National Workshop on Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation

Organized byKalpavriksh and Vasundhara

1

Table of Content

Topic Page No

1. Background 2

2. Workshop Proceedings 4

3. Workshop Recommendations 20

Annexures:

Annexure 1 - Press Release

Annexure 2 - Participant List

2

Background

India’s economic policy and its implications for natural resource systemsAround 1991, India, in its effort/bid to catch up with the rest of the developed world, decided to liberalize its economic policy. In its attempt towards assimilation with the global economy and to reap the benefit of globalization, market reforms & economic policy changes were made in order to deregulate a number of sectors. Hitherto existing license raj was significantly reduced, private enterprise was encouraged, and government investment in public sector enterprise were sought to be curtailed with an eventual goal of disinvestment. In 1995, India became a member of the WTO. Trade barriers were lifted and foreign direct investment (FDI) was sought and became the norm. Paralleling the liberalization of the Indian economy and also because of it, there has been a rise in the culture of consumerism across the nation. Factors in this include the increase in the urban middle class and an exponential increase in the spending capacity of the same, a dynamically evolving consumer pattern, an economy geared towards producing products and commodities with high obsolescence rate, and fast-track life-styles.

Unfortunately the brunt of the pressure of globalization and consumerism is being experienced by natural systems and indigenous or other traditional communities that are located in geographically remote areas which are separated from the centers of consumption (mainly the urban and semi-urban landscape). Natural resource systems are being remorselessly exploited for raw material and energy sources, to create and feed into lifestyles that are based on needs that are often artificially created and sustained (often through media campaigns, intellectual discourses etc.) and are based on a blissful ignorance of the cost to Mother Nature. Secondly, the above-mentioned raw material and energy sources are used to fuel the growth of a carbon-based (fossil fuel) industrial economy which is based on the principles of free market competition (amongst multiple producers of similar commodities and creation of surplus goods (for e.g. luxury cars, cosmetics etc.) and services (for e.g. tourism) without due consideration to the actual necessity of such outputs or the potential ill effects (for e.g. climate change) that they may have on the world at large. As a market based economy assumes potentially infinite consumers (6 billion on last count!!), it also needs sources of raw material and energy that are infinitely inexhaustible. Unfortunately there is a limit to how much can be extracted from nature without potentially threatening the balance of the ecosystem.

Impact of State policies on natural resource systems Given the above scenario, it is little wonder that state governments increasingly competed with each other to attract foreign investment. Those rich in natural and mineral resources (which probably is the case with most of the states in India) found preferences with Indian as also trans- and multi-national companies. State governments also tailored their development plans (and hence economic policies) to meet the needs of such companies. Little heed was paid to the fact that these policies may be bringing industrial forces directly in conflict with the conservation concerns and thus pose a threat to forest cover, plant and animal biodiversity and community survival. They also completely ignore the possibility of local resource based economic development. Non-recognition of customary rights, state takeover of common property resources, and other such factors, have limited the extent to which people living within these areas can have a stake in protecting these forests from degradation. National and international

3

markets are increasingly impinging on the most ‘remote’ of communities and forest resource bases. Fast moving industrialization processes are threatening forests in one or all of the following way:

1. Directly through deforestation 2. Indirectly through ecological damage such as pollution thereby causing slow death of

forest and forest dwellers.3. By disrupting the value system of the community, shrinking spaces of negotiation and

thus leading to increased conflicts.4. Pressure of external market forces, and so on.

Given the above situation, it becomes necessary to understand the short and long-term ramifications of these policy changes at the state and the national level for vis-avis the conservation of the forests and biodiversity of the nation. A Workshops to facilitate a common understanding of the “Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation” between stake holders, policy makers, NGOs etc. was held in Bubaneswar at the Nabakrushna Choudhary center for Development Studies, Bhubaneswar, Orissa between 26th – 28th January 2008. The workshop was jointly organized by Kalpavriksh (Pune/Delhi) and Vasundhara (Bubhaneswar) under the aegis of Global Forest Coalition (Netherlands).

The primary aim of the workshop was to open up space for

i. Sharing of ideas through paper/case-study presentations and group discussion on the impact of certain acts, policies and notification on the forest situation in India.

ii. Building awareness among the policy makers and citizenry regarding the role of communities’ efforts in conservation and about the threats faced by them.

iii. Creation of the platform where communities involved in biodiversity conservation interact; share their ideas and experiences and find the collective solutions to the threats faced by them, so that they can further refine their efforts of conservation and protect forest cover.

Participation (See annexure 2) of the following was sought:a. Indigenous organizations and local community groupsb. National NGOs c. Media representatives (see annexure 1)d. Government official and policymakerse. Lawyers, Social Activists( Environmental and human rights based)f. Embassies of the Netherlands and Finland.

ObjectiveThe objectives of the workshop were:

To gain a deeper understanding of the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation in India, using site-specific case studies.

To raise public awareness, especially amongst policy-makers and the media, especially on specific activities that can help address the issue of underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation

To help build capacity of community based organizations and other stakeholders to develop responses to these causes.

4

The following pages documents the proceedings and national level recommendations that emanated out of this workshop.

Workshop Proceedings

National Workshop on Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in India.

26th – 28th January 2008Nabakrushna Choudhary center for Development Studies,

Bhubaneswar, Orissa.

Organized By: Kalpavriksh (Pune/Delhi) and Vasundhara (Bhubaneswar)

In collaboration with

Global Forest Coalition

Final Proceedings as documented by Bharati Chakra (Vasundhara)

Day I: 26th Jan 2008

Session I: Inaugural Session

Chair: Ashish KothariRapporteur: Bharati and PrasadTranslator: Pratap MohantyThematic sub-group coordination: Milind Wani

Prof. Radhamohan, Commissioner, State RTI commission, along with Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh and community members formally inaugurated the workshop was by lighting of a candle.

In his inaugural speech, Prof. Radhamohan emphasized on the need to develop an understanding of the underlying causes of any issue in order to better address it. According to him, to cure any disease, there should be proper diagnosis. So is the case with the issue of deforestation and forest degradation. Historically, the developmental model that India has followed has a played vital role in inducing a process that has led to massive deforestation that we witness today. Post independence policies in India have played a critical role in inducing deforestation.

5

In 1947, India witnessed acute food crisis. As a part of Grow More Food campaign, people were encouraged to cut trees and convert the forest land into agricultural land. The concept of Reserve Forest was brought in by the British Empire. At that time twenty Six princely states existed in Orissa. The right over forest was asserted by British in the pre-independence era and when they left, there was massive felling of trees by public.

While referring to the forest policies of the government Prof. Radhamohan cited the decision of the government to go in for teak plantation. This according to him, has had a disastrous effect on the growth of natural forests (for e.g. at Kapilas hills of Dhenkanal dist in Orissa). Huge devastation of forest land in many areas promoted drought and flood situation that only worsened day by day. Rich Sal forests were cut for Acacia plantation. Social forestry and protective forestry were the causes of major degradation of natural forests.

During the period between1950-1980, India lost 47 million hectare of forest. Forest policies of India have played a crucial role in this as in order to get subsidies, even where they were poor, the states were needed to match amounts promised by GOI. For e.g. the Orissa Forest Development Corporation (OFDC) has raised resources (revenues) out of afforestation programme i.e. it gains more revenue by cutting forest and the selling of timber.

