Full article pdf here
Revamping the Planning Commission
After the 2014 general elections and the
new NDA government assuming power at the centre, one of the first major policy
announcements was the winding up of the Planning Commission of India,
apparently because the Commission was seen as an outside agency that has taken
over too much of the power of budget formulation and allocation of funds that
should rightly be under the control of the government. By now, it seems a fait accompli that the Planning
Commission of India as we have known it is due to be closed down. At the same
time, the government has initiated an alternate body, called the Niti Ayog,
which seems to be intended as a policy advisory group (much like the National
Advisory Council in the UPA regime?). A spate of articles and papers has
appeared in the news media and scholarly journals, debating the pros and cons
of the issue, and suggesting the way forward, but there seems to be little
clarity on how the functions of the erstwhile Commission will be carried out in
the new dispensation. This article discusses aspects and processes of the old
Planning Commission, based on the experience of the forest sector, especially
in the preparation of the 12th
Five Year Plan document (2012-17) during the recent past, and on what lessons
can be drawn that may be helpful for the successor body to maintain both
internal consistency and external relevance.
Forest Sector in the Twelfth Plan –
aspirations and objectives
A question arises at the outset, of how a
sector-centric analysis of a national plan document could be couched. To just
say that the allocation is inadequate will not be very interesting, as any
conceivable plan could well leave more unfulfilled clients than satisfied ones.
We propose here to examine the 12th Plan proposals against the
plan’s own statement of goals and principles, i.e. analysing it for ‘internal
consistency’. It is also proposed to test the plan against the sector’s
priorities and objectives, i.e. the plan’s ‘external relevance’, and to draw
some general lessons on sectoral planning that may be useful for any successor
institution that may be set up.
“Environment, Forestry and Wildlife” are
covered in Chapter 7 of Volume I of the 12th Plan document (Planning
Commission, 2012). The “Vision” is laid out in Box 7.1 (p.202), which stresses
the objectives of managing environment, forests and wildlife for “faster and
equitable growth, where ecological security for sustainability and
inclusiveness is restored, equity in access to all environmental goods and
ecosystem services is assured through institution of people’s participation”,
and ”A future in which the nation takes pride in the quality of the
environment, forests, richness of its biodiversity, and efforts by the State
and its people to protect, expand and enrich it, for intra and
inter-generational equity and welfare of the local and global community.” Para 7.2 lists out the seminal concerns:
“equitable access to clean air and water, adaptation and mitigation of climate
change, conservation of biodiversity, sustainable forest management, safety in
the management of chemicals, wastes and other hazardous substances”. Both
“international cooperation and national efforts” are stated to be necessary to
achieve all these objectives.
The next paragraph, para 7.3, highlights
the resource constraints that have limited the effectiveness of environmental
and forest resources management in the past: the ministry of environment and
forest (MoEF) has been getting only Rs.2000 crores annually, a mere 0.012 per
cent of GDP, and less than 0.25% of the annual national budget, which calls for
a “substantial increase” in the investment for environmental protection and
sustainable management of natural resources. Para
7.4 highlights the need to incorporate environmental concerns into planning and
development activities in all the sectors, and para 7.5 expresses the hope that
other ministries will earmark resources for environment and greening in their
respective programs. Then follows a review of the Eleventh Plan.
Review of the 11th Plan (2007-12)
Out of the four environment related targets
cited from the 11th Plan, para 7.9 refers to the forest-specific
target of increasing forest and tree cover (FTC) by 5% of total land area of around
320 or million hectares (mha) over 5 years, which would have taken
the FTC from around 23.84% of total land area as per the State of Forest Report
2009 (see endnote 1) to 28.84%, or say an additional 16 mha. The plan document
states that the tree planting achievement has been around 1.5 mha a year during
the 11th Plan period, but “the actual increase in green cover is not
likely to be more than 5.0 million ha during the entire Plan period”(p.204).
Both the target and the impact need some clarification which is done in the
section on the 12th Plan targets (see below).
Proceeding with the 11th Plan
review, Para 7.15, highlights the importance
given to “Rationalisation of Schemes during the Eleventh Plan” (p.206) by
“suitably merging /clubbing its 68 smaller schemes into 22 thematic schemes”.
In the Forestry and Wildlife (F&WL) sector, one proposal for Afforestation
through Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI) “has been dropped following the
formulation of National Mission for Green India with similar objective on a
much higher scale”, leaving six schemes under Forestry, and five under Wildlife
including Animal Welfare at the end of the 11th Plan (ibid., p.406,
Table 7.1). Reducing the number of schemes was apparently a big priority and
matter of pride for the Commission, equally in the 12th Plan
document, ignoring its implications on sector planning and vision (see below,
and Planning Commissioner Advisor Mihir Shah’s article in the EPW, Shah, 2014).
