<p>The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC), released the draft of National Forest Policy on June 15, inviting comments from public before June 30.The responsibility was given to Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, a wing of MOEFCC. <br /><br /></p>.<p>The goal is “to improve the health and vitality of the forest ecosystems to meet the present and future needs of ecological security and biodiversity conservation with empowered and enabled communities.”<br /><br />The lofty goals and the co-option of phrases like ‘empowerment of communities’ sounds perfect in the context of satisfying the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), the main funder for drafting this document and also to hide the real motive of ministry.<br /><br />A detailed analysis of the draft policy reveals the stark reality of how it strengthens the hold of forest bureaucracy ignoring the interests of forests and forest dwelling communities. Let us begin with the positive aspects of this draft. <br /><br />It has categorically stated that the existing forest land should not be diverted for large scale mining or infrastructure projects, and that permission should be given as a last resort. <br /><br />It has recognised the need for linking the hydrological contribution of forests in maintaining and enhancing of water, river streams and meeting the needs of water security of the country. It has called for halting any process of afforestation with exotic species and gives priority to the local plant species. <br /><br />It has broad-based the idea of forests by including areas like mangroves in coastal region, alpine meadows in Himalayas, desert ecosystems and mountain areas of Western and Eastern Ghats. <br /><br />Against the people: It calls for setting up of National Community Forest Management mission to replace existing joint forest management initiative. However, it does not mention the access and control of these forests. <br /><br />The Forest Right Act 2006 has provisions for giving total control and access over forest land for individuals, and the community rights over the forest areas used by indigenous communities. The implementation of this Act is crucial in empowering the communities that live in the midst of forests.<br /><br />Strangely, or intentionally, this aspect has been totally ignored by the draft. For example, it talks about the sustainable extraction of non-timber forest produce to build the green economy, but it has ignored the core issue of who owns these resources. <br /><br />The Forest Rights Act and the Convention of Biological Diversity to which India is a party, clearly mandated the rights of indigenous communities over forest and bio resource.<br /><br />The draft states that accumulated funds of Rs 40,000 crore should be used to purchase the natural areas around the wildlife spaces and corridors for better management of the man-animal conflict. Obviously, it is a ploy to evict the people living around these wildlife areas and national parks.<br /><br />There are numerous examples as to how these communities, when supported with people-centred livelihood approaches, can play a dominant role in conservation of wildlife and forests. Instead of these people-centred approaches, the draft advocates for removal of the communities.<br /><br />Anti-people tone<br />The anti-people tone is evident in the context of how it has elaborately outlined the need for forest-industry interface. <br /><br />Though it recognises that the raw material requirement of forest-based industry is met by the private sector, it states “there is need to stimulate growth in the forest-based industry sector, the partnership needs to be further expanded to ensure an assured supply of raw material to the industries with mutually beneficial arrangements”.<br /><br />The overemphasis on inviting industrial sector into forestry will accelerate the existing conflict over natural resources like the community and forest lands, adversely impacting the livelihood of forest dwellers.<br /><br />The seed of anti-people tone of the draft was sown from the day the entire process was stage managed by the forest bureaucracy with the silent support of the forest ministry.<br /><br />Perhaps, realising the anti-people approach, the ministry has backtracked on this policy document saying that it was a mistake and the draft is just a ‘study’. Admitting that this lacks public participation and “multiple stake holders, and state government is not consulted and a new draft policy will be put in to public domain.”<br /><br />Obviously, the fiasco of converting a draft policy into a study has serious implications on how the MOEFCC has bungled with 400 million forest dwellers and the most important natural resource of the country. <br /><br />The government needs to be transparent and provide sufficient reasons as to why the so-called draft has been converted into a study, after spending time and money, with the support of the UNDP? Is it because the recommendations have no link to the goals of either providing ecological security or empowering communities?<br /><br />(<em>The author is a forestry activist</em>)<br /></p>
