Draft Report on some aspects of UNFCCC submitted to the Global Forest Coalition (GFC) in 2005, as an Independent Monitor

This is a draft report that i had submitted to the Global Forest Coalition (GFC), in 2005 as an Independent Monitor, monitoring my country, India.

It is an analysis of the impact of India's initial National Communication (Initial Natcom) to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), on tribal communities.

This is an old report that was circulated widely in India and internationally. A number of our recommendations have been received well and implemented.

However, at this critical juncture of our planet's decision-making on land use, local government and energy usage, i would once again, like to draw attention to the document.

Independent Monitoring of Forest Related Obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change: Draft Report for India

Submitted by V. Shruti Devi, Advocate, Independent Specialist in Natural Resources Law and Policy, India.

Introduction

This report seeks to analyze the “forest-related obligations” of India by examining actions  that have been taken by the government in furtherance of Article 4.1(d) of the UNFCCC to “promote sustainable management, and promote and cooperate in the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases, not controlled by the Montreal Protocol including biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems.”, after having taken into account the country’s “common, but differentiated responsibilities” and also its “national and regional priorities”. 

The base document for the said analysis is India’s Initial National Communication, submitted in the year 2004, to the UNFCCC. The Executive Summary of the Natcom, and Chapter Six of the Natcom that deals with Sustainable Development, are the focal points of the review.

The information provided in the Natcom, and the analytical content within the  Natcom has been critically reviewed from the point of view of the impact of UNFCCC-related activity (and anticipated UNFCC-related activity), on the sustainable management of natural resources.

The implications of the process through which the Initial Natcom has been prepared has also been commented upon.

NATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

The Natcom’s description of the major geographical features and boundaries of India are as nationally accepted, and in consonance with studies made by experts as well as peoples’ planning processes that are reflected below:

India is the seventh largest country in the world with an area of 32,87,263 sq km extending from 8° 4' to 37° 6' N and 68° 7' to 97° 25' E. Its territory extends for 3,214 km north to south and for 2,933 km east to west. It has a land frontier of 15,200 km and a coastline, including that of the islands, amounting to 7516 km.

India is composed of three major units or earth features, which differ in their physical and geological characters. They are: The Peninsula, i.e., the Deccan plateau south of the Vindhyas; The Himalaya mountains, also referred to as the Extra-Peninsula, which borders India to the north and east; The Indo-Gangetic Plains, lying between the other two divisions and extends from the Indus valley in the west to the Brahmaputra valley in the east.

Five other distinct but smaller divisions can be distinguished: the deserts of Rajasthan, the islands in the Indian ocean and the Arabian sea, the long coastal stretch, the rivers, and the major lakes.

Natural terrestrial ecosystems in India consist of forests, grasslands, deserts and permanently snow-bound areas. Within each of these, there is an immense diversity. The wide-ranging agro-ecosystems that span through India are also of a mind-boggling variety.

India has a number of small streams, village ponds, large lakes, some of the longest rivers in the world, coastal lagoons, estuaries and backwaters, the unique Rann of Kachchh, coral reefs and mangroves, and open coastal and oceanic waters. In addition to this, there are the human-made water bodies.

 (Grover and Arora 1996; GoI 2001; Wadia 1983; Mani 1974; TPCG and Kalpavriksh.2005.Securing India’s Future: Final Technical Report of the National  Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.)

The Natcom document, however, has woven into its narrative, impressions, opinions, conclusions and assumptions that fail to adequately reflect or address the concerns and views of traditional forest dwelling communities that are crucial for the sustainable management of natural resources.

Before proceeding further, one must take note of the fact that the Government of India has taken a stand to not recognize the term “Indigenous Peoples”. It is assumed that all Indians are viewed as Indigenous. (An immediate example of this is viewed in Chapter Six of the Natcom, which deals with Sustainable Development, and displays a photograph of “REVA: The indigenously built electric car”.) However, there are Constitutional provisions under which communities have been declared to be “Scheduled Tribes”.  For the purposes of this report therefore, one will test the information provided in the Natcom in terms of how it would impact forest-dwelling scheduled tribes as well as other traditional, natural-resource-dependent forest dwellers. The term ‘adivasi’ will also be used I a broader sense from the meaning of ‘scheduled tribe’.

Land Use Patterns:

While describing National Circumstances, it has been mentioned that

“The land use pattern is influenced by diverse factors such as population density, urbanization, industry, agriculture, animal husbandry, irrigation demands, and natural calamities like floods and droughts. Despite stresses, the area under forests has increased in recent years due to proactive reforestation and afforestation programmes of the Government of India. Presently 23 per cent of the total land area is under forest and tree cover, while 44 per cent is net sown area. The remaining one-third is roughly equally distributed between fallow land, non-agricultural land, and barren land.”

While it is understood that the factors listed in the Natcom are merely indicative, and are not expected to be an exhaustive listing, it must be pointed out that there is another factor, or rather, another phenomenon, which has had a bearing on land use patterns in India, especially in areas traditionally inhabited by adivasi people, and which calls for attention.

This is the phenomenon of the government not having recorded or recognized the bona-fide rights of traditional forest-dependent communities over their land as well as forest resources, and the subsequent imposition of arguably unsustainable land use and management patterns by the government on such land.

“Forests”:

It has been stated that 23 per cent of the total land area is under “forest and tree cover”.

The Annual Report of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation for 2004-2005 states that the Social Statistics Division’s latest publication, “Selected Socio-Economic Statistics, India” 2002 “gives time series data on different social indicators”. The document provides data for different categories of land utilization. Of the definitions provided to explain the categorizations, “Forests” has been defined as follows: “Forests: Includes area actually under forest or land classified or administered as forests under any legal enactment.”

While providing figures for area under forest cover, the Forest Survey of India (FSI) Report which is prepared once in two years, has been known to have mistakenly marked sugarcane fields as forests. Based on remote sensing data, and data from the states, the FSI prepares a report which is the only national-level source of such information. The FSI is a body under the MoEF, and the MoEF relies on FSI data.

While some claim that the data is presented on a website for comments before it is published, others suggest that at least academicians who are knowledgeable about specific conditions in their respective areas, should be consulted before the finalization of the FSI Report. A small patch of forest in the north east, for example, might be eligible to be classified as a dense forest, while this might not be the case in other ecosystems.

