0759-C1

An Analysis of Policy Framework for Mountain Development in the Northwest Himalayas, India

A.K. Gulati^[1] and H.K. Gupta

Abstract

All over the world mountains are being increasingly recognized as distinct development areas from plains. Mountains pose specific challenges for development of policies, strategies and planning processes for integrated and sustainable development of these areas and people living there. Existing sectoral policies for natural resource management are found to be mono-functional. Experience shows that these policies are unsuitable for integrated and sustainable mountain development and show dominance of downstream interests. The present paper analyses the existing policies of the Government of India (GOI) and the Mountain State of Himachal Pradesh (GoHP) in the Northwest Himalayas. Conflicts in policies on forests, land use, environment, water, agriculture and grazing have been analysed to focus on the need for developing a holistic policy framework.

Seven key principles of the Swiss Development Corporation and the nine-point key issues framework of United Nations University for development of Mountain policies is used to analyse the existing GOI and GoHP policies on natural resources. The analysis shows that existing policies are non-holistic, non-compatible, non-coherent, non-complementary and non-community-oriented and hardly address the key principles and issues. Inter-policy and intra-policy conflicts and contradictions are also discussed. The analytical framework of the seven key mountain principles and the nine key mountain issues can be used for convergence and revision of existing policies for framing integrated multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder policies for mountains as distinct from plains. Efforts to develop such an integrated mountain policy for Himachal Pradesh are briefly discussed.

Abbreviations used in text: Government of India (GOI), Government of Himachal Pradesh (GoHP), Mountain Agenda (MA), Swiss Development Corporation (SDC), United Nations University (UNU), Minor Forest Produce(MFP)

Introduction

Mountains have grandeur, beauty and spiritual aura. Mountain are fragile eco-systems and globally recognized as water towers, sources of hydroelectric energy, mineral wealth, repository of biological diversity, centers of culture and traditional knowledge, tourist attraction, indicators of climate change and regulator of meteorological conditions and above all areas of integrated land use. Mountains occupy 20% of earth's landmass, are the source of 50% water and 10% of world's population depends on it.

The public perceptions of mountains have undergone a sea change in the last 30 years. Sustainable development of mountains is now considered critical for sustainable development of lowlands and impinging heavily on world society as a whole. The mountains are being increasingly recognized as areas needing integrated watershed based policies and separate planning instruments.

The hill areas of India, comprising the Himalayas and Western-Ghats, constitute about 21 percent of the India's geographical area and support nine percent of the total population. The mountains provide sustenance not only to the people living there but also act as life support system for the societies in the valleys and plains. Despite the importance of mountains in sustainable development, the specific challenges of development in mountains are rarely reflected in National Policies and instruments (Mountain Agenda, 2002). The policies lack mountain focus. Sectoral development models suitable for plains are advocated to be enforced and implemented in the name of equitable sustainable development. Policies, legal frameworks and institutional arrangements adopted for mountain development in Himalayas in India too, follow this universal approach.

Consequently, the development in Himalayas lack coherence causing degradation of environment, deforestation, soil erosion, floods, poverty, out-migration, loss of bio-diversity and cultural heritage, vanishing of traditional systems of community management, alienation of and deprivation of benefits to mountain people. To end political and economic marginalization of Himalayas and its people, policies, laws and instruments with specific mountain focus are needed to be developed both at National and Local levels.

Present Study

The present study analyses the existing policy frameworks of Government of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh. National and State level policies for natural resources are assessed in terms of framework of seven key principles and nine keys issues of sustainable mountain development described in Mountain Agenda by Swiss Development Agency and United Nations University (2002). Inter-policies and intra-policy conflicts are also discussed. Efforts to develop a multi-sector, multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholders policy and strategy in Himachal Pradesh are also discussed.

The Study Area - The Himalayas

The Himalayas, the youngest mountains regions of the world are 2500 kms long from east to west, and width ranging 250-300 kilometers. Himalayan landmass of 6,50,000 km² is spread over, India, China, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar and Bangladesh. About 85% Himalayan landmass occurs in India, occupy 15% of country's area and support 65 million people. Himalayas are the source of the perennial river systems of Indus, Ganges and the Brahmputra and sustain agricultural production in the Indo-Gangetic plains.

For geographical, topographical and anthropogenic reasons, the Himalayan eco-system is extremely ecologically fragile. Large scale human activities in the past few decades, particularly extensive deforestation, intensive farming on slopes, heavy human and livestock pressure and the adverse impacts of roads and mining have resulted in continual environmental degradation and depletion of life support systems.

The Himachal Pradesh

The State of Himachal Pradesh (latitudes 30^o-22'-40" to 30^o-12'-40"North and longitudes 75^o-47'-55"to 79^o-04'-20" East) lie in Northwest Himalayas.The elevation varies between 350-6975 meters. The state is source of four major rivers of India: Ravi, Beas, Satluj and Chenab and forms catchment of Ganges and Yamuna rivers. 67% of geographical area of the State, out of 55,673 km² is classified as forests. However forests occur on only 13082 km² (23.5%) (FSI 1999).

Key Policy Principals for Sustainable Mountain Development

Mountain agenda of SDC & CDE, 2002 have identified following seven key principles for mountain policy development.

