http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/community-forest-rights-to-be-ensured-with-state-govts-help/628718.html
PTI | 10:03 PM,Mar 29,2011
New Delhi, Mar 29 (PTI) Realising that the community rights provided in forests have not been "very successful" so far, the Government today said it would reach out to the state governments to address this shortcoming.
"One of the reasons why we are stressing on community forest rights is that community control over the land can be exercised. Unfortunately, while the Forest Rights Act has succeeded in giving a very large number of individual forest rights, community forest rights have not been very successful," Union Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh said here.
"It would be our endeavour now to impress upon the state governments and forest departments to recognise and respect the community first as the rights of the communities over land is an integral part of the Act," he said at a seminar.
Ramesh said that since the implementation of the Act, 10 lakh individual titles have been distributed. The Environment Ministry would also work closely with the Tribal Affairs Ministry to set up a National Forest Rights Council, he said.
Ramesh said he has also written to the state chief ministers to declare bamboo as a "minor forest produce". "I have also written that the joint forest management committees should be brought into the control of Gram Sabhas," he said, adding that most of the committees, at present, are under the Forest Department.
The seminar on the Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 made a series of recommendations after day-long deliberations which sought the state governments to follow the provisions of the Forest Rights Act "correctly" and in a time-bound manner to deal with the large number of claims which have been filed under the Act.
It suggested that rights should be verified only after proper verification through use of latest technology and national and state level monitoring mechanism should be galvanised for proper implementation of the Act.
It also suggested that the joint forest management committees be given legal back up and they need to be empowered to take management decisions under the Act.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Forest Rights Act axe on JFM committees
Siba Mohanty
http://expressbuzz.com/states/orissa/forest-rights-act-axe-on-jfm-committees/257601.html
18 Mar 2011
BHUBANESWAR: Orissa's 11,000-odd Joint Forest Management (JFM) committees, vested with the responsibility of protection of forests through a community-based approach, may soon cease to exist.
If these bodies are not made compliant to Forest Rights Act (FRA) that is.
Since the Forest Rights Act, 2006 gives gram sabhas the ultimate power to settle tenurial rights of community forest resources on tribals and other traditional forest-dwellers (OTFD), JFMs, which are non-statute bodies, are facing a virtual extinction.
JFMs, created in 1988, were based on a care-and-share spirit but gram sabhas do not recognise them since the bodies were formulated through an administrative resolution in 1988.
Now that the FRA has taken over, it would have a conflict of interest with the JFMs since both cover rights over forest and community resources. Only that FRA, a Central legislation, will have to prevail. The Orissa Government, the first in the country to start JFMs and Vana Samrakshana Samitis (VSS), is busy looking for the options.
The Forest Department, if sources are to be believed, has also stared ground work on the issue because this is going to be a national problem given its nature.
The JFMs are created through constitution of a council or samiti (VSS) which is represented by all the adult members of a village or a group of villages abutting forests. The council elects an executive body which has a forest official and an NGO as members.
Since 1988, when this community forest management started, the groups have been vested with protection of forests in return for rights over minor forest produce, traditional practices and other similar rights. The concept was a hit and even found place in the curriculum in the UK.
However, things are set to change with FRA. "As per the FRA, community forest resource rights can be settled with tribals and OTFDs, none else. This excludes the JFMs which has a mixed representation. Besides, the JFMs have no statutory power," said a senior officer of the Panchayati Raj Department.
The conflict came to the fore when forest rights under the FRA were settled. The State Government has so far settled 2.5 lakh individual claims but when it came to community rights, the problems cropped up.
Experts also point out that JFM was based on a concept of protection, while FRA's platform is livelihood rights. "One must understand that forest rights will make no sense if forests do not exist or deplete," a researcher said.
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Suresh Chandra Mohanty believes that both can co-exist. "Both JFMs and FRA have roles to play and can supplement each other but the former has to be compliant to the new law," he said.
The answer could be in making JFMs an entity of gram sabha so that they get a statutory protection.
http://expressbuzz.com/states/orissa/forest-rights-act-axe-on-jfm-committees/257601.html
18 Mar 2011
BHUBANESWAR: Orissa's 11,000-odd Joint Forest Management (JFM) committees, vested with the responsibility of protection of forests through a community-based approach, may soon cease to exist.
If these bodies are not made compliant to Forest Rights Act (FRA) that is.