Activists dismiss the FSI data as an “absolute scandal”. It has been pointed out that the FSI did try to co-relate forest area with forest cover from a selected “Reserved Forest” sample, but even here, 20 percent of the selected RF actually had no forest cover. (Some of the area was snow-covered peaks etc. and definitely not tree-dominated forest cover.)

The Supreme Court, in an interim order that has been made as a part of the ongoing T.N. Godavarman case, has held that all land that falls within the ‘dictionary meaning’ of forest will be treated as forest, irrespective of ownership, and would thus fall under the managerial purview of the Forest Department. However, the overall acceptability of such a definition is limited.

Traditional forest-dwellers have been/are being treated as “encroachers” on their own land:

Starting during colonial rule, and after India gained independence, large tracts of the traditional forest dwellers’ habitat and common land was recorded as “forests” without, in fact, adequately surveying, recording, or settling the land and forest rights of traditional dwellers, in spite of the fact that the Indian Forest Act, 1927 does provide for the determination of such rights.

As a result, various forms of illegal actions have been imposed by the government on traditional forest dwelling people, including evictions and denial of access to forests and forest produce.

No distinction has been made by the Natcom, between forest-dwelling adivasis including tribals, and other rural households in the following context:

The following statement of the Executive Summary of the Natcom might (albeit unintentionally), create misconceptions that weigh negatively against traditional forest dwellers, and adivasis:

“India had more than 160 million households in 1994. Nearly three fourths of these households live in rural areas, accounting for one-third of total national primary energy consumption. With rising incomes, households at all socioeconomic levels are increasingly using energy using devices such as electric bulbs, fans, televisions, refrigerators, washing machines, air-coolers, air-conditioners, water heaters, scooters and cars. The related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will continue to rise even though the energy efficiencies of the appliances are continually improving.”

While stating that “households at all socioeconomic levels are increasingly using energy using devices such as…”, the Natcom fails to make a clear and necessary distinction between rural households and communities that use only one electric bulb, and those that consume gluttonous amounts of energy. Even within rural areas, there is a great disparity, and the figure of “one-third of total national primary energy consumption” being accounted for by rural households certainly would not reflect, in a just manner, consumption patterns of forest-dwelling adivasis, especially those in hilly areas, and those who depend on “rainfed irrigation”.

It is of essence to unequivocally point out such distinctions while stating National Circumstances, as foundations are being laid, at this point of the document, for further analysis and consequently, for decision-making.

For example, if a distinction is made, as suggested, then it sets a fair backdrop against which to decide whether or not projects to generate hydroelectricity can be seen as appropriate forms of “green energy” as is being promoted under the CDM, in terms of who will be adversely impacted, and who would benefit from the energy being generated.

Proposals for hydro-electric projects are being protested by tribal and local communities, especially in north-eastern India, as these will impact and endanger biodiversity, livelihoods, and the ecosystem.

The Strategy For Combating Poverty:

The objective of combating poverty and investing in social infrastructure such as health and education has been articulated as follows:

“The high incidence of poverty underlines the need for rapid economic development to create more remunerative employment and for investment in social infrastructure such as health and education.”

While the objectives appear laudable, from the point of view of a traditional forest dweller, one would first have to point out the fact of impoverishment and forced landlessness of adivasis, many of whom are small farmers.

Halting such evictions and recording and recognizing land rights should then be articulated as a priority for action, as it would create a sense of security and well-being amongst forest-dependent communities, and would, in fact, halt migrations to urban areas.

From the point of view of tribal communities, provisions of health and education are prioritized requirements and require government funding. However, slipping in the corollary that such funding would require “rapid economic development” creates room for various interpretations of the meaning of “economic development”. As of today, “economic development” has even come to represent Foreign Direct Investment in the retail sector!

Proponents of mining projects such as the ongoing bauxite project of Utkal Alumina International Ltd. (UAIL) in Kashipur Block, Raigada District of Orissa, for example, have paid no heed to the adverse impact of the project on adivasi communities. A hearing conducted by the Indian People’s Tribunal in October 2005 has drawn further attention to these facts.

The government’s initiative to provide employment in rural areas through introducing the National Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (EGA), is an extremely positive development. However, the manner in which the EGA was passed might throw light on the opposing forces within the decision-making process. The all-party parliamentary committee on Rural Development unanimously prepared a report on the National Employment Guarantee Bill, making a number of recommendations. However, some of the key recommendations were not accepted by the Government of India. Even a non-technical person would know that budgets for such purposes would need to be  approved by the Finance Ministry of India. Tribal communities, on the other hand, would view a number of items of government expenditure as unnecessary for the survival needs of vulnerable communities, and contributing towards the wastefulness of natural resources.

The “oustees” of the Narmada project are also a prime example of the impoverishment of vulnerable communities.

If adivasis had been consulted, during the policy formulation on Climate Change issues in the context of the UNFCCC, the immediate halting of the kind of impoverishment mentioned above would have been pointed out as a priority, and related recommendations would have been made, and would have possibly articulated in the Initial Natcom.

However, it has been gauged that most groups, NGOs, and individuals working with adivasi communities, and adivasis themselves, have not been consulted on relevant aspects of policy formulation in the context of the UNFCCC.

Vulnerability Assessment And Adaptation

Adaptation strategies are unacceptable as they have been made against the backdrop of poor assessment of vulnerability:

The Natcom has discussed the anticipated impacts of Climate Change, saying

“The consequences of these expected changes would vary greatly across the length and breadth of India due to its complex geography and climate patterns. Regional and sectoral variability in levels of social and economic development requires in-depth regional and sectoral assessment of vulnerability due to the projected climate change, and formation of adaptation strategies. The information available for assessments of impact is fragmentary. An effort was made during preparation of the Initial National Communication to undertake modeling and research studies and collate existing information on impact assessment and development strategies which may mitigate some impacts.”

Suggestions that sectoral assessment of vulnerability and also of impact have not been carried out are of grave concern as this implies that decisions pertaining to accepting the levels of future impacts, including compromises on the behalf of tribals, have been made without being in possession of adequate information regarding whether or not their fundamental right to life guaranteed under the Constitution will be threatened. This could, in fact, put the deciding authorities in the position of tortuous liability.

