A presentation on 'Converging Community, Commons and Capital: Is responsible land-based investment acceptable and sustainable? A case study from Eastern India State of Odisha', made in Land and Poverty Conference, Organized by the World Bank in Washington during March 24-27, 2014.

1. Converging Community, Commons and Capital: Is
responsible land-based investment acceptable and
sustainable?
A case study from Eastern India State of Odisha
Pranab Ranjan Choudhury, Sumita Sindhi
oridev@gmail.com

2. Content
! Investment (NR-Minerals)Destination – Odisha
! Mineral-Land-Commons Linkages
! Mineral-Community (Poverty & Tribal)- Commons
! Commons Connection- Historical Injustice
! Common Confusion: Intentional or Lack of Concern?
! Common Framework
! Decline of Commons and Implications on Community
! Common Land Allotment
! Contribution of Investment on Job-creation
! Reaction to Investments
! Argument around Commons Governance
! Gaps & Options

3. Investment Destination- Odisha
! Post-1991 Economic reforms and liberalization process used to attract
investments for state development around Natural Resources
! Trajectory was to exploit of its mineral endowment (viz. 33% iron ore, 60%
of bauxite, 98% of chromites, 25% of coal and 68% of manganese reserve
of the country) to propel industrialization
! Creation of enabling legal and institutional space –Team-Odisha, IDCO,
IPICOL
! Has attracted a commitment of about 10 billion USD, 27% of all-India
investments mostly around mineral
! 49 MoUs with various domestic and foreign companies for production of
more than 75 million tonnes of steel with an investment of USD 33
billion.

4. Investment-Land linkage
! Most investments around Mineral/Metal
! Requires lands in multiple locations for mining, ore-processing,
manufacturing/downstream industries and also for yards to store
and export
! Official area under mines has increased by almost half between
1988 and 2006 (98,024 ha to 141,758 ha).
! 600 mining leases in 2011-12, covering an area of 98,438
thousand ha

5. 28
Mineral Production Trend (million mteric tonnes)
33 37
Coal Ironore Bauxite Others
42 43 44 45 48 52
60
67 71
81
90
98
8 8 11 12 12 12 14 17
22
35
46 48
66
75 77
21
10 10 9
26 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9

6. Common Land & Minerals
• One third of 142 thousand ha of Forestland diverted since 1980 were for
mining
Mining
32%
Irrigation
13%
Road, Railway
&
Transmission
line
7%
Encroachment
& Forest Vill
Conversion
2%
Others
43%
Defence
3%
• Mineral based industries account for more than 80% of land allocated
through IDCO (67, 000 ha during 1995-2013)

7. Mineral- Tribal-Poverty-Commons-Nexus
• 90% of coal and >50% most other mineral reserves are located in the tribal regions
• Among 50 top mineral producing districts of India, 60% located in 150 most backwards
districts.
• In Odisha, Keonjhar produces 21% of India’s iron ore has 60% population living
BPL(below poverty line) & Koraput, with around 40% of India’s Bauxite ranked has 79%
population BPL
• CPR are more in these districts are ease to expropriate; projects prefer to go for more
CPR with less private land to downsize number of affected persons & avoid political and
economic burdens
! CPR formed 58% of the land acquired for NALCO in Koraput, qhile it was only 18% in non-tribal
Angul (Fernandes and Raj 1992)
! Post-1990, more than 1/3rd land allotted by IDCO were public (Government) land, which
percentage is higher in the four industrialized districts where almost half the lands were
allotted Jajpur, Angul, Jharsuguda and Jagatsinghpur
• 60% of 1 million ha used for development during 1951-95 were CPR (Fernandes and Asif
1997)

8. More Commons in poverty and tribal
geography
Distribution of Government land in Strategic Geographies
AbadJogyaAnabadi AbadAjogyaAnabadi Rakshit SarbaSadharan
1
10
14
1
10
1
8
15 5
1
11
9
10 6 4 9
Tribal Area KBK Coastal Odisha

