Vulnerable wildlife

By Pandurang Hegde
07 Oct 2010

The current policies to protect wildlife have failed to achieve intended goals. Can we think beyond borrowed concepts of Protected Areas and empower local communities to take initiatives for wildlife protection?

Several elephants have been killed by fast running trains this year
The Environment Ministry recently announced the plan to declare elephant as India’s national heritage animal and to establish National Elephant Conservation Authority.
Tragically during the same time seven elephants were crushed to death by speeding goods train in Banarhat forest in West Bengal. This is a clear indicator of the reality, the brazen cruelty of human beings against wildlife. We pride ourselves in the holistic outlook of ancient scriptures, depicting wildlife as incarnation of God. Nevertheless, the way we treat the wildlife is appalling. The train driver could have slowed down to save those elephants, instead he opted to mow thorough the herd, showing least concern for the innocent animals that cannot comprehend the fate of hitting a running train. In another incident, a calf elephant was mowed down by a truck on Ooty road near Bandipur National Park in Karnataka. Except few, majority of the people in this country believe and behave as if only people should have the right of way even at the cost of sacrificing the wildlife.

Despite having declared number of protected areas as National Parks and Sanctuaries, the threats to wildlife have increased rather than giving them any protection. The protected areas have increased manifold from 67 in 1970s to 491 in 2000, a rise of 700 percent over three decades. Enactment of the Wild Life Protection Act in 1972 was another step to provide legal protection to the wild animals in our country. But have these policies helped to give protection to the animals?

Having set up protected areas, the government has framed rules and laws to conserve them from outside threats of poaching as well as making it difficult to divert these areas for other purposes. However, in actual practice, the management of these areas by forest department has led to destruction of the protected areas. In Ranibennur Wild Life Sanctuary in Karnataka, specially carved out in deccan plains to conserve the Black bucks, the area is planted with eucalyptus mono culture. This monoculture hinders the growth of natural grass, creating shortage of fodder for black bucks. The planting of grassy patches in higher regions of Western Ghats with acacia auriculifomis has created fodder shortage for Gaur.

In addition to these anti ecological management practices, the state and central governments have given permission to build hydel dams inside the wild life sanctuaries. This is in clear violation of the existing Wild Life Act. Obviously, the pressure of power lobby is very strong to resist and the temptation is to sacrifice the existing reserves that are meant to be a refugee for wild life. The building of infrastructure projects like roads and rail lines across the protected areas is one of the major threats for smooth movement of wildlife in the country. These infrastructure projects lead to fragmentation of the habitats of wildlife, hindering the migratory paths of animals like elephants.

The selfish human being is so obsessed that he does not want to give space to animals to move during the night time. The ban of traffic in some parts of wild life areas in Karnataka has had positive impact on the movement of wild life. But the transport and tourist lobby is very keen that this ban is lifted in order to allow free movement of people and goods at the cost of sacrificing the wild animals that get killed due to heavy movement of vehicles. Blessed with greater ability to think, the human beings have a role and responsibility to allow wild life to survive and move in the forests. Instead of abiding by this responsibility, most of us seem to absolve ourselves and show our brute strength of superiority to destroy the wild animals. The mowing down of elephants by the running train is the clear manifestation of this brute violence.
In the midst of this gloomy situation, we have unique examples of communities showing rare courage and compassion to conserve wildlife. The Bishnoi sect in Rajasthan and Haryana has shown that it is possible to live in harmony with wild life as well as continue farming activities. We can still see chinkaras roaming in their agricultural fields. Their commitment to protect the wild animals is legendary, as they have stood their grounds against powerful bollywood actors like Salman Khan and Saif Ali Khan for their involvement in the poaching case. Similarly, the villagers in Kokre Bellur in Karnataka have shown that they can conserve the rare birds through community initiatives.