Since the Forest Rights Act, 2006 gives gram sabhas the ultimate power to settle tenurial rights of community forest resources on tribals and other traditional forest-dwellers (OTFD), JFMs, which are non-statute bodies, are facing a virtual extinction.
JFMs, created in 1988, were based on a care-and-share spirit but gram sabhas do not recognise them since the bodies were formulated through an administrative resolution in 1988.
Now that the FRA has taken over, it would have a conflict of interest with the JFMs since both cover rights over forest and community resources. Only that FRA, a Central legislation, will have to prevail. The Orissa Government, the first in the country to start JFMs and Vana Samrakshana Samitis (VSS), is busy looking for the options.
The Forest Department, if sources are to be believed, has also stared ground work on the issue because this is going to be a national problem given its nature.
The JFMs are created through constitution of a council or samiti (VSS) which is represented by all the adult members of a village or a group of villages abutting forests. The council elects an executive body which has a forest official and an NGO as members.
Since 1988, when this community forest management started, the groups have been vested with protection of forests in return for rights over minor forest produce, traditional practices and other similar rights. The concept was a hit and even found place in the curriculum in the UK.
However, things are set to change with FRA. "As per the FRA, community forest resource rights can be settled with tribals and OTFDs, none else. This excludes the JFMs which has a mixed representation. Besides, the JFMs have no statutory power," said a senior officer of the Panchayati Raj Department.
The conflict came to the fore when forest rights under the FRA were settled. The State Government has so far settled 2.5 lakh individual claims but when it came to community rights, the problems cropped up.
Experts also point out that JFM was based on a concept of protection, while FRA's platform is livelihood rights. "One must understand that forest rights will make no sense if forests do not exist or deplete," a researcher said.
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Suresh Chandra Mohanty believes that both can co-exist. "Both JFMs and FRA have roles to play and can supplement each other but the former has to be compliant to the new law," he said.
The answer could be in making JFMs an entity of gram sabha so that they get a statutory protection.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Right to possess land cannot be taken away without enquiry: Court
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article1533904.ece
New Delhi, March 13, 2011
J. Venkatesan
‘Concept of public purpose cannot remain static for all time to come'
Giving a new dimension to poor farmers whose land is acquired for public purpose, the Supreme Court has held that the right to possess land being a right to property cannot be taken away without conducting an enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act (LAA).
Giving this ruling, a Bench of Justice G. S. Singhvi and Justice A. K. Ganguly said: “Admittedly the LAA, a pre-Constitutional legislation of colonial vintage is a drastic law, being expropriatory in nature as it confers on the State a power which affects a person's property right.”
The Bench said “the concept of public purpose on this broad horizon must also be read into the provisions of emergency power under Section 17 with the consequential dispensation of right of hearing under Section 5A of the LAA. The courts must examine these questions very carefully when little Indians lose their small property in the name of mindless acquisition at the instance of the State.” Writing the judgment, Justice Ganguly said: “Even though right to property is no longer a fundamental right, and was never a natural right, and is acquired on a concession by the State, it has to be accepted that without right to some property other rights become illusory. The concept of public purpose cannot remain static for all time to come.”
Taking note of recent trends in various States in land acquisition proceedings, the Bench said: “Any attempt by the State to acquire land by promoting a public purpose to benefit a particular group of people or to serve any particular interest at the cost of the interest of a large section of people, especially of the common people, defeats the very concept of public purpose.”
Expanding the scope of fundamental rights, the Bench said, “Even though the concept of public purpose was introduced by pre-Constitutional legislation, its application must be consistent with the Constitutional ethos and especially the Chapter under Fundamental Rights and also the Directive Principles.”
Fundamental Rights
The Bench made it clear that in construing the concept of public purpose the mandate of Article 13 (laws inconsistent with or in derogation or the fundamental rights) of the Constitution could not in any way take away or abridge the rights conferred under the Chapter on Fundamental Rights.
The Bench was of the view that the meaning of “public purpose” in acquisition of land must be judged on the touchstone of this expanded view of fundamental rights. “The open-ended nature of our Constitution needs a harmonious reconciliation between various competing principles and the overhanging shadows of socio-economic reality in this country,” it said.
“If public purpose can be satisfied by not rendering common [people] homeless and by exploring other avenues of acquisition, the courts, before sanctioning an acquisition, must in exercise of its power of judicial review, focus its attention on the concept of social and economic justice. While examining these questions of public importance, the courts, especially the higher courts, cannot afford to act as mere umpires,” the Bench added.
