thematic assessment report - dakshin foundation · pdf filethe ncsa thematic assessment report...
TRANSCRIPT
National Capacity Self-Assessment
Thematic Assessment Report on
Biodiversity
Final Report May 2007
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India
United Nations Development Programme
The NCSA Thematic Assessment Report on Biodiversity has been prepared in consultation with a large number of institutions and individuals. Individual consultants were commissioned to prepare assessments of individual thematic areas. The various reports of the NCSA are available with ATREE and are available online at: http://www.atree.org/ncsa_atree_rep.html This publication should be cited as follows: ATREE. 2007. National Capacity Self-Assessment Thematic Assessment Report on Biodiversity. Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore. Final Report
The NCSA Core Team
Gladwin Joseph, ATREE Ravi Chellam, ATREE
Ankila Hiremath, ATREE Kartik Shanker, CES, IISc and ATREE
Seema Puroshothaman, ATREE Neha Ambastha, ATREE
Meera Anna Oommen, Independent Consultant Rajah Jayapal, Independent Consultant
Prosenjit Dey Chaudhury, Independent Consultant
Consultants for Thematic Areas
Agricultural Biodiversity: K. Chandasehekara, R. Uma Shaanker and K.N. Ganeshaiah, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore. Gujarat and Rajasthan: Shomita Mukherjee, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore. Eastern Ghats: Vivek Ramachandran and Gladwin Joseph, ATREE. Deccan: Suresh Reddy, Independent Consultant, A. Kavitha, N.A. Aravind and Vivek Ramachandran, ATREE. Forest Biodiversity: P. Pramod, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore, Vivek Ramachandran, Gladwin Joseph, and Ankila Hiremath, ATREE. Forest Departments: S.N. Rai, IFS (Retd.) & ATREE. Inland Waters Biodiversity: K. V. Gururaja, Centre for Ecological Sciences, IISc and N.A. Aravind, ATREE. Marine and Coastal Biodiversity: Sudarshan Rodriguez, UNDP-GoI Post-Tsunami Environment Initiative, Chennai and Aarthi Sridhar, ATREE. Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep: Sudarshan Rodriguez, UNDP-GoI Post-Tsunami Environment Initiative, Chennai. Himalaya, Trans-Himalaya: Meera Anna Oommen, Independent Consultant. Western Ghats: Ajith Kumar, Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, Arundhati Das, ATREE. North-East India: S.K. Barik, North Eastern Hill University, Shillong, V.T. Darlong, IFS, IFAD Project Shillong. Policies and Institutions: Rashmi Bajaj, Independent Consultant, Seema Purushothaman and Sheetal Patil, ATREE. Taxonomy: R. Ganeshan, Priyadarsanan Dharma Rajan, Savitha Swamy, ATREE, Kartik Shanker, Centre for Ecological Sciences, IISc. and Meera Anna Oommen, Independent Consultant. Medicinal Plants and Traditional Knowledge Applications: Darshan Shankar, Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions, Bangalore. Traditional Knowledge Systems: Mohan G.S., Agricultural Research Station, Ponnampet. Analysis of R&D Funding: Gladwin Joseph and Neha Ambastha, ATREE. Geospatial Mapping: M. Irfan-Ullah and Nikhil Lele, ATREE.
Acknowledgements ATREE is grateful to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India for being
given the opportunity to conduct the National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for the
biodiversity component. We sincerely acknowledge the support from the UNDP and the GEF.
We would like to extend special thanks to Mr. Sudhir Mital, Mr. D.D. Verma and Dr. Sujata
Arora at the MoEF, to Dr. K.S Murali, Ms. Usha Rao and Mr. Silvio Simonit of the UNDP and
to Dr. Nayanika Singh.
This assessment is the outcome of extensive contributions by a number of institutions
and individuals. Representatives from over seventy five institutions put in time and effort in
sending us completed questionnaires. A team of consultants contributed ideas and reports on
various thematic and sub-thematic issues and were supported by inputs from a large number
of experts who we find difficult to mention individually. Mr. Suman Rai (Regional Director,
Eastern Himalaya Programme, ATREE) Dr. S. K Barik, Dept of Botany, NEHU and Dr.
Vincent Darlong, IFAD Project, Shillong, are acknowledged for their support while conducting
the North-East Consultation Workshop. A large number of institutions working in North East
India participated enthusiastically in this workshop. Ms. Aarthi Sridhar and Ms. Manju Menon
reviewed the report on short notice and provided critical comments. At ATREE we would like
to mention the contributions by Cynthia, Archana Bali, N.A. Aravind, Vivek, Bhawna, Savitha,
Nithin, Sheetal, Kavitha, Ramesh and Lakshmikanthaiah for their assistance at critical times
during the report writing phase.
Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary i–vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODS 1–6
1.1. National Capacity Self-Assessment
1.2. Biogeographic Zones and Thematic Areas
1.3. Methods of Survey and Analysis
1.4. Organisation of the Thematic Assessment Report
CHAPTER 2. PRIORITY STRATEGIC ISSUES FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 7–17
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Identification of National Priorities under Past and Current Assessments,
Policies and Legislation
2.2.1. National obligations under the CBD
2.2.2. Priorities under policies, plans, assessments, and strategies
2.2.3. Legislation relating to biodiversity conservation
2.3. Summary of a Primary Survey of Stakeholders
2.4. Existing Capacity Strength of Biodiversity Institutions and Themes: A
Rank Analysis
2.5. Funding Scenario: Sample Analysis of R&D Funding in Biodiversity
Thematic Areas (2002-2003)
CHAPTER 3. CAPACITY STATUS, CONSTRAINTS, AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES 18–65
3.1 CBD Article 05: Cooperation
3.2. CBD Article 06: General Measures for Conservation and Sustainable Use
3.3. CBD Article 07: Identification and Monitoring
3.4. CBD Article 08: In-situ Conservation
3.5. CBD Article 09: Ex-situ Conservation
3.6. CBD Article 10: Sustainable Use of Components of Biological Diversity
3.7. CBD Article 11: Incentive Measures
3.8. CBD Article 12: Research and Training
3.9. CBD Article 13: Public Education and Awareness
3.10. CBD Article 14: Impact Assessment and Minimising Adverse Impacts
3.11. CBD Article 15: Access to Genetic Resources
3.12. CBD Article 16: Access to and Transfer of Technology
3.13. CBD Article 17: Exchange of Information
3.14. CBD Article 18: Technical and Scientific Cooperation
3.15. CBD Article 19: Handling of Biotechnology and Distribution of its
Benefits
3.16. CBD Article 20: Financial Resources
CHAPTER 4. NATIONAL CAPACITY ACTIONS 66–75
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Capacity Actions
4.2.1. Information and knowledge
4.2.2. Planning, policy and decision making
4.2.3. Implementation of management actions
4.2.4. Monitoring and evaluation
Notes 76–77
Annexure 1. Problem Analysis Matrix: CBD Articles 5-20
Annexure 2. List of Institutions and Organisations: Respondents to the Questionnaire
Survey
Annexure 3. Sample Questionnaire
1
Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods
1.1 NATIONAL CAPACITY SELF-ASSESSMENT
The National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) process aims to assess the capacities
available within a country for fulfilling its mandate towards the implementation of the
Multilateral Environmental Agreements. These include the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). The Convention on Biological
Diversity (referred to in this document as the CBD or the Convention) was introduced in 1992
with the aim of developing national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity. The Convention was the first to recognise explicitly that the conservation
of biological diversity is "a common concern of humankind" and cannot be excluded from the
development process. Through its Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the Convention has
created an enabling environment for the safe application of biotechnology, making it possible
to derive maximum benefit, potential profits and at the same time providing a safeguard
against risks to environment and human health.
. The CBD is legally binding on countries that join it ('Parties'). Its governing body is the
Conference of the Parties (CoP), consisting of all governments and regional economic
organisations that have ratified the treaty. Every Party to the Convention is required to take
steps towards implementing its Articles. For this purpose, a National Capacity Self-
Assessment is necessary. Any NCSA for the CBD would have as its task the evaluation of
capacities for implementation especially of Articles 5–20 of the Convention, which deal with
the identification, conservation and use of biological resources, as well as implementation of
the Cartagena Protocol.
The National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA) is an initiative that is implemented by
the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and funded by the Global Environmental
Facility (GEF) to assist in evaluating and prioritising national capacities for the three Rio
MEAs. Along with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the GEF identified a
set of measures for capacity building at the country level through the Capacity Development
Initiative (CDI). The NCSA is a product of the CDI and assessments are carried out for three
critical themes: climate change, land degradation and biodiversity conservation.
In India, the biodiversity component of the National Capacity Self-Assessment
(NCSA) was undertaken with the purpose of evaluating the country’s capacities and to
prioritise requirements towards the implementation of the CBD and other relevant multilateral
agreements relating to the topic. The Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the
Environment (ATREE) was appointed as the nodal agency for conducting this NCSA. ATREE
was entrusted with the responsibility of coming up with a thematic profile to facilitate the
prioritisation of areas for GEF support to capacity building.
2
The Government of India (GoI) has formulated a number of initiatives for biodiversity
conservation that are implemented through an institutional framework coordinated by the
Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). Over the years a large number of institutions,
projects, policies and legal instruments have been developed in this regard. However, owing
to the vastness of the country and the diversity of its bio-geographical zones, many such
strategies to achieve these objectives still remain to be implemented fully. The NCSA
exercise has been instituted to identify the gaps and capacity requirements in this regard.
1.2 BIOGEOGRAPHIC ZONES AND THEMATIC AREAS
India has a rich and varied heritage of biodiversity, encompassing a wide spectrum of habitats
from tropical rainforests to alpine vegetation and from temperate forests to coastal wetlands.
With a mere 2.4 percent of the world's area, India accounts for 7–8 percent of the recorded
global species. India is also one of the Vavilov centres of origin of cultivated plants. The
country also has 14 Biosphere Reserves of which four – the Sunderbans, Gulf of Mannar,
Nilgiri and Nanda Devi – are also included in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves1.
Twenty-five Ramsar wetlands2 have been designated in the country. India has 599 PAs
(including 95 National Parks, 502 Wildlife Sanctuaries, and 2 Conservation Reserves)
covering an area of 15.67 million hectares (4.75 % of geographic area)3. There are also 29
Tiger Reserves within the structural framework of the PA network under The National Tiger
Conservation Authority. The endemism of Indian biodiversity is also very high, with about 33
percent of the country's recorded higher flora being endemic to the country and concentrated
mainly in the Northeast, Western Ghats, North-West Himalayas, and the Andaman and
Nicobar islands. India has been divided into ten biogeographic zones (Rodgers and Panwar
1988) on the basis of eco-climate, topography, geomorphology, and vegetation biomes (see
Table 1.1).
Table 1.1. The biogeographic zones of India, as classified by Rodgers & Panwar (1988)
Zone Biogeographic Zone % Area* Zone Biogeographic Zone % Area*
1 Trans-Himalaya 5.5 6 Deccan Peninsula 42
2 Himalaya 6.4 7 Gangetic Plain 10
3 Desert 5.6 8 Coasts 2.5
4 Semi-Arid 18.6 9 North-East 5.2
5 Western Ghats 4.0 10 Islands 0.8
* Percentage of the total geographic area of the country
3
Detailed evaluations pertaining to capacity status and requirements with respect to CBD
articles were carried out for the seven thematic areas identified by the CoP:
• agricultural biodiversity
• forest biodiversity
• dry and semi-humid areas
• mountain biodiversity
• inland waters
• marine and coastal biodiversity
• islands
These categories are not ecosystems themselves and not all are bio-geographical regions,
but they are themes that adequately encompass the biological diversity of India. Although
there are likely to be overlaps between the themes, (for example, larger categories like Forest
Biodiversity and Agro-Biodiversity would cut across regions), biological diversity and its
conservation has been covered in a comprehensive manner. Hence these themes for
assessment used in our reports are not mutually exclusive, but have been so selected that no
major aspect of biodiversity related work in India is left out.
The same was done for a number of other issues that required special attention. These are:
• evaluation of policies and institutions for biodiversity conservation
• taxonomic initiatives
• medicinal plants
• traditional knowledge systems
• spatial technologies in conservation science
• R&D funding for biodiversity
1.3 METHODS OF SURVEY AND ANALYSIS
ATREE carried out the NCSA in association with a large number of individual and institutional
stakeholders, from both within and outside of the government. A preliminary linkages study
identified a primary list of stakeholders for the country as a whole. (Refer to: Inception Report
on the Linkages Study of the Biodiversity Component of the NCSA, ATREE). This initial study,
more of a reconnaissance survey, has been vital in providing us with an understanding of the
organisations, initiatives and legislation involved in biodiversity issues. For the purpose of the
linkages study, we listed the CBD requirements as fourteen issues, as provided in the NCSA
Resource Kit. All subsequent assessments including the capacity constraints analysis chapter
as well as the annexed problem analysis matrix (Annexure 1) follow this order, i.e., the CBD
Articles 5 - 20.
The detailed stocktaking and thematic assessment exercises looked at capacity
strengths and requirements in detail for each biogeographic zone and thematic area. (Refer
4
to: Stocktaking Report of the Biodiversity Component of the NCSA, ATREE) This
evaluation has been carried out based on the Stakeholder Analysis Matrix provided in
Annexure D of the NCSA Resource Kit and the matrix that has been generated was the basis
of the larger stocktaking and thematic assessment components. The parameters of interest to
this analysis included: the responsibilities/mandate of the institution, the reasons for inclusion
of a particular institution, possible roles and involvement techniques by which they could be
involved during the later phase, and the potential or the degree to which each of these
institutions could contribute to the final stages of this project.
ATREE adopted a three-pronged approach to reduce bias and increase the coverage
and objectiveness of these exercises. This comprised an initial evaluation on the part of
ATREE, inputs by the stakeholders themselves, and an assessment of capacities by expert
and independent consultants. This is described in more detail below. Survey methods
included extensive reviews of literature, questionnaires, telephone interviews, and
commissioning of reports from organisations and individuals. In addition, a regional
consultation of stakeholders was carried out for North East India, on account of it being a
poorly studied biodiversity hotspot faced with a number of environmental issues unique to the
region.
Comprehensive consultant reports were received for each of the themes. In addition,
for the mail questionnaire survey, 75 completed questionnaires were received from all across
the country both from government as well as non-government institutions (see Annexure 2 for
the list of respondents and Annexure 3 for a sample copy of the questionnaire). The
questionnaire results and the results of interviews and consultation of reports and literature
were analysed qualitatively for each of the themes. Individual, institutional and system level
strengths and gaps, and primary funding requirements for the thematic area were then
analysed in detail.
As mentioned above, the methodology that we followed for carrying out the
stocktaking as well as thematic assessments provided a holistic picture of the capacity needs
of the country with respect to the implementation of the CBD. The three-pronged methodology
has been depicted in the following diagram (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1. Diagrammatic representation of the methodology employed for NCSA
Institutional Capacity
Assessment
Institutional Self-Assessment
ATREE’s Assessment Independent Consultant’s
Assessment
5
The use of this three-pronged method significantly reduced personal and institutional
bias. This approach also provided an opportunity for the institution under assessment to
respond and be a party to the NCSA process. The, consultants had an opportunity to assist
the institutions in their self-assessment and even in identifying relevant institutions. Each of
the three assessment tools have been further elaborated below:
a) Institutional Self-Assessment: This assessment was conducted with the help of a
questionnaire that was posted on the NCSA website of India in a web-based format, as well
as mailed/posted/couriered/faxed to all identified stakeholders. The questionnaire was
designed in such a manner that the questions regarding capacity status – both for the
thematic assessment as well as for the enabling environment and capacity constraints –
would provide useful insights into the capacity needs of organisations vis-à-vis
implementation of the CBD. This tool has been very important as organisations were
encouraged to provide their own assessment of the CBD, to participate in the process and be
aware of the capacity needs assessment exercise.
b) ATREE’s Assessment: ATREE’s assessment employed various tools – apart from doing
a desk review of the secondary literature available on the institution – such as annual reports,
project documents and websites. A large number of telephone interviews were conducted and
a number of institutions were visited. Inputs were received from State Forest Departments,
Government research and academic organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations. It
was also evident during the initial phase of the project that the conventional stock-taking
techniques that were employed for the other geographic regions would not be sufficient to
assess the North Eastern Region (NER). The NER, despite being a priority hotspot in terms of
its biodiversity value, is still relatively poorly studied and the threats to biodiversity in this
region are considerable. Therefore ATREE organised a Consultation Workshop in Shillong,
Meghalaya that addressed the whole NER and brought a large number of stakeholders of the
region on a common platform to discuss the capacity issues for biodiversity conservation. A
number of experts were also interviewed, who provided their views on capacities for
biodiversity conservation in India. These interviews were mostly conducted through direct
discussions; some were conducted over the telephone. The results of ATREE’s assessment
formed the overall basis for structuring the Thematic Assessment report. General capacities
and requirements for each article of the CBD were largely assessed by the ATREE study and
priority requirements specific to areas that required additional emphasis were added from the
consultant reports.
c) Independent Consultants’ Assessment: A number of consultants and contributors were
identified and approached for preparing assessments of individual thematic CoP programmes
and bio-geographic zones. Expert consultants familiar with a biogeographic zone/thematic
area were identified who had a wide network of contacts within their zone as well as access to
secondary information and facilities. Additional assistance was provided to consultants by the
ATREE NCSA core team. Expert consultants sent in independent assessments of their
6
respective regions. These were reports detailing capacity strengths and needs relating to
individual articles of the CBD for that particular region or thematic area.
For the preparation of the Thematic Assessment report, the core-team of the NCSA
project addressed comments for restructuring and rewriting as suggested by the reviewers of
the draft report. The core team members worked with the consultant reports to collate the
information within these individual contributions and to formulate a single Thematic
Assessment report for biodiversity. During this exercise, sections which were still lacking in
information were revisited, researched and extensively revised. Information from key
documents such as the Third National Report to the CBD (MoEF, 2006), the Final Technical
Report of the NBSAP Project (2005), MoEF Annual Reports, the National Environment Policy
2006, and the Approach Paper to the 11th Five Year Plan (2006) was incorporated.
1.4 ORGANISATION OF THE THEMATIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
Chapter 2 deals with priority issues for biodiversity conservation that have been outlined in
various policies and laws at the national level as well as a summary of institutional mandates
and capacities as provided by stakeholder self-assessments. An evaluation by the core team
of the capacities in various geographic regions as well as thematic areas is also attempted
along with a brief summary of patterns of sponsored R&D funding across these categories.
Chapter 3 examines in detail the status of implementation for each CBD Article in the country,
the capacity constraints relating to its implementation, and the underlying causes of failure in
implementation. Chapter 4 spells out the measures to be taken for enhancing capacities
towards meeting the requirements of the CBD. Among other things, this chapter outlines
desirable projects and programmes for generating information and knowledge and for
implementation of management actions. A problem analysis matrix is presented as an
Annexure (Annexure 1) which gives in detail the various capacity issues, constraints, and
needs and recommendations.
7
Chapter 2. Priority Strategic Issues for Biodiversity
Conservation
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, we begin by providing a broad-scale assessment of priorities for biodiversity
related issues as outlined in national obligations as well as key policies, plans and legislation.
This is followed by a summary of the results of a questionnaire survey where institutional
stakeholders were asked to provide a self-assessment of their mandates and priority focus
areas in relation to the CBD Articles and thematic areas. In addition, consultant reports and
inputs from the NCSA core-team have been used to develop a capacity matrix for
biogeographic zones and thematic areas. A brief analysis of recent R&D funding in the
biodiversity thematic area is also included.
2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF NATIONAL PRIORITIES UNDER PAST AND CURRENT ASSESSMENTS, POLICIES AND LEGISLATION
India’s national obligations include those derived from the CBD and other MEAs as well as
those outlined in national level planning documents.
2.2.1 National obligations under the CBD
These pertain primarily to Articles 05 to 20 of the CBD all of which are accorded high priority
(Third National Report to the CBD, MoEF 2006). The topics of the Articles are as follows:
Article 05 – Cooperation
Article 06 – General Measures for Conservation and Sustainable Use
Article 07 – Identification and Monitoring
Article 08 – In-situ Conservation
Article 09 – Ex-situ Conservation
Article 10 – Sustainable Use of Components of Biological Diversity
Article 11 – Incentive Measures
Article 12 – Research and Training
Article 13 – Public Education and Awareness
Article 14 – Impact Assessment and Minimising Adverse Impacts
Article 15 – Access to Genetic Resources
Article 16 – Access to and Transfer of Technology
Article 17 – Exchange of Information
Article 18 – Technical and Scientific Cooperation
Article 19 – Handling of Biotechnology and Distribution of its Benefits
Article 20 – Financial Resources
8
In addition the seven thematic areas relating to the CoP, including agricultural, forest, inland
waters, marine and coastal, dryland and sub-humid lands and mountain biodiversity, are also
accorded high priority (Third National Report to the CBD, MoEF 2006). The third National
Report also identifies the challenges and obstacles to their implementation.
2.2.2 Priorities under policies, plans, assessments and strategies
A number of policies and planning documents provide for biodiversity conservation in India. A
majority of such instruments have been prepared under the supervision of the Ministry of
Environment and Forests. Some policy documents have been prepared by other ministries
and departments such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Science and Technology and
the Planning Commission and these have significant implications for biodiversity related
issues. Some of the key policy documents are listed along with a brief outline of their priorities
in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. A brief outline of policies, plans and strategies dealing with biodiversity Policies, Plans & Strategies Brief Outline of Priorities National Forest Policy , 1988 Outlines national goals and guidelines relating to area under forests,
afforestation, social forestry and farm forestry, management of state forests, rights and concessions, diversion of forest lands for non-forest purposes, wildlife conservation, tribal people and forests, shifting cultivation, damage to forests from encroachments, fire and grazing, forest-based industries, forest extension, forestry education, forestry research, personnel management, forest survey and database, legal support and infrastructure development and financial support for forestry.
National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement for Environment and Sustainable Development, 1992
Evaluates the nature and dimensions of environmental problems in India, as well as actions taken and constraints and agenda for action. Priorities and strategies dealing with human population control and conservation of natural resources are outlined. Development policies from environmental perspectives relating to agriculture and irrigation, animal husbandry, forestry, energy generation and use, industrial development, mining and quarrying, tourism, transportation and human settlements are dealt with. This strategy incorporates sections on international co-operation as well as support policies and systems relating to sustainable development.
National Policy and Macrolevel Action Strategy on Biodiversity, 1999
Outlines a series of macro-level statement of policies, gaps and strategies needed for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
National Agricultural Policy, 2000
Seeks to actualise the vast untapped growth potential of Indian agriculture, strengthen rural infrastructure to support faster agricultural development, promote value addition, accelerate the growth of agro business, create employment in rural areas, secure a fair standard of living for the farmers and agricultural workers and their families, discourage migration to urban areas and face the challenges arising out of economic liberalization and globalisation.
National Seeds Policy, 2002 Thrust areas include varietal development and plant variety protection, seed production, quality assurance, seed distribution and marketing, infrastructure facilities, transgenic plant varieties, import of seeds and planting material, export of seeds, promotion of the domestic seed industry, strengthening of the monitoring system.
National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016)
Calls for adoption and implementation of strategies covering the following parameters: strengthening and enhancing the PA network, effective management of PAs, conservation of wild and endangered species and their habitats, restoration of degraded habitats outside PAs, control of poaching, and illegal trade in wild animal and plant species, monitoring and research, Human Resource (HR) development and personnel planning, ensuring peoples’ participation in wildlife conservation,
9
Policies, Plans & Strategies Brief Outline of Priorities conservation awareness and education, wildlife tourism, domestic legislation and international conventions, enhancing financial allocation for ensuring sustained fund flow to the wildlife sector and integration of the National Wildlife Action Plan with other sectoral programmes.
Comprehensive Marine Fishing Policy, 2004
Aims to maximize yield from marine fishery resources while balancing the development needs of the various categories of fishing communities. It does this by outlining guidelines for the harvest of marine resources, post-harvest operations, resource management, fishermen’s welfare, environmental aspects, fishery infrastructure development, legislative support and policy guidelines for development of fisheries in the Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep Islands.
National Environment Policy, 2006
Directly concerns itself with environmental governance. Stated objectives include: 1) conservation of critical environmental resources 2) intra-generational equity: Livelihoods security for the poor 3) Inter-generational equity 4) Integration of environmental concerns in economic and social development 5) Efficiency in environmental resource use 6) environmental governance 7) Enhancement of resources for environmental conservation. However, the NEP remains a controversial document and has to date met with several reservations and objections by several civil society groups in the country.
10th Five Year Plan (2002-2007)
Many priorities were listed in the Midterm overview of the Tenth Five year Plan. These included issues such as watershed development, promotion of participatory natural resource management and conferring ownership rights to tribals living in forests which are relevant from the point of biodiversity conservation.
The Approach Paper to the 11th Five Year Plan (2006)
Calls for a development strategy that is sensitive to growing environmental concerns and calls for careful evaluation of threats and trade-offs.
National Forestry Action Programme
Envisages developing a proper co-ordinated programme for the sustainable management of forests and forest lands to meet the environmental, socio-economic and cultural needs of the present and the future generations.
National Biotechnology Development Strategy (draft)
Prioritises key policy recommendations and interventions relating to HR development (especially academics), infrastructure development and manufacturing, promotion of industry and trade, issues relating to biotech parks and incubators, regulatory mechanisms and public communication and participation.
The National Forestry Commission Report (2006)
Set up to review the existing organizational structure and function of forestry sector, the Commission has made over 350 recommendations, which are currently under being studied.
The Final Technical Report of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) Project (2005)
The NBSAP process identified a detailed set of priority issues for the overall planning and governance as well as for the conservation of wild as well as domesticated biodiversity. These aim at actions related to in-situ and ex-situ conservation, sustainable use and livelihoods, equitable use and benefit sharing, capacity-building, inter-sectoral interaction, policy and legal measures, financing, eco-sensitive and safe biotechnology as well as strategies to be adopted at international fora. Specifically, a number of strategies are prioritised that are specifically aimed at enhancing capacities.
2.2.3 Legislation relating to biodiversity conservation
The Constitution of India contains specific provisions for biodiversity conservation (articulated
in the Directive Principles of State Policy (48-A) & (51-A(g)) and Fundamental Duties (51-A)).
Numerous other legislation (acts, rules, circulars and orders) relating to environmental
protection as well as specific laws relating to forests, wildlife and biodiversity have been
passed taking into account governmental and civil society concerns. Some legislation dealing
with environmental protection include the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974, as amended up to 1988, The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, as
10
amended by Amendment Act, 1987, The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules,
1982, The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
amended in 1991, National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995, The Environment Impact
Assessment Notification, 1994, and National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997.
Additionally, Rules relating to biosafety were notified in 1989 (Rules for the Manufacture,
Use/Import/Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms/ Genetically Engineered
Organisms or Cells (MoEF, GSIR 1037(E), 5 December 1989, Notification No. 621 in Official
Gazette of Govt. of India on December). Recent legislation such as the Coastal Regulation
Zone Notification, 1991, the Biological Diversity Act 2002, Biodiversity Rules, 2004, the
Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, the Right to Information Act, 2005 and
the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006 have significant provisions for biodiversity conservation. The key legislation
specifically pertaining to biodiversity are listed in Table 2.2 along with a brief description.
Table 2.2. A brief outline of legislation that are pertinent to biodiversity conservation. Key legislation specific to wildlife, forests and biodiversity
Brief outline of priorities
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 with amendments Directly deals with protection of wildlife and habitats and provides for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for related matters, with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country.
Indian Forest Act 1927 Laws designed for forest management and protection, especially to consolidate the law relating to forests, the transit of forest-produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest-produce.
Forest Conservation Act 1980, amended in 1988 Specifically designed for the conservation of forests and related matters
Joint Forest Management Resolution 1990 For promotion of participatory forest management. This was a significant step towards involving village communities and voluntary agencies in the regeneration of degraded forests.
The Biological Diversity Act 2002 To provide for conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of biological resources, knowledge and related matters.
Biological Diversity Rules 2004 Deals with operationalising the Biodiversity Act by providing the Rules for this Act.
Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001
To provide for the establishment of an effective system for protection of plant varieties, the rights of farmers and plant breeders, to encourage the development of new varieties of plants.
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
To recognise and vest the traditional rights to forest dwelling communities over access to forest goods and occupation in forest lands.
2.3 SUMMARY OF A PRIMARY SURVEY OF STAKEHOLDERS
A total of 166 questionnaires were mailed to institutional stakeholders (State Forest
Departments, government institutions and authorities, educational institutions and NGOs
engaged both in research and advocacy). The largest number of completed questionnaires
was received from educational institutions (73%). State Forest Departments and government
institutions and authorities had a low percentage of response (47% and 39% respectively).
11
However, it is important to note that the survey elicited a comparatively significant response
(45% overall, 75 institutions) from a broad representative range of organisations in the
country addressing issues concerning biodiversity. Therefore any bias or distortion that may
result from the lack of response from some of the respondents is likely to be limited.
Analysis of the returned questionnaires indicate that the institutional mandates of
several organisations cover CBD Articles relating to general measures, identification and
monitoring, research and training, public education, environmental impact assessment, and
technical and scientific cooperation (Figure 2.1). For issues related to the other Articles (plus
the Cartagena Protocol) the number of concerned institutions is less than 10. This is a very
rudimentary indication of capacity strengths/weaknesses, but it suggests areas of strength
and weakness vis-à-vis the CBD requirements and institutional mandates. It must be noted
that this analysis does not measure the quality or nature of the institutions addressing various
CBD Articles. It is surprising that our sample of biodiversity-related organisations does not
have even one institution focusing on issues of biosafety in relation to biodiversity. The other
noticeable gaps are in the number of institutions adequately addressing issues in traditional
knowledge systems, sustainable use, incentive measures and information exchange.
Figure 2.1. Number of organisations addressing issues related to the CBD articles
3134
27
8
17
6 6
29
22
13
6 4 2
15
40
0
10
20
30
40
Genera
l meas
ures
Id. &
Mon
itorin
g
In-sit
u
Tradition
al Kno
wledge
Ex-situ
Sustai
nable
use
Incen
tive m
easu
res
Resea
rch &
traini
ng
Public
educ
ation EIA
Geneti
c res
ource
s
Techno
logy t
ransfe
r
Info.
exch
ange
Tech. &
sc. c
o-ope
ration
Biotec
h
Cartag
ena P
rotoc
ol
CBD Articles
No.
of O
rgan
isat
ions
12
Figure 2.2. Number of organisations addressing CoP themes
17
30
59
42
11
28
49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Agricu
ltural
Dry an
d Sub-hu
mid
Forest
Inlan
d wate
rs
Islan
ds
Maine &
coas
tal
Mountai
ns
CoP Biodiversity Themes
No.
of O
rgan
isat
ions
Most of the CoP biodiversity themes are addressed by several institutions (Figure
2.2). Forest biodiversity is the most widespread area of work among these organisations,
followed by mountain, dry and sub-humid, and marine and coastal biodiversity. A surprising
result was that in an agricultural-dominated country such as India, the number of institutions
addressing agricultural biodiversity is relatively small.
2.4 EXISTING CAPACITY STRENGTHS OF BIODIVERSITY INSTITUTIONS AND THEMES: A RANK
ANALYSIS
As it has been described before, capacity assessment for biodiversity conservation along with
constraints and needs was carried out for 16 Articles and themes within the framework of
CBD (from Article 06 to Article 20). The existing capacity strength of each institution/theme in
each of the CBD Articles was scored on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 (very poor) to 4
(excellent) on the basis of comprehensive assessment reports as received from subject-
matter specialists/consultants (Figure 2.3). The capacity strength scores were then summed
up for each theme/region and normalised against the maximum possible score covering all
relevant CBD Articles. [Normalisation was necessary as some of the Articles were not
applicable to certain themes]. This returned a final unweighted score that measured the
existing capacity strength of each theme/region for all CBD Articles. The same exercise was,
then, repeated to measure the overall capacity strength of the country (cutting across
themes/regions) in terms of each of the fifteen CBD Articles. All the scores were expressed as
percentages for ease of comparison and interpretation.
The subsequent rank analysis produced some interesting results. The existing
capacity strength of the country for conservation of forest biodiversity (68.3 %) was marginally
better than the country’s capability to conserve agro-biodiversity (60 %). Among all the
13
institutions/themes, Western Ghats, Deccan, and arid and sub-humid regions of Gujarat and
Rajasthan scored very high (> 70 %) in terms of current capacity strength. But it was found to
be very low (< 50 %) for the subject of Taxonomy, for regions like North-East India, and
Lakshadweep Islands, and for the Inland Water Biodiversity.
An overall assessment of India’s competence in environmental conservation cutting
across biodiversity regions/themes revealed that the existing capacity strength of the country
was highest (75 %) for Article 12 (Research & Training) followed by Article 20 (Financial
Resources), Article 14 (Environmental Impact Assessments), and Article 8 (In-situ
Conservation). But it was found to be lowest (45.6 % each) in case of Article 19
(Biotechnology and Biosafety) and Article 9 (Ex-situ Conservation), followed by Article 11
(Incentive Measures).
It is clear from these rank analyses that the following biodiversity themes/regions are in need
of capacity-strengthening measures: North-East India, Lakshadweep Islands, inland water
biodiversity, and the subject area of taxonomy. Similarly, India’s existing infrastructure
14
Figure 2.3. A summary of existing capacity status/strength of different institutions/thematic
areas to handle biodiversity-related issues as articulated in CBD Articles 05 to 20. See text for
computation of capacity strength score.
Dry & Sub
humid Forest Biodiv. Islands Mountain
Biodiversity Other Assessments
CBD Article
Agr
o-bi
odiv
ersi
ty
Guj
. & R
aj.
Eas
tern
Gha
ts
Dec
can
Fore
st B
iodi
v.
Stat
e FD
s
Inla
nd w
ater
s
A&
N
Lak
shad
wee
p
Mar
ine
& C
oast
al
Him
alay
a
Tra
ns-H
im
Wes
tern
Gha
ts
NE
Indi
a
Polic
y &
Inst
ns.
Tax
onom
y
Med
icin
al p
lant
TK
S
Geo
spat
ial
Cap
acity
Str
engt
h Sc
ore
(%)
05. Cooperation 60.5 06. Gen. Measures for Conserv. & SU
xx 63.9
07. Monitoring & Identification 65.8 08. In-situ Conservation x
x
70.8 09. Ex-situ Conservation x
x x
x 45.6 10. Sustainable Use x
x
59.7 11. Incentives 47.4 12. Research & Training 75.0 13. Public Edu. & Awareness 65.8 14. EIA x
x x
x
72.1 15. Access to Genetic Resources x
x xx 51.5
16. Access to & Transfer of Tech. 50.0 17. Exchange of Information 60.5 18. Technical & Scientific Coop. 60.5 19. Biotechnology & Biosafety x
x 38.9 20. Financial Resources 73.7
Capacity Strength Score (%) 60.0
70.0
55.0
73.3
68.3
65.0
48.3
56.7
48.3
66.7
66.7
51.7
73.3
46.7
66.7
43.2
65.0
55.8
56.8
Ranking of Existing Capacity Status/Strength:
Excellent Good Poor Very Poor / Near-absent xx --Not Applicable--
15
and competence are found to be very weak for implementation of biosafety protocol, ex-situ
conservation of threatened flora and fauna, and incentive measures. Addressing these
weaknesses within a two-pronged strategy (one on themes/regions identified as weak and
concurrent focus on CBD Articles for which the country’s existing capacity strength is found to
be inadequate) should form the core of future action plans to further consolidate the country’s
commitment to CBD.
2.5 FUNDING SCENARIO: SAMPLE ANALYSIS OF R&D FUNDING IN BIODIVERSITY THEMATIC
AREAS (2002-2003)
The broad level patterns of R&D funding to biodiversity-related projects across regions and
states is explored in this section. The National Science and Technology Management
Information System (NSTMIS) Division of the Department of Science and Technology (DST)
has been collating and analysing the information on sponsored research4 and development
(R&D) projects on year to year basis since 1990-91. The “Directory of extra-mural R&D
Projects approved for funding by selected Central Government Agencies/Departments during
2002-2003” is the most recently available directory which has details of 2718 sponsored R&D
projects approved during the year 2002-03 by 19 Central Government Ministries/
Departments/Agencies5 – three institutions though included in the survey, reported their
funding as ‘nil’. Similar analysis can be conducted annually to monitor R&D investments in
biodiversity relative to the country’s CBD obligations.
We identified and categorised all R&D projects related to biodiversity across broad
biogeographic zones, biodiversity themes and states. If a project had components that were
spread across biogeographic zones, the total score of one was divided equally among the
zones. For example, if a project had components on forest biodiversity, Himalayas and NE,
then we gave each theme and zone a score of 0.33.
The total National R&D funding for 2002-2003 was Rs 448.69 crores. We identified
334 ‘biodiversity-related projects’ from the 2718 projects (12%) mentioned in the directory,
and their total funding amounted to Rs 46.38 crores (c.10%). These projects fall within the
broad guidelines of the CBD, and include identification and monitoring of species/taxa
/ecosystems, traditional knowledge systems, sustainable use of biodiversity, and ecotourism
among others. The funding for the projects across these zones were then added and plotted
(Figure 2.4). Projects relating to agro-biodiversity, as a broad area including testing organic
inputs, biofertilisers, and biopesticides, received 31% of the funding, and those relating to
forest biodiversity received 24%. What is notable here is that biodiversity studies for the North
East region of India only received 6% of the funding, inspite of this region being a hotspot of
diversity and 3% each was allocated to desert and semi-arid regions and the Himalayas. It
must be noted that this representative analysis is for a single year and can be repeated for
other years as information is published and made available. However, the general allocation
pattern of funds across regions may not have changed considerably as there has been no
16
major change in funding-policy or increase in capacities in poorly-funed regions in the last 4
years since the report was published.
Figure 2.4. Zone-wise R&D expenditure (2002-03)
2%14%
6%
3%
2%
4%
31%
24%
11%
3%IslandsCoastal & marineNE IndiaHimalayaDeccan & E. GhatsW. GhatsAgro-biodiversityForestsInland watersDesert & semi-arid
These identified projects were then categorised for states-level funding, and a similar State-
wise expenditure pie-chart was obtained (Figure 2.5).