According to Prof. RadhaMohan, a check and balance mechanism is required at the policy formulation stage itself in order to help natural resource regeneration and augment the growth of forest. We need a partnership between communities, NGOs, officials, experts, to protect forests as “forests are too important a matter to be left to the FD”

Thematic Paper Presentation: Mr. Aseem ShrivastavTheme: Globalization and the ecological crisis

Following a brief introduction Mr. Aseem Shrivastav spoke on the subject of globalization and the ecological crisis

In his presentation, a close link between globalization, liberalization and resulting ecological crisis was attempted by Aseem Shrivastav. He stressed on the fact of the relatively new aspects of the current phase of globalization which consists of dominance of private corporations with global reach, which is driven by profit motive and the logic and reasoning of which is not aligned to the logic/reasoning of environment and justice based paradigm that would require an internalization of environmental and social costs. This globalization is subject to dominance of financial transactions while being environmentally insensitive He focused on the fact that, “Climate change is the greatest result of market failure that the world has seen.” He cited Amartya Sen as having said that, “globalization existed even 3000 years ago, it’s not a new concept altogether”, and this could be considered as the first phase of globalization. The second phase started somewhere around 1940s, after second world war when in 1947 the USA, in order to meet its domestic consumption demands decided to exploit the third world. Around 1950s huge funding was channelized to the underdeveloped countries in the name of development. Tracing the skewed history of globalization, he showed how liberalization of agriculture, though it happened in the US, Europe and Japan, did not reach India and how this affected the India’s

6

economy. According to him, globalization by and large has promoted trade and corporate driven conversion of Indian forest resources to meet the fuel needs of the first world. Globalization of supply chain has led to massive spending on energy in the third world. He also citied Larry Summer’s (former president of the world bank and former advisor to Mr. Bill Clinton- the former President of India) regressive views towards environmental pollution and responsibility of polluting countries.

He elaborated upon how more and more, in India, people were getting trapped into environmentally destructive lifestyles, consuming resources from afar and with no feedback loop that could warn them of the consequences. He stressed on the crucial need to give power to the community that is closest to the resource, even while cautioning that there are many pitfalls in this (local inequities, cultural changes, institutional erosion, etc) approach that also need to be addressed. According to him this needs to be done within a nested system of institutions that have a larger mandate than what the local villages have. There is also a need of putting in place an appropriate system of checks and balances, especially with regard to the role of larger institutions in dealing with issues of regional/national/international nature like climate change. He stressed on the need to move towards a participatory environmental democracy rather than the current representative form and also the importance of the conceiving of bioregional or ecoregional political constituencies. According to him there is a need to give much more stress to the protection of subsistence economy and understanding how it gets destroyed (and thereby livelihoods displaced) in the move towards commercialization and industrialization.

In the Discussion session, some pertinent issues were put forth by the participants:

1. Concern was raised about exploitation of resources for e.g. iron ore from Orissa where actual benefits and profits were reaped by external forces like MNC’s while draining the mother state of its natural habitat. The real cost in terms of impact on environment, biodiversity, socio-cultural loss, livelihood etc are never measured and neither do external forces bear the responsibility of the damage they cause to environment in this whole process. It is only the native communities, who are left to face the hazard locally. The world also has to face the consequences of such untrammeled exploitation of natural resources, the devastating effects of which can be seen in the form of the challenge posed to humanity at large by phenomenon such as Global warming and Climate change.

2. Concern (Y. Giri Rao) was also raised about the fact that those who talk about participatory economy and participatory environmental governance do not seem to be giving due attention to the question of lack of focus on managing our natural or local economy.. While agreeing with this perspective,, Aseem Shrivastav also stressed the point that today’s dominant economic thinking believes in the theory, of the trickle-down-of-wealth ,which espouses that eradication of poverty can be achieved through the current free market oriented neoliberal economic paradigm.. According to him, such a view leads to a situation where the whole arena of economy focuses on commercialization, which in turn leads to consumerism and creation of false needs leading to lifestyles that result in a pressure for an untrammeled exploitation of the earth’s resources. According to him, the only answer to this is that protection of subsistence economy be the focus of development. Participatory Environmental Democracy has become essential now, where

7

strengthening NREGA, can be looked upon as way to empower the poor. This help in reducing poverty and unemployment while increase the purchasing power of the poor. This will also involve the use of labor of poor to strengthen infrastructure and regenerate environment through activities like Soil conservation etc. This is not being done because it is often against the interests of vested groups. Challenging globalization in India has to be done through re-analyzing the 15yrs journey and reemphasizing on subsistence economy

3. Advocate P.K. Jena stated that a political will is needed to bring in conservation friendly changes along with decentralization and devolution of authorities to grassroots level. According to him, action is needed in terms of legislation and political will but not at the cost of loss of cultural heritage of communities in order to induce them into participatory environmental democracy.

Thematic Paper Presentation: Kanchi Kohli & Manju MenonTheme: The environmental Regulatory Framework in the era of Globalization

Introduction of Kanchi Kohli and Manju Menon by Milind Wani:

Kanchi Kohli presented an overview of the following points:1. Globalization and Economic Growth2. Big investments and projects3. Environmental Kuznet’s Curve4. Influence of International Finance5. Rule of Experts6. Regulatory Capture7. Frame regulation to management

The discussion session focused on the role that corporate sponsored and state executed violence has played in the resulting rapid change in land use patterns and the subsequent degradation and destruction of environment and biodiversity respectively. The role of recent environmental laws & notifications that have also created space for a kind of environmentally destructive development trend in India was elaborated upon. In between 1986 to 2006, 4 116 projects have been given clearance under EIA. States like Orissa are ready to provide all sorts of support ranging from environmental clearance, forest clearance, land and water etc. to corporate clients and this facilitates the destruction of environment for the sake of development.

Significant changes in environmental decision-making mechanisms (from prevention to ‘management’ (including mitigation and ‘benefit-sharing’)) leading to a greater access to resources for exploitative purposes, reduced public participation and unbridled forest and environment clearances without concern for environmental sustainability, have rapidly contributed to deforestation and forest degradation. For example, under the Biodiversity. Act, over 90 clearances for access to bio-resources had been given on the one hand while almost no work on conservation or empowering communities had been undertaken. Thus relative to the massive increase in clearance, this has lead to a major weakening of environmental impact

8

monitoring and compliance processes. Redressal is almost non-existent as institutions of redressal against violations (such as by the police) are in the hands of the same state that is promoting or allowing the violations. This is a major institutional failure. This evokes a question as to whether a consolidated case can be made of various failures in environmental governance, and if constitutional provisions regarding right to life etc can be invoked against these.

Discussion:One suggestion that emanated out of the discussion that followed this presentation was to explore the possibility of asking the government to look at how we can infuse all government functioning with mandatory suo moto information disclosure and transparency. The need for linking those struggling on the group, with those fighting in courts or lobbying at government levels was also stressed upon.

Day I - Session IIChair: Ritwik DuttaRapporteur: Manohar & Ghasiram PandaTranslator: Pratap MohantyThematic sub-group coordination: Pradip MishraThematic Presentation: Prof. Sushant NayakTheme: Economic Growth and Deforestation: A study of Orissa Economy

Prof. Sushant Nayak made a detailed power point slide presentation of his research paper where he discussed about Liberalization phase of 1991 and economic equations afterwards. He talked about the gulf war and its impact on global economy as well as Indian economy. According to him, growth is necessary but people must share it. The objective of economic reforms according to the author was to make transition from an inefficient to an efficient economic status. Other than that it aimed at producing satisfactory growth and to have a substantial impact on development. He also discussed the nexus between economic growth and deforestation. He then discussed the reasons of slow growth of Orissa economy where unequal growth patterns are leading to distortion. He emphasized the need of investment in agriculture and to stop the growth trend involving industrialization.

At the end of the presentation, Manju Menon stressed that in such a debate how one defines the “forestry sector” sector becomes an important issue that needs addressing

Thematic Presentation: Shankar Prasad PaniTheme: Community Struggle for Forest Conservation: A Case Study of Banadurga Jungle Surakshya Committee, Khedapada, Nayagarh.