In the instant case, Dev Sharan and others were aggrieved over acquisition of their fertile agricultural land by the Uttar Pradesh Government for construction of a modern jail in Shahjahanpur by invoking the emergency provisions in the LAA and without conducting a proper enquiry. The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquisition and the present appeals are directed against this judgment. The Bench allowed the appeals and quashed the acquisition notifications.
It held that the possession of land by the appellants could not be interfered with except in accordance with law.
New Delhi, March 13, 2011
J. Venkatesan
‘Concept of public purpose cannot remain static for all time to come'
Giving a new dimension to poor farmers whose land is acquired for public purpose, the Supreme Court has held that the right to possess land being a right to property cannot be taken away without conducting an enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act (LAA).
Giving this ruling, a Bench of Justice G. S. Singhvi and Justice A. K. Ganguly said: “Admittedly the LAA, a pre-Constitutional legislation of colonial vintage is a drastic law, being expropriatory in nature as it confers on the State a power which affects a person's property right.”
The Bench said “the concept of public purpose on this broad horizon must also be read into the provisions of emergency power under Section 17 with the consequential dispensation of right of hearing under Section 5A of the LAA. The courts must examine these questions very carefully when little Indians lose their small property in the name of mindless acquisition at the instance of the State.” Writing the judgment, Justice Ganguly said: “Even though right to property is no longer a fundamental right, and was never a natural right, and is acquired on a concession by the State, it has to be accepted that without right to some property other rights become illusory. The concept of public purpose cannot remain static for all time to come.”
Taking note of recent trends in various States in land acquisition proceedings, the Bench said: “Any attempt by the State to acquire land by promoting a public purpose to benefit a particular group of people or to serve any particular interest at the cost of the interest of a large section of people, especially of the common people, defeats the very concept of public purpose.”
Expanding the scope of fundamental rights, the Bench said, “Even though the concept of public purpose was introduced by pre-Constitutional legislation, its application must be consistent with the Constitutional ethos and especially the Chapter under Fundamental Rights and also the Directive Principles.”
Fundamental Rights
The Bench made it clear that in construing the concept of public purpose the mandate of Article 13 (laws inconsistent with or in derogation or the fundamental rights) of the Constitution could not in any way take away or abridge the rights conferred under the Chapter on Fundamental Rights.
The Bench was of the view that the meaning of “public purpose” in acquisition of land must be judged on the touchstone of this expanded view of fundamental rights. “The open-ended nature of our Constitution needs a harmonious reconciliation between various competing principles and the overhanging shadows of socio-economic reality in this country,” it said.
“If public purpose can be satisfied by not rendering common [people] homeless and by exploring other avenues of acquisition, the courts, before sanctioning an acquisition, must in exercise of its power of judicial review, focus its attention on the concept of social and economic justice. While examining these questions of public importance, the courts, especially the higher courts, cannot afford to act as mere umpires,” the Bench added.
In the instant case, Dev Sharan and others were aggrieved over acquisition of their fertile agricultural land by the Uttar Pradesh Government for construction of a modern jail in Shahjahanpur by invoking the emergency provisions in the LAA and without conducting a proper enquiry. The Allahabad High Court upheld the acquisition and the present appeals are directed against this judgment. The Bench allowed the appeals and quashed the acquisition notifications.
It held that the possession of land by the appellants could not be interfered with except in accordance with law.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
What we hold in common
Vinay Bharat Ram
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/what-we-hold-in-common/761309/0
Posted: Sat Mar 12 2011, 00:26 hrs
Not long ago, at the Bharat Ram Memorial Lecture, I had the opportunity to listen to the Nobel-winning economist Elinor Ostrom on the subject of what are called common pool resources, or CPRs. Indeed, her terms of reference, concepts and concerns extend well beyond conventional economics.
CPRs do not have a clear-cut pattern of ownership between the state, private players and the community. Some examples include river waters, forests, mineral wealth and the fish in the sea. Many questions arise, like: who keeps the rivers clean? Who prevents forests and wildlife from destruction, forest-dwellers from displacement, the seas from over-harvesting?
Half a century ago, scholars believed what is regarded today as a rather simplistic solution. The assumption was that markets are a suitable guide for private goods from the viewpoint of both producers and consumers, and non-private or public goods are best handled by the government, which can frame rules and impose taxes.
Further, at one end of the scale is a hierarchical governance structure which would induce compliance between private citizens and officials in the orderly consumption and generation of public goods. At the other end, a single governance structure which reduces “chaos”, improves efficiency, limits conflict between government agencies and better serves a “homogenous” public.