Figure 2.5. State-wise allocation of R&D projects related to biodiversity (2002-03)
17%
11%
9%
9%9%
7%
7%
6%
25%KeralaMaharashtraKarnatakaUP (incl. Uttaranchal)NE StatesTamil NaduWest BengalNew DelhiOthers
The chart shows that the highest funding is received by Kerala (17%), Maharashtra (11%),
Karnataka (9%) and Uttar Pradesh including Uttaranchal (9%). In short, 60% of the total
funding received for biodiversity related projects was utilised by six states (Kerala,
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal), while all the eight
states in the north-east together received just 9% of the total R&D funding on biodiversity
related issues. This analysis highlights the allocation pattern of R&D investments across
Biodiversity themes and across states. It is revealing that the NE states which fall within one
of the 34 Global hotspots of biodiversity receives less than 10% of Biodiversity related R&D
funding. This perhaps reflects the lack of institutions and organisations in the region with
capacities to utilise adequate resources. Desert and mountain ecosystems together received
only 6 % of the R&D funding on biodiversity-related projects. This is very surprising as these
regions together occupy a vast proportion of India’s land mass and are in need of improved
capacities at almost all levels. They are also rich with unique ecosystems and endemics.
Again it reflects either the lack of institutions focused on these biomes or lack of focus by
17
institutions that already existing within these regions. This calls for action to address the
discrepancy in R&D investments in these vital regions of India. This brief analysis however,
does not reveal anything about extent or quality of impacts of the R&D funding.
18
Chapter 3. Capacity Status, Constraints, and Root Cause Analyses
3.1 CBD ARTICLE 05: COOPERATION Capacity Status & Strengths
• International cooperation in biodiversity and sustainable management is largely
mediated in the country through the MoEF in the case of forest biodiversity and
Department of Agricultural Education and Research (DARE) of Ministry of Agriculture
for agro-biodiversity. Though DARE has numerous global collaborations in
agricultural science and technology, there are no major international initiatives on
agro-biodiversity per se.
• The MoEF is the country’s nodal agency for several international organizations and
programmes related to biodiversity, such as CBD, UNEP, South Asia Cooperative
Environment Programme (SACEP), IUCN, and ICIMOD (International Centre for
Integrated Mountain Development). The MoEF also represents the country’s
commitment to various multilateral agreements and treaties on environment and
biodiversity like CITES, Ramsar Convention, Convention on Migratory Species of
Wild Animals (CMS), UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), UN
Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Commission on Sustainable
Development (CSD), and UN Forum on Forests (UNFF). In addition, MoEF
represents the country in several bilateral environmental agreements with nations like
Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, EC, Germany, Iran, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
USA, and Vietnam6. Sustainable Development Network Partners (SDNP) of Indo-
Canada Environmental Facility (ICEF) aids capacity-building of ENVIS centres in
biodiversity information management.
• India is also an active member of the Like Minded Megadiverse Countries (LMMC), a
global cooperative forum of 17 biodiversity-rich countries which hold nearly 70 % of
the world’s known biodiversity.
• For specific biomes in border areas, transboundary initiatives and cooperation are
currently being explored for the Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) complex and the Terai-
Arc landscapes.
• There are numerous legal and policy instruments relating to international cooperation
in marine areas relating to fish stocks and fishing capacities, incidental catch
reduction, protection of species groups such as sharks, the prevention of pollution
and measures to reduce invasion by exotics.
• The country’s capacity status in international cooperation is marked by numerous
institutional initiatives in forging global partnerships in biodiversity conservation.
19
Some of the notable initiatives include the following organizational collaborations in
both governmental and non-governmental sectors:
o National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI) and Global Biodiversity
Information Facility (GBIF)
o National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) and Indian Ocean Census of
Marine Life (IOCoML)
o BNHS, and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) on vulture
conservation
o BNHS and Birdlife International on Important Bird Areas (IBA)
programme
o WII-USFWS-ISLT (International Snow Leopard Trust) on trans-Himalayas
of Ladakh
Capacity Constraints • Few major initiatives of international cooperation for conservation of agro-biodiversity
• Lack of adequate policy support for cross-border cooperation is a major capacity
constraint for research in wild biodiversity
• Numerous other constraints exist with respect to cooperation and collaboration relating to
species and specific ecosystems. These are elaborated in the discussion on relevant
articles of the CBD (in the following sections) to avoid duplication.
Root Causes Systemic: • International cooperation for agro-biodiversity research is not promoted extensively
probably as a measure to check bio-piracy
• Lack of strong policy support for global cooperation in wild biodiversity research
Institutional: • Agricultural institutions in India generally do not accord high priority to agro-biodiversity
research
3.2 CBD ARTICLE 06: GENERAL MEASURES FOR CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE
Capacity Status & Strengths
• Environmental protection is articulated at the highest level in the Constitution of India
under the Directive Principles of State Policy [Articles 48-A and 51-A (g)]. In addition
to being a signatory to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), which is the main
international instrument on biodiversity, India is also party to other agreements such
as the United Nations Convention on the Law of Seas and signatory to agreements
such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
20
and Flora (CITES), the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Convention on Migratory
Species (CMS), and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the CBD.
• Historically, India’s conservation laws were aimed at protecting forests and wildlife
mainly as resources; issue-specific and technical policies and laws that are
progressive and more inclusive are recent. Along with the major Central Acts,
numerous national strategies, policies, and programmes have been initiated at the
country level7, some of which provide the legal framework for the establishment of
protected areas.
• Capacities for implementing large programmes and strategies for surveying
biodiversity exist to a certain extent across systemic, institutional and individual
levels. These are being carried out by institutions from both governmental (e.g. the
Zoological Survey of India [ZSI], the Botanical Survey of India [BSI], the Forest
Survey of India [FSI], the Wildlife Institute of India [WII], Centre for Ecological
Sciences [CES, IISc.], Salim Ali School Centre for Ornithology and Natural History
[SACON], G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development
[GBPIHED], and Kerala Forest Research Institute [KFRI]) and non-governmental
sectors (e.g. Bombay Natural History Society [BNHS], Foundation for Revitalisation of
Local Health Traditions [FRLHT], and Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the
Environment [ATREE], Foundation for Ecological Security [FES], and Kerala Shastra
Sahitya Parishad [KSSP]). The Forest Department is responsible for the development
of Working Plans, Management Plans for Protected Areas, and related documents.
The combined geographic coverage of these organisations is considerable. Currently
only general in-situ conservation strategies relating to Protected Area establishment
are in place. The Report of the National Forest Commission has laid down a number
of general and specific guidelines for this aspect (Ministry of Environment and Forests
[MoEF] 2006, Report of the National Forest Commission). The identification of critical
ecosystems and areas of importance is underway (see for example the Important and
Endemic Bird Area initiative carried out through the Bombay Natural History Society
and the list of wetlands identified under National Wetlands Conservation Programme
(MoEF Annual Report 2005-06).
• Integration of sustainable use components of biodiversity is being carried out.
Currently, there has been a paradigm shift in even species oriented plans to include
people and livelihoods as crucial variables for successful conservation (see for
example, the report of the Tiger Task Force, 2005.8 Since the 1990s, there has been
a gradual incorporation of sustainable use related components into India’s
biodiversity conservation policies9. Joint Forest Management (JFM) which was
initiated during this period was a major shift marking potential decentralisation and
sustainable use policies of the government. The National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-
2016) incorporates sustainable use and participatory planning while an amendment to
21
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in 2002 recognises communities’ usage of
resources as well as the role they play in conservation. Of special importance is the
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) development exercise and its
various documents that have been prepared under extensive consultative and
participatory processes and includes a wide range of issues relating to biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use. Such initiatives have marked a shift from
traditional policy making procedures and hint at a more inclusive, decentralised view
to conservation. Some Acts such as the Indian Forest Act 1927, the Panchayat
(Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 (PESA), and the Scheduled Tribes and
Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 provide
extensive scope for inclusion of clauses relating to decentralised natural resources
management through local institutions10. Some of these acts aim to provide livelihood
opportunities to marginalised sections of society by way of providing employment and
other benefits.
• The National Environment Policy (NEP), 2006 has provisions for promoting
sustainable use components in biodiversity conservation. At the cross-sectoral level,
recent policies such as the National Agricultural Policy (2000) and Comprehensive
Marine Fishing Policy (2004) incorporate sustainable use components. Other recent
legal instruments such as the Right to Information Act (2005) aim at providing more
transparency and scope for improvement with respect to environmental governance.
With respect to the upcoming 11th Five Year Plan (2007-2012), the Planning
Commission has constituted a Steering Committee on Environment, Forests, Wildlife,
and Animal Welfare along with nine Working Groups/ Task Forces that deal with
specific thematic components.
Capacity Constraints
• Lack of harmonization between various acts and polices pertaining to biodiversity as it is,
by nature, a cross-cutting and multi-disciplinary subject.
• Conflicts between institutional sectors over development goals versus environmental /
biodiversity concerns
• Inadequate policies and administrative mechanisms for participatory and sustainable
models of conservation and traditional rights and knowledge systems
• Limited capacity to develop holistic guidelines on sustainable use of Non-Timber Forest
Products
• Conservation of forest ecosystems prioritised over all others and strategies and models
for forest conservation applied across the board irrespective of specific ecosystem needs
22
• Specific policy frameworks and strategies are either lacking or inadequate for some
biogeographic regions:
Ecologically-driven land use policy for arid and semi-arid areas
Absence of linkage between research and policy in marine and coastal
environments
Absence of specific plans that cater to the biogrographical uniqueness of regions
like Trans-Himalaya
Lack of clear policy for conservation of biodiversity outside PA network
Insufficient attention paid to urban ecosystems and biodiversity
Limited policy approach to ecosystem services and goods such as maintenance
of hydrological cycle, pollination, carbon sequestration, soil conservation, nutrient
cycling, and climate change mitigation
Very few national strategies for many lower and neglected taxa
• Limited institutional (and individual) capabilities for strategies and plans relating to in-situ
conservation (examples include protected area prioritisation techniques and evaluation
and integration of ecosystem services in forest management and working plans)
• Nomenclature and definitions related to biodiversity and its components ambiguous and
sometimes affects the planning process adversely (e.g., definitions of forests and coasts,
wasteland and natural scrub)
Root Causes
Systemic:
• The nature of the relationship between the Centre and the States and different
jurisdictional powers over various sectors
• Lack of mainstreaming and integration of biodiversity issues into other sectors
• Lack of effective partnerships between the government organisations, NGOs, and
panchayat institutions with respect to policy making
• Very limited linkage between science and policy
Institutional:
• Lack of horizontal collaboration and cooperation among institutional stakeholders
• Inability to facilitate effective participation of local communities in state and centre
sponsored conservation programmes
23
• Institutional capacities are limited for developing strategies and plans for specific areas
• Very little collaboration between policy makers, managers, researchers, and practitioners
• The State FDs lack adequate and up-to-date capacities for developing science-based
management plans and guidelines
• Terrestrial paradigms operate in marine spaces and are executed by institutions that are
unfamiliar with marine aspects
Individual:
• Limited knowledge and understanding of basic principles of biodiversity conservation
among policy makers
• Lack of expertise and adequately trained manpower are major limitations for some
aspects of survey and documentation such as taxonomy
• Implementing agencies have inadequate capacities to facilitate people’s participation in
development issues
• Inputs from social scientists are restricted to baseline information
3.3 CBD ARTICLE 07: IDENTIFICATION AND MONITORING
Capacity Status & Strengths
• India is a mega-diverse country situated at the confluence of three biogeographic
realms and includes 10 distinct biogeographic zones. Till date, 350 species of
mammals, 1224 birds, 408 reptiles, 197 amphibians and 2546 species of fishes have
been recorded (MoEF 2006, The Third National Report to CBD). It is estimated that
over 48,000 species of plants (accounting for 11% of the known plant species of the
world) are found here. A number of governmental institutions and a few NGOs have
been established with the primary purpose of identification and monitoring of
biological diversity across ecosystem, species and genetic levels.
• High diversity areas and hotspots within India have been identified under global
frameworks such as hotspots (Conservation International) and ecoregions (WWF).
Many of the national institutes (like WII, and SACON [Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology
and Natural History]) have prioritised ecosystems (based on criteria such as diversity,
fragility or threat) where they focus their work. For coastal and marine regions,
Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management deals with various biological and
socio-economic properties of coastal and marine ecosystems. Survey organisations
such as the BSI and the ZSI are adding on to simple species based surveys and
collections and are involved in assessing threat to species and ecosystems.
24
Organisations such as the Forest Survey of India assess forest cover on a regular
basis. Under the Department of Space, Space Application Centre, the National
Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) and the Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS)
contribute to remote sensing applications covering both terrestrial and marine realms.
NGOs such as the BNHS, ATREE, FRLHT and NCF (Nature Conservation
Foundation) are also involved identifying important areas for biodiversity
conservation. The Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project (BCPP) carried out
collaboratively between government organisations and NGOs (with the WWF-India as
a nodal agency) assessed priorities across biomes and ecosystems. Initiatives such
as the Satpura-Maikal and Terai Arc project of the WWF provide a landscape based
approach.
• At the species level, the BSI and the ZSI estimate that about 70% of India has been
inventoried (MoEF, 2006, Third Report to the CBD) and additionally are involved in
the development of Red Data Books11 for plants and animals. Work on endangered
species and ecosystems forms the focus of organisations such as the WII.
Evaluations of large-scale conservation outcomes of some key charismatic species
such as the tiger have also been undertaken12. The Fisheries Survey of India, the
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) (for exploited fish species, both
under the Ministry of Agriculture) and the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO)
address biodiversity in the marine system. Additionally institutions such as the
National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources (NBAGR), the National Bureau for
Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) and the National Bureau of Fish Genetic
Resources (NBFGR) are involved in large-scale surveys of traditional use and wild
relatives of plants and livestock. Non governmental organisations such as the BNHS
and the FRLHT are also involved in identification and monitoring; the French Institute,
Pondicherry has done considerable work on inventorying and databasing plants in the
Western Ghats and also for mangroves.. Institutions such as Centre for Molecular
and Cell Biology (CCMB), the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics
(CDFD), the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), the National Institute of
Immunology (NII), the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS), the Indian
Institute of Science (IISc.), and the National Institute if Plant Genetic Resources
(NIPGR) are a few of the institutions that have advanced capacities to carry out work
on genetics. Other universities that work on these issues include Madhurai Kamraj
University (MKU) and Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi.
• Documentation of traditional practices for the country as a whole is limited. Recent
initiatives such as the Peoples’ Biodiversity Registers provide important inputs in this
regard.
• Monitoring of large-scale forest cover change and modification is carried out using
remote sensing and geographical information systems (GIS) technologies (by
25
institutions such as the FSI, NRSA, IIRS, and WII). Impacts of land-use changes on
population status of wild animals and plants are also monitored and studied by some
NGOs notably, WWF-India, WCS-India, ATREE, and NCF. Population census and
monitoring of large mammals such as the tiger are carried out by the Forest
Department with inputs from organisations such as the WII. Nationwide assessments
and reviews on protected areas have been carried out by the WII13. Monitoring
capacities are comparatively lower than survey and documentation. For the marine
realm, the Global Ocean Observing System, and the Coastal Ocean Monitoring and
Prediction System (COMAPS) with the Department of Ocean Development (DoD) as
the nodal agency is expected to initiate monitoring of biodiversity changes in coastal
and oceanic waters. The Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network has initiated work
under the NIO. In addition to monitoring of various aspects of biodiversity
conservation, community based monitoring of exploited species have been initiated
(with the help of NGOs) in some areas in the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife
Sanctuary, Karnataka.
• The NCL’s Centre for Biodiversity Informatics (NCBI) has developed a large number
of databases and aims to develop tools and standards, as well as develop
infrastructure and capacities to collect, document, analyse and disseminate data. The
ENVIS (Environmental Information System) centres and nodes14 established by the
MoEF provide a crucial platform for the documentation and dissemination of
biodiversity related data. The Biodiversity Information System of the IIRS has a very
ambitious set of components ranging from species to ecosystems and threats. The
CSIR has developed a Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) for Department
of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy (ISMH). Other work on documented
knowledge systems includes contributions by National Institute of Science
Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR on Ayurveda, Siddha, and
Unani) and the National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI) (on oral traditional
knowledge, esp. AICPRE). The French Institute, Pondicherry has developed atlases/
databases for plants in the Western Ghats and mangroves along the coast. A number
of repositories for fauna and flora in the country also maintain records in their
museums and collections (e.g. BSI, ZSI, BNHS, FRLHT, Madras Crocodile Bank
Trust, and NBRI). The Peoples’ Biodiversity Registers, which are developed with the
help of stakeholders, are a unique way of recording traditional knowledge and
information.
Capacity Constraints
• Survey efforts within the biogeographical zones are uneven with considerable regional
disparities; for example, areas of high diversity and endemism like North-East India, the
Himalaya, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are very poorly surveyed
26
• Efforts have been concentrated on species level assessments with undue focus on the
survival of individual organisms and limited importance to the persistence of populations
as a whole.
• Identification and monitoring of critical ecosystems, and the integrity and contiguity of
habitats is not carried out in a systematic manner mainly owing to lack of institutional
capacities.
• Baseline data on genetic diversity of endangered and economically important
components of biodiversity is very limited
• The status and distribution of lesser taxa like invertebrates remain poorly known
• The Red Data Book compilation process is slow and does not follow current
internationally recognised guidelines
• Indicator and surrogate taxa concepts have been very poorly explored in biodiversity
management
• Regular and long-term monitoring parameters have not been adequately established and
there is no mechanism for monitoring biodiversity outside PAs
• The link between EIA and monitoring has not been established
• Much of the Traditional Knowledge Systems remains undocumented particularly for
medicinal plants, agro-biodiversity, and NTFPs
Root Causes
Systemic:
• Systemic focus has been more on the species (particularly the survival of individual
organisms as opposed to the persistence of populations).
• Inadequate efforts for evaluating ecosystem and genetic diversity of the country
• Taxonomy has been neglected for long both at policy and institutional levels
• Long-term monitoring frameworks for all biogeographic and thematic regions are lacking
• Policy recognition of Traditional Knowledge Systems has only been a recent
phenomenon
Institutional:
• Institutional capacities are lacking for genetic and ecosystem level work
• Collection, preservation and curation systems are outdated in taxonomical institutions
• Lack of collaboration between institutions studying biodiversity and the State FDs
27
• Very little collaboration between policy makers, managers and researchers
• Lack of institutional capacity to study long-term impacts of and to develop mitigating
strategies for climate change, invasive and exotic species and anthropogenic fires on
biodiversity
• Very few partnerships between administration and NGOs for identification and monitoring
Individual:
• Scarcity of motivated and trained scientists in government organisations
• Inadequate availability of expertise in specialised subjects like taxonomy and
conservation genetics
• Erosion of values and practices of traditional knowledge systems among local
communities
3.4 CBD ARTICLE 08: IN-SITU CONSERVATION
Capacity Status & Strengths
• India’s major strength in in-situ conservation lies in its impressive Protected Area
Network, which currently comprises 599 PAs including 95 National Parks, 502 Wildlife
Sanctuaries, and 2 Conservation Reserves, covering about 4.75 % of the country’s
total geographic area15. Five major Marine Protected Areas on the mainland and
several others in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are included in the PA network.
This network also incorporates keystone and flagship species approach of in-situ
conservation, with the launching of Project Tiger in 1973 (29 Tiger Reserves)16 and
Project Elephant in 1992 (25 Elephant Reserves)17 within the structural framework of
the existing PA network. In addition, 14 Biosphere Reserves have been designated
on the basis of UNESCO/MAB criteria to conserve all life forms along with their
support systems and linkages, including the socio-cultural and economic
environments of local communities.
• International efforts for in-situ conservation are also underway in the region with the
recognition of the Himalaya and the Western Ghats as among the 34 Global
Biodiversity Hotspots18of the world. The MoEF has also embarked on international
initiatives like designation of 25 wetlands as Ramsar sites of international
importance19, listing of five PAs as World Heritage (WH) sites20, and notification of
Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary (as per the mandate of the International Whaling
Commission).
• India’s efforts for in-situ conservation of biodiversity also include some of the
innovative schemes like National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-06), National Lake
28
Conservation Plan (NLCP) and ongoing dialogues with Nepal and Bhutan over
creation of trans-boundary PAs. The Final Technical Report of the UNDP-GEF
Project on National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, 2005 is a key input to the
formulation of India’s NBSAP which is currently at an advanced stage of finalisation.
• Contributions from NGOs towards identification of potential sites for in-situ
conservation have been quite encouraging. Examples include designation of 55
Medicinal Plants Conservation Areas (MPCAs) by FRHLT in three southern states
and identification of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the entire country by BNHS &
BirdLife International.
• India also has several central laws and notifications in place, which facilitate
enforcement of in-situ conservation. Prominent among them are:
o Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
o Indian Forest Act, 1927
o Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
o Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986
o Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
o Biological Diversity Act, 2002
o Biological Diversity Rules, 2004
o Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991
o National Forest Policy, 1988
o National Environment Policy, 2006.
• Under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, several areas have been declared as
Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) (such as Dahanu Taluk and Mahabaleshwar -
Panchgani, Maharashtra and parts of the Aravalli region in Rajasthan). These ESAs
have area specific management plans and authorities to manage these, which are
more context sensitive, than PAs formed under the WLPA.
• India is also committed, as a signatory of various international treaties and
conventions, to promote in-situ conservation. Examples include CITES, Convention
on Migratory Species (CMS), and the CBD. The MoEF represents the country in the
Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Network (APFISN) of the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) to document and to develop action plans for the control of
invasive alien species in the wild.
• Organisational support to promote in-situ conservation is currently being
strengthened at both governmental and non-governmental levels. For example, the
MoEF has set up several central bodies like National Biodiversity Authority (NBA),
State Biodiversity Boards (SBB), National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board
(NAEB), National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA), Indian Coral Reef
Monitoring Network (ICRMN), National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), and the
29
Tiger and Other Endangered Species Crime Control Bureau (National Wildlife Crime
Control Bureau). Several national institutes have been working on various aspects of
in-situ conservation [e.g., ZSI, BSI, FSI, WII, SACON, G.B. Pant Institute of
Himalayan Environment and Development (GBPIHED), Forest Research Institute
(FRI), and several sister institutes under the aegis of ICFRE and ICAR]. In addition,
central and state universities (notably, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Aligarh Muslim
University, MS University, Assam University, and Madurai Kamaraj University)
undertake numerous studies on various aspects of biodiversity research especially at
the regional level. Contributions from some of the prominent NGOs have also been
very significant (e.g., FRLHT, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation [MSSRF],
BNHS, World Wide Fund for Nature-India (WWF), Wildlife Protection Society of India
(WPSI), Wildlife Trust of India (WTI), Kalpavriksh, and ATREE]). The Indira Gandhi
Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya (IGRMS) has been involved with the in-situ
conservation of sacred groves across the country.
• Though agro-biodiversity remains largely neglected in the country’s conservation
efforts, there has been a recent shift in government’s policy and planning in favour of
conserving the indigenous crops and landraces/cultivars. In-situ conservation plans
have been developed for select components of agro-biodiversity by ICAR in some
agro-climatic zones (e.g. Orchard crops). As a major policy initiative to protect the
indigenous gene pool, the use of Gene Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS) has
been explicitly banned by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act,
2001. There are also some NGOs actively involved in conservation of agro-
biodiversity, including MSSRF, Deccan Development Society (DDS), and SEVA. In
particular, Community Agro-Biodiversity Centre (CAbC) of MSSRF at Wayanaad,
Kerala conducts several innovative community-oriented programmes that aim at
sustainable farming practices.
• India’s conservation history is marked by a long tradition of community protection to
forests and wildlife (e.g., Bishnois in western Rajasthan, Chipko movement in western
Himalaya, customary protection of heronries by villagers, and religious sanctity
accorded to sacred groves, select tree species, elephant, nilgai, peafowl, and sarus
crane). Specific efforts have been undertaken to promote community participation in
in-situ conservation plans [e.g. Peoples’ Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) by Indian
Institute of Science and creation of Forest Protection Committees (FPCs) & Eco-
Development Committees (EDCs) under JFM at the level of van panchayats].
• There are some recent initiatives on application of GIS and remote sensing
technology to aid in-situ conservation strategies (e.g., digital mapping of PA
boundaries by WII and gap analysis and habitat suitability and assessment studies at
ATREE, IIRS, WII, and other institutions).
30
Capacity Constraints
• Continuing gaps in our current knowledge of the country’s biodiversity
• Serious inadequacies in the existing PA network like under-representation of certain
ecosystems and flagship species-centric approach21
• A large number of PAs still await formal notification owing to long-standing unresolved
issues
• Some categories of Protected Areas (like Biosphere Reserves) do not have any legal
status in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
• A large gap between research and management of PAs with limited linkages between
science and policy
• Conservation planning is characterised by a blanket-policy approach with little
consideration for regional socio-cultural milieu or ecosystem properties
• The current level of focus on traditional in-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity has very
limited research focus in universities in comparison to inordinate emphasis on increasing
yields.. These institutions could potentially assist initiatives of local communities and work
carried out by some NGOs in formalising this critically needed field of research.
• A widespread neglect of the importance of in-situ conservation of medicinal plants in the
management agendas of state FDs
• A general apathy among the policy-makers and field managers to take local communities
into confidence while drawing in-situ conservation plans
Root Causes
Systemic:
• Little scientific approach in the PA network policy
• Demarcation exercises are not inclusive
• Lack of coordination among various government sectors makes the final notification of a
PA a tediously long process
• Absence of statutory status for some PA categories (like Biosphere Reserves)
• Long and tedious legal procedures discourage state FDs from taking legal actions against
violators of wildlife and forest laws
• Political interference especially in some cases
• Straitjacketed approach of conservation planning that overlooks the country’s vast
diversity of landscapes, ecosystems and socio-economic and socio-cultural settings
31
• Most in-situ conservation policies lack stakeholder approach and policy atmosphere is
generally less favourable for participatory solutions to biodiversity issues
Institutional:
• Scarcity of technical expertise and a bare-minimum institutional infrastructure with the
State FDs
• Presence of too few institutions to address the growing number of conservation issues
and biodiversity concerns
• Most of these institutions are too specialised to evolve integrated holistic solutions for in-
situ conservation
• Vast network of agricultural extension in the country neglects in-situ conservation of agro-
biodiversity
• Very few institutional initiatives on collating baseline data on population status of
important medicinal plants in the wild
• State forest and agriculture departments are yet to fully adopt modern institutional
functioning in which stakeholder participation becomes a key component
• Encouragement of economic activities by other governmental sectors is often in direct
conflict with the measures of in-situ conservation
Individual:
• A severe paucity of taxonomical expertise especially in lesser known taxa
• The few practicing taxonomists often work in an atmosphere which is not conducive to
research and lacks career incentives for promotion of excellence
• Training of personnel in in-situ conservation of crop diversity remains inadequate
• Scarcity of geospatial scientists and managers for undertaking efficient PA network
planning
• Limited ability of the frontline staff of the PAs to work in tandem with the local
communities
• Inadequate individual capacity among PA managers to link science to policy and
management actions, and also to integrate socio-ecological and location-specific aspects
into conservation planning.
3.5 CBD ARTICLE 09: EX-SITU CONSERVATION
Capacity Status & Strengths
• Setting up of the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) in 1992 by the MoEF as a statutory
umbrella body for evaluation, facilitation, and coordination of all the zoos was a major
32
step in ex-situ conservation of animal species in India. Currently, the CZA recognises 164
zoos in the country22. In total, there are 275 zoos, aquaria, safari & deer parks, and mini-
zoos23, though a majority of them do not qualify as captive breeding facilities.
• The recent launch of Indian Botanic Gardens Network (IBGN) in 2003 under the aegis of
National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI) and Botanic Gardens Conservation
International (BGCI) is another major initiative to bring together about 150 botanic
gardens of India under a single coordinating mechanism. In 1999, MoEF launched the
“Assistance to Botanical Gardens” programme to improve ex-situ conservation facilities in
existing botanical gardens.
• The ex-situ conservation of wild animals in the country is largely mandated and
articulated through the following legislations and policies:
o Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [Chapter IV A]
o National Zoo Policy, 1988
o Recognition of Zoo Rules, 1992
o Recognition of Zoo (Amendment) Rules, 2004
• Besides these national policies, the ex-situ breeding is also compatible with the
international conventions like the “IUCN Technical Guidelines on the Management of Ex-
situ Populations for Conservation”.
• ICAR has initiated several gene banks / repositories of domesticated and cultivated fauna
and flora which include the state-of-the-art scientific collections of germplasms like
NBPGR, NBAGR, NBFGR and NBAIM (National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Micro
organisms).
• NBPGR has the world’s largest collection of plant gene pool, with about 1500
germplasms under in vitro gene bank and c. 5800 under cryogenic facility. NBAGR is the
leading gene bank for livestock in the subcontinent for ex-situ conservation of about 150
indigenous and little-known livestock breeds. NBFGR is the country’s central gene
collection facility for all the freshwater fish species with the possession of both sperm and
DNA banks for ex-situ conservation of fishes. In addition, several national facilities for the
collection of germplasm of economically important microbes have also been set up under
NBAIM.
• There are some notable institutional initiatives in ex-situ conservation of a few threatened
species of wild flora and fauna. Examples include the following organisations:
o Himalayan Forest Research Institute (HFRI) and Regional Research
Laboratory, Jammu on threatened plants of the Trans-Himalaya
o University of Horticulture and Forestry (UHF, Solan, HP) on medicinal and
aromatic plants of the Greater Himalaya
33
o Joint initiative of FRLHT & EPTRI (Environment Protection, Training, and
Research Institute) in setting up ex-situ conservation plots in Eastern Ghats
for medicinal and aromatic plants
o MoEF-State FDs on ex-situ propagation of endangered orchids and bamboos
in north-east India
o MoEF-Meghalaya FD’s joint efforts for ex-situ propagation of the endangered
insectivorous pitcher plants
o MSSRF maintains ex-situ breeding nurseries for mangrove species for
restocking coastal vegetation
o Recent successful attempts by NCF to regenerate rain-forest plants through
nurseries for use in ecorestroration in the Western Ghats.
o MoEF-CZA facilities for captive breeding of some select species of
endangered fauna like snow leopard, musk deer, red panda, Asiatic lion, lion-
tailed macaque, gharial, sea turtles, marsh crocodiles, and pheasants
o Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) is currently setting up a
National Facility for Conservation of Endangered Species of Animals with the
support of Department of Biotechnology (DBT), MoEF, CZA, and
Government of Andhra Pradesh.
o Some successful collaborations between the MoEF and NGOs in ex-situ
breeding of wild animals include snakes and crocodiles (Chennai Snake
Park, Madras Crocodile Bank, and Pune Serpentarium), pygmy hogs (Pygmy
Hog Conservation Breeding Centre, Assam), and Gyps vultures (BNHS).
• Presence of NGOs for research and training in zoo science and ex-situ conservation like
Zoo Outreach Organisation (ZOO) adds to the capacity strength of India.
• There are also some initiatives on application of innovative techniques in ex-situ
conservation like use of biotechnology by ICRISAT for cultivars, ranching (use of eggs
from wild population for release and restocking) of gharials in Gangetic river system,
hatcheries for marine ornamental fishes in Lakshadweep Islands, sea-ranching of turtles
and seahorses and ranching of Edible-Nest Swiftlets in Andamans by SACON.
• India’s conservation also includes a few traditional practices of involvement of local
people in ex-situ measures like community-run hatcheries of Olive Ridley sea turtles,
which are protected from predation and beach erosion, along the Orissa, Andhra and
Madras coasts as well as along the Kerala and Goa coasts. Successful ex-situ
conservation measures for local flora have also been initiated by small organizations such
as the Gurukula Botanical Garden in Wyanad which also serves the dual purpose of
educating local people and children about biodiversity. There are also visible attempts,
though few and far between, to involve local people in ex-situ conservation of agro-
biodiversity like the establishment of Community Gene Banks for local landraces by
34
women self-groups in Andhra Pradesh, and Village Herbal Gardens to propagate
medicinal plants under ex-situ conditions by FRLHT.
• An interesting development in ex-situ conservation relates to the private entrepreneurship
which aims at economic gains through ex-situ breeding. Notable example is the operation
of prawn seed hatcheries by private owners to meet the prawn-seed demands of
aquaculture farms which otherwise exploit wild seeds often in an unsustainable manner.
Capacity Constraints
• There is a lack of focus in the mandates and objectives of Indian zoos. In many cases,
zoos are just random collections of animals and capacities are inadequate in terms of
captive breeding as well as regarding their role as facilitators of public awareness and
education.
• Zoo infrastructure in the country for captive breeding of endangered species of wild
animals is far from perfect and is affected by:
Lack of funds and shortage of trained staff
Severe space constraints and badly designed enclosures
Absence of viable populations under captive facilities for several species of
endangered fauna
Uncontrolled breeding of certain species
Paucity of vital scientific data on breeding biology
Poor maintenance of zoo records and studbook compilations
Lack of institutional follow-up measures to reintroduce the stock back to the
wild
Public apathy and vandalism
• No institutional recognition for community initiatives in ex-situ conservation
• General indifference towards ex-situ conservation of endangered species of wild flora by
state FDs
• Absence of inter-sectoral coordination within the government and among the
organisations
• Very few schemes that involve local communities in ex-situ propagation of forest trees for
restoration of village and community forests
• Vast traditional knowledge in identification and cultivation of medicinal plants remains
largely untapped
35
Root Causes:
Systemic:
• Captive breeding as an ex-situ conservation strategy has never received a strong policy
support
• Lack of inter-departmental coordination results in either duplication or gaps in institutional
efforts in the field
Institutional:
• Reluctance among zoos to co-operatively facilitate the breeding of endangered species
and a lack of institutional co-operation.
• Near-absence of basic infrastructure in most of the captive breeding facilities and zoos
• Institutions like state FDs do not recognise the potential of the role of community
participation in successful ex-situ conservation measures
• Few institutional initiatives on ex-situ conservation of wild flora other than medicinal plants
• Lack of organisational initiatives to utilise traditional knowledge systems for ex-situ
propagation of medicinal plants
Individual:
• Lack of trained field staff and zoo managers is a major drawback of ex-situ conservation
programmes in India
• Career prospects for zoo biologists and managers are virtually non-existent
3.6 CBD ARTICLE 10: SUSTAINABLE USE OF COMPONENTS OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Capacity Status & Strengths
• In recognition of the direct and indirect dependency of a large proportion of local
population on various components of biodiversity, India’s conservation policies and laws
have placed a greater emphasis on sustainable use of bio-resources. Prominent among
them are:
o Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
o Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986
o National Forest Policy, 1988
o Coastal Zone Regulation (CRZ) Notification, 1991
o National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement on Environment and
Sustainable Development, 1992
o Policy and Guidelines for Ecotourism in India, 1998
o Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
o Biological Diversity Act, 2002
36
o Biological Diversity Rules, 2004
o Draft Roadmap for Eco-friendly Development of Fisheries, 2005
o Comprehensive Marine Fisheries Policy, 2004
o National Environment Policy, 2006
o State Marine Fisheries Regulation Acts
o Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006
• MoEF and other ministries have initiated several multi-stakeholder schemes to coordinate
and promote sustainable use of biodiversity resources:
o Joint Forest Management in 199024 with Village Forest Committees (VFC)
and Forest Protection Committees (FPC). There are currently about 80,000
forest committees involving user communities
o Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) for information
systems on sustainable use of biodiversity resources
o Community programmes on sustainable use of forest resources in North-east
India like Village Safety and Supply Reserves, Asha Van, Anchal Forest
Reserves, and Apna Van
o All India Coordinated Research Project on Underutilised and Underexploited
Plants (1982)
o Setting up of a network of Medicinal Plants Conservation Areas (MPCAs)
o Ecodevelopment and ecotourism initiatives around select Protected Areas
• Active participation of a few institutions and organisations in promoting sustainable use of
biodiversity components is a potential capacity-strength though it is still rather limited.
Some of the governmental bodies include:
o National Biodiversity Authority (NBA)
o State Biodiversity Boards (SBB)
o National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board (NAEB) for regeneration of
degraded forests for their sustainable use
o National Bioresources Development Board (NBDB)
o Institute of Bioresources and Sustainable Development (IBSD)
o National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI)
o Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI)
o Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT)
o Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems (CEMDE),
University of Delhi
o G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development (GBPIHED)
o National Medicinal Plants Board (NMPB)
o Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM)
o Several national research and training institutes under ICFRE, ICAR, and
CSIR
37
• A few state institutions like EPTRI (Environmental Protection Training & Research
Institute) Some prominent national NGOs active in sustainable use campaign and
research include:
o Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT)
o M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF)
o Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE)
o Kalpavriksh
o Young Mizo Association (YMA)
o Foundation for Ecological Security (FES)
o Honey Bee Network
o Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems (CIKS)
o Navdanya of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology
(RFSTE)
• There have been successful attempts to develop sustainable models of bio-resource use
and harvesting especially for the following usufructs:
o Freshwater fish and components of marine biodiversity (ICAR & MoEF)
o Medicinal and aromatic plants (FRLHT)
o Mangroves (MSSRF)
o Sea weeds (Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute, CSMCRI)
o Marine bio-resources (CMFRI & CIFT)
o Pearl culture (MSSRF)
o Forest woods (GBPIHED)
• India has strong and well-developed indigenous knowledge systems on sustainable
utilisation of biodiversity components, and the existing community models of common
property resource use add to the fundamental capacity strength of the country.
• The successes of a few institutional initiatives to promote sustainable use of biodiversity
like ecodevelopment and ecotourism schemes, Joint Forest Management, YMA
community reserves in Mizoram, and freshwater fisheries have created a positive policy
environment.
• Increasing number of studies on application of modern spatial tools like GIS & RS in
mapping and modelling of distribution and availability of bio-resources (NTFPs and
medicinal plants) is a major indicator of the growing technical capacity strength of the
country. Organisations like ATREE, IIRS, and GBPIHED are currently engaged in
developing spatial protocols to optimise sustainable use of forest and other natural
resources.
