Recently, A Paper published in the American Political Science Review titled ‘Representation and Forest Conservation: Evidence from India’s Scheduled Areas’.

The authors adopt what they call a “difference-in-differences’ framework that enables to isolate the causal effect of ST-mandated representation on forest outcomes

The paper offers comparable data sets of local self-governance and forest cover that differ in geography and over time:

• For villages with local self-government in Scheduled Areas (with mandated ST representation)
• For villages with local self-government without mandated ST representation
• Villages which adopted PESA earlier, and those that did so later.

Findings were based on “remote-sensing microdata that have recently become

available from satellites Such as LANDSAT, Sentinel, and Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP).”

They use two such datasets measures Vegetation Continuous Fields (VCF) & Global Forest Cover (GFC) dataset for 2001-17

Highlights From The Report – Institutional Mechanism That Can Yield Better Results In Conservation

1. Political Representation For Marginalized Communities – STs Impact On Forest Conservation:

Increase in Tree Canopy: Boosting formal representation for ST led to an average increase in tree canopy by 3% per year as well as a reduction in the rate of deforestation.

• Prior to PESA: Areas close to mines experienced higher rates of deforestation.
• Post PESA Impact: Rise in tree canopy and fall in deforestation began to happen after the introduction of PESA elections that mandate quotas for ST.
• Mere presence of PRIs or local self-government (introduced from 1993) without mandated representation for the ST, had no conservation effects.

Reason for this Cause: When empowered as political actors, the STs had an economic incentive to protect trees, which they needed for their livelihoods centred on sale of non-timber forest produce and daily caloric intake.

This dependency made them hostile to commercial timber and mining which lead to deforestation.

2. Vesting powers in a single umbrella institution – Political institution that empowers marginalised voices

Benefits of Single umbrella institution: It would be better at recognising how to balance the dual policy objectives of development and conservation.

It can consolidate power into a more substantive and meaningful democratic authority.

Administrative Decentralisation vs Democratic Decentralisation:

Administrative decentralisation -  Here the priority is efficient execution

It is possible to have village-level governing councils empowered with budgets for execution but lacking discretionary power on resource management.

Democratic decentralisation: Refers to representative and downwardly accountable local actors who have autonomous, discretionary decision-making spheres, with the power and resources to make significant decisions pertaining to people’s lives.

Background of PESA

• Need For Local Self-Governance: The 73rd constitutional amendment was made in 1992 to promote local self-governance in rural India.
• 73rd constitutional amendment formalized local self-government through the three-tier Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI) in the non-Scheduled Areas
• But It did so without “mandated representation for STs”
• PESA took it a step further and  It introduced an electoral quota that requires all chairperson positions, as well as at least half the seats on each local government councils to be reserved for ST individuals.

Bhuria Committee:

• The government appointed a committee headed by Mr. Dileep Singh Bhuria to work out the details as to how structures similar to Panchayati Raj Institutions can take shape in Tribal Areas and Scheduled Areas and define their powers.
• The Bhuria Committee submitted its report in January 1995.

Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA)

• Enacted On: PESA was enacted on 24 December 1996 to extend the provisions of Part 9 of the Constitution to Schedule Areas, with certain exceptions and modifications.
• Self-Governance Through Gram Sabha: The PESA Act was enacted to ensure self-governance through Gram Sabhas (village assemblies) for people living in the Scheduled Areas.
• Rights of Tribal Communities: The PESA Act recognizes the rights of tribal communities that are residents of tribal communities and also acknowledges their traditional rights over natural resources.
• States Under the Act: Ten states have notified Fifth Schedule areas that cover (partially or fully) several districts in each of these states.
• These states are Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, and Telangana.

Significance of The PESA Act

• Empowered Gram Sabhas: They play a key role in approving development plans and controlling all major developments in the social sectors.
• Tribal Integration: Decentralised governance helps reduce tribal people’s grievances and builds trust in integration with the mainstream.
• Protect Ecosystem: PESA empowers tribes through Gram Sabhas to preserve their connection with the ecosystem.
• For example, in 2013, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Odisha Government to seek gram sabha permission for bauxite mining in Kalahandi and Rayagada district of Odisha, leading to the cancellation of mining on Niyamgiri hills.
• Safeguard tribal interests and rights: The control over institutions and functionaries help in protecting their traditional culture, religion and identity as well as the rights provided by the Constitution.

Limitations Of The PESA Act

• States Not Even Framed the Rules: Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Odisha have not even framed the rules yet.
• Use of unfair means for bypassing the law: Acquisition of land happens under other acts, violating the spirit behind PESA, i.e. safeguard tribal land and consent of gram sabhas.
• In the Korba district of Chhattisgarh, the authorities decided to acquire land using the Coal Bearing Act of 1957.
• Poor Implementation of law: A 2010 study on “Status of PESA” in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Orissa by Indian Institute of Public Administration highlighted poor implementation of the Act.
• E.g., In Khunti district of Jharkhand, 65% of people whose land was acquired were not even asked about it.
• Lack of Clarity, Legal infirmity, bureaucratic apathy and lack of political will are some of the concerns.

Way Forward To The PESA Act

• Implement Municipal Extension to Scheduled Areas (MESA) as per the Bhuria Committee recommendations.
• Capacity Building: Equipping Gram Sabhas with training and resources, adequate responsibilities to levy and collect taxes, fees, duties, or tolls.
• New Tribal Development Community Model: for tribal development.
• Convergence of PESA with other regulations: Like Forests Rights Act (2006), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition etc.