Sunday 30 September 2012

To protect the country's expansive biodiversity, complete with flora and fauna, from illegal `invasions'.

HYDERABAD: Two decades ago, when the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) officially took shape in Rio de Janeiro, India was among the first few countries to jump on board. Its agenda? To protect the country's expansive biodiversity, complete with flora and fauna, from illegal `invasions'. Ever since, all through the 10 Convention of Parties (CoP) of the CBD held at venues across the globe, India has remained a loyal member of the convention and is now hosting the next chapter (CoP-11) beginning today in Hyderabad. But has this commitment to the treaty remained confined to a piece of paper? The answer is an unfortunate yes, say environmentalists and experts.

While Indian dignitaries, all through the 19-day event, are likely to flaunt the country's massive `bio' wealth that includes an expansive coastline, dense forests and rare breeds of cattle, the fact remains that each of this is faced with a threat of extinction. India's forests are being ruthlessly felled and cattle farmers left to struggle for a livelihood. "Though there are provisions like biodiversity authorities, biodiversity registers and farmer seed protection committees, all of them are non-functional. Nobody is doing anything to protect the intellectual property of poor communities," said Sunita Narain, director general of Centre for Science and Environment. According to Narain, India's agenda at the upcoming CoP-11 should be to ratify the Nagoya Protocol (formulated during CoP-10 in Japan), adopted to allow access and benefit sharing (ABS) of biodiversity among member countries of CBD. The objective is to bring in farmers and grassroots communities to the fold and share with them the benefits of ABS. "As the host nation, it should also persuade other members to ratify the same," she said.



But a mere signature is not the solution, environmental experts maintain. It is the implementation that is crucial, and India has so far failed miserably in that area. While one of the highlights of the 2010 protocol was a clause that made it mandatory for a national government to obtain 'free and prior informed consent' of communities before allowing other countries access to their biodiversity, it has not been followed in India. "The country has very weak bio-safety laws. Communities protecting and conserving the genetic biodiversity are ignored. Access and benefit sharing sans this clause, is hardly beneficial. Biodiversity cannot be used for monetary gains," said Sagari R Ramdas of 'Anthra' who has extensively researched issues on livestock and people's livelihoods. She hopes that the government takes a stronger stand on this clause during CoP-11.

Experts like P M Bhargava, however, feel that the country should close its doors completely on sharing of raw material. Instead, it's the finished products that should be exported, the former vice-chairman of the National Knowledge Commission adds stressing the need to protect local species of plants, animals and marine creatures. Stating an example, he said, "We have a vast growth of medicinal plants and roughly 40,000 plant-based drug formulations. Instead of allowing countries access to the plants, we should market the drugs. It will not just earn us more revenue but also help us preserve our biodiversity."

Another area that experts feel Indian authorities should pay more attention to during its CoP deliberations is its coastline that has been robbed of its wealth, thanks to the many mining scams and loosely-drafted policies. "The mangroves, which are a huge asset for India, are under threat. There is consistent erosion and no decision on just how much fishing should be allowed here. Such issues need to be addressed for India to establish itself as a country serious about protecting its biodiversity," said Sumaira Abdulali, convener of Mumbai-based Awaaz Foundation which will highlight the problem of sand mining at the global summit. She added, "The problem in India is that we continue to push for development at the cost of degrading the environment."

No comments:

Post a Comment