Preserve biodiversity through community initiatives

By Pandurang Hegde
22 May 2010

The year 2010 has been declared by the United Nations as 'The International Year of Biodiversity'. But the governments in most countries remain indifferent to the massive loss of species of trees, plants, insects, fish, birds and animals that balance the life-cycle on earth.

Today, on May 22, 2010 as we celebrate the International Biodiversity Day, we are reminded of the unprecedented loss of biodiversity, of plants, animals and other life forms that is threatening the life on earth. In order to address the issue, about 180 countries have joined hands to form Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992. In order to work towards an effective strategy for conservation of biodiversity 2010 has been designated as the International Year of Biodiversity (IYB).

The CBD is hailed as a landmark agreement in which the genetically rich but economically poor countries were given the sovereign rights over genetic resources. It was hailed as victory for southern countries to bring forth equity and justice. However, in reality the move is towards the privatization of the genetic resource, in which patenting of seeds and life forms is the rule that hijacked the CBD towards bio piracy and bio trade.

Erosion

In the history of human agriculture about 7000 different species of plant have been cultivated as food crops. However, spread of industrial agriculture in the last 100 years has led to dramatic reduction of genetic diversity in food crops and livestock breeds. Today, 90 per cent of human food comes from only fifteen plants and eight animal species. The homogenization of food industry has resulted in narrow genetic base. Confirming this, FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) has stated that since 1900 approximately 75 per cent of the world's genetic diversity of food crops has been eliminated.

The irony is the world leaders, policy makers and scientists are least interested in integrating the issues of biodiversity into broader policies of their government. Rather through most of their decisions, displaying monoculture of mind, they attempt to erase the existing diversity, from agriculture to marginal cultures that show signs of digressions.


The Global Biodiversity Outlook, a report published in 2010 by the CBD has categorically stated that "the target agreed by World Governments in 2002 to achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation has not been met".

The future scenario projected in the report indicates more extinctions and loss of habitats in the coming decades with associated decline in ecosystem services that is essential for the survival of human beings and other forms of life on the earth. It predicts that these have direct negative impact on the poorest people living in fragile eco zones and eventually it will affect the society at large.

Failed strategies

About 170 countries, including India, have evolved the strategies and action plans to conserve biodiversity. However, there is little political will and policy support for implementing this plan. In India, the obsession with target of nine per cent GDP growth set by the Planning Commission is leading to destruction of the areas that are centers of global biodiversity hotspots. For example, the ecologically fragile regions of North East India and Western Ghats are the hotbeds for building numerous hydro power plants and mega thermal power plants that not only threaten but lead to extinction of diversity of plants and other life forms in these regions.

The National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan (NBSAP) is a dead document for all practical purposes. This grim scenario should have raised alarm bells at the highest level of decision-making, but shockingly, the top leadership gives little consideration to the issue of conserving the diversity that is still left in the fields and forests.

Positive actions

In contrast to this apathy there are numerous positive examples of direct actions by the communities to conserve the biodiversity. In the Himalayas, the Beej Bachao Andolan, (Save Seeds Movement), has spearheaded a unique attempt to conserve the crop diversity of hill regions. In the Deccan plains, the women groups led by Deccan Development Society have successfully regenerated the biodiversity of dry land crops in marginal lands. Even they have set up alternate PDS (Public Distribution System) that incorporates millet and other nutritional crops instead of white rice and hybrid wheat that causes malnutrition. Save Our Rice Campaign is working towards conserving the diversity of paddy varieties in different regions of southern and eastern parts of India. The Appiko Movement is working with forest dwellers to conserve plant diversity of forest tress, which provide non-timber forest produce that enhances livelihood. Thus, the community attempts to conserve biodiversity in India is varied and vibrant.

Nevertheless, the policy makers have failed to learn from these successful initiatives and incorporate their time tested methods of conservation to halt the erosion of diversity. Rather than adhering to the diktat of International funding organizations that appropriate the genetic resources, it is essential that we develop the route to conserve diversity through local means, under community control with the vision of equity and sustainability in using the resources.

New guidelines for biodiversity conservation

By Kanchi Kohli
20 Jan 2010

National Biodiversity Authority has come up with a set of guidelines for the declaration of Biodiversity Heritage Sites across the country. But the existing laws limit the scope for expanding the role of local community in biodiversity conservation.