Ignoring the traditions of community conserved wild life initiatives spread over different landscapes in the country, the Government of India adopted the elite model of Protected Areas, a borrowed concept from United States. Under this initiative, the divide between “wild nature” and human beings was forced upon the people living around the National Parks and Wild life sanctuaries. These protected areas are the tourist spots for the elite to watch wild life. The increased conflicts between these protected areas and communities living around this region are a clear indicator of the failure of the ongoing wild life conservation policy in India.

The existing policies to address the issue of decreasing wildlife as well as the increasing threats to their survival have miserably failed. The tiger and elephant projects have not been able to provide the basic security for their survival. We need to review these failed initiatives and formulate a practical wildlife policy that can meet the conservation goals as well as protect their existing habitat.

http://www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=1392

Bamboo for sustainability and growth

By Pandurang Hegde
18 Sep 2010
While we celebrate the International Bamboo Day, it is essential to recognize and propagate the multiple uses of Bamboo in providing livelihood security to poor, protecting land from degradation as well as in mitigating climate change.

Bamboo is a major source of livelihood in North-east India
(photo: Pandurang Hegde)
Bamboo is an important part of rural livelihood in many countries, especially in developing counties like India. Due to its versatile nature and multiple uses, it is also called ‘poor man’s timber’. Though it grows tall like a tree, it belongs to the grass family. It can withstand the drought as well as flood. During the annual floods in Kosi region in Bihar, it is the bamboo that helps the flood hit villagers. Even during Tsunami, bamboo came to the rescue of people rendered homeless to erect shelters at short notice.

There are more than 70 genera divided into about 1,450 species of bamboo all over the world. India is second only to China in terms of bamboo diversity having more than 130 bamboo species spread across 18 genera. The North Eastern states are the store house of bamboo diversity with 58 species belonging to 10 genera.

Bamboo is grown on 9 million hectares in India, covering almost 13 per cent of the total forest area of the country. In addition, nearly 1.75 million hectares of bamboo area lies outside the natural forest area. The total production of bamboo is 5 million tons per year.

Though Madhya Pradesh has the highest area under bamboo forests, the bamboo culture thrives in the North Eastern region. From the tender shoots as a delicacy food item to the rice cooked in the hollow of raw bamboo, it is part of the everyday life. From house construction to flooring, agricultural implements, the bamboo pervades the life and culture. We find the most artistic skills in bamboo weaving in these regions. Millions of families are dependent on bamboo resources for their livelihood in India.
The advantage of bamboo is manifold compared to monoculture tree plantations. It grows in forest like natural formations either in monocultures or mixed stands among other tree crops. After planting, the fast growth of bamboo clumps start yielding after 4 to 7 years. It can become part of agro forestry practice in small land holding. New bamboo plantations may curb the pressure from deforestation by serving as wood substitutes. It can be planted to reclaim severely degraded sites and wastelands. It is good soil binder owing to their peculiar clump formation and fibrous root system and hence also plays an important role in soil and water conservation.

Climate change and Bamboo
Recent studies suggest that bamboo is more effective plant than trees in increasing carbon stocks through sequestration of carbon. The researchers studying bamboo plantations estimate that a hectare of bamboo has the potential to sequester between 12-14 tons of carbon every year above the ground. Additionally, the extensive root system builds up the carbon sink faster than trees.

When bamboo forest is managed by annual harvesting of mature culms it can sequester more carbon, especially if harvested products are converted into durable products like bamboo furniture or household timber. It can be a good substitute for energy intensive products, thus helping to reduce fossil fuel based products. It is used in over 1500 applications, but until recently the life span of these products was short. However, the upgradation in processing techniques has enabled to manufacture durable products that have longer life, mainly in housing components and furniture.

The international community, Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as well as Indian government have overlooked the potential of bamboo to address the issue of climate change and enhance livelihood opportunities. Compared to growing trees, a bamboo plantation would repay the investments in carbon development costs within first four years. Moreover, when mature bamboo is harvested, it would fetch handsome net revenues providing employment opportunities to people, mainly artisans. In fact the Medar community in Karnataka is entirely dependent on bamboo weaving, producing items like baskets. They are the poorest groups belonging to the lowest caste among Dalits. One of the ways to strengthen their economic situation is through enhancing bamboo stocks.

