[Marxistindia] CPI(M)'s comments on Draft National Forest Policy 2018

[news from the cpi(m)]

April 13, 2018

Press Release

 

We are herewith releasing a note containing the CPI(M)'s comments on the
Draft National Forest Policy 2018. This note was submitted to the Ministry
of Forests, Environment and Climate Change by Brinda Karat, Member, Polit
Bureau on behalf of the CPI(M).

 

 

****

 

Full text of the Note

 

This note on behalf of the CPI(M) is to record our opposition to the Draft
National Forest Policy 2018 and to demand its withdrawal. The main thrust of
the Draft National Forest Policy 2018 is to privatize and commercialize
forests.  We see the policy document as a continuation of the unjust and
pro-corporate process established by the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act
(CAFA). This highly flawed law had eliminated the rights of tribal
communities, other traditional forest dwellers and gram sabhas for access
and management of forests and their produce.  The draft policy takes this
approach even further. In fact the word "tribal" appears only once in the
entire document reflecting the British colonial mindset which considered
tribals as "encroachers" on their own forest lands.

 

While the Draft emphasizes the role of forests in carbon sequestration and
mitigation of climate change, it actually undermines the importance of
natural forests and their other ecological and social services by equating
forests with tree cover, using the two terms interchangeably. It neglects
the much wider range of benefits from natural forests, beyond acting as
carbon sinks. This is primarily to promote commercial plantations in the
guise of tree cover  as part of the afforestation programmes. Afforestation
programmes became necessary in the first place precisely because natural
forests had been destroyed for commercial projects in the name of
development. The document does not even attempt to question the current
intensification of diversion of forest land for mega projects. 

 

Some of our objections are as follows:

 

1. Blueprint to commercialize and privatize forests

 

The Draft National Forest Policy 2018 is in essence a blueprint to
commercialize forests to serve the interests of industry and to bring in
the private sector for the actual management of forests through the so-
called  public private partnership model.  If allowed, this will also pave
the way for changing the character of natural forests to production or
plantation forests, and undermining the wide range of ecological and social
services provided by them. This is in contrast to the 1988 Forest Policy
document which had subordinated commercial goals and private profit to the
maintenance of ecological balance, protection of bio- diversity and
assertion of the rights of forest dwellers to non-timber forest produce for
sustenance and livelihoods.

 

The privatization and commercialization thrust dominates the Policy document
and runs through several sections and clauses throughout the document. The
emphasis is on increasing forest plantations and shockingly the
afforestation and reforestation program is also to be dedicated to this
goal. In other words afforestation is in the main to consist of planting
commercially useful timber. The ostensible reason for the emphasis in
increasing forest plantations at the cost of everything else is to make wood
the substitute for more carbon emitting products under the slogan "wood is
good." This perspective gives priority to the role of forests in carbon
sequestration in preference to the other ecological and social services
provided by forests, such as water recharge, checking soil erosion and
providing fuel, fodder and other useful products to forest-dwelling
communities. 

 

2. Plantation in the Name of Afforestation

 

In Section 3 entitled Essential Principles of Forest Management, Clause 3.2
states "Productivity of forest plantations will be increased through
scientific and technological interventions so as to encourage the use of
timber so that the dependency on other High carbon footprints wood
substitutes is reduced." 

 

In Clause 3.5 it is stated" Afforestation with suitable species will be
intensified. "The 1988 policy on this issue had specifically a clause which
stated" no exotic species should be introduced through public or private
sources unless long term scientific trials ..have established that they are
suitable and have no adverse impact on native vegetation and environment."
Historically we have examples such as when the British planted pine trees
for commercial use across Himachal Pradesh destroying native vegetation and
much else. But this Policy draft has no such concerns.

 

In the Section on Strategy 4.(d)  titled Increase the Productivity of Forest
Plantations,  the kind of  "suitable species" is stated as "commercially
important species" like "teak, sal, sisham, poplar, gmelina, eucalyptus .."
can be introduced and then the key sentence "Private participation models
will be developed for undertaking afforestation." 

