Find more of your liking

Saturday, 20 November 2021

India's Forest Policy: A dilemma of development

 At COP21, India committed to increase its forest cover to 33 percent of total land area in order to create carbon sinks that would reduce carbon emissions. Currently 24.56% of the land area is under forest or tree cover. The National Mission for a Green India (GIM) is dedicated to achieve this target. At the COP26 summit, India declared its ambitious commitment to achieve Net Zero emissions by 2070. Surprisingly there is no mention of any attempt to utilize carbon sinks-India’s tropical forests to reach emission targets.

Dilution of forest legislation:

There has been a trend of increasingly confusing proposal for changes to India's forest legislation- confusing because of the blatant use of doublespeak.  While retaining the original essence of the old policies, there is an attempt to introduce contradicting edits. One of the first was the ominous proposal to amend the Indian Forest Act, 1927 that gave more power to the forest department authorities-even to use firearms. After vehement opposition, this proposal was dropped but the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has again expressed intentions to amend the act. It aims to decriminalize minor violations of law, promote people participation and ease of doing business

The National Forest Policy, 1988 describes a lofty mandate of maintaining environmental balance for the sustenance of all life forms. Direct economic benefit was considered secondary. In the 2018 draft of a revised National forest policy the focus is less on forests and more on carbon storage related processes which means little to the wildlife and indigenous people inhabiting forests. We must remember that “green cover” is not synonymous to forest. A forest is a composite of biotic (including humans) and abiotic factors that evolve over thousands of years and it is essential to preserve this equilibrium. You may like trees around your houses but won’t be very happy with tigers staying there. Urban greening, social forestry and private afforestation programmes are definitely welcome but should not be included in the definition of forests as they cannot be inhabited by wild animals and indigenous tribes.

The draft National Forest Policy also emphasizes on the need to carefully examine any diversion of forest land for non-forest activities based on social and environmental costs and benefits. It further talks about regulating felling of trees on private holding. Yet the proposed amendments to Forest Rights Act (FRA), 1980 are an antithesis to proposed National Forest Policy, 2018. 

The amendments to FRA propose to exempt lands under seven categories from the purview of the Act in order to expediate developmental projects related to security, roads and railways, and forestry and tourism related activities. As per FRA, 1980 to carry out non-forest activities in the above mentioned situations, stakeholders needed to obtain permissions, and pay a fee or provide alternative land for afforestation. The amendments are proposed to ease and quicken time taken for developmental progress thereby reducing opportunity costs.

Yet, a complete exemption implies no regulation, no measure to ensure little or no effect of non-forest activities on wildlife or forest dwellers of sensitive areas. According to MoEFCC data, the FCA has been effective in preventing deforestation: Between 1951 and 1976, 1.6 lakh hectares of forest area was diverted every year for non-forest activities which reduced to 32,000 hectares between 1980 and 2011. Diluting this important legislation would erase the progress made till now. What is the percentage of currently forested land that might be diverted under these exemptions and how does it affect India’s goals for forest cover, carbon sequestration, tribal rights and wildlife protection? It would be irresponsible to proceed with the amendments without such estimations and projections. 

Are we on target to reach our forest conservation goals?

There is undue importance given to the role of forests in conservation of water. Water related issues in India such as drying up of rivers and depleting ground water are caused by dams, water pollution and over exploitation and it’s more prudent to address these issues.  Though protected forest areas are referred to as a network, there is no mention of the need to enhance connectivity amongst forest areas. India’s protected areas are disconnected with intervening large tracts of human dominated landscapes.

Another commonality in the different changes in forest related legislations is the attempt to reduce power of states and transfer to the Centre. Any shift in power should be towards the governing bodies at grassroots. It is high time India empowers the district and state level authorities to pass by laws as required for local situations.  

A holistic forest policy would aim at i) protecting existing forests, ii) improving forest quality and connectivity and iii) ensure forest dwellers have full access to their ancestral land. To preserving the existing forests requires keen scrutiny on part of the authorities. It is important to understand the opportunity costs of deforestation for economic benefits. Economic value of deforestation is low compared to its detrimental effect on agriculture, global climate and trophic structure of ecosystems. Monoplantations and forests degraded by invasive species do not function the same way as pristine forests and are expected to be less effective in attaining sustainability goals on a per area square basis. Discontinuous forests lead to habitat loss, loss of genetic diversity of biotic components and increased danger to human life from wildlife-animal conflicts. Lastly, it is important to remember that human communities inhabiting forest areas since centuries are a part of the definition of forests. They fall under the poorest fraction of India and protecting forests on their terms is essential for poverty alleviation in India.    

India need not stick to the colonial area goal of 1/3rd forest cover nor is it correct to cite the 'sustainability does not go with development' adage. A better goal would be to conserve 1/3rd of India's wild habitat which would include grasslands, coral reefs, marine and freshwater bodies , mangroves and mountains. India definitely needs to stick to sustainable development goals as the effects of climate change would be most severe for poor, developing countries. 

