Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67eefd7742d36-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67eefd7742d36-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67eefd7742d36-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 34175,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Scroll.in, 9 July, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4682278,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 34175,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;forest resources,forest rights,forest rights act,Tribal Rights,Livelihood Security&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-Scroll.in

Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. 

Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot; title=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 34175,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Scroll.in, 9 July, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4682278,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 34175
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;forest resources,forest rights,forest rights act,Tribal Rights,Livelihood Security&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-Scroll.in

Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. 

Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot; title=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-Scroll.in

Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. 

Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-Scroll.in<br /><br /><em>Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. <br /></em><br />Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.<br /><br />A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &ndash; showed that Maharashtra&rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&rdquo; the report noted.<br /><br />It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.<br /><br />The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.<br /><br />Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.<br /><br />However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.<br /><br />Please <a href="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district" title="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district">click here</a> to read more. <br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67eefd7742d36-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67eefd7742d36-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67eefd7742d36-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 34175,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Scroll.in, 9 July, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4682278,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 34175,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;forest resources,forest rights,forest rights act,Tribal Rights,Livelihood Security&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-Scroll.in

Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. 

Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot; title=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 34175,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Scroll.in, 9 July, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4682278,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 34175
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;forest resources,forest rights,forest rights act,Tribal Rights,Livelihood Security&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-Scroll.in

Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. 

Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot; title=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-Scroll.in

Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. 

Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-Scroll.in<br /><br /><em>Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. <br /></em><br />Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.<br /><br />A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &ndash; showed that Maharashtra&rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&rdquo; the report noted.<br /><br />It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.<br /><br />The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.<br /><br />Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.<br /><br />However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.<br /><br />Please <a href="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district" title="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district">click here</a> to read more. <br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67eefd7742d36-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eefd7742d36-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67eefd7742d36-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67eefd7742d36-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 34175,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Scroll.in, 9 July, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4682278,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 34175,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;forest resources,forest rights,forest rights act,Tribal Rights,Livelihood Security&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-Scroll.in

Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. 

Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot; title=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 34175,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Scroll.in, 9 July, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4682278,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 34175
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;forest resources,forest rights,forest rights act,Tribal Rights,Livelihood Security&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-Scroll.in

Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. 

Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-Scroll.in&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&amp;rsquo;s figure of 15%. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &amp;ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &amp;ndash; showed that Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &amp;ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&amp;rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&amp;rdquo; the report noted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &amp;ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot; title=&quot;https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district&quot;&gt;click here&lt;/a&gt; to read more. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-Scroll.in

Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. 

Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-Scroll.in<br /><br /><em>Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. <br /></em><br />Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.<br /><br />A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &ndash; showed that Maharashtra&rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&rdquo; the report noted.<br /><br />It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.<br /><br />The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.<br /><br />Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.<br /><br />However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.<br /><br />Please <a href="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district" title="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district">click here</a> to read more. <br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 34175,
		'title' => 'Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-Scroll.in<br />
<br />
<em>Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. <br />
</em><br />
Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.<br />
<br />
A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &ndash; showed that Maharashtra&rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&rdquo; the report noted.<br />
<br />
It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.<br />
<br />
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.<br />
<br />
Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.<br />
<br />
However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district">click here</a> to read more. <br />
<br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'Scroll.in, 9 July, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 4682278,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 34175,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari',
	'metaKeywords' => 'forest resources,forest rights,forest rights act,Tribal Rights,Livelihood Security',
	'metaDesc' => '
-Scroll.in

Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. 

Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-Scroll.in<br /><br /><em>Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. <br /></em><br />Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.<br /><br />A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &ndash; showed that Maharashtra&rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&rdquo; the report noted.<br /><br />It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.<br /><br />The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.<br /><br />Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.<br /><br />However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.<br /><br />Please <a href="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district" title="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district">click here</a> to read more. <br /><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 34175,
	'title' => 'Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-Scroll.in<br />
<br />
<em>Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. <br />
</em><br />
Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.<br />
<br />
A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &ndash; showed that Maharashtra&rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&rdquo; the report noted.<br />
<br />
It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.<br />
<br />
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.<br />
<br />
Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.<br />
<br />
However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.<br />
<br />
Please <a href="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district">click here</a> to read more. <br />
<br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'Scroll.in, 9 July, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district-mridula-chari-4682278',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 4682278,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 34175
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari'
$metaKeywords = 'forest resources,forest rights,forest rights act,Tribal Rights,Livelihood Security'
$metaDesc = '
-Scroll.in

Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. 

Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-Scroll.in<br /><br /><em>Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state&rsquo;s figure of 15%. <br /></em><br />Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala.<br /><br />A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy &ndash; a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics &ndash; showed that Maharashtra&rsquo;s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. &ldquo;If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra&rsquo;s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,&rdquo; the report noted.<br /><br />It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts.<br /><br />The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times.<br /><br />Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights &ndash; which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted.<br /><br />However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights.<br /><br />Please <a href="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district" title="https://scroll.in/article/843046/ten-years-of-forest-rights-act-maharashtra-tops-in-implementation-but-credit-goes-to-one-district">click here</a> to read more. <br /><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Ten years of Forest Rights Act: Maharashtra tops in implementation-but credit goes to one district -Mridula Chari

-Scroll.in Gadchiroli has recognised community forest rights in 66% of eligible land, compared to the state’s figure of 15%. Ten years after the Centre passed a law granting Adivasis and other forest dwellers rights to manage resources in forest lands, Maharashtra has emerged as the front-runner among states in implementing the provisions of this legislation, followed closely by Kerala. A new report by Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy – a collective that brings together community members and their organisations, civil society groups, researchers and academics – showed that Maharashtra’s success came on the back of record recognition of community forest rights in Gadchiroli, an eastern district of the state. “If Gadchiroli is taken out of the picture, Maharashtra’s average performance of CFR [community forest resource rights] implementation as compared to the minimum potential [of forest land eligible for these rights] would be approximately 10%,” the report noted. It went on to say that Maharashtra had granted villages community forest resource rights in 15% of land with the potential for these rights to be recognised. However, this was only because it had recognised these rights in 66% of the potential land in Gadchiroli. In the rest of the state, there was no implementation at all in 21 districts, between 0% and 33% implementation in nine districts, and between 33% and 66% in two districts. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, passed in December 2006, was a historic law that gave back to traditional forest dwellers their rights to access, manage and govern forest lands and resources within village boundaries, which had been controlled by the forest department since colonial times. Under the law, forest dwellers can apply to state governments for either individual or community forest rights – which means they can take ownership of the process of protecting and conserving forests in their areas. They can also gather and sell minor forest produce such as tendu leaves or bamboo, which was an illegal activity before the law was enacted. However, states have not been particularly proactive about implementing these rights. As the report noted, only seven states have recognised community forest rights at all. Maharashtra has granted community forest rights in 15% of the 1.2 crore acres of potential forest land that could be eligible under these rules, benefitting 5,741 communities. Kerala is a close second at 14%, followed by Gujarat at 9% and Odisha at 5%. Across India, states have recognised only 3% of potential community forest rights. Please click here to read more.