Open Letter to the Prime Minister of India

20th March, 2006

(Issued on the Eve of the 8th Conference of Parties to the Biodiversity Convention)

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIAMUST MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

India’s immense biological diversity is under serious threat, more than ever in its long history. So too are its traditional communities, who with their long-standing knowledge and skills, are uniquely adapted to helping in conserving this diversity.

Unfortunately, the last few years have seen an increasing abdication, by the Government of India and in particular it’s Ministry of Environment and Forests, of its responsibility in sustaining the country’s biodiversity.

The country is seriously failing its obligations under the international Convention on Biological Diversity. Its Third National Report to the Convention contains several false claims of taking actions complying with the Convention’s requirements.

At the 8th Conference of Parties to the CBD, to which a delegation from the Government has been sent, India must resolve to take steps to reverse its recent destructive trajectory and move towards a more conservation-oriented, people-centred approach.

India ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1994. In doing so, it committed to move towards three critical goals: conservation of its biological diversity, sustainable use of its biological resources, and equity in sharing the benefits of such use. The CBD obliges member governments to formulate laws, draw up action plans, and take other measures to achieve the above goals.

How has India fared in meeting these obligations? In the first few years after ratifying the CBD, the Indian Government moved to draft a law on biodiversity, and to formulate an action plan. It seemed to be moving seriously towards the above-mentioned goals. However, in the last few years it seems to have increasingly lost its way.

India’s Third National Report, submitted to the CBD Secretariat in 2005, contains many apparently deliberate untruths about compliance with central goals of the CBD, along with some honest admissions of incomplete implementation.

In addition, it’sinterim National Report on implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (submitted in January 2006),also contains many half-truths.

Amongst the significant failures in India’s implementation of the CBD, are the following.

  1. Environmental impact assessment

The CBD requires countries to assess the impacts of development projects on biodiversity. Its AKWÉ: KON Voluntary Guidelines”, serve as guidance to countries to develop and implement impact assessment regimes, especially in relation to sacred sites and other lands/waters traditionally occupied or used by indigenous and local communities.

Contrary to India’s representations in its Third National Report, India has failed to bring its impact assessment procedures into compliance with the AKWE: KON guidelines. India’s relevant legal statute on this is the Environment Impact Assessment Notification (EIA) 1994, under the Environment Protection Act 1986. The government has been systematically diluting its provisions, and in 2005 moved to further amend them in a way that takes them even further away from the spirit and content of the AKWE: KON guidelines. Specifically:

  1. The Guidelines suggest measures to prevent or mitigate negative impacts of proposed development projects. However, while in theory mitigation measures of often proposed to justify clearance, India has taken few steps to actually ensure mitigation. Moreover, even though mitigation is often impossible in the case of high impact projects, they still get environmental approval. Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project on the Tamil Nadu coast, for instance, will have a severe impact on livelihoods of fisherfolk and marine biodiversity, and has met with stiff local opposition. Similar is the case with Polavaram Dam in Andhra Pradesh. Yet these projects have been cleared. Many industrial and development projects are operating without environmental approval. Instead of taking action on such projects, the MoEF in July 2005 issued an amendment to the EIA notification assisting all those units which were operating without clearances, to get post-facto clearance! And many other projects are operating in violation of the mitigatory norms they were approved under, yet rarely has MoEF taken the step of ordering their closure or punishing the guilty persons.
  2. The Guidelines suggest cultural, environmental and social impact assessment procedures that take into account the needs and concerns of indigenous and local communities.This would require the central involvement of such communities. But there is a total lack of such involvement at most stages of the EIA process, and virtually no indigenous/local community has been involved in the drafting of the EIA Notification 2005 and the National Environment Policy (which contains significant clauses on EIAs).
  3. The Guidelines suggest the establishment of a review and appeals process. The main legislation directly related to challenging environment clearances is the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) Act. Since it was set up in 1997, the authority has heard only about 20 cases; for most of its existence, the post of its Chairperson has not even been filled! Recent cases where the NEAA has been completely non-functional include the hearings of the Loharinag Pala Hydro electric project (Uttaranchal), and the Middle Siang Hydro Electric Project (Arunachal Pradesh). A case has been filed in September 2005 against the environment clearance granted to the expansion of a Jindal Steel plant in Raigarh (Chhatisgarh), but since there is no NEAA established, this case has not been heard.
  4. The Guidelines suggest that indigenous/local communities likely to be impacted by a development process (impact on sacred sites, common property and so on), should be identified and then made a part of the screening and scoping process.Neither the present nor the proposed EIA legislation have even such an intention in mind. In fact often there is violence and force used against indigenous/local community members who object to the development and industrial pressures in the regions.There are examples like this from all across the country, especially North East India and the states of Orissa (where recently several tribal people were killed during a peaceful protest against an industry), Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh.
  5. The Guidelines suggest that EIAs should include in the assessment team experts, including indigenous experts, in the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices related to the relevant ecosystems. Rather than move towards this, the Indian regime only encourages EIAs by consultancy groups. Almost never are indigenous experts involved, Infact, increasingly international groups like PriceWaterHouse Coopers, McKinsey and Ernst and Young are employed to carry out assessments for sectoral and city/urban development planning. There is not a single known case of EIA teams involving indigenous (tribal)/community experts, and MoEF has never required this to be done by project authorities.

