We’ve been having the FAO workshop for the Asia-Pacific on Urban & Peri-urban forestry at Delhi these couple of days (5-7 Marc h 2012). Manoj Dabas and his team of the Aravalli Foundation for Education organised it with their usual thoroughness and attention to detail, in the lovely conference hall at the India International Centre.
On this subject, which is very dear to me as well, there is a separate sub-Mission in the Greening India Mission. We have distinctly listed out different types of opportunities in this area. Firstly, and for the Forest Departments the most urgent and important, are the patches of notified forest and revenue lands under their charge, which will be engulfed by developing layouts and roads if they are not CORDONED OFF by a physical boundary … a wall, or more aesthetically, a half wall topped by a tall railing or chain-link fence (there’s not much difference in cost between a masonry wall and a fence, so if long life and effectiveness are the objective, a wall is better). That’s what protects Lalbagh gardens in Bangalore, and that’s what will protect the Ridge forests in Delhi.
Then there are lands under various institutions… colleges and institutes, industries, corporations, then defence establishments, and so on, many of which have much more land than they will ever develop (and, in the case of dying entities like many Public Sector Undertakings which I shall not name, more than they can look after). These lands were given decades back when the nation was newly independent. They are all potential woodlands. In fact, those around Bangalore can probably be worked just for the sandal trees (Santalum album), on a sustained basis for a good many years: the species regenerates profusely, though the sandal poachers will not allow any tree to grow to an old age. These lands are generally well protrcted behind high walls, and so can be easily kept under green cover without much difficulty.
Thirdly, there are all the bits and pieces of vacant land, strips and verges under different agencies, with different levels of protection. These require special attention and tricks to protect the vegetation. Finally, there are the lands under households and small office plots, which are again fairly well protected.
One of the points I have had to make repeatedly, is that these lands, especially the unfenced forest patches and municipal plots, will not survive unless there is a combination of a framework of strong laws, strong judicial enforcement, physical protection by a dedicated cadre and department like the Forest Department, assisted and supported by a willing community. There are any number of land sharks waiting to swallow these lands, or use them to dump rubble or garbage (especially the case for wetlands and depressions as a land-fill process, the first step to taking them over). Ceaseless, round-the-clock physical protection and prevention is required. It is in this context that the fashion nowadays to focus solely on “tenure”, as a panacea, is puzzling. Have these experts who harp only on this, not actually experienced these situations? The people on the ground, the communities, do not themselves demand it; they know that the strong arm of the law and enforcement is required to keep the land ‘mafia’ at bay. To the … how shall I put it without offending… urban genteel well-intentioned liberal, however, it becomes the most attractive choice to press the so-called win-win solution of handing over title to the community. It’s also a very populist solution that leaves everybody gratified, except of course the poor custodian (the forest watcher or guard), who now has no legal backing.
Luckily, there are enough sensible people on all sides in the field, who will maintain a balance between these ideas and interests. A lot of common sense goes into our actions in the field, and hopefully they will take the opportunity of the GIM to effectively protect and save our remaining urban and peri-urban open spaces.
What is the use of these open spaces, and how must they be managed and utilised? In my experience, their highest value is as an ‘amenity’ space for ordinary people, to have their morning or evening walks, commune with nature, breathe a little fresh air, give a little relief to their families from the oppressive life in crowded places. I’ve seen how in small towns old people have nowhere to walk, except these little patches preserved by the Forest or Horticulture Departments. Then, neeedless to say, there are all the other co-benefits of soil and water conservation, moderating the extremes of climate, providing a refuge for all forms of life (animals, birds, plants, insects, etc.). A great exercise of restraint has to be done, however, to keep out that destroyer of natural greenery, the dread program of ‘eco-development’, especially in its PPP (Public Private Partnership) avatar. This is nothing but a ploy to hand over these priceless urban open patches to private developers, to build shopping centres, theatres, malls and other such imaginative structures to make profit. Instead, let the residents’ committee organise some watchmen, collect some modest fees, and just maintain the natural vegetation and keep out anti-social elements. There are enough other locations for commercial ventures.
No comments:
Post a Comment