The carbon credit business world wide is in billions of dollars. Large high tech projects as well as those which destroy natural forests like micro hydel projects get carbon credit benefits. Contrary to these dubious carbon credit ventures, bamboo plantations can bring the carbon credit business at the doorsteps of poor, marginal communities. If CDM as well as those agencies that are aiming to address the issue of climate change include bamboo as one of the tools to mitigate climate change, it would yield ‘poor man’s carbon credits’.

While it has many positive impacts on climate change, one should also be aware of the negative impact. Gregarious flowering of bamboo in North Eastern part of India and in some regions of Western Ghats may lead to releasing of large amounts of carbon in the form of dry bamboo. There is an urgent need to evolve a rationale policy to procure and utilize enormous quantity of bamboo crop after the flowering. Ignoring this would cause a devastation of fire that would engulf the diversity in the region.

Though India has launched the National Bamboo Mission in 2007, the implementation of this mission is not only slow, but it has failed to address the enormity of the issues related to bamboo. May be, the step motherly attitude meted out to the North Eastern states is one of the prime reasons for such gross neglect of poor man’s timber and negation of bamboo culture. A proper understanding and empathizing with the bamboo culture and financial and technical support would have unleashed the bamboo revolution that would have uplifted the living standards of people in this region.

It is high time the national action plan to address climate change in India incorporates these ideas in ‘green mission’ as an important tool to address the issue. Additionally the government should take this to international flora and give due credit to bamboo.

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.

Seeds under siege

By Pandurang Hegde
26 Apr 2010

International Seeds Day (April 26) reminds us of concerted attempts by the large seed corporations to destroy seed diversity of the world to expand their markets and profits.

How can governments snatch growers' rights over seeds?
Following on heels of Earth Day (April 22) comes the International Seeds Day (April 26). But there is no doubt that it will not be celebrated in the United States and many countries in Europe. Neither will this be endorsed by the United Nations or Food and Agricultural Organisation. The reason is obvious; it is launched by common people, especially by the ordinary farmers in Iraq who lost the sovereignty not only of their country, but of their seeds. It was on April 26, 2004 the Order 81 was passed by the Coalition Authority that prohibits the farmers in Iraq from using their own seeds and forces them to buy the seeds from Multinational Seed Corporations from the US and Europe.

The world has witnessed innumerable wars and occupations, but the invasion of Iraq is unique because it has led to an order to terminate the life from seed, taking away farmers' freedom to grow what they want to grow. The common people in the world thought that the war was for oil, but the perpetrators of the occupation have clearly shown their meanness by attacking the life giving seed. Having failed to find any WMD (weapons of mass destruction), they attacked the seed sovereignty, backed by the sheer unethical greed of global seed giants. It is the launching of world war for the control of seeds.

The invasion of Iraq is unique because it has led to an order to terminate the life from seed, taking away farmers' freedom to grow what they want to grow.
What does the Order 81 say? It says that the farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety. The terminology might sound funny, but the intention is clear, according to the Order the genetically altered seeds are called "protected variety" and the unregistered or local seeds are referred to as "infringing variety"! The new order gives corporations complete control over farmers' seeds. Iraqi farmers have to sign an agreement to pay a "technology fee" plus an annual license fee. Plant Variety Protection (PVP) made seed saving and reusing illegal as well as "similar" seed plantings punishable by severe fines and imprisonment.

This is the ideal autocratic law the corporate seed giants would like to impose on the rest of the world. What is unfortunate is that it was backed by countries like the US and Europe who chant the mantra of democracy and human rights. By enacting Order 81 they want to erase the 8000 old farming history of Iraq, which is part of "fertile crescent", the origin of diversity of crops, especially wheat. The order gives the corporations monopoly over seeds.

The seed war in Iraq is clear indicator of how the corporates want to take control over seeds in different parts of world. They might not send coalition forces in other countries, but the silent war is on through diplomatic channels, through back door maneuverings and enticing the politicians of democratic nations through the power of money. The recent controversy on bt brinjal in India is basically another seed war being waged to cave in those age old civilizations which are the centres of diversity.