These are only a few examples of the complete disregard of these international obligations in the national EIA process. A more detailed analysis of this has been prepared by NGOs, and can be accessed from the undersigned.

Symbolic of India’s neglect of these guidelines is its response in the Third National Report; under the section on AKWE: KON Guidelines, it has mainly talked about how it is encouraging the conservation of sacred groves….there is not a single mention of EIA regimes and procedures!

  1. Protecting the knowledge and rights of local communities

Articles 8j and 10c of the CBD, and several decisions taken by the CBD Conference of Parties, require strong legal and policy measures to protect the rights, interests, and knowledge of indigenous (tribal) and other local communities.

Again, contrary to India’s claims in its Third National Report, the country is very far from meeting these obligations. To give examples:

  1. While the Biological Diversity Act 2002 has a general clause on the protection of traditional knowledge, no operative mechanisms for this have been put into place. Most shocking is how the Biological Diversity Rules 2004, meant to operationalise the Act, have not empowered local communities to protect such knowledge. On the contrary, communities have been given the primary task of preparing biodiversity knowledge registers, which in the absence of legal protection could become an easy source of biopiracy by corporations eager to cash in on traditional knowledge. Though the draft Biodiversity Rules were put up for public comments, and many groups had given comments on how to include traditional knowledge protection, MoEF ignored these comments while notifying the final Rules.
  2. MoEF in the Third National Report has claimed to have involved tribal and other local communities in implementing its obligations under the CBD. However, barring one exception (see section on NBSAP below), MoEF has not involved such communities in any consultation relating to important environmental decisions, nor put such communities as members of key environmental committees. There is no member of communities in the National Biodiversity Authority, or the National Wildlife Board. A National Environment Policy has been drafted without any consultation with communities.
  3. As part of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas, India is obliged to move towards respecting the rights of and involving communities living in and around wildlife protected areas. It has actually moved in the opposite direction, using directions from the courts to deny the rights of 3 to 4 million people, encouraging state governments to dispossess communities of their customary access to biological and other natural resources inside protected areas. Its own National Wildlife Action Plan 2002, which had set a more participatory direction for conservation, has been languishing.
  4. In the past few years, several destructive development projects have been allowed inside or immediately bordering the traditional and ancestral lands of indigenous (tribal) and other local communities based on incomplete and inadequate impact assessments. The EIA consultants for these projects have completely failed to evaluate the cultural and social impacts of the project, or to involve local people in carrying out the assessments. In the case of the Teesta V hydro electric project in Sikkim, the MoEF Expert Committee required the project authorities to conduct an ethnographic study before considering clearance of the project since it is situated in close proximity to the settlements of the indigenous Lepchas and Bhutias. However the project was granted clearance by MoEF before this study was completed!
  5. Increasingly, India is exhibiting an IPR approach to the protection of traditional knowledge, such as in recent amendments to domestic IPR legislation, the establishment of scientific databases which are not in the hands of the communities, or recently drafted ABS agreements. The dominant approach is that of commodifying people's knowledge, while the government brokers the price. Such a contract-based approach not only shows deep disrespect to the cultural beliefs of many of our indigenous/tribal and local communities that revere life forms, but also disregards the intrinsic value of the biological resources as is, the loss of which that can never be compensated by money.There has been little attempt to give communities the benefit of full usage rights to the biological resources necessary for traditional community livelihoods and knowledge, innovation and practices. On the contrary, the government is increasingly privatising resources such as water, land and forests, precluding any possibility of the benefit of sharing.
  1. Formulating a national action plan

