC’s decision comes in response to litigation from conservationists, who argue that forest dwellers disrupt environmental preservation efforts.[ii] Implementation of the SC’s ruling will transfer conservation management from local communities to the central state. In the process, many Adivasis—the blanket term for Indian indigenous people—will lose the land they depend on to sustain their livelihoods and cultures.[iii] While preserving the forest is necessary, evicting indigenous groups is not. The state can avoid the catastrophic consequences of eviction by protecting indigenous land rights and cooperating with the Adivasis to improve local conservation efforts.
Forest Rights Reforms: Evictions with Humanitarian Consequences
Adivasis’ land is central to their livelihood and culture.[iv] Adivasis produce about 50-80% of their food through forest cultivation, and gather non-timber forest products such as honey, leaves, and flowers.[v] To further support their communities, they sell or trade surplus forest resources. Indigenous groups rely on their land to maintain these livelihoods: the moist, high-quality soil supports their crops, and their animals feed on local plants. Adivasis often raise livestock and cultivate food in shared common areas so that the entire community can benefit from the forest’s natural resources.[vi] The forest is also religiously significant for the Adivasis: many communities worship sections of the forest as “sacred groves,” which they dedicate to deities or village Gods.[vii]
In 2006, recognizing the importance of land to Adivasi communities, the Indian government passed the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (FRA), which grants Adivasi village assemblies the right to “conserve or manage any community forest resource” that they have traditionally occupied.[viii] The FRA, however, did not eradicate the threat of eviction, because the state rejected many indigenous land claims.[ix] To prove that they have “traditionally occupied” their land, Adivasis need to demonstrate that their families have inhabited their land for three generations.[x] Many indigenous people, however, do not have official records of their land occupation.[xi] Even the documents that claimants do manage to provide often go missing in the complicated bureaucracy. As a result, only about 43% of land claims have been approved and enacted.[xii] The rest of the applicants remain vulnerable to eviction.
Many rejected applicants have maintained control over their land, but, as of early 2019, that might change. In 2018, conservationists filed a Public Interest Litigation[xiii] arguing that “encroachers”—people, including Adivasis, whose land claims had been rejected—should be evicted from the forest to prevent forest loss and fragmentation.[xiv] The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the conservationists' litigation and required that state governments evict all “encroachers” by July 2019.[xv] Adivasis—many of whom have not received land rights—protested in multiple states and threatened to organize a nationwide rally against the SC’s decision.[xvi] Two weeks later, the SC decided to suspend its decision so as to give experts and state government officials time to find more details about rejected claims.[xvii]
The Adivasis’ ardent response is justified. Indian indigenous groups have been evicted before, and history suggests that they will not fare well if the SC decides to implement its decision.[xviii] Without forest resources, many evicted Adivasis are forced to abandon their livelihoods. Evicted indigenous people cannot find as many forest products to consume or sell. They cannot raise as much livestock without fodder, and their crop yields drop because they are usually relocated to areas with lower soil quality.[xix] Eviction also fragments Adivasis’ communal societies and forces children into schools that do not teach their culture or language.[xx] The proposed evictions might help preserve the environment, but they will damage Adivasi communities in the process.
Another Pathway to Conservation
Litigators in the SC case argue that evicting indigenous groups is the only way to protect the environment, but there are other options. Instead of excluding Adivasis from conservation efforts, the state government can delegate conservation management to local communities. This option would not only protect indigenous livelihoods, but might also conserve the environment more effectively.[xxi] Compared to the distant state government, local communities usually have more to gain from a healthy forest and more to lose from environmental degradation. Since state politicians and bureaucrats do not depend on the forest to maintain their jobs, they do not reap immediate or clear benefits by preserving the environment. Many governmental officials even benefit from working with businessmen to over-exploit natural resources.[xxii] Indigenous groups, on the other hand, immediately suffer when environmental degradation interferes with their way of life. They have a greater incentive to conserve forest biodiversity so that they can preserve their livelihoods for themselves and future generations.[xxiii]
Decentralized conservation is also significantly cheaper. In state-managed forests, the Indian government needs to pay staff to perform jobs that Adivasis handle on their own land. One study found that Indian village councils managed forests just as effectively and used seven times less money compared to state forest managers.[xxiv] The government could use the money it would save to fund other conservation efforts, such as improving urban sustainability or protecting uninhabited forests.
Environmentalists still play a role in decentralized conservation. The Adivasis “cannot be expected to be the ‘saviors of biodiversity,’” and decentralization alone will not save the forests.[xxv] Instead, cooperation between conservation groups and indigenous communities will maximize environmental preservation. The Keystone Foundation, for instance, works directly with Adivasi communities to preserve the environment. To develop a more complete perspective on local forest quality, the Foundation partners with ecologists from indigenous groups to gather and analyze data. Through its “capacity building” initiative, the Foundation also provides resources for indigenous groups to more efficiently conserve their land. For example, the Foundation’s trainings on sustainable practices help local communities adopt renewable energy technologies, ecological monitoring systems, and effective wildlife management techniques.[xxvi]
Decentralized conservation, especially with support from environmentalist organizations, is just as, if not more, successful than state-centered conservation. Numerous studies have analyzed the effects of decentralization, and the results are promising. One study found that the rates of lopping—removing sections of trees, which can stunt growth or prevent regeneration—were 20-30% lower in Adivasi-controlled forests.[xxvii] According to another study, locally managed forests were also less damaged by human pressures such as woodcutting and grazing.[xxviii] If more conservation groups cooperate with Adivasis in the future, decentralized conservation will be even more efficient.