Shankar focused on socio-economic issues pertaining to agriculture and forest of Khedapada village which has become a victim to Sugar mill in Nayagarh. He discussed the case of the Rasol Khesra Jungle, a predominantly sal forest with two adjoining reservoirs, near the Nayagarh dist HQ. Rasol Khesra Jungle is an example of a regenerated -forest and wildlife , through community initiatives and which is also a pathway for elephant. It is a habitat for pangolin, wild dog, mouse deer, hyena, flying squirrel, etc. Four villages depend on this forest for various forest

9

produce. Village forest committees (VFC) initiated by 7 people in 1979 used to manage the forest of about 860 acres. An amount of Rs. 1125 was collected monthly as membership fee and out of this an amount of Rs. 900 was given to a jaguali (guard). Along with the jaguali, one member of the committee would go into the forest each day (this was known as the e thengapalli system.) for guarding the forest. Around 1984, land was leased to IDCO for sugar industry. This also included 119 acres of the Rasol Khesra forest. In 1989, representatives from 4 villages met with the sugar industry managing board, and signed a MoU that villagers would continue to protect the forest inside the mill’s land. As a result, no tree was felled by Dharini Sugar Mill between 1990 and 1998(In 1994 the villagers even got the Prakruti Mitra award) . In 2004, the factory was sold to ECP Industries Ltd (a Private company).In 2005 the new owner started felling trees within the forest that fell within the bought area. No cognizance was taken by FD till strong protests were lodged by villagers and only then did the FD booked a case against the culprit industry. The CEC has taken cognizance of this case on a complaint by Orissa Jungle Manch. The state government however has taken the plea that it was ignorant of FCA requirements! In his presentation, Sankar laid emphasis on the forest protection initiatives of the community in the area, the management system that was put in place and the issue of illegal transfer of forest land to the industry. This has had negative impacts on the forest vegetation as well as community efforts. The matter has been taken up to the level of Supreme Court and is still pending judgment. However, about 1000 sal trees were felled in Feb. 2007, apparently at the behest of the collector to make a road to an FCI godown. Unfortunately after the case went to court, communities were also prohibited from collecting fuel, grasses, etc from the forest. Meanwhile the local industrialist (hand in glove with politicians) is mounting pressure on the villagers through fair and foul means. For e.g. locally affected people have been charged under false cases by entrenched power elites in a bid to strangle their voice against injustice. The villagers are now demanding compensation for having been denied access to the forest.

Sankar articulated the need for redrawing Orissa’s industrial development in such a way that they seek need based and not greed based investment.

According to him, some learning’s/ questions that need to be taken cognizance of are:

The possibility of the likelihood of such cases happening across the state (and the country) which is seeking investment in its mad rush towards affluence through industrialization.

Empowerment of communities plays a significant role in forest protection and the for recognizing of such initiatives is crucial.

The principle of intergenerational equity needs to be established and emphasized and all industrial planning that is based on natural resource extraction should take into cognizance the importance of addressing these needs in its planning process

There is a need to explore the potential of the newly notified TFRA to involve communities in forest protection efforts

Discussions:In the ensuing discussion Y Giri of Vasundhara stressed on the need for fighting such cases through lower courts instead of always taking up such issues to the CEC. Supreme Court Lawyer, Ritwick Dutta also cautioned about the need to explore critically if some local people

10

were dependent on the Sugar Mill (or similar cases) for their livelihood and how taking a legal recourse may affect their livelihood situation. Aseem Sreevastav wound up the discussion by elaborating on the need for developing an understanding the role of power and money in local conflicts.

With all these discussions, the day’s session ended with a documentary film show on “The many faces of Madness” by Anwar Kanwar.

Day II- 27th Jan 2008: Session IChair: Aseem ShrivastavRapporteur: Bharati and PrasadTranslator: Shankar Prasad PaniThematic sub-group coordination: Prashant MohantyPresentation by: Pradeep MishraTheme: Globalization, Industrialization & Deforestation: A Case Study of Lapanga

Prashant Mohanty initiated the day’s session by inviting Aseem Shrivastav to chair the session and Pradeep Mishra to present his case study. After an introduction of Pradeep Mishra by Prashant Mohanty, Pradeep Mishra presented his study findings.

Pradeep Mishra’s presentation consisted of a detailed study of the Lapanga village Community Forestry Initiative (near Sambalpur district, Orissa) and the effect of the current trend of industrialization and mining for the sake of development in that area.

The area which once constituted a dense forest and which has a proud history of over hundred years of forest protection and management by community (Dalki Praja Rakshit Jungle - documented as community forestry by a no. of people like Nandini Sundar, Richard Mahapatra etc.) .The village is situated in the vicinity of Hirakud water reservoir and its forest is rich in Sal trees. The villagers had been protecting the forests here for years. An amazing and unique feature about this initiative was that the people had given away their private land for the purpose of forest generation. This village had been displaced during the construction of Hirakud reservoir and people were given patches of land as ex-gratia amount as a compensation for the productive land mass that they had lost. There are people in this village who had donated even this land for forest regeneration. These are designated as “Praja” and are held in respect in the village. These donors comprise a different strata when it comes to distribution of forest resources as they get it for a lower price than the rest of the community members. But except for this special benefit all the villagers participate equally in all the village processes. The village forest is also a host to avian guests from Siberia every year. This however is now showing a negative trend. the village has over the years developed its own innovative and unique system for forest protection and management. Dependence on the forest has become a way of life for this village. The forest protection initiatives in this village had created a positive impact on neighboring villages, and they too had started emulating forest protection practices. However, the village has been facing challenges- in the form of threat to its forests as well as its socio-economic survival-both as a consequence of industrial policies of the state. The initial threats were experienced when Hindal co. started converting the pedestal road leading inside forest, until then used mostly for taking

11

cattle to forest for grazing, in to a pucca road of 2 kms in length and 50 meter width for the purpose of open cast mining of coal.. The villagers have filed a case against this in the court of law. Another threat is that of the one posed by Bhushan Steel, which is laying pipeline through this forest. Yet another threat is that posed by the aggressive intent displayed by the FD towards undermining the community forestry efforts and its attempts of taking control of the same. In the light of all this, there is growing cynicism and passivity among the local community towards the forests despite intense forest resource extraction, rampant breaches of law by industry, and non-compliance of SC’s orders banning tree felling and failure to compensate earlier tree-felling by forestation. In the nearby villages, the industries have also succeeded in dividing resident communities. Human-WL conflicts have also been increasing. Coal dust and constant movement of trucks through forest, are causing a loss of biodiversity. Some flora has already disappeared. An indications of this is that women now get less NTFP (esp. beedi leaf), and feel less economically secure. Another indication of this is that of the invisible (in setu) displacement emanating out of the dispossession that is taking place.

Key Issues 1. Forest department trying to undermine CFM initiatives. 2. Growing litigations and resource drainage3. Non-compliance of Supreme court order 4. Breach of Law.5. Growing cynicism among the local forest protecting community. People ready to trade

forest for alternate livelihood.6. Growing social disharmony7. Man-animal conflict8. Loss of local bio-diversity9. Erosion of socio-economic security of women10. Problem of environmental refugee11. Invisible displacement of livelihood from forest based (secured) to unknown, unsecured.

Some of the following possible solutions to this situation were highlighted Concentration of many industries in a small patch should be avoided. In order to strengthen gram sabha decision-making process, local participation in gram

sabhas needs to be encouraged. Local expert committee should be set up to look into in setu displacement and its after

effects Devaluation of forest economy to be stopped

Discussions:In the ensuing discussion, Manju Menon of Kalpavriksh stressed that the Interaction between people and government in the initialization of projects should be taken care of. She also stressed on the need for further debate and deliberation on the litigations that take place in such cases. With respect to the case study under question, it was highlighted that, on record the forest area acquired for industry is not forest land as people had donated their private land and there was a need for developing steps for declaring such patches as forestland. This will help in addressing such cases through the judiciary. The issue of compensatory aforestation was also discussed.