9. Historical injustice?
Almost 2/3rd of land with the state
! Inherited land governance legacies
! State policy towards shifting cultivation
! Limitations of survey and settlements
! Process of forest reservation
! A majority of these lands are common resources either de-facto and
de-jure and their share go above 80% of total land in the Schedule
V
! Higher % of Landlessness and % of Small and Marginal Farmers

10. 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
State holds 3/4th of land
20% HH are landless
And another 65% HH own only 13%
land; 2/3rd Tribal and Dalit population
Access to land in Schedule Area of Odisha
% of Private Land % of landlessness (< 1 std
acre)
% of Govt land % of Forest land
Gajapati Kalahandi Keonjhar Kondhmal Koraput
Malkangiri Mayurbhanj Nowrangpur Rayagada Sundergarh

11. In PVTGs Area
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Land Ownership in PVTG Areas
Lanjia Juang Didayi Kutia Kondh Pauri Bhuyan Saora Average
Other lands
Wasteland
Forest land
Cultivable land
Across PVTG Homelands

12. Commons Confusion: Intentional?
! Commons in Odisha context, are not defined in terms of ownership
! De-jure forms a subset under the more clearly defined term ‘Government
Land’; though de-facto all Govt land are commons including forest,
seasonal private land
! Definitions by NSSO- De-facto for area and De-jure for dependence
! Draft National Land Reform Policy:
! Not in favor of a uniform national definition of CPR
• Prescribes for defining the perspective through it need to be looked at
• As per importance to support rural livelihoods and ecology as a whole.
• CPR in terms of its inalienable use rights by all members of an identifiable
community and emphasize their importance because of their large area and
their contribution to people's sustenance

14. Quantifying Commons
NSSO (1998) : 11% of the state’s area with a per HH CPLR at 0.28 ha (per HH area - 0.58 ha)
De-facto common land in Odisha
(as % to total Village land)
AbadJogyaA
nabadi
9%
AbadAjogya
Anabadi
9%
Rakshit
11%
SarbaSadhar
an
1%
Private land
70%
De jure Common Land as % total Village land
(Gochar+ Gramya Jungle + Sarbasadharan)
Pvt
70%
Common
Govt
23%
7%
Census, 2001: de-facto commons to 38% of village ( culturable waste + not-available-for-cultivation)
Draft National land Reform Policy, 2013 Definition : 31%
Excluding Forest land

15. Common’s Decline
! Exclusion of the poor from CPR across regions of India well documented by Jodha and
Others (Jodha, 1986, 1990). (Nesmith, 1991; Agarwal, 1995; Iyengar & Shukla, 1999;
! Extent of decline during 1959-80 is 26-52%, Jodha, 1986; by 33% over 20 years, Pasha
(1992)
! Drastic decline in number of products and in terms of time of collection over 30 year
period, (Jodha 1986, 1990)
! In Odisha, 25% decline in CPR area between 1980-81 and 2000-01 due to encroachment,
development, land-reform (distribution) and overexploitation of CPR forest land
! Decrease by Exclusion of the poor from CPR is being facilitated by a number of processes:
liberalization, commodification, marketization and agricultural intensification which have
been going on for decades (Freese, 1998); in addition, encroachment/possession, land
distribution are common in Odisha
.

16. Post-liberalization Decline
Non-agril land use,
73.99
Forest, 6.15 Net Area sown +
Current Fallow, -4.25
Common Land,
-21.24
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
% change
Land Use Change (1990-2012)
(In %)

17. Commons-Community Linkages:
Economics
! Well documented through regional/ research investigations by Jodha and
others; national perspective by NSSO; also R & R studies
! Most tribes in India are CPR dependents, though lack formal ownership title
on customary lands. (Fernandes, 1991)
! Dependence is more in vulnerable ecosystems Iyengar (1997 and 1989); 10-29%
of income and 31-42% of farm inputs from CPR ( Jodha, 1990)
! As per NSSO, 1998, ratio of value of collection from CPR to consumption
expenditure is 3.02% for India; Highest in Odisha at 5.59% (value Rs 929)
! CPR contributed US $5 billion a year to the incomes of poor rural households
in India (12% to household income; 2.5 times total World Bank lending or
about twice FDI to India in fiscal 1996 Becks and Nesmith (2001)
! Income from forests (de-facto CPR) contributes 25% to 52% of the household
income of those dependent on forests (Vasundhara, 2005 ).

