State Level workshop on upcoming draft Orissa State Forest Policy
Organized By: Vasundhara
12th & 13th November 2007
NCDS, Bhubaneswar
The Government of Orissa has proposed a draft on State Forest Policy. It is found that there is little involvement of communities in the whole process of consultation. Looking at the recent trend of resource extractive development paradigm that is mostly based on mining and industrialization, the environment and forest conservation aspects are usually ignored. At this point of time this needs to be thoroughly reviewed and discussed by the masses; as the proposed policy contradicts the spirit of National forest policy of 1988 which gives a larger role to play for village communities in the forest conservation.
This state level workshop on the proposed draft forest policy was to create a platform where community and civil society organizations could review the draft and recommend an alternative by involving people and organization involved in the process.
Day One:
- Welcome address by Mr Dhirendra Panda, Executive Director, Vasundhara
- Mr Nikunj Bhutia, Convenor OJAM was requested to chair the day’s consultation process.
- Mr. Prasant Mohanty from Vasundhara presented a brief background of forest policy and objective of the workshop. The objectives of the workshop as shared by Prasant Mohanty were as follows:-
- To generate awareness and larger dissemination of the proposed draft forest policy and recent development to the larger section of the society.
- To initiate discussion on the proposed draft forest policy, to contribute people’s views and opinions in the process of policy formulation.
To review the proposed draft and recommend an alternative by involving people and organization involved in the process
- Ms Bharati from Vasundhara presented in detail the content of the proposed draft Orissa State Forest Policy. This contained the following:
· Highlights of existing policies related to forest at Central and state level
· The pros and cons of the proposed draft policy along with a comparison where State Policy shows anomalies with National Forest Policy 1988
· Certain major challenges before the civil society in case of the final approval of Orissa State Forest Policy in its current shape and
· Spirit which largely speaks of industrial promotion at the cost of forest and forest dependent communities of Orissa.
After this presentation, the following deliberations were made by eminent social activists, govt. officials and academicians
Mr. Premananda Pattanaik (Former PCCF, J&K and Ex-Technical Coordinator, OFSSP):
· Forest policy drafting process started in May 2007.
· Govt. of Orissa thought of formulating a new policy for the state considering forest related diversities and variations existing in the state.
· Some NGOs/ civil society organizations were associated and involved in the process.
· Taking in to account all suggestions from these diverse groups from different workshops, the current draft was formulated.
· There is still scope and people’s views should be taken in to consideration in policy formulation.
Mr. C.R. Mohapatra (Former PCCF (Wildlife), Orissa drafting committee member OSFP):
· Why the policy is being framed now is a big question.
· It is understood that there are lot of loopholes and we must think how acceptable any policy would be for our future generations.
· We plan to develop a policy in line with NFP and not really different from it
· We need to think how communities can be involved and how their thoughts can be accommodated.
· We have to think for our forthcoming generations. There is no alternative for podu cultivation that is even practiced in most of the South Asian countries. It is scientific in its own sense. Tribals normally do not think of future; they are primarily concerned for today. This needs to be understood.
· Forest Department officials should understand the local need and practices and create awareness accordingly among people.
Dr. B.D. Sharma (President, Bharat Jana Andolan; Former Commissioner, National ST & SC Commission):
· Any policy is a transformation and reflection of the thoughts and plans of the ruling class and everybody forgets this fact. It should be thought that whether affected people would make policies or we frame it as per our comfort?
· External forces have been active to influence our whole governance system since long. Can’t we adopt a process which will reflect people’s views?
· Any policy has to be of the people, by the people and for the people. “Unless a policy is looked from people’s perspective, no policy will be a valid and viable one.”
· The idea of pumping in unnecessary money was equal to creating damage to the health of the forest. There is no need for investment in forest. Forest has actually not grown out of investments rather than for something else where communities have contributed.
· The concept of social forestry is a western concept taught to us which was irrelevant to our local specificities/ context. Social Forestry originally meant, “The forest in its current form is an essential part of people’s life and livelihood” but this essence was distorted to afforestation and tree felling activities in the name of Social Forestry.
· Plantations shouldn’t be termed as forest rather natural regeneration is forest in its true sense. A natural forest is the real forest which produces thousands of things and use of which adivasis know very well. A symbiotic relationship exists between tribals and forest which cannot be disturbed. There is lack of trust on people in all kinds of work which we try to implement.
· We live in an age where our principles carry socialist view but we have been practicing capitalism/ slavery. Currently money reins the supreme power and it is virtually the State. How do we control the power of money in making policies?
· We cannot protect forests by arms and ammunitions. It would only lead to conflict and is actually a clear road to destruction of forests.
· We need to see contradictions in our policies/ rules and regulations. Emphasis should be on Forest Right (Schedule Tribe and other Traditional Forest Dweller) Act, 2006, (FRA 2006) that needs to be taken as a basis while framing related policies. Discrepancies in Orissa panchayat rules/ Act must be removed. Natural/traditional boundaries vs. revenue boundaries are still creating conflict and need to be addressed.
The above deliberation was followed by an e use the correct name).
ills.
ocratieloped.
.)sidents of PCs/ Union
ity build-up before formalies
open house session where certain queries were put forth by participants. Some of these were:
· Current Status of rules under FRA 2006
· Is there any space for CFM[1] in current Orissa Forest Policy
· Looking at the trend of mining and pollution in some part of Orissa, particularly Keonjhar, how far this policy process would be helpful.
· Orissa Jungle Mancha, which represents above 10000 community forest protection initiatives of the state, has been in continuous dialogue process with government on various issues related to forest. Why department officials didn’t involve them in this process of policy formulation.