12

Session 3

Presentation by: Prof. K.C. SamalTheme: Liberalization, Deforestation and Dependence on Forest – (A case study of the most forested district of Orissa, Keonjhar)

Beginning with hypothesis of deforestation as put by official data, Prof. Samal went on to list its underlying causes as observed in his field of study in Orissa. According to him, these are:

1. Coupes for timber up to 19752. Jhum Cultivation3. Biotic Pressure4. Meager investment in forestry sector development5. Forest land diverted for non-forestry purposes

He then discussed the role of IMF loans during the early 90s and which was based on the condition of compulsory liberalization, devaluation of currency and privatization in India. That was the period when customs duty too was reduced from hitherto 300% to a meager 12% as it is today. As per him, India’s wealth is its natural resources and the developed world’s need to have an untrammeled access to the same. This is leading to a rapid destruction of natural resources. Previously the private sector was never allowed into core areas like steel, coal, electricity and mining but the scenario has changed now. He then discussed about the situation in villages of the Keonjhar district in Orissa, which was the most forested district until very recent past and which has become a captive to mining and industrialization related vested interests.

According to him, some of the manifest causes of deforestation include higher price of agro- produce and higher input cost. This leads to a more extensive rather than intensive cultivation. A rise in population, a rise in per capita income (leading to a move from thatch house system to a pucca house system that requires more furniture etc), and liberalization of the economy are some of the underlying causes that are leading to deforestation. For e.g., in Orissa, the forest diversion doubled in post-liberalization era: (1982-91: 9800 ha; 1992-2004: 19257 ha). One immediately observable indicator of deforestation impacts, is the distance that is required to be traveled to collect a t shoulder load of fuel wood (1995: 4.09 km 2000: 7.30 km).

According to Orof. Samal some or all of the following actions need to be executed on a priority if the processes leading to deforestation are to be reversed:

Stop handing over degraded forest land to industry, and stop promoting conversion of agriculture into farm forestry (as World Bank is promoting).

Encroachment by vested interests should be driven out, those for subsistence/livelihood needs, even until 2006, should be given security on their lands.

Discussion:In the ensuing discussion, Ms. Bharati Chakra made a point that when promotion of farm forestry or exploring of alternate livelihood sources for affected populace get discussed, the implications of both on how they will affect the people and their socio-cultural and economic

13

situations need to be looked into. Ms. Manju: Menon of Kalpavriksh stressed that there was a need to re-look at the whole issue of deforestation and forest degradation while keeping in mind the changing nature of how these were seen as being connected to patterns of cultivation, especially JHUM. She highlighted the fact that shifting cultivation had not been considered as a problem for long in history but now very often it is looked upon as a problem that leads to deforestation. She pointed out that in reality this has to do more with landscape change due to land acquisition. While Prof. A.B.Mishra: brought into the groups notice the strict and stringent mining rules in Germany, Mr. Aseem Shrivastava stressed on the point that Prof. Samal had tried to identify as one of the core problems underlying deforestation. According to him India has been facing the consequences of “import” liberalization and not liberalization in the true sense of the word. It was in America’s interest to convert the Indian economy as one that was entirely dependent on the supply of the American industries and this was nothing but corporate totalitarianism. Mr. Shrivastava also emphasized the importance of understanding the concept of currency devaluation in order to understand the notion of economic liberalization properly. The conditions for lending loan that international financial institutions (e.g. IMF,WB etc) had been extending towards third world countries like India were dictating & deciding the terms of our economic policies. For e.g., the IMF, while extending loan to India had stipulated 160 conditions and one of which was devaluation of the rupee. This automatically works in favor of richer countries like the USA as they can then buy more of India’s outputs and primary resources at cheaper price. It is often argued that this leads to higher earnings as this automatically results in an increase in demand for natural resources and hence this also works in India’s favor. This is a cunning/ specious argument. For one, even if export earnings increase, so does resource extraction and this usually happens at the cost of an irreversible damage to the ecosystem of the country. A country’s true wealth is its natural resource systems. Untrammeled resource extraction ensures that ecosystems that got built over centuries get irreparably damaged (at least within the span of historical time as against geological time) or destroyed within a few years. The loss this entails is thus in no way comparable to the gain that increased earnings (due to export of resources) promise. Another myth that is often touted is the fillip/boost the market liberalization provides for Indian Industry to grow internationally. Tata’s take-over of Corus has recently been cited as an example of the increasing global reach and power of the Indian multinational. However, this is again another example of specious reasoning. In fact such a take-over is not an example of hostile take-over but of buying at a much higher value something that is actually worth much less. The interests of the selling company are protected and in fact such transactions are more akin to outsourcing, for exploitative purposes (like mining etc.), of operations to domestic Indian companies. This, according to Mr. Shrivastava, represents a pattern of a much more sophisticated colonization that perfectly fits into Larry Summers recommendations that, “All dirty industries have to move to the south”.

Presentation by: Prateep K. NayakTheme: Politics of co-option: Self- organized community forest management & joint forest management in Orissa, India.The impacts of conversion of a CFM to JFM, on levels of participation, rights, intra-community dynamics, etc. was discussed in the case study of the Gadabanikilo village. This village had a history of CFM for over 50 years. This was converted after much resistance, to JFM in 2001. Sophisticated institutional systems were set up for forest protection, management, distribution of

14

benefits, etc. (for e.g. mahua collection and benefits) under JFM. Earlier, decision making at village level was done by all adults. However it was now limited to only 11 members of the JFM committee. A village fund that was earlier used for village development and loan disbursement collapsed by 2004. Earlier the edge of the, forest was never cut and it used to be very dense with thorny bushes (deliberately to deter entry!). Now this was cleaned for plantations (because there was money in JFM for afforestation). Earlier the CFM institution used to also manage other parts of the landscape (grazing lands, water). However the JFM institution that replaced it was compartmentalized. This has resulted in a considerable weakening of rights of various kinds In the earlier times, inter-village reciprocity and links were strong ( for e.g. diversity of forest resources such as bamboo or aomla near one village and absent from another lead to the creation of mechanisms of exchange and reciprocity, and also reduced threats to each others’ forests). However as the JFM model was village specific, these have tended to erode away at the links of reciprocity as now village rules do not allow extraction by others outside a given village. Now, only linkages between JFM committees are allowed whereas under the CFM, cross-linkages with NGOs, forest federation, and neighboring villages were the norm. Under JFM, the only link that is now strong is the one with the Forest Department! However, for all these negative points, there is one positive development . The CFM institutions had no role for women or SCs; JFM has brought in these groups within its purview (although in practice they are still being dominated by men and non-SCs respectively; and these equity measures need a stronger push at the ground level). Overall, though the complex CFM system has been converted to a simple JFM system and in the process the inherent advantages provided by the CFM model ( site-specificity, flexibility) have been lost due to the uniformity (‘one size fits all’) of approach of the JFM model. This has lead to rigidity, integration of various land uses to compartmentalized management, etc. A simple uniform system cannot maintain diversity. Fortunately, traditional institutions are resilient and it is hoped that the CFM institutions might see resurgence once the JFM money runs out.

Prateep also discussed Guha’s theory of ‘areas of politics’ – The role that blaming, negotiation, collaboration, partnership and cooption play and how they are linked to the processes of state and also with respect to forest degradation in India. In his case study of Gadabanikilo village of Nayagarh district of Orissa, he established a link between the impact of government policies on community initiatives of forest protection, the role of community participation the bundle of forest common rights, cross-level linkages and reciprocal rights, decision making power and control over resources etc.

Discussion:IN the ensuing discussion Ghasiram Panda of Vasundhara observed that though JFM was promoted to regenerate degraded forest land, in reality it often had resulted in a takeover of well-managed CFM. He questioned the model of government funding (for JFM) when in practice it had worked through community effort without external help & funds. He highlighted the importance of legally recognizing CFMs

Day II - Session II Chairperson – Prof Aratabandhu MishraRapporteur – Bharati Chakra & Ghasiram PandaOriya Translator – Mr. Pratap Mohanty

15

Thematic subgroup coordinator – Mr. Rana Roy

Rana Roy of Vasundhara introduced Prof. A.B.Mishra, Abhishek Pratap and Prof. Bhabani Das and requested Prof. A.B. Mishra to chair the session. Prof. Mishra shared his experience during 1960s. He narrated how the consideration of environment as an issue has developed slowly in the years. According to him the 1960-1970 decade represented a phase when nobody talked about forest and environment. The 70s decade, saw the Stockholm conference and people started talking about environment. The 80s saw the beginning of a phase where people not only talked about environment, but also started working towards its protection. The 90s saw the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro and the stress moved more towards the action. This decade saw the sprouting of many forest conservation movements, participatory protection initiatives etc. The , invention of bio-fuels etc were witnessed during this period and now the civil society has entered a work first and then talk phase where people try to understand the actual ground level work on it and then raise voice to resolve matters of conflict.