38
Capacity Constraints
• Inadequacies in large-scale frameworks to rationalize sustainable use of biodiversity
• Sustainable use of biodiversity components is still to be accommodated fully into some of
the key environmental laws, despite policy support
• Lack of institutional infrastructure to implement, regulate, and monitor sustainable
practices of bio-resource extraction
• Little institutional work on evolving standards for sustainable harvesting of NTFPs
• Lack of demographic data on population status of several species of wild economic plants
• Limited access to post-harvest technology and marketing infrastructure for NTFPs
• Models of livelihood options based on sustainability principle often fail in the absence of
economic evaluation of ecosystem processes and services, and inter alia
• Exclusion of natural grasslands and grazing grounds from the purview of JFM are some
vital gaps in the existing policy framework
• Traditional practices of sustainable use of common property resources among local
communities are largely ignored at both policy and implementation levels
• Ecotourism initiatives are not backed by any legislation or statutory mechanism except by
‘policy statements’.
• Policies do not reflect the potential of indigenously managed systems
Root Causes
Systemic:
• Systemic prevalence of a ‘preservationist’ school of thought among the forest department
and a section of conservationists
• Resource monitoring by communities is not practiced as a management measure
• Omission of some usufructs (e.g., grasslands) from the purview of existing policies on
sustainable development
• Lack of correspondence between sustainability models of livelihood and economic
processes of communities
• Lack of a strong legal framework to govern ecotourism
Institutional:
• Poor infrastructure of overseeing institutions and regulatory bodies that monitor
sustainable use of bio-resources
39
• Lack of baseline data on population and distribution of NTFP species for developing
sustainable solutions to their extraction
• Poor post-harvest infrastructure and limited market support for NTFPs in remote areas
• Absence of value addition mechanisms for several bio-resources considerably undercuts
economic assessment of the sustainability models
• Few opportunities and incentives for PA managers to collaborate between civil society
agencies and communities
• Few institutional initiatives to mainstream traditional systems of sustainable extraction of
biodiversity components
• Inadequate integration of community management and use practices with policies
• Lack of institutional capacities for research on socio-ecological resilience, traditional
ecological knowledge, etc.
• Inadequate understanding of ecotourism among stakeholder groups
3.7 CBD ARTICLE 11: INCENTIVE MEASURES
Capacity Status & Strengths
• In general, conservation policies and laws in India tend to treat ‘incentive measures’
for biodiversity conservation mostly as livelihood benefits and indirect gains but little
in terms of direct monetary awards.
• However, consolidated funds have been set up to cater to provision of incentives
under various schemes of biodiversity conservation. Foremost among them is the
creation of National, State, and Local biodiversity funds under the aegis of the
National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) and State Biodiversity Boards (SSBs), and
provision of a National Gene Fund under the Protection of Plant Varieties and
Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. The National Environment Policy, 2006 also envisages
setting up of the National Environment Restoration Fund for ecological and
environmental restoration of degraded and polluted ecosystems.
• Biological Diversity Act, 2002 has suitable provisions to impose IPR cess on
commercial utilisation of all usufruct products outside the production jurisdiction.
• Implementation of the JFM scheme has enabled local communities to avail of shared
benefits out of sustainable extraction of biodiversity components. There are currently
over 80,000 Village Forest Committees across the country.
40
• Ecodevelopment and ecotourism initiatives have provisions for direct economic
incentives to local communities.
• Specific centrally-sponsored schemes like Biodiversity Conservation and Rural
Livelihoods Improvement Project (BCRLIP) of GEF-MoEF have the potential to play a
major role in improvement of livelihoods and income opportunities in high diversity
landscapes like Himalayas and Western Ghats.
• Incentives to the corporate sector for compliance with the environmental and
conservation guidelines of the country include tax holidays and awards through the
Central Pollution Control Board Charter on “Corporate Responsibility for
Environmental Protection”, which employs various evaluation mechanisms like green-
accounting, environmental-auditing, and eco-labelling.
• Several national awards and incentives have been instituted in various categories
towards appreciation of exceptional contributions and achievements in biodiversity
conservation. These include:
o Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar
o Rajiv Gandhi Wildlife Conservation Award
o Amrita Devi Bishnoi Wildlife Protection Award
o Indira Priyadarshini Vrikshamitra Award
o Paryavaran Aur Van Mantralaya Vishisht Vaigyanik Puraskar
o B.P. Pal National Environment Fellowship Award
o Salim Ali National Wildlife Fellowship Award for Avian Biology
o Kailash Sankhla National Wildlife Fellowship Award for Mammal Study
o Rajiv Gandhi Environment Award for Clean Technology
• Besides these national awards, there are several state-level incentives for the best
Village Forest Committee (VFC) under JFM programme. For example, Rajasthan
Government gives an incentive cash award of Rs. 50,000 to the best VFC every year.
• Income from cultivation of agricultural biodiversity is exempted from all forms of
commercial and personal income tax obligations.
• Rural insurance cover has been extended to farmers against crop failure and crop
damage by wild animals.
• Loss of livestock through depredation by wild animals outside Protected Areas is
suitably compensated by state FDs.
• Some states compensate fisherfolk through an equal-contribution savings scheme
during the annual mandatory ban on fishing in monsoon for restocking.
• Peoples’ Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) offer various incentives to local people in
collating and documenting information on all forms of local biodiversity.
41
• Active presence of NGOs in biodiversity conservation through privately-sponsored
incentives and insurance schemes adds to the capacity strength of the country.
Prominent among them include Himalayan Environmental Studies and Conservation
Organisation (HESCO) and Appropriate Technology (AT-India) in the Western
Himalaya, and International Snow Leopard Trust (ISLT) and NCF in the Trans-
Himalaya.
• The MoEF has also been contemplating various supplementary schemes through
existing policy mechanisms, which include incentives for25:
o Customary cultivation of biodiversity o Species enhancement o Organic farming o International biodiversity transfer o Bioprospecting o Air-emission and effluent discharge trading o Eco-labelling o Wetland conservation
(These as well as additional incentives are mentioned in pages 138 to 139 of the Third
National Report and classified under four categories: incentives, disincentives, indirect
incentives and removal of perverse incentives).
Capacity Constraints
• Inadequate incentives (both direct and indirect) for conservation of agro-biodiversity
through sustainable farming
• Incentive policies that lack multi-disciplinary approach may sometimes produce
counterproductive results
• Limited career incentives for the frontline field-staff working on biodiversity conservation in
forest, agriculture, and environment
• Policies and programmes do not envisage monetary rewards for compliance with
sustainability models, as livelihood benefits are often considered as incentives
• Lack of expertise with institutions to design and implement social and economic incentive
schemes, compatible with sustainable development
Root Causes
Systemic:
• Lack of incentives, at the policy level, for conservation of agro-biodiversity and
sustainable farming.
• Absence of multi-disciplinary team in policy-making bodies results in conflicting incentive
schemes.
42
• Subsidies on biodiversity damaging products (e.g. chemical fertilizers) conflict with
conservation initiatives.
Institutional:
• Lack of institutional coordination at the local level undermines the very purpose of
incentive programmes
• Absence of institutional incentives to promote excellence and enthusiasm among field
staff
• Non-availability of technical expertise to design and implement social and economic
incentives
Individual:
• Individual motivation remains low as there are no career incentives to field-staff working
on biodiversity issues
• Lack of incentives for complying with the provisions of sustainable development may wear
off the initial enthusiasm of individuals and communities
3.8 CBD ARTICLE 12: RESEARCH AND TRAINING
Capacity Status & Strengths
• The biggest capacity strength of India in biodiversity conservation, particularly in
agro-biodiversity, is its extensive network of research and training institutions and
organisations across the country. A large number of them are autonomous
government bodies set up by various ministries like the MoEF, Ministry of Agriculture,
and Ministry of Science and Technology.
• ICAR is the leading umbrella body of agricultural research in the country with a vast
number of research and training institutions under its control. The following is the
summary statistics of various research and training facilities with ICAR, many of
which are engaged in studies on sustainable use of agro-biodiversity:
o National Bureaus: 4
o Project Directorates: 8
o National Research Institutes: 38
o National Research Centres: 28
o All-India Co-ordinated Projects: 43
o Natural Resource Management Programmes: 11
• ICFRE is the major administrative body in MoEF entrusted with research and training
in forestry sector. Currently, ICFRE has a network of three advanced centres and
43
eight institutes including FRI (Forest Research Institute), its flagship organisation.
Besides, the MoEF has several autonomous research institutes which have state-of-
the-art infrastructure for research and training in various aspects of biodiversity
conservation. Prominent among them are: the Indian Institute of Forest Management
(IIFM), the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), the G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan
Environment and Development (GBPIHED), the Botanical Survey of India (BSI), the
Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), and the Forest Survey of India (FSI). In addition, the
MoEF has set up several national boards and authorities for policy formulation,
implementation, and monitoring of research and training in specific sectors of
biodiversity, like the NAEB, the NBA, the SBBs, the National Coastal Zone
Management Authority (NCZMA), the Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network
(ICRMN), the CZA, and the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA). There are
also nine ‘Centres of Excellence’ as recognised by MoEF for their contributions to
biodiversity conservation, and these include the Centre for Environment Education
(CEE), the Centre for Ecological Sciences (CES), SACON, FRLHT, and the Tropical
Botanical Garden and Research Institute (TBGRI). Besides, the Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare has established the National Medicinal Plants Board (NMPB) for
regulation and coordination of studies and initiatives on medicinal plants
conservation.
• The capacity strength of the MoEF in forestry training is showcased by the Indira
Gandhi National Forest Academy (IGNFA), a premier organisation for training of
Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers, and a handful of State Forest Service training
colleges. WII with the support of the MoEF conducts various in-service training
courses to middle-level and senior forest officers in biodiversity conservation and
wildlife management.
• Apart from central organisations, there are several state research and training
institutes that strengthen the capacity status at the regional level. These include
EPTRI, the Gujarat Institute for Desert Ecology (GUIDE), the Gujarat Institute of
Development Research (GIDR), and the Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI).
• The vast network of central and state universities remains a backbone of the
country’s institutional capacity for research and training in sustainable use of
biodiversity resources. Some of the noteworthy university institutions working on
forest, aquatic, and marine biodiversity include the Jawaharlal Nehru University,
Aligarh Muslim University (Centre of Wildlife Sciences and Ornithology), Pondicherry
University (Salim Ali School of Ecology and Environmental Sciences), Assam
University, North-Eastern Hill University, Annamalai University (Centre for Advanced
Studies in Marine Biology), Maharaja Sayajirao University, Madurai Kamaraj
University, Kerala Agricultural University (KAU), Thrissur, and Bharatidasan
University (Department of Zoology and Wildlife Biology, AVC College).
44
• Some of the central research institutes affiliated to CSIR like the NBRI, the National
Environmental Engineering and Research Institute (NEERI), the National Institute of
Oceanography (NIO), the Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (CIMAP)
and the IHBT also make very significant contributions to India’s research capacity in
the sustainable use of biodiversity. CCMB is currently setting up a National Facility for
Conservation of Endangered Species of Animals with the support of the DBT and the
CZA.
• Technical and financial support from international agencies for research and training
in ecology and sustainable development are quite noteworthy. Major contributors
include the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), the Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation (NORAD), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
United States Forest Service (USFS), the Danish International Development Agency
(DANIDA), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), and
the Ford Foundation.
• The active participation of conservation NGOs in research and training has been very
encouraging and the BNHS in particular, has been active in the field of biodiversity
documentation and ecology for over 100 years. Other major players include WWF,
WPSI, the Wildlife Trust of India (WTI), ATREE, The Energy and Resources Institute
(TERI), Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), Centre for Wildlife Studies
(CWS), and the Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF). On-field training in
sustainable agriculture and organic farming forms the core activity of some of the
agro-biodiversity NGOs like M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF),
Navdanya programme of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and
Ecology (RFSTE), and the Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems (CIKS). Significant
contributions in this field have also been made by the French Institute Pondicherry,
The Honey Bee Network, Society for Research Initiatives for Sustainable
Technologies and Institution (SRISTI), Navdhanya as well as numerous informal
networks that aim at conserving agrobiodiveristy and sustaining associated
livelihoods.
• Recent initiatives on application of spatial tools like GIS & remote sensing in
biodiversity conservation have brought into sharp focus the potential capacity of the
country’s vast research facilities. Organisations like the IIRS, IIFM, WII, SACON and
ATREE are in the forefront of geospatial research in sustainable development of
coastal and forestry sectors.
Capacity Constraints
• Innovative ideas and research propositions on strategic aspects of conserving agro-
biodiversity do not get adequate financial and institutional support
45
• Region-specific training programmes for extension workers in documentation and
monitoring of local agro-biodiversity are few and far between
• Vast potential of Traditional Knowledge systems remains largely untapped in agro-
biodiversity research
• Limited financial support for research and training in conservation of wild biodiversity
• Severe shortage of trained professional researchers in forestry and wildlife sector along
with inadequate institutional infrastructure
• Research and training in wild biodiversity receive less priority in the Management and
Working Plans of state FDs
• Most of the current wildlife research in India is biased towards charismatic species like
large mammals and carnivores, with little focus on other taxa
• Research agendas of agro-biodiversity and wild biodiversity often conflict each other and
do not see complementarity in practice
• Limited research on social science aspects of biodiversity conservation
Root Causes
Systemic:
• Little role for local communities or NGOs to participate in the research prioritisation
exercise for agro-biodiversity
• Disproportionate allotment of biodiversity funds and infrastructure to agro-biodiversity
research with less to wild biodiversity
• Absence of convergence between agro-biodiversity and wild biodiversity research and
training
• Research in biodiversity conservation is natural science dominated with limited respect
for traditional methods and participation in conservation by communities.
Institutional:
• Lack of competitive grants for innovative technologies and strategies for sustainable
farming
• Absence of institutional training programmes to grassroots extension workers in agro-
biodiversity conservation
• Low priority with state FDs and shortage of necessary institutional infrastructure for
research and training in wild biodiversity
• Biased research agendas of institutions with overemphasis on charismatic species
46
• Absence of research prioritisation exercise gives rise to studies that are of limited
management or conservation value
• Social science research within major biodiversity institutions is minimal
Individual:
• Agricultural extension workers are often not sufficiently aware to understand and
recognise the importance of concepts and techniques of sustainable farming, especially
those based on Traditional Knowledge
• Limited career opportunities for forestry and wildlife professionals
3.9 CBD ARTICLE 13: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS
Capacity Status & Strengths
• Though the available information on agro-biodiversity is considerable in the country, it
is largely accessible only to scientists given the inadequate mechanisms of public
awareness campaigns. However, there are some indications of positive changes with
the proactive initiatives of Department of Agricultural Research and Education
(DARE) to promote awareness of agro-biodiversity among the local communities and
lay public through grassroots organisations like Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs). There
are also a handful of NGOs working on public education of sustainable agriculture
and biodiversity conservation, like MSSRF, FRLHT, Gene Campaign and
Kalpavriksh.
• Unlike agro-biodiversity, measures and initiatives to promote public awareness in
other forms of biodiversity are relatively better-organised in the country with the active
participation of both the government and the NGOs. Earlier, the MoEF set this
agenda through its National Environmental Awareness Campaign (NEAC), which
targets multiple groups of end-users. During 2004-05, the NEAC has provided
financial support to about 7600 organisations to develop promotional materials in
environmental conservation.
• The MoEF has also been actively involved with national and state policy
organisations of education like NCERT (National Council of Educational Research
and Training), UGC (University Grants Commission), and AICTE (All India Council of
Technical Education) to develop a core curriculum on biodiversity conservation in
educational institutions. This has culminated in the recent introduction of
Environmental Education (EE) as a mandatory subject in all the schools. To assist
integration of this new subject with the existing infrastructure, Ministry of Human
Resources Development (MoHRD) has initiated Environment Orientation to School
Education scheme.
47
• As part of the government’s initiatives to promote environmental awareness in
schools, about 72,000 eco-clubs have been set up under the aegis of the National
Green Corps (NGC) scheme, which targets 150 schools in each district.
• The Centre for Environmental Education (CEE) is the premier organisation in the
country in public education and awareness of environment and biodiversity
conservation. Recognised as a Centre of Excellence by the MoEF, it is actively
involved in the development and promotion of educational materials on biodiversity
conservation, designing of nature interpretation centres, promotion of environmental
awareness through popular media, and networking of environmental journalists. The
Himalayan Education, Awareness, Training: Strategy and Action Plan, 2002 of CEE is
a policy document for environmental education in the Himalaya. Bharatiya Vidya
Peeth, Pune is also actively involved in developing course curriculum and study
materials for under-graduate students in biodiversity conservation.
• The National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), along with its three Regional
organisations (RMNHs), is another institutional initiative by MoEF to impart non-
formal education on biodiversity science and conservation to the general public.
• The MoEF has set up ENVIS (Environmental Information System), an open-access
information network to document, collate, store, and disseminate information on
various thematic areas of environment and biodiversity, and there are currently 72
ENVIS centres across the country. ENVIS Focal Point publishes a bilingual
‘Paryavaran Abstracts’ for dissemination of the findings of environmental research in
the country.
• There are several state and national organisations actively involved in conservation
education on various thematic areas of biodiversity. These include FRLHT and
CIMAP (Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants) on medicinal plants and
herbal diversity, NBRI on sustainable use of plant resources, CSE on environmental
issues, and SACON on wetlands and forests. CPR Environmental Education Centre
(CPREEC) is primarily involved in training and education of school teachers in issues
of biodiversity conservation. The NBDB conducts Vacation Training Programme on
Bioresources for school children every year with assistance from WII, IHBT, and
ATREE.
• The presence of about 275 zoos, aquaria, and safari & deer parks in the country
under the jurisdiction of CZA is major capacity strength of the existing infrastructure in
conservation education.
• The role of NGOs in public education and awareness of forest, aquatic and marine
biodiversity conservation is quite exemplary in India, often complementing
governmental efforts. The Flamingo Festival, Project Bustard, and Indian Bird
Conservation Network (IBCN) are some of the more popular outreach programmes of
48
the BNHS, India’s oldest conservation NGO. Other prominent organisations include
WTI, WWF-India, MSSRF, Andaman & Nicobar Ecology Trust (ANET), SECMOL
(Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh), and ATREE. Recognizing
the importance of conducting conservation campaigns and awareness programmes in
local languages for better outreach, some of the regional NGOs have been doing a
commendable job; in particular, the roles of Ladakh Ecological Group (LadEG),
Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad (KSSP), and Honey Bee Network are noteworthy
in this regard.
• Recent times have also seen several noteworthy initiatives on dissemination of
biodiversity information and catalogues through information networks. Peoples’
Biodiversity Register (PBR) is a participatory scheme in which local communities are
encouraged to document all biodiversity components known in the locality. LIFKEY /
LIFDAT identification keys of Project Lifescape in IISc use digital technology to
provide resource materials for biodiversity documentation and monitoring. The
Ecoinformatics Centre of ATREE, Bioinformatics Cell of NBRI, and Indian
Bioresources Information Network (IBIN) of DBT are some examples of use of
information technology in biodiversity education.
Capacity Constraints
• Very few institutional programmes to educate public and spread awareness about the
need to conserve agro-biodiversity
• Inadequate coverage of wild biodiversity in school curriculum and a severe shortage of
resource persons for teaching environmental studies
• Concerns for biodiversity remain generally low among lower and middle-level judiciary,
police, administration, and political class
• Awareness of conservation and environmental laws is nearly absent among the lay public
• Inadequate capacity-building of local agencies for conservation education programmes
Root Causes
Systemic:
• Poor sensitivity and low awareness of biodiversity concerns among the executives and
civil society
• Lack of general awareness among common people of various conservation laws and their
legal provisions
Institutional:
49
• Institutional agenda of agricultural agencies places less emphasis on public education in
conservation of agro-biodiversity and sustainable farming
• Incomplete coverage of biodiversity in school curriculum
• Lack of capacity-building measures for local institutions to enable them in training and
education in biodiversity conservation
• Lack of coordination between the state wildlife authorities and the police
Individual:
• Dearth of trained teachers to teach environmental studies in schools and availability of
limited opportunities for teachers’ training
• Lack of training and awareness among forest staff in legal matters often leading to poor
evidence gathering, case preparation resulting in very poor conviction rates against
wildlife crime.
3.10 CBD ARTICLE 14: IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MINIMISING ADVERSE IMPACTS
Capacity Status & Strengths
• Impact assessment of loss of biodiversity due to changing land use patterns is very
minimal in India. This is largely a reflection of the fact that monitoring of biodiversity
including agro- urban and domestic has always been a low priority.
• On the contrary, there are strong policy mechanisms that mandate impact
assessment of environmental concerns. In recognition of the need to integrate
environmental concerns into industrial and developmental plans and to minimise their
adverse impacts on environment, MoEF has enacted the following two notifications
under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986:
o EIA Notification, 1994 and 2006
o CRZ Notification, 1991
• Under the 1994 EIA Notification, it was mandatory for 32 categories of developmental
projects like industries, mining, river valley projects including dams and hydel plants,
and other major infrastructural undertakings to obtain environmental clearance. The
process required the study of environmental impacts of the project to be undertaken.
The new EIA Notification (2006) categorises all developmental activities for
environmental clearance on the basis of scale and severity of impacts and project
location. This revised guideline also lays more emphasis on assessing the impacts on
wild flora and fauna, and their critical habitats.
• The New EIA Notification, 2006 has adopted some progressive measures to make
the environmental clearance a democratic and accommodative process. For
example, the developmental projects have been classified into two categories – one
50
to be handled at the centre and the other to be certified by the State Level Expert
Appraisal Committees. The scoping and the ToR (Terms of Reference) provisions
have also been articulated in a more comprehensive manner in the new notification.
Further, live recording of proceedings of public hearings has been made mandatory
to ensure transparency.
• Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 designates the entire coastal stretch,
comprising inter-tidal zone along with a 500 m distance landward from the high tide
line as Coastal Regulation Zone in which certain developmental projects are
expressly prohibited and other permissible activities would also require environmental
clearance.
• The MoEF is also required to monitor regularly, as part of post-EIA strategy, strict
compliance of the developmental projects with the environment clearance conditions
through its six Regional Offices across the country.
• To further strengthen the legal capacity of EIA mechanisms, National Environment
Appellate Authority (NEAA) was constituted under NEAA Act, 1997 to hear appeals
on environmental impact cases. The MoEF proposes to also set up a central and
several regional Environment Tribunals for judicial trial of all environmental damage
suits.
• India is an active participant in various international co-operation, agreements, and
conventions that seek to promote environmentally responsible practices of
sustainable development. The SACEP (South Asia Co-operative Environment
Programme), set up in 1982 under the aegis of SAARC is the premier regional
cooperation in the subcontinent in addressing environmental concerns, and India is a
leading partner in SACEP.
• The MoEF has also created Hazardous Substances Management Division (HSMD) to
deal with the issue of environmental impacts of hazardous chemicals and wastes.
• Existence of a wide network of national institutes under the aegis of CSIR, ICFRE,
MoEF, ICAR, and DST is a major capacity strength of the country, as these
organisations are adequately equipped with the necessary infrastructure and
expertise to undertake various EIA studies. The country’s track record of the actual
on-field implementation of EIA reports and recommendations has been steadily
improving, though not exemplary. For example, EIA of the Bodhghat Hydel Project in
Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh has led to a reassessment of the project goals26.
Capacity Constraints
• Lack of EIA initiatives to monitor response of agro-biodiversity to changes in land use and
cropping patterns
51
• Governmental inaction or delays on EIA-based environmental clearance and subsequent
reviews of EIA reports dilute the entire process
• Growing list of developmental or economic activities, exempted from environmental
clearance through amendments to EIA Notification
• Inadequacies in EIA guidelines with particular reference to their failure to address region-
specific environmental concerns and sensitivity
• EIAs do not accommodate evaluation of population-level changes in endangered species
that may be triggered by developmental projects
• Absence of objective guidelines of environmental assessment and EIA manuals that cater
to different ecosystems
• Insufficient provisions in EIA guidelines for consideration of livelihood issues that may
arise out of loss of biodiversity values of project sites
• Ecological and social impacts of mitigation measures (‘conservation offsets’)
recommended by EIA agencies are rarely taken into consideration by decision-making
authorities
• Public hearings, an important component of EIA process, have been relieved of
mandatory minimum quorums and six categories of development activities (including road
construction) have been altogether exempted from conducting public hearings
• EIA reports are, in general, not accessible for public scrutiny
Root Causes
Systemic:
• Lack of a strategic and comprehensive development framework that seriously addresses
environmental sustainability
• Conservation of agro-biodiversity is generally given low priority at the policy level
• Administrative delays in decision-making over environmental clearance
• Regular policy amendments that seek to expand the list of developmental activities,
exempted from EIAs
• Criteria of EIAs do not adequately address the ecological sensitivity of regions / localities,
nor changes in population status of endangered species, although estimation of
biodiversity loss is mandatory
• EIA guidelines do not consider the cost of livelihood loss that may result due to the loss of
biodiversity values of the region
• Lack of minimum quorum in public hearings in EIA process makes them a mere formality
52
• Absence of transparency in the entire EIA process from design and execution to access
to final reports
• EIAs often have inadequate and inaccurate data for decision making as funds for
preparations of EIAs are given by the project proponent seeking clearance for projects.
• The CRZ notification has several clauses that are vague, undefined and differently
interpreted thus making implementation of the law very difficult.
Institutional:
• Lack of institutional initiatives on impact assessment of developmental projects on agro-
biodiversity
• Inadequate institutional capacity for post-EIA monitoring of environmental compliance
Individual:
• Limited availability of expertise in conducting EIA of agro-biodiversity
• No incentives to conduct and submit objective and scientifically valid EIAs as political
realities are a huge influence and often determine ultimate outcomes
• Public hearings form part of the decision making process much after several critical
decisions regarding project are taken
• Inadequate institutional capacity for post-EIA monitoring of environmental compliance
• No retrospective EIAs (for e.g. done after 25 years of the project construction) ever
undertaken
• No action taken against violators of EIA and CRZ norms
3.11 CBD ARTICLE 15: ACCESS TO GENETIC RESOURCES
Capacity Status & Strengths
• Though the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the
WTO regulations are not favourable to developing countries (see for example, the
work of Joseph Stigliz, for India specific references see speeches and submissions to
the WTO by the Department of Commerce [available at
http://commerce.nic.in/indian_wtopaper.htm]), India has made significant efforts
within ABS (Access and Benefit-Sharing) framework towards protection of genetic
resources of biodiversity and indigenous / traditional knowledge systems from
exploitation. These efforts are founded on the following legislation and policy
statements:
o National Policy and Macrolevel Action Strategy on Biodiversity : India, 1999
53
o Biological Diversity Act, 2002
o Biological Diversity Rules, 2004
o The Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
o
o Second Amendment Bill, 2002 to the Patent Act, 1970
o Third Amendment Bill, 2006 to the Patent Act, 1970
o Draft National Biotechnology Strategy and Policy, 2005
• A three-tier institutional infrastructure has been set up under the Biological Diversity
Act to address these intellectual property rights issues for biodiversity components
and to implement the legal provisions in order to safeguard the access rights of
farmers and local communities to genetic resources.
• NBA is the central agency, entrusted with the task of protection of local genetic
diversity from commercial exploitation, bio-prospecting, and bio-piracy. Provisions are
in place to ensure that commercial gains from the use of traditional knowledge
systems flow back to local communities. In case specific ownership could not be
identified, NBA also maintains National Biodiversity Fund (NBF) for deposition of any
monetary benefits that may accrue from legalised use of local biodiversity
components. State Biodiversity Boards (SSBs) are the state-level nodal agencies to
co-ordinate the functioning of NBA in each state.
• Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) are the grassroots-level self-governing
bodies that comprise of local communities / farmers and local administration to
manage and protect genetic resources of local biodiversity and associated intellectual
property rights over the traditional knowledge systems.
• ICAR has set up several gene banks / gene pools of domesticated / cultivated fauna
and flora, which include the state-of-the-art scientific collections of germplasms of
agro-biodiversity. NBPGR is the world’s largest collection of plant gene pool, with
about 1500 germplasms under in vitro gene bank and c. 5800 under cryogenic
facility. NBAGR is a leading gene bank for the livestock diversity of the subcontinent
holding genetic resources for over 150 indigenous and little-known livestock breeds.
NBFGR is the country’s central gene collection facility for all the freshwater fish
species with the possession of both sperm and DNA banks. In addition, several
national facilities for the collection of germplasms of economically important microbes
have also been set up under NBAIM.
• Mapping of genetic diversity of economically important forest species like bamboos,
acacias, and many species of medicinal and aromatic plants has been completed by
national organisations like NBRI, CIMAP, and Institute of Forest Genetics & Tree
Breeding (IFGTB).
54
• There are also commendable initiatives by governmental institutions and some NGOs
on protection of genetic resources of wild and agro-biodiversity and implementation of
ABS framework for the participation of stakeholders.
• NBRI conducts regular workshops and training modules in ABS-based bio-
prospecting enterprise.
• National Innovation Foundation (NIF) undertakes several capacity-building initiatives
for local institutions in ABS.
• Besides, other national institutions under MoEF, DBT, CSIR, and ICAR conduct
training workshops, seminars, stakeholders’ conferences, and capacity-building
measures in ABS.
• MSSRF has a good collection of germplasm of local agro-biodiversity, which are
accessible to farmers and local communities.
• Peoples’ Biodiversity Register (PBR) is an innovative scheme, developed by CES, at
IISc., and if linked up as mandated by the Biological Diversity Act will be a very useful
tool to comprehensively document local biodiversity information. Under the initiative,
local communities are encouraged to document all the forms of biodiversity
components along with their ethno-biology to facilitate ABS-based sustainable
utilisation.
• Some of the on-field demonstrations of the ABS model of sustainable use of
biodiversity include the case study of Kani tribals of Kerala, who are allowed to share
the monetary benefits that arise out of commercialisation of a medicinal plant species
(Trichopus zeylanicus), as the medicinal values of the plant were first recognised by
the traditional knowledge system of the Kani tribals. Tropical Botanical Gardens and
Research Institute (TBGRI) was instrumental in rewarding the tribals under ABS
framework.
Capacity Constraints
• Access to the vast germplasm collections of agro-biodiversity in the country is limited. The
bureaucratic process to accessing germplasm collections could be streamlined/reformed
so that local communities can benefit.
• Some key biodiversity components like marine bioresources and NTFPs are not covered
by national repositories of genetic resources
• Prevention of bio-piracy of indigenous crops and medicinal plants remains a challenging
task despite the establishment of nodal authorities like NBA
Root Causes
Institutional:
• Poor institutional infrastructure disables access to genetic resources of agro-biodiversity
55
• Absence of institutional facilities for collection and storage of genetic materials of marine
biodiversity and NTFPs
• Limited availability of infrastructure with the government to combat bio-piracy
3.12 CBD ARTICLE 16. ACCESS TO AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY
Capacity Status & Strengths
• The access to and transfer of technology pertaining to bio- resources are regulated
by the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The NBA has laid down a set of guidelines
relating to the regulation of access to biological diversity by Indian and foreign
nationals. The approval of NBA is mandatory while applying for Intellectual Property
Rights (IPRs) for any product or service that involves bio-resources, and the approval
also mandates access to and transfer of technology.
• The MoEF has established the ENVIS, an open-access information exchange
network on various thematic areas of environment and biodiversity, and there are
currently 72 ENVIS centres across the country. ENVIS is the national Clearing-House
Mechanism (CHM) for CBD.
• There are also proposals with the government for inter-sectoral transfer of
biotechnology among various key players like the MoEF, DBT, DST, and state
organisations. Biotech Consortium India Ltd has been commissioned by the Ministry
of External Affairs to develop a technology transfer mechanism among SAARC
countries27.
• There are some institutions set up primarily for easy access to technological
information related to biodiversity. For example, EIC (Environmental Information
Centre) of the MoEF was established for open-access and dissemination of
environmental spatial data to public users. The Central Institute for Fisheries
Technology (CIFT) is a pioneering agency in providing access to technology for
fishing communities and NGOs.
• Though technology transfer and accessibility are at their minimum capacity level for
wild biodiversity, existence of an excellent outreach mechanism by means of a wide
network of ICAR institutions, KVKs, and state Agricultural Universities (AUs) provides
an exemplary model for technology transfer in agro-biodiversity. These extension
programmes are well-supported by on-field trials and frontline demonstrations of
agricultural biotechnology.
• ICAR institutions and state AUs also provide necessary technical support to NGOs
working at the grassroots level to enable dissemination of technology among the
farmers and local communities.
56
Capacity Constraints
• Number and quality of farm outreach agencies to transfer biodiversity knowledge is still
too few for the country to reach all the farmers and local communities, given the vast
geographic area of the country
• Insufficient monetary and IPR benefits to practitioners of traditional knowledge systems
for transfer of technology related to agro-biodiversity
• Access to some of the spatial products and tools (like toposheets), essential for
biodiversity studies, is very restricted
Root Causes
Systemic:
• Inadequate incentives for transfer of ethno-biological knowledge from local communities
to agencies
• Anachronistic policy of governmental agencies that limit access to spatial products and
technology owing to security concerns
Institutional:
• Limited number of local extension agencies engaged in transfer of agro-biodiversity
technology
• A weak institutional mechanism for identification and transfer of ethno-biological
knowledge in wild biodiversity
3.13 CBD ARTICLE 17: EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
Capacity Status & Strengths
• Though India has an impressive network of national institutions, state organisations,
universities, and NGOs working on forest and agro-biodiversity, the potential for inter-
organisational co-operation still remains largely untapped. However, with the
increasingly visible role of multi-lateral conventions and treaties in shaping the
national policies, several new initiatives on national and international co-operation for
exchange of biodiversity information have been launched.
• The NBRI has entered into an international collaboration on exchange of herbarium
data under Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). NBRI has also been
57
designated as the India’s nodal agency for the Asia Pacific Traditional Medicine
Network, an information exchange facility on medicinal plants. Similarly, the IHBT is
the national partner for Global Forest Information Service, another international
information exchange platform for forest biodiversity.
• NISCAIR has developed the TKDL, which is hosted on the web as an open-access
information resource and exchange forum. The NIF has also been active in
documentation and dissemination of Traditional Knowledge Systems (TKS),
particularly in apiculture.
• The Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network (ICRMN), which was functional during
1998-2002 under the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), was the
beginning of international initiatives of the country on information exchange in marine
biodiversity. The Bay of Bengal Programme for Inter-Governmental Organisation
(BOBP- IGO) launched by the four rim countries (viz., India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka,
and Maldives) in 2003 offers a platform for regional exchange of information on
marine fisheries. There are some commendable initiatives by NGOs working on
marine biodiversity. For example, Orissa Marine Resources Conservation Consortium
(OMRCC) is one the leading forums for exchange of information on marine
bioresources.
• MoEF has also set up ENVIS, an open-access information exchange network to
document, collate, store, and exchange information on various thematic areas of
environment and biodiversity, and there are currently 72 ENVIS centres across the
country. ENVIS is a national CHM for the CBD.
• An exemplary model for collaboration of multiple stakeholders is provided by the
Western Ghats Forum (WGF), an umbrella body that brings together 12
governmental and non-governmental organisations to exchange information on forest
biodiversity. The WGF includes Karnataka FD, Kerala Forest Research Institute
(KFRI), SACON, ATREE), CES, FRLHT, MSSRF and Kalpavriksh.
• There are several national information networks on biodiversity components, which
also serve as mechanisms of information exchange. These include Biodiversity
Informatics division of National Chemical Laboratories (NCL), Ecoinformatics Centre
of ATREE, Indian Bioresources Information Network (IBIN) of Department of
Biotechnology (DBT), and Bioinformatics Cell of NBRI.
Capacity Constraints
• Information exchange mechanism on agro-biodiversity in the country can be improved
although it is an enormous task as information has to be made available in many
languages.
58
• Lack of inter-governmental exchange portal to share information on biodiversity of trans-
boundary ecosystems like oceans
• Most of the existing databases do not follow international database norms, delaying
integration of national databases with the global information networks
• Lack of access to information in various regional languages is a serious impediment
Root Causes
Systemic:
• Non-compliance of most of the existing national biodiversity databases and information
resources with global metadata standards
• Lack of appropriate multi-lingual access to information
Institutional:
• Absence of institutional mechanism that promotes networking of organisations for
exchange of information on agro-biodiversity
• Very few initiatives at the inter-governmental level to share information on biodiversity of
trans-boundary ecosystems
3.14 CBD ARTICLE 18: TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION
Capacity Status & Constraints
• International technical and scientific cooperation in biodiversity and sustainable
management is largely mediated in the country through the MoEF in the case of
forest biodiversity and DARE for agro-biodiversity. Though DARE has numerous
global collaborations in agricultural science and technology, there are no major
international initiatives on agro-biodiversity per se.
• Multilateral and bilateral scientific cooperation in wild biodiversity, though marked by
some glaring gaps like partnership in taxonomical research, looks very promising with
several successful institutional associations with global agencies in progress. For
example, the institutional collaborations between NBRI and GBIF, and between IHBT
have heralded a new era in globalisation of research and informatics in forest
biodiversity. The NBRI has also been designated as the India’s nodal agency for the
Asia Pacific Traditional Medicine Network. Further, the Institute of Forest Genetics
and Tree Breeding (IFGTB), an ICFRE institution along with the FRLHT is engaged in
conservation of medicinal plants in MPCAs (Medicinal Plants Conservation Areas)
with financial support from the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA)
and the UNDP. Sustainable Development Network Partners (SDNP) of Indo-Canada
59
Environmental Facility (ICEF) offers ENVIS centres technical and scientific
cooperation in multiple themes of biodiversity and environmental research.
• Global initiatives on marine bioresources are also under way in Indian waters. The
NIO is the national partner of IOCoML (Indian Ocean Census of Marine Life), an
association of Indian Ocean rim countries for collaborative research on marine
biodiversity. The Bay of Bengal Programme for Inter-Governmental Organisation
(BOBP-IGO) launched by the four rim countries (viz., India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka,
and Maldives) in 2003 offers a platform for technical and scientific cooperation in
marine fisheries research and management. India is also a signatory of Indian Ocean
- South East Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding (IOSEA), an
association of south and Southeast Asian countries for scientific collaboration in sea
turtle research and monitoring.