India's Biological Diversity (BD) Act came into existence in 2002 after the Parliament ratified it. Amongst other things, it put forth a framework under which access to biological resources and related knowledge could henceforth be regulated. It also brought with it some broad provisions that mandated central and state governments to take measures towards the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity (biodiversity, in short). Any access would also need to go hand in hand with determining equitable sharing of benefits.

One important conservation measure proposed in Section 37 of the Act gives powers to state governments to declare areas of biodiversity importance as Biodiversity Heritage Sites (BHS). These areas can be where there exist important species of seeds, livestock or wildlife. It could also be larger areas of mixed use land which reflect biodiverse ecosystems. The declaration of any BHS has to be in consultation with local bodies, which can include panchayats, district councils, urban wards or even the Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) as proposed to be set up under the BD Act.

The apex institution set up under the BD Act, namely the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) has come up with a set of guidelines for the declaration of BHSs across the country. The guidelines were prepared by a NBA committee comprising government officials, scientists and NGOs. Since Section 37 gives final powers for identifying and declaring BHSs to state governments, these NBA guidelines are not binding but can present a suggestive process to state level authorities.

The guidelines try and peek out through the limitations of the BD Act and prod the state government (in this case State Biodiversity Boards, or SBBs) to rise above the limitations of the institutional power hierarchies. For instance, the guidelines allow for proposal for BHSs to emerge from community organisations and BMCs, allow for the possibilities of existing community conservation practices to be recognized as BHS and also propose that local bodies be consulted at every given step of planning and declaration.

However, since these guidelines seek their mandate from a parent legislation which gives minimalist powers to the village level institutions, i.e. BMCs, it is only able to create a limited space for participation of local communities. As per the BD Act, the BMCs are to be set up at the level of villages or urban wards. Very broadly the Act says that the BMCs have a role in conservation, but the 2004 Rules elaborate it differently. Once set up, it is mandatory for the BMCs to work as data providers for the preparation of People's Biodiversity Registers (PBRs). In the process envisaged by the NBA and its expert committee, the preparation of the PBRs will be “supported” and validated by scientific experts and the SBB. Where village communities are self empowered, they might be able to rise above the four walls defined by the law. Elsewhere, they would continue to churn out register after register and hand it over to whoever the Government of India would define as the custodians.

So it is not a surprise that declaration of BHSs, even in the NBA guidelines, does not have a provision for conservation to be community led. There is active and informed participation, but that does not mean the community will gain control. This is because:

The final power to decide whether an area can be declared a BHS lies with the SBB. This also includes determining the suitability of a study on the BHS.

Even if the BHS management plans are prepared by one or more BMCs, it is the SBBs that will recognise and facilitate its implementation. The power dynamics and hierarchies will continue to play a role in the determination of the management plans.

A state level monitoring committee with the Chairman of the SBB as the head will monitor the implementation of the BHSs. The guidelines don't clarify the course of action in case local communities already have strong local monitoring institutions.

Does this silence mean that these local structures will be “supervised” once BHSs are declared?

Ironically the declaration of the BHSs will also ensure that these areas get Rs.20 lakh as seed money from NBA, governed through the SBBs. This will also be the case where original motivations of conservation might not have been financial.

What the BHS guidelines suggest suitably is setting into place a process, by which the declaration of a heritage site will involve widespread debate and discussion before the final stamp of the state government. This is of course if a state government chooses to follow it. But integral to this process is setting up of a team to carry out a full study of the proposed BHS prior to its declaration. This team is to include a maximum of 12 members, with one member preferably from the local community/ies selected to head the team. Details of the team's composition are mentioned in the guidelines.

The guidelines also seek to address the concern with Section 37 (3) where after the declaration of a BHS, the State Governments shall frame schemes for compensating or rehabilitating any person or section of people economically affected by such notification. The BHS guidelines opine that creation of BHS shall not put any restriction on the prevailing practices and usages of the local communities, other than those voluntarily decided by them.

Even as these guidelines were being prepared, some state governments like Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh had already started declaring BHSs at local levels. Now the Karnataka SBB has adapted the NBA guidelines to include another element of a “Technical Support Group” which will help the local communities with documentation, conservation preparation of management plans. The SBB here will also have the power to set up monitoring committee(s) that will periodically review the BHS's existence.