The draft National Forest Policy 2018 has come in for criticism, owing to the possibility that it could provide private parties with a free hand in how forest wealth is utilised and managed. Civil groups have objected to the proposed Public-Private Partnership model of afforestation of degraded land. The draft has given rise to the fear that private players selected for such projects could misuse provisions to cater solely to their commercial interests. The fear is not entirely unfounded but private parties too deserve the benefit of the doubt unless they are proven to be serving commercial interests alone. This, of course, is not difficult to determine in India. All that one has to do is to research what initiatives any private Indian corporate has ever initiated that could be considered positive on a sustained basis. The very first example that comes to mind is the total monopoly that automobile manufacturers such as Ambassador, Fiat, Tata, Ashok Leyland and Mahindra enjoyed for decades. In spite of complete control on the market and virtual monopoly in their respective segments, these companies never did bother to provide a simple safety seat belt for passengers or drivers. Until Maruti came with Suzuki, the local corporates had no consideration for the consumers. Even Tata and Leyland trucks never introduced a driver training programme until Volvo entered the market. Come to think of it, the apprehensions being expressed in regards to handing over the national forest wealth to private entities could very well be justified. Search the horizon and try locating a single Indian enterprise that has not grown big by using national resources! You are likely to come up with a nought. Even IT giants have grabbed prime government land in every state capital. What most don’t know is the backroom arm-twisting these information technology biggies use that result in these vast expensive real estate being cornered for virtually no compensation.
There are standing examples of natural wealth being protected by private parties quite effectively in many parts of the world. In India however there are few individuals such as Jadav Payeng, who have grown hectares of forests on their own. Although such cases may not exactly be termed as forestry perhaps in terms of standard definitions, it must be noted that individuals and organisations can often make a greater difference in protecting or enhancing the forest cover of a region than the government itself. It cannot be forgotten that a forest brigand such as Veerappan survived for so long before being eliminated also because he was working in connivance with not only forest department officials but with corporates too. There are many individuals who have taken it upon themselves to protect forests. A fact that must not be forgotten is that the government machinery is still not equipped enough to manage the forest wealth of the country effectively. Some help from private enterprises could help the effort, particularly with the effects of climate change hitting hard and targets set by international bodies of nations becoming increasingly difficult to achieve. However, a free hand to private parties to indiscriminately exploit forest resources, particularly those from natural forests, can only spell doom for this country. The draft policy mentions promoting urban greens as clause b under section 4.1.2, that is, ‘Management of trees outside forests’. The potential for involvement of private parties could be enhanced in this segment alone with strict restraints in development of farm forestry. It would not only help avoid the possibility of exploitation of natural forests by private parties but also help cities turn green with captive carbon sinks.
The final policy must not ignore the involvement and powers of local communities in the protection of natural forest wealth. Odisha has presented a shining example of the power of villagers and village panchayats in doing the right thing to conserve forest wealth. The government should not deny people dependent on forest produce for their sustenance of the right to these forests. The chief requirement of the policy, under the circumstance, would be to define clearly what a forest constitutes. Only when the definition is clear can the misuse of what really constitutes a forest be prevented. Unless the definition is clear, the doors will remain open for exploitation of the resource by all and sundry driven by greed and not by a sense of responsibility to protect forests. Those who have raised their voice against the draft policy have said that the current definition of a forest refers to an area of a hectare with more than 10 per cent green canopy as spotted by satellite imagery. This could also include plantations such as those of eucalyptus. Such a definition blurs the line between natural forests and commercial forests. The existing definition, therefore, fails to give due importance to natural forests. If a private player grows trees of a particular species over a given area for commercial purposes, it should not be considered a forest. The ministry could be faulted that, though it claims that the intention is to stimulate growth in forest-based industry as a means to develop a labour-intensive sector that could provide gainful employment to a large number of people, yet, the methodology adopted does not point towards employment generation whatsoever. While talking of generating employment, it must not forget the need to ensure that forest wealth is not plundered unsustainably. For that to happen, it will have to first ensure that tribals and other natives of forest areas are not divested of their existing powers. It has to play a vital role in also determining how forests are maintained and used because of changing global ecological scenario. Many are of the opinion that even our adivasis and traditional forest dwellers are no more steeped in conserving nature as is the requirement today. They still nurture habits of ritual hunting, podu cultivation and such activities that need to be strictly curbed. It would be equally damaging to say that forest lands be completely and unequivocally handed over to such forest dwellers. It is an admitted fact that tribals in some parts of this vast country have been used by mischievous corporates to plunder forests. Also, through so-called ‘development’ we have all helped in destroying the positive aspects of traditions of our tribal population.
Private sector may only be employed in growing forests where there aren’t any or in urban areas so that they may reap benefits from commercial forestry and employment generation. The limitations need to be very clear.