This grim situation has not been communicated effectively to those who will be victimized (and who are probably already victims of the impacts of climate change). Shielded by excuses of inability to communicate high levels of technical detail etc., no effective effort has been made, by the focal point, the central Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), to consult tribals across the country, on policy formulation pertaining to any aspects of the UNFCCC.

The stand on Climate Change in India so far seems to be an acceptance of  extremely grim levels of human-induced climate change in fifty years. This spells doom for adivasis, their livelihoods, lifestyles and cultures. India is now at a  stage where this has been accepted as an inevitability, and where adaptation strategies are being discussed. Adivasi people are still clueless about what’s going on. This situation does not amount reflect sustainable management, and calls for rectification.

The Adaptation strategy seems to be making grounds for creating a market for a privatized power sector:

The Natcom states that “increased temperatures would increase space-cooling requirements” and that “about 1.5 per cent additional power generation capacity would be required for enhanced space cooling requirements as a result of increase in temperature”.

Reasons such as consumers having to maintain their lifestyles are provided as a justification for the requirements of higher power generation capacity. This neglects considerations of equity, and ignores the circumstances of traditional forest dwelling people, and also of poorer sections of society including the urban poor who need to be considered while trying to achieve “sustainable development”.

While saying that “…additional power requirements are likely to be partly offset by adoption of various energy conservation measures in these areas as the projected energy saving potential in these sectors is very high”, the view that the very existence of some of the components in these sectors, which are driven by the business interests of multi-national corporations actually need to be phased out, is lost and should have been included. The suggestion in the Natcom, that “implementation of energy conservation measures would require substantial investments”, would need to be looked at in the light of this view. However, this does not, in any way, mean that all energy-conservation measures should be dismissed.

A word of caution in terms of having to draw a distinction among various power generation concerns, and the need for appropriate differentiated criteria which should be in conformity with concerns of sustainable development, including the equitable distribution and local management of natural resources, while calling for investment in energy-saving measures is required at this stage. Such appropriate differentiated criteria (in this context, within the Country), could be arrived at if broader consultations take place at the time of policy-formulation.

The Natcom, in its chapter on Sustainable Development, also mentions that the Tenth Plan (of the Planning Commission) provides “an opportunity to build upon the gains of the past and also to address the weaknesses that have emerged.”

In the context mentioned above, the Natcom adds that “The role of the government has to be redefined to that of a facilitator and developer of specific infrastructure such as rural infrastructure and road development. In other infrastructure sectors, for example, telecommunications, power, ports, etc., the private sector can play a much greater role, supported by an appropriate policy framework.”

The recommendation for the privatization of the power sector, along with the negative implications that this would have, for ensuring the equitable use of natural resources, and sustainable development, need to be taken note of.

Education, Training And Public Awareness

 It has been stated that government initiatives such as Joint Forest Management and Water Resources Management are a part of a “broad spectrum of initiatives for education, training and public awareness on climate and related issues.”

It would be extremely debatable to describe JFM and Water Management Programmes as government initiatives that effectively deal with either education, training or public awareness on climate and related issues. Further details on JFM are to be found in another section of this report.

While the Natcom says that “A recent study indicated that out of 50 large Indian corporate houses, more than three-quarters had an environmental policy, sixty per cent had an environment department, and four out of every 10 had formal environment certification (ISO 14001). All the major industry associations have a climate change division and have taken initiatives to conduct training and generate awareness in key areas, such as energy efficiency and other environment friendly projects.”

The corporate sector might have environment departments, policies and climate change divisions. However, the formulation of the draft National Environment Policy in which the corporate sector was a dominant participant, is a window to the sort of stance the corporate sector takes on environmental and social impacts of large industries.

While one cannot rule out exceptions, corporate social responsibility, especially on the part of foreign multi-national corporations in ‘developing countries’ such as India, is highly inadequate. The controversy over the leasing of a water body in the state of Kerela, to the Coca Cola company, is an indication of how groundwater levels and basic needs of local communities are of no concern to organizations that are driven solely by motives of profit. Injecting devices for energy efficiency into production processes which otherwise impinge on the equitable access to natural resources would only create paradoxical situations.

The Head of the Environment Division of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), claims that there is an “enormous” process in place, for consulting tribals on policy formulation.  However, the discussions on land use patterns, Environment Impact Assessment, and instances of the missing adivasi perspective in policy formulation as pointed out in this report, clearly indicate that adivasi concerns are not adequately addressed through the evolving policy on Climate Change.

Missing perspectives in climate change policies and in discussions on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM):

The following statement in the Natcom is significant, and needs to be acted upon: 

“The Government of India has instituted consultative processes for climate change policies. Indian researchers have made significant contributions to international scientific assessments.… However, in the wake of the complexity of climate change issues, the task is far from complete, and assessments in a range of areas and analyses of uncertainties and risks remain to be undertaken.”

An optimistic interpretation of this statement would lead one to believe that the “assessments in a range of areas and analyses of uncertainties and risks” would include assessments and analyses of the circumstances of the adivasis. However, such an inference would be an overly optimistic one, given the total neglect of the adivasi perspective so far.

For example, the Area Convenor, Forestry and Biodiversity Area, The Energy and Resources Institutes (TERI), an organization that has been working closely with the government on Climate Change, in consultation with colleagues, makes a distinction between various levels of public participation. He states that as far as policy formulation on 4.1(d) is concerned, if you look at it from an “activist’s perspective”, then that has not been carried out.

Doubts arise, about whether this will be done in the future. For example, the National Strategy Survey (NSS), 2005 on CDM Implementation in India, which has been prepared by The Energy And Resources Institute (TERI), mentions that the Indian Council for Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), is preparing its application for Designated Operational Entity (DOE) status for the Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) sector. Organizations dealing with the protection of wildlife such as WWF are aware of this. Organizations like TERI are aware that ICFRE was supposed to send in its definition on “forest” to the MoEF (for which TERI had also sent in comments to ICFRE). However, national-level activists as well as local tribal communities and NGOs who deal with tribal rights, forest law and policy and biodiversity, have not been made aware of such activity. It is imperative for such groups, individuals and communities to be accommodated in the national-level decision-making on CDM issues that overlap with the land use debate in the country.

