Forests Of Contention

Even as the new government under I K Gujral has taken charge, its officials have begun the process of handing over the countrys forests to global control. A few weeks ago, at the meeting of the Commission of Sustainable Development (CSD) in New York, government representatives caved in to the demand of many countries to begin negotiations for a legally-binding global convention on forests.

At the Earth Summit in Rio, India had stood out in its opposition to the convention, saying that it would not accept the globalisation of its forests as it would mean an erosion of its sovereignty. Five years later, with environment minister Saifuddin Soz in control, its opposition is in shambles.

 

At the CSD, the forest issue was discussed at the highest level and it generated much heat. The CSD did not agree on the convention only because the US does not want it. However, the G-77 group of developing countries of which India is an important part, said that it was prepared to accept negotiations for a convention. The Indian delegates also accepted the convention, though in their usual noncommittal manner, they prefaced it with platitudes on the need to ex-amine poverty issues, consumption patterns and additional aid.

Let alone the merits or demerits of the proposed instrument, there are a few procedural issues which need to be debated. First, there is the issue of the constitutional authority of the Indian government to even begin such negotiations. The multilateral negotiations will concern the management of the countrys forests as a sovereign economic resource, and the habitat of its people. The proposed convention could set out rules and regulations on how the worlds forests should be governed, stipulate what is sustainable forestry in all contexts; and set out an enforcement regime using trade and aid to ensure compliance. The government will begin these crucial negotiations without even consulting the countrys Parliament. Unlike most other countries which require an international agreement to be ratified by Parliament, in India, only the cabinets approval is needed.

Further, does the government have any legitimate right to negotiate what doesnt belong to it? Forests in India are the habitat of millions of tribals and other communities. These people depend on the forests for their survival. And even though they are not the legal owners of these lands, it can be established that by customary use, they are the de facto owners. In that case, does the government, which can be seen as the middleman, have any right to negotiate the management of these resources without their authority .

Second, should the government be allowed to develop its position out of disinterest on such an important issue? In global negotiations, Indias position is marked by a non-position as its bureaucrats have turned fence-sitting into a fine art. Bureaucrats from other countries negotiate with their countrys interests in mind.

Compare the case of India with that of Malaysia, for instance. Malaysia, which was at the forefront of the opposition in Rio, has turned around and become an advocate of the proposed forest convention. But it has done so with a purpose. It recognised that its forest management practices would be under global scrutiny from environmentalists. Across the world, there were calls to boycott Malaysian timber as it was unsustainable. So it set out to counter this opposition, which would affect its economic interests.

Over the last five years, Malaysians have worked hard to develop indicators for green wood. Now they are supremely confident that these indicators will help them compete in the global market as they will be able to certify their wood as eco-friendly. So they have joined the opposition because they have defeated the enemy.

Countries led by Canada, Finland, Australia and the Netherlands are very keen on the convention. Barring the Netherlands, which is driven by global interests, the others are led by their timber industry, which wants to maintain control over the pulp and paper market. The north has always controlled the world timber market. With vast forest areas, proximity to markets and ready supply of capital, the temperate industry has flourished. But environmentalism is taking its toll. It is estimated that between 1990 and 1995, the temperate forest industry lost as much as a tenth of its productive land to conservation and recreation.

At the same time, southern timber companies are making inroads. They have a natural advantage: a climate in which trees grow faster. Brazilian forests, for instance, have an annual growth of 40 cubic metres per hectare while forests in USA yield only 10 cubic metres per hectare.

So the industry wants a level playing field with stiff environmental controls on tropical wood. These governments stress the need for a global definition of sustainable management of forests. They have, like the Malaysians, developed criteria for sustainability, which will establish their market position

The convention is an exercise in super-centralisation of forest management when forestry demands decentralised decision-making. These agencies will not only start defining sustainability for every given socio-ecological situation but will also define what peoples participation means in each context. For communities dependent on forests, this will be a deathknell. And the global bureaucracy will only strengthen national bureaucracies the intervention of the forest department will be more entrenched in this system.

In this entire debate on the convention, the critical missing link remains the human being in most cases, the woman, who uses the forests for her survival. But with the convention around the corner, the government will have to mortgage her present and her future. It would have sold her quite simply because it cant be bothered.