NP Ariiphreou
Indigenous peoples comprise less than four percent of the population of the world but they also constitute ninety five percent of the cultural diversity and over fifty percent population in areas of high biodiversity. The past century has witness state governments and corporate actors extensively involve in the cultural and environmental destruction and exploitation of resources from the indigenous peoples territory under the garb of modernization and development. Indigenous peoples/ nations therefore have immense interest and concern with the processes and contents of UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which was negotiated in haste with minimal participation during the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The fact that indigenous peoples have nurtured species variation for thousands of years invariably puts them in the position as ‘guardians of biodiversity’ since they have made possible the current breath of biodiversity. Although Article 8j of the CBD ( came into force since1993) recognizes indigenous peoples collective rights through the term ‘community’ and consent in term of ‘approval’, the question of state sovereignty overriding the indigenous rights has been a major concern. However with the recent adoption of the UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples (2007) this notion will be severely contested since indigenous peoples are adamant that ‘no access to indigenous knowledge, innovation or practices should take place, without the prior and informed consent of the peoples. The purpose of the CBD is to protect biodiversity and so indigenous peoples local practices and knowledge are extremely important to take into consideration.
Indigenous forest fostering consists of the knowledge and sustainable use of vast numbers of different species – domesticated, semi-domesticated and wild although this distinction of ‘domesticated’ or ‘wild’ seems somewhat meaningless, with their distinct knowledge of developing and encouraging species diversification whether under agricultural cultivation or not. The harvesting of forest resources provides fruits for food and drink, medicine, shelter, pesticide and clothing. The knowledge and skill in managing these different types of forest, as well operating in a spectrum of ecological zones, demonstrate the enormous flexibility of indigenous people’s biodiversity management skills and validate their inherent sensitivity and care with which they relate to the environment.
Given that the indigenous people’s culture and subsistence are inextricably linked to their lands and territories, environmental degradation can be devastating. Indigenous knowledge and use of biodiversity is based on critical principles which have to be understood to ensure its protection.
‘In the first place indigenous peoples live in territories meaning that the people and the communities are responsible for the control and use of the total environment: soil, sub-soil, trees and plants, animals and birds. All resources are included in this generic sense of territory – including land, forest, lakes, rivers, etc. They assert that their territories are inalienable since it is owned by a people as a whole and are passed from ancestors to descendents as part of its heritage. Neither indigenous peoples nor non indigenous peoples have the right to sell or dispose of indigenous territories. The resources within therefore can be utilized or sold only by agreed consent since the own the territories collectively. Individual households work specific areas for their needs, within the framework of the territory as a whole. Territories are part of a holistic vision of the universe which includes political control over resources use; spiritual reverence for the invisible religious aspects of forest life; and a perception of the forest as a landscape fashioned by a history of indigenous activity’.
The effect is that we see a connection between territory, culture and our identity as indigenous peoples; our rights to use resources are based on customary legal systems operating within commons regimes. Generations of experience means that indigenous ownership and control leads to a defined territorial management, organized by our own political institutions. Under these conditions, we are self-determining and our freedom and dignity protect biodiversity.
Unfortunately, this mutually beneficial relationship between indigenous peoples and forest biodiversity is threatened by the strains which we find in areas which are encroached by outside forces, eager to seek fortunes and overwhelming the original inhabitants through brute force. The open access which dominant power centers have given to alien exploiters to enter the indigenous peoples territories limits the resources available for subsistence, and the danger is that biodiversity is being destroyed in the process of prolonged conflict which is exploitative and destructive by nature.
The Government of India’s position to build scores of High Dams for harnessing hydro power in the northeast region by way of imposing projects which is being vehemently resisted in the different states brings to the fore what kind of security it contemplates for the northeast. Will northeast continue to remain as a mere power storage colony for the metro India in this 21st century too without enjoying the benefits of its rich resources potentials? The Tipaimukh High Dam in Churachandpur district Manipur for instance which if constructed will be one of the largest hydropower generating Dams in the region but so far the opposition has been strong particularly from the Hill peoples in Manipur. The Dam is situated at the highly sensitive Taithu seismic faultline and is likely to submerge many historical and cultural heritage sites including destruction of a vast biodiversity species. The direct project site falls in the Hmar inhabited area but the majority of submergence will take place in the Naga areas of Manipur. The Committee against Tipaimukh Dam (CATD), a conglomerate of Naga people’s organization in the state of Manipur has been openly opposing it since the past more than two decades as the project will mean sacrificing one community for the interest of the state. The huge militarized budget is being looked upon with suspicion as a form of ethnocidal tendency alienating indigenous peoples land and lack of sensitivity to destruction of the rare biodiversity of the region. However, the response from Delhi has been bent on imposing the project whether opposition exist or not without even a mandatory environmental Impact assessment clearance. The question here is whether national security will override the quest for peoples yearning to protect the ancestral land and the invaluable ecosystem.
Now whether the new initiatives of maintaining Biodiversity registers or pooling of genetic resources to be collected and stored in genes bank will be accessible to the rightful owners in future. What kind of mechanism do the state possessed in view of the various international standards with regard to patenting of genetic resources and claimant for intellectual property rights. What kind of guarantees exists in terms of benefit sharing for the state and people of the region? These are areas which require serious contemplation, investigation and capacity building.
The recent workshop initiated by NEPED in collaboration with ICIMOD needs to be evaluated within this context. The involvement of a broad category of stakeholders in the initiative has been of paramount significance since full and effective participation is the need of the hour. However, the ultimate point will be whether there are proper legal safeguards in the protection of the people from land alienation, biopiracy or other negative affects flowing out from the implementation of this Act, which will determine the protection, sustainable use and conservation of our rich biodiversity resource. The two days workshop outcome reflects a certain level of uncertainty on this question. Despite the obscure position maintained, it is within the interest of the people that the state government gives enough time to re-examine National Biodiversity legislation and to follow up vigorously on the list of priority actions as recommended by the consultation, before fully endorsing it. Contentious issues that are likely to emerge may be on the ownership and access to genetic resources, imposition of protected areas, non accountability on the destruction on ecosystem and funding mechanism. The contest between whether people’s livelihood issues will take precedence over conservation, state interest versus community needs, etc may emerge which are sensitive and the need for institution developments to cater to such eventuality. The discussion on whether Delhi has been genuinely honoring the overall content of Article 371 A, the special provision accorded to Nagaland within the Constitution of India needs also to be seriously debated by the people in the public discourse and within the state assembly as well. Nagaland should assert full control through exercising ‘the free and informed consent’ principle over its natural resource and biodiversity wealth and to firmly negotiate with state actors or other corporate institutions wherever necessary in term of benefit sharing to have a gradual equitable growth process while maximizing the sustainable use and conservation of its biodiversity resources. The mute point is whether Nagas can harvest and protect its rich heritage within its territories swamp by problems of unguarded frontiers, emerging unpredictable climatic patterns, lack of a genuine functional democracy and increasing consumerist culture. Its time to give a serious look at this ever depletion of resources that had sustained our land, culture and identity. It’s a call to defend our survival with dignity.
