Why I opposed this Bill: Jairam Ramesh

This issue goes back to 2002, when the Supreme Court ordered the establishment of a Compensatory Afforestation Fund. In April 2004, the then government established the Compensatory Afforestation Management and Planning Authority (Campa). In March 2008, the government brought a Bill to establish the institutions to implement the Compensatory Afforestation Fund. This was referred to a standing committee of Parliament, which rejected it. However, the government decided to press on with the Bill. It was passed in the Lok Sabha but not in the Rajya Sabha. When I became environment and forests minister on June 29, 2009, I discovered Rs 10,000 crore had accumulated in this Fund.

How? Well, every time a forest area is diverted for non-forest purposes, a certain amount of money has to be deposited — by the government, by public sector companies and by private companies — for compensatory afforestation. In June 2009, this sum was Rs 10,000 crore and not being utilised. I petitioned the Supreme Court. We arrived at a compromise formula — every year, Rs 1,000 crore would be released to state governments, and after four or five years, there would be a review of this arrangement by the local communities.

Which this present Bill does not do. It does not empower Gram Sabhas. The Bill transfers money to the states, where it legitimately belongs, as forests is a Concurrent subject under the Constitution (meaning, both Centre and states may legislate on it). It is legitimately transferred to the states. Forest departments, traditionally starved of funds, will get more for compensatory afforestation and other activities.

However, and critically, this Bill ignores the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006. This Act, officially known as the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act, was passed by both Houses of Parliament with great enthusiasm. For, it was felt that for the first time in independent India, the historical injustices on tribal communities were being corrected. FRA conferred two rights on forest dwellers, individual and community rights. Individual families get rights of ownership and communities get rights of ownership.

In the seven-eight years it has been implemented, roughly 1.7 million individual titles and 49,000 community titles have been distributed. However, only 40 per cent of the claims really get converted into actual distribution of titles. That means of every five people who apply for titles, only two get it. So, it is a very high rate of rejection, in state after state.

So, while on individual rights we might have done well, on community rights we have failed miserably. I think the Campa funds should be used only in consonance with implementation of FRA. And, the anchor of FRA is the gram sabha. This body has the responsibility for certifying the titles, an essential role in the implementation. Second, FRA very clearly stipulates what the roles of the gram sabha. I believe gram sabha funds must be used only after its permission. It is that simple.

The writer is a Congress MP and former environment minister