[ Karyir Riba ]
ROING, 7 May: The Idu Mishmi Cultural and Literary Society (IMCLS) has urged the Arunachal Pradesh Biodiversity Board to engage the indigenous people and local communities (IPLCs) as equal partners, in a seven pointer submission to the State Biodiversity Board (SBB) and WWF, towards drafting the State Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (SBSAP).
“IPLCs should be engaged, as equal partners and not merely as information providers. The effort to integrate their rights would only be meaningful if the proposed action plan takes serious note of lack of consent rights in the state and national legislation related to biodiversity laws. This is contrary to the existing Arunachal Pradesh (Biological Diversity) rules, 2011 and biodiversity management committees where traditional and indigenous knowledge holders and caretakers of biodiversity have been merely reduced to information providers with no proper funding or benefit sharing as legally required. Their right to consent and reject any kind of ‘conservation’ measures or projects has been amended time and again in the biological diversity act 2002, going against the Nagoya protocol. This is in violation against the goal C of Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The action plan (based on Pakke Declaration) will lose meaning if it does not go beyond the mere documentation process of traditional knowledge systems. Any kind of documentation and its use should be based on Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in accordance with target 21 of GBF and article 8(j) of Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 (CBD),” they said.
The IMCLS has also demanded community-led conservation efforts to be legally recognized. They said, “Several scientific studies have shown that local communities in Arunachal have effectively protected both forests and biodiversity. Scientific research has shown that the Idu Mishmi community-owned forests harbour higher populations of threatened species, such as the tiger, than Protected Areas (PAs). These animals have been protected by the cultural and customary norms. Furthermore, many communities across AP have now begun to self-organise to protect their ancestral lands and biodiversity they support through community conserved areas (CCAs).”
Their submission points also included; focusing on renewable sources of energy, stopping the diversion of carbon-rich community forests and discontinuation of the practice of planting non-native tree species in naturally open areas, tropical lowland grasslands and high-elevation meadows under CAMPA, as these are not wastelands but naturally occurring ecosystems that sequester signature amount of carbon.
They have also stressed on taking indigenous people’s concerns seriously, and to follow meaningful and inclusive participation. “A key agreement that emerged out of the CBD COP15 was the importance of FPIC based on mutually agreed terms when working with IPLCs. Various CBD COP decisions have noted that ‘effective’ and ‘meaningful’ participation of local people can only be guaranteed through FPIC. An inclusive engagement process is built on the assumption that voices, visions and perspectives of local and indigenous communities must be heard and incorporated into any planning, even if different to the state’s own visions. However, contrary to this commitment of FPIC, the Idu Mishmi community learnt after the meeting at Pakke Tiger Reserve, later adopted as the Pakke Declaration, that the final approval for a tiger reserve in Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary (DWLS) was declared without prior consultation and consent of the Idu Mishmi community. This is despite the fact that the Idu Mishmi people have contested the notification of DWLS in court,” they informed.
Advocate Madan Mili, along with AIMSU president and representatives of the IMCLS, had attended the district level consultation workshop for seeking inputs for the Arunachal Pradesh State Biodiversity and Strategy Action Plan (SBSAP) jointly conducted by State Biodiversity Board and WWF, India, which was recently held at the DC’s Conference Hall in Roing.
Advocate Mili informed, “During the workshop, we have categorically stated that prior to proper demarcation of Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary, Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary and Deopani Reserve Forest, no issues will be entertained and no researchers from any agency will be allowed in terms with various gram sabha resolutions. No to Tiger Reserve until and unless the boundary demarcation of the above PAs are settled. No further talks unless DWLS issues are addressed. Effort must be put to work out on strengthening the cultural mode of conservation, and finally, our people should not be alienated from the forest in the name of conservation and development.”