This approach, it is believed, is out of touch with the diverse ways in which people actually deal with CPRs. Current research — based on numerous studies, specially in the context of large metropolitan centres — favours a “polycentric” concept with multiple centres of decision-making. Here government bodies compete and cooperate, but have recourse to a central mechanism to resolve conflicts. At the same time there is a rider that one size — meaning one kind of polycentric governance structure — doesn’t necessarily fit all situations. I wonder if MCD and DDA in Delhi are good examples to study.
Ostrom further discusses the state of some major reserve forests in India to illustrate the conflict between protecting forest cover and wood-cutting (as well as cattle-grazing). Her conclusion, based on various ground-level studies, is that the involvement of the locals or van panchayats in protecting the forests gives measurably better results than leaving the problem only to forest officials. In other words, involving all stakeholders is the best way forward.
At a broader level, Ostrom leaves us with the impression that the potential for cooperation in “common” properties has not been fully explored worldwide. One impediment appears to be the rationality-based assumptions about human behaviour: in the classic prisoner’s dilemma, for example, prisoners are separated so that they cannot communicate with each other, and each has to second-guess the other’s behaviour. Such constraints don’t apply to users of CPRs, and therefore cooperative outcomes can be superior to those you’d get in the prisoner’s dilemma experiment. Instead of a zero-sum game we can hope for a win-win situation.
Global warming, for example, has been a subject of growing concern for nations worldwide and has led to a series of debates on how to reduce the world’s carbon footprint. The developed economies, notably Europe and America, are ranged on one side as major polluters; the emerging economies like China, India and Brazil on the other, as those whose rapid growth rates will lead to further pollution in the future. Progress towards a consensus has been tardy, though it is clear that cooperation is the only way forward and time is running out. Signals indicating urgency emerge practically every day. It is now believed that the current food shortages are a worldwide phenomenon closely related to climate change. In the last year alone, the US has experienced an unprecedented snowstorm that stretched from the East Coast to the Midwest, a massive typhoon caused devastation in Australia and floods plagued Pakistan.
Indeed the planet is a vast commons. Within that, regions and nations are smaller commons. And within nations are a plethora of CPRs. That they are intertwined in a complex network from the micro to the macro is beyond doubt.
The problem in India stems from its growing population and rising aspirations in the context of limited CPRs — forest cover, inland water resources, cultivable area and spaces for industrial use. Inevitably there are competing users for increasingly scarce resources, which cannot be left entirely to the market mechanism. While the state steps in to deal with CPRs that by and large belong in the public domain, Ostrom brings a body of theoretical knowledge to deal with them in a more scientific and sensitive manner.
Her approach combines empiricism with behavioural principles hopefully ensuring greater chances of success. Jairam Ramesh and Montek Ahluwalia, we hope you are listening.
The writer is a visiting professor of economics at IIT, Delhi
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/what-we-hold-in-common/761309/0
Posted: Sat Mar 12 2011, 00:26 hrs
Not long ago, at the Bharat Ram Memorial Lecture, I had the opportunity to listen to the Nobel-winning economist Elinor Ostrom on the subject of what are called common pool resources, or CPRs. Indeed, her terms of reference, concepts and concerns extend well beyond conventional economics.
CPRs do not have a clear-cut pattern of ownership between the state, private players and the community. Some examples include river waters, forests, mineral wealth and the fish in the sea. Many questions arise, like: who keeps the rivers clean? Who prevents forests and wildlife from destruction, forest-dwellers from displacement, the seas from over-harvesting?
Half a century ago, scholars believed what is regarded today as a rather simplistic solution. The assumption was that markets are a suitable guide for private goods from the viewpoint of both producers and consumers, and non-private or public goods are best handled by the government, which can frame rules and impose taxes.
Further, at one end of the scale is a hierarchical governance structure which would induce compliance between private citizens and officials in the orderly consumption and generation of public goods. At the other end, a single governance structure which reduces “chaos”, improves efficiency, limits conflict between government agencies and better serves a “homogenous” public.
This approach, it is believed, is out of touch with the diverse ways in which people actually deal with CPRs. Current research — based on numerous studies, specially in the context of large metropolitan centres — favours a “polycentric” concept with multiple centres of decision-making. Here government bodies compete and cooperate, but have recourse to a central mechanism to resolve conflicts. At the same time there is a rider that one size — meaning one kind of polycentric governance structure — doesn’t necessarily fit all situations. I wonder if MCD and DDA in Delhi are good examples to study.