 

Taking this further in the Section 4.2 titled New Thrust Areas in Forest and
Tree Management it is stated "the demand for timber and other forest produce
is showing an increasing trend and is likely to continue as the economy
grows. ..States would be encouraged to further develop their plantation
programmes. Clause 4.4 states "there is a need to stimulate growth in the
forest based industry sector. Forest corporations and industrial units need
to step up growing of industrial plantations for meeting the demand of raw
materials."

 

These formulations show that the Draft policy is to meet the expectations of
corporate interests to harness natural resources for their private gain and
profit.

 

3. Ambiguity on Question of Land for Afforestation

 

Where is the land for afforestation? On which land are the forest
plantations to be increased? This is the crux of the issue. The Draft is
deliberately ambiguous if not duplicitous on this point. Although it
mentions plantations "outside forests" in many other clauses it includes
forests and forest land under forest corporations for planting trees for
commercial use. 

 

It is here that the experience of the implementation of CAFA is critical to
understand the actual implications of this conflation of afforestation and
forest plantations. An ongoing study of 2,479 compensatory afforestation
projects across 10 States by forest rights groups has shown that over 70%
were consisting of plantations on existing forest land, including dense
forests. The study detailed the violence unleashed against villagers by
Government agencies because they were protesting against such plantations.
The Draft Policy praises supports and promotes such plantations. 

 

The 1988 Forest Policy had stated "(3.2) Diversion of good and productive
agriculture lands to forestry should be discouraged in view of the need for
increased food production."  In this document food security of the nation
does not even warrant a mention. On the contrary, the policy draft promotes
agreements between industry and farmers to ensure more availability of
timber. 

 

4. Diversion of Forest Land

 

The Draft acknowledges that the 1988 Policy had ensured an increase in
forest cover. That policy had a whole section (4.4) on "Diversion of Forest
Land for Non-Forest Purposes." The  Central Government has announced "ease
of business" policies which include the dilution of environmental parameters
before permission is granted for industrial projects. Liberalization of the
Mines and Minerals Regulation Act through a series of amendments has opened
up mineral rich forest areas including thickly forested hilly areas for
mining. The 2018 policy Draft has just one sentence on this crucial question
which says "safeguard forest land by exercising strict restraint on
diversion for non- forestry purposes.." Restraint on whom? The Central
Government which is responsible for the diversion of thousands of hectares
of forest land in just three years? And is not changing natural forests to
tree plantations also a major change in the character of forests, somewhat
akin to diversion?  

 

5.Tribal Rights Eliminated

 

The draft policy eliminates rights of tribals and tribal communities and
traditional forest dwellers (TFDs) in ownership and control of non- timber
forest produce (NTFP) as also in community resources. It snatches away the
rights of gram sabhas for management of forests and instead hands it over to
proposed centrally controlled corporations. 

 

The Forest Rights Act in Section 5 gives beneficiaries the powers and rights
to 

 

"protect the wild life, forest and biodiversity; (b)  ensure that adjoining
catchments area, water sources and other ecological sensitive areas are
adequately protected; ensure that the habitat of forest dwelling Scheduled
Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers is preserved from any form of
destructive practices affecting their cultural and natural heritage; (d)
ensure that the decisions taken by the gram sabha to regulate access to
community forest resources and stop any activity which adversely affects
wild animals, forests and bio-diversity are complied with"

 

This comprehensive understanding of the critical role of tribal communities
and TFDs in forest management is replaced with a highly bureaucratized
framework which includes setting up of so-called Joint Forest Management
Committees controlled and appointed by Government at the central and State
level. At the local level, the secretary and joint account holder of these
JFMs are forest guards. Therefore it is clear that these committees have
little to do with communities.

