An account of the impact of restoration projects in common lands

[Yazhini]

In a recent scoping survey that I took part in, one of the questions asked was regarding the restoration activities that took place or were planned to start in the commons of the villages of the respondent after these lands were entered into POB ( Prohibitory Order Book – a basic explanation of this in the context of commons would be that this is a register where entry of a specified land territory that is regarded as common land for a certain village, would ensure certain rights of the villagers, concerning these common lands over these lands.). The responses to these questions ranged from increasing plantations in the commons, constructing trenches such as boundary trenches and staggered trenches, constructing ponds for cattle, and construction of check dams in the commons of their villages. These restoration projects have also been reported to have led to an increase in the number of villagers using these common lands for various uses such as for grazing livestock or for gathering fruits and nuts and such edible items from the common land and there have also been reports in some villages that these restoration projects have also led to an increase in fishing activities. Here, we see an obvious correlation between the restoration projects that were taken up in the commons and the resultant benefits that the community gained through the usage of these commons. The commons in question were lands that either suffered from degradation or alteration due to encroachment activities or due to the lack of interest of the communities concerned in the preservation of the common land in a useful state. The restoration projects which were implemented in these lands led to the ecosystem shifting to one which is more conducive to the benefit of the communities dependent on it.

[Yazhini]

On the relationship between the village community, the common lands, and the restoration project on those lands.

Recently we went on field visits to different villages to understand their relationship with commons. It is a relationship with social, economical and cultural dimensions, and the nature of this relationship affects the kind of approach that the villagers took with respect to the restoration activities in the common land. When their relationship with the land was such that they thought that the land never really belonged to them and it is in the whims and fancies of those in power to determine who exactly the common lands belong to, it was a natural conclusion that there can be no restoration activities on the land. One more thing to observe is that at this stage, the restoration activities that were undertaken were through the NREGA scheme, which was indirectly representing the State and thus gains more legitimacy over villagers themselves due to its greater proximity to State power as compared to that of the villagers. Now, the question is whether villagers need greater legitimacy over the common lands of their village and if so, how should that be achieved? When one takes a paternalistic view on the behalf of the State, a highly possible answer would be that the villagers cannot be led to control their common lands as that would not ensure the optimal usage of the land for the greater good of the country. But the thing is, such an argument and other argument in a similar direction can be applied to the idea of democracy itself and a State that is liberal and democratic cannot truly endorse this view without damaging its own legitimacy derived from the ideals of democracy. Now, in a country like India which proclaims itself to be liberal and democratic, this argument is thus squashed. However, the reality of the State having greater legitimacy over the commons as against the villagers still exists and the question of how to give the villagers a more level playing field against the State on the issues of the commons and the kind of rights that they have over the commons. Here, an obvious solution to this issue would be villagers gaining more awareness regarding their rights over the commons and asserting these rights forcefully. We did observe that in those villagers where the villagers were more aware of their rights over the commons with the help of an NGO, the villagers actively planned and undertook restoration activities in those lands. At this point, another question that arises here is whether this dependence on an NGO is truly sustainable for these villages. While an NGO could help a village community in understanding their rights over the commons and in maintaining the commons in a sustainable way, is it really a good idea to depend only on the NGO(s) to spread awareness on the community’s collective rights over the commons. Given the constraints that they naturally have in the course of their operations and the sheer size of this country and the countless villages in it, each of which has some type of relationship over a common land, one cannot help but wonder if there could be a better alternative that effectively reaches the people in need of awareness about their rights and the resources that they may require in asserting their rights.

[Author]

Posts