• India is also currently engaged in dialogues with its neighbouring countries to develop
Trans-Boundary Protected Areas. The initiatives include joint monitoring of Manas NP
in Assam and Royal Manas NP in Bhutan.
• Some of the leading international agencies and organisations with which Indian
institutions have collaborative programmes in biodiversity research include IUCN,
UNEP, UNDP, USFS, and USFWS. The major funding partners include the World
Bank, GEF fund through UNDP, World Bank, UNEP, Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation (NORAD), DANIDA, Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Department for International Development (DFID),
Darwin Initiative, International Fund for Animal Welfare, and Ford Foundation.
• Some of the noteworthy international partnerships in faunal diversity studies are:
o BNHS – Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) on vulture
conservation in the Subcontinent
o WII – USFWS – International Snow Leopard Trust (ISLT) on Trans-
Himalayan mountain ecosystem with snow leopard as focal species.
• Several new initiatives involve cooperation among different national agencies and
organisations. For example, CCMB has established National Facility for Conservation
of Endangered Species of Animals in collaboration with DBT, MoEF, CZA, and
Government of Andhra Pradesh. Besides, there are many collaborative projects
between state FDs and national institutions; in particular, state FDs seek the
expertise and capacity of IIFM to develop sustainable models of forest management,
while WII is sought for drafting Management Plans of PAs and conducting wildlife
census. In another innovative programme, 12 governmental and non-governmental
organisations, working on biodiversity issues in Western Ghats, have come together
to form the Western Ghats Forum (WGF) for collaborative research on biodiversity
conservation and sustainable development in the region.
60
Capacity Constraints
• No strong policy support for international scientific and technical cooperation in both
forest and agro-biodiversity research
• Lack of international collaboration in taxonomy is a severe constraint for biodiversity
documentation as many of the type specimens and holotypes are currently housed at
museums abroad
• There is very limited scientific and technical cooperation between national institutions and
conservation NGOs within the country
Root Causes
Systemic:
• A largely tedious set of administrative procedures that does not facilitate movement of
genetic materials or bio-resources outside the country, for bona fide research need to be
simplified.
Institutional:
• Institutional failure to forge alliances and partnerships between national organisations and
NGOs involved in biodiversity research
Individual:
• Lack of adequately trained taxonomists in the lower taxa necessitating dependence on
international expertise for identification
3.15 CBD ARTICLE 19: HANDLING OF BIOTECHNOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ITS BENEFITS
Capacity Status & Strengths
• Enabled by the Environment Protection Act of 1986 (EPA), India was one of the first
developing countries in the world to frame biosafety rules (even before the CBD).
Under the EPA, Biosafety Rules28 and regulations that cover the areas of research as
well as well as large-scale applications of GMOs and associated products were
drawn up in 1989 (Interim National Report on Implementation of the Cartagena
Proposal on Biosafety, MoEF 2006). Non-compliance of the Notification Orders are
punishable under the EPA. Institutions engaged in GMO research have to interface
with five committees at various levels.29
61
• As a continuation of the Rules of 1989, India developed recombinant DNA safety
guidelines in 1990 and guidelines for research in transgenic plants, for toxicity and
allergenicity evaluation of transgenic seeds, plants, and plant parts in 1998. The
Government of India approved the protocol and India signed the Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety in January, 2001 (The Cabinet approved the Ratification in September,
2002).Recently, biodiversity and related legislation such as the National Biodiversity
Act 2002 and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Acts (PPVFRA),
2001 have taken into account issues related to biodiversity.
• India is implementing a GEF-World Bank capacity building project on biosafety. A
Biosafety Clearing House has been established for India30. Projects on capacity
building on biosafety include: the GEF-World Bank Project, Indo-Canada Institutional
Strengthening Project and the FAO Regional Capacity Building Project.
• Currently, India is further strengthening institutional and individual capacities in
relation to the Cartagena Protocol as detailed in published papers by the MoEF
officials (e.g. Hota 200631). Civil society groups such as Gene Campaign are involved
in issues relating to various aspects of genetically modified organisms.
Capacity Constraints
• Biosafety has received the least priority as reflected by the institutional stakeholder
assessments of the NCSA
• Capacities relating to all levels of biotechnology and associated biosafety aspects are
inadequate
• Conflicts exist between the biotech industry’s demands (to gain quicker clearances and
less stringent regulations) and the precautionary approach of the legislation
• Evaluation of benefit sharing has not been carried out in a systematic manner largely
owing to the lack of institutional capacity and expertise
• Ambiguous policy environment and administrative procedures mainly due to the
multilayered decision-making structure
Root Causes
Systemic:
• Conflicts between DBT’s vision statement (which aims at more biotech development) and
the stated aim of the 1989 Biosafety Rules (that leans heavily on a precautionary
approach)
• A very serious lack of understanding of biodiversity and biosafety related issues in the
biotech industry which tends to view civil society concerns as exaggerated
62
• Lack of capacities among the statutory bodies involved in monitoring and regulating
biosafety
• The decision-making process in biotech and biosafety issues is neither coordinated nor
streamlined
• Stakeholder involvement and public participation in decision making is not envisaged at
the policy level
Institutional:
• Regulatory bodies lack the infrastructure as well as expertise in terms of multi-disciplinary
capacities
• Sufficient dialogue, collaboration and trust are lacking between governmental bodies, the
biotech industry and civil society groups
Individual:
• Individual capabilities for assessing biosafety concerns lack multidisciplinary approach
• Inadequate representation of informed individuals from the civil society sector in statutory
bodies
3.16 CBD ARTICLE 20: FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Capacity Status & Strengths
• A large part of the funding for the country’s biodiversity-related programmes comes
through Central and State budgetary allocations, with national and international donor
agencies contributing towards the remaining proportion of the expenditure.
• The Union government’s expenditure on ‘biodiversity conservation projects’ during
2002-03 was Rs. 46.38 crores, which constituted about 10 % of the total R & D
investment32. This was spent on 334 biodiversity-related projects during the
assessment period. An analysis of the thematic patterns of expenditure revealed that
agro-biodiversity projects received 31 % of the total grant, while 24 % of the allocation
was meant for wild biodiversity projects. Intriguingly, Eastern Himalayas, one of the
biodiversity hotspots of the world, received a mere 6 % of the funding, unlike other
regions like Western Ghats and Deccan Plateau, each of which had projects worth
over 10 % of total fund allocation to biodiversity studies. A state-wise analysis of
expenditure on biodiversity projects showed that Kerala (with 17 %) was the leading
state in receipt of grants followed by Maharashtra and Karnataka (with 11 & 9 %
respectively). Interestingly, all the 8 North-eastern States together received only 9 %
of the total allocation.
63
• The extra-budgetary resources for biodiversity conservation include several
international donor agencies which continue to aid both governmental and non-
governmental organisations. Prominent among them are the GEF fund through
UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank, NORAD, ICEF, DANIDA, the DfID, the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), SIDA, the Darwin Initiative,
IFAW, and the Ford Foundation.
• A small amount of money is also generated through various financial instruments like
sale of forest products including timber and NTFPs, entry fees to Protected Areas and
ecotourism, and institutional charges.
Capacity Constraints
• There is no authentic information on total expenditure, including the bilateral grants to
NGOs, on biodiversity-related projects in the country in a given period
• There is no monitoring system for biodiversity-related investments of various national,
multi-lateral, and private agencies
• Lack of resources for state governments for the implementation of central laws such as
CRZ
Root Causes
Institutional:
• Absence of institutional mechanism that tracks and quantifies the total expenditure of
both governmental and non-governmental agencies on biodiversity research and
extension activities
3.17 BIOSAFETY & THE CARTAGENA PROTOCOL
Capacity Status & Strengths
• India was one of the first developing countries in the world to address the issue of
biosafety by framing rules even before the CBD. The legislation and policy level
components are the most forward looking aspects as they lean heavily on the
precautionary approach that is desirable when dealing with uncertainity related to
safe handling, transport and use. Notifications33 dealing with this issue were framed in
1989 and non-compliance of the Notification Orders are punishable under the
Environment Protection Act of 1986 (EPA). Recombinant DNA safety guidelines were
developed by 1990 and guidelines for research in transgenic plants, for toxicity and
allergenicity evaluation of transgenic seeds, plants, and plant parts were developed
by 1998.
64
• The Government of India approved the protocol and India signed the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety in January, 2001 (The Cabinet approved the Ratification in
September, 2002).Recently, biodiversity and related legislation such as the National
Biodiversity Act 2002 and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Acts
(PPVFRA), 2001 have taken into account issues related to biodiversity. Currently,
institutions engaged in GMO research have to interface with five committees at
various levels.34
• India is implementing a GEF-World Bank capacity building project on biosafety. A
Biosafety Clearing House has been established for India35. Projects on capacity
building on biosafety include: the GEF-World Bank Project, Indo-Canada Institutional
Strengthening Project and the FAO Regional Capacity Building Project.
• India is further strengthening institutional and individual capacities in relation to the
Cartagena Protocol as detailed in published papers by MoEF officers (e.g. Hota
200636). Civil society groups such as Gene Campaign are involved in issues relating
to public awareness aspects of genetically modified organisms.
Capacity Constraints
• An analysis of institutional stakeholders involved in biodiversity revealed that biosafety
received the least attention among institutional priorities
• The biotech industry in India is a rapidly growing sector that brings in high revenues, but
capacities related to all levels of regulatory aspects (institutional, individual and systemic)
have not kept pace with this growth. In other words, all levels of capacities for making
informed decisions about safe use and handling of biotechnology needs to be upgraded
keeping in mind this fast pace of growth
• Although the legislation and policy aspects are forward looking and follow a precautionary
approach, conflicts exist as a result of the biotech industry’s demands to gain quicker
clearances and less stringent regulations
• Ambiguous administrative procedures mainly due to the multilayered decision-making
structure which needs to be reviewed
• Capacities relating to increased transboundary movements of LMOs (which is envisaged)
need to be addressed on a priority basis especially with respect to information and data
sharing protocols
• Often, industry officials quote economic benefits to people (for e.g. from transgenic crops)
as an incentive and justification for quicker and less stringent clearances without
investigating long term ecological costs. However, this needs to be established by means
of reviews of case studies as regards to benefit sharing as well as ecological impacts of
transgenics and modified organisms especially with reference to the tropics.
65
Root Causes
Systemic:
• There are visible paradoxes between DBT’s vision statement (which aims at more biotech
development) and the stated aim of the 1989 Biosafety Rules (that leans heavily on a
precautionary approach)
• There is a very serious lack of understanding of biodiversity and biosafety related issues
within the biotech industry which tends to view civil society concerns as exaggerated.
• The statutory bodies that are responsible for monitoring and regulating biosafety aspects
lack adequate capacities
• Decision-making in biotech and biosafety issues has been criticised on many fronts as it
is neither coordinated nor streamlined
• At the systemic level, stakeholder involvement and public participation in decision making
for policies has not been incorporated
Institutional:
• Institutions involved in regulatory aspects lack the infrastructure as well as expertise in
terms of the multi-disciplinary capacities that are required to identify biosafety issues
concerned with the rapid technological advancements
• Dialogue, collaboration and trust are inadequate between regulatory institutions, the
biotech industry and civil society groups regarding real biosafety concerns. Networking
capacities between stakeholder groups is currently limited and is essential to ensure
better working relationships
Individual:
• Currently, multidisciplinary expertise dealing with biosafety concerns is lacking as far as
individual capacities are concerned
• There is a requirement for the representation of informed individuals from the civil society
sector in regulatory bodies
Biosafety aspects are dealt with in greater detail in the problem analysis matrix relating to
Article 19 of the CBD which also deals with safe use and handling of biotechnology. Please
refer to this section for a more detailed appraisal.
66
Chapter 4. National Capacity Actions 4.1 INTRODUCTION Though the existing capacity strength of the country to implement CBD directives is well-
placed thanks to several progressive policies and laws under the aegis of MoEF, Ministry of
Agriculture, and Ministry of Science and Technology and immense contributions from NGOs,
there are still some vital gaps that need to be addressed. A careful scrutiny of specific
capacity-building measures for meeting the requirements of each CBD Article (see Problem
Analysis Matrix in Annexure 1) would reveal that much of these recommendations share
common themes of action. For example, inadequate institutional infrastructure and scarcity of
expertise are two of such primary constraints to realise the goals of nearly all the CBD
directives. It, then, follows that optimal solutions can be achieved by taking on these common
challenges even as they target multiple stakes of biodiversity conservation. The capacity
actions that are identified can be prioritised on the basis of the following four implementation
phases under which each action falls:
1. Information and Knowledge: The first phase of implementation covers all actions that deal
with collection and documentation of baseline data, initiatives in research, training and
education, exchange of knowledge and information, transfer of technology, dissemination of
information, and access to information and technology.
2. Planning, Policy and Decision Making: Formulation of policy, laws, and acts, drafting of
vision documents, approach papers, and concept materials, development of guidelines,
strategies, and action plans, streamlining of administrative procedures, constitution of
decision making mechanisms, and review of all processes therein would be the core activities
that would be covered under this phase.
3. Implementation of Management Actions: This is the most crucial stage at which all the legal
instruments, strategies and action plans are implemented. Some of the major capacity actions
include promulgation of laws and acts, implementation of regional plans, development and
expansion of institutional infrastructure and facilities, facilitating inter-sectoral and inter-
governmental communication, promotion of private-public cooperation in the field, adoption of
new emerging technologies, and extension activities that ensure stakeholder participation.
4. Monitoring and Evaluation: Implementation is complemented by several follow-up
measures like monitoring of all ongoing programmes and plans, assessment of the efficacy of
target-oriented schemes, examination of institutional functioning, evaluation of techniques and
human resource components, and incentive measures for promotion of excellence and
compliance.
67
Major capacity actions that need to be undertaken for redressing the existing deficiencies in
the country’s capacity mechanism are dealt with in the following section. Identification of
priority actions was largely achieved through gap analysis of the capacity status of each of the
themes/regions (see Problem Analysis Matrix in Annexure 1) and they are prioritised under
each of the four project phases, outlined as above.
4.2 CAPACITY ACTIONS
4.2.1 Information and knowledge
• Strengthen information capacity and knowledge-base of the country’s biodiversity One of the weakest links in India’s biodiversity initiatives relates to the poor status of and
access to knowledge on the country’s vast biodiversity. Though components of agro-
biodiversity have been well-documented, species inventories of wild biodiversity remain
skeletal and incomplete barring some major vertebrate taxa. Inadequate data on distribution
and ecological requirements of a majority of wild flora and fauna considerably limits our
capacity to undertake environmental auditing of developmental and economic projects. The
country’s agro-biodiversity also suffers from gaps in some vital information such as
distribution and population status of the wild relatives of the cultivated crops, ethno-biology,
and sustainable levels of harvesting. The following projects and action plans are particularly
recommended to fill the information gap in the country’s biodiversity capacity:
Periodic national surveys for collecting primary and secondary data on species
inventories, distribution, and population status for select components of biodiversity
that should include threatened and economically important/exploited species in the
wild
A national biodiversity monitoring strategy and action plan needs to be developed and
implemented and should be periodically reviewed for each of the country’s
ecoregions and biogeographic zones
Adequate grants to be given to all the local institutions for conducting field studies to
standardise sustainable levels of harvesting of bio-resources (including NTFPs and
medicinal plants) under various socio-economic settings
Scientific studies on breeding biology and ecology of endangered species in the wild
through various institutions of MoEF and universities to aid ex-situ conservation
Adequate coverage of forest and agro-biodiversity in school curriculum on
environmental studies and training of teachers in environmental education
Technical support for institutions to build national biodiversity databases that comply
with global metadata standards so as to facilitate integration of parallel information
networks
68
Building capacity and awareness to understand the value of ecosystem services
derived from biodiversity-rich landscapes
Encouraging co-operation and collaboration between ex-situ facilities to aid captive
breeding of endangered species.
• Promote taxonomy and application of modern tools of bio-systematics Taxonomy, which is frequently described as ‘the science of biodiversity’, has been at the
receiving end of a general apathy from the policy makers and research institutions in India for
over several decades. This has led to a severe shortage of trained professional taxonomists
and an enormous gap in our current understanding of the country’s biodiversity wealth with
more than 400,000 species still to be described (Pushpangadan & Nair 2001)37. Some urgent
measures are therefore required to revive the science of taxonomy and systematic research
in India, as solid capacity in taxonomy is fundamental to biodiversity documentation. These
include:
Mobilisation of financial resources to support taxonomic research at national
institutions and universities
Upgrading the existing infrastructural facilities at BSI and ZSI and ensuring public
access to their collections
Training of taxonomists and biodiversity scientists in application of modern tools of
bio-systematics including molecular techniques
Digitization of catalogues of all the national accessions currently housed at various
herbariums, museums, and other biological repositories, which should be made
available in web-enabled platforms for public access
Streamlining the existing official procedures to facilitate acquisition of permits to
collect biological specimens from the field and inter-institutional exchange of
specimens across the border for bona fide biodiversity and taxonomical research
• Improve access to information and technology Though Article 16 of the CBD lays particular emphasis on access to information and
technology, India’s existing capacity strength in this sector is barely sufficient to meet the
requirements of the vast stakeholder population of the country’s biodiversity resources. The
capacity constraints for free and open access to technology and its products are both
infrastructural and policy-driven. For example, absence of outreach mechanisms in interior
areas limits the access of local communities to information, while policy restrictions to some of
the spatial data like toposheets curb biodiversity studies from gaining access to technical
knowledge. In order to enable easy and open access to biodiversity information and
technology, the following initiatives are recommended:
69
Review of current policy to facilitate easy access to geospatial technology and
products (e.g., SoI toposheets for little-explored biodiversity-rich regions like North-
eastern India and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands) for bona fide research in line
with global standards
Expansion of institutional infrastructure to enable rural and urban population and local
communities to have open access to biodiversity-related information and databases
(For example, public institutions like schools and village agro-centres can be
mobilised)
Developing a multilingual dissemination strategy for biodiversity-related information
4.2.2 Planning, policy and decision making
• Encourage multi-disciplinary and participatory approach involving stakeholders in policy planning & decision making processes
Policy making in India, in general, is characterised by a ‘top-down’ approach with little
role for grassroots stakeholders and NGOs active in the field. Absence of multi-
disciplinary team at the helm of policy and decision making processes also gives rise
to arbitrations with narrow focus. These two inadequacies at the policy level ultimately
yield solutions which are devoid of ground realities or lead to concurrent
implementation of strategies with conflicting ends. This is best exemplified by the
internal conflicts that often arise between conservation strategies of agro-biodiversity
and those of wild biodiversity. Therefore, some capacity-strengthening measures are
required to develop across-the-board solutions to biodiversity issues, which also
address local environmental concerns.
• Strengthen, rationalise, and harmonize the existing policies, laws, and acts on biodiversity conservation
Though India has, in place, a number of exemplary legal initiatives for biodiversity and
environmental conservation, there are some key omissions and considerable points of conflict
between various legal instruments. For example, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, while
espousing the cause for creation of inviolate Protected Areas, is silent on legal remedies for
habitat protection outside PAs; this has given rise to two extremes of protection status neither
of which is sustainable in terms of ecological benefits or livelihood costs. In another instance,
there is no clear policy support for community participation in ex-situ conservation despite the
existence of traditional practices in ex-situ propagation of economic and medicinal plants.
Though there are recent initiatives by the government to promote community participation
through JFMs, the policies are still weak in their scope; for example, JFM models are not
extended to other forms of usufruct products like grasslands or grazing lands. To make the
70
existing legal and policy instruments more effective and relevant, the following actions are to
be taken on a priority basis:
Rationalise and harmonize some of the existing clauses in the conservation and
environmental policies, laws, and acts in particular context to the following provisions:
Developing locally empowered strategies for conservation of wildlife and
habitats outside PAs
Emphasis on retaining the integrity of wildlife habitats and persistence of
wildlife populations rather than the current focus on the fate of individuals of
various species
Regulated access for local communities to forest bio-resources from PAs on
sustainability principle
Strengthening of capacities to integrate traditional knowledge systems with
modern conservation practices
Evolving national policy and plan to promote ecotourism that, by definition,
should benefit both local communities and biodiversity
Expansion of JFM models to other common property resources
Regional environmental concerns and local socio-ecological factors need to be
adequately addressed in all policy matters instead of adoption of a blanket national
approach
• Develop and implement strategies to mainstream biodiversity concerns among ministries and departments
Absence of inter-sectoral communication and coordination within the government has been
identified as a major capacity constraint in the country for achieving the full potential of its
conservation programmes. Most often, it leads to administrative delays in policy formulation
and execution of action plans in the field. Sometimes, lack of coordination between ministries
also gives rise to policies and schemes with conflicting objectives. A case in point would be
the narrow economic and agricultural packages that overlook ecological and environmental
concerns of a region ultimately dispossessing the local communities of livelihood options.
Besides the communication gap, a general apathy that exists among the policy makers and
administration for biodiversity conservation also contributes significantly to the failure of
landscape and community-level economic programmes to address biodiversity concerns in
adequate terms. Further, low level of awareness of environment and biodiversity values that
is common among middle and lower-level rungs of official machinery (including law-enforcing
authorities, judiciary, and civil administration) severely affects the efficacy of conservation
planning and policies. It is therefore strongly felt that the administrative process should be
streamlined and general law and civil administration be made aware of environmental and
biodiversity issues through adoption of ameliorative strategies.
71
Promotion of inter-sectoral communication especially at the ministerial level to
coordinate between different development and environmental agendas
Organising regular events and workshops that promote interactions among all the
stakeholders at local and regional levels
Extension programmes to take the message of biodiversity conservation to
administrators, judiciary, and law-enforcing authorities
Streamlining of administrative rules and procedures to meet national capacity needs
in eco-technology and conservation science through international cooperation
Concerted long-term inter-sectoral programmes to strengthen capacities of
Panchayati Raj institutions in sustainable use of biodiversity, its monitoring and
conservation
4.2.3 Implementation of management actions
• Strengthen institutional infrastructure & human resources Though India has an exceptional network of institutions for agro-biodiversity research and
extension activities, institutional infrastructure for wild biodiversity remains very basic and
skeletal. State Forest Departments (FDs), which are the administrative backbone of forest,
aquatic, and marine biodiversity conservation in the country, suffer from numerous
inadequacies like shortage of frontline field staff, bare-minimum communication and transport
facilities, poor defence mechanisms against armed poaching and natural calamities, and lack
of training in modern conservation practices. On the technical front, a majority of zoos and
captive breeding facilities do not have adequate infrastructure for ex-situ breeding of animals.
Basic space constraints arising from ill-designed enclosures and partitioning of animals within
them need to be evaluated. Though national institutions working on environment, biodiversity,
and forestry sectors have outstanding facilities, their numbers are too few to cover the vast
geographical area of the country.
On the other hand, conservation of agro-biodiversity suffers from lack of institutional initiatives
despite the existence of well-established organisational infrastructure. Similarly, in spite of the
fact that India is a signatory to the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, 2000 and has fairly strong
legal provisions in place to combat the threats to local biodiversity from genetically modified
organisms, its capacity to implement the biosafety protocols is currently far below the
optimum mainly owing to inadequate knowledge-base and lack of trained staff.
Some of the more exigent measures to enable the institutional capacity of government
machinery to deal with biodiversity issues include:
Strengthening of state FDs by provisioning on-field infrastructural facilities, additional
staff, and regular in-service training programmes relevant to changing management
challenges
72
Developing an adaptive management strategy that integrates research with
management goals
Upgrading the technical infrastructure of government agencies engaged in off-field
tasks like captive breeding programmes and geospatial thematic mapping
Expansion of the existing network of national institutions working on wild biodiversity
especially in Trans-Himalaya, Eastern Himalaya, Eastern Ghats, and Andaman &
Nicobar Islands
Promotion of studies on conservation strategies of agro-biodiversity in ICAR
institutions, state AUs, and KVKs
Improvement of distribution infrastructure at regional and local levels for easy access
to seed-materials of agro-biodiversity for farmers and local communities
Strengthening the institutional knowledge-base in biosafety protocols through
extensive training programmes
Establishment of an exclusive National Bureau of Marine Genetic Resources
(NBMGR) as a nodal agency for conservation of marine bio-resources
• Aid capacity building of local institutions and communities One of the systemic root-causes for failure of conservation strategies in both forest and agro-
biodiversity relates to the weak capacity of local institutions and communities to grapple with
the issues and solutions in hand. This is, in part, ascribed to the government’s failure to
establish local networks of information and communication centres and to raise trained
resource-persons to reach stakeholders at multiple levels. Though participatory schemes like
JFMs envisage creation of Village Forest Committees (VFCs) or Forest Protection
Committees (FPCs) under each van panchayat, their roles as ‘local institutions’ are rather
very limited to management of community forests in parts of the country; moreover, there are
no such organised community-level initiatives for marine or agro-biodiversity conservation in
place. Presence of weak local institutions is also not conducive to developing hands-on policy
solutions and conservation action plans. For example, sea-ranching, ex-situ conservation of
medicinal plants, determining sustainable levels of harvests, and propagation of indigenous
varieties of agro-biodiversity are some of the key grassroots-level components of biodiversity
conservation, which require strong local institutions for successful implementation. The
following actions are particularly recommended to enable the local institutions and
communities to participate in the process of environmental management:
Identification and constitution of block-level village committees as ‘local nodal
agencies’ to design, coordinate and execute conservation plans, in collaboration with
governmental and non-governmental agencies, targeting forest, marine, and agro-
biodiversity. In this regard, the recommendation of the National Forestry Commission
(2006) to create countrywide Democratic Forestry Institutions (DFI) at primary,
73
secondary, and tertiary levels should be seriously considered38. The Biodiversity
Management Committees that are being constituted at the local level under the
provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, will also have a key role to play in this
regard.
Raising local teams of trained resource-persons to operate and liaise at multiple-
levels of stakeholders
Facilitation of easy and open access to biodiversity information and technology for
local institutions
Promoting active participation of local communities in all deliberations and
discussions over policies and programmes in biodiversity conservation
Ensuring that local institutions receive adequate benefits from biodiversity services
and goods which are sourced out using traditional knowledge systems
• Promote public-private partnerships in biodiversity conservation Environmental conservation is no longer viewed as the sole responsibility of the governments,
nor is it confined to the public stakeholders. With increasing awareness of the impacts of
environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity values on common livelihood standards,
many private enterprises have volunteered to extend financial and infrastructural support to
conservation agencies both at local and national levels. Some of the potential fields of joint
management of resources are wetlands conservation, water harvesting, eco-development
initiatives, ex-situ breeding, crop- and livestock insurance against damage by wild animals,
nature interpretation and education, and ecotourism. Though possibilities of public-private
partnerships in biodiversity conservation are immense, lack of favourable policy environment
severely limits role of private stakeholders in India. It is imperative to bring in some
administrative reforms that would facilitate commitment of corporate sector to biodiversity and
environmental conservation.
Creation of positive and favourable policy environment for public-private partnerships
and international co-operation in environmental management and biodiversity
conservation
Provision of incentives in the form of tax holidays, customs benefits, and eco-labels to
corporate and private sectors for their engagement in conservation activities
4.2.4 Monitoring and evaluation
• Establish monitoring mechanisms for conservation policies and programmes and strengthen evaluation criteria of EIAs
74
Though environmental clearance is mandatory for certain categories of developmental and
economic projects in the country under the CRZ Notification (1991) and the New EIA
Notification (2006), there are some glaring inadequacies in the clearance process. For
example, EIA guidelines often overlook ecological sensitivity or fragility of local ecosystems.
Though the Environment Protection Act seeks to address this issue through recognition of six
‘ecologically sensitive’ areas, this is clearly insufficient. Another shortcoming in the existing
clearance process is the inadequate provisions to weigh livelihood issues that may arise out
of the loss of biodiversity values of project sites. There have also been repeated legal
amendments to the evaluation process, which often advocate dilution of public hearings and
exemption of some development projects from environmental clearance.
It is widely recognised that regular monitoring of conservation policies and programmes is
necessary to sustain their implementation and outreach. A majority of the country’s
conservation schemes fall through in the absence of such a monitoring mechanism. The
overseeing committee should ideally comprise representatives from all the stakeholders and
should function at multiple levels to enable communication of feedback from the grassroots
level to the policy bodies at the top. It is also important to monitor development projects for
their compliance with the EIA guidelines and recommendations, and governmental agencies
currently lack institutional infrastructure and human resources to undertake these tasks.
Similarly, the existing Protected Area (PA) network should be subjected to monitoring and
reviews on a regular basis.
The following actions are required to streamline the evaluation and monitoring of conservation
policies and projects:
Review of the existing EIA guidelines to strengthen the following provisions:
Ecological sensitivity of the region
Livelihood costs
Public opinion & stakeholder participation
Establishment of a network of monitoring committees made up of all stakeholder
representatives at multiple levels to oversee conservation programmes
Setting up community monitoring groups comprising community leaders and local
administration for each major development project to monitor its conformity to
prescribed environmental standards
Periodic review of Protected Area network by means of regular monitoring of forest
and marine biodiversity
Develop a monitoring framework for India’s ecoregions
• Promote incentives for compliance with principles of sustainable development A general factor that weighs heavily against adopting sustainable practices of bio-resources
extraction is that the material benefits become visible only in the long run. It is therefore
75
necessary to give monetary and other forms of incentives to sustain the enthusiasm of the
stakeholders during the initial phase of conservation action plans. For example, farmers
willing to set aside patches of arable lands for in-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity should
be suitably rewarded to make up for the revenue losses. Similarly, maintenance of optimum
jhum cycles in North-Eastern Hills may be awarded with monetary grants and farm subsidies.
But India’s current performance in incentive schemes for biodiversity conservation (as
enunciated in CBD Article 11) is rather weak mainly owing to the general policy perception
that livelihood benefits are the incentives for local communities to adopt sustainable practices.
There are also very few initiatives to encourage corporate sector and development agencies
to comply with sustainability models.
The following measures are recommended, in particular, to promote all the stakeholders to
conform to principles of sustainable development:
Adequate incentives in the form of farm-subsidies and payoffs to farmers who
contribute to in-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity and practice sustainable farming
Expansion of the existing scheme of rewarding van panchayats for sustainable
extraction of NTFPs to all JFMs and village forests
Incentives like tax exemptions, customs benefits, and credit facilities to corporate
enterprises for adherence to guidelines of sustainable development and stakeholder
rights
76
Notes
1 Data from the Annual Report 2005-2006, MoEF, GoI 2 Data from the Ramsar Sites Information Service at www.wetlands.org 3 Source: National Wildlife Database Cell of Wildlife Institute of India (WII), updated on 1 January, 2007 4 Sponsored or extra mural research is based on annual R&D allocations to the Ministry of Science and Technology by the Government of India. 5 All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Department of Bio-Technology (DBT), Department of Coal (DoC), Department of Ocean Development (DOD), Department of Science and Technology (DST), Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), Department of Secondary and Higher Education (DoSHE), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), Ministry of Communications and IT (MoCIT), Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MFPI), Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (MNES), Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE), University Grants Commission (UGC), Central Board of Irrigation and Power (CBIP), Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR), Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL). 6 Source: The Third National Report to CBD, 2006 by MoEF, Govt. of India 7 The primary Central Acts relevant to biodiversity conservation in India include: Indian Forest Act, 1927; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; National Forest Policy, 1988; Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Some of these Acts have recent amendments. In addition these are supported by within and cross-sectoral policies, strategies and action plans such as: National Forest Policy amended in 1988; National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement for Environment and Sustainable Development, 1992; National Policy and Macrolevel Action Strategy on Biodiversity, 1999; National Agricultural Policy, 2000; the Final Technical Report of the NBSAP Project, 2005; National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016); National Water Policy, 2002; Comprehensive Marine Fishing Policy 2004; and, National Environment Policy, 2006. The National Biodiversity Authority was set up in 2002 to facilitate implementation of the Biological Diversity Act. 8 Project Tiger, 2005. Joining the Dots. The Report of the Tiger Task Force. Ministry of Environment and Forests. Government of India. 9 See for example Natonal Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement for Environment and Sustainable Development, 1992 and National Policy and Macrolevel Action Strategy on Biodiversity, 1999. 10 See the section on Law & Policy in the Final Technical Report of the NBSAP Project, 2005 11 Refer to: www.iucnredlist.org 12 This has been undertaken primarily as a firefighting (and not precautionary) measure. See: Project Tiger. 2005. Joining the Dots: The Report of the Tiger Task Force. MoEF, GOI. Available at: http//www.projecttiger.nic.in 13 Rodgers, W.A. and Panwar, H.S. 1998. Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in India. FAO and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. 14 Refer to: http://envis.nic.in 15 Source: National Wildlife Database Cell of Wildlife Institute of India (WII), updated on 1 January, 2007. 16 Source: National Wildlife Database Cell of Wildlife Institute of India (WII), updated on 1 January, 2007. 17 Source: Union Ministry of Environment & Forests website <http://envfor.nic.in/pe/pe.html> accessed on 16 January, 2007 18 Source: Conservation International, 2006 < http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org> accessed on 16 January, 2007 19 Source: Wetlands International, 2006 < http://www.wetlands.org/> accessed on 17 January, 2007 20 List of WH sites in India includes Kaziranga NP, Manas WLS, Keoladeo NP, Sundarbans NP, and Nandadevi & Valley of Flowers NP. Source: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/index.html 21 See the Report of the National Forest Commission, 2006 22 Source: Central Zoo Authority, 2006 23 Source: Third National Report to CBD, MoEF, 2006
77
24 Refer to GoI, 1990. Involvement of Village Communities and Voluntary Agencies in the Regeneration of Degraded Forests. Guideline circulated by MoEF. 25 Source: The Third National Report to CBD, 2006 by MoEF, Govt. of India 26 For a detailed account of the deficiencies in EIA process, refer to: K. Kohli & M. Menon, 2005. Eleven Years of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994: How Effective Has It Been? Published by Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group, Pune in collaboration with Just Environment Trust, New Delhi and Environment Justice Initiative, New Delhi. 27 Ref: The Third National Report to CBD, 2006 by MoEF, Govt. of India 28 Notification No. 621 in Official Gazette of Govt. of India on December 5, 1989. Rules for the Manufacture, Use/Import/Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms/ Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells (MoEF, GSIR 1037(E), 5 December 1989). 29The Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBSC), the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM), the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the State level Biotechnology Coordination Committees (SBCC), and the District Level Committee (DLC). 30 URL: http://indbch.nic.in/ 31 Hota, M. 2006. Biodiversity Capacity Building in Developing Countries: Evidences from India. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 8(3):35-42. 32 Source: The Directory of Extra-Mural R & D Projects Approved for Funding by Selected Central Government Agencies / Departments During 2002-03 published by National Science & Technology Management Information System, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 33 Notification No. 621 in Official Gazette of Govt. of India on December 5, 1989. Rules for the Manufacture, Use/Import/Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms/ Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells (MoEF, GSIR 1037(E), 5 December 1989). 34The Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBSC), the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM), the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the State level Biotechnology Coordination Committees (SBCC), and the District Level Committee (DLC). 35 URL: http://indbch.nic.in/ 36 Hota, M. 2006. Biodiversity Capacity Building in Developing Countries: Evidences from India. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 8(3):35-42. 37 P. Pushpangadan & K.N. Nair, 2001. Future of systematics and biodiversity research in India: Need for a National Consortium and National Agenda for systematic biology research. Current Science, 80:631-638. 38 See National Forestry Report, 2006.
78
ANNEXURE 1
Problem Analysis Matrix: Capacity Strengths, Gaps, Root Causes and Recommendations Relating to CBD Articles 5–20 CBD ARTICLE 5. COOPERATION
Capacity Status & Strengths
International cooperation in biodiversity and sustainable management is largely mediated in the country through the MoEF in the case of forest biodiversity and Department of Agricultural Education and Research (DARE) of Ministry of Agriculture for agro-biodiversity. Though DARE has numerous global collaborations in agricultural science and technology, there are no major international initiatives on agro-biodiversity per se.
The MoEF is the country’s nodal agency for several international organizations and programmes related to biodiversity, such as CBD, UNEP, South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme (SACEP), IUCN, and ICIMOD (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development). The MoEF also represents the country’s commitment to various multilateral agreements and treaties on environment and biodiversity like CITES, Ramsar Convention, Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), and UN Forum on Forests (UNFF). In addition, MoEF represents the country in several bilateral environmental agreements with nations like Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, EC, Germany, Iran, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, USA, and Vietnam1. Sustainable Development Network Partners (SDNP) of Indo-Canada Environmental Facility (ICEF) aids capacity-building of ENVIS centres in biodiversity information management. India is also an active member of the Like Minded Megadiverse Countries (LMMC), a global cooperative forum of 17 biodiversity-rich countries which hold nearly 70 % of the world’s known biodiversity.
Major transboundary initiatives have focused on the Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region. All eight countries in this zone are signatories to the CBD and are committed to establishing integrated transboundary collaboration and cooperation with respect to sustainable use strategies, exchange of expertise and improved management of mountain diversity. Identified priority geographical complexes such as the Kailash landscape, the Kangchenjunga landscape the Kawagebo- Namdapha- Hkakaborazi landscape have significant areas located within India. For the lower elevations, the Terai-Siwalik tracts are also part of the Terai-Arc Transboundary Initiative.
In the marine realm, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982) sets territorial limits on which India’s Territorial Waters Act, etc. are based. The provisions of a number of other international agreements and action plans have significance for India’s marine biodiversity conservation. The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA, 1995) provides a legal framework for the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, based on the precautionary approach. The Cancun Declaration, in 1995, was the basis for the development of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries whereby countries develop management measures. The Food and Agriculture Organisation also adopted International Plans of Action (IPOAs), that are voluntary instruments elaborating the Code relating to: reducing incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries; conservation and management of sharks; management of fishing capacity; and to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The Bay of Bengal Programme for Inter-Governmental Organisation (BOBP-IGO) launched by the four rim countries (viz., India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives) in 2003 offers a platform for scientific cooperation in marine fisheries research and management. In addition, international conventions such as the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) and the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship's Ballast Water and Sediments (Globallast), 2004, relate to pollution and alien invasives that may have significant impacts on biodiversity2.
