BIOADVERSITY

H igh-profile internationalgatherings make for tailor-made occasions to make

politically-correct statements. Andso was the Convention on Biologi-cal Diversity’s Conference of Partiesfor prime minister ManmohanSingh. With India assuming presi-dency of the UN convention for thenext two years, the occasion wasperfect for Singh to spout thosenice-sounding words. The primeminister promised roughly ‘250crore for strengthening “the insti-tutional mechanism of biodiversi-ty conservation” in India. Thegallery applauded.

What astounded critics was notthe seemingly paltry amount thatwas announced, but the aplombwith which the prime ministermade his statement.

After all, it is the regime of thesame prime minister that has beenconsistently accused of throwingall “institutional mechanisms” tothe winds in its frenetic pursuitof double-digit growth figures. Theprime minister’s vacuous asser-tions may have sounded environ-mentally-correct to the COP dele-gates, but his speech came in thebackdrop of his government’s con-tentious proposal to set up a Na-tional Investment Board.

The trigger for this move is thefact that investments worth ‘1.30lakh crore are held up for want ofone clearance or the other.

The clearances in question, need-less to say, are of the forest and en-vironmental kind. In other words,the NIB has a one-point agenda: tooverride all regulatory mechanisms.Indeed, the same “institutionalmechanisms” that Singh ostensiblyalluded to in his speech. Contrary toindustry assertions that the Min-

istry of Environment and Forestshas been an impediment to India’sinfrastructural development and in-dustrial growth, it is a veritable factthat the ministry has virtually op-erated as a clearing house for in-dustry under UPA-I and UPA-II.

The scam-ridden and inflation-wracked Congress-led governmentneeds to act with the next electionin mind, and with industry firmlyon its side. Hence, Singh’s need fora mechanism that would be om-nipotent: the NIB will be vestedwith the authority to take a finaldecision that cannot be challengedby any other ministry or authority.

The course of the debate over en-vironmental degradation too hasbeen altered: instead of ushering indevelopment keeping environ-mental concerns in mind, the talkis now more of environment try-ing to ensure that industrialisation,for whatever it’s worth, takes place.

Minister for environment Jayan-thi Natarajan shared the platformwith Singh at Hyderabad, but thisshe did after voicing muted con-cerns about the over-powering na-ture of the NIB. For all the bravado,Natarajan’s ministry ended up be-ing on the non-environment sideafter the COP. For, soon came theword that her ministry had told theNational Green Tribunal, the onlyquasi-judicial panel in the countrythat can challenge forest clear-ances, that those would now be outof its ambit. So much for strength-ening “institutional mechanisms”.

And all this could be done with-out the promised ‘250 crore. As forwildlife and forests? What arethose? And marginalised commu-nities? Who, on earth, are they?

subir.ghosh@dnaindia.net

Marginalised

The recent Conference of Parties of the UN Convention in Biological Diversity saw the PM maketall promises about biodiversity and communities. Butgrassroots reality, Subir Ghosh reports, is otherwise

‘It’s doublespeak’

Ashish Kothari, founder member ofenvironmental action group Kalpavriksh,

coordinated the mammoth exercise that wenton to coalesce as India’s National BiodiversityStrategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). The finalreport was never accepted by the Ministry of

Environment and Forests (MoEF). Here,Kothari takes apart the prime minister’s

assertions point-by-point:

What the PM said: We believe that thetreasure trove of traditional knowledge

should be used for the benefit of allhumankind rather than for private profit. We will continue to work to strengthen

our institutions to record this knowledge, to value its science and to provide

benefits to its custodians. What the government does: Displaces and dispossesses forest-dwelling adivasis,fishers on coasts, pastoralists, and other

holders of traditional knowledge, by takingaway their lands and resources for corporate

profit, thereby destroying the basis oftraditional knowledge.

What the government also does: Drags itsfeet in amending the Biological Diversity Actto empower communities in protecting theirnatural resources and traditional practices,

and fails to implement the provision of the Actthat mandates protection of such knowledge.The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library that

the PM mentioned with pride, is a poorsubstitute for living, evolving knowledge that

only local communities possess.

What the PM said: We have legislated aForest Rights Act that lends legal sanctity tothe rights of forest dwellers, who are often

the best friends of the biodiversity thatresides in these magnificent forests.