Case-study presentation– Mr. Kumar Abhishek Pratap & Ms Tanushree DasTheme: Khandadhar, life line of northern Orissa - (A case-study of the impact of the mining and related policies/ programmes was the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation) In this case study, Mr. Abhishek Pratap of Vasundhara presented the current situation in the Khandadhar. The area is characterized by dense forests, waterfalls, elephant corridor (connecting Saranda in Jharkhand to Bhamragarh in Chhattisgarh), limbless lizard (recently discovered, Sepsophis) etc. and is the origin of 8 major perennial streams. Comprised of the PTG Paudi Bhuyan (only 3000 odd people), 66% of the overall population belongs to Scheduled Tribes.

In this area the impact due to the setting up of small and large industries ( sponge iron units, POSCO) on the environment as well as on the social, cultural and economic well being of people, is immense. The POSCO iron ore mining project proposed over 6204 ha., could affect more than 10000 ha of forest over including that on a plateau from where Orissa’s highest waterfall (244 meters) originates. A total sum. of Rs. 51,000 crore worth of investment has been envisaged. This would include the mine at Khandadhar, a steel plant at Jagatsinghpur, and a captive port at Paradeep. Despite all these being components of one and the same project, a separate clearance for each of the above components was sought by POSCO. The study also focused on the ruse adapted by this multinationals of not seeking or obtaining integrated clearance for the full cluster of inter-dependent projects. It took recourse to breaking up the project into different component (as if they were three different and unconnected projects) and making a separate appeal for permissions for each of these components ( steel plant, port and mining area).in order to avoid facing obstacles in getting environmental clearances for the entire project ( which otherwise might have turned to be a difficult proposition ). In all this has resulted in the granting of total mining leases of over 1 lakh ha.

Other issues related to this area (and project )are:

Pollution caused by the 48 sponge iron plants, many small mines, etc. in Sundergarh.

16

Already serious loss of forest, wildlife, underground water, etc with severe potential impacts on people. This will entail a total displacement about 12-15000 people.

Key factors that have directly or indirectly contributed to this grave situation are: International loan/funding agencies Political governance system Consumerist pattern of the urban middle class Mineral/industrial policies of the state government Aggressive drive of the state towards industrialization. Conservation policies (e.g. FCA) facilitating commercial exploitation JFM and aid driven programmes that seek to replace CFM initiatives Access roads and transportation links

Abishek Pratap, proposed the following measures to avoid a similar situation in the future Need to strengthen public hearing process, and the need to give mandate to gram sabhas

to conduct the same. EIA should be done by/through communities, and clearance/approval by separate

authority (not MoEF)

Thematic presentation – Theme- Economic Liberalization Decentralized Governance & the Adivasis' of Orissa.

Dr. Bhabani Das , while discussing his paper, raised serious concerns as to whether an issue like forest is a national priority for government at all. Why does the finance commission and the state not make forest protection a constitutional mandate? He highlighted the fact that the role that financial measures play in any aspect of state administration (including forests) is significant as the allocation of funds or lack of them decides the importance any state government gives to an area. For e.g., the Finance Commission’s criterion or guidelines for allocation of funds include population, presence of infrastructure, etc. but not the extent or quality of forests that have been protected and conserved within a state. His argument was that decision makers who decide about fund allocations for states do not emphasize forest protection/conservation as a criterion of eligibility. It is then not surprising that the recipient states also do not view forest protection as a priority. He also pointed to other issues like the lack of clarity on where money generated by JFM is to go, lack of control over finances by panchayats, etc. He also raised questions regarding the role of the 73rd constitutional amendment. Vis-à-vis protection of forest and checking forest degradation. According to him there is an urgent need to bring forests into a national agenda and this urgency can only be evidenced through the importance forest protection are given by the national finance commission. Unless this is done, no changes in the present apathy can be expected.

Discussion:In the ensuing discussion Balia Babu disagreed with the contention that funding is needed to save forest. According to him, an initiative like JFM which had mostly been fund driven nowhere exemplifies forest regeneration but CFM does so without any external funding support. Thus, he felt that it was not money but only people’s motivation, which would be crucial to protect our forest and environment. Adding to this point of view, Shanti cited the example of

17

displacement due to upper Kolab project in Koraput district and emphasized that if left untouched, the forest regenerates on its own. It doesn’t require any money for regeneration. In responding to these points, Dr. Bhabani Das contended that that unless finance commission subscribes a provision of fund for other developmental activities, pressure on forest would continue and this would inevitably lead to deforestation. Thus, to decrease pressure on forest resources, the commission as well as the state has to make provision of funds and consider the status conservation as one of the criterion for fund allocation to states. To this, Ghasiram Panda of Vasundhara responded by stating that more money might be of help but only if expenditure pattern of the same is taken care of properly else more funding might not resolve deforestation trend the expenditure pattern are overlooked. Mr. Rana of Vasundhara made the point that we need to try and seek solution outside the existing paradigm. There is a need to ask ourselves as to why all approaches end up falling flat. According to him, the main reason for this is that the entire system (of administration and governance ) is not accountable to people. Hence it is important to question the whole governance system. Prof. Mishra stressed on the need to build a national level radical movement similar in scope to the movement of freedom struggle during colonial rule of the British. However, Aseem Shrivastav was of the opinion that we should not underestimate the diversity of culture, language, tradition of India. We must understate that even now India is more of a civilization rather than a nation in real terms. The expectation to build Bio-regional mobilizations that will consolidate into a national movement cannot be a forced measure and this will come up suo-moto, rather than by prompting. According to him, as of now realistically we can only expect regional movements to come up through building up of a critical mass that would and should be allowed to continue with their diversity rather than force-grafting various strands of regional and sub-regional movement into a national struggle.

Day III- 28th Jan 2008: Session IChairperson – Mr. Aseem ShrivastavRapporteur – Bibhuti Oriya Translator – Mr. Nilakantha Panigrahi & Mr. Pratap Thematic subgroup coordinator – Mr. Pratap

Mr. Pratap introduced the guests and invited Mr. Aseem to chair the session.

Thematic presenter – Prof. Premananda PandaTheme - Winners and Losers of Forest Resources (An Understanding on Casual Connections)

Coal mining in Sundergarh has devastated forests and villages. Many villages no longer exist, and have no trace of their earlier legacy. Locals have hardly benefited from the mining. Mr. Panda discussed about one village of Sundergarh village where a company is doing mining. He reconstructed the history of Ratansara village ( from oral accounts about the Oraon and Munda tribes). Earlier the rich diversity of the wetlands was maintained by the village, for diverse purposes. There was a community system for equitable irrigation, food distribution, etc. He narrated how within the living history of the place, there had been regular sightings of elephants and tigers and yet how their crops were safe, since they deterred other animals and also humans from coming encroaching. He tried to relate the issue to the culture, socio-economic and emotional status of the village in earlier days and how this had changed under the development