India’s efforts in international cooperation relating to the conservation of key species and taxonomic groups are considerable under CITES, CMS and other instruments. Initiatives are underway on species such as the snow leopard, tiger, Tibetan antelope, marine turtles, cranes and waterfowl (e.g. the Central Asian-Indian Flyway) to name a few.
The country’s capacity status in international cooperation is marked by numerous institutional initiatives in forging global partnerships in biodiversity conservation. Some of the notable initiatives include the following organizational collaborations in both governmental and non-governmental sectors: National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI) and Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) and Indian Ocean Census of Marine Life (IOCoML) BNHS, and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) on vulture conservation BNHS and Birdlife International on Important Bird Areas (IBA) programme WII-USFWS-ISLT (International Snow Leopard Trust) on trans-Himalayas of Ladakh
80
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Lack of adequate policy support for cross-border cooperation is a major capacity constraint for research in wild biodiversity. Tedious and restrictive administrative procedures for international cooperation in scientific research have created an unfavourable environment for such initiatives.
Systemic Lack of a strong and unambiguous policy support severely affects international scientific cooperation in wild biodiversity research, as institutions often cannot take initiatives in the absence of clear guidelines. For example, India’s anachronistic policy on sharing of spatial data and products (like toposheets) driven by security concerns, is often a critical block in bilateral cooperation.
Policy support needs to be instituted to support and encourage international scientific and technical cooperation in wild biodiversity research.
Liberalisation of administrative rules and regulations that facilitate international cooperation in biodiversity research should be undertaken on a priority basis.
There are no major initiatives of international cooperation for conservation of agro-biodiversity, though research in mainstream agricultural sector is marked by bilateral and multilateral cooperation.
Systemic: Possibility of bio-piracy and illegal bio-prospecting has led to a largely restrictive policy regime that does not encourage international cooperation in agro-biodiversity research and conservation. Institutional: Agricultural institutions in India generally do not accord high priority to agro-biodiversity research, and this institutional weakness contributes further to the near-absence of initiatives on international cooperation on agro-biodiversity.
While the restrictive policy seems justified in view of the increasing fears about bio-piracy or bio-prospecting, effective regulatory mechanisms can be developed to oversee global cooperation for bona fide agro-biodiversity research.
Agricultural organizations like ICAR institutions, state AUs, and KVKs should be encouraged to take up research and extension activities related to agro-biodiversity conservation.
81
CBD ARTICLE 6. GENERAL MEASURES FOR CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE
Capacity Status & Strengths
Environmental protection is articulated at the highest level in the Constitution of India under the Directive Principles of State Policy [Articles 48-A and 51-A (g)]. In addition to being a signatory to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), which is the main international instrument on biodiversity, India is also party to other agreements such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of Seas and signatory to agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the CBD.
Historically, India’s conservation laws were aimed at protecting forests and wildlife mainly as resources; issue-specific and technical policies and laws that are progressive and more inclusive are recent. Along with the major Central Acts, numerous national strategies, policies, and programmes have been initiated at the country level3, some of which provide the legal framework for the establishment of protected areas.
Capacities for implementing large programmes and strategies for surveying biodiversity exist to a certain extent across systemic, institutional and individual levels. These are being carried out by institutions from both governmental (e.g. the Zoological Survey of India [ZSI], the Botanical Survey of India [BSI], the Forest Survey of India [FSI], the Wildlife Institute of India [WII], Centre for Ecological Sciences [CES, IISc.], Salim Ali School Centre for Ornithology and Natural History [SACON], G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development [GBPIHED], and Kerala Forest Research Institute [KFRI]) and non-governmental sectors (e.g. Bombay Natural History Society [BNHS], Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions [FRLHT], and Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment [ATREE], Foundation for Ecological Security [FES], and Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishad [KSSP]). The Forest Department is responsible for the development of Working Plans, Management Plans for Protected Areas, and related documents. The combined geographic coverage of these organisations is considerable. Currently only general in-situ conservation strategies relating to Protected Area establishment are in place. The Report of the National Forest Commission has laid down a number of general and specific guidelines for this aspect (Ministry of Environment and Forests [MoEF] 2006, Report of the National Forest Commission). The identification of critical ecosystems and areas of importance is underway (see for example the Important and Endemic Bird Area initiative carried out through the Bombay Natural History Society and the list of wetlands identified under National Wetlands Conservation Programme (MoEF Annual Report 2005-06).
Integration of sustainable use components of biodiversity is being carried out. Currently, there has been a paradigm shift in even species oriented plans to include people and livelihoods as crucial variables for successful conservation (see for example, the report of the Tiger Task Force, 2005.4 Since the 1990s, there has been a gradual incorporation of sustainable use related components into India’s biodiversity conservation policies5. Joint Forest Management (JFM) which was initiated during this period was a major shift marking potential decentralisation and sustainable use policies of the government. The National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016) incorporates sustainable use and participatory planning while an amendment to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in 2002 recognises communities’ usage of resources as well as the role they play in conservation. Of special importance is the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) development exercise and its various documents that have been prepared under extensive consultative and participatory processes and includes a wide range of issues relating to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Such initiatives have marked a shift from traditional policy making procedures and hint at a more inclusive, decentralised view to conservation. Some Acts such as the Indian Forest Act 1927, the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 (PESA), and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 provide extensive scope for inclusion of clauses relating to decentralised natural resources management through local institutions6. Some of these acts aim to provide livelihood opportunities to marginalised sections of society by way of providing employment and other benefits.
The National Environment Policy (NEP), 2006 contains text that incorporates sustainable use components in biodiversity conservation. At the cross-sectoral level, recent policies such as the National Agricultural Policy (2000) and Comprehensive Marine Fishing Policy (2004) incorporate sustainable use components. Other recent legal instruments such as the Right to Information Act (2005) aim at providing more transparency and scope for improvement with respect to environmental governance. With respect to the upcoming 11th Five Year Plan (2007-2012), the Planning Commission has constituted a Steering Committee on Environment, Forests, Wildlife, and Animal Welfare along with nine Working Groups/ Task Forces that deal with specific thematic components.
82
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Constraints include conflicts between development goals and environmental/ biodiversity protection issues across many sectors (Examples include development activities that are in conflict with environmental clearance under Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications, fisheries development and conservation, aquaculture development and concerns about ecological consequences to coastal ecosystems, ago-biodiversity protection and agricultural production issues relating to cash crop plantations, subsidies, and high yielding varieties of seeds). National level documents such as the approach paper to the 11th Five Year Plan also suffer from these discrepancies. Even closely related policy and legal instruments such as the NEP 2006 and the EIA Notification, 2006 have conflicts within them, which have received adverse reports from civil society groups.
At the overall policy level, decentralisation seems to be a step undertaken where it seems to be inappropriate. For example, there have been concerns about the proposed plan to give states the power to give environmental clearances through the New Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, and through the proposed Coastal Management Zone Notification. On the other hand, participatory planning and stakeholder involvement is not addressed with adequate operational detail in these policy or legislative changes.
Systemic Underlying causes include the nature of the relationship between the Centre and the States and different jurisdictional powers and ministerial mandates regarding various sectors. Forests and wildlife are included under the Concurrent List, but land and water are under the State List. Minor Forest Produce, Social and Farm forestry are included under the jurisdiction of Panchayati Raj Institutions.
As identified by the MoEF (2006)7, there is a clear lack of mainstreaming and integration of biodiversity issues into other sectors. Sectoral policies seem to have conflicts with environmental laws. The summary report of the Task Force on Governance, Transparency, Participation, and Environmental Impact Assessment 8 clearly states that ‘there is no mechanism in most Ministries to do environmental assessment of their policies and programmes, leading often to policies that are environmentally unsound. Similarly due to lack of coordination between MoEF and other Ministries, especially at the state level, MoEF and its state counterparts are unable to prevent the damage done to environment due to the activities of other Departments.’
Individual There is also a lack of knowledge and understanding of basic principles of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity among policy makers.
Review of sectoral policies and goals needs to be carried out to identify specific areas of contradiction where they conflict with sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. Individual ministerial sectors could then be targeted with specific capacity building exercises that include training and awareness programmes. This should be facilitated by the MoEF. Some governmental efforts are already underway in this regard. The Planning Commission has constituted a Working Group on Environment and Environmental Regulatory Mechanisms for the 11th Five Year Plan that is to review existing schemes/programmes of the MoEF and to evaluate the environmental sustainability concerns of development in other sectors. The impact of existing policies and the roles played by monetary as well as non-monetary policies need to be identified along with suitable mechanisms to hold ministries and departments accountable. The lack of knowledge about conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in general can be rectified by designing formal courses for bureaucrats and policy makers (of other departments) at the central and state levels.
The capacity status is generally weak to formulate and implement policies and mechanisms that deal with participatory, sustainable use models of conservation, and those that incorporate traditional rights. Although participatory models and sustainable use are catch phrases, currently there have only been a few actual initiatives, such as Joint Forest Management and eco-development schemes, which are participatory. National policies need to address the dual issues of poverty and biodiversity loss in an inclusive manner. Local bodies such as Panchayati Raj institutions are currently under-utilised and do not have the capacity to
Systemic There is a lack of effective partnerships between the governmental and more pro-active NGO sectors with respect to policy making. This is a system-level drawback identified by the MoEF (MoEF 2006, Third Report to the CBD). Effective partnerships also need to be developed by collaborations between governmental departments involved (e.g. MoEF and its autonomous institutes along with Ministry of Science and Technology (Department of Biotechnology [DBT], Department of Science and Technology [DST], and Council for Scientific and Industrial Research [CSIR]), Ministry of Agriculture, and
National level policies that outline administrative, legal, and financial mechanisms relating to participatory and community based conservation and consumptive use models need to be developed and strengthened with contributions from NGOs who are largely active in this sector. For example, Shekar Singh et. al 9recommends the development of a ‘Manual on People’s Participation in the Environment and Forests Sector.’ It is important that organisations working at the
83
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations oversee participatory conservation. The National Environment Policy, 2006, which aims at balancing development and conservation needs, but has been criticised by civil society groups for being incongruent with its stated objectives. The Thematic Report on Law and Policies in the Final Technical Report of the NBSAP (2005) recommends the constitution of a National Committee ‘to assess the extent of livelihood dependence of local communities and their contribution to ecosystem conservation’. At the same time the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 is still not clear about sustainable use of bio-resources, while granting rights to local communities over access. Currently there are limited capacities to develop holistic guidelines on issues regarding Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). Steps to be incorporated range from listing and availability of NTFPs, harvesting and sustainability to NTFP rules and intellectual property rights. A comprehensive review of policies regarding NTFPs is required that takes into account all aspects of resource use.
Ministry of Water Resources). Stakeholder involvement and participation is viewed as delaying development goals and is indicative of the development-conservation conflict mentioned above. Institutional There is a lack of horizontal cooperation among stakeholders (MoEF 2006, Third Report to the CBD). For many national level institutions, the departments/cells relating to policy are poorly developed. For example, in the case of the Himalaya, large institutions such as the Wildlife Institute of India [WII] and the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development [GBPIHED] have contributed effectively to carrying out research on species and ecosystems but are comparatively less effectual in policy development. In a general sense, NGOs who contribute more to this field are largely left out of such exercises, whereas at the same time there is a disconnect between policy and research as far as governmental institutions are concerned. Individual Governmental institutions do not seem to have policy makers who can incorporate the interdisciplinarity which is vital to biodiversity conservation. This is a skill that is lacking at various levels. Capacities to facilitate effective people’s participation on development issues do not exist with various implementing agencies. The problem is compounded by the absence of guidelines for the same.
grass-roots level be involved in this process. The approach paper for the 11th Five Year Plan also calls for a consolidation of JFM through linking livelihoods and conservation.
It is also necessary to recognise that in certain matters relating to utilisation and traditional practices, there are regional disparities. Institutions capable of resolving these issues at the regional level need to be identified and their capacities improved.
Guidelines could be developed for implementing agencies to facilitate stakeholder participation which could be incorporated into environmental decision making such as the EIA Notification, the CRZ Notification and forest laws.
Specific policy frameworks and strategies relating to certain thematic aspects are lacking or inadequate for some biogeographic regions: (a) For arid and semi-arid areas in Gujarat and Rajasthan there is a lack of a planned and ecologically driven land-use policy (for example, scrub jungle is wrongfully classified as wastelands). (b) Similarly, marine and coastal policies do not reflect inputs from research. Research on wetlands, coral reefs and mangrove ecosystems should be reflected in aquaculture laws, environmental clearances and restoration plans. (c) For mountain ecosystems, distinct regions such as Trans Himalaya specific action plans that address the unique requirements of the
Systemic There is disparity between available research outputs and policies and environmental governance on the whole. Additionally, research outputs do not get incorporated into appropriate regional/thematic strategies or policies at a pace that is necessary to bring about change. Large-scale blanket approaches do not work for a diverse region such as India and development of regional plans that take into account unique elements of regions are largely lacking. Institutional Institutional capacities are limited for developing strategies and
Some efforts are already underway with respect to developing region/issue specific strategies and they need to be strengthened further. For example, the NBSAP process saw the development of thematic, ecoregional and sub-state action plans which could provide vital information for policy development in individual regions. The Planning Commission has constituted a Task Force on Mountain Ecosystems as well a Task Force on Urban Environmental Issues. The reports of these groups could greatly enhance knowledge about
84
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations region are missing. For the main Himalaya, research results from biodiversity conservation and forestry find little integration across departments (such as agriculture and the Public Works Department). In the Himalaya, Western Ghats and the north eastern region (NER), significant biodiversity exists outside the formal PA network and there is no overall strategy to address this issue. This is especially true for the NER where over 54% is under community and private ownership. (d) Inadequate attention to urban environments and biodiversity. (e) Ecosystem goods and services are given less attention. (f) National level strategies for many lower taxa are still not developed. (g) National level strategies for species that are threatened as a result of extensive exploitation (e.g., medicinal plants) are still inadequate.
Nomenclature related to biodiversity (agro-biodiversity, domesticated biodiversity, etc.) is still unclear and often overlapping in its extent of coverage. Clarity on the definition of these terms, habitats and use-regimes they cover is essential in any conservation prioritisation exercise and for the planning process. To cite an example, in an effort to increase forest cover, afforestation is often carried out in natural scrub (an important natural habitat that hosts considerable biodiversity)which is misclassified as wasteland.
plans for specific areas. Considering the extent of the country, there are too few institutions, resources and trained manpower. The necessary mechanisms to facilitate this are not articulated in the particular policies. Individual The specific underlying cause is the lack of knowledge and practice of ecosystem-based interdisciplinary approaches to management (this has also been identified by the MoEF as a major challenge in the India’s Third Report to the CBD (MoEF, 2006). Individual limitations that translate to institutional shortcomings vis-à-vis a lack of adequately trained manpower are major limitations for some aspects of survey and documentation such as taxonomy. Such drawbacks have wider policy implications resulting in groups of taxa being left out of evaluations and action plans. The decline in interest in taxonomy has already been noted by the MoEF and concerned institutions and are being remedied through projects such as the All-India Co-ordinated Project on Taxonomy (AICOPTAX). The subject of biodiversity is dynamic and growing in its inclusion of conceptual understanding of the subject. However, the experiences with prioritisation or legislating on various ‘biodiversities’ are fairly new few precedents to rely on.
these systems and could be built upon by institutions working in these thematic and biogeographic areas. Region and issue specific policies should clearly outline capacity development mechanisms and guidelines and integrating knowledge-based conservation plans and implementation. There is an urgent requirement to revamp governmental institutions and bring them up to world-class standards.
Urban biodiversity conservation plans need to be made a more significant part of town plans and municipal bye-laws. The MoEF and State Departments of Environment need to plan departmental collaborations required for this and identify institutions that would execute and facilitate this. These need to focus on preserving tree cover, conserving energy and water resources, and proper waste management. Plans should also incorporate the involvement of urban societies and the management of stakeholder groups. An exercise needs to be undertaken to review all definitions of biodiversities as contained in the various national and state policies and laws to identify areas of overlap and ambiguity.
There are limited institutional (and individual) capabilities for strategies and plans relating to in-situ conservation. Protected area prioritisation techniques, evaluation and integration of ecosystem services in forest and marine management planning is lacking. For example, some categories of PAs do not have statutory status, the establishment of Reserve Forests or Marine Protected Areas is not carried out on an ecological basis, and there are ambiguities about criteria such as minimum area required, representativeness, and definitions of ecological systems such as ‘forests’ or ‘coasts’. Similarly, social science inputs on the management of socio-ecological systems are nearly absent from management plans. Central Acts such as the Indian Forests Act, 1927 and the Wild Life
Institutional There is a lack of collaboration between policy makers, managers and researchers. Partnerships between people and organisations (govt. and NGOs) involved in the various aspects of protected area establishment do not seem to have adequate platforms to collaborate on decision making in this aspect. Local people are largely left out of these aspects.
The custodian of forests in India, the State Forest Departments, still relies on exploitation based mensuration techniques for the development of Working Plans for territorial forests. Additionally, terrestrial paradigms operate in the marine space and are executed without integration of socio-ecological
Institutional capacities in this aspect need to be strengthened through training. Policy makers need to be given adequate grounding in basic ecological principles of reserve selection and the socio-economic aspects of PA establishment and gap analysis. Provisions should be made to incorporate multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder PA establishment teams.
The Forest Department’s capacities to integrate ecosystem services, sustainable use components and PA prioritisation techniques need to be advanced. This has to be done with
85
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations (Protection) Act, 1972 that relate to declaration of PAs do not contain clauses that require these capacities and are therefore limited in dealing with these aspects.
dynamics operating in these systems.
Individual There is a lack of trained manpower to deal with these issues with an interdisciplinary approach. Social science inputs are by and large limited to surveys and baseline data on populations and income, rarely incorporating the plethora of processes that ultimately influence resource management and use.
institutional collaborations.
Capacities in the social sciences should be strengthened to enhance the planning and management process, through direct means such as training or surrogate means such as collaborations with agencies with social science expertise.
86
CBD ARTICLE 7. IDENTIFICATION AND MONITORING
Capacity Status & Strengths
India is a mega-diverse country situated at the confluence of three biogeographic realms and includes 10 distinct biogeographic zones. Till date, 350 species of mammals, 1224 birds, 408 reptiles, 197 amphibians and 2546 species of fishes have been recorded (The Final Technical Report of NBSAP Project, 2005). It is estimated that over 48,000 species of plants (accounting for 11% of the known plant species of the world) are found here. A number of governmental institutions and a few NGOs have been established with the primary purpose of identification and monitoring of biological diversity across ecosystem, species and genetic levels.
High diversity areas and hotspots within India have been identified under global frameworks such as hotspots (Conservation International) and ecoregions (WWF). Many of the national institutes (WII, SACON [Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History]) have prioritised ecosystems (based on criteria such as diversity, fragility or threat) where they focus their work. For coastal and marine regions, Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management deals with various biological and socio-economic properties of coastal and marine ecosystems. Survey organisations such as the BSI and the ZSI are adding on to simple species based surveys and collections and are involved in assessing threat to species and ecosystems. Organisations such as the Forest Survey of India assess forest cover on a regular basis. Under the Department of Space, Space Application Centre, the National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) and the Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS) contribute to remote sensing applications covering both terrestrial and marine realms. NGOs such as the BNHS, ATREE, FRLHT and NCF (Nature Conservation Foundation) are also involved identifying important areas for biodiversity conservation. The Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project (BCPP) carried out collaboratively between government organisations and NGOs (with the WWF-India as a nodal agency) assessed priorities across biomes and ecosystems. Initiatives such as the Satpura-Maikal and Terai Arc project of the WWF provide a landscape based approach.
At the species level, the BSI and the ZSI estimate that about 70% of India has been inventoried (MoEF, 2006, Third Report to the CBD) and additionally are involved in the development of Red Data Books10 for plants and animals. Work on endangered species and ecosystems forms the focus of organisations such as the WII. Evaluations of large-scale conservation outcomes of some key charismatic species such as the tiger have also been undertaken11. The Fisheries Survey of India, the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) (for exploited fish species, both under the Ministry of Agriculture) and the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) address biodiversity in the marine system. Additionally institutions such as the National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources (NBAGR), the National Bureau for Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) and the National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources (NBFGR) are involved in large-scale surveys of traditional use and wild relatives of plants and livestock. Non governmental organisations such as the BNHS and the FRLHT are also involved in identification and monitoring. Institutions such as Centre for Molecular and Cell Biology (CCMB), the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), the National Institute of Immunology (NII) the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS), the Indian Institute of Science (IISc.), and the National Institute if Plant Genetic Resources (NIPGR) are a few of the institutions that have advanced capacities to carry out work on genetics.
Documentation of traditional practices for the country as a whole is limited. Recent initiatives such as the Peoples’ Biodiversity Registers provide important inputs in this regard.
Monitoring of large-scale forest cover change and modification is carried out using remote sensing and geographical information systems (GIS) technologies (by institutions such as the FSI, NRSA, IIRS, and WII). Impacts of land-use changes on population status of wild animals and plants are also monitored and studied by some NGOs notably, WWF-India, WCS-India, ATREE, and NCF. Population census and monitoring of large mammals such as the tiger are carried out by the Forest Department with inputs from organisations such as the WII. Nationwide assessments and reviews on protected areas have been carried out by the WII12. Monitoring capacities are comparatively lower than survey and documentation. For the marine realm, the Global Ocean Observing System, and the Coastal Ocean Monitoring and Prediction System (COMAPS) with the Department of Ocean Development (DoD) as the nodal agency is expected to initiate monitoring of biodiversity changes in coastal and oceanic waters. The Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network has initiated work under the NIO. In addition to monitoring of various aspects of biodiversity conservation, community based monitoring of exploited species have been initiated (with the help of NGOs) in some areas in the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary, Karnataka.
The NCL’s Centre for Biodiversity Informatics (NCBI) has developed a large number of databases and aims to develop tools and standards, as well as develop infrastructure and capacities to collect, document, analyse and disseminate data. The ENVIS (Environmental Information System) centres and nodes13 established by the MoEF provide a crucial platform for the documentation and dissemination of biodiversity related data. The Biodiversity Information System of the IIRS has a very ambitious set of components ranging
87
from species to ecosystems and threats. The CSIR has developed a Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) for Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy (ISMH). Other work on documented knowledge systems includes contributions by National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR on Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani) and the National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI) (on oral traditional knowledge, esp. AICPRE). A number of repositories for fauna and flora in the country also maintain records in their museums and collections (e.g. BSI, ZSI, BNHS, FRLHT, Madras Crocodile Bank Trust, and NBRI). The Peoples’ Biodiversity Registers, which are developed with the help of stakeholders, are a unique way of recording traditional knowledge and information.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations India being a vast country with many eco-climatic regions, the survey efforts within the biogeographical zones is uneven. Regional disparities are evident for almost all groups of taxa. Areas of high diversity and endemism such as northeast India and the Himalaya, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are very poorly surveyed. Marine areas within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are also poorly surveyed. (These biogeographical gaps have been identified by previous studies such as the Final Technical Report of NBSAP Project, 2005 as well as the current assessment). Even relatively better studied areas such as the Western Ghats still require more exploration.
Institutional Compared to the size and diversity of the country, there are only a few key organisations that deal with survey and documentation. Institutional capacities are lacking in almost all aspects including funding, infrastructure and trained personnel. Individual Despite a rich tradition of surveyors and taxonomists during the colonial period, currently there is a distinct lack of motivated personnel in the scientific community in government departments.
Institutional funding needs to be scaled up and sufficient motivation needs to be provided to scientists working in these regions.
More regional institutions (or cells of national survey institutions) are required to have an effect on biodiversity surveys in biogeographic zones. For example, the physical presence of organisations such as the WII and BSI in Dehradun has benefited the Himalayan region enormously in terms of projects and assessments that have been undertaken. National organisations situated in these areas need to have an additional regional mandate that aims towards increasing capacities within the area.
Large institutions need to incorporate capacity development of NGOs and other institutions situated in the region as part of their extension activities.
Species level identification and monitoring have received more priority than ecosystem and gene levels. Identification and monitoring of critical ecosystems is not carried out in a systematic manner and plans and institutional capacities are lacking in the development of monitoring systems to detect changes in ecosystem properties, structure and function. Conservation genetics which has enormous implications for both in-situ and ex-situ conservation has not received adequate attention at research institutions. Baseline data on intraspecific genetic diversity of endangered and economically important components of biodiversity has not been documented14. As a major drawback, the MoEF also reports that the ‘loss of biodiversity and the corresponding
Systemic While species has been regarded as the primary level of conservation, adequate thought has not gone into developing plans at other levels. Even at species-level, the focus is more on the survival of individual organisms with little consideration for population persistence or habitat integrity. Institutional Genetic and ecosystem level studies are limited by lack of funding, infrastructure and expertise.
Institutional and individual capacities need to be upgraded for ecosystem and genetic level work. Institutional capacities for ecosystem level activities need to be increased by improved funding for large-scale and long-term projects for documenting ecosystem structure, function and change, and also for the identification of adverse impacts such as climate change, invasion by exotics, fragmentation, and exploitation of resources. The interdisciplinary Ecosystem Research Scheme of the MoEF that emphasises an ecosystem approach and the Eastern and
88
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations goods and services it provides [are] not properly understood and documented’ (MoEF, 2006, Third Report to the CBD15).
Individual Although individual institutions such as the CCMB, IISc., and TIFR have high capacities for research at the genetic level, trained human resources are still limited as a whole.
Western Ghats Programme that addresses location specific resource issues could be used as prototypes. At the gene level, capacities to train people on various aspects of conservation genetics need to be made a priority.
Taxonomy, the science of identifying and documenting biodiversity, has been at the receiving end from a general apathy from both policy makers and institutions.
Systemic At the system level taxonomy as a discipline has been neglected over a period of years resulting in the present crisis. Funding towards surveys and documentation of larger mammals has been more forthcoming (especially from international agencies that supplement govt. funding) in comparison to taxa such as herpetofauna, insects and plants. It has to be mentioned that the MoEF has taken note of this limitation and has actively initiated projects such as AICOPTAX that will go a long way in resolving these issues. Institutional Institutions do not have adequate funding or trained manpower. Collection, preservation and curation systems in premier survey organisations are still outdated. Access to specimens that are already collected is a tedious process for research personnel working outside these institutions. Individual The largest drawback as far as surveys and documentation is concerned is the lack of trained taxonomists in India as a whole. Taxonomy has received low priority over the years and this has led to an overall decline in the quality as well as in the number of researchers interested in taxonomy.
The single most important priority would be to give taxonomy a boost with increased funding, training and motivation. Taxonomic initiatives relating to lower taxa (e.g., reptiles and amphibians, insects and microbes, and lower-plant taxa) should be funded in all biogeographic zones. The AICOPTAX project of the MoEF is a step in the right direction. Institutional capacities for better collection, documentation and preservation need to be improved and expanded. A regulatory body such as the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) should develop a framework to facilitate access to already existing collections and evaluate current limitations in terms of permissions and intellectual property rights. Parataxonomy should be encouraged at the individual level.
Monitoring has received less priority than identification. Regular and long-term monitoring parameters have not been adequately established for terrestrial or marine realms. Monitoring parameters for many useful research projects with long-term potential are abandoned at the end of the project term. Long-term thinking is absent. Monitoring is not carried out outside the PA network. Monitoring changes in urban diversity has not received any priority. The link between EIA and monitoring has not been established.
Systemic A long-term, inclusive and regular monitoring strategy is missing from the agenda of the MoEF. Institutional Institutional capacities are limited due to lack of expertise and inadequate collaboration between governmental institutions and the Forest Department. There are serious methodological ambiguities relating to the population censuses of even large mammals such as the tiger. The Forest Department’s main management documents for protected areas, the Working Plans
The MoEF should develop a national-level biodiversity monitoring policy and strategy for India. Such a policy should address all components of ecological monitoring including monitoring of urban biodiversity changes as well as linkages with appropriate EIA techniques. Capacity building at the individual level should focus on training personnel in new techniques of monitoring and integration. There is an urgent need to fund projects along the lines of projects mentioned in the Third
89
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations currently do not adequately incorporate ecosystem properties and adverse effects such as invasion by exotics and climate change (but does record resource exploitation and fire occurrences). Individual Individual limitations include lack of expertise with regard to taxonomy (this has been detailed above) for species based monitoring as well as lack of expertise in research relating to the development of indicator and surrogate species methodologies.
National Report to the CBD.
The MoEF has identified the loss of traditional knowledge as a major challenge for identification and monitoring16. Knowledge about agricultural biodiversity, medicinal plants and other NTFPs exist in India but much of this remains to be documented in a systematic manner.
Systemic The recognition of the importance of traditional knowledge in various aspects of biodiversity documentation and conservation has only been recent. This is especially with regard to areas such as agricultural biodiversity, medicinal plants and NTFP use. Institutional Partnerships between national level government institutions and NGOs who work on these aspects are currently minimal. Individual Erosion of values and practices of traditional knowledge among local communities, and lack of opportunities to apply them are some individual factors that limit their use in biodiversity management.
Governmental initiatives such as the All India Coordinated Research Project on Ethnobiology (AICRPE) and NGO initiatives such as the Peoples’ Biodiversity Register are still limited in their coverage, but are ideal prototypes for the survey and documentation of traditional practices. The requirement is to scale up the number of projects that incorporate these components. Effective partnerships need to be developed between the NGO and the government sector. There is also need to increase the number of local community level organisations in accordance with the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
90
CBD ARTICLE 8. IN-SITU CONSERVATION
Capacity Status & Strengths
India’s major strength in in-situ conservation lies in its impressive Protected Area Network, which currently comprises 599 PAs including 95 National Parks, 502 Wildlife Sanctuaries, and 2 Conservation Reserves, covering about 4.75 % of the country’s total geographic area17. Five major Marine Protected Areas on the mainland and several others in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are included in the PA network. This network also incorporates keystone and flagship species approach of in-situ conservation, with the launching of Project Tiger in 1973 (29 Tiger Reserves)18 and Project Elephant in 1992 (25 Elephant Reserves)19 within the structural framework of the existing PA network. In addition, 14 Biosphere Reserves have been designated on the basis of UNESCO/MAB criteria to conserve all life forms along with their support systems and linkages, including the socio-cultural and economic environments of local communities.
International efforts for in-situ conservation are also underway in the region with the recognition of the Himalaya and the Western Ghats as among the 34 Global Biodiversity Hotspots20of the world. The MoEF has also embarked on international initiatives like designation of 25 wetlands as Ramsar sites of international importance21, listing of five PAs as World Heritage (WH) sites22, and notification of Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary (as per the mandate of the International Whaling Commission).
India’s efforts for in-situ conservation of biodiversity also include some of the innovative schemes like National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-06), National Lake Conservation Plan (NLCP) and ongoing dialogues with Nepal and Bhutan over creation of trans-boundary PAs. The Final Technical Report of the UNDP-GEF Project on National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, 2005 is a key input to the formulation of India’s NBSAP which is currently at an advanced stage of finalisation.
Contributions from NGOs towards identification of potential sites for in-situ conservation have been quite encouraging. Examples include designation of 55 Medicinal Plants Conservation Areas (MPCAs) by FRHLT in three southern states and identification of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the entire country by BNHS & BirdLife International.
India also has several central laws and notifications in place, which facilitate enforcement of in-situ conservation. Prominent among them are: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Indian Forest Act, 1927 Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 Biological Diversity Act, 2002 Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 1991 National Forest Policy, 1988 National Environment Policy, 2006. Under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, several areas have been declared as Ecologically Sensitive Areas (ESAs) (such as Dahanu Taluk and Mahabaleshwar -Panchgani, Maharashtra and parts of the Aravalli region in Rajasthan). These ESAs have area specific management plans and authorities to manage these, which are more context sensitive, than PAs formed under the WLPA.
India is also committed, as a signatory of various international treaties and conventions, to promote in-situ conservation. Examples include CITES, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), and the CBD. The MoEF represents the country in the Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Network (APFISN) of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) to document and to develop action plans for the control of invasive alien species in the wild.
Organisational support to promote in-situ conservation is currently being strengthened at both governmental and non-governmental levels. For example, the MoEF has set up several central bodies like National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), State Biodiversity Boards (SBB), National Medicinal Plants Board (NMPB), National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board (NAEB), National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA), Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network (ICRMN), National Tiger Conservation
91
Authority (NTCA), and the Tiger and Other Endangered Species Crime Control Bureau (National Wildlife Crime Control Bureau). Several national institutes have been working on various aspects of in-situ conservation [e.g., ZSI, BSI, FSI, WII, SACON, G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development (GBPIHED), Forest Research Institute (FRI), and several sister institutes under the aegis of ICFRE and ICAR]. In addition, central and state universities (notably, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Aligarh Muslim University, MS University, Assam University, and Madurai Kamaraj University) undertake numerous studies on various aspects of biodiversity research especially at the regional level. Contributions from some of the prominent NGOs have also been very significant (e.g., FRLHT, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation [MSSRF], BNHS, World Wide Fund for Nature-India (WWF), Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI), Wildlife Trust of India (WTI), Kalpavriksh, and ATREE]). The Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya (IGRMS) has been involved with the in-situ conservation of sacred groves across the country.
Though agro-biodiversity remains largely neglected in the country’s conservation efforts, there has been a recent shift in government’s policy and planning in favour of conserving the indigenous crops and landraces/cultivars. In-situ conservation plans have been developed for select components of agro-biodiversity by ICAR in some agro-climatic zones (e.g. Orchard crops). As a major policy initiative to protect the indigenous gene pool, the use of Gene Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS) has been explicitly banned by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. There are also some NGOs actively involved in conservation of agro-biodiversity, including MSSRF, Deccan Development Society (DDS), and SEVA. In particular, Community Agro-Biodiversity Centre (CAbC) of MSSRF at Wayanaad, Kerala conducts several innovative community-oriented programmes that aim at sustainable farming practices.
India’s conservation history is marked by a long tradition of community protection to forests and wildlife (e.g., Bishnois in western Rajasthan, Chipko movement in western Himalaya, customary protection of heronries by villagers, and religious sanctity accorded to sacred groves, select tree species, elephant, nilgai, peafowl, and sarus crane). Specific efforts have been undertaken to promote community participation in in-situ conservation plans [e.g. Peoples’ Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) by Indian Institute of Science and creation of Forest Protection Committees (FPCs) & Eco-Development Committees (EDCs) under JFM at the level of van panchayats].
There are some recent initiatives on application of GIS and remote sensing technology to aid in-situ conservation strategies (e.g., digital mapping of PA boundaries by WII and gap analysis and habitat suitability and assessment studies at ATREE, IIRS, WII, and other institutions).
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Despite the countrywide existence of an impressive number of PAs, in-situ conservation suffers from some serious inadequacies in the existing PA network. Some regions (like the Eastern Ghats) and ecosystems (e.g., riverine environment, grasslands, and broad-leaved oak forests of the mid-elevation Western Himalaya) are currently under-represented in the PA network. PAs also lack scientific rationale as most of them have been created with flagship species as focal theme (e.g., tiger-centric planning in central India or the Gahirmatha turtle sanctuary in Orissa).
Systemic Little scientific approach in the PA network policy, despite the existence of a biogeographic model for an efficient PA network23. Policy mostly driven by flagship and charismatic species like large mammals. Institutional Technical expertise for gap analysis and PA network prioritisation is very hard to find. Individual There is scarcity of geospatial scientists and managers for efficient PA network planning.
PA network should be made more representative through biogeographical gap analysis.
Criteria to evaluate PA network should include ecosystems, biomes, and landscapes, and socio-ecological parameters apart from flagship or keystone species.
Technical support is required for training of policy makers, field managers, ecologists, and social scientists alike in tools of spatial analysis and prioritisation exercises.
A large number of PAs still await formal notification owing to long-standing issues like boundary disputes, presence of villages within boundaries, exiting practices such as grazing NTFP collection, or fishing inside PA areas. Several PAs are
Systemic Initial demarcation exercises for both the PA and its core and buffer areas are not inclusive and create future problems in finalising these. There is little coordination among various
Initiatives to promote inter-sector coordination and multi-disciplinary expertise in PA identification and management should be institutionalised on a priority basis.
92
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations sites of industrial, commercial and infrastructure activities such as mining industry, large dams, etc.. Some PAs do not have the necessary structural zones like buffer and interface areas for meeting the livelihood needs of the local communities (e.g., some PAs in the Trans-Himalaya).
government sectors to ensure that relevant and rational demarcation is effected. The earlier development-conservation conflicts often determine the boundaries of PA itself, particularly strongly in the case of large industrial or infrastructure projects. Institutional Some of the PAs currently do not have any buffer zones, probably owing to the institutional perception that population pressures on these PAs are too low. But the scenario may change faster in near future, warranting creation of interface areas. Individual Managers with proven ability to coordinate, negotiate, and efficiently implement the PA guidelines are generally scarce.
Efforts should be made to streamline administrative procedures pertaining to PAs.
Efforts to rationalise where necessary and notify all the designated PAs should be carried out. The rationalisation process should again be completely transparent and inclusive, with facilitation from multi-disciplinary experts.
All the PAs should have the mandatory ‘multiple use areas’ surrounding the core area for regulated access to local communities.
PAs should have, in place, monitoring mechanisms for evaluation of management effectiveness.
A ‘one size fits all’ approach to PA design and management should be traded in for a more context specific and dynamic design.
Some categories of Protected Areas (like Biosphere Reserves) do not have any statutory status in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. This seriously undermines the administrative and policy-level initiatives of in-situ conservation which are under way in the reserves.
Systemic In the absence of statutory status, it is often difficult to seek financial support for Biosphere Reserves and implementing restrictions within this area becomes untenable.
Introduction of necessary amendments in the policy and laws governing PAs is needed to grant statutory status to all the categories of PAs. In doing so, options such as declaration of such areas as Ecologically Sensitive Areas under the Environment Protection Act should be explored. A review of all the PA categories can also be undertaken by constituting an expert committee which should include people representing all the stakeholders.