What the government does: Dithers in implementing the Forest Rights Act,

with thousands of community rights claimspending across the country; worse,

continues to violate the FRA by clearingprojects for forest land diversion for

mining, dams, etc, without first recognising forest-dwellers rights andwithout seeking gram sabha consent. What the government also does:

Displaces forest-dwellers from tiger reservesin complete violation of the FRA.

What the PM said: We will have to adopt similarly innovative approaches

to deal with the issue of protectingfishermen’s livelihoods.

What the government does: Clearshundreds of power projects, ports,

chemical industries, tourism complexes, and other projects which are destroyingcoastal and marine biodiversity, and the

livelihoods of fisher communities. What the government also does: Shelves

a proposal for a fishing community rightslegislation made in 2010 by the minister for

environment and forests.

What the PM said: We need to build a movement to conserve traditional

varieties of crops.What the government does: Continues

to push a model of agriculture based on large-scale monoculture, chemicals,

and dependence of farmers on corporations,including through clearing genetically-

modified seeds like Bt Cotton.

Action plan vsstrategy paperIn 1999, the Ministry of Environmentand Forests received a grant from theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF) /United Nations Development Pro-gramme (UNDP) for formulating aNational Biodiversity Strategy andAction Plan (NBSAP). Preparing anNBSAP would have been part of In-dia’s commitment to CBD. The mam-moth process started a year later,with grassroots organisationKalpavriksh coordinating the courseof things. Kalpavriksh commissionedover 100 groups and individualsaround the country to prepare actionplans at local, state, ecoregional, andthematic levels. The process involvedextensive consultation, public hear-ings, cultural events, workshops, ex-ercises in educational institutions,media outreach, and other meth-ods of reaching out to tens of thou-sands of people.The result was acomprehensive document that wasaccepted by the ministry in 2003 asonly a Final Technical Report (FTR)of the NBSAP process. Six years lat-er, the MoEF came out with a finalaction plan which, Kalpavriksh says,“is a brief document that readsmore like a broad strategy paperthan an action plan. Indeed it onlygoes a little bit ahead of a documentit had itself released in 1999, the Na-tional Policy and Macro-level ActionStrategy on Biodiversity.”

Civil societycollectiveStatements by India’s politicalleaders and bureaucrats at theCBD COP11 in Hyderabad, assur-ing steps to conserve India’s bio-diversity and the rights of itspeople, appear to be doubles-peak. A fundamental change incourse needed if India is to actu-ally achieve these objectives. Thisincludes respecting the knowl-edge and rights of local commu-nities, ensuring decentralised de-cision-making of developmentand conservation activities, re-orienting economic policies toput biodiversity and people’slivelihoods at the core, strength-ening conservation measuresagainst damaging activities, andstrictly complying with laws thatguarantee community rights tonatural resources while planningdevelopment projects.

Communitycriticism

The COP11 spoke ofmarginalised communities,

yet voices that did notemanate from the official

framework were relegated tothe so-called “side-events” ofthe conference. While primeminister Manmohan Singh’s

promise of strengthening thebiodiversity preservation

process drew applause fromdelegates, his government’s

policies drew flak from thoseconfined to the sidelines.

Twenty-five organisationscame together and criticisedthe a systematic weakening

of the environmentalgovernance framework in the

country by highlighting:

Notifications under theEnvironment Protection

Act, such as the CoastalRegulation Zone notificationand the Environment Impact

Assessment notification, havebeen repeatedly amended

(and violated) to allow more and bigger industrial

projects in ecologicallysensitive areas;

There is no crediblemechanism in place toensure that such projects

comply with the conditionsunder which they are cleared;and there is no assessment of

the social and culturalimpacts of projects, or of the

cumulative impacts of severalprojects in one region;

The Forest ConservationAct has become a ForestClearance Act, to divert

lakhs of hectares of forest for mining, industries and

other such projects;Statutory public

disclosure of importantinformation pertaining to

projects is often not takingplace, despite orders of the

Chief InformationCommissioner, court rulings

and repeated demands bycommunity and civil society groups; this

includes EnvironmentalClearance letters, Forest

Clearance letters, etc.The Biological Diversity

Act has been mostly reducedto a law granting access to

the country’s biologicalresources and related

knowledge, withoutempowering communities

to safeguard these.Further necessary laws and

policies, such as thosedealing with the rights ofcoastal communities, arebeing blocked or delayed.

