Relevance : GS Paper III
Theme of the Article
Unlike the rest of the world, India is stridently moving away from community-involved conservation models.
Why has this cropped up?
In February this year, India, one of the world’s 17 megadiverse countries issued a court order which stood to evict more than a million forest-dwelling people from their homes.
Importance of this Court Order
Although this order was subsequently stayed, though temporarily, it provides valuable insights into India’s conservation objectives and approaches. Given the country’s size and biodiversity-richness, a decision of this nature has consequences for global natural heritage.
Importance of Involvement of Communities
- Involving communities living in and around natural resource-rich areas in the management and use of these resources is an effective tool of conservation that has been recognized across the world.
- This was affirmed by the 1980 World Conservation Strategy of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the Earth Summit’s 1992 Statement of Forest Principles and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
- Further fillip came from the IUCN’s Policy Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources in 2000, and the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2004 Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity.
The Reality of Conservation in India
- India has been a vocal member of the above conventions. But at home, things operate rather differently.
- India’s conservation legislation is separated into those that protect forests and its produce, and those that target wildlife conservation.
- Both the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 create different types and grades of protected areas, and contain provisions to restrict or outlaw local use of natural resources and landscapes.
- From the 1980s, there were a number of policies that mirrored the global shift towards inclusive conservation, such as the 1988 National Forest Policy, the 1992 National Conservation Strategy, the National Environment Policy of 2006 and the 2007 Biosphere Reserves Guidelines.
- While these people-friendly policy statements made their way into India’s conservation docket, its earlier exclusionary conservation legislation continued to stay in place.
- In an attempt to bridge this divide, the 1990 Joint Forest Management Guidelines (JFM) created community institutions for co-management, in collaboration with the forest bureaucracy. Although it initially registered some success stories in certain parts of the country, JFM committees are widely critiqued as being bureaucracy-heavy, with little real devolution of powers to local communities.
- A dramatic shift in the Indian conservation paradigm came in 2006 through the Forest Rights Act that went beyond sanctioning local usage, to conferring rights to local communities over forest land and produce. Given a hostile bureaucratic environment, the legislation faltered, except in certain pockets.
- India’s conservation policies and legislation over the years reveal a dichotomy of intent and action. Certain progressive policy documents are put in place checking off India’s international commitments. However, a wholly different picture emerges during the course of its operation on the ground.
Role of Communities ignore in India
- The Third National Wildlife Action Plan, introduced in 2017 is of the view that locals hinder conservation. Where communities are to be involved, it distinctly avoids the attribution of rights and instead frames usage within a bureaucracy-controlled format.
- In 2018, there was a Draft National Forest Policy that emphasized the protected area model of conservation that leaves little room for communities.
- The Supreme Court’s order in early 2019, currently held in abeyance, mandated the eviction of those forest-dwellers whose claims under the Forest Rights Act have been rejected.
- In March 2019, a comprehensive overhaul of the Indian Forest Act was proposed. This amendment introduces provisions for extinguishing rights granted under the Forest Rights Act. Further, it grants the forest bureaucracy unprecedented powers to enter and search the premises of forest-dwellers on suspicion, arrest without warrant and use firearms to meet conservation goals.
Conclusion
State authority that is usually reserved to tackle terrorism, insurgency and organized crime is now to be deployed to safeguard biodiversity. While other countries are recognizing the value of community-involved conservation models, India is stridently and steadfastly moving in the opposite direction.
