Crouching data, hidden forest

By Kanchi Kohli, Manju Menon and Vikal Samdariya
06 Aug 2010

The Ministry of Environment and Forests has taken steps towards transparency and inclusiveness in its conservation approaches, but the forest clearance process remains shrouded under mystery and should be open to public scrutiny.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) revamped its website in October 2009 in an attempt to present itself as a transparent ministry that proactively discloses its decisions and their basis. One cannot deny that the MoEF's website and its press releases are more prompt than ever before. But, does that actually mean one can take what is given to us as the truth?

Let us attempt to examine this in light of the figures that the MoEF has sought to disclose with regards to the forest clearances it has granted. As per the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, if any activity, industry or process requires the diversion of forest land for non-forest purpose, permission needs to be sought from the MoEF prior to the commencement of such an activity. Since 1980, this procedure has ensured that there exists a certain rhythm through which all those who seek to use forest land have a prescribed procedure that they must follow.

Grant of forest clearances is not a mere mechanical activity. Any such land use change proposed has implications on not just the ecological nature of the area in question. Most often, take over of forest land for an industry, mine, dam or even just plantations, has far reaching impacts on the lives and livelihoods of people who live on and off these areas.

So, where do we stand today with regards to the forest land that has been allotted for other kinds of use? If one looks at figures received through Right to Information (RTI), the MoEF claims that between 1980-2009, a total of 11,37,686.70 hectares of forest land has been ‘cleared’ for non-forest use. One fourth of these clearances (not in number of clearances to projects but in terms of the total area) came in the period of 2004-2009. This amounts to 3,55,160.62 hectares of forest land.

But these figures cannot be relied upon for any idea of what is really the state of forest land in the country. Statistics are put out every year in the annual reports of the MoEF, the State of Environment report, and there are heated discussions, debates and disagreements on the total forest cover of the country. However all of these are based on poorly collated data that is full of inconsistencies and errors.

A recent example of this came to light when Kalpavriksh filed two RTI applications seeking data on the diversion of forest land. The responses received in both show contradictory information. Data received from the first RTI reveals that during the 12 month period from April 2008 to April 2009, MoEF allowed diversion of 61,607.82 hectares of forest land (both in principle and final clearance). When compared with the information received under the second RTI which provides data of a 20 month period of total land diverted from April 2008 to December 2009, the figure is reduced to 43,635.66 hectares.

However, the many questions that arise from these discrepancies go beyond reconciling figures on paper? For a bureaucracy such as the MoEF or the Forest Departments of state governments, these may only be challenges of accounting. But these discrepancies in the methods of data entry and book keeping have real consequences for people living on or off forest lands. Numbers are always political. When the Ministry says the country's forest land has increased, what do we have to compare with? Which forest land has missed finding a place in their records, or has landed up as double entry?

For a Ministry that is committed to becoming transparent and inclusive in its conservation approaches, the forest clearance process begs amendments that will make it open to public scrutiny. It has remained firmly shut to the public so far and there is no space for public participation in the processes of cost-benefit analysis, valuation of forests and other steps that are involved in the grant of forest clearances. Not only will the quality of decision making become more democratic by allowing public participation, but the Ministry may perhaps find partners in ironing out its statistical flaws. Ironically, the only official mechanism to ‘see’ the unfolding of FCA processes is the RTI, which in the current case has not helped to find the answer!

The revelations by the MoEF does not render much confidence by which one can make a full claim about the state of the forest land that has been continually diverted.

more interesting reads@http://www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=1331

Revenue rules over rights

By Hartman de Souza
12 Jul 2010

Environment ministry of India says the Dongria Kondh tribals are threatened by the proposed Niyamgiri mine in Orissa. Yet, Prime Minister's office is keen to grant it approval. Do these poor tribals not qualify as being people under the constitution?

It is now common news that the office of the Prime Minister has written to the Environment and Forests Ministry asking it to clear Vedanta's proposed Niyamgiri mine in Orissa. An agency report quotes an Adivasi, a Dongria Kondh tribal, from the area telling Survival International that the mining of ore only makes profit for the rich and that his people will be reduced to being beggars if the company destroys their mountain and forest for mining.

His words parallel a report commissioned by the Environment Ministry to investigate Vedanta's plan earlier this year that warned that the Niyamgiri mine could 'lead to the destruction of the Dongria Kondh people'.

The Ministry on its part appointed yet another team of experts to conduct further investigations, before making a decision on granting official clearance urging it to report back by the 29th July - the day after London-based billionaire Anil Agarwal's FTSE100 company Vedanta holds its Annual General Meeting in London. The expert team will investigate the mine's potential 'impact on the livelihood, culture and material welfare of the Dongaria Kondh' and its 'impact on the Wildlife and Biodiversity in the surrounding areas' as if the world and its mother did not already know.
One suspects the position that may be taken by the new expert panel thanks to a diktat from a GDP growth rate-obsessed Government or, for that matter, by a new cash-strapped government in the UK. Just last year the then UK government condemned Vedanta, declaring that it 'did not respect the rights of the Dongria Kondh' and that a 'change in the company's behaviour [is] essential.'

Not to be left out of the critique, the Church of England, the Norwegian government and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust were among the high-profile investors that sold their Vedanta shares over serious human rights concerns, and as Survival's director Stephen Corry rightly noted: India's Prime Minister "ought to be protecting the rights of India's most vulnerable citizens, not helping to railroad through a project that government experts have warned could destroy them".

Even as this is being written, the Dutch Asset management firm, PGGM has disinvested its €13m stake in Vedanta Resources, including its subsidiaries Sterlite Industries, Hindustan Zinc and Sesa Goa citing the company for "persistently ignoring environment and human rights. The firm which manages the €91billion healthcare scheme PFZW, said it had exchanged letters and held numerous talks with the company over the last two years regarding its mining activities in Orissa, but that the company made no concrete improvements. It further noted Vedanta's refusal to co-operate on environmental and human rights issues had increasingly put the company's reputation at risk, which, PGGM felt, translated into a financial risk.
Perhaps most damning is that Vedanta declined to participate in a roundtable meeting with experts - initiated by the group of investors - to discuss possible solutions for problems in Orissa.

Through all this, one must perforce ask why the Prime Minister's office is determined on bringing this company to our Adivasi lands. Does this population of ours left dangling at the antipodes all these years not qualify as being people under the constitution? Our English TV Channels in Delhi covering the problems in our eastern Ghats are quick to refer to the misdirected Naxalites as 'butchers' although there are some facts, courtesy publications of the Centre for Science and Environment, that they ought to engage with:
Mining royalties in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand contribute only 10 to 13 percent of total revenue receipts; in Orissa it is 5 to 6 per cent; in Andhra 3 per cent. Is there reason to suspect that the Adivasis are angry at losing their livelihoods?
In 1995 to produce 1 crore tonnes of ore, the mining industry employed 25 people, in 2005 this number dropped to 8, a decrease of 70 per cent. Where will the jobs come from? As there is no comprehensive date on people displaced by mining, available data suggests less than 25 per cent have been actually looked after.

For every armed Adivasi there may be close to 10 armed government personnel. In the same areas the average landholding is less than half a hectare and perhaps one drinking water source for 1,000 Adivasis. It makes one wonder what is really more obscene: a reluctant Adivasi with an AK 47 in his or her hand, or bulldozers taking away sacred shrines, forests and traditional water sources at the behest of a mining baron who probably doesn't even know what Adivasi means or stands for.