 References:

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/govt-proposes-changes-to-forest-conservation-act-7554520/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539228

http://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/OMs-2004-2021/263_OM_02_10_2021.pdf

https://india.mongabay.com/2019/01/indias-forest-cover-target-influenced-by-colonial-policies-rather-than-scientific-basis-says-study/

https://www.asb.cgiar.org/project/opportunity-costs-avoided-deforestation-sustainable-benefits

https://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-insight/climate-change/indias-commitments-to-increase-tree-and-forest-cover-101626849871744.html

https://track2training.com/2021/04/21/indias-crippling-tropical-forests-epitomize-carbon-sinks/

https://india.mongabay.com/2021/04/indian-government-makes-another-attempt-to-amend-the-indian-forest-act-1927/

https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MoEFCC-inviting-EOI-for-draft-amendments-to-IFA.pdf

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Draft%20National%20Forest%20Policy,%202018.pdf

https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MoEFCC-inviting-EOI-for-draft-amendments-to-IFA.pdf




Friday, 19 November 2021

Recombinant DNA: A Circumspection

 Recombinant DNA technology not only revolutionized scientific research but also triggered the birth of the private sector biotechnology industries. It involves combining genetic material from different organisms to obtain desirable phenotypes. This technology has opened numerous avenues in medicine, basic research and industry. It also gave rose to as many concerns.

Organisms thus modified could interact with non-modified, wild populations and bring about unpredictable changes risking environment and public health. The Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA held in 1975 brought scientists, lawyers and physicians together to establish guidelines and restrictions to be imposed on rDNA. It enlisted precautions regarding containment, good handling practices and restrictions on experimenting with infectious organisms to prevent any major accident.1

The science of rDNA continues to be applied in different contexts.

 rDNA Today:

At the time of the Asilomar conference, there was no practical application of rDNA. Today, rDNA is used in the production of high yield, high nutrition GM crops, in production of vaccines, hormones and medicines, bioremediation, environment friendly energy sources and gene therapy.2,3 All of these applications of rDNA have been controversial with safety concerns bringing the discussion into public domain.

The case of He Jiankui a researcher in Shenzhen, China using CRISPR on human embryos to provide immunity against HIV awakens us to the many undesirable results of such experiments.4 This necessitates us to reconsider the potential hazards in the 21st century and how it can be avoided. A revision of guidelines and precautions seems to be necessary. The following discussion aims to do the needful.

Medicine and gene therapy:

Drugs developed through rDNA should pass through several layers of scrutiny and testing before being prescribed. Testing the drugs on non-target systems can further help identify potential side effects.

Gene therapy must be strictly regulated as intergenic interactions are not well understood. The effect of any modification elsewhere in the body cannot be predicted. It should be particularly avoided at the embryonic stage. Germ line modifications can be inherited and might make containment difficult. It could introduce new diseases into the population, spring a demand for “designer babies” and could be used by anti-social elements in numerous ways.

Genetically Modified (GM) crops:

GM crops and foods need to undergo thorough evaluation before being brought into market. Genetic modification on one locus may bring changes in non target locus. These changes may include increased production of compounds which may be toxic to the consumer.

A very well known example of introduction of GM crops leading to ecological complications is that of the effect of loss of a weed called milkweed on numbers of Monarch butterflies. Producing GM pesticide resistant crops allowed farmers to use huge amounts of pesticide on weeds leading to a drastic decline in milkweed numbers which is the primary food source for Monarch butterflies.5 It is an example of how caution should always be exercised when bringing in changes in the environment. Such GM crops are responsible for the increase in use of herbicide by 527 million pounds in the U.S. over 16 years of their commercial use. This has stimulated the production of herbicide-resistant weeds and increased water pollution by runoff herbicides.

Thorough Environmental Impact Assessment is necessary before introducing GM crops into the environment. Research needs to be redirected in finding better solutions to food production than making pesticide resistant crops.

Containment:

Conventional farmers are exposed to the risk of their crops being contaminated by transgenic pollen drifting from the GM fields. Such spill over has happened in the US with Monsanto’s crops and a farmer was accused of growing GM crops without permits. This is a depiction of how GM crops have social effects apart from economic, health and environmental effects.7

Such containment issues exist in case of all GM organisms- from plants and bacteria to humans. Utmost prudence needs to be exercised when permitting rDNA experiments on any organism. Only after the research group or institution has demonstrated their ability to contain such organisms and have clarified their intent of use and extent of modifications should rDNA experiments be permitted.

Repercussions for not adhering to norms must be dire to discourage malpractices. This includes consequences for the research group, institute as well as the country. Misuse of rDNA technology has global implications and hence countries must closely monitor such research.

In conclusion, strict norms and constant regulation can avert and mitigate any disasters resulting from the use of rDNA technology.

 

References:

1.     Paul Berg, et al. (1975). Summary Statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules*. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., USA. (June) 72(6)1981-1984.

2.     Suliman Khan, Muhammad Wajid Ullah, Rabeea Siddique, et al., “Role of Recombinant DNA Technology to Improve Life,” International Journal of Genomics, vol. 2016, Article ID 2405954, 14 pages, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2405954.

3.     Charles R. Cantor. (2000). Biotechnology in the 21st century. TIBTECH (January) 18.

4.     https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist

5.     https://actions.sumofus.org/a/monsanto-is-killing-the-monarchs

6.     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocontainment_of_genetically_modified_organisms



 

These are close to my heart

ME AND MY LOVE AFFAIR

I am a lovely person and I admit I have had numerous love affairs.Many scandalous,numerous fleeting and a couple long-standing ones. Now...

People liked these :p

Followers