Peoples Movements, Networks, Academicians, Researchers And Civil Society Organisations Reject The Draft National Forest Policy 2018

Demand a fresh policy is evolved through a deeply democratic consultation mechanism and scientific process

14 April 2018
Downloads:
Peoples Representation rejecting Draft National Forest Policy 2018

A nation-wide collective of peoples movements, forests peoples and workers struggle organisations, academics, researchers, civil society organisations, etc. have come together to comprehensively reject the Draft Forest Policy 2018 promoted by Indian Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change on the following key grounds, among others:

1)  Indian Environment Ministry has promoted the policy without participation of the Indian Ministry of Tribal Affairs as is mandatory as per the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

2) The policy has been promoted without the participation of the State and Local Governments as is required by the Constitution of India.

3) The policy has been developed without consultation with the Gram Sabhas and Forest Rights Committees, as is necessary per the Forest Rights Act 2006 and the National Biodiversity Authority, State Biodiversity Boards and Biodiversity Management Committees as required in the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Similarly, the policy has been drafted without conformance with Panchayat (Extention of Scheduled Areas), Act, 1996, Constitutional 73rd Amendment (Panchayat Raj) Act, 1992, Constitutional 74th Amendment (Nagarpalika) Act, 1992, as none of the Local Governments have been informed of the development of a policy in which they have an intrinsic role.

4) Overall, the policy is designed to defeat the fundamental features of the Forest Rights Act, as the effort of Ministry is to provide access to private sector to take over afforestation in so called “degraded forests” and “outside forests” by passing statutorily mandated clearance systems.

5) The policy makes no serious effort to comprehend the risks latent to India’s forests due to weak implementation of existing laws, and the need to protect natural ecosystems like grasslands and wetland ecosystems, which are biodiversity rich, but are not protected as though they are forests due to weaknesses latent in existing forest and natural ecosystem protection laws.

The signatories have therefore demanded that the Environment Ministry must withdraw this deeply problematic and undemocratic policy.  The existing Forest Policy 1988 needs to be reviewed based on a deeply democratic process, comprehending all the new legislations that have been enacted subsequently and ensuring the principle of cooperative federalism is respected. This would require Local Governments and State Governments must be actively involved in shaping the new policy, and the Central Environment and Tribal Affairs Ministry, and other Ministries which have a direct role (Eg. Rural Development), must facilitate such a process.

The representation submitted to the Government of India rejecting the Draft Forest Policy 2018 is enclosed.

Mr. C. K. Mishra, IAS
Secretary
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
Government of India

Mr. Noyal Thomas, IFS

Dy. Inspector General of Forest (Forest Policy)

Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change

Government of India

                                                                                                                        14thApril 2018

Reg.: Demand withdrawal of Draft National Forest Policy, 2018, issued for public comment on the website of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC)

 

Dear Mr. Mishra and Mr. Thomas,

The undersigned comprehensively reject the aforesaid policy as being void ab intiofor reasons stated below.

The draft policy is in violation of the Constitutional schema and applicable law and policy: 

1. As you are aware, an historic and unprecedented step taken by the Parliament of India to correct the “historical injustice” done to Adivasis and other forest dwelling communities over centuries is to “recognise and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land” with the enactment of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA 2006). Sec. 11 of the Act specifies that Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) “shall be the nodal agency for the implementation of the provisions of this Act”.
2. This proviso needs to be read with the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 (as amended up to 28thDecember 2017)[1]  (AOB Rules 1961), wherein the role of the MoEF&CC is delineated as “…responsible for overall policy in relation to forests, except all matters, including legislation, relating to the rights of forest dwelling Schedule Tribes on forest lands” (emphasis supplied).  The Rules  clarify that in “(a)ll matters including legislation relating to the rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes on forest lands” the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) “…shall be the nodal Ministry for overall policy, planning and coordination of programmes of development for the Scheduled Tribes.” This proviso was introduced pursuant to FRA 2006.  Consequently, any forest policy developed without the involvement of MOTA, as also a forest policy that is not proposed jointly with MOTA, is opposed to law.

