Drivers of Deforestation and Climate Change

Challenging the Fundamentals

By: Sreetama Gupta Bhaya Market based neo liberal Approach ‐the political economy

Out of the 11, 40,176.86 ha approximately 3, 11,220.38 hectares has been cleared by the Ministry of Environment and Forest from 2003‐2007, i.e. a quarter of the total clearances in 4 years since 1980

Over 70% of forest land cleared for mining since 1981, has been in the period 1997‐2007

Project displaced people as estimated by researchers of the Council for Social Development to be in the order of 60 million;

State of Orissa forest land diverted(1982‐91: 9800 ha; 1992‐2004: 19257ha). One immediately observable indicator of deforestations is the distance that is required to be traveled to collect a shoulder load of fuel wood (1995: 4.09 km 2000: 7.30 km). This is similar to what is happening across India. Environmental policies that account for project clearance more than conservation agenda

Environmental governance framework rests on a mitigation based, ‘polluter pays’ model. more and more areas that are wildlife habitats, agricultural lands, critical watersheds, are being freed of ‘legal and administrative encumbrances.

Weakness of political governance

Decentralization has not lead to increased acess to natural resource by the poor. The tussle remains as who control the resources‐the decision making power?

How the forest is viewed, “ scientific management” in the “expert domain’ shrinking space for communities to participate

Rights of indigenous communities further curtailed in the Protected areas and Eviction continues History of forest policies In India • Social forestry programs provided incentive to large‐scale industries to clear fell ecologically valuable degraded forest areas and common property lands for plantations.

 JointForestManagement was again a State promoted progamme imposed on communities leading to conflict and confusion

 No Secured tenure on land, only concession granted for access

• disregard for local knowledge, forcing communities to participate in ways that undermined sustainable practice. , not the sacred space that defined life, living and heritage.

• Emergence of local movement, argued for participatory democracy, through empowering grassroots institutions, land reforms and contol over resources.

• Thousands of community groups continue to protect their forests. However the challenges faced by community forest groups today ‘scontext are complex and multilayered. Forest Rights Act 2006 Main objectives

– Correction of historical injustice to adivasi peoples living inside forests, so far denied guaranteed access to forest lands and resources

– Provision of rights to secure livelihoods and cultures of adivasis Enabling provisions of FRA

 Right to Protect, regenerate, conserve or manage any community forest resource which they have been traditionally protecting for sustainable use  Empowers Gram Sabha to protect wild life, forest and biodiversity;and regulate access Fundamental questions related to REDD+

“The problem of climate change involves a fundamental failure of markets: those who damage others by emitting greenhouse gases generally do not pay…Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen. –Stern Report

How is it expected that market mechanisms can undo the damage

Historical evidence of failure of compensatory afforestation programme in India and use of JFM as mechanism to control by the forest Department and hence the state. Further centralization through REDD potential to encourage land grabbing, destructive plantations and violation of forest dwellers' rights.

Trading on forest carbon credits will lead companies and the government to shut off forests from all use by people, on the one hand, and on the other will encouarge fictional carbon storage figures. REDD is a charter for the dispossession of peoples who today have stewardship over forests.REDD hitches the future of the world’s remaining forests to the price of carbon. What a Scam! Australia’s REDDoffsets for Copenhagen Friends of the Earth Australia, Aid/Watch, WALHI, & Serikat Petani The “Bali Action Plan” calls for: “Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries”.

Problem areas • “conservation” can be misused for eviction of communities

• “sustainable management of forests” could include subsidies to commercial logging as well as controlling forest governance “in the name of scientific management”

• enhancement of forest carbon stocks” could result in conversion of land (including forests) to industrial tree plantations, with serious implications for biodiversity, forests and local communities. Urgent need to…..

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.

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.

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.

All forest legislations should attempt to bring about a reconciling conservation with livelihood. The policies should be enabling rather than conflicting and contradictory. 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 ensuring social justice. . 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). Reference

•F inal report: National Workshop on Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in India(26th – 28th January 2008)

•Lic ense to Destroy (Environmental Regulatory Framework in the Era of Economic Growth). Co‐authored by Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli.

• http://old.cseindia.org/programme/industry/mining/forest_minerals.htm

• http://www.redd-monitor.org/

FERN Report; From green ideals to REDD money...A brief history of schemes to save forests for their carbon

• http://www.forestrightsact.com/climate-change- Campaign For Survival and Dignity.