ABDESH GANGWAR, CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION - NORTHEAST (CEENE), GUWAHATI
(1) The Northeast is unique in two ways: the richness of biodiversity is very high, and the percentage of endemism is about 33%, quite high. What is found in the NE region is not available elsewhere. Therefore the region attains high priority for conservation. It shares large international boundary. That is again important for the movement of wildlife, the corridors and the migration routes.
Secondly, in NE forests and the biodiversity are the life support system for the local communities much more than elsewhere in the country. Forests and forest products are the main source of livelihood and income. Therefore, forests in NE regions mean the life line of the people. Even the agriculture, jhum and others, are just forest-based. In any rural even urban market many wild plant and animal products are year-round available for sale providing employment and income to many.
Another dimension is the forests in NE belong to the communities not to the government. Therefore, for the NE region a separate forest policy is desirable. It should look both at the interest of the forests and also of the people.
(2) A separate policy for the NE is desirable. However, how good it will prove will depend upon its execution both by the government and the people, even NGOs. Just making a policy will mean nothing how so good it may be. The policy should consider the interest of the communities and also the conservation of forests and biodiversity. Traditional management practices, customary laws that hold good should be understood and lesson should be derived from them. Government interference should be minimal when it comes to community management. To my opinion government management is less cost and impact effective. A big system is created at a huge cost which becomes unsustainable, unviable and eventually a liability. Community managed system will prove more efficient and effective, will have more belonging and responsibility, will address to the issue of conservation better.
(3) Execution of things is a separate problem. This is both at the government and also at the community level of course in different levels. Holding stake by GOs, NGOs and the communities might help. Role of government should be related to technical advise, expertise and necessary skills, a management stake should be more with the communities and the NGOs can facilitate the entire process, streamlining it and resolving conflicts, if they arise.
(4) The judiciary is unbiased, we believe and it is a fact. Looking at the long term survival and welfare of the people of the NE region. Such a ruling is welcome. Maybe relaxation should be made. Unless we replenish the forests we are clearing for income we have a bleak future. Awareness and education is necessary about the value of the forests and their judicious utilisation. NE soil is notoriously fertile and the clime is extremely well for the forest growth. Forests should be harvested and should be an important source of income but harvest should be systematic and scientific. Here a blend of traditional wisdom with modern science and technology is needed. Often the selling price of the forest wood is nowhere to the tune of the inputs it require to grow to that much. As is has grown naturally we are selling them off at throw away price creating more demand and market and leading to more harvest. Attempts should be made to make forestry a commercial venture. Training should be imparted, practical. NERIST, central and state
universities, colleges should offer such courses and do needful research. So far the academic institutions have been offering routine courses nothing specific to the NE region. There is a big gap in the need for the region and the type of cadets being produced by these institution, so many in number. If this happens the problem of social and youth unrest even militancy will get solved. A need based proper education is the need of the hour for the NE. We now have IIT in the region. Let us hope something good will happen.


ASHISH KOTHARI, KALPAVRIKSH, PUNE
(1) I personally feel that while the country should have one framework forest policy (such as the 1988 one), there is a need for much more detailed policy statements (along with strategies and action plans and legislative measures) for each region of the country. This is simply because each region, indeed each sub-region, is in itself unique, with different forest types, cultural systems, etc. No single overall policy for the country can be adequate to deal with such diversity. Hence if there is going to be a policy statement for the north-east (WITHIN the framework of a national policy), I do not see anything wrong with it, so long as it tries to be sensitive to the special characteristics of the people and ecosystems there.
(2) Such a policy could augur well, given the following conditions: (i) It is based on the ecological and cultural conditions of the Northeast, and of sub-regions within it (there is tremendous diversity within the
Northeast also!). (ii) It builds on the knowledge and institutional structures already existing, such as tribal councils, community holdings of common lands, etc. (iii) It helps the local people to create, or strengthen, livelihood options which are based on forests but do not lead to their destruction. In this sense, timber logging from natural forests, which has been the primary source of income for many groups in the NE, should be stopped (as they virtually have been by the Supreme Court) and options should be promoted
for using non-timber forest produce (medicinal plants, orchids, cane/bamboo, etc.) and other livelihood opportunities (e.g. employment in wildlife conservation; documentation and utilising knowledge of
genetic/biodiversity resources with appropriate benefit-sharing arrangements; and sensitive wildlife and eco-tourism...NOT the kind being promoted at the moment, perhaps the only good example is from Sikkim?). (iv) It is backed up by appropriate legislation, administrative measures, strong people's participation and partnerships, etc. No policy statement, however well it is drafted, is of use unless there are such back-up measures. Take, for instance, the 1988 Forest Policy...there is still no legislative measure to back it up, and we are still dependent on the 1927 Forest Act!
(3) I'm not sure why you mention the National Biodiversity Board here? In the proposed Biodiversity Law (as it is currently drafted, it may change if the new govt. so wishes), there is a provision for a National Biodiversity Authority, State Biodiversity Boards, and local (village, etc.) level biodiversity bodies. These provisions could well be used for the NE, depending on the local situations.
(4) I have briefly answered this above.