Programmes Related To Sustainable Development [CHAPTER SIX OF NATCOM: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND NATIONAL PLANNING]

Agricultural Policy:

While it is stated, in the Executive Summary of the Natcom that “Agriculture will continue to be important in India’s economy in the years to come”, one is reminded of the controversial Seeds Bill and the introduction of GMOs such as Bt cotton, and one wonders what sort of agriculture is, in fact, being referred to. Particularly in the context of the discouraging of bonafide uses of traditional hill-slopes by tribal communities to organically grow diverse nutritious millets etc. (a traditional practice commonly known as podu in the eastern ghaat hill range), and instead, of promoting plantations of cashwenut, with plans to invite private companies to set up processing units. This endangers the food security of tribal households, and from the perspective of gender equity, it dis-empowers women from being in control over nutrition needs.

As pointed out in the technical report of India’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), the cropping practices of subsistence farmers, particularly the mixed cropping systems which result in intensive farming in a limited area, are unique. Their knowledge of seed selection, their traditional methods of conserving seeds and grains in eco-friendly traditional granaries, and their communities' participation in maintaining germplasm provide important insights to global efforts aimed at genetic conservation. (Ravishankar and Selvam 2002). This is the situation in all the adivasi communities across the country, including the Chhattisgarh region of Madhya Pradesh, the Santhal areas of the central forest belt and the extensive adivasi habitats in Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, both the Eastern and Western Ghats, the North-eastern region and the Himalayas.

Five thrust areas of India’s agricultural policy have been mentioned. Of these, the intention to “develop and disseminate agricultural technologies” and to “diversify agricultural products, both geographically and over time” require scrutiny from the point of view of the health, water, food security and the biodiversity needs of forest dependent communities, keeping gender concerns within adivasi communities in mind. Adivasi populations are the most vulnerable to the negative impacts of the diversification of agriculture and also to the introduction of a range of agricultural technologies which are more likely to benefit the seed industry and restrict the small farmer.

Furthermore, if critical issues of land rights, especially over traditional common spaces are not taken into consideration, then there is always the fear, on the part of traditional natural resource dependent communities, that such land will be usurped for industrialized agriculture.

These aspects of the agricultural policy point dangerously towards the industrialization of agriculture and the extinguishment of sustainable agriculture.

The Executive Summary of the Natcom mentions that “Communicable diseases have become more difficult to combat because of the development of insecticide resistant strains of vectors.”  By this very logic, as long as the government continues to promote “agricultural technologies” which require the use of certain insecticides, communicable diseases will be difficult to combat. Rising cases of encephalitis have been reported, of late, from tribal areas.

Environmental Legislation and Policy:

The Natcom has enlisted some of the legislation that is meant for conservation and sustainable development. While India does have a set of statutes as well as constitutional provisions that are aimed at conservation, a number of lacunae and shortcomings in these laws have been pointed out by communities and groups. Not only the content of the Acts, Rules and Notifications, but the implementation of these as well as emerging institutions/processes have also been critically analysed by civil society.

A number of aspects of these laws have been commented upon and analysed in the Final Technical Report of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. This document was prepared through a wide participatory process, including thousands of people and adivasis, and also with the involvement of the MoEF. It was funded by UNDP/GEF. This planning process has been seen as one of the most authentic and wide-spread participatory processes ever carried out and documented. However, the MoEF has, so far, suppressed the publication of the NBSAP. 

Instead, the MoEF, has been prominently involving the corporate sector in its consultations on the Draft National Environment Policy (NEP) and the UNFCCC.

In addition to this, the MoEF has also been opposing a Bill that the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) has been attempting to introduce. (The proposed bill of the MoTA aims to correct a historical injustice by recording and recognizing the land and forest rights of tribals.)

The approach of the MoEF is further highlighted in the context of The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 which it introduced (this does not find a place in the Natcom list). While this Act apparently aims to provide for the conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of biological resources and knowledge etc., provisions of the Act actually make it very easy for the Industry and even foreign concerns, to access resources as well as intellectual property related to the resource. Rules framed under the Act in 2004 have proved to be extremely controversial, leading to protests from communities and NGOs.

Displacement Of Traditional Forest Dwellers And Change Of Land Use For Exclusive Wildlife Conservation:

In addition to this, land use changes are effected when certain areas are declared National Parks and Sanctuaries under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. (WLPA). While a number of Protected Areas for Wild Life conservation have been created through this Act, the recent (well acclaimed and well-received) report of the Tiger Task Force (TTF) states: “Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, when the reserved forests were notified, the rights of the local people were not recognized. In other words, people have seen their homes changed from ‘reserved forests’ to ‘reserved for tigers’ while they have become ‘illegal settlers’”.

An estimated three to four million people whose rights have not been recorded or settled are said to reside, today, in the country’s ‘protected area network’ of 600 sanctuaries, accounting for 5.1 percent of the country’s land area. Such communities face the threat and reality of brutal eviction.

The management of Protected Areas would have to involve, first, a recognition of the pre-exisitng rights of communities. After such recognition, management of protected areas as suggested in the report of the TTF, should accord a greater role to local communities as well as restrict unsustainable activities by other  sectors.

Displacement Of Traditional Forest Dwellers And Change Of Land Use For Industry:

The biggest threat to the sustainable management of natural resources, which would also have a bearing on Climate Change, has been from the denotification of forest land for Industry.

The pro-Industry stance of the Ministry of Environment and Forests is clearly reflected in the Draft National Environment Policy, including the telling pro-Industry process through which the Draft National Environment Policy was prepared.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), while making haste to push forward such an Environment Policy, has also introduced further amendments to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification that exists under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, making it easier for industries to obtain environmental clearances. As stated by activists: “Unfortunately, most EIAs that are conducted today do not consider rejection of the project on environmental or social grounds as an option…The information they contain is often incomplete, false or inadequate; when the information is good, the conclusions drawn are inconsistent with it, resulting in a biased outcome.” (Kanchi Kohli and Manju Menon. May 2005. “Eleven Years Of The Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994: How Effective Has It Been?”).

Change Of Land Use In Scheduled Areas:

The 73^rd Amendment to the Indian Constitution was brought about in order to strengthen the Panchayati Raj system. These provisions were extended to Scheduled Areas (tribal areas provided special status under Schedules V and VI of the Constitution are known as Scheduled Areas) through the Panchayat (Extention to Scheduled Ares) Act, (PESA),1996. Under PESA, there is a list of subjects over which village bodies are supposed to have decision-making powers.

