Morung Express News
Kohima | October 8
The National Biological Diversity Act 2002 evoked a mixed response on the first day of the two days state level consultation meeting, which began today at the Imagine Nagaland Hall, with legal experts assuring that the Act would not impinge Article 371 (A), while the non-legal state officials, including the Minister for Urban Development, Dr Shurhozelie, apprehensive and seeking a review of the Act.
K N Chishi, Addl. Secretary, Justice and Law, opined that the Biodiversity Act will not impinge upon the special safe guard granted to Nagas under Article 371 (A), which also ensured the ownership and transfer of land and its resources of the Nagas.
“The Act 2002 per se does not impinge on the special safeguards spelled out under Article 371 (A) with special reference to sub clause (iv) (a) of Clause I”, Chishi said, while presenting a paper on “The biological Diversity Act 2002- Extend and applicability in Nagaland vis-à-vis Article 371 (A)”. He cited several sections and clauses from the Act to buttress his argument.
Another legal expert, Sanjay Upadhyay, Environmental Lawyer of Supreme Court, opined that the Act is the most relevant one as it is the direct outcome of the international law and is applicable in Nagaland state. However, he said that Nagaland state already has numerous state laws which relate to biodiversity. These include the Nagaland Forest Act, 1968, Nagaland Rules for Establishment and Control Forest of Villages of 1969, Nagaland Rules for Protection of Forests from Forest Fire 1969, Nagaland Jhum Land Act 1970 as well as the Nagaland Joint Forest Management Resolution of 1997, which impact the ecosystem and the diversity of Nagaland, he said.
“The most important legislation is obviously the Biological Diversity Act 2002, where certain restrictions on use of biological resources and knowledge exists and also confers rights related to such use on benefits claimers. Another crucial and novel aspect of the Act is the People’s Biodiversity Registers which is aimed to document and possibly protect such traditional knowledge”, Sanjay argued.
Sanjay also suggested that Article 371 (A) could be put to creative use in enacting legislation on conservation of biodiversity. “Article 371 (A) will not help us, unless it is translated into operational term. Can we use it more creatively?” Sanjay said. He also emphasized on the need to maintain linkage amongst the National Biodiversity Authority, State Biodiversity Board and Biodiversity Management Committee at the local level.
However, Dr Shurhozelie, in his inaugural speech, argued that although Nagaland have constituted a State Biodiversity Board under the said Act, a review is necessary with reference to protection of the rights of the people over their land and its resources and traditional knowledge.
“As every one is aware of the fact that our social, economic and cultural life revolves round the forest and its resources, it is important that the application of any Act dealing with such issues needs to be examined against the background of Article 371 (A), which accords special status to Nagaland state”, the Minister said.
Also the concept note of the meeting drafted by the NEPED was skeptical of the Act on the ground that it provides very limited role to local communities; no provisions for protecting traditional knowledge; inadequate definition of local body; provides ground for rejecting/revocation of Intellectual Property Rights; consultation with communities not defined and National authority has no representative of communities.
However, how the well the legislation may have been enacted, the fragile biodiversity appears to have no absolute immunity, as legal experts continued to expressed serious concern over two areas: that is the little or non-existence of legislation on genetic biodiversity conservation and security over the traditional knowledge after it is documented and made public domain. These two components, the experts said, would be vulnerable to piracy and other indiscriminate exploitations after it is documented and made public.
“We need to go cautiously on People Biodiversity Registers. Document only what has to be made public domain”, BMS Rathore IFS who also addressed the meeting warned, suggesting that legislation alone is not the ultimate protector of biodiversity.
The first day of the consultation made immense emphasis on the role of village council and VDB in the conservation of biodiversity. Rathore, citing the instance of Khezakenoma village, also opined that the strength of its local institutions like the Village Council and the VDB puts the State in a unique position to look at setting up of biodiversity management committees at the local level.
Earlier, the key note address was delivered by Alemtemshi Jamir, APC, while Dr RK Aima, Conservator of Forests, throw a light on the Strength and weakness of the NBA 2002 in the context of North East India.
Tomorrow on the second day, adoption of the summary of the consultation is expected to set new direction for the state in the implementation of the Act.
.jpg)