Ostrom further discusses the state of some major reserve forests in India to illustrate the conflict between protecting forest cover and wood-cutting (as well as cattle-grazing). Her conclusion, based on various ground-level studies, is that the involvement of the locals or van panchayats in protecting the forests gives measurably better results than leaving the problem only to forest officials. In other words, involving all stakeholders is the best way forward.
At a broader level, Ostrom leaves us with the impression that the potential for cooperation in “common” properties has not been fully explored worldwide. One impediment appears to be the rationality-based assumptions about human behaviour: in the classic prisoner’s dilemma, for example, prisoners are separated so that they cannot communicate with each other, and each has to second-guess the other’s behaviour. Such constraints don’t apply to users of CPRs, and therefore cooperative outcomes can be superior to those you’d get in the prisoner’s dilemma experiment. Instead of a zero-sum game we can hope for a win-win situation.
Global warming, for example, has been a subject of growing concern for nations worldwide and has led to a series of debates on how to reduce the world’s carbon footprint. The developed economies, notably Europe and America, are ranged on one side as major polluters; the emerging economies like China, India and Brazil on the other, as those whose rapid growth rates will lead to further pollution in the future. Progress towards a consensus has been tardy, though it is clear that cooperation is the only way forward and time is running out. Signals indicating urgency emerge practically every day. It is now believed that the current food shortages are a worldwide phenomenon closely related to climate change. In the last year alone, the US has experienced an unprecedented snowstorm that stretched from the East Coast to the Midwest, a massive typhoon caused devastation in Australia and floods plagued Pakistan.
Indeed the planet is a vast commons. Within that, regions and nations are smaller commons. And within nations are a plethora of CPRs. That they are intertwined in a complex network from the micro to the macro is beyond doubt.
The problem in India stems from its growing population and rising aspirations in the context of limited CPRs — forest cover, inland water resources, cultivable area and spaces for industrial use. Inevitably there are competing users for increasingly scarce resources, which cannot be left entirely to the market mechanism. While the state steps in to deal with CPRs that by and large belong in the public domain, Ostrom brings a body of theoretical knowledge to deal with them in a more scientific and sensitive manner.
Her approach combines empiricism with behavioural principles hopefully ensuring greater chances of success. Jairam Ramesh and Montek Ahluwalia, we hope you are listening.
The writer is a visiting professor of economics at IIT, Delhi
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Land of milk fast losing its pastures
07 March 2011
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Land-of-milk-fast-losing-its-pastures/758516/
KapilDave: Express India
Gandhinagar: 424 villages in 10 districts of Gujarat have zero pasture land left; cattle owners work as labourers. Rapidly industrialising Gujarat, also home to white revolution, has little time to spare a thought for its cattle and livestock.The state has been rapidly losing its Gauchar, land in villages used for cattle grazing, a fact borne out by the government’s own figures.
As against the 39.56 lakh hectares of grazing land for cattle required as per the state government’s own policy, the state only has an estimated 8.5 lakh hectare (figures almost static since 1960 and seem not updated).
A revenue department notification issued in 1988 makes it mandatory for the state to have 16 hectares (40 acres) of pasture land for every 100 animals in normal areas. In forest areas, it should be 20 acres. So, as per the rule, the state should be having 39,56,480 hectares of pasture land for its more than 2.47 crore cattle.
Encroachment over pasture land, both by industries and powerful locals in connivance with local panchayat officials, has only made the matters worse.
According to the state government’s own data, last updated on September 2010, there have been 50,771 cases of such encroachment in around 16,000 villages of which 36,960 have been there for more than five years.
In 1999, the state government issued a notification to compensate villagers whose pasture land was taken away by charging 30% more money from the buyer and giving it to the gram panchayat to buy alternate pasture land or develop one. Twelve years later, there is no proper mechanism in place to ensure the transfer of money from taluka panchayats to gram panchayats.
For instance, in Vemali village of Vadodara, the government sold pasture land to the Raheja group for developing an SEZ. Though the state received the 30% extra money, it is yet to transfer it to the villagers. It has also failed to provide alternate pasture land to them.
According to data gathered by the human and animal rights NGO, Bombay Humanitarian League, under the RTI Act, 424 villages in 10 districts of Gujarat have zero pasture land left. Data for other districts was not available.
Experts warn that the rapidly vanishing pasture land may hit the state’s animal husbandry and agriculture sector hard, apart from creating social and ecological imbalances.