3. Furthermore, the 11thSchedule of the Constitution of India mandates that, in matters relating to “Social forestry and farm forestry”, “Minor forest produce”, and “Welfare of the weaker sections, and in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes” in rural areas, Panchayat Raj institutions must be involved.  And as per the 12thSchedule of the Constitution, Nagarpalika institutions must be involved in all aspects relating to “Urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects” in urban areas. Besides, “Forests” are in the Concurrent list of the Constitution, thus participation of State Governments is mandatory in evolving a policy on forests.  The lack of State and Local Government participation in evolving a forest policy is thus in violation of the spirit of cooperative federalism that governs India.
4. Evidently, there has been no effort to involve State and Local Governments in the drafting of this policy.  Besides, the policy has not been co-promoted in consultation and in collaboration with MOTA, as is required by AOB 1961and FRA 2006. The latter law also requires that Gram Sabhas, in particular, must be involved in such matters. Moreover, in drafting this policy, MOEF&CC has not taken into confidence any State Biodiversity Board or the National Biodiversity Authority, as is required per the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Similarly, the State Wildlife Board and the National Wildlife Board have not been consulted, as is required per the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. While the FRA 2006 requires protection of critical wildlife habitats and protection of fundamental rights of adivasis and other forest dependent communities, the Panchayat Extension of Scheduled Areas Act, 1996 (PESA 1996) mandates a direct role for Gram Sabhas in governing common pool resources such as forests.  Sidestepping all these bodies, MoEF&CC has evolved the draft policy. This is not merely undemocratic. Such a process of policy formulation is illegal and unconstitutional and shows gross abuse of executive power.
5. According to the report of the National Forest Commission 2006, 1.73 lakh villages of the total 6.41 lakh villages in India (2011 Census) are located in and around forests.  Various estimates suggest that between 350-400 million people live in these forest villages. In such a scenario, any policy, scheme or programme that affects the rights of such a massive proportion of India’s population, who are intricately linked to forests, whose lives and livelihoods depend on such relationships, must necessarily satisfy the criteria laid out in the aforesaid laws. This draft policy fails comprehensively o this ground too.

Overstepping the MoEF&CC mandate as prescribed in Environment Protection Act, 1986:

 

1. The draft policy has been promoted in violation of the very spirit of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EPA 1986) which mandates that MOEF&CC must advocate environmental and forest protection measures in a spirit of cooperative federalism. That MoEF&CC is overstepping this mandate is evident at para 4.11 of the draft policy, interestingly under the title “harmonisation with other policies and laws”, where it is stated that “(a)s far as community forest resources management under Forest rights Act is concerned, the new policy will address the same under participatory forest management and the same will be addressed through the proposed community forest management mission”.  The irony is that a mere executive policy seeks to subordinate the functions of statutory rights and bodies such as Gram Sabhas and Forest Rights Committees to a “mission” evolved by the Ministry, in blatant violation of applicable law.  The draft policy goes further to clarify that “(n)ecessary collaborative steps will also be undertaken to ensure that the policies, laws and programmes of various sectors, both at Centre and State level are in harmony with the objectives of this policy” (emphasis supplied). Which means that it is not about getting the draft forest policy to “harmonis(e) with other policies and laws”. Instead, it is MoEF&CC unabashedly demanding that State and Central statutes are amended to fall in line with the draft forest  policy. This is unprecedented, a clear case of abuse of executive power, and an attack on the principle of cooperative federalism that forms the bedrock of India’s governance.
2. Despite such gross statutory and procedural irregularities, MoEF&CC intends to constitute National and State Forestry Boards employing this policy.  The rationale for constitution of such Boards is not elucidated anywhere in the policy. There is also no account of any debate in Parliament or any Legislature, or in any regulatory or public forum, about the need for such a body.  Given that the Boards so promoted would oversee implementation of the proposed Forest Policy, by the Centre and States, and given also that rights protected under FRA 2006 would be directly impacted, MoEF&CC is mandatorily required to consult with and take into confidence MOTA and State Governments in such matters, for reasons cited above.  Sec. 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EPA 1986) allows MoEF&CC to create authorities and boards only if they do not trample on the rights and privileges of other Central Ministries and the powers of the State Governments. In fact, it is required that MoEF&CC execute this power only in conformance with AOB 1961 and FRA 2006.  It is settled law that the provisions of a general, and earlier, law, such as EPA 1986, is subordinate to a specific and later law, such as the FRA 2006.  Thus, the manner in which these Boards are promoted constitutes a clear case of over-reach of executive powers vested in MoEF&CC.