 

The Draft states: 4.1.1 (g) "Management of forests and forest plantations
will be done as per the central Government approved Working/Management plans
and also in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India
and the MOEFCC." In the next section 4.4.1(h) it is stated that a "National
Community Forest Management Mission will be launched  with a legal basis and
an operational framework."  These "national and state level plans" will then
be "synergized" with the gram sabha.  It says "all efforts to ensure synergy
between gram sabha and JMFC will be taken for ensuring successful community
participation in forest management.' Thus a legally recognized body, the
gram sabha, which has powers of forest management under existing laws such
as FRA and PESAA (Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act)  is to be
subordinated to a Government and Forest department controlled body acting to
a plan which has been decided in Delhi or in State Capitals which have
nothing to do with local communities wishes, plans or requirements. 

 

This highly objectionable proposal undoes whatever little has been achieved
in making tribal communities and gram sabhas as the central pivot in forest
management policies. Of course the forest department and the centralized
bureaucracy have never ever accepted the role of tribal communities and
TFDs. It was retired forest officials who went to the Supreme Court against
the Forest Rights Act. It is the MOEFCC which tries to usurp powers to
override the Tribal Affairs Ministry as the nodal agency for the
implementation of FRA. 

 

Much of the forest areas come under the FRA as community resources to which
tribals and TFDs have full rights. It should also be noted that the 2014
guidelines issued for private plantations had reduced the rights of tribal
communities and traditional forest dwellers to just 15 per cent of the
project area. Now the extension of such plantations to areas traditionally
used by tribal communities is an instrument to deprive them of existing
rights.

 

The FRA categorically gives tribal communities and TFDs rights over
community forest resources. 

 

Section 3 of the FRA states "right of ownership, access to collect, use, and
dispose of minor forest produce which has been traditionally collected
within or outside village boundaries;   other community rights of uses or
entitlements such as fish and other products of water bodies, grazing (both
se led or transhumant) and traditional seasonal resource access of nomadic
or pastoralist communities;   rights to protect, regenerate or conserve or
manage any community forest resource which they have been traditionally
protecting and conserving for sustainable use;  right of access to
biodiversity and community right to intellectual property and traditional
knowledge related to biodiversity and cultural diversity; 

 

The Draft National Forest policy does not mention any of these rights.
Instead it wants control over NTFP. It contains a section "Management of
non-timber forest produce" which states that such products which provide
sustenance to forest communities will be "managed sustainably and " a value
chain which is climate smart and market oriented will be made compulsory and
part of the business plans related to NTFP." Thus the Draft proposes
Government takeover of NTFP from the ownership of the tribals and TFDs,
blatantly violating the FRA. This is a most highly objectionable proposal in
the Draft.

 

6. Proposed Legal Framework

 

The draft policy document proposes a legal framework to override existing
laws, which safeguard tribal rights such as the Forest Rights Act, the
Panchayat Extension to Schedule Areas Act and constitutional protections
such as those enshrined in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the
Constitution. 

 

It states in 4.8  "Appropriate laws, rules and regulations as per
requirement will be put in place and existing ones suitably amended for
effective implementation of this policy." To oversee all this it proposes a
sort of super body which assumes all powers to itself over the forests and
communities living in forests.." A National Board of Forestry will be set up
headed by the Central Minister in charge of Forests and State Ministers in
Charge of Forests to ensure intersectoral convergence, simplification of
procedure, conflict resolution and periodic review."

 

This is a self serving proposal from a Ministry which is doing everything
possible to hasten the privatization of forests and to eliminate the rights
of tribal communities.

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft National Forest Policy should be withdrawn. A Committee comprising
of organisations and individuals working to preserve the environment,
forests and the rights of tribal communities and traditional forest dwellers
should be set up to redraft the Policy within the framework of the Forest
Rights Act and other laws which protect and recognize the role of tribal
communities in preserving India's rich bio-diversity and her natural
forests.

 

End

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpim.org/pipermail/marxistindia_cpim.org/attachments/20180413/a139643f/attachment.html>