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

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 21^st 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

 

THE FRUITFUL LIGHT

“I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious”, said Albert Einstein and these words of his are regarded as epitomic of scientific thought and motivation. Scientists has always been imagined as someone poring over books or into a microscope or staring deep into space. They are viewed as aloof creatures who are not interested in the day-to-day rigors of life. Less often is a scientist imagined to be tinkering with machines and trying to build something. This is surprising seeing that we live in an era where our lives have been influenced by science like never before. If a scientist is someone who is not concerned with material life and comfort how come science has led to such a materialistic and technology driven era? This itself is proof for how over the years science has transformed from a Gentleman’s hobby to a directed, applicative profession.
Even though science seems to have turned into a more fruit bearing activity, scientists still find curiosity as the driving force for their research. This brings us to the widely discussed question about what is the “better” method of scientific inquiry. That which is driven by curiosity called experiments of light or that which is driven by the requirement to fulfil a need called experiments of fruit.

Men of scientific repute have commented at length about both methods of inquiry. Flexner a strong advocate of experiments of light had commented,”...the less they (institutions) are deflected by considerations of immediacy of application, the more likely they are to contribute not only to human welfare but to the equally important satisfaction of intellectual interest”(1).

John Cornforth winner of the 1975 Chemistry Nobel, attributed his prize to ‘a lifelong curiosity about the shapes, and changes in shape, of entities that we shall never see; and a lifelong conviction that this curiosity will lead us closer to the truth of chemical processes, including the processes of life’(3). Cornforth is one of several Nobel Prize winners who have attributed their success in research to curiosity which is ironic seeing that Nobel prizes are mostly awarded to applicative research. Daniel Sarewitz, Professor of Science and Society in Arizona State University argues that technology and not curiosity has heralded most of the innovations in today’s era. He considers what Vannevar Bush- M.I.T. engineer who headed the United States World War II research, stated about scientific progress resulting from “the free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown” as a “beautiful lie” which has since then caused science to get “trapped in a self-destructive vortex.”(2) I found Robert Djikgraaf's explanation of how basic research supplements the knowledge required for applicative research which in turn spurs the need for more information and more basic research resulting in a cycle very convincing.(4)

Curiosity driven research is essential as with limited knowledge, humans cannot perceive the connections between different entities. Only on acquiring more knowledge does one get to know how different entities interact and can then use this knowledge to address problems in that field. The discovery of Taq polymerase is one example out of many of how a curiosity driven experiment- a “mere” study of thermophilic bacteria led to the development of a technique which has almost universal usage.

Applicative research is as essential as basic research. There is no use of knowledge if it cannot solve problems. Initially science was a hobby with rich men fiddling with science just out of curiosity and to while away time. Now, science is more of a profession with taxpayer’s money being used to pay scientists and fund research. It is inevitable that a common man will ask about the use of something his money is being used for. In today’s times when human health is endangered by numerous illnesses, agriculture is unable to feed all, wildlife is at high risk of extinction , non-renewable resources are at an all time low and countries prevent war by threatening each other with weapons, “useful” and “relevant” research is of utmost necessity. Yet, basic research should not be discouraged and must be funded sufficiently. Discontinuing curiosity driven research and funding only translational research will be equal to pushing down science into Sarewitz’s “self-destructive vortex”.

Scientists must carry out experiments of fruit but should be unbiased enough to accept fruits different from what they expected and also to identify those fruits which were unexpected. Serendipity in science has given rise to many objects of utility from the microwave to the pacemaker.(5) Scientists should be conscious of not ignoring such results in the race to publish translational research.

How research funding should be divided between basic and translational research is something to think about. How applicative research could lead to unproductive results is visible in the results of breast cancer research funded by Department of Defense of the USA.(2) Billions of dollars were utilized with no constructive results. Margaret Thatcher is the first name which comes up in policy making for research funding. Having herself worked in the field of Science, Thatcher emphasized on the importance of basic research. She argued that the rewards of basic research could not be judged immediately and hence it is difficult to make a decision on distribution of Government funding.
She recommended providing support to “those teams, however small, which can demonstrate the intellectual flair and leadership which is driven by intense curiosity and dedication”(3). This curiosity could be directed towards applicative research, not necessarily basic research. Curiosity driven research would prevent science from being biased in a singular direction.
Thus, curiosity should be maintained as the driving force for research –even translational research. Experiments of light should lead one to experiments of fruit.

References:

1. The Usefulness Of Useless Knowledge by Abraham Flexner. Harpers Issue 17. June/November,1939.
2. Saving Science by Daniel Sarewitz. The New Atlantis. Spring/Summer 2016.
3. The Curious History of Curiosity-Driven Research By Jon Agar doi:10.1098/rsnr.2017.0034
4. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/knowledge-is-a-kind-of-infrastructure/5. https://www.sciencealert.com/these-eighteen-accidental-scientific-discoveries-changed-the-world?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1