Bleeding the forests will not protect them

The New Indian Express First Published : 01 May 2011 10:39:00 PM ISTLast Updated : 01 May 2011 11:49:20 PM IST
Revolutions invariably liberate. Living up to the prototype, Union minister Jairam Ramesh claims to have launched a revolution to “liberate bamboo” at Mendha-Lekha village of Gadchiroli district in Maharashtra last week when he granted full rights to harvest and sell bamboo to local forest dwellers. The move may have won him applause from forest right advocates in the National Advisory Council. But it has left those concerned about future of India’s dwindling forests dismayed. This was facilitated by a change in the definition of bamboo in the Indian Forest Act — from timber to grass. As timber, its management was under the control of the forest department. As grass, its cultivation, harvesting and trade will now be managed by local people under the Forest Rights Act.
The move follows recommendations of a committee headed by N C Saxena, a member of the NAC. The committee recommended gradual dismantlement of state protection of forests and handing over their management to gram sabhas. The Centre has now asked all states to redefine bamboo. The logic is that since forest dwellers have a personal stake in the forests, they would protect them better than the present forest bureaucracy.
No one will dispute that the forest management in India needs sweeping reforms and a change in authoritarian mindset. But the Saxena Committee’s recipe is bound to have a disastrous impact on India’s dwindling forests. India’s 600-odd protected areas constitute just 3-4 per cent of its total area. They are places where endangered species have some degree of security. Rampant market-driven exploitation of forest products in these hotspots of biodiversity can adversely affect the delicate balance of nature. What forest dwellers require is not a marginal improvement of their status quo but new livelihood options that can get them out of their dependence on forests.