1. Lack of credible data: Although the Bill proposes to recognize and vest forest land rights to FDSTs, there are no reliable estimates of the number of families who will be benefiting from the proposed legislation. Secondly, although the government estimates that there are around 2-3 million people living inside India’s protected areas (national parks and sanctuaries), there is no census of the number of FDSTs residing within the core areas of national parks and sanctuaries. Therefore, it is not possible to calculate how much forest land would be required in order to implement the provisions of the Bill.

2. Erosion of forest cover: The Bill prescribes 2.5 hectares as the upper limit of forest land that an FDST nuclear family may be allotted. However, there is a possibility that it might result in elimination of legal protection for forest cover, which could lead to heavy ecological damage. For instance, the possible depletion of watershed forests of Central India, which allow penetration of rain water into the sub soil, could lead to drying up of rivers such as Narmada, Tapti, Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna, and Cauveri10. The counter-argument is that the Bill only seeks to recognize the forest rights of FDSTs who have been cultivating the forest land for generations. In any case, the total forest land under encroachment is estimated by the government at 13.43 lakh hectares, which amounts to about 2% of the recorded forest area in the country.

3. Depletion of wildlife: The Bill grants forest rights to FDSTs in core areas of National Parks and Sanctuaries. There could be an argument against advocating coexistence between wild animals and tribal communities. Certain species such as tigers, rhinos, and elephants are vulnerable to pressures from human land use. These species are typically large-bodied, slow breeding, need large areas, and vast resources for survival. Some experts argue that it might be more realistic to identify protected areas, which consist of National Parks and Sanctuaries (about 4.7% of India’s geographical area18) as inviolate while areas outside such reserves could be utilised to serve the needs of tribal communities.

4. Eviction, relocation and compensation: The Bill does not place any explicit restriction on the methods that can be used to remove non-eligible forest dwellers. This is a concern, given the history of cases where brutal force has been used to evict tribal families. Also, since the Bill grants forest rights to FDSTs in core areas of National Parks and Sanctuaries provided they are relocated within five years with due compensation. If relocation does not take place within the prescribed time period, the holder would get permanent right over forest land. Therefore, there would either be large scale relocation of tribal communities or they would get permanent right over land in core areas. Given India’s poor track record in relocating people affected by development projects, such as the Narmada Dam, or from sanctuaries such as Sariska and Gir, the possibility of large scale relocation from core areas raises the spectre of loss of livelihood and hardship for FDSTs. Also, as far as compensation is concerned, the Bill does not clarify exactly what kind of compensation would be offered to the tribal people, what recourse they would have if such compensation is not satisfactory or is altogether denied. However, the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee has noted the failures of previous relocation efforts. It has also suggested a comprehensive compensation and rehabilitation package that could eventually form part of the legislation.

5. Occupancy of forest land prior to the cut-off date: The Cabinet recently extended the cut-off date for vesting and recognizing forest land rights of the tribal community from 1980 to December, 2005. However, the Bill does not specify the kind of evidence that FDSTs would require to prove their occupancy of forest land before 1980. Although states such as Maharashtra have adopted more effective procedures than just documentary evidences (oral testimonies, evidence of elders of the village etc.) for verifying claims, it is not mandatory for every state to adopt such practices. Therefore, there might be a case for specifying a set of admissible evidences in the Bill itself. Also, it is unlikely that FDSTs would have the required documentary evidence to prove their occupancy over forest land before 2005. Thus, in order to minimize evictions, a case could be made for settling the claims of FDSTs on the basis of current occupancy of forest land.