Nimish Kapadiya, an animal rights and human rights activist and leading Gujarat High Court lawyer who had filed a PIL for saving pasture land, said a “large number of small landless cattle-owners were dependent on their cattle for their livelihood and the lack of pasture land will affect them”.
Lalji Deasi, convenor of the Gujarat Maldhari (pastoral community) Forum who represents the community at the Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO), said the loss of livelihood for the pastoral community is causing migration. “Pastoral community members from Kutch, Saurashtra and North Gujarat have become labourers since they no more possess land, which is either being given by the government to industry or encroached upon by others. “Government’s new policy of stall-feeding cattle instead of allowing them to graze will damage the world-famous Gujarat breed like Gir and Kakrej cows. We are trying to mobilise the community. We will oppose the government’s move to remove restrictions on sale of pastoral land by modifying policies stipulating minimum land to be made available for each cattle.”
When contacted, P Panneervel, the principal sectary at the Revenue Department, said: “We are revamping the whole pasture land policy. So it will not be appropriate to speak anything at present.”
A S Sutaria, who is the revenue inquiry commissioner and secretary at the same department, washed of his hands. “It’s not my subject. I cannot comment,” he said while asking this correspondent to speak to yet another official.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Land-of-milk-fast-losing-its-pastures/758516/
KapilDave: Express India
Gandhinagar: 424 villages in 10 districts of Gujarat have zero pasture land left; cattle owners work as labourers. Rapidly industrialising Gujarat, also home to white revolution, has little time to spare a thought for its cattle and livestock.The state has been rapidly losing its Gauchar, land in villages used for cattle grazing, a fact borne out by the government’s own figures.
As against the 39.56 lakh hectares of grazing land for cattle required as per the state government’s own policy, the state only has an estimated 8.5 lakh hectare (figures almost static since 1960 and seem not updated).
A revenue department notification issued in 1988 makes it mandatory for the state to have 16 hectares (40 acres) of pasture land for every 100 animals in normal areas. In forest areas, it should be 20 acres. So, as per the rule, the state should be having 39,56,480 hectares of pasture land for its more than 2.47 crore cattle.
Encroachment over pasture land, both by industries and powerful locals in connivance with local panchayat officials, has only made the matters worse.
According to the state government’s own data, last updated on September 2010, there have been 50,771 cases of such encroachment in around 16,000 villages of which 36,960 have been there for more than five years.
In 1999, the state government issued a notification to compensate villagers whose pasture land was taken away by charging 30% more money from the buyer and giving it to the gram panchayat to buy alternate pasture land or develop one. Twelve years later, there is no proper mechanism in place to ensure the transfer of money from taluka panchayats to gram panchayats.
For instance, in Vemali village of Vadodara, the government sold pasture land to the Raheja group for developing an SEZ. Though the state received the 30% extra money, it is yet to transfer it to the villagers. It has also failed to provide alternate pasture land to them.
According to data gathered by the human and animal rights NGO, Bombay Humanitarian League, under the RTI Act, 424 villages in 10 districts of Gujarat have zero pasture land left. Data for other districts was not available.
Experts warn that the rapidly vanishing pasture land may hit the state’s animal husbandry and agriculture sector hard, apart from creating social and ecological imbalances.
Nimish Kapadiya, an animal rights and human rights activist and leading Gujarat High Court lawyer who had filed a PIL for saving pasture land, said a “large number of small landless cattle-owners were dependent on their cattle for their livelihood and the lack of pasture land will affect them”.
Lalji Deasi, convenor of the Gujarat Maldhari (pastoral community) Forum who represents the community at the Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO), said the loss of livelihood for the pastoral community is causing migration. “Pastoral community members from Kutch, Saurashtra and North Gujarat have become labourers since they no more possess land, which is either being given by the government to industry or encroached upon by others. “Government’s new policy of stall-feeding cattle instead of allowing them to graze will damage the world-famous Gujarat breed like Gir and Kakrej cows. We are trying to mobilise the community. We will oppose the government’s move to remove restrictions on sale of pastoral land by modifying policies stipulating minimum land to be made available for each cattle.”
When contacted, P Panneervel, the principal sectary at the Revenue Department, said: “We are revamping the whole pasture land policy. So it will not be appropriate to speak anything at present.”
A S Sutaria, who is the revenue inquiry commissioner and secretary at the same department, washed of his hands. “It’s not my subject. I cannot comment,” he said while asking this correspondent to speak to yet another official.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)