Almost fifty percent of the annual 21 billion USD seed market is dominated by just ten Seed Companies, who also own pesticide companies. By controlling the seed and inputs, they are aiming to control the entire food chain of the world. In order to deeply entrench the seed monopoly, the first thing they need is to destroy the diversity of the local seeds, especially those used and reused by the farmers. This is called seed replacement rate. In India this rate is 70 per cent, as most of the farmers re-use and exchange the seeds among themselves. Iraq had 90 percent replacement rate.


Obviously, this culture of saving and sharing seeds is the biggest threat that hinders the growth of seed corporates. By passing Order 81 they removed this threat in Iraq. But in India our elected government and the pro establishment scientists are willing to surrender control of our seeds to large Agricultural corporations. The Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture Education, Research, Services and Commercial Linkages is the modem through which such controls will be exercised.

The vast majority of Indian farmers are dependent on local seed supply and exchange. This process, being low key appears to be lacking in technical know how, but has resulted in conserving the enormous diversity of crops through centuries. However, the introduction of modern technology through green revolution has led to decimation of seed diversity in crops like wheat and rice. Both the public and private seed developers are keen to breed those varieties that respond to intensive chemical and pesticide inputs. This trend of corporate seed control will ultimately destroy the remaining biodiversity in food crops.

The Corporate lobby is so influential that it can easily penetrate into the highest decision making process in any country. The lure of making windfall profits from sale of agricultural seeds in a country like India is making agri-business desperate. They have tasted success in the accelerated sales of bt cotton, where Monsanto and its associate companies reaped huge benefits over the last five years. In the process India lost 90 percent of the local cotton seed diversity.

Emboldened by the bt cotton experience, the corporations know that much more money can be earned from cereal crops like rice and wheat. This is the logic behind them launching the attack through bt brinjal to enter into the food crops.

Seed is the basis for food sovereignty. It is only through the control of our seeds that we will be able reach the goal of food security. The passing of the Food Security Act will have no meaning if we do not have the freedom over our seeds and inputs to grow our crops. But do our policymakers who daydream to remove hunger through legislation understand the severity of war over seeds?

GM forests or fuel mines?

By Pandurang Hegde
20 Mar 2010

Enough harm has already been done to the environment under the garb of development. Now, novel ideas like GM forests are being proposed as a new alternative fuel for the automobile industry. It's time for the world to learn from its cyclical mistakes, and fast!

Man's attempts to play with nature have now gone too far
(pic courtesy: The Ecologist)
As if the nationwide debate on Genetically Modified brinjal was not enough, we now have international agencies like the FAO rooting for GM trees. Surprisingly, while they suggest this, they presume that a forest full of GM trees will not lead to any more angst among the people.

According to the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) State of the World's Forests report (2009), a global pattern is emerging that reflects a correlation between economic development and the state of the forests. Forests around the world are under severe stress due to numerous demands caused by rapid economic development.

Those countries that have achieved high growth of economic development are able to stabilize or increase their forest area, while countries like India, that are undergoing rapid economic development, tend to struggle with immense pressure on their forests.

It would be too naïve to conclude that rich countries have stabilized the forest cover on their own. With their economic and financial muscle power, they have conserved their forests to provide ecosystem services while meeting their timber demand from the forest-rich regions of Asia or Latin America. Thus they have successfully and conveniently transferred the pressure to poorer countries, causing more harm to the indigenous population.

The demand for tropical hardwood from Europe and USA is the main cause of destruction of natural forests in tropical countries. It is this voracious appetite for tropical hardwood that is playing havoc in the agrarian economies of countries like Burma and Cambodia.

India, while following the same model of development, also has a large middle-class population that has put tremendous pressure on the existing forests. The expansion of mining in forest areas has threatened the existence of forest-dwelling tribal populations. Conflict over natural resources in forest-rich belts of states like Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh has resulted in a long-drawn battle between locals and industries, creating fertile hotbed for Naxalite insurgency. Ironically, the very forests that served as their lifeline have become a curse for these locals.

