35 POLICY MODEL OF INDIA IN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT-2

Dr Seema Mehra Parihar

epgp books

   

 

 

Learning Objectives:

 

After studying this unit you should be able to:

  • Understand the resource mangement policies of India
  • Understand the role of various institutions involved in resource management Critically analyse the trend in natural resource managementin India.
  • Appraise the recent water policy 2012 and forest policy draft 2016 in India

 

KEYWORDS

Empowerment, tribal, India, community, institutions, resource management ,holistic policies

  1. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN INDIA

There is an urgent need to presere natural resources in India

 

   The known history of India recognizes it as a region which abounds in all sorts of natural resources. Since the very beginning of Aryan invention, resource appropriation became a major source of amassing the power to control and rule over the society. The aloofness became a legitimate tool to establish a hegemonic right over the resource. The Vedic period saw the legitimization of accumulation through dispossession.However as positive development, “the state through several pro-people laws later legitimized the tribal and Dalit ownership over the resources” (chotanagpur tenancy act 1908).

 

After 1947, when Indian state became independent, the constitution brought a rampant change in the life and philosophy of the Indians. For the first time in Indian history right to property became an equal right for all the citizens (ARTICLE 31 1950). The constitution provides special rights and promises to protect the tribal rights over their resources (SCHEDULE 5TH AND 6TH). In the year 1991, the Indian government opened the gate for foreign capital by signing the WTO agreement. This proved a death nail for the tribal rights of appraiser and management of natural resources.

 

 The laws like COAL BEARING ACT, SEZ etc. are meant to manage resource in order to facilitate global imperial expansionism. In India those concerned with resource management are mostly dealing with the resources like water, air & soil which are the concerns of the consumerist middle-class. The concerns of lower and the under-classes remains unaddressed. The indigenous tribal techniques of resource management are being redundant. This has also led to loss of human resource which the bourgeois economists call human capital. “Dotted with deep ravines and hills rich in bauxite – which gives the color to the soil – this region is also home to some of the most endangered tribes in the country: Birjias, Birhors, Korwa, Parhaiyas and Asurs. The area of their concentration is around 150 km from capital Ranchi and an hour-and-a-half’s drive from Bishunpur(Saha n.d.)” The extinction and the loss of this ‘human capital’ is certainly of a concern.

 

However, as mentioned before Government of India , time to time has announced different policies to protect natural resources like forests through Forest policy of India,1952; Forest Policy of 1988; Forest Policy Draft 2016 . Further, an encouraging development in recent years has been the recognition and attempt to address the fundamental issues impacting the water sector. This recognition is reflected in three key documents of the National Water Policy 2002 , National Water Policy 2012 and the Revised Watershed Guidelines 2001. Most related policy documents of India deal with protection, conservation and development.

 

2. Natural Resources Management for poverty alleviation:

    Environmental Degradation has a Cause‐and‐Effect Relationship with poverty. The thin layer of soil that covers most of the earth’s land surface is the key to human well‐being and survival. Without it, there would be no plants, no crops, no animals, no forests and no people. It is to be noted that one billion people are affected by bland degradation which accounts for 40% of total land cover. On these degraded land, the poorest of poor with lowest human development index residues. The management has to be done in accordance with the concerns for the development of poorest of poor residing on the spatially discriminated space. Ecological processes maintain soil productivity, nutrient recycling, the cleansing of air and water, and climatic cycles.

 

Soils are the foundation of agriculture, which in turn is the basic building block in the livelihoods of all people. At the genetic level, diversity found in natural life‐forms supports the breeding programs necessary to protect and improve cultivated plants and domesticated animals. Wild flora and fauna form the basis of traditional medicine and a significant part of the modern pharmacological industry. In ecologically fragile, marginal environments the poor are often locked into patterns of natural resource degradation by their lacked access to productive resources, institutional services, credit and technology. With no proper means of economic sustenance, the people are forced to use the already strained land for agricultural productivity. This creates larger pressure on land which leads to soil becoming infertile and the land degradation creates loss of livelihood to the farmers dependent on it. With no income, the output through already degraded land will be of no avail for subsistence. This chronic cycle of poverty is in operation.

 

Figure.1: Interlinkages environment Degradation & Poverty

   3. INSTITUTIONS AND POLICY MODELS

 

Institution at different level works in India to address the question of resource management and policy making in that direction. The different institutions work for different resources. Following are the resources for which different policies are framed by the concerned institutions.

 

Figure 2: Indian Forest Cover 2015

 

Policy models in FORESTRY Sector

 

Forests cover almost one fifth of the national land area of India. However, about 42 per cent of these are degraded. Recent surveys indicate a slight increase in the forest area over the last two years.