In addition to this, land under Scheduled Areas is supposed to be protected from being sold or leased out to non-tribal people or entities. While there exists a landmark judgement, Samatha Vs. State of A.P. that upholds this view, there have been judicial decisions as well as government actions, thereafter, which have circumvented the Samatha judgement.

The PESA itself has been misused, to give out Scheduled Area land even to multi-national companies. The PESA represents welcome first steps towards empowering the gram sabha (village community) by recognizing a list of subjects that fall under the purview of local bodies for decision-making. However, the provisions of PESA are now being interpreted to mean that resolutions passed by gram sabhas can be used to lease out Scheduled Tribe areas to mining and other industrial concerns etc. Allegations of project proponents having obtained  fraudulent gram sabha resolutions are many, including in the case of the Sterlite/ Vedanta company’s activities in Kalahandi District.

Joint Forest Management

“A major afforestation plan is being implemented with the assistance of local

population through JFM. The basic components of India’s forest conservation efforts include putting a check on the diversion of forest land for non-forestry

purposes; expansion of the area under the protected area network;”

The “afforestation” imposed by JFM has led to a number of conflicts among forest dwelling populations, and are discussed below.

Furthermore, some of the flaws in the protected area network have been discussed in the recent report of the Tiger Task Force. Unless there is a paradigm shift in protected area management, (with a shift towards involving local communities in management), the expansion of protected areas (which has even been recommended through the largely participatory NBSAP process), will prove to be counterproductive for conservation as well as for the survival and dignity of forestdwellers.

Today, there exist analyses, studies and voices form JFM sites in Andhra Pradesh, for example, that point out the fact that a number of boundary disputes  have arisen with the introduction of JFM.  JFM has proved to be a tool through which traditional claimants of the benefits from tracts of common land, disputed land, land where rights have not yet been settled or demarcated, etc., have been denied access to such areas. Boundaries created under JFM are said to have been created without proper consultations.

Furthermore, there have been issues such as the lack of transparency on the part of the Forest Department while managing JFM funds, no actual decision-making by the local communities in terms of boundary selection, specie selection, harvesting etc., though these might be noted on paper.

In fact, JFM has been criticized for taking up a “target oriented” approach in terms of the Forest Department showing rapidly growing numbers of JFM committees on paper, with inadequate efforts to facilitate democratic decision-making. Often, when it has been recorded that people have “participated” in JFM, it has only meant that they have been enrolled in the JFM.

In spite of such lacunae, and there being a popular view that JFM should be done away with, and the Panchayat Raj system strengthened for holistic solutions, a second round of funding has been obtained, in Andhra Pradesh, for a second round of revised JFM activity under the heading of CFM. A number of the issues raised regarding JFM remain unresolved even under CFM.

Another significant point which does not relate to standards of implementation, but to legal standing and that applies, both, to JFM/CFM committees and to Water Users’ Associations that would be a part of the “Water Resources Management”, is that although there might, in cases, be some sort of linkages with Panchayat bodies, such linkages are weak and inadequate. This can be viewed as an encroachment upon the jurisdiction and rights of gram sabhas.

The gram panchayats and gram sabhas have a mandate that is set by the Constitution, and JFM/CFM activity should necessarily be in consonance with the decisions of gram sabhas.

Significantly, funding for Joint Forest Management (JFM) activity in some states of India, after 1994, has been obtained from the World Bank.

The Tenth Plan Document of the Planning Commission 2002:

Box 6.1 of the Natcom enlists ‘development targets’ taken from the Tenth Plan Document of the Planning Commission 2002. This includes “Increasing the forest and tree cover to 25 percent by 2007 and 33 per cent 2012.”

Here, it must be pointed out, that as already discussed, targets of “forest cover” in the context of the definition of “forest” in India, could just as well include area to be brought under “forest land”, and that this deals more with legal allocation of land, and could even mean the exclusion of biotic influences (of forest dwelling communities). Analysts and local communities have also labeled the proposed 25 percent and 33 percent targets for “forest and tree cover” as ad hoc.

The fact that the said target has been specified for ‘tree cover” as well as forest cover indicates that no distinction has been made, at this point, between ecosystems and monoculture plantations. Such a target could lead to ecosystems of high biodiversity (in a number of hilly areas, this would mean an interspersal of wild biodiversity as well as subsistence agriculture within an ecosystem), being converted to commercial plantations.

Box 6.2 of the Natcom is entitled “Strategy for Equity and Social Justice” and is also derived from the 10^th Plan Document of the Planning Commission, 2002.

It has been stated that “_Agricultural development must be viewed as a core element of the national planning process, since growth in this sector is likely to lead to widespread benefits, especially to the rural poor. The first generation of reforms concentrated on the industrial economy and reforms in the agricultural sector were neglected; this must change in the Tenth Plan.”

While “agricultural development” would certainly be welcome as a core element of the national planning process, the appropriate interpretation of the term would be the deciding factor as far as the goals of sustainable development are concerned. The use of the term “reforms” for the agricultural sector raises further alarm bells, as the term “reform” is totally open to subjective interpretation as has been noticed in the debatable application of the term in the context of “economic reforms”.

The term “reforms in the agricultural sector”, read along with some of the thrust areas of the agricultural policy as already discussed, would pose a threat to the livelihoods, lifestyles, and food security of tribal and other natural resource dependent communities.

Borrowing from the Tenth Plan document, it has also been said that the “_ The growth strategy of the Tenth Plan must ensure rapid development of sectors most likely to create large employment opportunities and deal with the policy constraints that discourage growth of employment.”

The creation of appropriate employment opportunities for forest dwelling populations need to be formulated on the basis of local-level consultations. The existence and acceptance of appropriate forms of construction and tourism need to be a pre-requisite before imposing such sociologically unsustainable activities in the name of employment in forest or fringe areas.

Furthermore, there is an apprehension that the attempt to “deal with the policy constraints that discourage growth of employment”, would mean creating a policy situation that hastens and facilitates project clearances. Such hastening leads to less time for public consultations, and extremely limited information imparted to people who are likely to be impacted by such projects. Prior informed consent in the local decision-making process is likely to be given a very low priority in such a scenario.

Such situations have been on the rise, and unless the policy defect leading to this is addressed as a priority, ”special programmes aimed at target groups that may not derive sufficient benefit from the normal growth process” will achieve extremely limited and unsustainable results.