Overall in the 11th Plan,
against total “approved outlay” of Rs.10,000 cr of the ministry for the whole 5 years (2007-12), “allocated”
or actually “sanctioned” outlay amounted to some 9231 cr through the “budgeted
expenditure”, whereas “actual
expenditure” amounted to around 8476 cr or 95% (ibid., p.207). Forests &
Wildlife (F&WL) and National Afforestation & Eco-Development Board
(NAEB) were together allotted a “sanctioned” outlay of Rs.6094 cr against which
the total “actual expenditure” was expected to come to some 4438 cr over the 11th
Plan period (Figure 7.2, p.208), or some 880 cr per year, which has to cover
both Forests and Wildlife (para 7.92 of the 12th Plan document puts the current central
assistance for afforestation programmes at only around Rs.350 cr per year,
ibid., p.225). These figures give a convenient ground
for comparing and assessing the budgetary support under the 12th
Plan proposals.
Guiding principles and objectives for the 12th Plan (2012-17)
Targets and action for the 12th
Plan are given from para 7.22 (p.207) and in Box 7.3, listing three “monitorable targets” in the areas of Environment and Climate
Change, four in Forestry, three targets under Wildlife, Ecotourism and Animal
Welfare, and two under Ecosystems and Biodiversity, and additionally “15 areas
which should receive special attention” presented in Box 7.4 (para 7.23). The main points are as follows.
Targets for F&WL (from Box 7.3
FORESTS AND
LIVELIHOOD
5. Greening of 5 mha under Green India Mission.
6. Technology-based monitoring of forest cover, biodiversity and growing
stock including change-monitoring on periodical basis through dedicated
satellite by 2017 and establishment of open web-based National Forestry and
Environmental Information system for research and public accessibility by 2015.
7. Engagement of Village Green Guards/Community Foresters for every
Joint Forest Management (JFM) village by 2016.
8. Establishing forestry seed bank in forest circles and Model Nursery
in every district.
WILDLIFE, ECOTOURISM AND ANIMAL WELFARE
9. Twenty per cent of veterinary professionals in the country will be
trained in treating wildlife.
10. Integrated Ecotourism District Plans covering 10 per cent of all
potential Protected Areas (PAs) by 2017.
11. Promoting participation of private sector, civil societies, NGOs
and philanthropists in animal welfare.
Goals (from Box 7.4
FORESTS AND
LIVELIHOOD
6. Improve forest
productivity, production and sustainable management of biodiversity (equity in
access to benefit sharing with local people).
7. Restoration and
intensification of forest-rangelands/grazing-land management and establish
community grazing land around forest fringe villages.
8. Build capacity of
Village Forest Committees/Joint Forestry Management Committees for management
of forest resources including ecotourism.
9. Revive seed
orchards and silviculture plots for various forest types of the country, as
well as, for enlisted species under Minor Forest Produce/Non Timber Forest
Produce (MFP/NTFP) including genetic improvement of and establishment of clonal
orchards.
WILDLIFE, ECOTOURISM
AND ANIMAL WELFARE
10. Reducing and
managing human–wildlife conflict.
11.
Commercialisation of permissible marine products rich in poly unsaturated fatty
acids (PUFAs), vitamins and so on.
12. Promotion of
ecotourism and participatory eco-development support livelihood of local
population.
An overall statement of “strategy” in para
7.24 lays out the importance of improvement in “environmental governance” and
moving toward a scientific and anticipative system based on sound objective
data. A major new proposal appears to be the establishment of a “high powered
body” called the National Environment and Forestry Council (NEFC) with the
Prime Minister as chairman and Environment Minister as vice-chairperson, with
representation from various ministries and a group of experts (para 7.31,
p.211). Its “primary function would be to bring in harmony in the functioning
of different Ministries and to ensure that the evolution of all policies, laws
and their implementation concerning development, of every kind, are in
conformity with the objectives outlined in the National Environmental Policy
(NEP), 2006”. Similar Councils are called for in the states, and “environmental
cells” in the ministries and departments at the centre and state governments
“to mainstream environmental concerns in their activities and programmes” (para
7.32). A “comprehensive review and reform” of laws concerning Environment, Forests,
Wildlife and Biodiversity will be undertaken in the Twelfth Plan in order to
make them “more effective, work in harmony with each other and address new
challenges” (para 7.33). In the specific context of forestry, review is
suggested for “Developing harmony in the working of laws in the sector with the
Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 1996” (ibid., page 212).