 

The authority and resources for protection and management of forests are vested with the state Forest Departments (FD). It is widely recognized that, given the expanse and diversity of forest lands and people within the country, the FD lacks the capacity in its present form to effectively implement forest policy and law. The inability to regulate access to forest lands and increased appreciation for people’s dependence on forests, have paved the way for policies and programs that seek participation of village communities in development and protection of forests (Social Forestry Programs of the 1970’s and 1980’s and Joint Forest Management Programs (JFM) of the 1990’s). Currently such programs are manifested in various schemes related to regeneration of natural forests through JFM, wasteland and watershed development, block plantations, promotion of farm forestry and agro-forestry, eco-restoration, etc. The Steering Committee on Environment, Forests & Wildlife identifies increase in the forest cover through JFM, agro-forestry, urban forestry and afforestation of wastelands as the major area of thrust for the Tenth Five-Year Plan., increase export and reduce import of timber and pulpwood and other forest produce The other areas of focus are to build capacity forconservation and development of natural resources, increase forest productivity, reduce demand and supply imbalances

 

Policy and Programs Framework

 

Although India has a well-articulated forest policy this has not been fully reflected in strategies for implementation. A coherent strategy to meet the many diverse demands for forest products and services from the forest sector is lacking. The driving force behind the current forest strategy is the National Forest Policy of 1988, which stresses management of forests for conservation and local needs, and makes commercial exploitation of forests and revenue generation secondary objectives. The 1988 “forest policy has not been translated into law. It remains a broad statement of government intent and does little in the way of specifying any legal rights or duties owed to forest communities”. The forest rules and institutional framework continue to be archaic and disabling in relation to new approaches and strategies. The Social Forestry programs of the eighties led to some innovation in the legislative and institutional framework, but they proved to be short-lived, either due to lack of application or due to undermining by other rules which negated the power, control, and access provided to the local community. Within government program design there is now an increasing rhetoric on the symbiotic relationship between forest and forest dwellers, and of the need to address the issue of poverty alleviation, provision of gainful employment and empowerment of tribaland women in the forest sector. The latest government sponsored forest development program

 

(SamanvitGrameenVanikaranSamridhiYojana (SGVSY) or ‘Integrated Rural Forestry Development Plan’) has similar themes. SGVSY, which is an umbrella scheme under which most of the previous central government sponsored schemes have been merged, is implemented in areas/villages covered either under JFM or Eco-development. Apart from focusing on creation of rural employment and community assets, the scheme provides for constitution of a registered Forest Development Agency (FDA) – a federation of village-level forest organizations for planning, fund delivery and monitoring the scheme. Experiences from the field show that FDAs, which are to be registered as societies under the Societies Registration Act, need further elaboration of their objective, structure, functions, and power to be an effective institution for supporting JFM. Formally initiated in 1989, JFM is currently at the center stage of India’s forest strategy. Over the past decade, over 15 percent of the country’s forest lands are estimated to have been brought under JFM. In absolute terms, nearly 45,000 JFM groups are involved in protection of forests in 22 states of the country. In the year 2000, fresh guidelines issued by the central government addressed critical issues related to legal back-up of the JFM committees. A JFM cell and a JFM network of foresters have been constituted at the Centre to monitor the impact of JFM, and to ensure uniformity in policy among variousstates.

 

The forest policy draft 2016 aims for “Improving the health and vitality of forest ecosystems to meet the present and future needs of ecological security and biodiversity conservation with empowered and enabled communities”. The National Forest Policy, 2016 “marks a paradigm shift, by switching the focus from forests to landscapes, from canopy cover to healthy ecosystems, from substituting wood to promoting sustainable wood use, from participatory approaches to empowerment, from joint forest management to community forest management and from qualitative policy statements to a results based policy framework”

Figure 3: Basin Map of India

 

Policies Models in Water Sector

 

An encouraging development in recent years has been the recognition and attempt to address the fundamental issues impacting the water sector. This recognition is reflected in three key documents of the National Water Policy 2002 , National Water Policy 2012 and the Revised Watershed Guidelines 2001. The National Water Policy 2002 “emphasizes the need for sustainable water resource management, conjunctive use of surface and groundwater resources, groundwater regulation and people’s participation in management of natural resources. The latter, explicitly mentioning participatory irrigation management, is a marked change from the earlier version. Further, the National Water Policy 2002 considers user contribution and tariff rationalization while discussing sector finances. In sum, the National Water Policy 2002 presents a positive picture though not without shortcomings” NWP,2002. A similar observation can be made regarding the Revised Watershed Guidelines 2001. Again, “these emphasize the much cherished values of sustainability, equity, participation and transparency. Changes have been made to allow greater funding allocation and PRI involvement. Whether policy intent expressed in these documents can be realized remains a moot question”. Past experience suggests significant differences between (noble) policy statements and (less impressive) practice. The objective of the National Water Poli cy 2012 “is to take cognizance of the existing situation, to propose a framework for creation of a system of laws and institutions and for a plan of action with a unified national perspective” NWP,2012.