PA management currently lacks the required technical expertise and necessary infrastructure to protect and manage wildlife along with forests / reserves from the onslaught of poaching, forest fires, livestock grazing, illegal trade in timber, unsustainable extraction of NTFPs, unregulated tourism, mining & quarrying, encroachments from human settlements, and human-wildlife conflicts.
Systemic Prospects of a long and tedious legal procedure often discourage law-enforcing authorities (State Forest Departments in this case) from taking legal actions against some harmful activities like poaching and forest fires. Political interference, particularly in the case of large infrastructure projects inhibit PA managers from enforcement and implementation. Institutional capacities to deal with issues such as habitat fragmentation and forest loss.
Generous investments are required to strengthen infrastructural capacity of the implementing agencies.
Technical and financial support for regular training programmes to field staff in PA management and application of new tools.
All industrial and infrastructure activities should undergo rigorous cost-benefit analyses and social and environmental impact
93
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Institutional Scarcity of technical expertise and a bare-minimum infrastructure are the biggest constraints in the current capacities of the State Forest Departments. Encouragement of economic and commercial activities by other governmental sectors like tourism, mining & quarrying, and industrial expansion is often in direct conflict with the measures of in-situ conservation. Individual Limited ability of frontline staff to work in tandem with the local communities. Low motivation of the staff for defending and championing the case for PAs and biodiversity conservation.
assessments, including methods such as economic valuations of ecological goods and services.
Proposals for setting up of fast-track courts and separate courts for trial of environmental cases should be seriously considered.
There is a large gap between research and management of PAs with very limited linkages between science and policy. The situation is aggravated by the fact that there is too little research on ecology in India and there are too many management issues in PAs that demand attention of both the field managers and ecologists. The ever increasing conflicts between ecology and development further polarise the stakeholders.
Systemic Policy-making bodies in biodiversity conservation often do not include field ecologists, biodiversity specialists or social scientists with the result that the policies or management plans do not incorporate the research findings in these disciplines. National development planning does not address environmental objectives and conservation goals. Institutional India, one of the 12 megadiversity countries of the world, paradoxically has few institutions that address the issues of biodiversity conservation and ecology or of biodiversity and human societies. Understandably, the existing institutions are under severe pressure to deliver more than they are mandated for, given their capacity constraints. In general, the conservation organisations in the country lack a multi-disciplinary approach in their policy outlook. Most of these institutions are too specialised and narrow in their approach to evolve integrated holistic solutions for in-situ conservation. Individual Individual ability to link science with policy and management actions is inadequate among the PA managers. There is also limited inter-disciplinary thinking and strategies in PA
Suitable mechanisms need to be in place to integrate science in PA planning and management. This can be achieved through reconstitution of such agencies to accommodate the stakeholders of biodiversity conservation in the decision-making process. Management and Working Plans of State Forest Departments should also be reviewed by these representatives before they are ratified.
There is a strong need to increase the number of institutions that work on biodiversity issues, especially at local and regional levels.
Measures to promote human resource development in tackling biodiversity issues should complement the expansion of institutional infrastructure.
All the institutions working on various aspects of in-situ conservation should be encouraged to have a multi-disciplinary team at the helm.
94
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations management.
Though the gaps in our current knowledge of the country’s biodiversity have been recognised in the past, the situation continues as before. For example, biodiversity inventorisation in regions like North-east Himalaya is far from complete, and such deficiency severely hampers development and execution of in-situ conservation plans. Similarly, lack of studies on sustainable harvesting of marine bio-resources or medicinal plants is a major capacity constraint to evolve participatory strategies of in-situ conservation.
Institutional There is clearly a shortfall of institutional infrastructure to carry out the task of biodiversity documentation and monitoring. Scarcity of on-field studies on quantifying sustainable levels of harvesting also owes a lot to poor institutional support. Individual Authentic data on biodiversity inventories can be collected only under the leadership of trained taxonomists, and there is an unprecedented paucity of taxonomic expertise especially in lower taxa. Even the small number of taxonomists affiliated to state universities and organisations like BSI and ZSI often work in an atmosphere that is not conducive to research and that lacks necessary infrastructure and career incentives for promotion of excellence.
A high investment is required to expand the institutional infrastructure in biodiversity studies particularly in regions like Trans-Himalaya, Eastern Himalaya, Eastern Ghats, and Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
Training in classical taxonomy and modern molecular tools of systematics should be accorded a high priority in all institutions that conduct research and training in life sciences.
Generous grants are to be given to all the local institutions and organisations for conducting field studies to quantify sustainable levels of harvesting of bio-resources under various socio-economic and ecological settings. Technical training can be imparted to biodiversity scientists for developing methods and experimental designs in sustainable use studies.
Conservation planning, in general, is characterised by a blanket-policy approach with little consideration for regional socio-cultural milieu or ecosystem properties. For example, management plans for in-situ conservation in marine PAs are often modelled after terrestrial PAs, and they are also marked by an absence of policy integration of seascape with the landscape.
Systemic In a vast country like India, which boasts of an astonishing diversity of landscapes and ecosystems, the structure of conservation policies unfortunately remains uniform and inflexible. This is largely owing to the systemic failure to adopt policy innovations through a diversity of disciplines. Institutional Institutions working on conservation action plans also inherit the systemic reluctance to introduce necessary amendments in management strategies. Individual Limited availability of individual capacity to integrate ecological information into management and also to accommodate the socio-cultural, socio-economic and location-specific aspects in conservation planning.
Policy-makers and conservation planners should be more open to strategic innovations in action plans. In this regard, the Management Plans of State Forest Departments should be made flexible enough to accommodate all the necessary actions that may be specific to the region / ecosystem. This is to ensure that conservation planning meets both the ends of ecosystem protection and livelihood needs of local communities.
Research and dissemination of technical expertise in in-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity, though eminently available
Institutional The mandate of agricultural extension, which has an excellent
In-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity needs to be accorded a prominent place in the
95
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations in India, needs to be made widely available. Additionally, the attitude to traditional varieties of agro-biodiversity, knowledge and practices is often overlooked by policy makers. This obvious in the general thrust of agricultural institutions on high-input and high-yielding varieties and monoculture farms with little attention on traditional crops and indigenous knowledge. This poses a severe capacity constraint for expanding the knowledge base to grassroots stakeholders.
institutional network in the country, often overlooks in-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity and the contribution by traditional practitioners. Individual Training of personnel in in-situ conservation of crop diversity remains inadequate in comparison to transfer of technology in mainstream practices like agronomy and horticulture.
research and extension agendas of all the agricultural institutions and universities.
Programmes for transfer of technology in in-situ conservation of indigenous crop varieties should be promoted at the local level so that all the stakeholders participate in the process.
There should be due recognition of the contribution of local communities and NGOs in agro-biodiversity policies and studies. Traditional knowledge systems should be promoted and integrated within modern farm practices.
There is a widespread neglect of the importance of in-situ conservation of medicinal plants at both the policy and field levels. For example, Working Plans (in case of territorial forests) and Management Plans (of PAs) do not address the issue of medicinal plants conservation in detail. This may be one of the foremost reasons for the scarcity of primary field data on population status and on distribution of important and threatened species of medicinal plants in the country.
Systemic All the forest conservation policies in the country, by and large, remain non-committal on in-situ conservation of medicinal plants, though a positive change in policy outlook is visible in recent times. Institutional Very few institutions work on collating baseline data on population status of important medicinal plants in the wild. This severely hampers developing sustainable models of collection and harvesting of wild medicinal plants.
All the Management Plans of PAs and Working Plans of territorial forests should deliberate on proposed measures for in-situ conservation of medicinal plants in the forest divisions, concerned.
Financial support is to be granted to local institutions (including NGOs) to undertake studies on documentation and monitoring of threatened species of medicinal plants in the wild.
A general apathy among the policy-makers and field managers to take local communities into confidence while drawing in-situ conservation plans becomes a serious handicap during the implementation phase. A lot of mistrust that has grown over the years between the managers and the local communities, and is an important constraint that faces conservation initiatives in the country.
Systemic Most conservation policies in the past were marked by ad-hocism and lack of a participatory approach. Though the policy scenario in the centre has changed a lot over the recent years, more favourable atmosphere needs to be created for participatory solutions to biodiversity issues. Institutional Executive authorities like state forest and agricultural departments are yet to adapt to changing paradigms of institutional functioning in which stakeholder participation becomes a key component. This institutional failure to include local communities hampers all the efforts of in-situ conservation.
The ongoing process of a makeover in central policy environment in favour of a stakeholder and participatory approach should continue and it should also be passed on to institutions at the lower rungs of hierarchy (like state departments of agriculture and forests). Private-public cooperation in in-situ conservation can be experimented at the local level, particularly for wetland biodiversity.
96
CBD ARTICLE 9. EX-SITU CONSERVATION
Capacity Status & Strengths
Setting up of the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) in 1992 by the MoEF as a statutory umbrella body for evaluation, facilitation, and coordination of all the zoos was a major step in ex-situ conservation of animal species in India. Currently, the CZA recognises 164 zoos in the country24. In total, there are 275 zoos, aquaria, safari & deer parks, and mini-zoos25, though a majority of them do not qualify as captive breeding facilities.
The recent launch of Indian Botanic Gardens Network (IBGN) in 2003 under the aegis of National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI) and Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) is another major initiative to bring together about 150 botanic gardens of India under a single coordinating mechanism. In 1999, MoEF launched the “Assistance to Botanical Gardens” programme to improve ex-situ conservation facilities in existing botanical gardens.
The ex-situ conservation of wild animals in the country is largely mandated and articulated through the following legislations and policies: • Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [Chapter IV A] • National Zoo Policy, 1988 • Recognition of Zoo Rules, 1992 • Recognition of Zoo (Amendment) Rules, 2004
Besides these national policies, the ex-situ breeding is also compatible with the international conventions like the “IUCN Technical Guidelines on the Management of Ex-situ Populations for Conservation”.
ICAR has initiated several gene banks / repositories of domesticated and cultivated fauna and flora which include the state-of-the-art scientific collections of germplasms like NBPGR, NBAGR, NBFGR and NBAIM (National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Microorganisms).
NBPGR has the world’s largest collection of plant gene pool, with about 1500 germplasms under in vitro gene bank and c. 5800 under cryogenic facility. NBAGR is the leading gene bank for livestock in the subcontinent for ex-situ conservation of about 150 indigenous and little-known livestock breeds. NBFGR is the country’s central gene collection facility for all the freshwater fish species with the possession of both sperm and DNA banks for ex-situ conservation of fishes. In addition, several national facilities for the collection of germplasm of economically important microbes have also been set up under NBAIM.
There are some notable institutional initiatives in ex-situ conservation of a few threatened species of wild flora and fauna. Examples include the following organisations:
• Himalayan Forest Research Institute (HFRI) and Regional Research Laboratory, Jammu on threatened plants of the Trans-Himalaya • University of Horticulture and Forestry (UHF, Solan, HP) on medicinal and aromatic plants of the Greater Himalaya • Joint initiative of FRLHT & EPTRI (Environment Protection, Training, and Research Institute) in setting up ex-situ conservation plots in Eastern Ghats for medicinal and
aromatic plants • MoEF-State FDs on ex-situ propagation of endangered orchids and bamboos in north-east India • MoEF-Meghalaya FD’s joint efforts for ex-situ propagation of the endangered insectivorous pitcher plants • MSSRF maintains ex-situ breeding nurseries for mangrove species for restocking coastal vegetation • Recent successful attempts by NCF to regenerate rain-forest plants through nurseries for use in ecorestroration in the Western Ghats. • MoEF-CZA facilities for captive breeding of some select species of endangered fauna like snow leopard, musk deer, red panda, Asiatic lion, lion-tailed macaque, gharial, sea
turtles, marsh crocodiles, and pheasants • Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) is currently setting up a National Facility for Conservation of Endangered Species of Animals with the support of
Department of Biotechnology (DBT), MoEF, CZA, and Government of Andhra Pradesh. • Some successful collaborations between the MoEF and NGOs in ex-situ breeding of wild animals include snakes and crocodiles (Chennai Snake Park, Madras Crocodile
Bank, and Pune Serpentarium), pygmy hogs (Pygmy Hog Conservation Breeding Centre, Assam), and Gyps vultures (BNHS).
97
Presence of NGOs for research and training in zoo science and ex-situ conservation like Zoo Outreach Organisation (ZOO) adds to the capacity strength of India.
There are also some initiatives on application of innovative techniques in ex-situ conservation like use of biotechnology by ICRISAT for cultivars, ranching (use of eggs from wild population for release and restocking) of gharials in the Gangetic river system, hatcheries for marine ornamental fishes in Lakshadweep Islands, sea-ranching of turtles and seahorses and ranching of Edible-Nest Swiftlets in the Andamans by SACON.
India’s conservation also includes a few traditional practices of involvement of local people in ex-situ measures like community-run hatcheries of Olive Ridley sea turtles, which are protected from predation and beach erosion, along the Orissa, Andhra and Madras coasts as well as along the Kerala and Goa coasts. Successful ex-situ conservation measures for local flora have also been initiated by small organizations such as the Gurukula Botanical Garden in Wyanad which also serves the dual purpose of educating local people and children about biodiversity. There are also visible attempts, though few and far between, to involve local people in ex-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity like the establishment of Community Gene Banks for local landraces by women self-groups in Andhra Pradesh, and Village Herbal Gardens to propagate medicinal plants under ex-situ conditions by FRLHT.
An interesting development in ex-situ conservation relates to the private entrepreneurship which aims at economic gains through ex-situ breeding. Notable example is the operation of prawn seed hatcheries by private owners to meet the prawn-seed demands of aquaculture farms which otherwise exploit wild seeds often in an unsustainable manner.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Indian zoos do not seem to be established on the basis of well-defined mandates or objectives and this lack of focus has resulted in poorly designed and managed facilities that neither facilitate captive breeding nor education and awareness. Zoo infrastructure for captive breeding of endangered species of wild animals is far from perfect. Severe scarcity of funds, understaffed facilities, uncontrolled breeding of animals, severe space constraints, inappropriately designed enclosures, and lack of trained field-staff and wildlife veterinarians are the primary capacity constraints for successful ex-situ programmes in India. These issues can be attributed to a long and inexplicable negligence of ex-situ conservation in various wildlife action plans and conservation strategies.
Captive breeding plans of endangered animal species suffer from a serious paucity of vital scientific data on breeding ecology of the species. For example, sex ratio in turtle hatchlings is known to be determined by temperature. In the absence of such key information, breeding success is often left to the skill and experience of the field-staff. Captive breeding and species recovery programmes are also not available for a large number of threatened species.
For several species of endangered fauna, there are no viable populations under captive facilities. In fact, for some species like caracal and desert cat, there is not a single captive animal
Systemic Captive breeding as an ex-situ conservation strategy has never received a strong policy support, though National Zoo Policy, 1988 had called for concerted efforts to streamline the process.
Institutional Near-absence of basic infrastructure in most of the captive breeding facilities and zoos poses a grave challenge for achieving the desired capacity in ex-situ conservation of wild animals.
Lack of understanding of breeding biology is a major constraint in developing any species recovery programmes through captive breeding.
Failure of zoos to procure and house a viable captive population from the wild limits the feasibility of ex-situ breeding.
Lack of inter-zoo cooperation in breeding of endangered species is a major problem. Individual zoos are more interested in the future of the institution rather than the future of the captive population and conservation status of the threatened species in the wild.
Absence of captive facilities for unique fauna like marine and
A national strategy for ex-situ conservation of endangered wild animals is to be developed and implemented as per IUCN guidelines.
Establishment of a central regulatory board under the aegis of the CZA can be considered to bring all ex-situ breeding programmes under a single monitoring body.
Basic infrastructure including trained and skilled human resources in all the captive facilities and zoos needs to be improved. State-of-the-art infrastructure including highly trained and skilled staff should be provided to zoos which are chosen as ‘national conservation breeding centres’ for select species, and these specialised centres should house adequate numbers of target species from the wild.
Captive facilities for aquatic mammals are to be set up for ex-situ breeding of endangered species like Gangetic dolphin.
Zoo managers and animal keepers should be adequately trained in zoo record keeping and studbook compilations. Technical support may
98
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations across the zoos in India. On the other hand, captive facilities for freshwater and marine mammals (many of which are rare and threatened) do not exist.
Though the CZA has introduced the international zoo record-keeping practices in Indian zoos, these records and studbooks which are vital for inter-institutional coordination for selection of mates, are usually not maintained owing to shortage of staff and lack of proper training.
The few cases of successful captive breeding programmes ultimately fell through, because of lack of institutional follow-up measures to reintroduce the stock back to the wild (e.g., marsh crocodiles).
No institutional recognition of some of the unique community initiatives in ex-situ conservation like the sea-turtle hatcheries maintained by local people in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh.
riverine mammals is a serious constraint, as most of these species are highly endangered.
Post-breeding action plans for successful reintroduction into the wild is not clearly spelt out in any of the breeding programmes.
Institutions like state FDs do not recognise the potential of the role of community participation in successful ex-situ conservation measures.
Individual Lack of trained field staff and zoo managers is another drawback of ex-situ conservation in India.
As most of the zoos and captive breeding facilities suffer from severe shortage of funds, the career prospects for zoo specialists and skilled labour are virtually non-existent.
be sought from established international and national zoo organisations in this regard.
Scientific studies on the breeding biology of endangered species in the wild through various institutions of MoEF and universities should be promoted.
All captive breeding programmes should include a time-structured post-breeding action plan for reintroduction / restocking of the captive-bred population into the wild.
New emerging techniques in ex-situ conservation like sea-ranching should be undertaken on an experimental basis.
Generous incentives and policy-level encouragement are required for community initiatives in ex-situ conservation.
A traditionally low priority accorded to protection of wild plants by field managers and conservationists in comparison to animal conservation is also reflected in the general indifference towards ex-situ conservation of endangered species of wild flora (possibly with the exception of orchids and pitcher plants).
Absence of inter-sectoral coordination between Department of Bio-Technology (DBT) and Department of Science and Technology (DST), the two major players in the area of ex-situ conservation of wild plants severely limits the capacity at the national level.
Knowledge of nursery techniques to raise seedlings for several species of forest flora remains largely confined to state FDs.
There are very few schemes to involve local communities in ex-situ propagation of forest trees for restoration of village and community forests.
Systemic Lack of inter-departmental coordination while sponsoring projects on ex-situ conservation of wild plants results in either duplication or gaps in institutional efforts in the field.
Institutional In spite of the fact that all the conservation policies and laws address the issue of conservation of wild plants, there are few institutional initiatives on ex-situ conservation of wild flora.
Active involvement of NGOs in ex-situ conservation of plants is generally restricted to only medicinal and aromatic plants, (barring a few organisations like MSSRF in mangrove restoration).
The potential of community partnership in ex-situ propagation of forest flora is under-utilised by state FDs in their eco-restoration strategies.
Administrative measures are required to promote communication between various departments / ministries to mainstream the collective efforts in ex-situ conservation of wild plants.
Institutions like state FDs should include ex-situ conservation of forest flora in their action plans and mandates.
Both the NGOs and local communities need to be actively engaged in ex-situ propagation of native plants to assist the state administration with restoration of degraded forests and ecosystems.
Despite the existence of world-class facilities in India with a large germplasm collection of agro-biodiversity, lack of
Systemic Absence of coordination among different sectors of policy
A national coordinating body of all the organisations and institutions working on ex-
99
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations coordination among the organisations and institutions often leads to duplication of conservation initiatives.
Some agro-climatic regions are not adequately covered under the ex-situ conservation programmes of agro-biodiversity. For example, existing facilities and projects in the Himalaya clearly require doubling of efforts to cover the vast diversity of indigenous crops and other bio-resources of the region.
The potential of traditional knowledge in identification and cultivation of medicinal & aromatic plants remains largely untapped.
making bodies and administration imposes constraints and redundancies in efforts to conserve agro-biodiversity through ex-situ propagation.
Institutional Institutional presence in ex-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity is not uniform across all agro-climatic regions with a conspicuous under-representation of Himalaya in national programmes.
There is a lack of organisational initiatives to integrate traditional knowledge systems within the framework of ex-situ conservation strategies for medicinal and aromatic plants.
situ conservation of agro-biodiversity needs to be in place to optimise the resources for better results.
Expansion of ongoing projects on captive propagation of indigenous landraces and cultivars to all the agro-climatic regions of the country.
Institutions should encourage community initiatives in ex-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity through tapping of traditional knowledge systems.
100
CBD ARTICLE 10. SUSTAINABLE USE OF COMPONENTS OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Capacity Status & Strengths
In recognition of the direct and indirect dependency of a large proportion of local population on various components of biodiversity, India’s conservation policies and laws have placed a greater emphasis on sustainable use of bio-resources. Prominent among them are: • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 • Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 • National Forest Policy, 1988 • Coastal Zone Regulation (CRZ) Notification, 1991 • National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement on Environment and Sustainable Development, 1992 • Policy and Guidelines for Ecotourism in India, 1998 • Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 • Biological Diversity Act, 2002 • Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 • Draft Roadmap for Eco-friendly Development of Fisheries, 2005 • Comprehensive Marine Fisheries Policy, 2004 • National Environment Policy, 2006 • State Marine Fisheries Regulation Acts • Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
MoEF and other ministries have initiated several multi-stakeholder schemes to coordinate and promote sustainable use of biodiversity resources: • Joint Forest Management in 199026 with Village Forest Committees (VFC) and Forest Protection Committees (FPC). There are currently about 80,000 forest committees
involving user communities • Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) for information systems on sustainable use of biodiversity resources • Community programmes on sustainable use of forest resources in North-east India like Village Safety and Supply Reserves, Asha Van, Anchal Forest Reserves, and Apna
Van • All India Coordinated Research Project on Underutilised and Underexploited Plants (1982) • Setting up of a network of Medicinal Plants Conservation Areas (MPCAs) • Ecodevelopment and ecotourism initiatives around select Protected Areas
Active participation of a few institutions and organisations in promoting sustainable use of biodiversity components is a potential capacity-strength though it is still rather limited. Some of the governmental bodies include: • National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) • State Biodiversity Boards (SBB) • National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board (NAEB) for regeneration of degraded forests for their sustainable use • National Bioresources Development Board (NBDB) • Institute of Bioresources and Sustainable Development (IBSD) • National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI) • Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) • Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT) • Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems (CEMDE), University of Delhi • G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development (GBPIHED)
101
• National Medicinal Plants Board (NMPB) • Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM) • Several national research and training institutes under ICFRE, ICAR, and CSIR A few state institutions like EPTRI (Environmental Protection Training & Research Institute) Some prominent national NGOs active in sustainable use campaign and research include: • Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT) • M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) • Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) • Kalpavriksh • Young Mizo Association (YMA) • Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) • Honey Bee Network • Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems (CIKS) • Navdanya of of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE)
There have been successful attempts to develop sustainable models of bio-resource use and harvesting especially for the following usufructs: • Freshwater fish and components of marine biodiversity (ICAR & MoEF) • Medicinal and aromatic plants (FRLHT) • Mangroves (MSSRF) • Sea weeds (Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute, CSMCRI) • Marine bio-resources (CMFRI & CIFT) • Pearl culture (MSSRF) • Forest woods (GBPIHED)
India has strong and well-developed indigenous knowledge systems on sustainable utilisation of biodiversity components, and the existing community models of common property resource use add to the fundamental capacity strength of the country.
The successes of a few institutional initiatives to promote sustainable use of biodiversity like ecodevelopment and ecotourism schemes, Joint Forest Management, YMA community reserves in Mizoram, and freshwater fisheries have created a positive policy environment.
Increasing number of studies on application of modern spatial tools like GIS & RS in mapping and modelling of distribution and availability of bio-resources (NTFPs and medicinal plants) is a major indicator of the growing technical capacity strength of the country. Organisations like ATREE, IIRS, and GBPIHED are currently engaged in developing spatial protocols to optimise sustainable use of forest and other natural resources.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Despite the existence of a widespread policy-level support, sustainable use of biodiversity components is still to be accommodated fully into some of the key laws that govern a major portion of the biodiversity spectrum of the country [e.g., Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972].
Systemic Dominant presence of a ‘protectionist’ school of thought among the forest department and a section of conservationists is a major systemic constraint to achieving the sustainable use of natural resources development in the forestry sector.
Review of forest and wildlife laws needs to be undertaken to accommodate regulated access for local communities to sustainable use of biodiversity components from some select categories of Protected Areas.
Integrated studies should be undertaken to
102
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations assess the impact of breeding and harvesting of several species of wildlife.
Establishment of a network of “Medicinal Plants Sustainable Harvest Areas” (MPSHA) can be taken up as a parallel structure to PA network.
Lack of institutional infrastructure to implement, regulate, and monitor sustainable practices of bio-resource extraction. For example, monitoring of marine fishery operations along the entire coastline of India (c. 7500 km) requires an enormous capacity and infrastructure. A recent unabated growth in the number of shrimp / prawn farms all along the east coast has converted numerous high-productivity coastal wetlands into sterile saline wastelands.
Systemic Community based monitoring of resources is not practiced as a management measure. This could easily overcome several problems associated with the lack of resources with the departments for patrolling and monitoring. Institutional Poor infrastructure of overseeing institutions and regulatory bodies severely undermines monitoring capacity, and in the absence of effective regulation, resource utilisation often exceeds sustainable levels. Capacities to facilitate and formulate co-management practices do not exist with managers. There is also little encouragement to actively collaborate with civil society agencies to facilitate co-management. There are few incentives offered to local communities to involve them actively in the co-management or monitoring of resources.
The available finances for patrolling should be utilised by all departments and where necessary reallocations should be made to maximise the benefits from such expenditure. This could include training, utilising IT tools for effective monitoring.
At the same time, equal if not more effort should be made to facilitate joint patrolling and monitoring exercises, with the active and equal participation of local communities, as these have longer-term benefits.
The co-management exercise should offer adequate financial and other incentives to local communities.
The strengths of other government departments should be utilised for the purposes of monitoring, (such as the Coast Guard for marine patrolling and monitoring).
Though sustainable models of resource extraction have been developed for a variety of biodiversity components, little work has been done on forest resources like NTFPs. For that matter, baseline information on distribution, availability, and extraction methods for various NTFPs are not well documented.
Population status of several species of economic plants in the wild is not adequately quantified and high-value plant species like Ephedra gerardiana, Podophyllum hexandrum, and Aconitum heterophyllum in the Trans-Himalaya are now
Institutional Lack of information and baseline data on several species of lesser-known NTFPs severely limits our capability to evolve sustainable solutions to their extraction.
Plant population research is often very low on the institutional agenda.
Studies are to be promoted to collect and document data so as to profile all the NTFPs of the region, and this baseline information should be made accessible in public domain.
Population status and monitoring of threatened species of NTFP plants should be high on the research agendas of institutes working on sustainable forestry.
103
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations believed to be near extinct.
Harvesting, storage, marketing, and value addition of NTFPs and timber are not yet streamlined in several regions like North-east India. Lack of value addition technologies for several biodiversity components unique to Eastern Himalayas remains a major hurdle for economic assessment of the sustainability models.
Institutional Post-harvest infrastructure and processes are largely inaccessible or non-existent in remote regions like North-east India, jeopardising sustainable use models.
Absence of value addition mechanisms for several bio-resources in these regions renders economic assessment of the sustainability models a nearly impossible task.
Priorities need to be given to improve post-harvest technology and market infrastructure in remote mountain areas.
A clear value addition mechanism should be developed for each NTFP / usufruct product at multiple levels of marketing to ensure that sustainable harvests are also economically viable.
In this regard, an NTFP conservation cess on end users of NTFP products can be given serious consideration, as an additional measure.
New models of livelihood options based on sustainability principles often fail in the absence of evaluation of economic processes at the community level beforehand. As stated before, proposed diversification of economic activities, as an alternative to dependence on biodiversity components, also suffers from the lack of market support.
Institutional Failure of livelihood models of sustainable development to take into view the existing economic processes of the local communities is another institutional constraint to overcome.
Lack of adequate market support in remote regions also vitiates alternative economic plans.
There is a strong imperative to include community-level economic assessment into all sustainability models, before they are implemented in the field.
There are some vital gaps in the existing policy framework governing sustainable use of biodiversity. A glaring example would be the exclusion of natural grasslands and grazing grounds from the purview of JFM schemes.
Systemic Gaps in existing policies and programmes on sustainable development, like the omission of grasslands from community ownership, may prove counterproductive, as livestock is a major component of people’s livelihood for which they seek usufructs from natural resources.
Policy review is required to broaden the scope of existing principles and strategies so as to include all forms of usufruct products that local communities may be allowed to own and manage in a sustainable manner. This would also remove all technical gaps in the policies.
Though India boasts of the existence of a rich tradition of indigenous practices of sustainable use of natural resources, this potential knowledge base remains largely untapped. Several localised systems of self-regulation and monitoring of extraction of common property resources have been documented. For example, the traditional Van Panchayat model is more suited to the Western Himalayan states than the JFMs.
Policies are not able to reflect adequate the potential within indigenously managed systems nor accord appropriate recognition to these practices. In many instances, policies fail
Institutional There are no attempts to incorporate all the traditional systems of sustainable extraction of biodiversity components in the existing initiatives, though they are well-documented in socio-economic and anthropological literature.
Very little research is done in the country on trying to integrate community based management and use practices with policies. To exacerbate the problem, very little social science research is undertaken on subjects such as socio-ecological resilience, traditional ecological knowledge, perceptual studies on resource use and conservation by communities, etc.
There is a need to recognise and promote traditional systems of sustainable utilisation of biodiversity resources through adoption of these mechanisms in the current policy and field-initiatives. Initiatives to strengthen traditional village level institutions for natural resources management should also be carried out. Social science research in the subjects pertaining to community perceptions, management and use of resources should be promoted and integrated with policy making
104
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations to even articulate accurately the nature of these practices. exercises.
Ecotourism initiatives, which enable local communities to share the economic profits of regulated sustained wildlife tourism, are not backed by any legislation or statutory mechanism except ‘Policy and Guidelines for Ecotourism in India, 1998’. This leads to a severe under-representation of ecotourism in management Plans of Protected Areas.
Systemic The oft-repeated complaint that participatory approach to wildlife tourism is not actively promoted in PAs can be attributed to the lack of a strong legal framework for guidelines governing ecotourism.
Individual The concept of eco-tourism is not fully understood by most stakeholders. Even today, a layperson understanding is employed in the operation of such ventures, without adequate benefits to or involvement of local communities.
Measures to grant statutory status to guidelines of ecotourism are to be taken up so that all the PAs will be encouraged to involve local communities in sustainability-based tourism enterprises.
Certain civil society groups are working together to develop guidelines and certification systems for eco-tourism. These must be encouraged and mainstreamed into the biodiversity management policies. Training should be provided to forest officials and managers located near tourism sites, to understand well and incorporate fully eco-tourism principles in their initiatives.
105
CBD ARTICLE 11. INCENTIVE MEASURES
Capacity Status & Strengths
In general, conservation policies and laws in India tend to treat ‘incentive measures’ for biodiversity conservation mostly as livelihood benefits and indirect gains but little in terms of direct monetary awards.
However, consolidated funds have been set up to cater to provision of incentives under various schemes of biodiversity conservation. Foremost among them is the creation of National, State, and Local biodiversity funds under the aegis of the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) and State Biodiversity Boards (SSBs), and provision of a National Gene Fund under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. The National Environment Policy, 2006 also envisages setting up of the National Environment Restoration Fund for ecological and environmental restoration of degraded and polluted ecosystems.
Biological Diversity Act, 2002 has suitable provisions to impose IPR cess on commercial utilisation of all usufruct products outside the production jurisdiction.
Implementation of the JFM scheme has enabled local communities to avail of shared benefits out of sustainable extraction of biodiversity components. There are currently over 80,000 Village Forest Committees across the country.
Ecodevelopment and ecotourism initiatives have provisions for direct economic incentives to local communities.
Specific centrally-sponsored schemes like Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project (BCRLIP) of GEF-MoEF have the potential to play a major role in improvement of livelihoods and income opportunities in high diversity landscapes like Himalayas and Western Ghats.
Incentives to the corporate sector for compliance with the environmental and conservation guidelines of the country include tax holidays and awards through the Central Pollution Control Board Charter on “Corporate Responsibility for Environmental Protection”, which employs various evaluation mechanisms like green-accounting, environmental-auditing, and eco-labelling.
Several national awards and incentives have been instituted in various categories towards appreciation of exceptional contributions and achievements in biodiversity conservation. These include: • Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar • Rajiv Gandhi Wildlife Conservation Award • Amrita Devi Bishnoi Wildlife Protection Award • Indira Priyadarshini Vrikshamitra Award • Paryavaran Aur Van Mantralaya Vishisht Vaigyanik Puraskar • B.P. Pal National Environment Fellowship Award • Salim Ali National Wildlife Fellowship Award for Avian Biology • Kailash Sankhla National Wildlife Fellowship Award for Mammal Study • Rajiv Gandhi Environment Award for Clean Technology
Besides these national awards, there are several state-level incentives for the best Village Forest Committee (VFC) under JFM programme. For example, Rajasthan Government gives an incentive cash award of Rs 50,000 to the best VFC every year.
Income from cultivation of agricultural biodiversity is exempted from all forms of commercial and personal income tax obligations.
Rural insurance cover has been extended to farmers against crop failure and crop damage by wild animals.
Loss of livestock through depredation by wild animals outside Protected Areas is suitably compensated by state FDs.
106
Some states compensate fisherfolk through an equal-contribution savings scheme during the annual mandatory ban on fishing in monsoon for restocking.
Peoples’ Biodiversity Registers (PBRs) offer various incentives to local people in collating and documenting information on all forms of local biodiversity.
Active presence of NGOs in biodiversity conservation through privately-sponsored incentives and insurance schemes adds to the capacity strength of the country. Prominent among them include Himalayan Environmental Studies and Conservation Organisation (HESCO) and Appropriate Technology (AT-India) in the Western Himalaya, and International Snow Leopard Trust (ISLT) and NCF in the Trans-Himalaya.
The MoEF has also been contemplating various supplementary schemes through existing policy mechanisms, which include incentives for27: • Customary cultivation of biodiversity • Species enhancement • Organic farming • International biodiversity transfer • Bioprospecting • Air-emission and effluent discharge trading • Eco-labelling • Wetland conservation
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Very little incentives for conservation of agro-biodiversity. Measures like water conservation, wasteland reclamation, and sustainable farming also have no incentives.
Systemic Lack of incentives for conservation of agro-biodiversity and sustainable farming at the policy level.
Policy initiatives need to be taken up for various incentives with respect to the conservation of agro-biodiversity and sustainable farming. In particular, incentives in terms of farm subsidies should be given for setting aside arable lands for in-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity. Incentives in the form of financial and technical inputs should be made available to start alternative sustainable livelihood options like floriculture, pisciculture, apiculture, sericulture, and mushroom cultivation. Region-specific incentive measures should be considered to promote sustainable practices. Examples include incentives for maintaining optimal jhum cycles in the North-east.
Policies that lack a multi-disciplinary holistic view may sometimes be counterproductive. For example, micro-credits
Systemic Absence of multi-disciplinary teams in policy-making bodies is
Policy-making bodies should have a fair representation of all the thematic areas of
107
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations were given to irrigated crops like sugarcane in Deccan Plateau and this led to severe ground-water depletion in a region, where water-conservation was a priority issue.
one of the well-recognised capacity constraints of the administrative systems. Institutional Lack of institutional coordination at the local level that is inherited from the top often undermines the very purpose of incentive schemes.
environmental concern.
There needs to be better institutional coordination particularly among organisations working in the field at the grassroots level.
A review of agricultural subsidies is necessary to identify conflicts with biodiversity conservation.
Frontline field staff in all the executive organisations working on biodiversity conservation like departments of forest, agriculture, environment, and rural development are low on morale due to lack of career incentives for excellence in the field.
Institutional Most of the governmental institutions lack incentive mechanisms to promote excellence and enthusiasm among field staff. Individual Individual motivation remains low as there are no career incentives for performance.
Several incentive measures should be introduced to elevate the level of motivation and enthusiasm of the field staff. These include performance-linked promotion in career, alternate cycles of on- and off-field posting and personal insurance cover against occupational hazards like wild animal attacks, forest fire, insurgency, and poachers.
As livelihood benefits are often considered as incentives to local communities for adopting sustainable practices of resource extraction, policies and programmes do not envisage separate incentives for rewarding compliance.
Individual
Lack of incentives for complying with the provisions of sustainable development may wear off the initial enthusiasm of individuals and communities to participate in the process, as actual benefits of sustainable practices become visible only in the long run.
Provision of incentives, at least in the initial phase, should be made for compliance with sustainable harvesting of biodiversity components, particularly fisheries and NTFPs.
There is a widespread lack of expertise among many institutions to design and implement social and economic incentives compatible with the objectives of all-round community development.
Institutional
The non-availability of technical expertise to design and implement social and economic incentives is a major institutional capacity constraint for successful execution of sustainable development schemes.
Capacity building of all the executive bodies and institutions to design and adopt appropriate incentive measures is to be undertaken through provision of technical support.
108
CBD ARTICLE 12. RESEARCH AND TRAINING
Capacity Status & Strengths
The biggest capacity strength of India in biodiversity conservation, particularly in agro-biodiversity, is its extensive network of research and training institutions and organisations across the country. A large number of them are autonomous government bodies set up by various ministries like the MoEF, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Science and Technology.