A multi-pronged approach to environmental regulation is also outlined,
involving creation or strengthening of institutions like a National
Environmental Monitoring Programme (para 7.37), a National Environment
Assessment and Monitoring Authority, NEAMA (para 7.38), creation of a National
Environment Restoration Fund, NERF (para 7.40), on the environment side of the
ministry. To strengthen livelihoods support, it is proposed to develop
non-timber forest products (NTFP) in a “holistic” way under an autonomous
agency with branches in all the states, and a new scheme is suggested for the
“overall management of NTFP resources including conservation and development of
an estimated 6 lakh ha as well as value addition and marketing support” (para
7.45). A new focus on pasture management and rangeland development on
“traditional grasslands on common/ revenue land around forest areas” is
proposed for improving the livelihoods, nutrition and quality of life of “all
fringe forest dwellers” (para 7.46). Of
direct relevance to forestry are the proposal for GIS-based mapping of areas
under the Forest Rights Act 2006 (para 7.47) and strengthening of the National
Forestry Information System (NFIS) to enable
“networking with States for tracking changes in forest development, harvesting,
trade and utilisation scenario with particular focus on issues of ownership and
rights under Forest Rights Act” (para 7.66), revival of the
Central Board of Forestry under the Prime Minister for policy development and
consultation (para 7.48), reorientation of the Indian Council for Forestry
Research & Education (ICFRE) on the lines of the Indian Council for
Agricultural Research (para 7.49), amending the Working Plan Code to
“incorporate new dimension” along with empowering the “cutting edge level
workers” for “transferring the rights in the field” (para 7.50), and creating a
“green fund” by imposing a forest development tax or eco-tax (para 7.51).
In respect of wildlife, the Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats
(IDWH) scheme would continue to be “the umbrella scheme for conservation and
management of wildlife” (para 7.52), tiger conservation led by the National
Tiger Conservation Authority would continue as a “flagship programme”, with
emphasis on some new aspects like buffer areas and voluntary relocation of
habitations along with regular monitoring of tiger population (para 7.52).
Project Elephant “needs a new focus under the plan through the creation of the
National Elephant Conservation Authority (NECA) and notification of critical
areas of Elephant Reserves as Ecologically Sensitive Areas under the
Environment (Protection) Act 1986”, and “special focus” is required on
mitigation of human–elephant conflict through
strengthening of the existing Project Elephant Scheme (para 7.53). In
addition, two new schemes are proposed: Operationalisation and Strengthening of
Ecotourism for Local Livelihoods, and Promoting Participation of Private Sector
and Philanthropists in Animal Welfare (para 7.55).
Now it remains to see how the 12th
Plan document proceeds to convert all these high-sounding principles and
objectives to concrete programmes on the ground (the test of ‘internal
consistency’ suggested above), and how these objectives gel with the actual
priorities of the forest sector (‘external relevance’).
Keywords: forestry, planning commission,
governance, budgets, India
Endnote 1. The State of Forest
Report (SFR) is
published once in two years by the Forest Survey of India, and is an assessment
of forest cover as per the satellite imagery obtained usually two years prior
to the year of publishing. This time lag (which seems to have been reduced over
successive years) used to be reflected in the naming scheme of the reports.
Thus, SFR 2005, prepared by mid-2007 (released actually in January 2008 as per
the PM’s message contained in it), pertains mostly to November-December 2004,
except for the north-east and Andaman & Nicobar Islands, which was based on
imagery of January-February 2005 (FSI, 2008). The next report to be published
in 2009 would have been named SFR 2007, but
the MoEF changed the naming convention, naming it SFR 2009, although it
reflected the satellite imagery of October 2006- March 2007. SFR 2007 therefore
does not exist. Subsequent reports have
been named the SFR 2011 (published actually in February 2012), reflecting the
position as per imagery of October 2008-March 2009, and SFR 2013, based on satellite imagery of October
2010-January 2013, formally released only in September 2014 (after the 2014 general elections), although the
copyright notification is dated 2013.
References
FSI. 2009. India
State of Forest
Report 2009. Forest Survey of India India
FSI. 2011. India
State of Forest
Report 2011. Forest Survey of India India
FSI. 2013. India
State of Forest
Report 2013. Forest Survey of India India
Government of India Mission for a Green India New
Delhi
ICFRE. 2012. Forest
Sector Report India 2010. Indian Council for Forestry Rsearch and Education,
Dehradun. Ministry of Environment & Forests. Government of India , New
Delhi
Planning Commission of India Volume I.
Government of India , New Delhi
Shah, Mihir. 2014. The “New” Planning Commission. (EPW Web Exclusives http://www.epw.in/web-exclusives/”new’-planning-commission.html, 30 August 2014).
No comments:
Post a Comment