Para wise comments on the draft National Forest Policy 2018

2.7 Safeguard forestland by exercising strict restraint on diversion for non-forestry

purposes, and strict oversight on compliance of the conditions.

While one of the objective of the forest policy is exercising strict restraint on diversion of
forest forests for non forest purposes, It completely fails to articulate any meaningful steps
on what will be those strict restraint and what will be the compliance condition. While the
policy claims that natural forests will be protected, not having any meaningful plan to limit
to one of the biggest threats to natural forests (diversion of forest for non forest purposes)
nullifies all the benefits from the policy.

4.1.1 (d) Increase the productivity of forest plantations

The draft policy talks about developing “public private participation models” for undertaking
“afforestation and reforestation activities in degraded forest areas” If passed, How the
MoEFCC will ensure that local ecology is not destroyed. By allowing private
companies to afforest and reforest, it only opens up the door for planting
commercially valuable species, in most cases these species will become invasive and
end up destroying the local ecology.

Also how will be competing land/resource use will be managed? If a forest are is leased out for a
private company for afforestation or reforestation and the same land is used by the local
community for grazing, NTFP collection and other purposes, how will these interests be
managed is not clear. It also could lead to a situation where there could be fensing of forest
areas by private companies, which could lead to serious issues for animal migration and people
access to resources and movement. Hence PPP model should not be allowed on forest areas.

2.13 Integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in forest management
through the mechanism of REDD+(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation plus) so that the impacts of the climate change is minimised
Draft forest policy recognises the challenge of climate change but persists with the outdated
approach on plantations. The livelihoods of local communities finds mention in the current
draft only thrice: as passive recipients of benefits accruing from wildlife tourism, as labour
for forest-based industries and in relation to non-timber forest produce (NTFP). On the
last count, the draft policy mentions that business plans for NTFP will be developed based
on “climate-smart value chains” but does not specify how any such initiative will be
owned or its benefits shared.

The current policy draft, together with the CAMPA Bill, highlights a shift in the approach
to Indian forestry. Both are pushing for massive afforestation: one by providing funds and
the other providing the necessary legal space. The red flag here is that the afforestation is
now of “commercially important” invasive timber species that are harmful to the local
ecology.

4.2.6 Develop a national forest ecosystems management information system & 4.1.1 (h)
Strengthen participatory forest management

The 1988 policy acknowledged this “symbiotic relationship between the tribal people and
forests” and was inclusive in its approach to forestry. It stated that community
requirements that could not be met by rights and concessions awarded to them should be
met by social forestry outside the reserved forests. These ideals provided legal space to
introduce concepts like joint forest management (JFM), which encouraged community
involvement in the management and protection of forests and also ensured to some
extent that the benefits accrued were shared equitably.

The Forest Rights Act, 2006, took this a step further. The Act was framed to correct a
historical injustice by recognising the forest rights of Scheduled Tribes and other forest
dwellers. The legislation asked that forest rights be given to individuals and communities
on land (not exceeding four hectares) that they had been using for generations. The Act
also ordered village gram sabhas to constitute committees to conserve and manage this
land and prepare management plans for community forest resources.

While the current draft also promotes the same concept – “All efforts to ensure synergy
between Gram Sabha & JFMC will be taken for ensuring successful community participation
in forest management.” Its very clear the MoEFCC is only expecting communities to
participate and not to give free and prior informed consent (FPIC). This is against the Forest
Rights Act 2006 which provides communities powers to protect and manage resources
through community forest rights. Large scale plantations projects and leasing forest land to
private companies should be treated equally to forest land diversion to non forest purpose
and hence go through the mandatory consent process under FRA