Does Northeast Merit Its Own Forest Policy?

WHAT EXPERTS/ENVIRONMENTALISTS SAY

THE QUESTIONS:

(1) Does the Northeast really need a separate "forest policy"? What can be so special about the Northeast that would merit a separate "forest policy"?

(2) If such a policy comes into being, will it actually augur well for the Northeast? what should be the key features of such a policy?

(3) The rich biodiversity of the Northeast is well-known. But can a separate forest policy make much of a difference in a situation where the prospects of a National Biodiversity Board is still not a reality?

(4) The SC ruling on timber had created a public outcry in the Northeast. It was a source of livelihood for many. In what way can these people sustainably use their forests?

THE ANSWERS:

ABDESH GANGWAR, CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION - NORTHEAST (CEENE), GUWAHATI

(1) The Northeast is unique in two ways: the richness of biodiversity is very high, and the percentage of endemism is about 33%, quite high. What is found in the NE region is not available elsewhere. Therefore the region attains high priority for conservation. It shares large international boundary. That is again important for the movement of wildlife, the corridors and the migration routes.

Secondly, in NE forests and the biodiversity are the life support system for the local communities much more than elsewhere in the country. Forests and forest products are the main source of livelihood and income. Therefore, forests in NE regions mean the life line of the people. Even the agriculture, jhum and others, are just forest-based. In any rural even urban market many wild plant and animal products are year-round available for sale providing employment and income to many.

Another dimension is the forests in NE belong to the communities not to the government. Therefore, for the NE region a separate forest policy is desirable. It should look both at the interest of the forests and also of the people.

(2) A separate policy for the NE is desirable. However, how good it will prove will depend upon its execution both by the government and the people, even NGOs. Just making a policy will mean nothing how so good it may be. The policy should consider the interest of the communities and also the conservation of forests and biodiversity. Traditional management practices, customary laws that hold good should be understood and lesson should be derived from them. Government interference should be minimal when it comes to community management. To my opinion government management is less cost and impact effective. A big system is created at a huge cost which becomes unsustainable, unviable and eventually a liability. Community managed system will prove more efficient and effective, will have more belonging and responsibility, will address to the issue of conservation better.

(3) Execution of things is a separate problem. This is both at the government and also at the community level of course in different levels. Holding stake by GOs, NGOs and the communities might help. Role of government should be related to technical advise, expertise and necessary skills, a management stake should be more with the communities and the NGOs can facilitate the entire process, streamlining it and resolving conflicts, if they arise.

(4) The judiciary is unbiased, we believe and it is a fact. Looking at the long term survival and welfare of the people of the NE region. Such a ruling is welcome. Maybe relaxation should be made. Unless we replenish the forests we are clearing for income we have a bleak future. Awareness and education is necessary about the value of the forests and their judicious utilisation.

NE soil is notoriously fertile and the clime is extremely well for the forest growth. Forests should be harvested and should be an important source of income but harvest should be systematic and scientific. Here a blend of traditional wisdom with modern science and technology is needed. Often the selling price of the forest wood is nowhere to the tune of the inputs it require to grow to that much. As is has grown naturally we are selling them off at throw away price creating more demand and market and leading to more harvest.

Attempts should be made to make forestry a commercial venture. Training should be imparted, practical. NERIST, central and state universities, colleges should offer such courses and do needful research. So far the academic institutions have been offering routine courses nothing specific to the NE region. There is a big gap in the need for the region and the type of cadets being produced by these institution, so many in number. If this happens the problem of social and youth unrest even militancy will get solved. A need based proper education is the need of the hour for the NE. We now have IIT in the region. Let us hope something good will happen.

ASHISH KOTHARI, KALPAVRIKSH, PUNE

(1) I personally feel that while the country should have one framework forest policy (such as the 1988 one), there is a need for much more detailed policy statements (along with strategies and action plans and legislative measures) for each region of the country. This is simply because each region, indeed each sub-region, is in itself unique, with different forest types, cultural systems, etc. No single overall policy for the country can be adequate to deal with such diversity. Hence if there is going to be a policy statement for the north-east (WITHIN the framework of a national policy), I do not see anything wrong with it, so long as it tries to be sensitive to the special characteristics of the people and ecosystems there.

