Does the Indian Forest Rights Act (2006) represent a pro-poor institutional reform?
Oliver Springate-Baginski, ODG; Purnamita Dasgupta, ICRIER; Gopinath Reddy, CESS; Ajit Banerjee and Madhu Sarin Can tribal and other hitherto politically marginalised groups in India win significant institutional reform, in terms of forest-based tenure and livelihood security? Forest-adjacent rural populations are amongst the poorest of the poor in India in terms of most socio-economic indicators. Their poverty reflects a history of disenfranchisement – having their customary forest land use negated by executive fiat (involving expropriation and criminalisation) by feudal states, by colonial states and subsequently by the independent Indian government. Controversy and conflict over forest control, management and use has intensified in recent decades, with the unresolved issue of recognition of local people’s legal basis for the forest-based livelihoods reaching a crisis, and state-attempted mass evictions politicising large numbers. Concerted political mobilisation has finally led to t
Related Questions
- When should an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or institution request a "407" review for research involving children as subjects?
- What categories of research involving children can an Institutional Review Board approve?
- Does the Indian Forest Rights Act (2006) represent a pro-poor institutional reform?
