1. Sanctuary at a glance
Yawal Wildlife Sanctuary, Maharashtra, India

2. 172 sq. km. declared in 1969 Southern Tropical Dry Deciduous forests supports wildlife population such as leopards, Sloth bear, hyenas, Indian fox, Wolf, Jungle cat, forest owlet, python, etc. 6 villages inside with a population of over 5000, all belonging to over 5 different tribes.

3. History of people in the Sanctuary
19th century – Forestry operations by colonial government settled here without land and resource access or rights in 1899.
1969- Declared a PA
1996 – All human use completely stopped
People in the area predominantly dependent on forest based livelihoods and subsistence farming left with no legal source of income post Facing constant harassment, no basic amenities, and with a constant threat of relocation
2000 – Lok Sangharsha Morcha – Tribal collective to fight against atrocities and for land and resource rights

4. Large scale commercial Grazing
Resulting into “illegal” and unregulated use
Timber smuggling
By organised gangs from outside
Indifference or support by population inside
Large scale commercial Grazing
Villagers kept cattle on rent for grazing.
App 8000 heads of cattle per day brought in for grazing from outside.

5. Land occupation and encroachment
Land occupation by Local people
Land is the major source of livelihood and social status
Threatened by forest land being occupied by people from outside under political patronage
A large part of the sanctuary is under encroachment
Armed police force deployed in the Sanctuary to help forest department but not successful in controlling crime despite many violent clashes.

6. Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 or the Forest Rights Act 2006 and Rules 2008
Brought in after decades of struggle by forest dependent communities
1. Acknowledges and Intends to undo historic and continuing injustice
2. Rights already exist only need to be recognised
3. Vests and acknowledges following kinds of rights:
Right to access and protect biodiversity, intellectual property right and traditional knowledge
Right to protect their surroundings from external threats and hence all development projects to seek consent from gramsabhas (village councils)
Right to manage, protect and sustainably use “community forest resource” defined as, “customary common forest land within the traditional or customary boundaries of the village or seasonal use of landscape in case of pastoral communities.”
Right to claim Habitat Rights to particularly vulnerable tribal Groups (PVTG) and pastoral communities

7. Within Protected areas
“Critical wildlife habitats” to be identified through scientific and democratic process…could be made ‘inviolate’
Co-existence to be the priority but rights can be altered in consultation with rights-holders.
Relocation only if coexistence is proven to be not possible, and causes “irreversible” damage to species concerned.
Relocation only after informed consent.

8. FRA seen as a Potential solution by LSM
Conflict ridden environment with allegations and cross allegations. FD and local conservation groups blaming LSM for all the problems in the sanctuary, particularly encroachments
FRA seen as a Potential solution by LSM
Claiming for Community Forest Resource Right (CFR) or collective forest rights and moving towards self governance and local management of area within the boundary of each village.
Along with visioning and planning for biodiversity conservation and local sustainable development.

9. 2006 – FRA was enacted
2009 – Claims filed in all villages
– Most claims rejected at DLC level
2011 – Appeals against rejection filed in all villages
Verification process continues in some villages settled for others ……..

10. Government shows interest…
In May 2013, Principle Secretary Forest called for a meeting to discuss tribal development, forest conservation, and wildlife protection.
LSM proposed a participatory planning and implementation process for Yaval WS.
Asks for implementation of FRA to ensure land and resource tenure security

11. Villages come together to start a visioning and planning exercise.

12. Special village council (gram sabha) meetings held to discuss and review the plans
Councils suggest various solutions for the current conflict situation

13. Steps taken so far and to be taken……
Village forest use boundaries were identified and mapped.
Maps included areas of ecological, cultural and economic importance
Evidences were gathered to use this data to file collective claims under the FRA
Fresh claims were filed under FRA
Village wise vision and action plans being prepared
Many meetings held with all government line agency representatives to explore financial, technical and other support for the village conservation and development plans.
An advisory committee including local people’s representatives, academics, NGOs and government officials established to monitor the process

14. Results
30% of illegal land occupation removed, action still continuing
A network of 100 local youth formed, which has been successful in controlling timber smuggling in last two years–which could not be controlled by armed police in the past
Youth network to also be engaged in assessing and monitoring local wildlife population and biodiversity and establishing areas critical for wildlife
State inputs into local development based on local village plans leading to economic benefits.
A few villages received titles under the FRA
A local governance and co-management plan suggest to the government to continue the process
This is just the beginning …a long way to go still

15. Thank you
Neema Pathak-Broome On behalf of Lok Sangharsha Morcha, Lok Samanvay Pratishthan, Kalpavriksh (India) and ICCA Consortium Acknowledgement This presentation would not have been possible without the villagers, and all other actors involved in the process but are not here today.