Efforts to hand over forests to private sector unconstitutional, ecologically destructive and an attack on livelihoods of Adivasis and other forest dependent communities:

 

1. Forests and all such resources are the sovereign property of the peoples of this country and the State is only a custodian, as per Article 39 of the Constitution.  The critical importance of governing forests and other such common pool resources within this framework has been upheld in various rulings of the Supreme Court of India, in particular invoking the Doctrine of Public Trust in M. C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath[2].India’s forests, therefore, are not investment opportunities for the corporate sector and cannot be allowed to be turned into assets to be traded on stock markets for private profit.
2. Yet, in gross disregard for the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions, the draft policy claims that “continuously declining investments in the sector present new challenges for forest management in the country” (para 1.4) and therefore there is a need for “(p)ublic private participation models… (to) be developed for undertaking Afforestation and reforestation activities in degraded forest areas and forest areas available with Forest Development Corporations and outside forests” (para 4.1.1 (d)). The claim that there are so called “degraded” forests is specious, at best, and the new category of “outside forests” (whatever that means) is unprecedented, for there is no such classification of forests in any law. In that sense, this policy is clearly an attempt to promote takeover of India’s sovereign forest resources by the private sector by any means possible. This is more than likely to result in foreign ownership of India’s forests because of complex financial cross-holdings that is the nature of corporations today. Such a problematic scenario has already become a major problem in other continents, resulting in various complexities and injustices.  We staunchly oppose any move to hand over our forests to the private sector.
3. A matter of grave concern to us is that MoEF&CC is promoting massive monoculture corporate plantations of exotic species such as Eucalyptus and Casuarina for commercial exploitation and production forestry.   Monocultures devastate forest biodiversity and millions of associated livelihoods.  Monocultures are in no way to be considered forests.  Yet the draft policy is promoting such industrial growth of trees, mainly to feed the pulp wood sector, and is claiming that these plantations are forests. In so doing, it seeks to divert community forests and various other categories of forests to industrial plantations. Adivasis, in particular, have suffered due to propagation and expansion of such monoculture tree farms.  Massive movements have emerged over the decades to stop such monocultures in taking over forests. These people’s movements have tirelessly worked to reclaim forests and to regenerate them as havens of biodiversity that are supportive of local livelihoods, local nutrition, to nourish the catchments of rivers, and also to provide minor forest produce and timber for local housing needs.  Not once does the draft policy acknowledge the importance of encouraging growth of trees to support timber demands for housing in rural areas, for instance.  The whole policy is stacked to favour private sector entry into tree plantations.
4. For local communities, forests aren’t just trees or revenue generators, as is often perceived in production forestry. Biodiversity-rich forests support evolution of life and livelihoods. Forests, and such other natural ecosystems, cultivate good water nourishing millions of streams and springs and hundreds of rivers, and are thus the basis of India’s water security. Besides they extend and protect food, soil, ecological and livelihoods securities.  In this context, it is shocking that senior-most forest officials of the country are keen to commodify, financialise, commercialise and privatise forests.  This is nothing but re-colonisation of India’s forests by the private sector, a throwback to colonial times. We are shocked this policy is being promoted by Government of India!

