How the PESA Has Boosted Forest Conservation in India (GS Paper 2, Government Policies)
Introduction:
- The policy approach to conservation in India has long grappled with two types of conflicts: conservation versus resource extraction by local communities, and conservation versus 'economic development'.
- These conflicts often lead to a balancing act where conservation goals are weighed against the demands of economic growth and the needs of local communities.
The Approach:
- The state has historically adopted a piecemeal approach to conservation, sometimes prioritizing resource extraction and at other times conservation.
- This direction is often influenced by the competing interests of political elites at national, state, and local levels.
- Centralization of political power tends to favor the interests of big capital over those of local communities, leading to deforestation driven by activities such as mining, power projects, commercial timber extraction, and the construction of large dams.
- Conversely, when conservation initiatives do occur, they frequently follow a top-down approach, which can restrict local communities' access to traditional forest lands essential for their livelihoods.
The PESA Act:
- The Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), passed in 1996, extends the framework of local government councils to Scheduled Areas.
- These areas, designated under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, are regions predominantly inhabited by tribal populations whose customary rights are recognized.
- While the 73rd Amendment in 1992 formalized local self-government through Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI) in non-Scheduled Areas, it did not mandate representation for Scheduled Tribes (STs).
- PESA, however, introduced an electoral quota reserving all chairperson positions and at least half the seats on each local government council for ST individuals.
- States that have poorly implemented PESA, such as Gujarat, often lack mandated ST representation in gram sabha committees.
Equitable Representation:
- Studies tracking the increase and decrease of tree and vegetation cover in forested areas have shown that mandated formal representation for STs leads to an average annual increase in tree canopy by 3% and a reduction in deforestation rates.
- These positive effects are more pronounced in areas with substantial forest cover at the start of the study period.
- The data indicates that the rise in tree canopy and decrease in deforestation began after the introduction of PESA elections with ST quotas.
- Merely having PRIs or local self-government without mandated ST representation did not result in conservation benefits.
On Democratic Decentralization:
- The study also compared the impacts of PESA with the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), which aimed to strengthen ST rights to forest lands.
- It found that FRA had no significant additional impacts on conservation beyond those caused by PESA.
- The study highlights a key theoretical distinction between administrative decentralization (focused on efficient execution) and democratic decentralization (emphasizing representative, downwardly accountable local actors with autonomous decision-making power). True democratic decentralization involves empowering local councils with discretionary power and resources to make significant decisions affecting people's lives.
Conclusion:
- In conclusion, mandated political representation for marginalized communities is one institutional mechanism that can enhance conservation outcomes.
- Another mechanism, according to the study, is vesting power in a single umbrella institution that empowers marginalized voices.
- Such an institution, rather than multiple ones with different mandates, can better balance the dual policy objectives of development and conservation, consolidating power into a more substantive and meaningful democratic authority.