THOMAS MATHEW, ENVIRONMENTALIST
(1) I do believe the Northeast (or the Eastern Himalayas) requires a separate forest policy. The relationship between communities and forests is so special that it merits a completely different frame of reference. A separate forest policy will also closer attention to the link between the demand for forest products from the rest of the country and the forest resources of the Northeast.
(2) I believe a separate forest policy will finally give the forests and communities of the Northeast the special importance that they deserve.
(3) The National Biodiversity Board will at best be a policymaking entity that could look at the biodiversity problems and opportunities of the Northeast in a focused manner. The forest policy will have much more of a `on the ground' impact and does not need to wait for the constitution of the NBB.
(4) Given the tribal composition of the Northeast and the close habitat and livelihood links between communities and forests there it is not surprising that there was an outcry in the Northeast at the
Supreme Court ruling. The ruling was a `blunt weapon' that was well-intended but resulted in a disproportionately hard impact on the people of the Northeast. The challenge of conceiving policies and
approaches to the sustainable utililisation of the forest resources of the North East must be looked at on least two levels. First is the `normal' challenge of meeting subsistence and livelihood needs of communities in the context of customary rights and other cultural factors special to the states of the Northeast. Second is the more awesome challenge of tackling the tremendously corrupt political class who rely for their ill-gotten wealth primarily on unsustainable exploitation of forest resources in league with a whole class of middlemen representing market interests. The solution to sustainability for forest utilisation in the Northeast lies therefore almost wholly within the realm of politics i.e. it is not so much a technical or management problem as it is a political one.


DEBI GOENKA, BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP, MUMBAI
(1) The Northeast does not need a separate policy. The Northeast is special because it has some of the best remaining forests of the country, and these need to be protected, given the fact that these are hilly areas.
(2) A separate Northeast policy may actually create more loopholes for the destruction of these forests. The key feature of any forest policy should be sustainable utilisation; promotion of indigenous species; no clear
felling; etc.
(4) Sustainable use would imply that the forests are not clear-felled; that the incremental timber is harvested scientifically; also local needs are given priority.

