Decentralization to the Centre Stage in Climate Governance

The first draft of the Green India Mission under National Action Plan for Climate Change was released on 24th May, 2010 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). Public consultations on this draft were held in 7 cities across the country starting with Guwahati on 11th June ending on 5th July in Mysore.
The main objectives of the mission are ⁱ:

• Doubling the area to be taken up for afforestation /eco-restoration in India in the next 10 years, taking the total area to be afforested or eco-restored to 20 million ha.
• Increasing the GHG removals by India’s forests to 6.35% of India’s annual total GHG emissions by the year 2020 (an increase of 1.5% over what it would be in the absence of the Mission). This would require an increase in above and below ground biomass in 10 million ha of forests/ecosystems, resulting in increased carbon sequestration of 43 million tons CO2-equivalent annually.
• Enhancing the resilience of forests/ecosystems being treated under the Mission – enhance infiltration, groundwater recharge, stream and spring flows, biodiversity value, provisioning of services (fuel wood, fodder, timber, NTFPs, etc.) to help local communities adapt to climatic variability.

In the third public consultation held at Pune on 19th June, 2010 the MoEF minister Mr Jairam Ramesh said “We seek to bring about a change in the relationship between the people and the forest department. We will ensure transparency and a system of social audits”ⁱⁱ and true to his words some changes to this effect can be seen in the final draft of Green India Mission submitted to the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change on 11th October 2010.
The major points that repetitively came up in these public consultations were that only a half hearted attempt had been made to involve the people and civil society in the mission’s strategies and the need for a greater devolution of power to the institutions of local governance like Gram Sabhas.

Power of public consultations
At long last we can see that the ministry has reflected on the outcome of these public consultations at right earnest. So the biggest change from the first to the final draft is the inclusion of “Strengthening Institutions for Decentralized Forest Governance” as one of the mission strategy ⁱⁱⁱ.

The newest draft has mooted the idea of a village-level institution dealing with protection and management of forests to be set up by the Gram Sabha to act as a platform of convergence of resources and integrated planning at the village level. Also the final draft looks to the non-government organizations to take a lead along with government organizations to engage a diversity of institutions for larger landscape-level governance/management and make use of the learning gained from past successes and failures in this process.

Power to the People
Also one of the major criticisms of the first draft in the media was with regards to continued role/interference of the state bureaucracy in the form of institutions like FDA. For example in an article in the July issue of frontline the author argues that primacy of the gram sabha has not been taken this to its logical conclusion^iv and it would have made a real difference to decentralized governance if the local governance bodies like Gram Sabhas had been given more autonomy and power to plan and implement activities without the intervention of state governments’ representatives like the FDAs (Forest Development Agencies).

This mission now seems is being shaped to bring about long overdue reforms in many of the bureaucratic institutions of the state forest departments like FDAs. Greater representation to the elected representatives of Zila Parishad in FDAs has been proposed to ensure program convergence with Panchayati Raj institutions. A major revamping of JFMCs and FDAs is on the cards.

Looking at the positive record of JFMCs, Van Panchayats and SHG federations in the past at forest protection, conservation and livelihood activities a greater role for these have been envisaged in the final draft. As a result of this under the head of support activities the allotted budget for Livelihood improvement activities has taken a jump from 5% to 17% of the total mission target costs, to stand at rupees 5780 crores ^v. The pie charts depict this change. It further enunciates that the Mission will examine provisions of the Indian Forest Act to provide power of a forest officer to the JFM committee.

The apathy surrounding public hearings conducted during environmental clearance of industrial projects in our country is an open secret. Most often than not, they are mere exercises in public relations. Seen in this light and context, what the latest round of public consultations have achieved post the release of version 1.0 of mission document on National Mission for a Green India is momentous. Perhaps it would not be hyperbolic to say that it signifies the maturing of India as a democracy.

ⁱNational Mission For A Green India, Draft submitted to Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change
ⁱⁱ Green India Mission is not business as usual, says Jairam, http://www.hindu.com/2010/06/20/stories/2010062062471700.htm
ⁱⁱⁱMission Strategy, National Mission For A Green India, Draft submitted to Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change
^ivGreen goals, Frontline, Volume 27 - Issue 15, Jul. 17-30, 2010, http://www.flonnet.com/fl2715/stories/20100730271509000.htm
^vAnnex 1, TENTATIVE MISSION COSTS, National Mission for A Green India, Draft submitted to Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change and Annex 1, TENTATIVE MISSION COSTS, National Mission for A Green India, DRAFT MISSION DOCUMENT, VERSION 1.0, 24TH MAY, 2010