1. Recognize mountain areas as important and specific areas of development;

2. Compensate for environmental services and goods provided to low lands;

3. Diversify into other livelihood options and provide benefits of complementarities to communities;

4. Take advantage of local potential for innovation;

5. Preserve cultural change without loss of identity;

6. Conserve mountain eco-system and its early warning functions; and

7. Institutionalize sustainable development of mountain areas.

Key policy issues for sustainable mountain development

United Nations University (Jansky etal.2002) has identified nine key issues that supplement the seven key principles that need to be addressed in formulation of policy framework for mountains. These are:

1. strengthening of knowledge about the mountain eco-systems;

2. capacity building of mountain communities;

3. maintenance and development of cultural diversity;

4. holistic and inter-disciplinary management strategies for environmental conservation and sustainable development;

5. dissemination of more, realistic and accurate information;

6. attention to urban aspects of mountains;

7. empowerment of local communities especially women;

8. attention to conflicts and resulting destruction of mountain eco-system; promoting integrated watershed development and alternative livelihood opportunities.

Existing GoI and GoHP Policies for Mountain Development

Policies formulated by Government of India and Himachal Pradesh that impinge upon mountain development are: -

Table 1 Policy Documents

Analysis of adequacy of GoI and GoHP Policies

Tables 2 and 3 present the evaluation of GOI & GoHP policies against key principles and key issues. The analysis shows that existing policy frameworks have a) strong lowlands (plains) focus and b) sectoral perspective promoting mono-functional resource use. The policies are thus, inadequate in addressing the key issues of sustainable mountain development. Most of the key principles and key issues are either not addressed at all or briefly mentioned in passing. Therefore, none of these policies are holistic, compatible, complementary and based on fundamental principles of mountain development and address key issues.

The analysis further reveals that there are a number of inter and intra policy conflicts within these polices. These conflicts are summarized and discussed in Tables 4 to 7.

TABLE 2 Evaluation of GOI and GoHP policies in terms of Key Principles of Mountain Development

TABLE 3 Evaluation of GOI and GoHP policies in terms of 'Key Issues' of mountain development

Conflicts and contradictions in GOI and GoHP policies

(a) Government of India Policies

i) Inter-Policy conflicts

First National Forest Policy of India enunciated in 1894 provided guidelines for uniform management of government forests over the entire country. This Forest Policy revised in 1952 stressed on increasing production of forestry goods. The new 1988 Forest Policy seeks to re-orient Forest Management by involving communities.

Many provisions of National Forest Policy, 1988 are in conflict with provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Indian Wildlife Act, 1972 and with National policies on Water, Agriculture and Land Use (GOI 1988; 2000; 2002). These are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Contradictions in National Forest Policy 1988 with other policies and Acts

ii) Intra-Policy conflicts:

The intra-policy contradictions are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5 Intra-policy contradictions in Government of India policies

*Quoted in Saxena, 1999.

(b) GoHP Policies

(i) Inter- Policy conflicts

The inter-policy conflicts between GoHP policies on forest with grazing, water, eco-tourism and environment are highlighted in Table 6.

Table 6 Conflicts of GoHP Forest Policy, 1980 with other State Policies

Intra-Policy conflicts:

The contradictions within various provisions of GoHP Forest Policy 1980 are presented in Table 7.

Table 7 The Contradictions within GoHP Forest Policy, 1980

Discussion

GOI policies are concerned mainly with the development of plain areas and lack coherence. State policies are adaptation of GOI policies without a mountain focus. GOI Forest Policy, 1988 addresses the issue of involvement of communities from State's perspective rather than from People's perspective. The Agriculture and Water Policies hardly mention preservation of forests in catchment areas and conservation and production of ground water. Agriculture Policy does not recognize forests as agriculture production support system. It emphasizes actions for increasing on-farmland production only and not off-farmland conservation actions and increasing production of its support systems (e.g. forest).Water Policy is driven by need to supply adequate water only.

The State Forest Policy, 1980 emphasizes exploitation of forests. The Grazing Policy continues to overlook the disastrous affects of continued and unabated grazing in pasture lands and forest areas. The Environment Policy prescribes sectoral guidelines only. The Eco-tourism Policy has no safeguards for environment. It retains the typical governmental control on all community activities. The Water Policy does not address issue of community participation in watershed's management, encouraging traditional systems of water management and sources and sustainability of water availability by conserving the forest cover. As water becomes increasingly scarce, Water Policy must ensure equal distribution between rural and urban areas.

Initiatives taken

Himachal Pradesh Forest Department mandated to seek partnership of local communities has initiated a reform process to acquire the facilitator's role and shed its regulatory image. For this a Forest Sector Review (FSR) was completed in 2000.The recommendations of FSR will form the basis for developing a holistic, multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholders Policy and Strategy. The New Forest Policy that will emerge out of this reform process aims to empower the people to implement sustainable resource management mechanisms in the State.

References

The State of Forest Report, 1999. Forest Survey of India, Dehradun, 18 p.

GoHP, 1970. Report of the Grazing Advisory Committee of GoHP, 50 p.

GoHP, 1980. State Forest Policy, Department of Forest Farming and Environmental Conservation 12 p.

GoHP, 2001. Environment Policy, 48 p.

GoHP, 2001. Eco-Tourism Policy, Himachal Pradesh Forest Department, 9 p.

GoHP, 2002. Draft Water Policy of Government of Himachal Pradesh, 16 p.

GOI, 1988, National Forest Policy, 1988, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi, 3 p.

GOI, 2000. National Agriculture Policy, Ministry of Agriculture. GOI, 12 p.

GOI, 2002. National Water Policy, Ministry of Water Resource, GOI 9 p.

Jansky, L.K. Furuyashiki and J.D. Ives 2002. Mountain Momentum: Agenda for today and policy beyond IYM 2002, United Nations University, Japan, 27 p.

Mountain Agenda, 2002. Mountain of the World Sustainable Development in Mountain Areas, The Need for Adequate Policies and Instruments, SDC, Switzerland, 55 p.

Saxena, N.C, 1999. Forest policy in India, Joint Forest Management, series 1, WWF for Nature and IIED, London, 37 p.