· How far imparting executive and judicial power to forest officials is going to affect general public?
Ms Madhu Sarin (Member, Working group on Forest, 11th Planning Commission of Government of India):
· The key question lies in the entire process of making the policy the issue of proper representativeness from different quarters, particularly the local communities who are supposed to have a decisive stake.
· How can a policy be silent about people’s right over forest, where, in an unlawful manner, people’s resources have been appropriated in the name of forest?
· Forests cannot be left under sole management, ownership and control of forest department. It is actually a multi-disciplinary area which must be recognized.
· The issue of forest jurisdiction is thus crucial which has however not been figured in the draft policy. The draft policy talks about immunity to forest officials and giving them judicial powers which is a matter of great concern..
· The policy note preparation process seems to be restricted within Forest Department only where as a properly coordinated and integrated approach between all departments need to be taken in to account.
Mr Lingaraj Pradhan (Eminent Social Activist):
Orissa has formulated its Industrial Policy Resolution to widen up its industry based development model and this forest policy is only supplementary to this aim.
· Let’s be clear that central government has already come up with a national forest policy and has given directives to state governments to pass that as state policy but almost none of the states have done so.
· Let’s discuss the framework for a proper forest policy of the state. Though we are right in thinking that why wider consultation with people haven’t been taken up but from the perspective of govt. it’s not an issue. We need to be clear, straight and transparent about our views regarding this policy.
· Unless people come to know the changes taking place in policy and the direction in which it is moving, no changes in terms of real pro-people governance can be brought; there will be no awareness, people’s movement.
· Government is totally dependent on foreign fund for Orissa’s development and exclusively dependent on foreign agencies to make policies for them and look after their proper implementation.
· The present forest policy will support Orissa’s forest – we should not live under this misconception but it is only to promote mining based industries.
· There are acts framed by Britishers which say for Public Interest government can take over any land. But what is that public interest needs to be seen. There is a need for greater public debate over these issues.
· The objective of policy should not be foreign fund for forest but also promotion of natural regeneration. And for this a massive people’s movement is very essential in today’s context.
Mr. N. C. Kanungo (Environmentalist & Retired DFO):
· We have NFP and 2020 Vision, but we have to decide our vision for a state policy. Now definition for forest is changing and it is being named as ecological property of the country.
· Administration should first decide up on its mission and vision with respect to forest. Go for wider consultation and then only come up with a pro-people policy.
· People of Orissa should be consulted for policy formulation, not outsiders who don’t hold a stake here.
· Isn’t forest an industry, on which, hundreds and thousands of tribals depend for their livelihood? It should be handed over to them in total.
· The sustainability aspect should be taken in to consideration for any sort of policy formulation and usufruct pattern.
Prof. Kailash Saraf (Professor in Economics, Sambalpur University):
· Tribal, the most forest dependents find no place in this draft policy. Tribal livelihood will be totally threatened by this policy.
· People have their traditional knowledge of collection, value addition of forest produces. All the organizations and communities of Orissa should come forward to protest against this kind of policy.
· The essence of FRA 2006 is totally lacking in this policy framework. There is no mention of Gramsabha, which is very surprising! It should be given top priority in taking local decision with respect to forest as well as livelihood enhancement/ promotion.
Mr. Nikunj Bhutia (Convenor OJAM):
· Industry driven policy is never going to help people. Why do we need investment in plantation?
· Talking about Gramsabha and Pallisabha. People in the Kalahandi area clearly said in their Pallisabhas that they don’t need industry in their forest. But their voice remained unheard.
· Govt. of Orissa has tried to dilute all central Acts and policies while framing them for Orissa. Gramsabha and Pallisabha is another such concept in Orissa where Pallisabha has no legal binding.
· It’s a suggestion that a group should emerge from this workshop to work on the draft forest policy and suggest the decisions to the government.
The first day concluded with Dr B. D. Sharma views that the Forest Right Act should be implemented as soon as possible with framing of its rules. It has been delayed for long. Once the rule is framed, there won’t be time left with people to think.
After the concluding session Mr Dilip Kumar Sahu, President of Forest and Environment Protection society facilitated the process of dividing into different groups for detail and specific discussion on the proposed draft forest policy, to contribute the views and opinions in the process of policy formulation.
Media Meet:
As a part of the workshop process, a press meet was organized on 12th November 2007.
In the Press meet, Ms Madhu Sarin, member of working group on Forest, 11th Planning Commission of Government of India, Dr. B.D. Sharma, President, Bharat Jana Andolan, Former Commissioner, National ST & SC Commision and Mr Lingaraj Pradhan, Eminent Social Activist interacted with the media people on various aspect of the proposed policy and its implication on community. Nearly 22 media person from both electronic and print media attended the meet.
Day Two:
The second day was chaired by Mr Purnachandra Mohapatra, President, Jungle Surakshya Mahasangha, Nayagarh, Bhagyabansingh Patra, Ekta Parishad, Mr. A.K.Pani, Adibasi Kranti Sangathan, Dhenkanal and Mr Duryodhan Majhi, Sunabeda Sangharsa Bahini, Nuapada. The day started with a brief recapitulation of previous day’s discussions; there were presentations by respective groups on their feed back on the draft policy as well as strategy for future.
Group Presentation highlights:
Group I
· Forest rather being looked at as a source of revenue maximization, should be regarded as environmental resource with abundant biodiversity. The symbiotic relationship between forest dependent people and their forest should be central to all policy formulations.
· Forest policy shouldn’t encourage industrialization and financial investment. There should be no forest based industry promotion in the policy.
· Policy formulation process should involve CFM groups, federations, voluntary organizations and others working on forest related issues.