The proposed evictions will unnecessarily violate millions of Adivasis’ rights. Forest conservation is an important goal, but the proposed approach comes at a terrible human cost. Decentralized conservation is a promising alternative that avoids dire humanitarian consequences. Indigenous communities are valuable players in forest conservation. With their involvement, conservation is often both cheaper and more effective. States do not need to violate indigenous rights to protect the forest. Cooperation between indigenous communities, conservation groups, and state governments will preserve both human rights and the environment.
*Illustration by Mena Attia
[i] Kishor Rithe, “The SC’s February 13 order on FRA was consistent with its earlier stand,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 28 February 2019, https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/the-sc-s-february-13-order-on-fra-was-consistent-with-its-earlier-stand/story-JNYBxveKlRiTb3FZnVNeuL.html.
[ii] Jayashree Nandi, “2% of India’s forest land is encroached,” Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 28 September 2019, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/2-of-india-s-forest-land-is-encroached/story-Pvf3CfIpuXLaVp7ImfM5dK.html.
[iii] Paul Salopek, “Millions of indigenous people face eviction from their homes,” National Geographic, 15 May 2019, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/2019/05/millions-india-indigenous-people-face-eviction-from-forests/.
[iv] “Adivasis and Livelihood,” Keystone Foundation, February 2007, https://keystone-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/Adivasi__Livelihood_114.pdf.
[v] Indra Munshi, “Introduction,” The Adivasi Question (Orient Blackswan, 24 August 2012), 1-20; “Adivasis and Livelihood.”
[vi] Kabra.
[vii] SM Nair, “Sacred groves foster a sense of togetherness and harmony,” Tribal Heritage in India Foundation, 23 March 2018, https://indiantribalheritage.org/?p=20948.
[viii] “Forest Rights Act, 2006,” Ministry of Tribal Affairs Government of India, 2014, https://tribal.nic.in/FRA/data/FRARulesBook.pdf.
[ix] Madhu Ramnath, “Conservation groups should be helping Adivasis save forests,” Scroll.in, 2 March 2019, https://scroll.in/article/914820/conservation-groups-should-be-helping-adivasis-save-forests-instead-they-are-working-to-evict-them.
[x] Rithe.
[xi] Amita Baviskar, “Fate of the Forest: Conservation and Tribal Rights,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 29, no. 38 (1994): 2493-2501, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4401788.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Afe50fc6435aaf9cb393e21c9e0f9c8f6.
[xii] Jocelyn Lee and Steven Wolf, “Critical assessment of implementation of the Forest Rights Act of India,” Land Use Policy, vol. 79 (2018): 834-844, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837717311705#bib0055.
[xiii] Nandi.
[xiv] Ramki Sreenivasan, “The Recent Supreme Court Order on FRA Does Not Affect Genuine Claimants,” Conservation India, http://www.conservationindia.org/articles/fra-sc.
[xv] Rithe.
[xvi] Rina Chandran, “Government plea sees India’s top court halt eviction of millions of forest: dwellers,” Reuters, 28 Feb. 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-landrights-court/government-plea-sees-indias-top-court-halt-eviction-of-millions-of-forest-dwellers-idUSKCN1QH1C5.
[xvii] Nandi.
[xviii] Bhangya Bhukya, “Criminalising Adivasi Forest Rights,” Round Table India, 5 June 2019, https://roundtableindia.co.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9654:criminalising-adivasi-forest-rights&catid=119:feature&Itemid=132.
[xix] Kabra.
[xx] R. Stavenhagen, “Report on the Impact of Megaprojects on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2003),” Peasants, Culture, and Indigenous Peoples, (2012), https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-34153-3_8#aboutcontent.
[xxi] Lee and Wolf.
[xxii]E. Somanathan, “Deforestation, Property Rights and Incentives in Central Himalaya,” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 36, no. 4 (1991): PE37-PE39+PE41-PE46, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4397242.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ae5ac586f5a3e7f2d2d8127f0e1ed0922.
[xxiii] Ashwini Chhatre and Arun Agrawal, “Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 106 no. 84 (2009): 17667-17670, https://www.pnas.org/content/106/42/17667.
[xxiv] E. Somanathan et al., “Decentralization for cost-effective conservation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 11 (2009): 4143-7, https://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4143.short.
[xxv] Lee and Wolf.
[xxvi] “Capacity Development,” Keystone Foundation, https://keystone-foundation.org/capacity-development/.
[xxvii]Jean-Marie Baland et al., “Forests to the People,” World Development, vol. 38, no. 11 ( 2010): 1642-1656, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X10000896#sec4.
[xxviii] Somanathan et al., “Decentralization for cost-effective conservation.”