National Planning and Climate Change:

It has been stated that “Reduced decadal population growth rates would lower GHG emissions, reduce pressure on land, resources, and ecosystems and provide higher access to social infrastructure.”

However, it is of serious concern that the habitat, food security and livelihoods of entire adivasi populations in India might be at stake, owing, in large part, to climate change factors induced by GHGs emitted primarily by Energy and Transformation Industries, Industry, Transport and Industrial Processes (as depicted in Table 2 of the Executive Summary of the Natcom which represents India’s national greenhouse gas inventories). Such concerns are increasingly being controlled by multi-national companies for profit, and have been exerting pressure on land, resources and ecosystems in India on a large scale.     

It has been suggested that “Increased reliance on hydro and renewable energy resources would reduce GHG and local pollutant emissions, enhance energy security and consequent economic benefits from lower fossil fuel imports, and provide access to water resources from additional hydro projects.”

In this context, one must note that the National Advisory Council (NAC) has reportedly recently discussed the setting up of a full-time Energy Policy Board (EPB) to catalyse actions on an integrated energy policy across sectors, which would be in keeping with the National Common Minimum Programme of the present government and its supporters. As reported in the national daily, The Hindu, ‘The council is keen on seeing the national debate shift from energy security to an integrated energy policy, including a revival of the “conservation ethic” that marked discourse on the subject in the late ‘70s and ‘80s.’

This is against the backdrop of there being an already existing Energy Coordination Committee that was set up in 2005 by the Prime Minister. It is hoped that the formation of an Energy Policy Board as proposed by the NAC is a step towards ensuring sensitization in the planning process, towards issues of displacement of people in the setting up of hydro projects etc. It is also hoped that such a board would make  significant inputs to influence the work of the core group for the operationalization of CDM which has been appointed by the Planning Commission.

However, it remains to be seen, whether these recommendations of the National Advisory Council will be accepted by the government.

Although the NAC has proved to be effective at times, in ensuring that the concerns of civil society, especially the deprived sections of society, are heard and acted upon at the level of policy and legislation, a number of suggestions made by the NAC have been neglected by the Executive Body and the Planning Commission.

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs):

Table 6.1 of the Natcom enlists eight millennium development goals with targets and indicates corresponding targets according to the tenth five-year plan (2002-2007) and beyond. To correspond to Goal 7 (“Ensure environmental sustainability”), one of the Tenth Plan targets is “Increasing the forest and tree cover to 25 per cent by 2007 and 33 per cent 2012.” As already discussed, such a target, given the officially imposed definitions of forest land, and the arbitrary and blanket nature of the per cent figures that have been mentioned as targets, would not address the issue of sustainable development in the context of climate change.

Climate Friendly Initiatives (CDM and monocultures)

Climate-friendly initiatives mentioned in the Natcom raise some concerns. It has been said that:

“The government had also launched the programme of blending of five per cent ethanol in petrol in India. In the first phase, the major sugarcane producing states have been selected for coverage and the remaining states are being taken up in the second phase in line with the availability of ethanol. The blending percentage would be raised to 10 per cent in subsequent phases.”

The concern here relates to the labeling of land. Considering that social activists as well as organizations concerned about wildlife and biodiversity have noticed that the Forest Survey of India had mistakenly labeled sugarcane plantations, specifically, as forests, there is some amount of apprehension regarding how or why this came about. There is the apprehension that community land, and land over which rights have not been settled might be usurped by the government for plantations such as these.

 The Jatropha plant is used in the making of “bio-diesel” and encouraging this is seen as another climate-friendly initiative. However, studies show that Jatropha plantations are harmful to human health and would negatively impact communities living in proximity to such plantations. It would thus be necessary to “determine level of social support” as pointed out in a study on The CDM And Village-Based Forest Restoration carried out by Community Forestry International in Adilabad District of Andhra, and also to act upon these levels of acceptability and possibly not draft a particular proposal at all, if it is found that a proposed CDM project is not acceptable from the point of view of local communities.

Recommendations

1. A much more participatory approach should be followed in the preparation of the second Natcom in order to accommodate analyses and information from sectors that have gone unrepresented so far, such as the adivasi community. A starting point for this could be through establishing strong linkages between the NBSAP network and the second Natcom process. Linkages could also be made, with networks such as the National Campaign for Survival and Dignity, and the All India Co-ordinating Forum of Adivasis/Indigenous Peoples.

2.The Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment should be included in the list of ministries involved in decision-making and policy formulation and the planning process related to Climate Change.

3.The groups and networks that have been recommended for inclusion in the forthcoming second Natcom process should also be consulted in policy formulation on climate change issues.

4. It is necessary to create awareness among communities, activists, NGOs, peoples representatives etc., regarding the factors leading to human-induced climate change, the political and economic arguments that have been made so far, including the “development first” paradigm as described in the Natcom, the impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations, the procedures and guidelines of the National Clean Development Mechanism Authority (NCDMA), the role of consultants such as ‘Pricewaterhouse’ etc. The main aim of doing this should be to invite constructive criticism and responses on the current approach from sectors that have not been consulted so far. These responses should then find a place in the approach towards sustainable development and climate change.

5. For the demystification of and invitation to respond to UNFCCC-related processes in India, it would be necessary to translate the initial Natcom to all the regional languages of the country and distribute this information. For dialects and languages that do not have a script, or are not ‘official languages’, too, there should be efforts to communitace through oral translations: this requirement would apply mostly to tribal areas.

6.In the Natcom, it has been suggested that the problem of the non-availability of data for informal sectors of the economy should be collected through conducting data surveys. In order to collect such data at a national level, it would be necessary to tap into existing banks of information on the subject at State, District and Local levels. The process and manner of conducting such surveys, and guidelines for the same should be decided locally, based on differing local situations. For example, which kind of forest-based activity would constitute “bonafide livelihood needs” and not amount to “commercial use” but can be counted as being a part of the informal sector of the economy would have to be worked out, keeping in mind the differentiated needs of forest dwelling populations.

7. A document prepared by TERI entitled CDM Implementation in India: The National Strategy Study (NSS), has been supported by the World Bank, the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, Govt. of Switzerland, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India. Some of TERI’s partners in in the study are IDFC, INFRAS AG, Ernst Balser + Partners Ltd., and LASEN EPFL. Under the section on Sustainable Development in this study, a table on “Capabilities of different CDM project types to co-produce global common goods” has been charted out.  An analysis of this table from the point of view of the impact of identified activities on forest dependent people, and in the context of the present analysis of the Initial Natcom, needs to be carried out by NGOs, communities, individuals, academics, activists etc. who work on the land and forest rights of forest dwelling communities including tribals. Such an analysis should feed into, and as necessary, alter the present approach to climate change and CDM. It should also feed into the content of the second Natcom.