At this juncture, international forestry experts at FAO are looking at forests as an alternative source of fuel for the automobile sector after having burnt fingers with the agro and bio-fuels as a panacea to replace fossil fuels.

Jan Heino of FAO Forestry Department predicts, "Developments in science and technology will have an enormous impact on the future of forests and forestry. Trees may become the major source of fuel for cars, replacing oil." In many developed countries the research is geared towards developing genetically modified super trees that can overcome the slow gestation period with high capacity to produce cellulose fuels. This strategy has the added benefit of producing wood fuel on forest land without any negative impact on agricultural crops as with agro fuel, and unlike GM food crops, GM trees will face little opposition.

Nevertheless, there are apprehensions about these giant GM trees. The monoculture plantations might have a negative impact on forest biodiversity and on those indigenous communities that have forever lived in the forests. Sunderlal Bahuguna, pioneer of the Chipko Movement, says: "Commercialization of forests led to the destruction of biodiversity and introduction of exotic monoculture plantations. These are not forests but timber mines, as they cannot perform the multiple functions of a natural forest. Similarly, GM trees would accelerate the process of conversion of existing diverse forests into fuel-generating plantations. These should be called 'fuel mines'."

Clearly, the FAO approach is based on the narrow, parochial understanding with commercial benefits as the main objective. In contrast, the Chipko approach is based on the holistic understanding of forests as a source of soil, water and air.

It would be appropriate to look at the future of forests in terms of safe deposits for humanity that provide ecosystem services. The crisis of global warming has heightened the need to conserve and raise bio-diverse natural forests.

The ecosystem services of forests are no more evident than in case of the national capital Delhi, which depends on the Yamuna to meet its water requirement. The water flow in Yamuna is dependent on the forest catchments in Himalayas. Similarly, in the south the Cauvery meets the water requirement of cities like Bangalore, pumping it from a distance of 250 kilometres. The forest catchments for Cauvery lie in the Western Ghats. But in both cases neither Delhi nor Bangalore is interested in paying for the ecosystem services provided by the forests.

It is unfortunate that both the state governments and the people have ignored this basic principle of payment. Ignoring this factor may have long-term consequences for water security in the coming decade.

Losing our language

By Pandurang Hegde
15 Feb 2010

Every language represents the repository of accumulated knowledge over the generations and defines our relationship within the society and its link to nature. Unfortunately, we have begun to judge a language by only its commercial value in the existing market.

Contrary to popular perception, English is not the most spoken language

One of the major links between Africa and Asia bas been broken as the last speaker of Bo language in Andaman Islands died recently. She was the lone speaker of this historical language that originated 70 000 years back in Africa. Andaman will witness further disappearance of ancient languages as that of Jarawa and Onge, spoken only by few hundred people. Sharada, the ancient language of Kashmir is already on the way to extinction as there is hardly any one who can speak the language or read its script, which resembles ancient Brahmi. The whole world knows about the conflict in Kashmir, but the people, even in India, are not aware of the death of a language called Sharada, that was once a flourishing language in the entire western Himalayan region in the 9th century AD.

According to Bhasha, an organization working on conserving the oral traditions of marginalized communities, a total of 1652 mother tongues were documented in the census of 1961. Several hundreds are not even traceable today!

These are clear indicators of extinction of the languages. This phenomenon is not limited to ancient languages but there is lingering threat to existing languages spoken by thousands of people. However, India is about to witness a further decimation of the languages in the coming years. What are the causes for this extinction? Is it relevant to talk about the death of languages, which has become obsolete? Is this a gradual process of evolution in which the Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest is demonstrated in practice?

