|
|
|
PDF
|
|
Type:
|
Conference Paper |
|
Author:
|
Venkatraman, Annamalai |
|
Conference:
|
Commoners and the Changing Commons: Livelihoods, Environmental Security, and Shared Knowledge, the Fourteenth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons |
|
Location:
|
Mt. Fuji, Japan |
|
Conf. Date:
|
June 3-7 |
|
Date:
|
2013 |
|
URI:
|
https://hdl.handle.net/10535/8874
|
|
Sector:
|
Forestry
Social Organization |
|
Region:
|
Middle East & South Asia |
|
Subject(s):
|
indigenous institutions
community
IASC
|
|
Abstract:
|
"Historically, in the forest based tribal economy provisions for basic necessities like food, fuel, housing material etc. are made from the forest produce. The tribal economy has subsisted on the non-timber forest produce since time immemorial. However forest policies and legal provisions excluded tribal communities denied them the ownership and even access rights to NTFP in India. The position of community rights changed after the introduction of Panchayats (Local Government) Extensions to Scheduled Areas Act (PESA) in 1996 and Forest Rights Act (FRA) in 2006. PESA enabled communities to manage their community resources including NTFP subject to the approval from regional governments (states) in terms for power and classification for what constitutes NTFP. However FRA claims that it is meant to correct historical injustice done to forest dwellers. It paved the way for claiming community rights over NTFP through administrative process. It also clearly defined as to what constitute NTFP and included specific items like bamboo to be considered as NTFP or also known as Minor Forest Produce. These two acts are supposed to have ended the state monopoly over procurement and
marketing of NTFP. However study conducted in five states of India Vis: Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Odisha of India, where NTFP generates substantial income to tribals, show that these states have not withdrawn their nationalized monopoly over NTFPs. It persists even now as they generate substantial income for the states. Some states given non consequential items to local governments or communities, they have not strengthened community rights over community resources through rules and administrative process. It has not made proper institutional arrangements for the community to assert their right to control and preserve these resources as envisaged by PESA and FRA."
|