The only prominent example of where MoEF has actively involved a wide spectrum of citizens including local communities is in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process. It was bold enough to outsource the coordination of this process to an NGO, and gave its support to a process of planning that involved thousands of people across the country in a series of grassroots exercises. The process was acknowledged by many including UNDP, which routed the GEF money that went into it, as being international best practice.

Unfortunately, since 2003, when the final national draft of the NBSAP was submitted to it, MoEF has betrayed the spirit of the process. It has become non-transparent, sitting on and then “rejecting” the draft on flimsy grounds, and delaying the formulation of the final action plan by over two years. It is a shame that India, which had in 2004 lobbied at the 7th Conference of Parties of the CBD for a deadline of 2006 for all countries to submit their NBSAPs, does not yet have one of its own.

  1. Ensuring biosafety and safeguarding agricultural biodiversity

There have been no “regular consultations” with all relevant stakeholders on the issue of biosafety, as claimed by the Indian government. From the first field trials of transgenic cotton to the Draft National Biotechnology Strategy and Policy 2005 issued by the Department of Biotechnology, legitimate concerns on the matter not taken into consideration have compelled civil society groups to legally challenge the issue in public interest. There has never been a national dialogue or attempt to “create awareness” about the pros and cons of GE crops, nor any steps towards an independent scientific assessment on the safety of such crops. The rapid spread of GE cotton, and the proposed clearances to other GE crops including some food crops, has put India’s rich agricultural biodiversity and traditional farming systems at risk of genetic pollution.

To its credit, the Indian Government has continued a ban on the use of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS), including the "terminator technology". However, the fact that it did not oppose the recommendations to the COP emerging from the Granada meeting in January 2006, which threaten to dilute the de facto global moratorium on this technology, have weakened India's earlier strong position.

Conclusion: what must India do?

India was one of the most pro-active countries in the formulation of the CBD, and in pushing for its implementation in the initial years after its coming into force.Unfortunately it has lost its leadership role in the last few years; worse, it has started violating the CBD’s provisions. In doing so, it is further endangering its already fast-eroding biodiversity, threatening the future of its uniquely and culturally diverse traditional communities, and opening up traditional knowledge to various forms of biopiracy and misuse.

If it is to regain its international leadership role in the field of biodiversity, India must reverse the trend of the last few years. It must:

  • REVIEW and MODIFY national laws and policies to make them more in line with the triple CBD concerns of conservation, sustainable use, and equity; in particular, strengthen the EIA notifications to stop destructive projects and enable full citizens’ participation, the Biological Diversity Act and Rules to strongly protect traditional knowledge and empower communities, and the Wild Life Act to make conservation more effective, participatory and respectful of the rights of communities;
  • Maintain the integrity of protective principles in current legislation that seek to protect farmers and community rights, biodiversity and indigenous knowledge;
  • FINALISE and implement a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan which is true to the spirit and content of the NBSAP draft report submitted to MoEF in end-2003;
  • HALT the alarming spread of genetically engineered crops; in particular, safeguard India’s position as country of origin of several crops including rice;
  • Develop and implement a legal regime for liability and redress, sensitive especially to the likely socio-economic impact on small farmers and traditional agricultural practices, especially in relation to new technologies;
  • OPPOSE, at all international forums, the promotion or acceptance of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies including “terminator”, consistent with its domestic position banning such technologies;
  • HALT the opening up of biological resources and people's knowledge to private corporations, that shifts control further away from communities, and threatens biodiversity with further erosion;
  • SHOW, as chair of the Like Minded Megadiverse Countries (LMMC), greater commitment to community-centred conservation policies, and more open-ness to involvement of indigenous/local communities in the operations of this forum;
  • DISPLAY leadership in the South Asian region in the development of such ethics, including through forums like South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC).
  • RESPECT India’s own Constitutional principles mandating a bottom-up, decentralised approach which provides legitimacy to the government to represent the people at international fora such as the CBD.