18. Commons-Community Linkages:
Socio-Cultural & Ecological
! Commons and Community Identity
! CPR links to life events, festivals and social-norms
! CPR contributes to culturally preferred, bio-diverse nutritious local food
security
! 50 types of leaves, 46 types of fruits, 15 types of flowers, 14 types of tubers, 11 types
of seeds and 5 types of gums form part of tribal diet in one form or the other ( Sinha
and Lakra, 2005).
! 55 wild edible tuberous species representing 37 genera and 24 families contributing
to tribal food security ( Misra et al 2013). including17 species used during food
deficiency to meet seasonal shortages
! Integral part of Village landscape and ecosystem to maintain balance
! Biodiversity Conservation (Sacred Groves), nutrient flow, pollination services
! As sink of Carbon in soil and vegetation

19. Common Marginalization
! Out of 1 million ha of land acquired in Odisha during 1951-95 () ,
Forest land (30%) and Common land (28%). (Fernandes Walter, 1997)
• Till 2000, about 2 million people have been directly affected by
Development Projects out of which only 0.5 m have been physically
displaced losing their home & hearth (Ota, 2001)
! In Indravati project, each displaced family had been cultivating 0.6 ha of
state owned and 1 ha of private land before displacement
! 49% of the sampled family were landless,, but after displacement,
landlessness increased to 85.25%,
! Average legal landholding declined to 0.25 ha and the average government
land cultivated came down to only 0.125 ha (Ota, 2001)
! Demographic numbers made available by projects count only the losers
of individually owned land and ignore the CPR dependents
(Fernandes)

20. Common Land Allotment
-Legal framework
! Compensation for commons in the existing legal framework
! Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – No compensation
! LARR -2013 (affected families entitled to get some benefits in form of R&R
entitlements, however the benefits to land losers are substantially more)
! Orissa R&R Policy 2006 which was based upon the LA Act doesn’t recognize
unrecorded rights
! Common Land allotments/settlements for individuals
! OGLS, OPLE, GG Act, FRA
! Many large projects prefer geography with more CPRs, to avoid political
and economic implications of displacement
! States are going for Land banks out of CPR

21. Allotment Issues
• Land allocated for a purpose not put to destined use
• 30% cases of GA allotments not transferred to destined use
after 3-12 years .
• Land handed over to IDCO for allotment to four industries
was not even used fully or partially even after three to 15 years
• Allotment of more land than required
• Allotment to Industry, but not under FRA or OGLS/OPLE

22. Mineral-based Investments:
Contribution to Economy & Job creation
• During 2004-13, no change in contribution of manufacturing sector (23.7% to 24.2%)
• Mining subsector contribution about 7.5% to real GSDP; share is reducing since 2011-12
• Employment in mining is poor because of mechanization.
• Employment per million USD of mineral production - 9.58 in 2011-12.
• Creation of 6.56 employments (2.06 direct and 3.3 indirect) per investment of a
million USD in steel and sponge iron industries
• Odisha exported goods worth value USD 2.7 billion during 2011-12, out of which mineral
and metallurgical products constituted 87%. However, 57% of the export was in form of
raw minerals and 30% were semi-finished metallurgical products
• Standard of living is below the national average(90%) since 1950-51, and now, 66% in
2013 (Rs 23,875 at 2004-05 price so as other indicators
• Investment in MGNREGS in 2011-12, created 722 person year of employment per Million
USD invested (though at the minimum wage rate), with 38% each for ST and Women.
•

23. Reactions to Investments
! Impacts on Livelihoods
! > 40% of the displaced families due to developmental projects in
Orissa are tribal
! Loss of control over their source of livelihood esp. affecting
traditional livelihoods through curtailing access to commons and
often destroying and polluting the means and stratums of these
livelihoods.
! Invisible impact on Food and nutrition
! Protests, Social movements, Court cases, Naxal Issues