During 15th century about 10000 languages thrived and were alive in different parts of the world. The colonisation and industrial revolution set in a process in which the diversity of the languages started to disappear, making way for the dominant language of the colonisers. Thus, the countries of South America lost their indigenous languages and were replaced by Spanish, similarly in Africa it was replaced by English and French. In Asia, the English language got deeply entrenched, establishing its superiority over the local vernacular languages. Even though the colonisation processes have come to an end, there is acceleration in the process of economic colonization by the dominant languages of the world. As a result of this colonization we have lost almost half of the languages of the world, at present only 6000 languages survive, most of them endangered and on the verge of extinction, as those who speak these languages are only few. World's linguistic heritage and diversity is being sacrificed at the altar of modern economic development.

Colonisation of Mind

Every language is rich in its own terms. It reflects the evolution of the diversity of culture in different contexts of regions and eco systems. It represents the repository of accumulated knowledge over the generations. Each language is unique because it teaches us to think and know the world in a different way. The language is deeply related to how we think; formulate our ideas and our relationship within the society and its link to nature. It is the product of a particular eco system that has relevance to the soil and the way people live.


Unfortunately, this thinking process rooted in local people's mind gets destroyed when the dominant language replaces the local language. It is not a simple shift from one language to other, but it sets in a process of colonization of mind, it entirely changes the way people think and relate to themselves in the society. Eventually, it leads to replacement of one's own culture and values by the colonising language.

In recent years the spread of globalisation and economic liberalization has led to weakening of the local languages and the cultures. The homogenization and integration as part of the economic development force societies and nations to quit their vernacular languages in favor of the dominant languages that rule the market. It becomes inevitable for common people to jettison their mother tongues that have no commercial value in the market place. The widening role of information technology and Internet places emphasis on learning the dominant English, Spanish or Chinese leaving behind the local native languages to decay. The ongoing craze for English education in rural and urban areas in India is a clear indicator of how a dominant language is perceived as the only way to build a secure career.

It is feared that of more than 6000 currently spoken languages, 50 to 90% would be lost by 2050. The silencing of the native languages leads to erosion of cultures and the different ways to know the world. Like monocultures in agriculture and forestry, the homogenisation of the language reduces the diversity of life forms. Wade Davis, an authority on endangered languages says: "Native languages are driven out of existence by identifiable forces that are beyond their capacity to adapt to". He further remonstrates that "genocide, the physical extinction of a people is universally condemned, but ethnocide, the destruction of peoples' way of life is not only not condemned, it is universally - in many quarters - celebrated as part of a development strategy."

Alarmed by the accelerated threat towards extinction of the languages, UNESCO has launched the register of good practices for language preservation. The objective is to empower the endangered languages to adapt to the changes with hands on experience and learning from the successful ventures where languages like Basque and Catalan have been successfully rescued. Nevertheless, those cultures and languages which are endangered find it difficult to learn from the models. Each case is region-specific and ecosystem-specific and needs a unique innovative approach. Under such critical circumstances, it is doubtful if the preservation of the languages can withstand the onslaught of the economic and cultural globalisation.

The only hope is to uphold and facilitate the process in which multi or bilingualism is able to take deep roots. This will nurture the native language as well as provide a strong foothold over the dominant commercial language like English to adapt to the globalising world. In India, we have numerous examples of this being put into practice, however in recent years the native language is looked down as 'primitive' in comparison to the 'advanced' English. We need to overcome this inferiority complex and motivate the younger generations to take necessary actions to protect as well as feel proud of the native tongues of their region.

Historic decision awaited on BT Brinjal

By Pandurang Hegde
30 Jan 2010

Youth opposing introduction of Bt Brinjal in India

The public consultations on Bt Brinjal have brought to the fore strong resentment among people against increasing corporate influence over government policy making.

The debate on introduction of Bt brinjal has reached its crescendo in the corridors of power. The Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar and the Minister for State for Science and Technology, Prithviraj Chouhan, have expressed their support for introduction of Genetically Modified (GM) food in India, adhering to the approval given by the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee). In contrast to this, the Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, has adopted a cautious approach. Responding to Agriculture Minister's open support of GM food, he sent him a letter stating, "We have to take decisions that have far-reaching consequences with the greatest degree of caution, and transparency and after ensuring that all stakeholders have been heard to their satisfaction."