 

For example, the objects of the National Water Policy 2002 vis-à-vis groundwater regulation and tariff rationalization, though aligned with donor and expert prescriptions, are unlikely to find political and popular support. The earlier National Watershed Guidelines 1994 are another case in point. Hailed as revolutionary, these have failed to inspire actual performance for a variety of reasons including weak primary and secondary stakeholder capacities, existing socio-political dynamics and institutional imperatives. In the IWRM (INDIAN WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT) context, it needs to be appreciated that the government’s role as developer and manager of water resources has persisted throughout the last five decades. The fact that resource boundaries (basin, watershed) do not match administrative boundaries has hindered effective and sustainable basin-level planning and management. While the central government has voiced its intent (starting with the National Water Policy of 1987) to enable integration, there has been resistance from the states resulting in allocation-based rules for negotiation on surface water rights. These 22 STRATEGY FOR SIDA SUPPORT IN THE FIELD OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN INDIA are mostly population-factored and not resource or situation-based. Hence IWRM initiatives would require enabling policy and legislative change. On another note, a major factor that has led to groundwater exploitation and iniquitous appropriation of water resources is the significant subsidization of irrigation and electricity services. The reforms in these two sectors attempted during the last decade have encountered resistance from farmer lobbies. The above is merely an illustration of the range of factors that account for differences in policy and practice. Thus, it is necessary that donors interested in water conservation and management accord priority to translating policy into practice rather than developing a preoccupation with influencing policy.

 

Table 1: Salient Elements of National Water Policy of India, 2012

 

S.No. Salient Aspect emphasized in the NWP,2012
1 “To evolve a National Framework Law”
2 “Community based water management should be institutionalized and strengthened.”
3 “Adaptation to climate change’.
4 “Enhancing water available for use’.
5 “Demand management and water use efficiency’.
6 “Water pricing”
7 “Conservation of river corridors, water bodies andInfrastructure”
8 “Project planning and implementation”
9 .“Management of flood & drought”
10 “Water supply and sanitation”
11 “Institutional arrangements”
12 “Trans-boundary rivers’
13 “All hydrological data, other than those classified on national security consideration, should be in public domain. However, a periodic review for further declassification of data may be carried out”.
14 “Research & training needs”
15 “A permanent Water Disputes Tribunal at the Centre should be established to resolve the disputes expeditiously in an equitable manner”.

Source: Water Policy document,2012,Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources

 

Government Initiatives: –

 

Watershed development is one of the large centrally sponsored programs. Since 1995, watershed development projects have been implemented under new national guidelines using funding from a variety of centrally sponsored schemes. While watershed development projects have led to the creation of water harvesting structures, the crucial aspects of water conservation and sustainable management have taken a back seat. The actual control of water resources at the village level still rests with a few large farmers and these programs have not been able to offer arrangements and institutions  to manage land and water resources sustainably. The National Watershed Guidelines 1994 marked the shift from departmental works to the emphasis on people’s participation. Village Watershed Committees (parallel institutions to the Gram Panchayats) were entrusted responsibility for planning, implementation and management of interventions with the role of line departments (such as Forests, Soil and Water Conservation, Irrigation etc.- all with experience of NRM activity) limited to facilitation. In practice, this has not happened. Local capacities were limited; the poor were diffident; people-line department relations were unequal; the guidelines were interpreted to suit vested interests; and, community mobilization and training efforts were not systematic. The other program that encourages water conservation is the Accelerated Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Program (ARWSP). About 20 percent of the funds under this program can be used for water quality improvement and conservation. Most of this allocation is used for addressing water quality issues. The water conservation part of the program is limited to ensuring the sustainability of drinking water supplies alone- precluding integrated management of village level water resources.