24. Arguments around Commons
Discourse/
Rationale
Towards
privatization
Maintaining
Common
Property
Regime
Economic/
Market
Inef&iciency
of
informal
communal
systems
and
ef?iciency
arguments
Easy
to
trade
interest
(Demsetz
1967).
Secure
collateral
to
access
easy
Credit
(Trebilcock
&
Veel
2007).
Mobilize
‘dead
capital’
in
communal
land
(de
Soto,
2000)
Basis
for
entrepreneurial
success
(Hughes
&
Warin,
2005;
de
Soto,
2000)
Enhanced
economic
development
potential
(Trebilcock
&
Veel
2007)
‘Neoliberal
enclosures’
for
capital
accumulation
(Akram
Lodhi
et
al.
2009)
Economically
rational
forms
of
management
under
low
resource
productivity
conditions;
worked
to
the
bene?it
of
the
poor
(IFAD;
Beck
and
Nesmith
2001)
Coping
and
adaptive
strategies
of
rural
people
and
sustainable
livelihoods
Play
a
redistributive
role
with
greater
importance
and
relevance
to
the
poor
(Beck
and
Nesmith
2001)
Cultural
Maintaining
Common
Property
Regime
Relationship
of
indigenous
groups
with
their
traditional
territory
as
"I
belong
to
this
land,"
Emphasis
on
collective
ownership
and
an
extremely
long-­‐term
stewardship
‘Critical
to
people’s
socio-­‐cultural
reproduction
(Holt-­‐Gimenez
2008)
Capacity
to
build
viable
futures
(Borrini-­‐Feyerabend
2004)
Explicit
commitment
to
acquire
FPIC
of
local
communities
as
per
UN
Resolution
in
2007
Indigenous
communities
successfully
obstructing
the
progress
and
completion
of

25. Communal land Governance- Trend
• Pre-colonial India : Very large part of the NR was CPR and freely
available to the rural population with local regulations.
• State control began with the declaration of “reserved” and “protected”
forests towards end of the 19th century, excluded access to common
resources and gradually disintegrated local community management
(IFA, 1928, LA, 1894 etc.)
• Post-independent : Land Reform in sixties OGLS, OPLE
• Post 90s – Local Governance through PRI
• New formal institutions around CPR – JFM/WUA/WA- not very
inclusive
• Information-based – O S & S Act, 2012 – Hi Tech Survey
• LARR, 2013

26. Common Vacuums
! Very limited investigations around CPR dependence, diversions since the
turn of Century – Mostly economics, less cultural and ecological
! Absence of /inadequate legal framework : Legal Pluralism
! Absence of Legal Protection: Green-protection (FCA, CEC, Green
Tribunal etc.) of Common Land; disintegrated or no recognition of
customary control
! Poor Regulation for Equity and Justice :No multi-dimensional impact
assessment/audit on Ecology, Livelihoods and Culture
! There is a Central Government Department on Commons – DoLR
(earlier DoWD), but focus only on developing, without identifying
! DoWD/DoLR approach of Poverty targeting on high Common Land-watershed
development, didn’t have a common policy
! Learning from OTELP (IFAD-WFP-DFID) example

27. Some Options for Coexistence
! Commons Ownership for Community
! Addressing historical injustice around CPR – in line with FRA-
! Revisiting local governance around CPR, recognition of customary rights
! Individualization/ Community Governance as per Local Governance Unit
! Commons Management/Governance
! Mapping of CPR and integrating CPR-use (including socio-cultural linkages; customary
rights) census in NSSO and integrating into Poverty
! Community Biodiversity Register (CBR) to capture ecological and cultural connections
and development of Management Plan as per Biodiversity Act
! Long-term perspective on CPRs should be evolved through developing land use plans of
each village; capping the private land or CPR
! Commons for Capital
! Deciding the CPR which can be made available after all community needs and the non-violate
zones – Participatory and Transparent Zonation
! Minimum Commons for Investment
! Replacing the CPR : basic criterion for their compensation should be the replacement of
the livelihood lost and ecological Cost– Recreate the Common with Capital
! Code of conduct for Investment/Ethical Standards/Sustainability to sustain the
commons for community ?

28. Thanks!