In order to hear the stakeholders, the Environment Minister is holding consultations in few cities, and has sought opinion of governments of states having large acreage of brinjal. This participatory process might look too elitist, but it is definitely going to build the transparent process towards the final decision. In these consultations across the country, overwhelmingly the response has been against the introduction of GM food crops. Following Kerala, several state governments have either out rightly opposed or expressed concerns about introduction of GM food crops.

Much to the chagrin of GM food supporters, Karnataka, the state at the forefront of IT and BT technology, has also come out with a report against introducing bt brinjal in the state.

This overwhelming negative response from all the quarters has alarmed the corporate interests lobbying for the introduction of GM technology in agriculture and food. Now they are making their last-ditch efforts to 'influence' the central government to get approval for the first GM food crop in India. With huge financial backing, these lobbyists have the capacity and experience to manipulate policy making process for safeguarding the interests of agri-corporates. Earlier they succeeded in securing approval for bt cotton despite stiff opposition from the scientists and farmers. Though cotton is not a food crop, but the central government ignored the fact that the cottonseeds are an important input for cattle feed in India, paving way for GM contamination in the food chain among millions of people.


Having by-passed all the obligatory long-term studies to assess bt cotton's impact on health, the seed companies are reaping the windfall by monopolizing the cotton seeds market, in many cases with the explicit subsidy support of state governments! The never-ending farmers' suicides in bt cotton growing states has had little impact on the policy makers to stop the onslaught of GM industry. Having found a foothold in Indian soil through bt cotton and observed the reluctance of policy makers to act decisively against culpable MNCs, GM interests are now readying themselves to test the first GM food crop through bt brinjal.

However, their objective is not limited to the vegetable crop of brinjal, in fact it is a litmus test before opening the flood gates for other GM food crops. Having earned thousands of crores from the sale of bt cotton seeds over last few years, the multinational seed monopolies are aiming to control the huge market of staple crops of rice and wheat.

Will the Environment Minister be able to take a decision to safeguard the health and environment of the nation? His endeavors to consult the states, and the public hearings in different cities, seem to be a genuine attempt to elicit opinions from diverse stakeholders. Nevertheless, it will be expecting too much from him to act against the powerful agri-corporates. In an administrative set up, where jettisoning the national interests in favor of parochial short term gains is fast becoming a norm, the GM lobby will find an entry, from front or backdoor, sooner or later. If blocked, these seed corporations would not hesitate to release bt brinjal illegally, as they did with bt cotton in Gujarat, forcing the government to reconsider its decision. Even contamination of the food crops is feared.

Thus, the final decision regarding bt brinjal has historical importance as it will eventually take away the farmers' control over their seeds and their independence to grow what they want. This will lead to monopoly control with political and economic leverage over millions of farmers. Eventually, both the growers and the consumers will bear the brunt of health, environmental and economic impacts of GM seeds.

Bio fuel or Bio foul policy?

By Pandurang Hegde
27 Jan 2010


The government has spelt out its intention to encourage bio-fuels but a deeper understanding of energy issues and people’s livelihood concerns is missing.

The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) has come out with a National Policy on Biofuels. The objective is to substitute some percentage of fossil fuel with bio fuel, in order to protect environment and create employment through propagation of second-generation bio fuels. The policy envisages implementing these ideas through a framework of technological, financial and institutional interventions and enabling mechanisms.

In the post Copenhagen scenario, it becomes essential for India to adhere to the issue of climate mitigation through appropriate policy interventions. In addition to solar energy, bio fuel is another area that needs to be addressed as a priority sector. The new policy prescribes that by 2017 the ministry will be in a position to supply bio fuels to meet the demand. It also aims at the target of 20 per cent blending of both bio diesel and bio ethanol by 2017.

The two main goals of the bio fuel policy is to produce bio-ethanol and bio diesel in large quantities to replace some portions of fossil fuel based petrol and diesel in the ever growing transport sector. Bio- ethanol will be produced form biomass like sugar producing substances and cellulose materials such as bagasse, wood waste, agricultural and forestry residues. Bio diesel will be produced by acids produced from vegetable oils, both edible and non-edible.