Draft Forest Policy reflects weak or no understanding of India’s biological diversity: 

1. Once again, MoEF&CC has promoted areas with trees as worth conserving as forests. This notwithstanding the fact that the 2011 Report of the Task Force on Grasslands and Deserts by the Planning Commission[3]cautioned that “Grasslands and deserts are the most neglected ecosystems by the Ministry of Environment and Forests which looks after biodiversity conservation in India”. Grasslands are critical in providing grass and fodder for over 500 million livestock population of India, and thus extending socio-economic security for millions of farmers, pastoralists, cattle traders and artisans.  They also are habitats for a variety of wild races of food crops (grasses), which might be critical to building food security in adapting to climate change. Besides, these landscapes are habitat for critically endangered species as the Great Indian Bustard, Indian Wolf, Lesser Florican, etc.  Yet, there is no mention at all in the policy of the importance of protecting grasslands.  Similarly, there is no acknowledgement of the critical and urgent need to protect wetlands and coastal ecosystems, which are highly productive and diverse ecosystems.  Like grasslands, they too play a major role in carbon sequestration and reversing global warming. These aspects seem lost on MoEF&CC.
2. Some critical aspects that ought to have been considered in drafting this policy is that over a quarter of India’s population depend on forests for their ecological security.  The need to safeguard the ecological integrity of natural ecosystems, advancement of biodiversity conservation, acknowledgement of ecosystem services they render and for the active promotion of forest based livelihoods is fundamental therefore. Ecological restoration of grasslands, wetlands, coastal commons and diverse forest types should have been the thrust areas of such a policy.  Instead, the emphasis is on promoting monoculture plantations.  It is therefore evident that those who framed the policy have failed to appreciate the intricate relationships that exist between people, biodiversity, culture, livelihoods and the diverse ecological regimes of India.

Condemn the fraudulent claim there is no money for afforestation and environmental conservation:

 

1. A key premise for promoting private sector into “degraded” and “outside” forests to develop industrial tree parks, is the claim by MoEF&CC that there is “continuously declining investments in the sector”. However, MoEF&CC has recently admitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an astonishing Rs. 90,000 crores is lying unused under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority, money that accrued from small fees collected for forest felling and diversions.[4]Quite clearly, therefore, there is no dearth of money for forests and environmental conservation activities. Such funds are meant to be used to regenerate forests and rebuild forest based livelihoods, in collaboration with Gram Sabhas and Forest Rights Committees all across India. Instead, the Ministry has used a fraudulent claim of “declining investments” to justify private sector entry into forests, and this is deeply worrying. We staunchly oppose any such moves.

Our demands:

 

1. This draft forest policy has been developed by an undemocratic process, is fraught with procedural and statutory violations, promotes schemes, programmes and interventions that are opposed to public policy and the Constitution of India.  For these reasons, we hold that this policy is void ab initio and reject this draft policy in toto.
2. Our forests are ours to keep and conserve. Forests are the sovereign property of the peoples of this country and we will not allow our forests to be forfeited. We will never allow them to be privatised.  We will not allow ill-thought policies like this draft forest policy, motivated to exploit nature for private profit, to take root in this biologically diverse country.  We will not allow the displacement of millions that will follow due to such myopic and ill-informed thinking by a few based in the nation’s capital. We are deeply concerned that the draft policy promotes interventions which might exacerbate prevailing socio-economic distress, spread discontents and result in unprecedented destruction of our biodiversity.  We will not allow this to happen.
3. The richness of India’s biodiversity is mainly due to the incredible ethos of her peoples, particularly the Adivasis and other forest dwelling communities who have protected forests from ancient times.  We vehemently protest and condemn MoEF&CC for even proposing the very idea of privatising forests, as this directly amounts to attacking the fundamental rights of vulnerable communities such as Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwelling Communities.
4. In responding to the ecological and environmental challenges of our times, in particular those posed by climate change, and also to reflect the implications of new statutes relating to forests, such FRA 2006, PESA 1996, CAMPA 2016, etc., it is necessary that a new forest policy must be evolved. We demand that such a policy be evolved jointly by MoEF&CC and MOTA as required per AOB 1961 and FRA 2006.  Such a policy would also be based on due consultations with all required Central Ministries, all State Governments and Union Territories, and Local Governments as is mandated PESA 1996, Constitutional 73rdAmendment (Panchayat Raj) Act, 1992, and Constitutional 74thAmendment (Nagarpalika) Act, 1992.
5. This is best done transparently and by holding nation-wide discussions and debates.  MoEF&CC and MOTA must  develop a working paper detailing features that ought to be in the new Forest policy, and circulate it widely, in particular to State Governments, Biodiversity Boards, Forest Departments, District Administrations, Local Governments, etc.  A policy that evolves from this process must prescribe schemes and programmes which conform to the framework prescribed in Article 39 of the Constitution.  This must be translated by MoEF&CC into all official languages and then disseminated to every Gram Sabha through the District administrations, so there are genuine consultations and the Principle of Prior and Informed Consent is upheld in finalising a policy.  Anything less would be undemocratic and unconstitutional.
6. Finally, we wish to convey our deep displeasure about the manner in which the Ministry has sought to invite comments on the instant draft policy: that it has to be submitted by email alone, and in pdf or word formats. We find such methods undemocratic, favouring the privileged, and therefore clearly unacceptable.  Ministry officials must know that less than 25% of India’s population has access to the internet and two-thirds of this section lives in cities. Therefore, to mandate that comments must only be electronically filed amounts to a policy of active exclusion of the wide public in evolving public policy, particularly of people living in forest villages.  For this reason alone the draft Forest Policy 2018 must be withdrawn.