Thanking you,

Sincerely,

  1. C.R. Bijoy, India Coordinating Forum of the Adivasi/Indigenous Peoples.
  2. M.K. Prasad, M.K. Prasad, Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishat, Cochin, Kerala
  3. Suman Sahai, Gene Campaign, New Delhi
  4. Goldy George, Dalit Mukti Morcha, Chhatisgarh
  5. Romulus Whitaker and Janaki Lenin, Agumbe Rainforest Research Station
  6. P.V. Satheesh, South Asia Network on Food Ecology and Culture (SANFEC) –India
  7. Kanchi Kohli, Campaign for Environment Justice-India, New Delhi
  8. Dilip Gode, Vidarbha Nature Conservation Society, Nagpur, Maharashtra
  9. S. Usha/ C.Jayakumar/ R. Sridhar, Thanal. Kerala
  10. Ashish Kothari and Manju Menon, Kalpavriksh, Pune/Delhi
  11. Madhu Sarin, Development Planner, Chandigarh.
  12. Mahesh Pandya, Paryavaran Mitra (Centre for Social Justice), Gujarat.
  13. PR Arun, Environmental Justice Initiative, ICHRL, Mumbai
  14. A.Latha and S.Unnikrishnan. ChalakudyRiver Samrakshana Samithi, Thrissur, Kerala
  15. Ashish Fernandes, Environment Researcher, Mumbai
  16. A. Giridhar, Babu, Deccan Development Society, Andhra Pradesh
  17. Pandurang Hegde, Appiko/Prakruti, Sirsi, Karnataka
  18. Aarthi Sridhar, Environment Activist, Bangalore, Karnataka
  19. C. Jayshri, Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of Diversity, Andhra Pradesh
  20. Bhawani Shanker Kusum, Gram Bharati Samiti (GBS), Jaipur, Rajasthan
  21. G.Srinivas, Journalist, Dhimsa Adivasi Vikasa Monthly, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
  22. T. Mohan and S. Devika, Advocates, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
  23. Ramachandran Balachandran, San Fransico, United States of America
  24. B.C.Singh, Greenpeace India, Bangalore, Karnataka
  25. Ramesh Agrawal and Rajesh Tripathy, Jan Chetana, Raigarh, Chhatisgarh
  26. Nityanand Jayaraman, Corporate Accountability Desk, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
  27. S.R.Hiremath, Samaj Parivartan Samudaya, Dharwad, Karnataka
  28. Ritwick Dutta, Lawyer, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
  29. Leo Saldanha, Environment Support Group, Bangalore, Karnataka
  30. Devinder Sharma, Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security, Delhi
  31. Sudarshan Rodriguez, Marine Conservation Management Analyst, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
  32. Amitabh Behar, National Centre for Advocacy Studies (NCAS), Pune, Maharashtra
  33. Sagari Ramdas, Anthra, Andhra Pradesh
  34. Madhusudhan, Yakshi, Andhra Pradesh
  35. Himanshu Thakkar, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People, New Delhi
  36. D. Roy Laifungbam/Singongpou Pamei/Rita Boro/Anna Pinto, CORE, Manipur
  37. Salam Rajesh, Manipur Nature Society, Imphal, Manipur
  38. Seema Bhatt, Biodiversity Specialist, New Delhi
  39. Bamang Anthony, Arunachal Citizen's Rights, Arunachal Pradesh
  40. Soumitra Ghosh, NESPON, Siliguri, West Bengal
  41. Souparna Lahiri, Environment Activist, New Delhi
  42. Claude Alwares, Goa Foundation, Goa
  43. Jacob Nelithanam, CIFS, Bhopal/Richaria Campaign, Chattisgarh
  44. Nanda Kamei/Romeo Palmei/Gaibonlung Kamei/Thaigamlung Gangmei,Zeliangrong Youth Front, Manipur
  45. Ima Taruni, Nupi Samaj, Manipur
  46. Thokchom Ratan, HERICOUN, Manipur
  47. Oinam Bikramjit/R K Dhiren/S Ranjan/R K Sadananda, United Peoples' Front, Manipur
  48. Joy Chingakham, FRIENDS, Manipur
  49. Umakanta Leitanthem, Y Thabi, TIPS, Manipur
  50. Bhanu Golmei/RK Tharaksana, Cing Tam Apunba Chaokhat Thourang Lup, Manipur
  51. L. Ibotomba/Th Satyankumar,DESAM, Manipur
  52. K. Janaki and A Memcha, Meekhol, Manipur
  53. N Ratan, Achouba Mangang, Lousal, Manipur
  54. Thoiba Konthoujam, Manikal NH53, Manipur
  55. G. Angampou Tarung, RLP, Manipur
  56. Basantakumar Wareppa, HRA, Manipur
  57. L Ruhinikumar/ N Bimol/ Ksh Narayan, MAPI, Manipur
  58. L Gyaneshwor, Thanil, Manipur
  59. S Ibetombi, WACAK, Manipur
  60. S Bimola/ M Amubi/K Thasana Leima, United Women's Development Organisation, Manipur
  61. Ng. Bhimo Meitei,Cing Tam Apunba Shaisk Lup, Manipur
  62. Ksh Ranibala and Purnimashi Tourangbam, Macha Leima, Manipur
  63. Premjit Mayenbam, UPACO, Manipur
  64. Shilhenba, Ch Ibemcha, EECHAL, Manipur
  65. Kh Nilamani Khangemba, IPSA, Manipur
  66. Kh Motibala Leima/K Sakhitombi/Salam Shyama/ Khumanleima/ Muktamani/SoniaNameirakpam,Chituwa, Manipur
  67. Momon Leima and A Jibanmala, All Manipur Tammi Cingmi Apunba Nupi Lup, Manipur
  68. Ravindranath, River Basin Friends, North East India
  69. Arup Kumar Saikia. Rural Volunteers Centre. Assam
  70. Akhil Gogoi, Krisak Mukti Sangram Samity,.Assam
  71. Mangaraj Panda, United Artists' Association, Orissa
  72. A.C.Zonunmawia,Centre for Environment Protection, Aizawl, Mizoram
  73. Rosemary Viswanath, Equations, Bangalore
  74. R.Ajayan, Plachimada Solidarity Committee, Kerala
  75. K.S. Gopi Sundar, International Crane Foundation,-India, New Delih
  76. Maya Mahajan, Green Alternatives, Mumbai
  77. Neera M. Singh, Vasundhara, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa
  78. Will Hurd, Native Solutions to Conservation Refugees, Vermont, USA
  79. Kavita Kuruganti, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
  80. Kisan Mehta/Priya Salvi/Rajiv Bhatt, Save Bombay Committee and Prakruti, Mumbai
  81. Kundan Kumar, Researcher, Orissa
  82. Nitin Rai, Ecologist, Bangalore

CC: Pradipto Ghosh, Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests