| Policies influencing NTFP management
& trade
The state of Madhya Pradesh has many firsts
to its credit when it comes to policies related to forests,
and especially so NTFP. MP was the first state to nationalise
an NTFP, Tendu Leave (TL) in 1964 and then followed it up
with nationalising Harra, Sal seed, and Gums. The state let
most items go from the list of specified produces and permitted
free trade in them way back in 1986, thereby foregoing all
royalties from the same. It was one of the first states to
come up with a reasonably clear definition of NTFP in 1998.
It probably is the only state to have a functioning three
tier co-operative structure to procure and trade nationalised
NTFP. The same co-operative structure has a clearly laid out
policy for distributing incentive wages to primary collectors
that has no parallel in the country.
Definition of MFP/NTFP
The MP government has defined Minor Forest
Produce (MFP) in response to conferring of ownership rights
to Panchayats and Gram Sabhas by central government through
a constitutional amendment, Provisions for Panchayat (Extension
to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996. The MP government circular
dated 15/05/1998 defines "MFP" as "non timber
forest produce which can be harvested on a non-destructive
basis and will not include minerals and wild animals or their
derivatives". Timber and forest produce will have meaning
as given in the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The important aspect
to recall here would be the definition of timber as per the
said act - timber includes trees when they have or have been
felled, and all wood whether cut up or fashioned or hollowed
out for any purpose or not. The act goes on to define the
trees that include palms, bamboos, stumps, brushwood and canes.
This implies those last mentioned items - notably bamboo,
are excluded from the list of NTFP and thereby is not MFP
in legal terms. The definition refers to harvesting practices
(non - destructive) that makes it a subject to debate.
Though there might be case for some debate
in the definition, primarily because of the exclusions, this
is one of the better and logical definitions in comparison
to other states that have tried to define the same.
NTFP Lease & Licensing Policy
Nationalised
Tendu leave was the first item to be nationalised
in 1964. In erstwhile Madhya Bharat malguzars and ex-zamindars
gave contracts to individual traders for rights of harvesting
Tendu leaves till 1951. Abolition of proprietary rights in
1951 vested same rights with the state government, who in
turn leased it to contractors. Contractors paid wages to pluckers
and royalty to the government. It was observed that this arrangement
led to number of malpractices. In view of its importance as
an income source for tribal and revenue potential to state
government, Tendu leave was nationalised by enactment of Tendu
leaves (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964.
The primary objectives for nationalisation were -
- Stopping pilferage in government forest
and other lands,
- Provide definite value for Tendu leaves
to growers,
- Increase revenue to state,
- Provide adequate wages to labour,
- Improve quality and quantity of leaves
by regular pruning and
- Ensure supply of leaves to small and medium
manufacturers of bidis
Salient features of the act are
- Empowering state government to divide areas
into units,
- Giving right to collect leaves from forests
and carry out trade on its behalf to appointed agents,
- Restricting purchase and transport of leaves
through transit permits,
- Registration of growers of TL,
- Registration of manufacturer of bidis and
- Empowering state government to make rules
to dispose TL.
Convinced by success of nationalisation of
TL that was nationalised in 1964, Harra, Sal seed, and gums
were added to the list later on. The year of nationalisation
of above produces are as follows - 1969 - Harra and Gums,
1975 - Sal seed. Collection and trading of gums, a specified
produce, was being carried out by the FD itself or through
its agents from 1970. But it was observed that the trees were
being destroyed due to deep tapping. Therefore, the state
government banned extraction of gums in 80's. This ban was
lifted in 1995 and controlled extraction was permitted.
Mahua was nationalised in MP in 1969 -70,
but was withdrawn in 3 years. Ostensibly this was done as
more trees were found to be in private lands, the logistics
was mind boggling as the tree was spread in most areas, and
it was too important (edible, staple food for some during
certain seasons) an item to be nationalised. But government
was fixing support prices till very recently. The permission
of FD was required for storage of Mahua till 1996, when the
trade was delicensed and made free to allow collectors to
freely market their surplus. Now one can hold Mahua without
any restriction.
Similarly in 2000 - 2001 season, Chironji
and Aonla were nationalised in selective parts of MP, but
were later withdrawn in the same year for the above reasons.
What could also have influenced the decision is role of the
traders lobby that seem quite influential in the state.
The state was a leading producer in most
of the items that have been nationalised. The state accounted
for nearly 45% of TL and 75% of Harra production in the country.
