Recommendations To
The Various Aspects Of
The Nagaland Biodiversity Rules (Nbr), 2010
Free Trade Agreements and IPRs on BMCs
1. The BMCs are very much related to the Free Trade Agreements IPR rules, as depending on the provisions in the agreement, the BMC and its role might be constrained.
For instance, an important component is to ensure that the BMC has the capacity to revoke and refuse patents - if it is found that the biological diversity convention (BDC) guidelines were not followed (Free, prior and informed consent, sharing agreement) the BMC can also act as a body to "promote conservation, sustainable use" and not only as a body for documentation.
2. IPR provisions within EU and E-FTA (also the Indo- ASEAN FTAs) provisions ensure that patents can't be revoked or refused once it is patented. This then makes the BMC a simple documentation body which facilitates Trans-National Corporates patenting and appropriation of biological resources.
3. For the Levy of fee on access of biological resources, what standards (locally as well as internationally), are we looking at to arrive at addressing the issue of benefit sharing?
Recommendation to Rule No. 25 (Sub-section 3)
• Whereas the Deputy Commissioner is recommended as the Chairperson for the District BMC, we recommend that he be made the member secretary. The chairperson should appropriately be the President of the Tribal Hoho. This is to ensure that the traditional guardians of biodiversity in Nagaland be privileged over the Village Councils.
Query on Rule No. 26 (sub-section 12-c)
• What can be termed as excess utilization? How does it impact or relate to the issue of water supply and the MOUs with the owners/ guardians of the water sources?
Rule 16: General functions of the Board
Sub-Section (13): Prepare ecotourism and eco-development codes for biodiversity significant areas;
Recommendations:
1. Mere formation of codes is inadequate. Codes are only guidelines and are therefore not legally binding. A stringent regulatory mechanism should be put in place, which holds the government as well private parties accountable.
2. Some states have been able to put in place such regulatory mechanisms like Himachal Pradesh, in its ecotourism policy. The policy, which mentions regulation of ecotourism activities, suggests the conducting of periodic impact assessment studies, whether positive or negative with regard to each project, which would cover the following:
• Environmental aspects i.e. tourist number and carrying capacity
• Economic aspects i.e. seasonal employment opportunities for porters, employment of women etc.
• Socio-cultural aspects i.e. decline in local support for local traditions and institutions, changes in traditional architecture, adverse impact on women etc.
3. The concept of the ecotourism code of conduct should be expanded to include aspects like spatial spread, design and architecture, use of material for construction, renewable energy use, low carbon footprints, low resource use, responsible waste management and respect for local culture, practices and sensibilities, etc.
4. One method to ensure that the Rules, 2010 do not just offer lip service is for Nagaland to have a separate ecotourism policy, which specifies a regulatory mechanism.
5. India draws heavily from documents that emerge from international agencies and think tanks. We need to remember that it is the frameworks and ideological underpinnings of neoliberal globalisation that inform much of current conservation thinking and action – resulting in serious concerns of legitimacy and credibility.
6. The guidelines that are stated in these documents continue to view people as threats to biodiversity. They suggest that generating revenues from tourism would reduce poverty and therefore reduce threats to biodiversity. Restriction of, prevention and management of tourism especially in fragile ecosystems has not been considered. The role of the private sector and of corporations has been privileged at the expense of indigenous and local communities that inhabit biodiversity rich areas. A shift from this perspective is critical when conceptualising the form of ecotourism in Nagaland.
7. Along with the international agreements that the NBR 2010 refers to, there are tourism specific international guidelines and principles formed which the NBR could refer to. These are: Agenda 21 for the Travel and Tourism Industry, UNWTO’s global code of ethics (2001) and the guidelines of the Commission on Biological Diversity (CBD) on tourism
Rule 26: Functions of Biodiversity Management Committee
Sub-Section 11(e): Monitor violation of ecotourism and eco-development code and report to the Board.
Recommendations:
1. The mere monitoring of violations of the ecotourism code is insufficient. The specific action to be taken in case of violation should be spelt out.
2. Forest departments are promoting and implementing tourism. Many have ecotourism cells but very few have clear strategies or plans for impact assessments of tourism’s implications on conservation or biodiversity. The Department of Forest, Nagaland should assess the impacts of tourism projects before they are cleared.
3. Tourism projects are exempted from Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006 (also under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986) Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification. EIA for projects was made mandatory in India in 1994 with the objective to predict environment impact of projects, find ways and means to reduce adverse impacts, and if these impacts were too high, to disallow such projects. The Ministry of Environment and Forest’s new Notification in 2006, has removed tourism projects from the mandatory list requiring the conduct of EIA and clearance from the Central Government. In fact, tourism is considered harmless and ecotourism is believed to facilitate conservation.
The following are some of the Issues with respect to Ecotourism and Biodiversity, which need to be explored and included in the NBR, 2010:
• Conservation and Displacement:
Under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, section 2(d), non-forestry activity is prohibited in a forest area. A proviso on explanation of “non-forest purpose” lays down that it does not include any work relating to or ancillary to conservation. Using the argument that revenues from tourism could potentially be used for conservation, tourism has pushed itself into forest areas, though it is clearly a non- forest purpose. However, tourism is yet to prove in a substantial manner that it contributes to conservation.
Creation of ‘tourism zones’ inside PAs further intensifies the seeming contradiction between the aims of conservation and the rights of displaced communities. This has led to the process of legitimising the functioning of a global industry inside an ecologically sensitive region, while indigenous people and local communities have been aggressively ejected from their forests. The NBR should be sensitive to this issue and include appropriate checks and balances.
Conservation and Indigenous Communities
Conservation has relied on a contested set of principles of “wilderness”. Humans have been viewed primarily as an invasive species, encroaching on otherwise pristine areas, their activities leading inexorably to the erosion of biodiversity. This has mandated the exclusion of humans from biologically diverse landscapes, or the restriction of livelihoods of local people in such areas. As a result, the role of indigenous communities in the protection of nature through symbiotic relationships – religious, cultural, economic and social has not been studied enough, their histories not documented and their knowledge and active participation has not been sought to be included in the body of scientific knowledge and project implementation. Therefore, the existing framework of conservation sidelines issues of ethics and rights of vast sections of society who are protectors of and dependent on natural resources and biodiversity.
Very often the carrying capacity / limits of acceptable change of the area is much lower than the number of actual tourists, thereby further impacting conservation.
Recommendations:
• Strengthening regulation and laws to ensure the protection of ecosystems and customary rights of indigenous & local communities; in this regard:
• Reinstating tourism in the list of the developmental activities that require environmental clearances under the EIA Notification, 2006
• Respecting and complying with laws and regulations to ensure long term sustainable equitable and sensible tourism and not only pushing for short term rewards
• Demonstrating environmentally responsible practices by adopting codes of conduct.
Submitted by:
DICE Foundation, Kohima
Nagaland