Yours truly,

Leo F. Saldanha, Coordinator, Environment Support Group, Bangalore (Address for communication listed below)

Kshitij Urs, Regional Manager, Action Aid Association, Bangalore

Prof. Babu Mathew, National Law School of India University, Bangalore

Nandini B. K., Action Aid Association, Bangalore

Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)

Ashok Chowdhury, All India Union of Forest Working People(AIUFWP), Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh

Nandini Sundar, Professor, Department of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi

Amita Baviskar, Professor of Sociology , Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi

Himanshu Thakkar, Coordinator, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People

Ranjan Panda, Combat Climate Change Network, India

Suprabha Seshan, Ashoka Fellow, Bangalore

Aruna Rodrigues, Sunray Harvesters, Mhow, M.P.

Sanjeev Kumar, Delhi Solidarity Group

Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey and Shankar Singh, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), National Campaign for People’s Right to Information and NAPM

Prafulla Samantara, Lok Shakti Abhiyan, and NAPM, Odisha

Binayak Sen and Kavita Srivastava, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)

Madhu Bhushan, Activist-writer-researcher, Bangalore
Geetanjoy Sahu, Tata Institute of Social Science, Mumbai
Kavitha Kuruganti, Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA)

Gabriele Dietrich, Penn UrimayIyakkam, Madurai and NAPM (Tamilnadu)
Geetha Ramakrishnan, Unorganised Sector Workers Federation, NAPM, (Tamilnadu)
Sandeep Pandey, Socialist Party and NAPM, Uttar Pradesh

Jagdish Krishnaswamy, Senior Fellow, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE)

Om Prakash Singh, Executive Director, Citizen consumer and Civic Action Group (CAG), Chennai
P. Chennaiah, Andhra Pradesh Vyavasaya Vruthidarula Union-APVVU and National Centre For Labour and NAPM (Andhra Pradesh)

Ram Wangkheirakpam, Indigenous Perspectives, Imphal, Manipur

Anil K Singh, Secretary General, South Asian Network for Social & Agricultural Development (SANSAD), New Delhi
Kalyan Varma, Independent filmmaker
Sister Celia, Domestic Workers Union, and NAPM, Karnataka
Maj Gen (Retd) S. G. Vombatkere, Mysuru, NAPM, Karnataka
Arundhati Dhuru, Manesh Gupta, NAPM, Uttar Pradesh
Vilayodi Venugopal, CR Neelakandan and Prof. Kusumam NAPM, Kerala
Anand Mazgaonkar and Krishnakant, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, NAPM, Gujarat
Ramakrishnam Raju, United Forum for RTI and NAPM (Andhra Pradesh)
Vimal Bhai, Matu Jansangathan, NAPM, Uttarakhand