Erstwhile eastern MP (present Chhatisgarh) along with Orissa
and Bihar is the leading region for production of Sal seed.
Similarly in case of most of the gums, the state is the leading
producer. This resulted in these produces being actively collected
and traded in the state. This might have played a crucial
role in deciding about nationalisation of the produces.
Nationalisation in one sense has been about
giving monopoly rights in trading - while local people can
collect items under nationalised list, they can only sell
it to government or forest department or any other agents
so appointed by former. The produce in the nationalised list,
even if grown in private land, has to be handed over to government
agency, albeit at a higher rate. The private growers of nationalised
items are required to register with government to get these
higher collection rates.
Three primary objectives have been put forward
for nationalisation of any item - giving fair deal to collectors,
sustainable harvesting and increased revenue to state from
forests. While till recently it has been seen that state has
been interested in the revenue aspect more then any other
reasons. This can be said because it has focussed on those
items (TL) that are able to give more revenue to its coffers
to the neglect in management of others (Sal Seed, Harra and
Gum). As we will observe, whereas things have definitely taken
a turn towards better after the days of co-operatisation and
then PESA in the majority revenue earner i.e. TL, situation
is more or less the same for other nationalised produces.
Specified
Some produces were defined as specified forest
produce as per MP Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969.
The state government under this act empowered to make rules
as it deems fit for disposal of specified forest produces.
Prominent among specified produces are - Kullu Gum, Dhawra
Gum, Khair Gum, Babool gum, Sal and Salai resin, Rosha Grass,
Lac in all forms, Mahua Flowers and seed, chironji, Guthli,
Sal seed, Harra and Kacharia, Mahul Leaves, Phool Bahari,
and Bamboo. Mahua flower and seed were removed from specified
produce in 1972.
Free Produces
In 1986, state government stopped system of
royalty on all non-nationalised NTFP. Prior to 1986 it was
mostly royalty system with minimum collection prices announced
that was prevalent in the state for all such produces. In
affect, all the produces apart from the nationalised ones
were now open for free collection, storage and trade.
However, once purchased by trader and when it is transported
from a haat to any other place, a transit pass is required
from concerned forest authorities. Primary logic given for
stipulation of transit pass is that it helps restricting unsustainable
harvesting practices. Transit pass is the only medium through
which FD can know the amount of forest produces harvested
from a particular area.
The SDO (ACF) issues a TP to the trader after
proper verification and authorisation from concerned DFO.
A transit pass is required as many times as produces are transported
from a haat, or after a transaction. Validity of TP stays
in force for 4-5 days and for only one transaction/ journey.
In the process, sometimes, transit pass is required more then
once for same produce to be transported may be in diminished
quantity. Mahua and Charota are exceptional cases where TP
is not required. Mahua has been exempted from Excise act in
1996.
But once a produce is processed, there is no need for a transit
pass. The concerned agency has to however keep supporting
documents regarding transport of raw material and processing
accounts. Similarly, though no registration is required with
forest department for setting up of enterprises in case of
free produces, it is required that stock books are maintained
and comply with transit passes drawn and issued in support
of trading and transportation.
Some of the privatised NTFP can be traded
in Mandis primarily meant for trading in agricultural produces.
Though Mandis do not have any special facility for trading
of NTFP, Mandi Tax is imposed on volume traded on the buyer.
The trader needs to register if he or she
wants to import produces from outside the state with all details
about forest produce being imported and transit permit issued.
In case of any produce, (even free produces),
under exceptional circumstances, forest department or DFO
can restrict harvesting of the endangered specie(s). There
are some NTFP that are restricted either in whole state or
in certain districts. This list may change time to time and
from district to district. Most barks have now been banned
for trading all over the state. Similarly Sal seed (after
the borer attack in the mid 90s) and Aonla are currently banned
in some districts.
Government Regulations in NTFP trade
Registration Requirements
There are quantitative restrictions on transport,
production and processing of specified forest produces. The
primary logic for restrictions given is that it will facilitate
tribal community for bonafide use and restrict illegal trade
in such products. A transport permit is to be obtained from
DFO in case of purchase of specified forest produces beyond
this quantity and transport will be restricted to the specified
route and permitted during daytime only. The buyer has to
obtain a certificate of purchase from concerned officer and
show it whenever demanded by police or forest department officials.
Agencies have to register with local DFO for establishing
enterprises that use specified forest produces as raw materials.
|