8. Immediate steps should be taken, to create wider awareness, discussion and participation on aspects of LULUCF in India. If ICFRE is the DOE, then ICFRE, along with the MoEF, should initiate such interaction before proceeding further.

9. The NBSAP report that has been prepared through a wide participatory process, should be published by the government, and any National Environment Policy that is finalized should include the views expressed in this process. As of today, the Draft National Environment Policy has created a situation that has become conducive to the dilution of the environment impact assessment requirement. An appropriate National Environment Policy would be the foundation for checking this, and ensuring the sustainable management of resources in the context of climate change initiatives as well as at a broader level.

10. The Supreme Court has provided the definition of “forest” in the context of an ongoing Public Interest Litigation, the T.N. Godavarman case. The definition has been considered to be a very sweeping one, not taking into account, the implications of such a definition on other natural ecosystems and biodiversity. There is an increasing opinion that decisions of policy are being made through the Godavarman case by the Supreme Court aided by an amicus curiae and a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of the Supreme Court, headed by an MoEF official. While, through this structure, some environmental violations by the Industry have been halted, leading to positive outcomes on occasion, it is felt that the legislature and executive should assert their role in what has become a powerful decision-making process. In the meantime, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs should certainly have a strong presence in the existing Central Empowered Committee. Such processes determine land use in cases, and could potentially relate to disputes over land allocation for CDM projects.

11. It is also seen as a contradiction, that the other official meaning of forests as per usage, applies to any area that has been “recorded” as forest land. In such cases, local communities would be denied their bonafide traditional uses of land, and “forest cover” would be imposed on a particular area.  More on this has been discussed in Madhu Sarin’s paper, Laws, Lore and Logjams: Critical Issues In Indian Forest Conservation, 2005 and also with specific reference to the state of Madhya Pradesh, in Anil Garg’s paper, Orange Areas: Examining The Origin And Status, written for the National Centre for Advocacy Studies.

Land and forest rights of forest dwellers and forest dwelling tribals need to be ensured through legislation, and any proposals for CDM –related plantations should take this factor into consideration.

12. At the time of the writing of this report, there is a proposed Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2005 that has been drafted by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, which is likely to be introduced in Parliament in the Winter Session on 2005. The MoEF, wildlife enthusiasts and those from the mining lobby have been opposing this bill. However, it is being argued that it is, in fact, traditional forest dependent communities who are the best conservationists, and that their land rights need to be settled for the sustainable management of land. A bill to recognize such rights should be introduced as soon as possible to stop further eviction and related torture of tribal communities, some of which has been reported from the states of Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. It is equally important to introduce such legislation to ensure the forest and land rights of natural resource dependent forest dwellers who are not from the scheduled tribes. Similarly, there are forest fringe and forest areas with predominant scheduled tribe populations which have not been declared to be Schedule Five areas. Such areas should be notified as Scheduled Five areas to which the PESA would then be applicable.

13. For the sustainable management of natural resources including land, the Panchayati Raj system should be strengthened by the government on a priority basis in order to “facilitate local policy making” as suggested by the Natcom. A much greater public awareness needs to be created, at the State level, regarding the powers, functions and procedures of the gram sabha. Officers of the Panchayati Raj department need to be sensitized towards the requirements of a democratic decision-making process at the Panchayat and gram sabha level. The proceedings of district-level vigilance committees that have been set up recently to look into the utilization of central government funds should be televised in order to create a sense of public involvement and scrutiny of the local management of central funds. In states with Scheduled Areas where separate rules have not yet been framed for Scheduled Five tribal areas, they should be framed without any further delay.

14. Data prepared by the Forest Survey of India (FSI), should be done in a widespread participatory manner. Areas of uncertainty should be prominently spelt out in the document.

15. The government’s formulation of Energy Policy should be based on wide consultations with natural resource dependent communities. The survival and dignity of such communities including respect for their traditional lifestyles, livelihoods and cultural needs should be taken into account and given top priority while formulating such policy.

16. Some of the thrust areas of the agricultural policy that are in place, and that have been mentioned in the Natcom need to be reconsidered from the point of view of small farmers including forest dwellers whose agriculture is sometimes interspersed in biodiverse ecosystems.

17. As of today, the website of the MoEF describes the National Clean Development Mechanism Authority (NCDMA) as the “single window clearance” for CDM projects in the country. The Chairperson of the NCDMA is the Secy, MoEF, and the members are Foreign Secy, Finance Secy, Secy, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Secy, Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Secy, Ministry of Power, Secy, Plannign Commission, Joint Secy, (Climate Change), Ministry of Environment and Forests. The Member-Secy is the Director, Climate Change (MoEF). These are the people who give “host country approval” status to a proposed CDM project, based on “eligibility criteria” that have been spelt out on the MoEF website. After submitting documents to the NCDMA, the Project Developers make a presentation to the NCDMA, which, after asking for clarifications etc, gives a letter of approval from the host country. In order to give the approval, the Social, Economic, Environmental and Technological “well-being” are mentioned as “sustainable development indicators” that have to be considered by the NCDMA.  The forty-two points enlisted for the “project concept note” (PCN) format include headings such as “whether EIA conducted for the project”; “sustainable development criteria”; “socio-economic aspects”; “local stakeholders comments”; “environment management programmes”; “project risks” etc. A number of approvals have been made. For example, In Nalgonda District of Andhra Pradesh, approval was granted for manufacturing of biodiesel from raw vegetable oils extracted from non-edible oil seeds such as Pongamia Pinnata and Jatropha Curcas to reduce GHG emissions in transport sectors. (the project has been mentioned for the time frame of 2002-2005). However, such approvals in spite of the fact that studies show that the monoculture of such plantations is a threat to the health needs of local populations, especially children, is a cause of great concern.