DIGBOI, July 14: A tiny environmental activist group is waging a lonely battle to save the last, surviving patches of a rainforest in the northeastern Indian state of Assam. The few patches of the rainforest in the state's Tinsukia and Dibrugarh districts are the only ones left in the region.
This rainforest area is actually spread over 500 sq. km across the three contiguous reserved forests of Jaipur, Upper Dihing and Dirak. These forests are home to a large number of rare and endangered species.
Unbridled industrialisation in the fringes of the three forests and pressure of a burgeoning population are fast taking their toll. Reasons are the same everywhere. If adequate steps are not taken immediately, the only rainforest of the region will soon vanish, warns Soumyadeep Dutta, Director, Nature's Beckon.
Dutta has already started lobbying hard in his bid. He says, "We have submitted a proposal to the state government to bring the three reserved forests under one unit and rename it as Joidihing Wildlife Sanctuary." So far, needless to say, the plea has fallen on the deaf ears of officialdom.
The support, on the contrary, has come from the International Primates Protection League, the Netherlands Committee of IUCN (World Conservation Union) for conserving the rainforests and primates of Assam. Econet, a non-governmental organisation based in Pune in Maharashtra state has also helped by establishing links with national and international institutions involved in similar activities.
Biodiversity in the proposed Joidihing sanctuary has been vanishing too fast for comfort. Citing a Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) report of 1971-72 putting the population of the Holoock gibbon (the only species of ape to be found in India) anything between 78,000 and 80,000, Dutta fears not more than 5,000 survive today.
Among the rare and endangered species of animals found are clouded leopard, sloth bear, leopard, tiger, elephant, Indian bison, sambar, slow loris, capped langurs, hoolock gibbons, flying squirrels. Among the birds are drongoes, pheasants, oriales, jacanas, wood ducks, eagles, owls, hornbills, minivests.
A survey conducted by Dutta's organisation suggests that out of 15 species of non-human primates found in India, seven have their habitat in this rainforest. These are Rhesus macaque, Assamese macaque, Slow loris, Capped langur, Pigtailed macaque, Stumptailed macaque and Hoolock gibbon. The last five have been declared endangered in the Red Data Book of the Zoological Survey of India (Part I, 1994).
Dutta says, "No other wildlife sanctuary or national park in the country gives shelter to such a diverse species of monkeys and apes. Because of this unique diversity, it is all the more necessary to give complete protection to this forest zone by upgrading it to the status of a wildlife sanctuary."
Nature's Beckon has launched a movement in the state for conserving this rainforest by developing various educational materials, posters and brochures to educate the people about the importance of the forest. The first token resistance came from the local people. "They did not want any attention to be focused on their area. They were naturally scared that their would lose their source of livelihood - the forests."
The destruction of the rainforest has also had a devastating effect on the environment resulting in a drastic change in weather conditions in the region. As rainforests contain on an average half of all plant and animal species, their destruction would result in the loss of rare species forever, says Dutta. This rainforest is the main source of biotic resources whose destruction can upset ecological balance. As there have been few studies on plants and animals living in the tropical rainforests, further research could provide clues for manufacturing chemical substitutes for gasoline or medicines for cancer cure, he says.
Largescale urbanisation has taken place in the region and vast stretches of forest land has been converted to farmlands and used for agricultural practices or tea plantations. Dutta says millions of tonnes of timber, plywood, cane and other forest products are being extracted and the ground being raised for tea plantations. (Subir Ghosh; Environment News Service; http://ens.lycos.com; July 14, 1999)

DUDHNOI, August 3: Largescale sale of timber, firewood and other finished wood products allegedly procured illegally from the Rangjuli reserve forest - the only natural forest cover left in Goalpara district - has caused widespread resentment among conscious citizens. The Dhanubhanga Anchalik Ban Sangrakhan Samittee has urged the forest authorities to check illegal treefelling in the Rangjuli reserve forest and called upon the people to come forward to look into the man-made disaster in the interest of future generations to come. They alleged that despite repeated pleas, the Goalpara district forest authorities had done nothing to stop the illegal deforestation, while the Bikali Mouja Unnayan Samittee has been showing lackadaisical attitude in controlling the Dhupdhara weekly market where wood products procured illegally are sold. (Correspondent; The Assam Tribune; Guwahati; August 4, 1999)

IMPHAL, July 31: A peace body was formed in Sugnu area in the wake of recent clashes between the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (Isak-Muivah) and the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) in the Chakpikarong-Sugnu areas. The committee, meant for preservation of peace and harmony among the people, was formed by representatives of the various communities of the area. The decision to form the committee was taken at a public meeting of the chiefs of Anal, Kuki and Zou tribes and Meitei villagers as well as representatives of other communities from Chakpikarong, Sugnu, Serou, Western valley, Unopat, Thungcheng, Toupokpi, Wangkheira, Nungpen, Wapokpi and Toiyeng hill villages (Correspondent; The Assam Tribune; Guwahati; August 2, 1999)