Manshi Asher, Himdhara Collective, HP
Akshay Jasrotia and Prakash Bhandari, Himachal Van Adhikar Manch, HP
Neeraj Mahar, Research Fellow, Wildlife Institute of India, Uttarakhand
Harender Awasthi, Mahakali Lok Sangathan, Pithoragarh
Manoj Matwal, Harela Society, Pithoragarh
Pradip Kishen, New Delhi
Dayamani Barla, Aadivasi-Moolnivasi Astivtva Raksha Samiti, NAPM, Jharkhand
Dr. Sunilam and Adv. Aradhna Bhargava, Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, and NAPM, Madhya Pradesh
Samar Bagchi and Amitava Mitra, NAPM, West Bengal
Suniti SR, Suhas Kolhekar, and Prasad Bagwe, NAPM ,Maharashtra
Citizens Concern for Dams and Development (CCDD)

Mapithel Dam Affected Villages Organization (MDAVO)
Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur  (CRAM)

Basant Kumar Hetamsaria and Ashok Verma, NAPM Jharkhand
Kailash Meena, NAPM, Rajasthan
Gautam Bandopadhyay, NAPM, Chhattisgarh
Anjali Bharadwaj, National Campaign for People’s Right to Information and NAPM
Kaladas Dahariya, RELAA, Chhatisgarh
Meera Sanghamitra, NAPM Telangana-Andhra Pradesh
Bhupender Singh Rawat, Jan Sangharsh Vahini, NAPM, Delhi
Faisal Khan, Khudai Khidmatgar, NAPM Haryana
J S Walia, NAPM Haryana

Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), New Delhi
Dr. Mira Shiva, Initiative for Health & Equity in Society

Lingraj Azad, Samajwadi Jan Parishad, Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti, and NAPM, Odisha
Guruwant Singh, NAPM Punjab

Nayana Udayshankar, Equitable Tourism Options, Bangalore
Richa Singh, Sangatin Kisan Mazdoor Sangathan, NAPM Uttar Pradesh
Arul Doss, NAPM (Tamilnadu)
Jabar Singh, NAPM, Uttarakhand
Sister Dorothy, NAPM Bihar
Kamayani Swami and Ashish Ranjan, Jan Jagran Shakti Sangathan, and NAPM, Bihar
Mahendra Yadav, Kosi Navnirman Manch, NAPM, Bihar
Bilal Khan, Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan, Mumbai and NAPM
Rajendra Ravi, Nanhu Prasad, Madhuresh Kumar, Sunita Rani, Amit Kumar, Himshi Singh, Uma, NAPM, Delhi

Nitin Rai, Fellow, ATREE, Bangalore
Aaquib Zabed Mazumder, Rajesh Serupally, NAPM, Telangana – Andhra Pradesh
Amit K, Researcher, National Alliance of People’s Movements

Purnendu S. Kavoori

Azim Premji Univrsity
Dr. A.K. Malhotra and Pamela Gale Malhotra – Trustees, SAI (Save Animals Initiative) Sanctuary Trust, State – Karnataka
Afsar Jafri and Shalmali Guttal, Focus on the Global South
Bargi Bandh Visthapit Avam Prabhavit Sangh, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh
Chutka Sangharsh Samiti, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

Mallika Virdi, Sarpanch, Sarmoli-Jainti Van Panchayat, Uttarakhand

K Ramnarayan, Sarmoli, Munsiari, Uttarakhand

Emmanuel Theophilus, Munsiari, Uttarakhand

Seetha Ananthasivan, Executive Director, Bhoomi Network and Prakriya Green Wisdom School, Bangalore

Arun V, Students of Sea Turtle Conservation Network (SSTCN), Chennai.