18

related interventions like the mining that has been going on for the last 15 years and how this has affected this village. For e.g. earlier girls who were to be married were considered to be the daughters of the village, with all the village families contributing to the expenses of the marriage. This was no longer the case. Now individual families have to fend for themselves. Development, though it had brought in money, had also lead to vices like alcoholism and its subsequent ill effects like domestic violence. There has been immense damage to the fabric of the villages’ social and cultural life and to the symbiotic relationship that earlier existed between the forest and people as well as to the social support system that existed earlier. The damage is severe enough to warrant a concern as to whether this lost culture has been irretrievably lost without any possibility of revival. As if this was not enough, under rehabilitation policy, displaced families in the village have suffered even more as they have not received any support or rehabilitation package. Many were forced to live a life under a tree for months. In a telling way he quoted an advasis as having said that, “People say, we were black-skinned, but coal has made us blacker and disappear into the darkness”. No economist or politicians seems to be interested in addressing their plight. Thus there is a need to look at these aspects of repercussion of development initiatives. He also focused on the need to explore alternate livelihood opportunity while keeping intact the cultural and social ethos of the community. Discussion:In the ensuing discussion Mr. Manohar stressed on the need for developing a many sided collective effort.. With the Government framing of laws that legitimizes such destructive processes of development, it had become all the more important to have a coordination among those resisting such process in order to be able to raise a common voice against these measures. He also stressed on the need to build a public opinion about such issues. Raising objections to one of the points that Prof. Panda had made about making communities share holders within a developmental project, Mr. Ashish Kopthari said that this approach has inherent danger to it does not solve anything but legitimizes an economic category of the same policies that we are struggling against. What is instead required is a more socio-culturally holistic approach. The wilds should not be thought of as a commodity as it has its own intrinsic value which should not be brought into the cost-benefit based paradigm of neo-liberal economics. He also stressed on the need to look beyond coal & fossil fuel -based solution to meet energy needs as the world is already moving towards alternative ways of harnessing energy that are not environmentally destructive .Adding to this Mr. Aseem Shrivastav said that “ Einstein once said that, “Not all that is worth counting is countable and not all that is countable is worth counting”. His concern was that any intellectual compromise needs to be looked at carefully in the current context. He substantiated his argument by citing the fact that the Human Development Index and National Family Health Survey only proves that in the name of growth, the poor in India are struggling for existence. This, according to him, can not be named as sustainable development. The dominant discourses concept of economic rationality excludes ecological rationality. Qualitative aspects of life that shapes the quantitative aspects need to be looked into. We should keep these facts and argue with a clear perspective without forgetting that all the current paradigms of economic development cater to transnational interests that promote neo-colonialism.

At the end of the workshop, with vote of thanks by Milind Wani from Kalpavriksh.

19

Day III - 28th Jan 08; Session IIA press meet was conducted at the end of the workshop. This was attended by representatives from various media houses (See annexure 1 and annexure 2). The panel consisted of Mr. Ashish Kothari(Kalpavriksh), Mr. Ritwick Dutta(supreme Court Lawyer), Mr. Aseem Shrivastav(independent writer), Mr. Prasant Mohanty (Vasundhara).

Closure

20

Workshop Recommendations

National Workshop on Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in India.

26th – 28th January 2008Nabakrushna Choudhary center for Development Studies,

Bhubaneswar, Orissa.

Organized By: Kalpavriksh (Pune/Delhi) and Vasundhara (Bubhaneswar)

In collaboration with

Global Forest Coalition

Key Recommendations

1. On development planning, processes and projects

Rethink and radically alter the models and processes of development, in order to ensure that local communities, forests, biodiversity and wildlife are put at the centre of the government’s planning process.

Legally disallow any further large-scale diversion of forests for the purpose of ‘development’ projects from being permitted; ensure that the sighting of such projects is away from forest lands.

Clearance of industrial and other ‘development’ projects should be at the same pace as the ability to carry out environmental impact assessments and work plans, so that these are not rushed and incomplete.

Infuse all government functioning with mandatory suo moto information disclosure and transparency mechanisms.

Start conceiving of bioregional or eco-regional political constituencies, in which the political boundaries of decision-making are more aligned with ecological boundaries (e.g. of river basins and watersheds, lakes and their catchments, or hill ranges).

Take punitive action on companies and government agencies that violate environmental laws and procedures, including fraudulent and distorted environment impact assessments, and improper clearances.

21

Ensure that the principles of intergenerational equity is established within development planning and relevant laws and policies, and widely disseminated. These should be used as guidelines to determine which ‘development’ projects are socially justified and ecologically sustainable.

Ensure that EIA and clearance become mandatory for the full cluster of projects which are inter-linked or which are present in the same region (e.g. in a river valley hydro-electricity project), including on their cumulative impacts. Piecemeal EIA and clearance for each individual component of a project (as for instance being attempted for the POSCO and Vedanta projects) should be prohibited by law.

In order to ensure transparency and accountability in the processes of governance, the relevant laws should give the mandate of organizing public hearings to affected communities and gram sabhas.

Ensure the presence of independent civil society & media during all public hearing processes.

Overhaul the EIA and clearance procedures to ensure that:

o Independent experts with credible track record, affected communities and other civil society representatives are brought into it as central participants.

o EIA and clearance is done by or through communities, and are funded independently of the project proponent.

o EIA and clearance procedures also include a component of social impact assessment (SIA).

o The clearance or approval agency is a separate and autonomous authority and not the MoEF.

o They provide for an adequate and predefined public scrutiny period

No relaxation of environmental impact assessment norms should be allowed for any kind of industrial and other ‘development’ projects.

The practice of having a heavy concentration of industries in a geographically contiguous patch should be discontinued with immediate effect. Proper laws and legislations should be drafted and implemented to discourage such practices in the future.

Do not give/release degraded forest land to industry, and do not promote conversion of agriculture into farm forestry (as the World Bank and other agencies are promoting), including into commercial agro-fuel plantations such as jatropha, palm oil, and others.

Ensure that free prior informed consent of communities (meaning all adults of the relevant communities) is made mandatory, by law, for all ‘development’ projects that affect them.

22

Ensure that public hearings (jan sunwais) at local level are made mandatory before any development policy/law or scheme is decided on, at both central & state levels.

Enhance awareness programmes amongst political leaders, senior bureaucrats, other decision-makers, and the general public, regarding the root causes behind deforestation (and its connection with global warming and climate change, and the impacts on society and nature), and of alternative ways of conserving forests while meeting livelihood needs and aspirations.

2. On governance and protection of forests

Forests should not be seen in isolation, but in a holistic manner that views other aspects of land & resource use of the community (including agriculture, water use, and so on) as being integrated with and impacting upon forest conservation efforts.

Ensure that the decision making power with respect to forest conservation is equally devolved amongst all the rights holders and stakeholders in order to guarantee an equal partnership and responsibility between communities and government agencies, with involvement of NGOs and independent experts (“forests are too important a matter to be left to the Forest Department”)

Promote participatory, rather than the current representative form of democracy, in which local populations are involved in all decisions that affect them, and in which decisions are based on indigenous knowledge and traditions along with modern knowledge and practices; this will lead to environmental democracy.

Evolve methods and mechanisms to give access and forest conservation related powers to

communities that are closest to a resource, through available laws including the Forest Rights Act. These should be based on :

o Formulating appropriate institutions, and mechanisms.o Clear recognition of the fact that that there can be many pitfalls in this (local

inequities, cultural changes, institutional erosion, etc.) and hence provide for appropriate counter mechanisms to check abuse, especially to ensure conservation and equity in decision-making and sharing of benefits.

o The recognition that such a system is a subset located within a larger nested system of institutions that have mandates that are larger and more comprehensive than the local village, and which provides for appropriate mechanisms of checks and balances (with larger institutions to deal with issues of regional/national/international nature such as climate change).

Encroachment by vested interests should be driven out (and criminal proceedings should be initiated against such people), while encroachments by the poor and marginal people for subsistence/livelihood needs up to a reasonable cut-off date which discourages any fresh encroachment, should be given security on their lands, with full involvement of the relevant village assembly in the decision.

23

Stop undermining self-initiated forest conservation such as CFM in Orissa, by government dominated schemes such as JFM; respect the complexity, institutional diversity, and site-specific nature of CFM through provision of legal space and legal recognition of CFM initiatives, without any dominance of quasi-managerial structure within it.