A lot is left to the discretion of the NCDMA, in granting CDM approval. This is also of concern, especially in the light of the fact that the process has been made a 60-day “single window clearance”. Considering the kind of “sustainable development” indicators enlisted, the NCDMA should include representatives of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, and of the department of Social Justice and Empowerment. In addition to this, there should be a much stronger system in place, to receive comments from experts as well as groups regarding the impacts of proposed CDM projects. Although EIA has been mentioned in the list, the shortfalls of the EIA have already been discussed. In any case, the EIA is applicable only to specified types of projects, whereas some of the CDM projects also need to pass through tests and public consultations. This needs to be made a legal requirement.

Compared to the existing National CDM Authority process, a much wider consultation is required, in granting “host country approval” for CDM projects to ensure that forest dwelling communities and small farmers are not negatively impacted by such activity.

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.    UNFCCC-related activity in India, as well as the Natcom have not reached out to access the views of natural resource dependent communities including adivasis. Other major groups such as NGOs and activists working for tribal rights and rights of natural resource dependent communities have also not been included in the outreach. As a result, the information and analysis in the Natcom fails to reflect the views and concerns of such sectors. The views of such sectors are crucial for ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources.

2.    The Ministry that is primarily handling the UNFCCC is the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). However, the MoEF has not been sensitive towards the needs of forest dependent communities in the context of the National Environment Policy (NEP); its stand on the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill; the dilution of the EIA process; JFM; the Biological Diversity Act, and the NBSAP to name a few examples. The approach of the MoEF on all these issues seems to be one that is of greater benefit to the corporate sector. This factor, along with the documents of the Planning Commission that also do not always adequately appreciate or address the actual needs of traditional forest dwelling populations including tribals, should be analyzed by the executive wing of the government and acted upon. Such an analysis would come up with solutions for sustainable management even in the context of climate change.

3.    There should be a complete re-think on funding programmes like Joint Forest Management (JFM). This is especially significant in the context of the UNFCCC. The evolving concept of taking up plantations such as Jatropha for biodiesel for CDM-related activity is donor-driven as of now. Issues of land and local governance and democratic decision-making at the village level have to be given priority instead of running the risks of repeating the mistakes of JFM and CFM in the CDM arena.

4.    The existing thrust areas of the Agriculture Policy that have been mentioned in the Natcom are detrimental to the interests of adivasis. To rectify this, the Agricultural Policy should be reformed, taking on board suggestions from the NBSAP Report, 2005.

5.    Aspects of the policy on energy, and the rationale for energy generation need reorientation. This should be done through a consultative process, ensuring that voices from the adivasi community are heard and accommodated in the process and its outcome.

6.    A greater, more widespread process is required, for CDM clearance, compared to the existing “single window” system of the National CDM Authority.

Conclusions

While looking into aspects of the implementation of Article 4.1.(d) of the UNFCCC, especially aspects of “sustainable management”   as dealt with in the Natcom, it has been found that some claims, analyses and assumptions related to the management of natural resources are extremely debatable.

A number of aspects of the activities related to policy formulation and implementation on “climate-change” issues actually pertain to the management of natural resources and impact local communities. In order to achieve “sustainable management” of resources as mentioned in Article 4.1.(d) of the UNFCCC, the concerns, views, and needs of local traditional natural resource dependent communities such as adivasis and small farmers need to be accorded the highest priority.

The process through which the Natcom has been prepared has not been one that would ensure that the voices of traditional forest dwelling communities including tribals, other small farmers and the urban poor would be heard. Thus, the concerns of such sectors have not been appropriately or adequately voiced by the Natcom in terms of analysis and presentation of India’s efforts/activities on Climate Change and sustainable development. This applies, not only to the Natcom, but also to the actual process and outcome of Climate Change-related policy formulation and approvals made for CDM projects.

The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) document, the preparation of which was funded by the UNDP/GEF and routed through the Ministry of Environment and Forests, was prepared through a wide participatory process. A number of suggestions in the NBSAP report address critical issues of conservation, forest protection, the rights of forest communities and pathways for sustainable development. Views contrary to those in the NBSAP have been expressed in the Natcom in the context of agriculture, JFM etc., and the publication of the NBSAP had been delayed by two years during which the NBSAP report was given to a committee of experts to review. The committee reportedly included representatives of ICFRE. ICFRE is the body that has applied for Designated Operational Entity (DOE) status for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) under the UNFCCC, and that the MoEF has involved in UNFCCC-related discussion.

This, along with reports that the NBSAP document was also on hold so that it could be aligned with the National Environment Policy goes to show that some of the political will that exists, to project and promote views of forest dwelling and tribal communities in policy formulation needs to be strengthened against opposing forces. (There was an uproar from peoples organizations, tribal groups, NGOs etc. over the bias towards the corporate sector in the preparation of the Draft National Environment Policy.)

A number of positive moves for sustainable development in India, many of which have been initiated or carried on by efforts of community conservation, and traditional practices of agriculture and symbiotic living, and threats faced by such efforts due to inappropriate land use patterns (and anticipated inappropriate use) of central and state governments have not been reflected in the Natcom.

Statutory provisions for environmental protection and the carrying out of JFM have been listed in the Natcom as measures that aid conservation and increase carbon sinks. However, the lacunae and shortcomings of the statues and of existing legislation and JFM, which, in many ways, deny communities their right to the equitable access of biodiversity have not been pointed out. As a result, critical issues of land rights are likely to be overlooked even in the context of CDM plantations in the future, just as they have been in the case of JFM.

Table 3 of the Natcom enlists and describes gaps and constraints for “sustained national communication activities” and provides an “illustrative list” of “potential measures” that could be taken, in order to bridge the gaps. It has been stated that “non-accessibility of data” is a problem and that there is a “lack of institutional arrangements for data sharing”. While no potential steps have been suggested, to create such institutions, as far as the data related to the needs and perspective of adivasi communities is concerned, even efforts to plug into existing networks and groups as suggested, would provide indicators and data. However, the intention to access such data has to also exist.

It is clear that the present UPA government is much more progressive in terms of taking on board, the views of civil society and of weaker sections while framing legislation, compared to the previous NDA government. The National Advisory Council has, particularly in the context of the Employment Guarantee Act and the proposed ‘Tribal Bill’, and legislation for womens’ rights, expressed the needs of the weaker sections of society. However, the influence of the corporate sector has been on the rise, often to the exclusion of suggestions made by the NAC.

By V. Shruti Devi, India, 2005. (Draft report 2005 submitted to the Global Forest Coalition GFC)