ICAR is the leading umbrella body of agricultural research in the country with a vast number of research and training institutions under its control. The following is the summary statistics of various research and training facilities with ICAR, many of which are engaged in studies on sustainable use of agro-biodiversity: National Bureaus: 5 Project Directorates: 8 National Research Institutes: 38 National Research Centres: 28 All-India Co-ordinated Projects: 43 Natural Resource Management Programmes: 11
ICFRE is the major administrative body in MoEF entrusted with research and training in forestry sector. Currently, ICFRE has a network of three advanced centres and eight institutes including FRI (Forest Research Institute), its flagship organisation. Besides, the MoEF has several autonomous research institutes which have state-of-the-art infrastructure for research and training in various aspects of biodiversity conservation. Prominent among them are: the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM), the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), the G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development (GBPIHED), the Botanical Survey of India (BSI), the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), and the Forest Survey of India (FSI). In addition, the MoEF has set up several national boards and authorities for policy formulation, implementation, and monitoring of research and training in specific sectors of biodiversity, like the NAEB, the NBA, the SBBs, the National Coastal Zone Management Authority (NCZMA), the Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network (ICRMN), the CZA, and the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA). There are also nine ‘Centres of Excellence’ as recognised by MoEF for their contributions to biodiversity conservation, and these include the Centre for Environment Education (CEE), the Centre for Ecological Sciences (CES), SACON, FRLHT, and the Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute (TBGRI). Besides, the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has established the National Medicinal Plants Board (NMPB) for regulation and coordination of studies and initiatives on medicinal plants conservation.
The capacity strength of the MoEF in forestry training is showcased by the Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy (IGNFA), a premier organisation for training of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers, and a handful of State Forest Service training colleges. WII with the support of the MoEF conducts various in-service training courses to middle-level and senior forest officers in biodiversity conservation and wildlife management.
Apart from central organisations, there are several state research and training institutes that strengthen the capacity status at the regional level. These include EPTRI, the Gujarat Institute for Desert Ecology (GUIDE), the Gujarat Institute of Development Research (GIDR), and the Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI).
The vast network of central and state universities remains a backbone of the country’s institutional capacity for research and training in sustainable use of biodiversity resources. Some of the noteworthy university institutions working on forest, aquatic, and marine biodiversity include the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Aligarh Muslim University (Centre of Wildlife Sciences and Ornithology), Pondicherry University (Salim Ali School of Ecology and Environmental Sciences), Assam University, North-Eastern Hill University, Annamalai University (Centre for Advanced Studies in Marine Biology), Maharaja Sayajirao University, Madurai Kamaraj University, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur and Bharatidasan University (Department of Zoology and Wildlife Biology, AVC College).
Some of the central research institutes affiliated to CSIR like the NBRI, the National Environmental Engineering and Research Institute (NEERI), the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), the Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (CIMAP) and the IHBT also make very significant contributions to India’s research capacity in the sustainable use of biodiversity. CCMB is currently setting up a National Facility for Conservation of Endangered Species of Animals with the support of the DBT and the CZA.
109
Technical and financial support from international agencies for research and training in ecology and sustainable development are quite noteworthy. Major contributors include the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the United States Forest Service (USFS), the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), and the Ford Foundation.
The active participation of conservation NGOs in research and training has been very encouraging and the BNHS in particular, has been active in the field of biodiversity documentation and ecology for over 100 years. Other major players include WWF, WPSI, the Wildlife Trust of India (WTI), ATREE, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS), and the Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF). On-field training in sustainable agriculture and organic farming forms the core activity of some of the agro-biodiversity NGOs like M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF), Navdanya programme of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE), and the Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems (CIKS). Significant contributions in this field have also been made by the French Institute Pondicherry, The Honey Bee Network, Society for Research Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institution (SRISTI), Navdhanya as well as numerous informal networks that aim at enhancing agrobiodiveristy
Recent initiatives on application of spatial tools like GIS & remote sensing in biodiversity conservation have brought into sharp focus the potential capacity of the country’s vast research facilities. Organisations like the IIRS, IIFM, WII, SACON and ATREE are in the forefront of geospatial research in sustainable development of coastal and forestry sectors.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Most of the research on agro-biodiversity banks on conventional notions, and innovative ideas and propositions do not get adequate financial and institutional support.
Institutional Lack of competitive grants for innovative technologies and unconventional strategies for sustainable agriculture is a major constraint.
Review of guidelines for grants and awards in research on sustainable farming is to be undertaken to identify and promote innovative technologies.
Research priorities in agro-biodiversity often reflect a lack of understanding of ground realities with the result that some of the findings lose regional relevance.
Systemic The research agenda in agricultural sciences is predominantly set through a ‘top-down’ approach with little role for local communities or NGOs to participate in the research prioritisation process.
Prioritisation of research and training in sustainable farming should be a participatory process in which local communities, NGOs, and other institutions should be encouraged to take part.
Region-specific training programmes for extension workers in identification, documentation, and monitoring of local agro-biodiversity are largely missing from conservation agendas.
Institutional Lack of institutional programmes to impart training to grassroots extension workers in agro-biodiversity conservation limits the transfer of technology to local communities. Individual Agricultural extension workers are often not literate enough to understand the concept and techniques of sustainable farming.
Customised training programmes in various conservation strategies of agro-biodiversity should be developed and imparted to extension workers, who will take them to local communities.
Expert suggestions from communication researchers should be sought to make the training programme in sustainable farming easily accessible to extension workers.
The vast potential of Traditional Knowledge Systems remains largely untapped in agro-biodiversity research. For example, there is an absence of participatory research in developing scientific standards for good collection practices of wild
Institutional Institutional initiatives are lacking for integration of Traditional Knowledge Systems with current research on agro-
Traditional Knowledge Systems should be duly recognised and integrated within the framework of frontier research on conservation of agro-
110
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations produce. biodiversity. biodiversity.
Unlike agro-biodiversity research, financial grants and opportunities are very limited for research and training in conservation of forest biodiversity. This poses a major capacity constraint as over 90 % of biodiversity is to be found in forests.
Systemic Most of the biodiversity funds and infrastructure received from the government and non-governmental donor agencies go towards agro-biodiversity with only a meagre proportion available for studies on wild fauna and flora.
Institutional Institutional support for biodiversity research in forestry sector is far from adequate.
Wild biodiversity should be given adequate attention and importance in all the policy initiatives and institutional support programmes and placed at par with agro-biodiversity.
Generous financial support for forest and marine biodiversity research and training is to be pledged on a long-term basis to correct for the current bias in public expenditure.
There is a severe shortage of trained professional researchers in forestry, marine and wildlife sectors. This, coupled with the limited institutional infrastructure available for forestry and marine biodiversity research, has led to a huge gap in our current knowledge of wild biodiversity.
Institutional Shortage of necessary infrastructure for research and training is a serious capacity constraint for achieving the goals of conservation through sustainable development. Individual Limited career opportunities for forestry and wildlife professionals have led to a severe undermining of research capacity of institutions.
A two-pronged strategy involving expansion of institutional infrastructure and development of human resources in forestry and wildlife research needs to be implemented on a priority basis.
Review of existing organisational structure of state FDs to accommodate forestry and wildlife professionals at various levels is strongly recommended. A long-standing demand of a section of conservationists that there should be a separate all-India cadre of wildlife service can be seriously considered after a thorough study.
Research and training in biodiversity receives less priority in the Management and Working Plans of state FDs, despite the fact that National Wildlife Action Plan (2002) called for a greater role for wildlife research. This gives rise to an institutional attitude that tends to be either indifferent to or unduly restrictive of independent research inside PAs. Delay or denial of research permits, imposition of restrictions on movement and research methodologies, and non-provision of field amenities are some of the widespread complaints that independent researchers often make28.
Institutional Low priority in state FDs for research and training in forestry and wildlife is reminiscent of their own institutional reluctance to engage in research activities. This is also partly attributable to poor research infrastructure, shortage of field staff, and heavy workload.
Lack of institutional co-operation for independent research in forests and on wildlife is a serious constraint for scientific documentation of baseline information on wild biodiversity components.
High priority should be accorded to research and training in all policies and action plans on wild biodiversity. Performance assessment of forest divisions or PAs should be strongly linked to the quantum of research and training during the review period.
State FDs should be encouraged with technical and financial support to conduct research and training in priority sectors of forestry and wildlife management.
Most of the current wildlife research in India is invariably on charismatic species like large mammals and carnivores, with little focus on other taxa. Research themes are often selected on the basis of individual interests rather than research prioritisation. This leads to vital gaps in management and
Institutional Research institutes usually pay more attention in their research agendas to charismatic species like tiger and this creates a large information gap on other taxa of wild biodiversity.
The absence of research prioritisation exercises gives rise to
Organisations should be encouraged to take up research on the basis of a proper prioritisation matrix, and studies that have a direct relevance to conservation and management of wild biodiversity should naturally get priority for
111
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations conservation research agenda. studies that are often seen as not immediately relevant to
management or conservation, and given the limited availability of research funds and other infrastructure in forestry and wildlife sector, such uncoordinated actions do not aid capacity building.
funding and research facilities.
Some of the priority areas of wild biodiversity research include: • Human-wildlife conflicts • Livestock grazing & habitat degradation • Sustainable extraction of NTFPs and their
ecological impacts • Forest fire & vegetation succession • PA network & alternatives • Wildlife tourism impacts • Overpopulation of animals • Poaching of animals and impacts on
demography • Biosystematics & bioinformatics • Valuation of ecosystem goods and services • Invasive species control
Research agendas of agro-biodiversity and wild biodiversity often conflict each other, to the detriment of the common goal of sustainable development.
Systemic Absence of convergence between agro-biodiversity and wild biodiversity research is a systemic constraint that needs to be addressed at the policy-level.
Reconciliation is necessary between conservation agendas of agro-biodiversity and wild biodiversity in order to achieve the desired common goal of conservation of biodiversity through sustainable use and development.
Core research in each form of biodiversity should also address the concerns of the other sector.
Training of frontline field staff in conservation practices of wild biodiversity is virtually lacking.
Institutional Lack of training opportunities for field-staff in various conservation practices of wild biodiversity weakens the institutional capacity of state FDs.
Technical and financial support for training field-staff in conservation practices of wild biodiversity should be adequately provided. In this regard, a role for conservation NGOs in training should be envisaged; for example, WTI is successfully conducting a series of training programmes for lower and middle level forest staff in PAs, and this model can be emulated through an increased FD-NGO cooperation.
Although the world has been quick to understand that conservation is more an art and not just about natural science, there continues to prevail, a yawning gap in social science research conducted on the subject of biodiversity
Systemic The field of biodiversity conservation is heavily natural science dominated, despite the increased emphasis on community based conservation and management in the policy rhetoric.
Adequate funds should be provided to the MoEF and state governments to fund research in the social sciences pertaining to
112
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations conservation. This greatly inhibits the amount of information there is on community dynamics and resource utilisation patterns, statecraft and the ‘art’ of conservation. Policies or management measures are consequently devoid of these inputs. Ultimately, this has negative impacts on the ground, resulting in greater biodiversity loss from inappropriate management measures.
Institutional There are only a handful of organisations that undertake social science research on conservation related issues. There are no institutions which are dedicated to promoting social science research or training in biodiversity conservation. Many of the country’s leading biodiversity research institutions mentioned in this article, do not have robust departments for the social sciences, and this remains an outlier in most institutions.
conservation.
Along with funding for conservation projects, natural science research projects and educational programmes, the MoEF, DST and similar institutions should institute research grants for social science projects.
The ICSSR should provide dedicated grants for projects on the theme of biodiversity conservation. ICSSR and the UGC should provide grants to various NGOs and individuals for research in the social sciences on biodiversity related issues.
113
CBD ARTICLE 13. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS
Capacity Status & Strengths
Though the available information on agro-biodiversity is considerable in the country, it is largely accessible only to scientists given the inadequate mechanisms of public awareness campaigns. However, there are some indications of positive changes with the proactive initiatives of Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) to promote awareness of agro-biodiversity among the local communities and lay public through grassroots organisations like Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs). There are also a handful of NGOs working on public education of sustainable agriculture and biodiversity conservation, like MSSRF, FRLHT, Gene Campaign and Kalpavriksh.
Unlike agro-biodiversity, measures and initiatives to promote public awareness in other forms of biodiversity are relatively better-organised in the country with the active participation of both the government and the NGOs. Earlier, the MoEF set this agenda through its National Environmental Awareness Campaign (NEAC), which targets multiple groups of end-users. During 2004-05, the NEAC has provided financial support to about 7600 organisations to develop promotional materials in environmental conservation.
The MoEF has also been actively involved with national and state policy organisations of education like NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training), UGC (University Grants Commission), and AICTE (All India Council of Technical Education) to develop a core curriculum on biodiversity conservation in educational institutions. This has culminated in the recent introduction of Environmental Education (EE) as a mandatory subject in all the schools. To assist integration of this new subject with the existing infrastructure, Ministry of Human Resources Development (MoHRD) has initiated Environment Orientation to School Education scheme.
As part of the government’s initiatives to promote environmental awareness in schools, about 72,000 eco-clubs have been set up under the aegis of the National Green Corps (NGC) scheme, which targets 150 schools in each district.
The Centre for Environmental Education (CEE) is the premier organisation in the country in public education and awareness of environment and biodiversity conservation. Recognised as a Centre of Excellence by the MoEF, it is actively involved in the development and promotion of educational materials on biodiversity conservation, designing of nature interpretation centres, promotion of environmental awareness through popular media, and networking of environmental journalists. The Himalayan Education, Awareness, Training: Strategy and Action Plan, 2002 of CEE is a policy document for environmental education in the Himalaya. Bharatiya Vidya Peeth, Pune is also actively involved in developing course curriculum and study materials for under-graduate students in biodiversity conservation.
The National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), along with its three Regional organisations (RMNHs), is another institutional initiative by MoEF to impart non-formal education on biodiversity science and conservation to the general public.
The MoEF has set up ENVIS (Environmental Information System), an open-access information network to document, collate, store, and disseminate information on various thematic areas of environment and biodiversity, and there are currently 72 ENVIS centres across the country. ENVIS Focal Point publishes a bilingual ‘Paryavaran Abstracts’ for dissemination of the findings of environmental research in the country.
There are several state and national organisations actively involved in conservation education on various thematic areas of biodiversity. These include FRLHT and CIMAP (Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants) on medicinal plants and herbal diversity, NBRI on sustainable use of plant resources, CSE on environmental issues, and SACON on wetlands and forests. CPR Environmental Education Centre (CPREEC) is primarily involved in training and education of school teachers in issues of biodiversity conservation. The NBDB conducts Vacation Training Programme on Bioresources for school children every year with assistance from WII, IHBT, and ATREE.
The presence of about 275 zoos, aquaria, and safari & deer parks in the country under the jurisdiction of CZA is major capacity strength of the existing infrastructure in conservation education.
The role of NGOs in public education and awareness of forest, aquatic and marine biodiversity conservation is quite exemplary in India, often complementing governmental efforts. The Flamingo Festival, Project Bustard, and Indian Bird Conservation Network (IBCN) are some of the more popular outreach programmes of the BNHS, India’s oldest conservation NGO. Other prominent organisations include WTI, WWF-India, MSSRF, Andaman & Nicobar Ecology Trust (ANET), SECMOL (Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh), and ATREE. Recognizing the importance of conducting conservation campaigns and awareness programmes in local languages for better
114
outreach, some of the regional NGOs have been doing a commendable job; in particular, the roles of Ladakh Ecological Group (LadEG), Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad (KSSP), and Honey Bee Network are noteworthy in this regard.
Recent times have also seen several noteworthy initiatives on dissemination of biodiversity information and catalogues through information networks. Peoples’ Biodiversity Register (PBR) is a participatory scheme in which local communities are encouraged to document all biodiversity components known in the locality. LIFKEY / LIFDAT identification keys of Project Lifescape in IISc use digital technology to provide resource materials for biodiversity documentation and monitoring. The Ecoinformatics Centre of ATREE, Bioinformatics Cell of NBRI, and Indian Bioresources Information Network (IBIN) of DBT are some examples of use of information technology in biodiversity education.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Institutional programmes to educate the public and spread awareness about the need to conserve agro-biodiversity are very few and far between, unlike wild biodiversity which receives widespread institutional support. This is despite the stated goal of National Agriculture Policy (2000) that sensitisation of farming communities with environmental concerns should receive high priority.
Institutional Public education in conservation of agro-biodiversity and sustainable development is largely ignored in the research and training agenda of agricultural institutions.
All ICAR institutions should incorporate public education and outreach programmes in conservation of agro-biodiversity for farmers, teachers, students, and lay people. DARE-ICAR should establish web-portals for open-access information on agro-biodiversity. Agro-biodiversity should be included in the curriculum of environmental studies, a subject recently introduced at schools. More awareness campaigns in print and electronic media should be made for conservation of crop and livestock diversity of the country.
School curriculum for environmental studies, a newly introduced subject, is still found wanting in some aspects of biodiversity.
There is a severe shortage of teachers to teach environmental studies in schools.
Institutional Coverage of wild biodiversity in school syllabi remains largely incomplete. Dearth of trained teachers to teach environmental studies in schools and availability of limited opportunities for teachers’ training is a major institutional constraint.
Review of school syllabi for environmental studies is to be undertaken to include conservation of wild biodiversity. Extensive teachers’ training programmes should be conducted to increase the capacity of teachers to teach environment and biodiversity conservation. In particular, capacity building of rural schools should be implemented on a priority basis. The current activities of CPRCEE, in this regard, can also be emulated by other NGOs.
In general, concerns for wild biodiversity remain low among lower and middle-level judiciary, policy makers, and administrators including civil service.
Systemic Poor sensitivity and low awareness of wild biodiversity concerns among policy makers, development planners, lower judiciary, law-enforcing authorities, and administrators pose a serious hurdle in implementing conservation agendas.
Biodiversity sensitisation programmes and awareness campaigns need to be launched among all the government sectors representing policy-makers, economists, judiciary,
115
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Institutional There is also a severe lack of coordination between the state wildlife authorities and the police. Individual Most of the Forest Department staff are not aware of the legal provisions nor are they trained in evidence gathering and case preparation. This often leads to low prosecution and conviction rates against wildlife crime.
administrators, and law-enforcing authorities.
The frontline staff in the forest department should be given adequate training in legal matters pertaining to prosecution in wildlife crime cases.
Legal implications of violation of various conservation laws like the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are not widely known among the lay public.
Systemic Lack of general awareness among common people of various conservation laws and their legal provisions undermines the very purpose of these legislations.
Existence of conservation laws and their legal implications should be widely communicated to the general public through sustained information campaigns in mass media.
Conservation education programmes are usually carried out in remote mainland areas and islands through external voluntary agencies, and these organisations may not be able to sustain the campaign for a long period in the absence of local capacity-building.
Institutional Lack of local capacity to impart training and education in biodiversity conservation ultimately leads to institutional failure over a longer period.
Public education and awareness plans in biodiversity conservation should give priority to build the local capacity for conducting outreach programmes in order to sustain the conservation campaign.
116
CBD ARTICLE 14. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MINIMISING ADVERSE IMPACTS
Capacity Status & Strengths
Impact assessment of loss of biodiversity due to changing land use patterns is very minimal in India. This is largely a reflection of the fact that monitoring of biodiversity including agro- urban and domestic has always been a low priority.
On the contrary, there are strong policy mechanisms that mandate impact assessment of environmental concerns. In recognition of the need to integrate environmental concerns into industrial and developmental plans and to minimise their adverse impacts on environment, MoEF has enacted the following two notifications under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: • EIA Notification, 1994 and 2006 • CRZ Notification, 1991
Under the 1994 EIA Notification, it was mandatory for 32 categories of developmental projects like industries, mining, river valley projects including dams and hydel plants, and other major infrastructural undertakings to obtain environmental clearance. The process required the study of environmental impacts of the project to be undertaken. The new EIA Notification (2006) categorises all developmental activities for environmental clearance on the basis of scale and severity of impacts and project location. This revised guideline also lays more emphasis on assessing the impacts on wild flora and fauna, and their critical habitats.
The New EIA Notification, 2006 has adopted some progressive measures to make the environmental clearance a democratic and accommodative process. For example, the developmental projects have been classified into two categories – one to be handled at the centre and the other to be certified by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committees. The scoping and the ToR (Terms of Reference) provisions have also been articulated in a more comprehensive manner in the new notification. Further, live recording of proceedings of public hearings has been made mandatory to ensure transparency.
Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 designates the entire coastal stretch, comprising inter-tidal zone along with a 500 m distance landward from the high tide line as Coastal Regulation Zone in which certain developmental projects are expressly prohibited and other permissible activities would also require environmental clearance.
The MoEF is also required to monitor regularly, as part of post-EIA strategy, strict compliance of the developmental projects with the environment clearance conditions through its six Regional Offices across the country.
To further strengthen the legal capacity of EIA mechanisms, National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) was constituted under NEAA Act, 1997 to hear appeals on environmental impact cases. The MoEF proposes to also set up a central and several regional Environment Tribunals for judicial trial of all environmental damage suits.
India is an active participant in various international co-operation, agreements, and conventions that seek to promote environmentally responsible practices of sustainable development. SACEP (South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme), set up in 1982 under the aegis of SAARC is the premier regional cooperation in the subcontinent in addressing environmental concerns, and India is a leading partner in SACEP.
The MoEF has also created Hazardous Substances Management Division (HSMD) to deal with the issue of environmental impacts of hazardous chemicals and wastes.
Existence of a wide network of national institutes under the aegis of CSIR, ICFRE, MoEF, ICAR, and DST is a major capacity strength of the country, as these organisations are adequately equipped with the necessary infrastructure and expertise to undertake various EIA studies. The country’s track record of the actual on-field implementation of EIA reports and recommendations has also been quite encouraging, though not exemplary. For example, EIA of the Bodhghat Hydel Project in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh has led to a reassessment of the project goals29.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations There is a general lack of initiatives on monitoring responses of biodiversity to changes in land use and development
Systemic Conservation of agro-biodiversity is generally given low
The provisions of National Agricultural Policy, 2003 on conservation of agro-biodiversity
117
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations patterns. Scarcity of expertise in the various categories of biodiversity issues accentuates this capacity weakness.
priority at the policy level, though a recent shift in government policy is visible in view of the pending WTO stipulations and IPR issues. Institutional Lack of institutional priority for ex-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity limits new initiatives on impact assessment of developmental projects on agro-biodiversity. Individual Limited availability of expertise in conducting EIA of agro-biodiversity is a serious capacity constraint.
should be converted to institutional agendas and action plans.
Agricultural institutions, notably KVKs, should be encouraged to develop monitoring mechanisms for impact assessments.
Technical support is required to build expertise in impact assessment of agro-biodiversity through capacity building of human resources.
EIA reports on wild biodiversity and ecosystems are often kept in abeyance by the government pending further action, even as the developmental or industrial project is allowed to continue. For example, the recommendations, made by several independent EIA reports to mitigate the adverse impacts of Indira Gandhi Canal in western Rajasthan were never implemented.
In some cases, repeated reviews of EIA reports are sought as a coercion strategy to elicit favourable remarks and to get environmental clearance.
Systemic Lack of a well-defined time frame to take and implement decisions by administration unduly delays the whole EIA process and often the developmental works under review continue to operate in the absence of any clear signal from the administration. Institutional Though post-EIA monitoring of environmental compliance is emphasised at the policy level, institutions lack capacity to track and monitor each project.
There has to be a clear administrative time-frame for taking key decisions on EIA reports and strict legal guidelines should be in place to disallow any project under review to continue until environmental clearance is given.
Capacity building in terms of human and infrastructural resources should be undertaken to enable local institutions to monitor environmental compliance of developmental projects.
Various amendments that have been brought into the EIA Notification (12 amendments in the last 11 years alone30) have largely diluted the provisions. For example, the New EIA Notification 2006 has exempted six categories of developmental projects from various mandatory requirements including public hearing; these include roads, dams, and irrigation works. This poses a severe ecological problem in North-east India, as road-building by the defence forces is a major activity there.
Systemic Legal amendments largely tend to undermine the provisions of EIA Notification by expanding the list of exemptions, thereby weakening the administrative capacity of environmental monitoring.
The continuing trend of expanding the list of activities exempted from the purview of EIA Notification should be put an end to.
Establishment of an independent EIA authority, to look into all cases of EIAs and to take final decisions based on objective analysis of assessments, should be considered.
Some environmental issues specific to regions are not adequately addressed in the existing EIA notification and guidelines. For example, road-building may be considered as a low-impact project in the plains, but it entails a series of environmental disasters in the Himalayas like landslide, soil erosion, loss of top soil, and invasion by exotic weeds. Similarly, designation of vast stretches of natural scrub jungle in western Rajasthan and Gujarat as ‘wastelands’ often
Systemic Failure of existing EIA guidelines to recognise regional environmental concerns is a major systemic constraint. Criteria for impact assessments do not include the ecological sensitivity of localities.
Though the new EIA Notification, 2006 addresses the issue of region-specific environmental concerns, more concrete provisions need to be incorporated.
118
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations enables industries to skip EIAs, which are otherwise mandatory. In Western Ghats, several micro-hydel projects that came up recently were not assessed for their impacts on aquatic biodiversity.
The CRZ Notification, 1991 does not contain clear procedures for according environmental clearance. It does not specify what EIAs should contain or in many instances whether they are required at all.
Restoration activities along the coasts (like the recent initiatives on casuarinas plantation as post-tsunami ‘bio-shield’) do not call for EIA.
Systemic CRZ Notification for coastal and marine EIAs is marked by several inadequacies in terms of exemptions given to various sectors like minor ports and marine aquaculture.
Casuarina plantation of coasts as post-tsunami restoration strategy is not subject to EIAs and ecological impacts of these ‘bio-shields’ on fragile coastal biodiversity are unknown.
The CRZ Notification has been amended at least 19 times and the EIA notification has also been severally amended. This has rendered the entire notification rather ineffective.
Review of CRZ Notification is to be undertaken to consider removal of exemptions granted to some sectors. This should be accompanied by administrative measures to expedite the process of environmental clearance, so that several of these minor economic projects are not unduly delayed.
Plantation of coastal stretches in the name of ecological restoration should also be brought under the purview of CRZ Notification.
Impact assessments often lay more emphasis on environment, ecosystems, and habitats. Though this is expected to cover a large number of flora and fauna, it still leaves out evaluation of population-level changes that may be triggered by developmental projects particularly in case of endangered species.
Systemic Poor integration of population dynamics of endangered species with the EIA framework sometimes results in unintentional environmental clearance which may further jeopardise the survival of the species under threat.
The EIA guidelines should be explicitly linked with the population level monitoring of threatened species of fauna and flora that may survive in project sites.
Absence of objective guidelines of environmental assessment and EIA manuals that cater to different ecosystems gives rise to biased and inaccurate assessment reports, which become untenable in the court of law. Frequently, environmental clearance is granted on the basis of incomplete EIAs, which are restricted to a single season or which are done as ‘rapid surveys’.
Institutional Absence of objective guidelines and EIA manuals, which are specific to regions and ecosystems, is a major institutional constraint. EIAs done in a single-season or carried out as rapid surveys often give rise to false reports jeopardising the environmental clearance process.
Technical support needs to be given to regional nodal offices and local institutions to develop objective guidelines and manuals for EIAs in the region.
Efforts to streamline the EIA methodology should be undertaken so that design of survey or study should adequately address seasonal variations.
Another shortcoming in the existing EIA guidelines relates to insufficient attention in the assessment criteria, given to livelihood issues that may arise out of loss of biodiversity values of the region.
Systemic Existing EIA guidelines give inadequate importance to assessing a developmental project in terms of livelihood costs that may accrue as a result of loss of biodiversity values of the region.
Existing EIA guidelines should be integrated with the livelihood issues of local communities, which are closely linked to the loss of biodiversity values of an ecosystem.
Public hearings, an important component of EIA process, are often done in a very hasty and cavalier manner, marked by a lack of transparency. Such manipulations aim to benefit the
Systemic Absence of transparency in public hearings of EIA process is a grave concern that affects systemic capacity to ensure fairness
Suitable guidelines should be incorporated in the EIA Notification for a fair and transparent conduct of public hearings. They should
119
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations project agencies. For example, the New EIA Notification, 2006 has exempted six categories of development activities including road and highway construction and irrigation works from the purview of public hearing. The New Notification also fails to give clear guidelines as to the composition of local stakeholders, and public hearings are further weakened as no quorum is required.
of the assessments. Lack of guidelines for composition of public stakeholders and exemption of public hearings from minimum quorum conditions particularly weaken the process of environmental clearance.
explicitly state the stakeholder composition and status quo should be maintained for minimum quorum in public hearings.
Exemptions from public hearings should be reviewed with respect to sensitivity of the ecosystems. For example, construction of roads in North-east India or Andaman and Nicobar Islands should be made subject to public consensus while road construction in other regions may be given exemption to speed up infrastructure development.
Most of the EIA reports are not accessible for public scrutiny, despite Government’s recent efforts to bring in legislations and administrative measures for more transparent governance.
Institutional
Institutions that conduct EIAs are normally averse to keeping the reports in open-access public domain, as they claim that the responsibility lies with the decision-making bodies like the ministry or other government authorities.
Efforts should be made both at the level of executing organisations and decision-making government bodies to make the entire EIA report accessible in electronic media for public scrutiny.
120
CBD ARTICLE 15. ACCESS TO GENETIC RESOURCES
Capacity Status & Strengths
Though the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the WTO regulations are not favourable to developing countries, India has made significant efforts within ABS (Access and Benefit-Sharing) framework towards protection of genetic resources of biodiversity and indigenous / traditional knowledge systems from exploitation. These efforts are founded on the following legislation and policy statements: • National Policy and Macrolevel Action Strategy on Biodiversity : India, 1999 • Biological Diversity Act, 2002 • Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 • The Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 • Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing, 2001 • Second Amendment Bill, 2002 to the Patent Act, 1970 • Third Amendment Bill, 2006 to the Patent Act, 1970 • Draft National Biotechnology Strategy and Policy, 2005
A three-tier institutional infrastructure has been set up to address these intellectual property rights issues for biodiversity components and to implement the legal provisions in order to safeguard the access rights of farmers and local communities to genetic resources. NBA is the central agency, entrusted with the task of protection of local genetic diversity from commercial exploitation, bio-prospecting, and bio-piracy. Provisions are in place to ensure that commercial gains from the use of traditional knowledge systems flow back to local communities. In case specific ownership could not be identified, NBA also maintains National Biodiversity Fund (NBF) for deposition of any monetary benefits that may accrue from legalised use of local biodiversity components. State Biodiversity Boards (SSBs) are the state-level nodal agencies to co-ordinate the functioning of NBA in each state. Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) are the grassroots-level self-governing bodies that comprise of local communities / farmers and local administration to manage and protect genetic resources of local biodiversity and associated intellectual property rights over the traditional knowledge systems.
ICAR has set up several gene banks / gene pools of domesticated / cultivated fauna and flora, which include the state-of-the-art scientific collections of germplasms of agro-biodiversity. NBPGR is the world’s largest collection of plant gene pool, with about 1500 germplasms under in vitro gene bank and c. 5800 under cryogenic facility. NBAGR is a leading gene bank for the livestock diversity of the subcontinent holding genetic resources for over 150 indigenous and little-known livestock breeds. NBFGR is the country’s central gene collection facility for all the freshwater fish species with the possession of both sperm and DNA banks. In addition, several national facilities for the collection of germplasms of economically important microbes have also been set up under NBAIM.
Mapping of genetic diversity of economically important forest species like bamboos, acacias, and many species of medicinal and aromatic plants has been completed by national organisations like NBRI, CIMAP, and Institute of Forest Genetics & Tree Breeding (IFGTB).
There are also commendable initiatives by governmental institutions and some NGOs on protection of genetic resources of wild and agro-biodiversity and implementation of ABS framework for the participation of stakeholders. NBRI conducts regular workshops and training modules in ABS-based bio-prospecting enterprise. National Innovation Foundation (NIF) undertakes several capacity-building initiatives for local institutions in ABS.
Besides, other national institutions under MoEF, DBT, CSIR, and ICAR conduct training workshops, seminars, stakeholders’ conferences, and capacity-building measures in ABS. MSSRF has a good collection of germplasms of local agro-biodiversity, which are accessible to farmers and local communities. Peoples’ Biodiversity Register (PBR) is an innovative scheme, developed by CES, at IISc.. Under the initiative, local communities are encouraged to document all the forms of biodiversity components along with their ethno-biology to facilitate ABS-based sustainable utilisation.
121
Some of the on-field demonstrations of the ABS model of sustainable use of biodiversity include the case study of Kani tribals of Kerala, who are allowed to share the monetary benefits that arise out of commercialisation of a medicinal plant species (Trichopus zeylanicus), as the medicinal values of the plant were first recognised by the traditional knowledge system of the Kani tribals. Tropical Botanical Gardens and Research Institute (TBGRI) was instrumental in rewarding the tribals under ABS framework.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Access to germplasm collections of agro-biodiversity in the country is very limited. The national reference collections with the four National Bureaus are not accessible, except for bona fide research. The farmers depend on only a few sources like the collection of some NGOs like MSSRF.
Institutional Lack of access to genetic resources of agro-biodiversity, mainly owing to poor institutional infrastructure, is a serious capacity constraint.
Improvement of institutional infrastructure at regional and local level should be undertaken on a priority basis for easy access of farmers and local communities to seed-materials of agro-biodiversity.
Existing institutional network like National Seeds Corporation (NSC) can also be entrusted with the task of collection, improvement, storage, and distribution of local cultivars and landraces.
Establishment of Central Medicinal Plants Seed Bank (CMPSB) should be given serious consideration.
Genetic resources of marine biodiversity (including marine fishes, as the focus of the NBFGR is largely on freshwater species though its mandate includes marine fisheries) are not to be found with any of the national or non-governmental collections.
Institutional Absence of an institutional facility for collection and storage of genetic materials of marine biodiversity remains a big drawback as India has one of the richest marine bio-resources in the world.
Establishment of a National Bureau of Marine Genetic Resources (NBMGR) is strongly recommended at the centre.
NTFPs like tendu, amla, chironjee, and harra dye, play a major role in the forest-based economy of central Indian states. Yet, there are no attempts to streamline the process of collection and storage of genetic resources of these NTFP plants for community access under the access to benefit sharing mechanism.
Institutional Lack of institutional infrastructure for collection, storage, and distribution of genetic materials of major NTFP species limits the capability of the country.
Installation of a state-of-the-art facility to collect and store NTFP genetic materials is vital as a nodal ABS agency for wild biodiversity. This should be followed by establishment of local and regional forest gene/seed banks.
Despite the promulgation of several Acts of legislation like the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and subsequent establishment of NBA, prevention of bio-piracy of indigenous crops and medicinal plants remains a challenging task.
Institutional
Limited availability of infrastructural and technical means to combat bio-piracy by foreign agricultural and pharmaceutical firms leaves the vast genetic diversity of the country open to exploitation and subsequently to the marginalisation of local communities.
Strong technical and institutional infrastructure (such as trained personnel, fool-proof monitoring mechanism, and presence of plant taxonomists in regulatory bodies of pharmaceutical industry) is needed to fight bio-piracy of agricultural and medicinal plants.
122
CBD ARTICLE 16. ACCESS TO AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY
Capacity Status & Strengths
The access to and transfer of technology pertaining to bio- resources are regulated by the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The NBA has laid down a set of guidelines regarding the regulation of access to biological diversity by Indian and foreign nationals. The approval of NBA is mandatory while applying for Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) for any product or service that involves bio-resources, and the approval also mandates access to and transfer of technology.
The MoEF has established the ENVIS, an open-access information exchange network on various thematic areas of environment and biodiversity, and there are currently 72 ENVIS centres across the country. ENVIS is the national Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) for CBD.
There are also proposals with the government for inter-sectoral transfer of biotechnology among various key players like the MoEF, DBT, DST, and state organisations. Biotech Consortium India Ltd has been commissioned by the Ministry of External Affairs to develop a technology transfer mechanism among SAARC countries31.
There are some institutions set up primarily for easy access to technological information related to biodiversity. For example, EIC (Environmental Information Centre) of the MoEF was established for open-access and dissemination of environmental spatial data to public users. The Central Institute for Fisheries Technology (CIFT) is a pioneering agency in providing access to technology for fishing communities and NGOs.
Though technology transfer and accessibility are at their minimum capacity level for wild biodiversity, existence of an excellent outreach mechanism by means of a wide network of ICAR institutions, KVKs, and state Agricultural Universities (AUs) provides an exemplary model for technology transfer in agro-biodiversity. These extension programmes are well-supported by on-field trials and frontline demonstrations of agricultural biotechnology.
ICAR institutions and state AUs also provide necessary technical support to NGOs working at the grassroots level to enable dissemination of technology among the farmers and local communities.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Though India has a vast network of agricultural institutions, the number of farm outreach agencies to transfer technology from laboratories to field is still too few, given the vast geographical area of India, to reach all the farmers and local communities.
Institutional There are very few extension agencies engaged in the transfer of agro-biodiversity technology, and institutional capacity is rather limited for serving the vast geographical area of the country.
Expansion of institutional infrastructure is needed to carry out the transfer of technology in agro-biodiversity, particularly in areas where such facilities are currently minimal.
Capacity-building of Krishi Vigyan Kendras and State Agricultural Universities in handling transfer of technology in agro-biodiversity is especially warranted.
Currently there are insufficient monetary and IPR benefits to practitioners of Traditional Knowledge Systems with respect to transfer of technology or knowledge regarding genetic resources of agro-biodiversity.
Systemic Inadequate incentives, like monetary or IPR benefits, available to the practitioners of Traditional Knowledge Systems are a systemic constraint that hampers transfer of technology or ethno-biological knowledge from local communities to agencies.
Measures should be taken to ensure that transfer of technology or ethno-biological knowledge from local communities to executive agencies brings in adequate monetary and IPR benefits to the practitioners of Traditional Knowledge Systems.
Much of the local technology or indigenous knowledge involving wild biodiversity still remains confined to local
Institutional A weak institutional mechanism for identification and transfer
The institutional process of identification and transfer of ethno-biological knowledge in forest
123
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations communities, as there are very little institutional efforts in identification and transfer of ethno-biological technology.
of ethno-biological knowledge in wild biodiversity has given rise to under-realisation of biodiversity values and further alienation of Traditional Knowledge Systems from the mainstream market.
biodiversity needs to be accelerated through capacity-building measures as any further delay in value-addition of biodiversity technology would be detrimental to the interests of local communities practicing Traditional Knowledge Systems.
Access to some of the spatial products and technology is very restricted. It severely affects ongoing research and development initiatives in sustainable use of biodiversity, as these spatial tools and data are essential components of the research protocol. For example, restricted access to 1:25,000 Survey of India (SoI) toposheets of coastal stretches is a technical handicap in developing sustainable models of coastal ecosystems.