Recognize the significant role of financial measures in forest conservation. Finance and Planning Commission criterion or guidelines should include extent and quality of forests. So when deciding financial allocations for states, those performing well in forest conservation could be given higher priority. Simultaneously, panchayats and other decentralized bodies should be given the power to generate and control funds related to natural resources. However, we stress that money is not the most crucial component of conservation; most CFM has been initiated with other motivations such as securing livelihoods, water, or other livelihood resources, or out of concern for the environment and wildlife.

Devise different strategies for the diversity of situations of villages in Orissa, ranging from those within or adjacent to forests already doing CFM or JFM, others preparing for these, some villages nowhere close to forests, and so on.

Facilitate the setting up of Biodiversity Management Committees under the Biodiversity Act in all villages, provided the relevant Rules at the national and state levels are modified to provide for full empowerment with authority and powers and responsibilities, to perform conservation and sustainable use functions. The nature of such BMCs should be decided by the village assemblies after taking into consideration existing institutions that may be able to perform the same functions, as is provided for in the Madhya Pradesh and Sikkim biodiversity rules.

Operationalize the conservation provisions of the Biodiversity Act (such as Biodiversity Heritage Sites, or mandatory impact assessment of projects likely to adversely impact biodiversity) through Rules or guidelines, which even after 5 years of the Act, are still not in operation.

Facilitate workshops on underlying causes of deforestation and consequent impact in other parts of Orissa, and across India, especially with local communities, government staff, and NGOs.

Empower village assemblies and village level forest committees to monitor the Forest Department, in order to achieve the same checks and balances that are available in the Forest Department’s mandate to monitor what villagers are doing.

3. On securing livelihoods of forest-dwellers

Stress the importance of the subsistence economy by carrying out an assessment of how it gets destroyed (and thereby livelihoods get displaced) in the move towards

24

commercialization and industrialization, and take appropriate action for safeguarding the same.

Explore different ways in which the NREGA can be used to stimulate the local subsistence based economy, help regenerate natural resources, and reduce rural-urban migration.

Recognize the crucial role community initiatives play in forest conservation and protection, and in livelihood security, and legally empower these initiatives especially against external ‘development’ threats and take-over by the government.

Recognize the need to integrate livelihood options (both forest based and non-forest based livelihood options, keeping in mind that forest produces, especially NTFP, forms the primary and bonafide livelihood of the forest dependent community) within CFM initiatives or JFM schemes, especially to stop distress deforestation, or hidden deforestation (e.g. when CFM/JFM communities ‘steal’ wood from neighboring forests).

Evolve mechanisms to make CFM more inclusive, so that all the sections of communities (and especially the traditionally disempowered such as women, landless, and so on) can participate.

25

annexure 1

Press Release, 28 January, 2008

Halt Destructive Development to Save Forests and Forest-dwellers!

(Statement of the National Workshop on Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in India, organized by Kalpavriksh and Vasundhara,

Bhubaneshwar, 26-28th January 2008)

Deforestation in Orissa and other parts of India is a direct result of a wrong path of ‘development’ being promoted under policies of globalization, and the disempowerment of forest-dwelling communities. This can only be halted if the government stops giving forest land for mines, industries, roads, and other such projects, and empowers communities to protect and manage forests.

These were the conclusions of a National Workshop on Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in India, held in Bhubaneshwar on 26-28th January 2008. The workshop was organized by Kalpavriksh (a Pune/Delhi based NGO) and Vasundhara (a Bhubaneshwar based NGO). It was sponsored by the Global Forest Coalition, a network of civil society organizations working to halt deforestation across the world.

Participants at the workshop included civil society representatives from Orissa, Maharashtra, and Delhi, community representatives from Nayagarh, Sundergarh, Deogarh, Dhenkanal, Angul, and Koraput districts of Orissa, academics from various universities, and other institutions such as NCDC. It was inaugurated by Prof. Radha Mohan, State Information Commissioner, Orissa.

Case studies presented at the workshop

Orissa and other states of central and eastern India are facing severe deforestation, loss of wildlife, and the displacement of adivasis. This is due to:

unsustainable development processes, including mines, industries, and roads, which the government is unashamedly promoting (mining leases alone cover over 100,000 hectares);

lack of recognition of and support to the initiatives of communities to protect forests, especially self-initiated community forest management which is widespread in Orissa and other states;

attempts by the Forest Department in many places, to take over control of community forests;

lack of any attention to forests in central or state government planning and financial allocations;

weak regulatory mechanisms, which are unable to deal with rampant violations by forest mafia, industrialists, and others;

26

weakened and distorted mandate of official agencies like Ministry of Environment and Forests, and state Forest Departments;

The workshop discussed several case studies of deforestation in Orissa, including: Banadurga Jungle Surakshya Committee, Khedapada, Nayagarh. (community protected

forest threatened by sugarcane mill) – Mr. Sankar Prasad Pani Lapanga, Sambalpur dist (forest conserved by community for over 100 years, threatened by

Hindalco mining, Bhushan Steel pipeline, and other industries) - Mr. Pradee Mishra Khandadhar (lifeline of northern Orissa and homeland of Paudi Bhuyans, threatened by

mining and related activities proposed by POSCO) – Kumar Abhishek Pratap & Tanushree Dutta

Gadabanikilo village, Nayagarh district (Joint Forest Management destroying self-organized community forest management) – Prateep K. Nayak

At each of these sites, it was revealed that community conservation of forests was threatened by the government allowing private and public sector companies to set up industries, mines, roads, and other projects. At all these sites, communities have protested against the deforestation, but the government has generally been deaf to their pleas. On the contrary, it has bent over backwards to provide subsidies and facilities to the corporate companies, often even overlooking their violation of environmental laws and policies.

Many examples were also given of community forest management (CFM) initiatives being undermined by the conversion to official joint forest management. E.g. at Gadabanikilo village, Nayagarh district. From what was a ‘way of life’ that evolved naturally for communities, has become a ‘formal’ project that villagers have to implement. On the other hand, schemes like JFM have also created spaces for dis-privileged and vulnerable sections of the community to participate. But these are often only on paper, and need to be actually implemented. Besides, the governance framework of JFM is not conducive to democratic or equal participation and decision-making.

Thematic papers presented at the workshop

To put the above case studies in perspective, a number of thematic papers were also presented at the workshop. These include:

Globalization and the Ecological Crisis – Dr. Aseem Shrivastav The Environmental Regulatory Framework in the Era of Globalization – Kanchi Kohli

and Manju Menon Economic Growth and Deforestation: A study of Orissa Economy – Prof Sushant Nayak Liberalization, Deforestation and Dependence on Forest – (A case study of the most

forested district of Orissa, Keonjhar) – Prof. K.C. Samal Economic Liberalization, Decentralized Governance & the Adivasis of Orissa – Prof.

Bhabani Das Winners and Losers of Forest Resources (An Understanding on Causal Connections) –

Dr. Premananda Panda

Globalization and economic growth vs. forests

27

The workshop discussed how deforestation and displacement of people, have significantly increased in the last few years. A number of factors causing this were highlighted:

There has been unrestrained economic growth fed by globalization. In Orissa, the amount of forests diverted for non-forest purposes doubled from 9800 hectares in the period 1982-1991 to 19257 hectares in the period 1992-2004. This is similar to what is happening across India, in which over half of the total forest diverted in the last 25 years has happened only in the last 6-7 years.

Most of the development being promoted by the Orissa government is also in the primary sector using minerals, with profits being made by outsiders, little employment for local people, and the damage having to be borne by local communities and the environment.

Agencies like the World Bank have also promoted policies that are leading to environmental destruction, including privatization, and commercial farm forestry.

The government is putting meager investments into forest protection and management. On the one hand, the Forest Department is severely understaffed and under-resourced, and the other, communities are not being empowered to protect and manage forests. This leaves forests open to exploitation and damage.