<p>The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC), released the draft of National Forest Policy on June 15, inviting comments from public before June 30.The responsibility was given to Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, a wing of MOEFCC. <br /><br /></p>.<p>The goal is “to improve the health and vitality of the forest ecosystems to meet the present and future needs of ecological security and biodiversity conservation with empowered and enabled communities.”<br /><br />The lofty goals and the co-option of phrases like ‘empowerment of communities’ sounds perfect in the context of satisfying the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), the main funder for drafting this document and also to hide the real motive of ministry.<br /><br />A detailed analysis of the draft policy reveals the stark reality of how it strengthens the hold of forest bureaucracy ignoring the interests of forests and forest dwelling communities. Let us begin with the positive aspects of this draft. <br /><br />It has categorically stated that the existing forest land should not be diverted for large scale mining or infrastructure projects, and that permission should be given as a last resort. <br /><br />It has recognised the need for linking the hydrological contribution of forests in maintaining and enhancing of water, river streams and meeting the needs of water security of the country. It has called for halting any process of afforestation with exotic species and gives priority to the local plant species. <br /><br />It has broad-based the idea of forests by including areas like mangroves in coastal region, alpine meadows in Himalayas, desert ecosystems and mountain areas of Western and Eastern Ghats. <br /><br />Against the people: It calls for setting up of National Community Forest Management mission to replace existing joint forest management initiative. However, it does not mention the access and control of these forests. <br /><br />The Forest Right Act 2006 has provisions for giving total control and access over forest land for individuals, and the community rights over the forest areas used by indigenous communities. The implementation of this Act is crucial in empowering the communities that live in the midst of forests.<br /><br />Strangely, or intentionally, this aspect has been totally ignored by the draft. For example, it talks about the sustainable extraction of non-timber forest produce to build the green economy, but it has ignored the core issue of who owns these resources. <br /><br />The Forest Rights Act and the Convention of Biological Diversity to which India is a party, clearly mandated the rights of indigenous communities over forest and bio resource.<br /><br />The draft states that accumulated funds of Rs 40,000 crore should be used to purchase the natural areas around the wildlife spaces and corridors for better management of the man-animal conflict. Obviously, it is a ploy to evict the people living around these wildlife areas and national parks.<br /><br />There are numerous examples as to how these communities, when supported with people-centred livelihood approaches, can play a dominant role in conservation of wildlife and forests. Instead of these people-centred approaches, the draft advocates for removal of the communities.<br /><br />Anti-people tone<br />The anti-people tone is evident in the context of how it has elaborately outlined the need for forest-industry interface. <br /><br />Though it recognises that the raw material requirement of forest-based industry is met by the private sector, it states “there is need to stimulate growth in the forest-based industry sector, the partnership needs to be further expanded to ensure an assured supply of raw material to the industries with mutually beneficial arrangements”.<br /><br />The overemphasis on inviting industrial sector into forestry will accelerate the existing conflict over natural resources like the community and forest lands, adversely impacting the livelihood of forest dwellers.<br /><br />The seed of anti-people tone of the draft was sown from the day the entire process was stage managed by the forest bureaucracy with the silent support of the forest ministry.<br /><br />Perhaps, realising the anti-people approach, the ministry has backtracked on this policy document saying that it was a mistake and the draft is just a ‘study’. Admitting that this lacks public participation and “multiple stake holders, and state government is not consulted and a new draft policy will be put in to public domain.”<br /><br />Obviously, the fiasco of converting a draft policy into a study has serious implications on how the MOEFCC has bungled with 400 million forest dwellers and the most important natural resource of the country. <br /><br />The government needs to be transparent and provide sufficient reasons as to why the so-called draft has been converted into a study, after spending time and money, with the support of the UNDP? Is it because the recommendations have no link to the goals of either providing ecological security or empowering communities?<br /><br />(<em>The author is a forestry activist</em>)<br /></p>
