Implementation of Forest Rights Act: Observations from Kerala’s Attappadi Block

By Seema Purushothaman, Rema Devi and Amrita C

For its relatively large extent of forests and number of tribal settlements, the Palakkad district of Kerala has very few Community Rights granted under the Forest Rights Act (FRA)¹ Attappadi, a tribal-dominated block in the district continues to attract the attention of all development players – the state forest and tribal development departments, voluntary organizations, media and researchers – for decades now and yet fails to display commensurate impact. The major players involved in implementing FRA have been involved in well-known development projects since the 1970s. Some of these are, the Integrated Tribal Development Project (a first in Kerala), Attapppadi Co-operative Farming Society, Western Ghats Development Programme, Attappadi Valley Irrigation Programme and Attappadi Hills Area Development Society. Perspectives on conservation, development, livelihood and governance not just vary among the development agencies, but such divergence has been left to persist and widen, without notable efforts to find synergies.

Despite the long presence of many such active agencies, the FRC (Forest Rights Committees) formation in most villages started only six years after the enactment of the FRA. Even after eight years of the formation of FRCs, Individual Forest Rights (IFR) alone have been granted, that too in a few villages. In many villages, the first FRC meeting was conducted more than ten years after the enactment. The rejection rate of IFR claims was high because of insufficient proof and other reasons, such as the requirement to have attained a minimum age in the cut-off year (2005).

Apart from the state-held forest area, Attapadi has a notable extent of forests vested from erstwhile landlords. If sporadic tree felling for charcoal making prior to 1970s caused thinning of forests in Attappadi, large-scale felling for timber during the vesting of private forests from landlords, followed by regular wildfires, played havoc with the ecology, culture and livelihoods in this region. Though most tribals in Attappadi do collect some or the other wild produce, given the thin, dry deciduous or shrub forests in most parts, it is not the lone source of livelihood. Wild animals and forest fires are now human triggered deterrents from forest dependence in many villages of Attappadi, in the absence of coordinated and multipronged efforts in their mitigation.²

Efforts to regenerate the forests in this area from the year 2000 seemed to have backfired in some ways. Elephant attacks have become more frequent after successful forest regeneration in disconnected patches. Thinning and patchiness of forests interrupting elephant corridors; encroachments into forest areas; and urbanization in the surroundings have been posing threats to ecology, human life and agriculture for decades now.

Having been part of the labour force in ecological regeneration projects and commercial farms of settler communities for many years, the tribals in some parts of Attappadi have moved away from foraging forest produce and small-scale farming. Fertile land in possession of the tribals compared to settler communities is disproportionally small. A significant presence of larger holdings of settler farmers who migrated from outside Attappadi area is noticeable. Vandavasis (as settlers are commonly referred to by adivasis) are mostly ‘gounders’ from the dry plains of Tamil Nadu or Kerala. In some parts, settlers outnumber adivasis, especially in the fertile areas near the river Bhavani. Even the boundary demarcation of forests used to favour settlers, according to the tribals in many hamlets. Old cadastral maps will have to be consulted for assessing and confirming such contested boundaries.  

Converting tribal peasant gatherers into wage labour, as mentioned above, is the most visible livelihood change here. The interventions that deployed tribal labour include afforestation (afforestation efforts in disrupted animal corridors in the erstwhile cultivated areas attracted wildlife, as pointed out earlier) and demarcation of forest boundaries – both often curtailing their access to seasonally cultivated areas.  Attappadi has a couple of functional marketing cooperatives, but many tribals sell their produce gathered from forests to private traders. There is also a farming co-operative society. Villagers closer to the Silent Valley National Park collect more medicinal herbs while in the drier parts households are more into farming and farm labour.

Though people are unaware of the details of the Act per se, almost all of them know about the Individual Rights mentioned in the Act, almost as a land grant scheme. Oorukootam meetings and FRC for discussing the Act are usually unheard of. Most Individual Rights granted under FRA are in the hill slopes (Kothukadu) that was annexed by the Forest Department decades ago in many cases.

