The two day State Level Consultation on National Bio-Diversity Act 2002 beginning Monday provides an equal opportunity for policy makers as well as the stakeholders to sit down and deliberate on what is now becoming an urgent need to inform, educate and communicate on conservation and protection of our natural resources with a view to ensure its sustainable management and use for future generations. Hopefully, the organizers will look into this aspect and spent as much time possible enlightening on the basic ingredients before going into the technicalities of the Biological Diversity Act. The consultation itself should not become a one-off affair but would require post-evaluation and follow up action, especially public awareness campaign to educate the people and institutions and for the government to take whatever measures required, encouraging in the process, a greater understanding and appreciation of the value of biological diversity.
The initiative being taken by NEPED and the Department of Environment and Forests is the first step—in the right direction. But the real challenge will be to develop a State specific and people oriented usage to take forward the Biodiversity Act, which has laid down the framework. The consultation therefore must also keep in focus the need to develop indigenous strategies and the application of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices especially at the institutional level. In this regard, the “Communitization Model” of development has proved to be a fine example of people’s participation in governance. While the Act mandates the establishment of State Biodiversity Boards (SBB) and at local levels Biodiversity Management Committees (BMC), whether a State like Nagaland will be able to afford them. It would be instead advisable to have the SBB and BMC incorporated into the existing institutions like the State Planning Board and the Village Development Boards (VDB) respectively.
The State level consultation must also deliberate on the measures that need to be taken in order to ensure—for the State, community and people—the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from research and development and use of biological and genetic resources, including biotechnology, between the sources of those resources (eg. the indigenous communities) and those who use them (eg. multinationals). It must be borne in mind that at the end, States and more importantly the people must have the sovereign right to exploit their own biological resources as well as the responsibility to conserve their biodiversity and use their resources in a sustainable manner.
As far as threat perception in the context of Nagaland goes, the most serious concern is land use change involving massive reduction in natural vegetation and corresponding loss of indigenous species both flora and fauna. With ever increasing population and demographic movement intensifying towards the urban growth centre, the strain it is putting on our eco-system is leading to a precarious situation where our water source is getting contaminated, forests are falling, paddy fields, marshes are being converted into new land for raising cash crops and plantation or for urban development.
Importantly, the strategies for conservation of biodiversity must be properly integrated into our developmental plans. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures must be made mandatory for proposed projects likely to have significant impacts upon biodiversity. Further given that a majority of land among the Nagas is privately owned, the government must also develop policies to encourage the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of natural resources in private lands. Identifying and promoting biodiversity hotspots in the State can also be taken up in partnership with the local community. Successful models like the Khonoma Green Village initiative as also the Khonoma Nature Conservation and Tragopan Sanctuary can be studied and its best practices replicated wherever applicable.
