During the electioneering in Telangana, several issues of welfare, development, and various demographic groups came to the fore. However, Haritha Haaram, a pet project of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) government, did not garner much attention. The stated objective of the initiative is to promote afforestation across the state. The initiative helps us understand the intersection of environmental politics, marginalisation of Adivasis, and the continued reliance on outdated, unscientific, and colonial conservation practices followed by the forest bureaucracy in Telangana.

Haritha Haaram: Boon or bane? 

Haritha Haaram, which was rolled out in 2014, is a state-wide plantation programme for planting seedlings to increase the state's forest cover to 33% from 24%. With a massive investment of Rs 8,511 crore, as per December 2022 estimates, the BRS government claims to have planted around 266 crore saplings, surpassing the target of 230 crore saplings originally envisioned as part of the programme. It is, however, unclear how many of these saplings survived.

Multiple afforestation efforts have been on inside the forested areas and in non-forested areas, which include grasslands, wasteland, and community commons. According to officials, 90% of the seedlings survived inside the forested zones, whereas the success rate is 70%-80% for the plantations outside of forested areas. This is not verified by any independent auditor or scientific study, yet the NITI Aayog has endorsed and encouraged Haritha Haaram after eight years of its supposed 'success'.

On the other hand, Telangana is among the top states to divert forest lands for non-forestry activities. According to the data from the Union Environment Ministry, Telangana diverted 19,419 hectares of forest land over the last 15 years under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Here is the contradiction, on the one hand, the issue of rapidly depleting natural forests for non-forestry purposes, and on the other, parallel afforestation programmes underway, which are aligned with the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management Authority (CAMPA).

Various research has demonstrated the problems with such contradictory policies. Increasingly, studies in India and elsewhere have argued about the limitations of afforestation in certain landscapes. Replacing natural forests is not the one-size-fits-all solution for climate change mitigation strategy, for it harms local ecology, and dispossesses pastoral and indigenous communities.

However, this article will not dwell on the scientific unviability of these programmes, nor the claims of Haritha Haaram being ‘successful’. It is concerned with the plight of small-scale farmers and Adivasis who have been displaced due to the plantation programme.

Forest Rights Act, 2006 and Settlement of Rights

The Forest Right Act 2006 is a landmark legislation enacted to correct historical injustices meted upon the Adivasi, forest-dwelling, and pastoral communities during the colonial period as well as in the post-independent era. The Preamble of the Act states that historical injustices must be addressed. The Act ensures recognition of community rights and livelihood security for the Adivasis or the Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Forest-Dwelling (OTFD) communities.

Adivasis consist of 9.3% of the total population in Telangana (Census 2011). Some of the major tribal communities in Telangana include the Lambada, Gond, Kolam, Thoti, Pardhan, Mannewar, Nayakpod, Koya, Kondareddy, Chenchu, Nakkala, Yerukala, Yanadi, among others. Pastoral communities like Kurumbas and Gola Kurumbs are also part of the ST communities. Most of the forest areas of Telangana are located in the erstwhile undivided districts of Khammam, Warangal, Adilabad, and Mahabubnagar. The total forest area in Telangana is around 63.50 lakh acres (26,904 sq. km).

Over the past few years, multiple media reports have shown the violent side of the Haritha Haaram programme, which involves the plantation of saplings as well as the large-scale digging of trenches around Adivasi habitations. This implies the denial of access to forest lands for those who are dependent on the same for farming or grazing purposes, conflicting with the spirit of the FRA. The provisions of FRA clearly state that eviction of forest dwellers without settlement of rights is a violation.

Also read: Telangana: Forest Officer's Killing Brings to Fore Issue of Podu Cultivation Again

In districts of Bhadradri Kothagudem, Mancherial, Warangal, Adilabad, and Asifabad, the forest department has been forcibly evicting tribal households engaged in podu cultivation (a traditional form of shifting cultivation) on forest lands. The department has been accused of booking false cases in several villages because those tribals do not possess Recognition of Forest Rights pattas for those lands. While the plantation drive using Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management Authority (CAMPA) and other funds dilutes the key provisions of the FRA and Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (PESA Act), it also comes at the cost of denudation of natural, biodiverse forests, and its replacement with monoculture plantations.