There were some youngsters disinterested in and ignorant about forests (though there were exceptions) in remote hamlets. Still, it was striking to hear the middle-aged and elderly adivasis in the same villages demanding Community Rights to access forests, emphasizing how they need to be listened to just as much as the young generations need to scout for modern education and jobs. Their narratives of how old tribal villages got settled in their current locations are fascinating. These ranged from the migration journeys of their forefathers escaping heavy taxation in far off kingdoms to being brought there as captive labour by colonial forest officials.

Remote hamlets, generally, have relatively larger areas under shifting cultivation. Families here are reluctant to submit IFR claims as they may not get rights for all the land they now cultivate.³ Another concern is on the scattered parcels of land under shifting cultivation. They are not sure if FRA has provisions to measure the stipulated 10-acres per family from plots scattered in two to three locations where cultivation shifts from one piece of land to another across years. Here again, it appears to be the case of a potential solution kept elusive by not engaging in thoughtful conversations. Communities traditionally undertaking shifting cultivation could claim Community Rights over land parcels in excess of the provisioned 10 acres per family for IFR. Some were ready to file CR/CFR claims without submission of IFR claims, as the latter was getting delayed. But weakening internal community norms in land sharing in accordance with the family size can pose a challenge to effective implementation of such rights. Tribals need to recognise the fact that ecological intensification of agriculture built on their agro-ecological knowhow and social-ecological strengths can fetch reliable crop yields without expanding/shifting the land area under cultivation. They need to collectively rejuvenate such skills, learn relevant new know-how and constantly nurture appropriate techniques.

In villages closer to major roads and urban areas, weakening social cohesion also means chances of land alienation. Just like the concern about land grabbing by non-tribals, the Forest Department is also apprehensive about Maoists finding easy access to interior forests if FRA is implemented. But Community Rights reinforced through well-informed community institutions envisaged in the Act, prima facie provide an exit route from such incursion by outsiders as well as for creative engagement of local youth.

Heterogeneity of tribes and livelihoods along with many freebies distributed to individual families is accelerating the erosion of community norms and institutions. The local dynamics involving dominant settler communities, political polarization within tribals and urbanization of lifestyles and aspirations also pose challenges. Thus, for a meaningful implementation of the Act, processes of rejuvenating, informing (e.g. how to balance agro-ecology and tribal livelihoods) and adapting tribal social institutions for present-day needs emerges as an imperative.

To summarise, although Individual Rights (land) and Community Rights for collection of forest produce are important to accord legitimacy and to avoid alienation of land and other resources in their landscape, these need to be accompanied by rigorous and comprehensive efforts in CFR towards managing the ecosystem while helping the community adapt to changing challenges.

Such meaningful implementation of FRA requires local officials, like the Panchayat Secretary, to take a committed initiative in making it an important agenda and in educating elected members, including tribal representatives, on the letter and spirit of the Act. Only very dedicated administrators, politicians and bureaucrats, who work in a coordinated mission mode, can kindle synergies and bring effective implementation of FRA in those villages of Attappadi where there is significant reliance on local ecology for livelihoods.

Sample statistics on implementation in Attapadi (as on September 2020, collected from local offices of the Tribal Department)

Sholayur Panchayat
Total no of tribal families: 3329 (31 Muduga and the rest Irula)
No of tribal villages: 52
No of FRCs:  21 (some FRCs are formed for 2/3 villages together and the remaining villages are not eligible)
IFR: 438 submitted, 210 titles granted.
CR and CFR Applications: Nil

Agali Panchayat
Total no of tribal families: 4339 (Irulas are the most prominent tribe, some Mudugars and a few Kuruba villages)
No: of tribal villages: 73
No of FRCs: 32
IFR applications:  819; titles issued: 67
SDLC Passed: 414
DLC Passed: 414
Titles getting ready: 347
CR and CFR applications: Nil

AUTHORS
Seema Purushothaman, Professor, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
Rema Devi, Member, Field Practice Team, Azim Premji University, Bangalore
Amrita C, Research Associate, Azim Premji University, Bangalore