NEW DELHI, August 2: The New Delhi cell of the Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights has urged the Union and Manipur governments to take necessary measures and action against the United Liberation Front of Manipur (UNLF) who "humiliated and tortured" innocent bus passengers belonging to the Anal Naga community after they were intercepted at Serou Lamkhai on July 17. The cell's convenor, Gam A. Shimray, in a release said the armed activists of the UNLF identified and segregated the Anal Nagas and dragged them down from the bus in which they were travelling and forced them to march towards the Serou River bank. They were lined up and beaten severely with thick wooden sticks and gun butts. The UNLF threatened them and stated that they should delete the suffix "Naga" and identify themselves as "Manipuri/Meitei". The elderly persons (mostly village chiefs of Chakpikarong area) were among the victims. They were told to issue a public statement on or before 31st July, 1999 accepting the dictate of the UNLF or face dire consequences. The rest were also told to report at Sazik Tampak (a Zou village) on or 31st July, 1999 and convey the decision of the Anal Naga tribe. Shimray said with the attack being carried out just after the announcement of the extension of ceasefire between the Indian government and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN), it seemed to be a well thought-out tactic by the UNLF to provoke the Nagas to retaliate and thereby disrupt the ongoing peace process. The NPMHR expressed surprise at the UNLF issuing a press statement on July 29, 1999 denying any such act. It condemned the "atrocities" committed by UNLF on the Nagas of Manipur and appealed to all individuals and organisations who believe in larger values of democracy to condemn and intervene to promote peaceful co-existence among the different communities living in the state of Manipur. (Press release; New Delhi; August 2, 1999)

KOHIMA, August 3: The ultimatum served to the Anal tribe of Manipur reportedly by the Meitei underground organisation, United National Liberation Front (UNLF), asking the community to declare themselves as Anal Meitei has evoked sharp criticism from many overground and underground Naga organisations including the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang). The NSCN (K) has asked the UNLF to immediately clarify the authenticity of the ultimatum served to the Anal Nagas. The NSCN(K) information and publicity secretary, Kughalu Mulatonu, in a release has said that his organisation under the leadership of SS Khaplang and Dally Mungro has been working towards the oneness of all the revolutionary organisations of the region in India and Myanmar inhabited by Mongoloids, and as such the "aggressive advocacy" of the UNLF was not admissible, neither by Anals or by any other Naga tribe and an act as this was an infringement on the rights to self-determination. Terming the ultimatum to the Anals as an "instigation of the occupational forces", Mulatonu called upon the UNLF, a constituent of the Indo-Burma Revolutionary Front (IBRF), a platform headed by SS Khaplang, "to review its course and justify the same as fraternal ties between the two sides cannot be derailed". The Anal Naga Taangpi (ANTA), the apex body of the Anals, categorically stated that Anal Nagas could never change their identity "historically, traditionally and racially" as per the whims or dictates of certain underground outfits. The Anal Naga Taangpi shall not allow underground organisations "to put their words into the mouths of the Anal Nagas to serve their vested interest under any circumstances", the ANTA president said in a press release. Earlier, on July 24, the ANTA in an emergency meeting had condemned the "inhumane attack and torture" perpetrated on innocent Anal Naga bus passengers living in and around Chakpikarong area recently by militants, believed to be members of the UNLF. That day, militants armed with sophisticated weapons stopped a bus at Serou Lamkhai, about 3 km east of Sugnu police station in Manipur and "dragged out" the passengers numbering 40 including women and children, the release said. It further said the armed men then forced the passengers to march about half-a-kilometre from the spot till they reached the bank of Serou river. Then they beat up some of the passengers and threatened the Anal passengers to declare their identity as Anal Manipuri through public statements in local dailies of Imphal to protect the "integrity" of Manipur. The passengers were also warned that the militants would not be responsible for any kind of "killing and burning down" of Anal villages in the near future if they failed to make the declaration. (Pradeep Pareek; The Assam Tribune; Guwahati; August 4, 1999)

KOHIMA, August 4: A joint delegation of the Naga Hoho, the Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR) and the Naga Students Federation (NSF) will visit Manipur's Chandel district to verify the reported threat to the Anal Naga tribe by an underground outfit of Manipur. In a release the NSF spokesperson, Vipopal Kiniso, and general secretary, Inaka Assumi, said the joint delegation, on its two-day visit, will verify the reported threats to the Anal Naga tribe by the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) to change their nomenclature to Anal Meitei or Anal Manipuri. The delegation will also meet various Naga social organisations and Naga people to discuss the issue. Terming the threat as "senseless and inhuman", it said the threat deserved condemnation from all and sought clarification from the UNLF about the situation. They also criticised the Manipur government for its inability to provide adequate security to the affected people and accused the government of having tacit understanding with the militant outfit, the release added. (UNI; The Assam Tribune; Guwahati; August 5, 1999)