Tiger eventand protest

Tigers could not possiblyhave been left out of COP11.

One of the side events sawthe National Tiger

Conservation Authority(NTCA), WWF-India, Wildlife

Institute of India (WII) andGlobal Tiger Forum (GTF)

host an event that focused ontiger conservation. The event‘Have we turned the corner in

tiger conservation?’ wasmeant to take into account

the progress made by thetiger range countries with a

special focus on India.Environment minister

Jayanthi Natarajan signed offa Cards4tigers postcard

campaign, but contentiousissues either fell by the

wayside or were made to fadeinto silence. Greenpeace

activists, some of them intiger costumes, tried topresent a petition to the

prime minister when he wason his way to make his

keynote speech to the COPgathering. They were, of

course, prevented from doingso. The roar of tigers

gradually petered out into adeafening silence.

Communitiesand forestsAmong those who have had tobear the brunt of India’srecent economic overdrivehave arguably beencommunities and naturalresources. Contextualisingthis, in the backdrop of therecent Coalgate scandal, wasa damning report that wasreleased by Greenpeaceduring the Hyderabadconference. The report,Countering Coal,documented rampantenvironmental damage andgross human rights violationsperpetrated against tribaland other forest dwellers inthe forests of Singrauli inMadhya Pradesh, that areunder threat from the Indiangovernment’s massive coalexpansion programme. The report, which took 16months to compile, zoomed inon the other side of theCoalgate scam: impact onpeople and biodiversity.

The thread that recursthrough the canvas stitchedtogether by Greenpeaceresearchers is that of theScheduled Tribes and OtherTraditional Forest Dwellers(Recognition of Forest Rights)Act 2006 (FRA). Mostprovisions of the Act,especially those pertaining toCommunity Forest Rights(CFR), have been thrown tothe winds. Forests have beenravaged with impunity, andcommunities have beenpulverised into virtualcoaldust. The report launchsaw Amnesty India andKalpavriksh reiteratingGreenpeace’s criticism of thegovernment’s policies.

The Indian government’sclaim of protectingbiodiversity and indigenouspeople stood nailed.

VOICESHimanshu Thakkar, SouthAsia Network on Dams, Riversand People (SANDRP): “The government’s decade-oldNational Biodiversity Act hasbeen of no help for rivers andrelated biodiversity. In India,there has been not been anycredible enviro-socio-culturalimpact assessment ofprojects in the context ofriverine biodiversity. Thoseaffected are not evenconsidered for compensationor rehabilitation, leave aside participatory decisionmaking or benefit sharing.Unknown to many, India isconsidered to be a megadiverse country in the contextof freshwater biodiversity.New freshwater speciescontinue to be discovered ata rapid rate. Also millions ofpeople depend on the riverinebiodiversity and rivers fortheir needs and livelihoods(about 10.8 million peopledepend on riverine fisheriesitself), , many rivers areconsidered sacred, and 100sof community conserved fishreserves exist across India.CBD has so far been of nohelp for the Indian rivers,riverine biodiversity anddependent communities.”

Pradip Chatterjee, NationalFishworkers’ Forum (NFF):“Do not destroy us in thename of development, andkill us in the name ofconservation. Fishingcommunities across the coast are being displaced by ‘developmental activities’and their livelihoods are being destroyed. Even ascommunities are struggling to protect coastal and marine resources from such developmentalonslaughts, ironically, in the name of conservation, thevery same small-scale fishingcommunities are being deniedaccess to resources they havetraditionally fished.”

Mahua pickers in the Budher forest area, Singrauli district of MadhyaPradesh —Hari Krishna/Greenpeace

Man Kumari (right) and Usha collect mahua in Budher village in Singrauli. The proposed Mahan mineswould make them lose their livelihood —Hari Krishna/Greenpeace

BANGALORE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2012

epaper.dnaindia.com l www.dnaindia.com l facebook.com/dnaindia

l twitter.com/dna l dnaindia.com/mobile SPECIAL 9