The new bio-fuel policy clarifies that the huge demand for bio diesel will be met from non-edible crops. Considering rising prices of food crops, the policy aims to avoid the conflict of food vs. fuel. It states: "The Indian approach to bio fuels, in particular, is somewhat different to the current international approaches, which could lead to conflict with food security. It is based solely on non-food feedstock to be raised on degraded or wastelands that are not suited to agriculture, thus avoiding a possible conflict of fuel vs. food security."

However, the craze for bio fuel through planting of Jatropha plantations has met with disastrous consequences on both ecological and economic fronts. Ecologically, the monoculture plantations have created havoc with micro ecosystems and economically it has become unviable due to high labour and input costs.

The energy experts who drafted the policy assume that the large stretch of wastelands in the countryside is a resource that has to be tapped for growing second-generation bio fuels. However, in reality, these waste lands, also known as CPRs (common property resources), are already performing an important function to feed the energy and nutritional security of millions of rural poor. The vulnerable communities like livestock herders; landless agricultural laborers will be negatively affected by appropriation of CPRs.

The policy addresses the issue of National Energy Security, but in the process discards the energy security of those millions of people who depend on the CPRs for their survival. In contradiction of what the policy implies, a relevant Planning Commission document states: "The Common Property Resources (CPR)…constitute the most important input for livestock production and subsistence for the poor. These are under depletion and degeneration affecting the livelihood security of the poor".

The core features of the National Policy on Bio-fuels:
Bio-diesel production from non-edible oil seeds in waste /degraded / marginal lands
An target of 20% blending of bio-fuels, both for bio-diesel and bio-ethanol, by 2017
Minimum Support Price (MSP) for non-edible oil seeds with periodic revision
Minimum Purchase Price (MPP) for purchase of bio-ethanol and bio-diesel with periodic revision
Major thrust on R&D with focus on plantations, processing and production of bio-fuels, including Second Generation Bio-fuels
Financial incentives, including subsidies and grants, may be considered for second generation bio-fuels. A National Bio-fuel Fund could be considered.
A National Biofuel Coordination Committee, headed by the Prime Minister, will be set up to provide policy guidance and coordination.
A Biofuel Steering Committee, chaired by Cabinet Secretary, will be set up to oversee implementation of the Policy.
The Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (MNRE) will be the co-ordinating Ministry for biofuel development and utilization.
An Indo-US MoU has been signed on biofuels with focus on joint R&D, particularly on second generation biofuels.
The policy states that in addition to motivating farmers to grow bio fuel, the government will also "enable corporates to undertake plantations through contract farming by involving farmers, cooperatives and Self Help Groups etc in consultation with Panchayats" and that the production of non-edible oil seeds will be supported through a Minimum Support Price.

Clearly, the intention is to facilitate entry of Corporates into the bio fuel sector with ample assurance of the support price to produce bio diesel and bio ethanol. It is ironical that the government that is unable to provide support price for the basic food crops is willing to provide fiscal incentives to grow bio fuel.

Another pillar of the policy, mainly growing of raw materials for ethanol on large-scale plantations needs to be treaded with caution. Many plants, which have been identified as second generation agro fuels, harm environment with invasive species adversely affecting the biodiversity. There is also the apprehension that it paves the way for the entry of genetically modified tree crops and non-edible crops in the name of developing bio fuels.

The most astonishing aspect of the policy is that it speaks the language as has been spelt out in the Indo US treaty on energy signed during the last India visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obviously, there is a close link between what has been incorporated in the bio fuel policy and the corporate interests that are eying the hinterland for raw material production for the second-generation bio fuels. It is pathetic that both our agricultural and energy sectors have become convenient laboratories for conducting the corporate experiments.

Analysis of the bio fuel policy reveals that conceptually it is based on very narrow parochial approach that ignores the broader linkages of energy issues. Developing any bio fuel on a large scale needs to be done on a balanced approach with least negative impact on the livelihood of common people.