Systemic Limited access to some of the potentially useful spatial products and technology (like SoI toposheets) is a major systemic constraint for biodiversity research and policy development.
Access should be facilitated for bona fide research and policy work to spatial data and technology.
124
CBD ARTICLE 17. EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
Capacity Status & Strengths
Though India has an impressive network of national institutions, state organisations, universities, and NGOs working on forest and agro-biodiversity, the potential for inter-organisational co-operation still remains largely untapped. However, with the increasingly visible role of multi-lateral conventions and treaties in shaping the national policies, several new initiatives on national and international co-operation for exchange of biodiversity information have been launched.
The NBRI has entered into an international collaboration on exchange of herbarium data under Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). NBRI has also been designated as the India’s nodal agency for the Asia Pacific Traditional Medicine Network, an information exchange facility on medicinal plants. Similarly, the IHBT is the national partner for Global Forest Information Service, another international information exchange platform for forest biodiversity.
NISCAIR has developed the TKDL, which is hosted on the web as an open-access information resource and exchange forum. The NIF has also been active in documentation and dissemination of Traditional Knowledge Systems (TKS), particularly in apiculture.
The Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network (ICRMN), which was functional during 1998-2002 under the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), was the beginning of international initiatives of the country on information exchange in marine biodiversity. The Bay of Bengal Programme for Inter-Governmental Organisation (BOBP- IGO) launched by the four rim countries (viz., India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives) in 2003 offers a platform for regional exchange of information on marine fisheries. There are some commendable initiatives by NGOs working on marine biodiversity. For example, Orissa Marine Resources Conservation Consortium (OMRCC) is one the leading forums for exchange of information on marine bioresources.
MoEF has also set up ENVIS, an open-access information exchange network to document, collate, store, and exchange information on various thematic areas of environment and biodiversity, and there are currently 72 ENVIS centres across the country. ENVIS is a national CHM for the CBD.
An exemplary model for collaboration of multiple stakehloders is provided by the Western Ghats Forum (WGF), an umbrella body that brings together 12 governmental and non-governmental organisations to exchange information on forest biodiversity. The WGF includes Karnataka FD, Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI), SACON, ATREE), CES, FRLHT, MSSRF and Kalpavriksh.
There are several national information networks on biodiversity components, which also serve as mechanisms of information exchange. These include Biodiversity Informatics division of National Chemical Laboratories (NCL), Ecoinformatics Centre of ATREE, Indian Bioresources Information Network (IBIN) of Department of Biotechnology (DBT), and Bioinformatics Cell of NBRI.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations There is limited information exchange mechanism on agro-biodiversity in the country. In particular, information on current accessions in national repositories, registration of landraces and cultivars, and farmers’ rights with respect to IPR regime are not available for public access.
Institutional Absence of institutional mechanisms like networking of organisations for exchange of information on agro-biodiversity seriously undermines the communication capacity of the country to deal with biodiversity issues.
A National Agro-Biodiversity Information Network is to be developed and commissioned for efficient and accessible information exchange.
National organisations like ICAR should tie up with international information networks to facilitate exchange of knowledge across borders.
Poor communication that exists between different organisational stakeholders like national institutions,
Institutional Lack of institutional coordination among different
Administrative measures to improve communication and coordination between
125
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations universities, state departments, NGOs, and community forums inhibits exchange of biodiversity information.
organisational stakeholders ranging from national institutes down to community forums is a serious setback to information exchange in biodiversity documentation and sustainable use practices.
different organisations should be undertaken. Events that lead to increased interactions among all the stakeholders should be regularly organised at local and regional levels.
There is a lack of an inter-governmental exchange portal to share information on biodiversity of trans-boundary ecosystems like oceans. For example, a Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) like the Arabian Sea does not have an institutional arrangement among its rim countries for information exchange on marine biodiversity.
Institutional Absence of inter-governmental mechanisms to share information on biodiversity of trans-boundary ecosystems like oceans is a capacity constraint for sustainable management of marine bioresources.
A marine biodiversity information network for the Arabian Sea should be established along the lines of the Bay of Bengal Programme for Inter-Governmental Organisation (BOBP-IGO).
Similar international information exchange portals should be initiated among the Trans-Himalayan nations for biodiversity monitoring of the high-altitude cold deserts.
Most of the existing databases and information networks do not follow international database norms [like Dublin Core or Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Metadata Standards], and this lack of structure considerably delays integration of national databases with the global information networks.
Systemic: Absence of metadata standards (like the Dublin Core or Federal Geographic Data Committee norms) among most of the existing national biodiversity databases and information resources poses a severe systemic problem for their integration with global information networks.
Technical support should be given to institutions to build their own metadata standards to make existing biodiversity databases of the country compatible with global networks and databases.
126
CBD ARTICLE 18. TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION
Capacity Status & Strengths
International technical and scientific cooperation in biodiversity and sustainable management is largely mediated in the country through the MoEF in the case of forest biodiversity and DARE for agro-biodiversity. Though DARE has numerous global collaborations in agricultural science and technology, there are no major international initiatives on agro-biodiversity per se.
Multilateral and bilateral scientific cooperation in wild biodiversity, though marked by some glaring gaps like partnership in taxonomical research, looks very promising with several successful institutional associations with global agencies in progress. For example, the institutional collaborations between NBRI and GBIF, and between IHBT have heralded a new era in globalisation of research and informatics in forest biodiversity. The NBRI has also been designated as the India’s nodal agency for the Asia Pacific Traditional Medicine Network. Further, the Institute of Forest Genetics and Tree Breeding (IFGTB), an ICFRE institution along with the FRLHT is engaged in conservation of medicinal plants in MPCAs (Medicinal Plants Conservation Areas) with financial support from the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) and the UNDP. Sustainable Development Network Partners (SDNP) of Indo-Canada Environmental Facility (ICEF) offers ENVIS centres technical and scientific cooperation in multiple themes of biodiversity and environmental research.
Global initiatives on marine bioresources are also under way in Indian waters. The NIO is the national partner of IOCoML (Indian Ocean Census of Marine Life), an association of Indian Ocean rim countries for collaborative research on marine biodiversity. The Bay of Bengal Programme for Inter-Governmental Organisation (BOBP-IGO) launched by the four rim countries (viz., India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives) in 2003 offers a platform for technical and scientific cooperation in marine fisheries research and management. India is also a signatory of Indian Ocean - South East Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding (IOSEA), an association of south and southeast Asian countries for scientific collaboration in sea turtle research and monitoring.
India is also currently engaged in dialogues with its neighbouring countries to develop Trans-Boundary Protected Areas. The initiatives include joint monitoring of Manas NP in Assam and Royal Manas NP in Bhutan.
Some of the leading international agencies and organisations with which Indian institutions have collaborative programmes in biodiversity research include IUCN, UNEP, UNDP, USFS, and USFWS. The major funding partners include the World Bank, GEF fund through UNDP, World Bank, UNEP, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), DANIDA, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Department for International Development (DFID), Darwin Initiative, International Fund for Animal Welfare, and Ford Foundation.
Some of the noteworthy international partnerships in faunal diversity studies are: • BNHS – Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) on vulture conservation in the Subcontinent • WII – USFWS – International Snow Leopard Trust (ISLT) on Trans-Himalayan mountain ecosystem with snow leopard as focal species.
Several new initiatives involve cooperation among different national agencies and organisations. For example, CCMB has established National Facility for Conservation of Endangered Species of Animals in collaboration with DBT, MoEF, CZA, and Government of Andhra Pradesh. Besides, there are many collaborative projects between state FDs and national institutions; in particular, state FDs seek the expertise and capacity of IIFM to develop sustainable models of forest management, while WII is sought for drafting Management Plans of PAs and conducting wildlife census. In another innovative programme, 12 governmental and non-governmental organisations, working on biodiversity issues in Western Ghats, have come together to form the Western Ghats Forum (WGF) for collaborative research on biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in the region.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations No major international collaboration in agro-biodiversity research, partly due to the restrictive policies of the
Systemic A largely restrictive policy regime that does not permit
While the establishment’s fears of bio-piracy of biodiversity are justified, there should also be
127
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations government to combat bio-piracy and lack of institutional initiatives.
movement of genetic resources outside the country [for fear of bio-piracy] discourages initiatives for international cooperation in biodiversity research. Institutional Low priority given to agro-biodiversity in research agendas of agricultural institutions gives rise to lack of initiatives for international collaboration for agro-biodiversity studies.
an appropriate regulatory and monitoring mechanism to facilitate bona fide international collaborations in biodiversity research.
There is also no strong and explicit policy support for international scientific and technical cooperation in wild biodiversity research. Tedious and restrictive administrative procedures of the government for international cooperation in scientific research have created an unfavourable environment for such initiatives. For example, India’s anachronistic policy on sharing of spatial data and products (like toposheets) driven by security concerns, is often a critical block in bilateral scientific and technical cooperation.
Systemic Lack of a strong and unambiguous policy support severely affects international scientific cooperation in wild biodiversity research, as institutions often cannot take initiatives in the absence of clear guidelines.
Policy support needs to be instituted to support and encourage international scientific and technical cooperation in wild biodiversity research.
Liberalisation of administrative rules and regulations that facilitate international cooperation in science and technology should be undertaken on a priority basis.
Lack of international cooperation in taxonomy is a severe constraint for biodiversity documentation as many of the type specimens and holotypes are currently housed at museums abroad. Permits for movement or exchange of specimens between museums and institutions for scientific study are not easy to obtain from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) as the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 restricts movement of genetic resources across the border.
Systemic The restrictive laws of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 do not facilitate movement or exchange of museum specimens across the borders, and this affects prospective international collaborations in taxonomic research.
Suitable provisions are to be incorporated into the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 to ease restrictions on the movement of genetic resources including museum specimens for bona fide scientific research. A monitoring mechanism should also be in place alongside to prevent any misuse of the clause.
There is very less scientific and technical cooperation between national institutions and NGOs, leading to an absence of synergism in the collective output on biodiversity research in India.
Institutional Institutional failure to forge alliances and partnerships between national organisations and NGOs involved in biodiversity research is a serious capacity constraint for achieving the full potential of the existing scientific and technological infrastructure.
Institutional measures should be taken to promote greater cooperation between national organisations and NGOs in biodiversity research and technology transfer.
128
CBD ARTICLE 19. HANDLING OF BIOTECHNOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF ITS BENEFITS
Capacity Status & Strengths
Enabled by the Environment Protection Act of 1986 (EPA), India was one of the first developing countries in the world to frame biosafety rules (even before the CBD). Under the EPA, Biosafety Rules32 and regulations that cover the areas of research as well as well as large-scale applications of GMOs and associated products were drawn up in 1989 (Interim National Report on Implementation of the Cartagena Proposal on Biosafety, MoEF 2006). Non-compliance of the Notification Orders are punishable under the EPA. Institutions engaged in GMO research have to interface with five committees at various levels.33
As a continuation of the Rules of 1989, India developed recombinant DNA safety guidelines in 1990 and guidelines for research in transgenic plants, for toxicity and allergenicity evaluation of transgenic seeds, plants, and plant parts in 1998. The Government of India approved the protocol and India signed the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in January, 2001 (The Cabinet approved the Ratification in September, 2002).Recently, biodiversity and related legislation such as the National Biodiversity Act 2002 and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Acts (PPVFRA), 2001 have taken into account issues related to biodiversity.
India is implementing a GEF-World Bank capacity building project on biosafety. A Biosafety Clearing House has been established for India34. Projects on capacity building on biosafety include: the GEF-World Bank Project, Indo-Canada Institutional Strengthening Project and the FAO Regional Capacity Building Project.
Currently, India is further strengthening institutional and individual capacities in relation to the Cartagena Protocol as detailed in published papers by the MoEF officials (e.g. Hota 200635). Civil society groups such as Gene Campaign are involved in issues relating to various aspects of genetically modified organisms.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Issues relating to biosafety have received the least priority on the part of institutional stakeholder in assessments for the NCSA. All levels of biosafety related capacities for making informed decisions about the safe use of biotech are inadequate. The legislation and policy level components are the most forward looking. Although Indian institutions have the required facilities to conduct research and develop biotech products, it is the regulatory capacity that is lacking. Networking capacities are also limited. In addition, capacities for information sharing protocols and data capacities are inadequate with respect to the nature of LMOs and their increased transboundary movement (which is envisaged). At the individual capacity level, the scientific community is divided over the safety of transgenic technology. Safety and regulatory concerns are still largely unresolved.
Systemic Systemic limitations at the highest level include conflicts between DBT’s vision statement (which aims at more biotech development) and the stated aim of the 1989 Biosafety Rules (that leans heavily on a precautionary approach) (Damodaran 200536). From a biodiversity point of view, biotech is an industry that is largely unaware of environmental concerns and considers biosafety regulation more as an obstacle to growth rather than as an effective precautionary step. Institutional Institutions lack the inter-/multi-disciplinary capacities required to handle biosafety issues, have infrastructural limitations in terms of laboratories, lack adequate expertise and are not well networked (Hota 2004)37. This is probably among the most major limitation surrounding biosafety issues. Individual Biotech is a rapidly growing field that requires advanced skills and expertise. Individual capabilities with regard to assessing biosafety consequences of LMOs and GMOs currently do not
The capacities of institutions involved in the assessment and regulation of biosafety need to be improved by increased funding for the development of expertise (technical as well as interdisciplinary) and infrastructure. Task forces/ working groups need to include a few individuals who understand both the technological and regulatory and legal aspects of biosafety issues in biodiversity conservation. Regular training programmes/ advanced courses need to be designed keeping in mind the rapid pace of growth of the biotech industry.
129
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations incorporate the sufficient interdisciplinarity between legal, scientific and technical aspects. Public awareness about these issues is also inadequate.
A number of biosafety related issues need to be addressed with respect to the Indian biotech industry. The fast growing biotech industry demands quick clearances and single-window review, which could potentially compromise the precautionary principle that is currently adopted by the government. Industry representatives often quote economic benefits to people from transgenic crops as an incentive and a major selling point for less stringent biotech rules. However, there is no review of studies or evidence (actual/ potential) that shows an equitable distribution of benefits especially from an agricultural point of view in the tropics. The ecological impacts of very few transgenic crops have been assessed for tropical regions. On the contrary, there are evidences that at least in the current scenario, profits are shared among few, powerful players in the industry.
Systemic There is a very serious lack of understanding of biodiversity and biosafety related issues in the biotech industry which tends to regard civil society concerns as exaggerated. Institutional The capacities of regulatory bodies are lacking in terms of manpower and expertise to evaluate the relationship between issues such as GMOs, food security and benefit sharing. Interdisciplinarity, which is a primary requirement for this purpose, is not evident. Biosafety issues relating to ecosystem change (e.g. the consequences of increased resistance to weeds and pests, invasives, and ecosystem resilience) are rarely thought of as real issues.
The relationship between GMOs, food security and economic concerns (esp. equitable benefit sharing) needs to be reviewed thoroughly. Pharmaceutical and agricultural benefits need to be separated and reviewed independently; a special fast track assessment for selected elements in the bio-pharma sector could be visualised (on the basis of stringent criteria).
There is a great deal of ambiguity about the effectiveness and role of the multilayered decision making structures. These statutory bodies (RDAC, ISBM, RCGM, IBSC, GEAC, SBCCs and DLCs38) have been established under different departments such as the DBT and the MoEF as well as under the State Government and the district level administration. Currently, the industry views the entire process as riddled with red-tapism. A number of suggestions ranging from moderate changes to major reconstitutions have been put forth by the civil society groups, the industry, the MoEF, the DBT and expert committees such as The Swaminathan Task Force. However, this still remains unresolved. For a discussion of these and restructuring biosafety regulations, see Damodaran 200539.
Systemic The current multi-layered structure and function, as well as composition, of the statutory bodies have been criticised by almost all sectors ranging from the civil society groups to the representatives of the biotech industry. There is a lack of transparency in the decision making process which makes it difficult to distinguish between bureaucratic and procedural delays and legitimate long-term monitoring concerns. Institutional Institutional capacities need to be enhanced in terms of manpower and expertise to participate in the activities of the committee/s. Individual There is inadequate representation of informed individuals from the civil society sector in the statutory bodies.
A review of the current structure of statutory bodies needs to be worked out as most of the currently identified stakeholder groups are dissatisfied.
Awareness building programmes, and public participation and stakeholder involvement are lacking. Capacities are inadequate for information gathering, distribution and dissemination. To ensure a fair policy development process and to develop consensus, even a representative set of
Systemic Stakeholder involvement must be visualised at the national level. Institutional
With the help of dedicated civil society groups, the MoEF and the DBT could together identify representative sets of stakeholders and design appropriate awareness programmes. These could be carried out using the technical skills as
130
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations stakeholders has not been currently identified. Currently, there is a level of mistrust as well as disconnect in
the thinking of the govt. institutions, the industry and civil society organisations. Sufficient dialogue does not exist among these groups with respect to the involvement of or awareness-generation among the general public. Institutional capacities and effective partnerships are lacking in this regard.
well as wide-reaching media systems such as the internet, television and radio. Hota (2006) recommends a series of national and regional awareness-raising workshops and seminars that could target specific stakeholders and build capacity. For example, biotech company representatives could be appraised of their legal responsibilities and civil society groups could be brought up to date on risk management actions taken by various companies. All stakeholder groups must be made aware of new legislations such as the Right to Information Act (2005) that is aimed at improving overall transparency and governance.
131
CBD ARTICLE 20. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Capacity Status & Strengths
A large part of the funding for the country’s biodiversity-related programmes comes through Central and State budgetary allocations, with national and international donor agencies contributing towards the remaining proportion of the expenditure.
The Union government’s expenditure on ‘biodiversity conservation projects’ during 2002-03 was Rs. 46.38 crores, which constituted about 10 % of the total R & D investment40. This was spent on 334 biodiversity-related projects during the assessment period. An analysis of the thematic patterns of expenditure revealed that agro-biodiversity projects received 31 % of the total grant, while 24 % of the allocation was meant for wild biodiversity projects. Intriguingly, Eastern Himalayas, one of the biodiversity hotspots of the world, received a mere 6 % of the funding, unlike other regions like Western Ghats and Deccan Plateau, each of which had projects worth over 10 % of total fund allocation to biodiversity studies. A state-wise analysis of expenditure on biodiversity projects showed that Kerala (with 17 %) was the leading state in receipt of grants followed by Maharashtra and Karnataka (with 11 & 9 % respectively). Interestingly, all the 8 North-eastern States together received only 9 % of the total allocation.
The extra-budgetary resources for biodiversity conservation include several international donor agencies which continue to aid both governmental and non-governmental organisations. Prominent among them are the GEF fund through UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank, NORAD, ICEF, DANIDA, the DfID, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), SIDA, the Darwin Initiative, IFAW, and the Ford Foundation.
A small amount of money is also generated through various financial instruments like sale of forest products including timber and NTFPs, entry fees to Protected Areas and ecotourism, and institutional charges.
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations Government sectors do not keep track of the bilateral grants, which are spent on biodiversity-related projects by NGOs. The communication gap frequently tends to underestimate the country’s total cumulative expenditure on specific issues of biodiversity conservation.
Institutional Absence of institutional process to keep track of both the receipt and the expenditure of bilateral grants by NGOs leads to a communication gap between different sectors working on the same theme.
Establishment of an institutional process which exchanges information on receipts from bilateral agencies and project expenditure between different sectors like government and NGOs.
There are currently no incentives (like tax exemptions) for environment-friendly investments and industrial processes.
Systemic Absence of fiscal incentives like tax exemptions for individuals and industries promoting environmental conservation and sustainable development, fails to enthuse stakeholders.
Fiscal incentives in the form of tax exemptions or reductions should be awarded to individuals and industries that comply with all the environmental laws and principles of sustainable development.
Several authorities and implementing agencies complain that funds to implement the various biodiversity related legislations are lacking. Examples are the various state biodiversity boards and the state Coastal Zone Management Authorities. While several notifications under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 have been drafted, the financial arrangements necessary for their functioning or even meeting operating costs are often missing in the implementation effort.
Institutional It appears as if no audit or assessment is undertaken on environmental legislations to evaluate the financial requirements to ensure better implementation.
Financial audits combined with performance audits should be carried out for specific legislations to assess the financial requirements and what proportion of implementation challenges can be ascribed to financial constraints.
132
Capacity Constraints Root Causes Capacity Needs & Recommendations While it appears that several areas of biodiversity conservation could benefit from enhanced resources, this financial allocation requires prioritisation. Readily accessible information on financial needs of various sectors and their expenditures till date is not available.
Systemic There is either trepidation or inertia discernable among several implementing agencies in making available information on expenditure on projects public on websites and in a collated form.
A country wise exercise should be undertaken to compute the amount of money expended on natural and social science research projects, awareness programmes and capacity building efforts. As a start all websites of major public institutions need to clearly make available information on the projects and expenditure for each of these, to even compute the country’s spending on biodiversity.
1 Source: The Third National Report to CBD, 2006 by MoEF, Govt. of India 2 For more information on legal instruments relating to marine aspects, refer to the website of the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, at: http://legal.icsf.net/icsflegal/home.jsp 3 The primary Central Acts relevant to biodiversity conservation in India include: Indian Forest Act, 1927; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; National Forest Policy, 1988; Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Some of these Acts have recent amendments. In addition these are supported by within and cross-sectoral policies, strategies and action plans such as: National Forest Policy amended in 1988; National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement for Environment and Sustainable Development, 1992; National Policy and Macrolevel Action Strategy on Biodiversity, 1999; National Agricultural Policy, 2000; the Final Technical Report of the NBSAP Project, 2005; National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016); National Water Policy, 2002; Comprehensive Marine Fishing Policy 2004; and, National Environment Policy, 2006. 4 Project Tiger, 2005. Joining the Dots. The Report of the Tiger Task Force. Ministry of Environment and Forests. Government of India. 5 See for example National Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement for Environment and Sustainable Development, 1992 and National Policy and Macrolevel Action Strategy on Biodiversity, 1999. 6 See the section on Law & Policy in the Final Technical Report of the NBSAP Project, 2005 7 MoEF, 2006. India’s Third National Report to Convention on Biodiversity. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. 8 Shekar Singh et al. 2006. Summary of the Report of the Task Force on Governance, Transparency, Participation, and Environmental Impact Assessment in the Environment and Forest Sector for The 11th Five Year Plan. Planning Commission. Draft Document. 9 Shekar Singh et al. Summary of the Report of the Task Force on Governance, Transparency Participation, and Environmental Impact Assessment in the Environment and Forest Sector for the Xth FiveYear Plan. Planning Commission. (draft). 10 Refer to: www.iucnredlist.org 11 This has been undertaken primarily as a firefighting (and not precautionary) measure. See: Project Tiger. 2005. Joining the Dots: The Report of the Tiger Task Force. MoEF, GOI. Available at: http//www.projecttiger.nic.in 12 Rodgers, W.A. and Panwar, H.S. 1998. Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in India. FAO and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. 13 Refer to: http://envis.nic.in 14 Chapter 6, Final Technical Report of the United Nations Development Programme / Global Environmental Facility (UNDP/GEF) sponsored National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Project, 2005. 15 MoEF, 2006. India’s Third National Report to Convention on Biological Diversity. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
133
16 MoEF, 2006. India’s Third National Report to Convention on Biological Diversity. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. 17 Source: National Wildlife Database Cell of Wildlife Institute of India (WII), updated on 1 January, 2007. 18 Source: National Wildlife Database Cell of Wildlife Institute of India (WII), updated on 1 January, 2007. 19 Source: Union Ministry of Environment & Forests website <http://envfor.nic.in/pe/pe.html> accessed on 16 January, 2007 20 Source: Conservation International, 2006 < http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org> accessed on 16 January, 2007 21 Source: Wetlands International, 2006 < http://www.wetlands.org/> accessed on 17 January, 2007 22 List of WH sites in India includes Kaziranga NP, Manas WLS, Keoladeo NP, Sundarbans NP, and Nandadevi & Valley of Flowers NP. Source: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/index.html 23 W.A. Rodgers and H.S. Panwar, 1988. Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in India. Volume I & II. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun. 24 Source: Central Zoo Authority, 2006 25 Source: Third National Report to CBD, MoEF, 2006 26 Refer to GoI, 1990. Involvement of Village Communities and Voluntary Agencies in the Regeneration of Degraded Forests. Guideline circulated by MoEF. 27 Source: The Third National Report to CBD, 2006 by MoEF, Govt. of India 28 M.D. Madhusudan et al., 2006. Science in the wilderness: the predicament of scientific research in India’s wildlife reserves. Current Science, 91:1015-1019. 29 For a detailed account of the deficiencies in EIA process, refer to: K. Kohli & M. Menon, 2005. Eleven Years of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994: How Effective Has It Been? Published by Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group, Pune in collaboration with Just Environment Trust, New Delhi and Environment Justice Initiative, New Delhi. 30 Ibid. 31 Ref: The Third National Report to CBD, 2006 by MoEF, Govt. of India 32 Notification No. 621 in Official Gazette of Govt. of India on December 5, 1989. Rules for the Manufacture, Use/Import/Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro Organisms/ Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells (MoEF, GSIR 1037(E), 5 December 1989). 33The Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBSC), the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM), the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the State level Biotechnology Coordination Committees (SBCC), and the District Level Committee (DLC). 34 URL: http://indbch.nic.in/ 35 Hota, M. 2006. Biodiversity Capacity Building in Developing Countries: Evidences from India. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 8(3):35-42. 36 Damodaran, A. 2005. Re-engineering Biosafety Regulations in India: Towards a Critique of Policy, Law and Prescriptions. Law, Environment and Development Journal 1/1:1-16 available at: http://www.lead-journal.org/content/05001.pdf 37 Hota, M. 2004. India: Capacity Building in Biosafety. Second Conference on Biotechnology for Asian Development ‘Regional Co-operation for Ensuring Access and Capacity Building’ 7-8 April, 2004 at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. 38 For more details about these committees, see: Damodaran, A. 2005. ibid. 39 Damodaran, A. 2005. ibid. 40 Source: The Directory of Extra-Mural R & D Projects Approved for Funding by Selected Central Government Agencies / Departments During 2002-03 published by National Science & Technology Management Information System, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
ANNEXURE 2
134
List of Institutions which Responded to the Questionnaire Survey on Priority Mandates and Capacity Needs S No Name of organisation Category
1 Tripura Forest Department (PCCF) Govt. 2 Regional Remote Sensing Service Centre, Nagpur Govt. 3 West Bengal Forest Department, (PCCF) Govt. 4 Orissa Forest Department, (PCCF and CWLW) Govt. 5 Department of Environment and Forests, Assam (CCF, Wildlife) Govt. 6 Manipur Forest Department (PCCF) Govt. 7 Karnataka Forest Department (PCCF - Wildlife and CWLW) Govt. 8 Madhya Pradesh Forest Department (PCCF) Govt. 9 Arignar Anna Zoological Park, Tamilnadu Forest Department (CCF) Govt.
10 Uttaranchal Forest Department (CCF) Govt. 11 Karnataka Forest Department (CCF) Govt. 12 Rajasthan Forest Department (PCCF – Wildlife and CWLW) Govt. 13 Institute for Wood Science and Technology, Bangalore Govt. 14 Jharkhand Forest Department (CCF) Govt. 15 Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun Govt. 16 Karnataka State Remote Sensing Applications Centre, Bangalore Govt. 17 Punjab Forest Department (PCCF) Govt. 18 Kerala Forest Department (CCF- wildlife) Govt. 19 Uttaranchal Bamboo and Fibre Development Board (UBFDB) Govt. 20 Andhra Pradesh Forest Department (PCCF) Govt. 21 Haryana Forest Department Govt. 22 Himachal Pradesh Forest Department (CWLW) Govt. 23 Maharashtra Forest Department (PCCF) Govt. 24 Chhattisgarh Forest Department Govt. 25 Mizoram Environment and Forest Department (CWLW) Govt. 26 Tripura Forest Department Govt. 27 Assam Forest Department Govt. 28 North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Arunachal
Pradesh Govt.
29 Rainforest Research Institute (ICFRE), Jorhat, Assam Govt. 30 North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Shillong Govt. 31 Department of Botany (NEHU), Shillong Govt. 32 Department of Zoology (NEHU), Shillong Govt. 33 Centre for Environment Studies (NEHU), Shillong Govt. 34 National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional office,
Shillong Govt.
36 National Biodiversity Authority, Chennai Govt. 37 College of Forestry, Dharwad Govt. 38 Institute of Bioresources and Sustainable Development, Imphal Govt. 42 Central Zoo Authority, New Delhi Govt. 44 Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun Govt. 49 National Institute of Oceanography, Goa Govt. 50 Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore Govt. 52 National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Head office, New Delhi Govt. 54 Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, Dehradun Govt. 56 Department of Marine Sciences, Calcutta University Govt. 57 College of Fisheries, Mangalore Govt. 58 Forest Training Academy , Haldwani Govt. 63 Centre for Electronics Design & Technology, IISc, Bangalore Govt. 64 North Eastern Space Applications Centre, Shillong Govt. 65 National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow Govt.
135
66 National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow Govt. 71 State Forest College, Coimbatore Govt. 72 Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Department of Environment and Forests Govt. 73 Sikkim Department of Forest, Environment & Wildlife Management Govt. 74 Chhattisgarh Forest Department (Addl. PCCF - Wildlife) Govt. 35 Keystone Foundation, Kotagiri NGO 39 Wildlife Protection Society of India, New Delhi NGO 40 Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation, Development Research
Foundation, Pune NGO
41 United Artists Association NGO 43 Amity Institute of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development, Noida NGO 45 Institute for Environmental Research and Social Education, Nagercoil NGO 46 Indian Institute of Bio-Social Research and Development, Kolkata NGO 47 People's Action for Development, Madurai NGO 48 Madras Crocodile Bank Trust, Chennai NGO 51 Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development,
Bangalore NGO
53 Symbiosis Institute of Geoinformatics, Pune NGO 55 Society for Promotion of Wasteland Development, New Delhi NGO 59 Center for Maritime Research, Amsterdam NGO 60 Suganthi Devadason Marine Research Institute, Tuticorin NGO 61 Orissa Environmental Society, Bhubaneshwar NGO 62 GEER Foundation, Ahmedabad NGO 67 RMSI Private limited, Noida NGO 68 EcoSystems-India, Guwahati NGO 69 Sahaja Samruddha NGO 70 North East Centre for Environmental Research and Development,
Guwahati NGO
75 Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bangalore
NGO
ANNEXURE 3
QUESTIONNAIRE
NATIONAL CAPACITY SELF ASSESSMENT The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India is currently implementing a UNDP/ GEF project on ‘National Capacity Needs Self Assessment (NCSA) in India. Presently, NCSA is being implemented in more than 150 countries. (For details: http://ncsa.undp.org/) Objectives: The NCSA is an assessment and planning exercise to identify country level priorities and needs for capacity building to address global environmental issues. The NCSA is concerned with a country’s capacity – the abilities of individuals, groups, organizations and institutions to address the priority environmental issues as part of efforts to achieve sustainable development. The NCSA focuses on India’s capacity requirements to implement the three ‘Rio Conventions’ – biodiversity (CBD), land degradation (UNCCD) and climate change (UNFCC). In addition, the NCSA process aims to identify cross-cutting capacity issues and foster synergies among these MEAs.
Expected Outcome: Concluding in November 2006, the NCSA will come out with a NCSA Capacity Action Plan, which will draw on the assessment of priority thematic and cross-cutting capacity needs, to identify a program of capacity development actions. The Plan will recommend goals, objectives and strategies for national capacity development (including identified priority actions, the time frame, possible funding, responsibilities and means of monitoring implementation and evaluation of outcomes and impacts). This process will also identify the major stakeholders for the future implementation of this Action Plan and you and/or your institution could play a major role. Process: The four stages leading to the preparation of NCSA Capacity Action Plan are: 1) Establish linkages amongst stakeholders through consultations and awareness generation; 2) Assess baseline and complete stocktaking; 3) Thematic assessments; and 4) Cross cutting assessments. Presently, we are at stage: 2 and besides using other assessment tools, we have designed this questionnaire to gather information. The questionnaire has been framed to assess institutional capacities based on the terms of reference of the NCSA. Efforts have been made to keep the questions simple and meaningful. We welcome any additional inputs in terms of additional material (please use extra sheets to provide this), annual reports, links to significant URLs, etc. ATREE: Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bangalore, has been conferred with the responsibility of conducting this assessment for biodiversity conservation and related issues, by the MoEF and UNDP, to identify the strengths and gaps related to biodiversity conservation in India. The NCSA is a nationally owned and led process and we need your invaluable time and knowledge/ experience in completing this process, which will be duly acknowledged. Kindly post (self-addressed stamped envelope enclosed)/e-mail the filled-in questionnaire or you may submit online at http://www.atree.org/ncsa.html.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
Warm regards
Dr. Gladwin Joseph Project Coordinator (Biodiversity), NCSA India Project,
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), 659, 5th A Main Road, Hebbal, Bangalore, 560 024, India
Tel.: 91 80 23533942 / 23530069 / 23638771, Fax: 91 80 23530070 [email protected]/ www.atree.org/
137
General Information 1. Name and address of the Institution: ……………………………………………….. 2. Date of establishment:…………………………………………………………………. 3. Type of institution (government, non-government, university): 4. Employee statistics
a. Total number of employees: ……………. b. Number of staff with higher degrees (Masters degree and above):………… c. Students/Interns:……………….
5. Funding sources (rank 1-6 – 1 for maximum and 6 for least or nil)
Government ( …) International donor agencies ( …) Indian donor agencies ( …) Memberships/ Subscriptions ( …) Other (specify) ( …) Donations ( …)
Capacity Status – Thematic Issues 6. a. Please rate (High/Medium/Low) the contribution of your organization towards implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity issues given below:
1. Participation in biodiversity conservation planning (….) 2. Identifying and monitoring biodiversity and its conservation (….) 3. In-situ conservation, including protected area system management (….) 4. Ex-situ conservation of biodiversity (….) 5. Environmental impact assessment for biodiversity conservation (….) 6. Managing information through clearinghouse mechanisms (e.g. ENVIS centres, nodal
centres for database initiatives, etc.) (….) 7. Providing scientific and technical education and training (….) 8. Raising public understanding and awareness (….) 9. Preserving indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices (….) 10. Regulating access to and transfer of genetic resources (….) 11. Biosafety, regulating the handling of living modified organisms (….) 12. Regulating commercialization and ensuring benefit-sharing from genetic resources (….) 13. Accessing financial resources (….) 14. Developing and introducing economic and social incentives (….) 15. Alien species and invasives (….) 16. Biological diversity and tourism (….) 17. Taxonomy initiatives (….) 18. Any other (please specify) (….) Please provide any further useful information, if any: ……………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
138
6. b. Rank the 5 most important points from the list above, in the order of their priority within your institution, in the table given below.
Rank 1 (most important)
2 3 4 5
Point # 7. Please indicate if you have ongoing projects in the any of the following biomes/biogeographic zones on the following taxonomic groups. Geographical Coverage Of Taxonomic Levels
Ecosystem / Habitat /
Community
Species or taxonomic
group (specify a – h)
Field studies (specify a – c)
Molecular studies (specify a – i)
Sociological Studies (specify a – f)
Islands Coastal/Marine Ecosystems Eastern Himalaya & North-East India Trans-Himalaya, N-W,W & C Himalaya Deccan Plateau and Eastern Ghats Desert & Semi-Arid Ecosystems Agro-Ecosystems Western Ghats Forests Inland Waters Taxonomic group (a) mammals (b) birds (c) amphibians (d) reptiles (e) fishes (f) invertebrates (specify groups) (g) plants (h) fungi & lichens (i) other Field studies (a) Observational studies (b) capture and handling (c) collection (d) other Molecular studies Specify taxonomic group Sociological studies (a) policy (b) sociology (c) socio-economic (d) ecological economics (e) environmental history (f) other
139
Capacity Status – Enabling Environment 8. Please provide a self-assessment of current institutional capabilities. In the table, write Adequate (AD), Inadequate and require funding (I) or Completely Absent and require establishment (CA). If the requirement does not exist, write Not Required (NR). Please elaborate where required.
Institutional Capability Rating Infrastructure Office space Field stations Transportation Field Equipment GIS facilities Computers Software Communication facilities Library Herbaria, Museums Molecular Biology Labs Germplasm and Tissue Culture Facilities/Other repositories
Other (specify) Human Resources Networking capabilities Fund raising capabilities Administrators Biologists Taxonomists Statisticians Social scientists Trainers & Outreach Personnel Laboratory Technicians Research Fellows & Students Field Assistants Support Staff Policy Groups Advocacy Groups Other (Specify) Inter Institutional Issues Inter institutional collaborations Participation in networks Engagement with government (permits, etc) Outputs Databases Websites Peer-reviewed publications Other publications Conferences, Workshops, Symposia Other (Specify)
Please provide any further useful information, if any: ……………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
140
Capacity strengths 9. What are your institution’s core competencies?
1. .…………………………………………………………………………… 2. .……………………………………………………………………………
3. .……………………………………………………………………………
10. Please list the 5 most significant institutional contributions or outputs towards biodiversity conservation. These could be published outputs such as important peer-reviewed publications, project reports, online databases, networks, economic incentive schemes or any other body of work.
1. .……………………………………………………………………………………. 2. .…………………………………………………………………………………….
3. .……………………………………………………………………………………. 4. .……………………………………………………………………………………. 5. .…………………………………………………………………………………….
Capacity constraints 11. What are the most important gaps /requirements for strengthening your institution for biodiversity conservation? Choose from the table in Question 8 or specify others.
1. .………………………………………………………………………………………
2. .………………………………………………………………………………………
3. .………………………………………………………………………………………
4. .………………………………………………………………………………………
5. .………………………………………………………………………………………
12. What according to you are the specific gaps in the systemic level in India/your area of work for implementation of the CBD? Systemic issues include overall political, economic, legislative, judicial, societal, policy, regulatory, incentive and accountability frameworks.
1. .…………………………………………………………………………………….
2. .…………………………………………………………………………………….
3. .…………………………………………………………………………………….