Habitat rights of the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) have also not been recognised under the FRA in Telangana. Under the amended FRA Rules, 2012, the District Level Committee (DLC) chaired by the district collector, is mandated to ensure that the habitat rights of PVTGs are recognised. Such PVTG communities have also been facing the threat of eviction from their habitats for Tiger Reserve projects in Kawal and Amrabad Tiger Reserve.

There are hardly any records or reports of recognition of Community Rights (CR/CFR) and Habitat Rights for PVTG communities and other ST communities in National Parks and Protected Areas. There is also a lack of communication on rejected FRA claims and why fresh claims have not been accepted.

An inconvenient flashback

Source:  Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Monthly Progress Report: https://tribal.nic.in/FRA.aspx (June 2023)

The above table shows the progress in the last five years in FRA implementation in Telangana, which can be summed up as dismal and negligent. Of the 20,305 odd claims under the category of individual forest rights (IFR) and community forest rights (CFR) since March 2018, only 3,176 titles have been approved, which is only 15% of the claims. As many as 10,669 or 51% of claims have been rejected. There were 2,808 community rights title claims filed as of June 2023, and only 102 were recognised.

What is worrying is that as of June 2023, overall 92.7% of the claims were disposed of with respect to claims received, whereas only 47% of the total claims were approved. As many as 94,426 claims were rejected, and little has been done so far to convey the reasons for the rejections of claims to the claimants.

Reports have also suggested that rejection is often based on frivolous grounds, completely in violation of the FRA, 2006, which clearly states that detailed reasons must be provided for rejection of claims. Based on the data from CFR – LA Report, 2016 on the potential of the Forest Rights Act & Community Forest Rights in India, it was found that Telangana has almost 40 lakh acres of forest land which has the potential for recognition under the FRA, 2006 of various communities, including both ST and OTFD. More than 10 million people, which includes STs, pastoralist communities, and OTFDs may benefit from the provisions of FRA in the state.

Despite framing PESA rules in 2011 and adopted after reorganisation of the separate state in 2014, there has practically been no implementation of PESA provisions in Telangana. The failure to constitute habitation-level Gram Sabhas, and strengthen the same, has resulted in the poor implementation of FRA across the state.

Further, the primacy of Gram Sabha consent is being completely bypassed in the formulation or implementation of key decisions related to land acquisition for public purpose projects, use of Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management Authority (CAMPA) funds for afforestation schemes – such as Harita Haaram or even selection of beneficiaries for housing schemes under the recently announced Gruha Lakshmi scheme, etc.

Afforestation with FRA, 2006 – The way forward

The afforestation schemes by the Telangana government, despite their perceived ‘success’, find little or no place in the electoral discourse of the ruling party. After all, it’s important to recognise that politics is not always about what is being said, but it is often about what is not being said. Many Adivasi families have been displaced and those who have resisted face cases against them.

A few months before the elections, chief minister K. Chandrashekar Rao said that some cases would be withdrawn, however, the indignity that ensued in the process might have damaged the ruling party’s electoral prospects among Adivasis and marginal cultivators in predominantly Adivasi districts and constituencies. That is perhaps the reason behind the ruling party’s silence on its flagship afforestation project.

The afforestation programme has extraordinary ambitions. However, the programme can only be successful by including and consulting various communities. Existing laws like PESA and FRA offer relevant solutions to prevent governments from falling into the trap of an exclusionary model of conservation, which undermines the rights of the Adivasis and other forest-dependent communities. Recognition of forest rights – both individual and community – is central to the integrity of our ecological and social future.

Environmental concerns cannot isolate the issues of the Adivasis and the recognition of forest-dependent communities. The electoral value of these issues cannot be undermined, and political parties must speak up on these issues.

*619 Community Rights titles were cancelled on the grounds of violating the FRA. These Community Forest Rights (CFR) titles have been granted to the Vana Samrakshana Samitis (VSS) which are under the control of the forest department and are, in fact, not covered under the term ‘forest dwelling Scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers” as given in Sections 2(c) and 2(o) of the Forest Rights Act and therefore these committees cannot be considered as claimants for granting community forest Rights.

**102 titles are still recognised as Community Rights/CFR titles; however, the details of the nature of these rights remain elusive. 

Azam Danish is an independent researcher.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.