(2) Such a policy could augur well, given the following conditions: (i) It is based on the ecological and cultural conditions of the Northeast, and of sub-regions within it (there is tremendous diversity within the Northeast also!). (ii) It builds on the knowledge and institutional structures already existing, such as tribal councils, community holdings of common lands, etc. (iii) It helps the local people to create, or strengthen, livelihood options which are based on forests but do not lead to their destruction. In this sense, timber logging from natural forests, which has been the primary source of income for many groups in the NE, should be stopped (as they virtually have been by the Supreme Court) and options should be promoted for using non-timber forest produce (medicinal plants, orchids, cane/bamboo, etc.) and other livelihood opportunities (e.g. employment in wildlife conservation; documentation and utilising knowledge of genetic/biodiversity resources with appropriate benefit-sharing arrangements; and sensitive wildlife and eco-tourism...NOT the kind being promoted at the moment, perhaps the only good example is from Sikkim?). (iv) It is backed up by appropriate legislation, administrative measures, strong people's participation and partnerships, etc. No policy statement, however well it is drafted, is of use unless there are such back-up measures. Take, for instance, the 1988 Forest Policy...there is still no legislative measure to back it up, and we are still dependent on the 1927 Forest Act!

(3) I'm not sure why you mention the National Biodiversity Board here? In the proposed Biodiversity Law (as it is currently drafted, it may change if the new govt. so wishes), there is a provision for a National Biodiversity Authority, State Biodiversity Boards, and local (village, etc.) level biodiversity bodies. These provisions could well be used for the NE, depending on the local situations.

(4) I have briefly answered this above.

THOMAS MATHEW, ENVIRONMENTALIST

(1) I do believe the Northeast (or the Eastern Himalayas) requires a separate forest policy. The relationship between communities and forests is so special that it merits a completely different frame of reference. A separate forest policy will also closer attention to the link between the demand for forest products from the rest of the country and the forest resources of the Northeast.

(2) I believe a separate forest policy will finally give the forests and communities of the Northeast the special importance that they deserve.

(3) The National Biodiversity Board will at best be a policymaking entity that could look at the biodiversity problems and opportunities of the Northeast in a focused manner. The forest policy will have much more of a `on the ground' impact and does not need to wait for the constitution of the NBB.

(4) Given the tribal composition of the Northeast and the close habitat and livelihood links between communities and forests there it is not surprising that there was an outcry in the Northeast at the

Supreme Court ruling. The ruling was a `blunt weapon' that was well-intended but resulted in a disproportionately hard impact on the people of the Northeast. The challenge of conceiving policies and approaches to the sustainable utililisation of the forest resources of the North East must be looked at on least two levels. First is the `normal' challenge of meeting subsistence and livelihood needs of communities in the context of customary rights and other cultural factors special to the states of the Northeast. Second is the more awesome challenge of tackling the tremendously corrupt political class who rely for their ill-gotten wealth primarily on unsustainable exploitation of forest resources in league with a whole class of middlemen representing market interests. The solution to sustainability for forest utilisation in the Northeast lies therefore almost wholly within the realm of politics i.e. it is not so much a technical or management problem as it is a political one.

DEBI GOENKA, BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP, MUMBAI

(1) The Northeast does not need a separate policy. The Northeast is special because it has some of the best remaining forests of the country, and these need to be protected, given the fact that these are hilly areas.

(2) A separate Northeast policy may actually create more loopholes for the destruction of these forests. The key feature of any forest policy should be sustainable utilisation; promotion of indigenous species; no clear felling; etc.

(4) Sustainable use would imply that the forests are not clear-felled; that the incremental timber is harvested scientifically; also local needs are given priority.