Joe Athialy, Executive Director, Centre for Financial Accountability, Delhi
Dr. Arati Chokshi, Bangalore

K Nagarajan, Bangalore

Kushboo, Action Aid

Jodh Andrews, Action Aid

Sherin Resba V, Action Aid

Divya Gupta, ATREE

Prithvi Raj, Action Aid

Sidda

Ajay

K B gowda

Babu, Hunsur

Sahilendra Kumar,H D Kote, Mysore

Rajesh M, Hunsur

Keerthu,Hunsur

Ramana, Sagara

Renuka, Pariyapattana

Usha, Radio Active

Manjula, Radio Active

Pushpa Achanta, Bangalore

Sheshadri Ramaswamy, Bangalore

A Sapaya Shanthi, Visthar

Aravinda MK, Bethangady

Harish, Malekudiya Sangha

Ashok, Samagra gramina Ashram

Pradeep Ramavath, NLSIU

Chandrashekhar, NLSIU

Linitha Mathur, NLSIU

Sowmini G Prasad, NLSIU

Neeliah, RFC- Swaraj

A Vatsala

Krishna Chakravarthy, Bangalore Media Center

Srinivara, Action Aid

M. Eswara, PCRW-K

Anganika Gogo, The Scott Copy (IIJNM)

Vedika, Azim Premji University

Nayantara, Azim Premji University

Dhwani, Azim Premji University

Khanjan, Azim Premji University

Chitra Ravi, Azim Premji University

Sucheta Nanda , Azim Prem University

Maya Kilpadi, Editor, Earth Magazine, Bangalore

Sheshadri Ramaswamy, Forest Friend, Bengaluru

Amulya Kumar Nayak, Odisha

Kamayani Bali Mahabal, Mumbai
Revati P, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bengaluru

Dr Harini Nagendra, Ecologist, Bangalore

Citizen consumer and civic Action Group (CAG), Chennai

Raghu, CERD, Pondicherry

Ramesh, PSF

Chandrasekar, Bangaru Vaickal Neeradhara Koottamaippu

Probir Banerjee, PondyCAN

C. H. Balamohanan, Alliance for Good Governance (AGG)

Bratindi Jena, Knowledge Activist Hub Natural Resources, Bhubaneshwar

Samir Mehta, International Rivers South Asia

Simar Kohli, Lifetide Water Collective

Dunu Roy, Hazards Center, New Delhi

Radha Holla, Independent Researcher, Noida

Selvam, Tamil Nadu Organic Farmers federation

Dr. Shirdi Prasad Tekur, Bangalore

Francis Guntipilly, Bangalore

Vandana Prasad

Anil Singh

S. S. Rajani, Bangalore

Dr Palla Trinadharao, Advocate and Researcher

Cc.:

Dr. Harsh Vardhan, Union Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Govt of India

Dr. Mahesh Sharma, Union Minister of State for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Govt of India

Mr. Jual Oram, Union Minister for Tribal Affairs, Govt. of India

Mr. Jaswantsinh Sumanbhai Bhabhor, Union Minister of State for Tribal Affairs, Govt. of India

Mr. Sudarshan Bhagat, Union Minister of State for Tribal Affairs, Govt. of India

Ms. Leena Nair, Secretary, Ministry for Tribal Affair, Govt. of India

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha, Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India

Prime Minister’s Office

Parliamentarians

Environment and Forest Ministers and Departments of State Governments and Union Territories

Address for communication:

Environment Support Group

1572, Ring Road, Banashankari II Stage

Bangalore 560070

Email:[email protected]

Cell: +91-9448377403

Tel: +91-80-26713560~61

---

[1]    The Rules may be accessed at: https://cabsec.gov.in/writereaddata/allocationbusinessrule/completeaobrules/english/1_Upload_1368.pdf

[2]    M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, WP (C) 182/1996, Supreme Court of India, in decision dated 13 December 1996.

[3]    This report may be accessed at: http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp11/tf11_grass.pdf

[4]    See, “Give details of CAMPA funds: Supreme Court tells Centre”, Indian Express, 11thApril 2018, accessible at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/give-details-on-use-of-campa-funds-supreme-court-tells-centre-5132338/

campaigns,biodiversity,tree felling,hasiru usiru,Draft National Forest Policy 2018,Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,Ministry of Tribal Affairs