 

   By the nineties, with the realization that functionality and sustainability need to be ensured to make the substantial investments meaningful, the Mission embarked on a Sector Reform Program (SRP) that aims at empowering PRIs/ communities to generate resources, plan, operate and manage water supply schemes themselves in coordination with government agencies/ private sector/ NGOs. The key elements of this strategy are:

 

– Promoting a demand-driven approach. – Institutionalizing community participation in capital cost sharing (at least 10 per cent) and full cost of operation and maintenance. – Village level capacity building for planning and management through setting up and empowering Village Water and Sanitation Committees (Watsan Committees). – Integration of service delivery mechanisms in Watsan involving multiple agencies. Since 2000–2001, 20 percent of the annual ARWSP outlay has been earmarked for states progressing towards sector reform. The SRP is currently being implemented in 63 districts of 26 states across the country. It is, in principle, a significant initiative that marks a departure from the conventional allocation-based rural water supply programs. Substantial funds have been placed at the district level and a nascent but emerging awareness about reforms in the sector is evident. However, the different institutional arrangements decided upon by the states, lack of clarity of institutional roles and continued primacy of the executing department indicates that much remains to be done, particularly in eliciting user participation and ownership and designing equitable and financially sustainable systems. A review carried out by WSP-SA of the progress in four states suggests that the interpretations of programs principles by the executing departments have not provided the necessary space for PRIs or user groups to prepare for designated roles. The Prime Minister’s GramodayaYojana (PMGY), started in 2000– 1 and envisages an Additional Central Assistance (ACA) for selected basic minimum services. For the rural drinking water component of the PMGY, the implementation will followthe ARWSP guidelines, earmarking a minimum 25 percent of the total allocation for water conservation and sustainability of the drinking water sources in specific drought prone areas. The remaining part is to be utilized for tackling quality related problems and for providing safe drinking water to habitations that are not yet, or only partially, covered. Thus, the approach is the same as in ARWSP, but with a provision (allocation) that is focused on sustainability issues and quality. While these programs and funds have been earmarked by the central government, the implementation of water supply and sanitation, being aspects of public health, are deemed to rest with PRIs and fall within the purview of their obligatory functions. However, in the rural areas the implementation function has stayed with the line departments. This has come about largely due to the dependence of PRIs on the state government for finances and their limited role in planning 7(SIDA n.d.).

 

4. CRITICAL APPRECIATION

 

Resource management in India has undergone a change in recent year but the equitable change is yet to be seen. Right from the participation in the management process and to the framing of policies for resource appraisal and its management the people participation is negligible. This is mostly due to the bureaucratic approach of the state in these dimensions. The organizations and their policies are by large concerned  with  the  preventive  methods  in  resource  addresser.  The  aspect  of enhancing the quality of resources like that of the air and water are absent if present are seen only in traces. The technical advancement still lags behind from that of the developed state. The fast deteriating air quality calls for a highly technical system of air purifier apparatus, which is both affordable and efficient. In this context, the need is to pull the economic resources in this area. Holistic and inclusive policies in the natural resource sustenance framework are a key to sustainable Development of the natural resources in India. The implementation of policies is a major concern, but certainly it is equally in the hand of people of India to make Government Policies successful.

 

5. SUMMARY: –

 

The policies related with natural resource management form an important part in the institutional framework in India. Largely they are related with resources like water , forest , air resource.

 

 

The laws like COAL BEARING ACT, SEZ etc. are meant to manage resource in order to facilitate benefits for few.The concerns of lower and the under-classes largely remain unaddressed and more need to be worked towards it.

 

The Social Forestry programs of the eighties led to some innovation in the legislative and institutional framework, but they proved to be short-lived, either due to lack of application or due to undermining by other rules which negated the power, control, and access provided to the local community. Within government program design there is now an increasing rhetoric on the symbiotic relationship between forest and forest dwellers, and of the need to address the issue of poverty alleviation, provision of gainful employment and empowerment of tribal and women in the forest sector.

 

   The objective of the National Water Policy 2012 is to take cognizance of the existing situation, to propose a framework for creation of a system of laws and institutions and for a plan of action with a unified national perspective.

 

The forest policy draft 2016 has the potential to lift the forest dwellers out of poverty, breathe vitality back into our wilderness and accelerate inclusive growth of our nation.

 

Holistic and inclusive policies in the natural resource sustenance framework are a key to sustainable Development of the natural resources in India.

 

you can view video on POLICY MODEL OF INDIA IN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT-2

References

  • “ARTICLE 31 .” CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
  • “chotanagpur tenancy act .”
  • Water Policy document,2012,Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources
  • The forest policy draft 2016, IIFM,Bhopal MANU. n.d. Manu Smriti 10.129.
  • ROY, ARUNDHATI. 1999. THE COST OF LIVING. FLAMINGO.
  • Saha, Abhishek. n.d. http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/cut-off-from-roots-jharkhand-s-endangered-tribes-in-battle-for-survival/story-sBvOzv4O7Tp7RniJ1iX90M.html.