Governments have failed to provide adequate inputs to agriculture and forest based livelihoods, or other means of employment, thereby forcing desperately poor people to unsustainably exploit forest resources or act as agents for forest mafia.

Recommendations of the workshop

If the alarming trend of deforestation and displacement has to be reversed, governments must take the following steps, with or through citizens’ groups:

move away from a fossil-fuel based unsustainable development process, and adopt alternative sustainable processes that actually provide basic livelihood and social security to all people;

stop giving leases in forest areas, to mines, industries, and other large-scale commercial or ‘development’ projects;

provide recognition and legal backing to gram sabhas for community forest management initiatives, through PESA, the Forest Rights Act, and other laws, while safeguarding against the misuse of such laws by vested interests to take control of forest lands;

stop trying to take over community forest management initiatives through JFM or other schemes which ignore or undermine existing community institutions, and ensure that partnerships between government and communities are on the basis of sharing decision-making powers;

help communities enhance their agricultural production, sustain forest based livelihoods, and provide other sources of employment and livelihood including through the NREGA (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) with locally developed participatory plans;

explore alternative ways of development in forest areas, which provide livelihood, health, education, and communication options to people without destroying the forest, and which are consistent with their socio-economic and cultural ethos;

recognize public hearings as a mandatory tool for democratic decision-making, giving full responsibility to gram sabhas to organize such hearings, and ensuring independent

28

civil society participation in these to provide a check against the misuse of hearings by powerful local elites.

We also recommend that the Finance Commission and Planning Commission or bodies at both central and state levels, add the performance of states in conserving forests, as a key criterion for deciding on their financial allocations.

The participants resolved to do whatever is in their power to resist the forces of globalization and unrestrained economic growth, to save the forests of Orissa and the rest of India.

For more details, contact:

Prashant Mohanty Vasundhara 15 Shaheed Nagar, BhubaneshwarPh: 9438294417; email: prasantmohanty@gmail.comwww.vasundharaorissa.org

Milind WaniKalpavriksh – Environmental Action Group Apt 5 Shree Dutta Krupa, 908 Deccan Gymkhana, Pune 411004Tel/fax: 020-25654239; 9423582519; Email: milindwani@yahoo.com www.kalpavriksh.org

29

annexure 2Participant’s List

National Workshop on underlying causes of Forest Degradation

Sl. No Name Name of Organisation1. Prof. Radhamohan Commissioner, State Information Commission, Orissa2. Prof. Artabandhu Mishra Professor of Life Science, Sambalpur University3. Abhishek Pratap Greenpeace, Bangalore4. Milind Wani Kalpavriksh5. Mr. Hiradhar Sahoo Secretary, District Forestry Federation, Deogarh6. Prof Kishore C Samal Prof, of Economics, NCDS & Thematic Author of the workshop7. Prof. Premanand Panda Prof., Dept of Anthropology, Sambalpur University8. Dr. Aseem Shrivastava Independent, Researcher/Writer, Thematic Author of the workshop9. Ashish Kothari Kalpavriksh10. Prasant Ku. Jena Secretary, Peoples Union For civil liberties & Advocate, Orissa High

Court11. Manju Menon Kalpavriksh12. Prateep K. Nayak Researcher, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba 13. Bhabani Prasad Das Thematic Author of the workshop14. Sisir Kumar Pradhan Foundation for Ecological Security, Angul15. Krutartha C. Singh Orissa Jungle Mancha, Angul district16. J. Chatterjee Living Farms, Bhubaneswar17. Prof. Susant Kumar Nayak Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh18. Santilata Behera Jilla Banabasi Sangha, Koraput19. Kanchi Kohli Kalpavriksh20. Ritwick Dutta LIFE, Supreme Court Advocate, Environmentalist, New Delhi.21. Jyoti Prakash Rath Foundation for Ecological Security, Angul22. J. Chattergy Living Farms, Bhubaneswar23. Arundharati Jena EEJP Fellow24. Prasanna Ku. Panda President Nayagarh Forestry Federation25. J.K.Nayak Social Worker26. Akshya Ku. Pani Adivasi Kranti Sanghathan, Dhenkanal27. Girija Prasad Nayak Adivasi Kranti Sanghathan, Dhenkanal28. Bauribandhu Rout Orissa Jungle Mancha, Dhenkanal dist29. Nilakantha Panigrahi Prof. NCDS30. Priyabrat Satpathy Supreme Court Lawyer, NewDelhi.31. Padma Charan Panigrahi Accountant, Vasundhara32. Pranab Ranjan Choudhary Consultant33. Laxmidhar Balia Nayagarh Forestry Federation34. Jagdish Nayak RCDC, Bhubaneswar35. Prasanna Ku. Moharana Khedapada, Nayagarh36. Kabiraj Guru Khedapada, Nayagarh37. Dr. Premanand Panda Prof., Dept of Anthropology, Sambalpur University38. Bishnu Padaraj Mohanty Antodaya Chetana Kendra, Hadagada, Keonjhar39. Premjit Mohapatra Freelance Documenters40. Ashutosh Nanda Student, KIIT(School of Rural Management)41. Sandeep Patnaik Student, KIIT(School of Rural Management)

30

42. Aswini Mahanta VSS Mandal Banai43. Meera Sankar Dehuri VSS Mandal Banai44. Benudhara Kisan VSS Mandal Banai45. Ishwar Ch. Mahanta VSS Mandal Banai46. Smt Lipi Kunar VSS Mandal Banai47. Manasi VSS Mandal Banai48. Bauribandhu Rout Secretary, Forestry Federation, Dhenkanal49. Suresh Chandra Behera Forestry Federation, Dhenkanal50. Madhu Beipui Forestry Federation, Dhenkanal51. Chaitanya Munda Forestry Federation, Dhenkanal52. Prashant Mohanty Vasundhara53. Dhirendra Panda Executive Director, Vasundhara54. Tanushree Das Author of Case Study, Vasundhara55. Pradeep Kumar Mishra Author of Case Study, Vasundhara56. Sankar Prasad Pani Author of Case Study, Vasundhara57. Bharati Chakra Rapporteurs Coordination for the workshop, Vasundhara58. Pratap Mohanty Rapporteur & Oriya Translator, Vasundhara59. Prasad Ku Dash Rapporteur, Vasundhara60. Bibhuti Bhusan Pradhan Rapporteur, Vasundhara61. Himansu Sekhar Patra Participant, Vasundhara62. Ghasiram Panda Media Coordinator for the workshop, Vasundhara63. Puspanjali Satpathy Participant, Vasundhara64. Y.Giri Rao Participant, Vasundhara65. Biswarup Sahoo Participant, Vasundhara66. Sricharan Behera Participant, Vasundhara67. Sabita Singh Admn, Vasundhara68. Rohit Kumar Behera Driver, Vasundhara69. Krupasindhu Parida Accountant, Vasundhara70. Manoj Kumar Dalua Admn, Vasundhara71. Shyam Sunder Sahoo Admn, Vasundhara

Participants List of Media (26th & 28th Jan 08)National Workshop on underlying causes of Forest Degradation

1. Jayadev Bahera, ETV News2. B N Sahoo, DD News3. J Kanungo, DD News4. S Sahu, DD News5. J.K Nayak, Odisha Bhaskar6. Prasanna Das, DDK7. Pankaj Kumar Sahoo, ETV8. Satyasundar Barik, The Hindu9. Sibabrata Charpatiray, The Statesman10. Chandra Sekhar Sahoo, Paryabekhyak11. Jitendra Kumar Nayak, Odisha Bhaskar12. Bhudeep Na. Mohanty, ETV13. b. Srinibas, ETV News

31

14. Shyamaghar Mohanty, Dharitri15. Devasis Biswal, The Samaja16. Girija S Dash, Sambad Kalika17. Bimal Das, Darsana18. Dhruba Mishra, Anupam Bharat19. Bimal Dash, Sushasan20. Pratap Ch. Pradhan, Pragativadi

32