The Indus Water Treaty Suspension: A Wake-Up Call for Asia–Pacific Unity ?

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Environment, Food and Agriculture, Headlines, Migration & Refugees, Peace, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Confluence of the Indus and Zanskar Rivers Credit: martinho Smart/shutterstock.com

May 12 2025 (IPS) –  
On April 23, India suspended the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), a 65-year-old agreement that had been a rare symbol of cooperation between India and Pakistan despite decades of hostility. The suspension came a day after militants attacked civilians in Jammu and Kashmir, a disputed region, killing 26 people, most of them Indian tourists. India accused Pakistan of supporting “cross-border terrorism” and responded by halting the treaty. Pakistan denied involvement in the attack and called India’s move an “act of war.”

The IWT, signed in 1960, was a landmark agreement that allowed the two countries to share the water of the Indus River system. It gave India control over the eastern tributaries (Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas), and Pakistan control over the western tributaries (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab). Beyond water-sharing, the treaty established mechanisms for data sharing, technical cooperation and dispute resolution. For decades, the treaty was celebrated as a triumph of diplomacy and environmental cooperation. But its suspension now threatens to unravel this legacy, with devastating consequences – especially for Pakistan.

Why the IWT Matters

Pakistan’s economy depends heavily on agriculture, which employs nearly 70% of its rural workforce. The Indus River irrigates 80% of the country’s farmland, making it a lifeline for millions. If India were to divert or reduce water flows, it could cripple Pakistan’s agriculture, triggering widespread food insecurity and economic instability. The stakes are high, and the consequences of failing to manage shared water resources responsibly would ripple far beyond Pakistan’s borders.

The timing of the IWT’s suspension couldn’t be worse. Climate and environmental risks are escalating across the Asia–Pacific region, with extreme weather events becoming more frequent and severe. Between 2008-2023, floods displaced 57 million people in India alone. In Pakistan, floods have not only destroyed homes but have also degraded soil quality, leaving farmers unable to grow enough crops to survive. These pressures are driving migration to cities, where migrants face exploitative conditions and often accrue large debts.

Climate Risks and Regional Instability

The link between climate change and regional instability is becoming impossible to ignore. In Central Asia, a 2021 clash over transboundary water resources between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan left 50 dead and displaced 10,000 others. In the Pacific, rising sea levels are forcing entire communities to relocate, sparking tensions in countries like Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Meanwhile, large-scale infrastructure projects, such as hydroelectric dams in Southeast Asia, are displacing thousands and straining relations between countries like Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.

The demand for critical minerals to build renewable energy sources is adding another layer of complexity. Competition between China and the U.S over these resources is heightening global tensions. Critical mineral mining is also fuelling exploitation and violence in mining regions, like the Philippines and Indonesia. These examples highlight a troubling reality: climate and environmental risks are not just environmental issues – they are also security issues.

The Case for Regional Cooperation

Responding to these challenges requires a collective approach. Climate risks don’t respect national borders, and attempting to tackle them in isolation is a losing strategy. Cooperation offers a way to pool resources, share knowledge, and build resilience. For low-income countries in particular, regional solidarity—through climate finance, data sharing and technological transfer—could mean the difference between survival or collapse.

But cooperation isn’t just about survival; it’s also about seizing opportunities. Joint climate action can strengthen regional ties, foster peace and create shared prosperity. Cross-border collaboration on climate and environmental issues can connect institutions, research communities, and civil society, laying the groundwork to tackle future challenges. By working together, the Asia–Pacific region can turn shared challenges into shared strengths.

The suspension of the IWT is a wake-up call. At a time when cooperation is more critical than ever, we cannot afford to let geopolitical tensions derail climate action. The Asia–Pacific region faces immense challenges, but it also holds immense potential. By prioritising collaboration over confrontation, the climate crisis could provide an opportunity for peace, resilience, and shared prosperity. The path forward won’t be easy, but it’s the only path worth taking.

Related articles:
Kashmir: Escalating to War?
Kashmir: Paradise Lost
India’s Climate Calamities
Leaky Roof: Melting Himalayas in the ‘Asian Century’

Sinéad Barry is an Analyst at adelphi’s Climate Diplomacy and Security programme.
Emma Whitaker is a Senior Advisor at adelphi’s Climate Diplomacy and Security programme.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Mexico Bans GM Corn Cultivation in Constitutional Reform: Action Follows Trade Ruling That Ignored Evidence of Genetic Contamination

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Economy & Trade, Food and Agriculture, Food Systems, Headlines, Health, Indigenous Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Michael Farrelly, AFSA

CAMBRIDGE, MA., Apr 30 2025 (IPS) – On March 17, Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum signed into law a constitutional reform banning the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) corn. The action followed a December ruling by a trade tribunal, under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement, in favor of a U.S. complaint that Mexico’s 2023 presidential decree, with broader restrictions on the consumption of GM corn, constituted an unfair trade practice by prohibiting the use of GM corn in tortillas.

The Mexican government publicly disagreed with the ruling, claiming that the three arbitrators had failed to consider the scientific evidence Mexico presented in the yearlong case. But the government chose to comply, rescinding the three specific parts of the decree deemed to limit future GM corn imports. Still, the government left intact the decree’s measures phasing out the use of the herbicide glyphosate, establishing a protocol for tracking GM corn imports into the country, and banning the cultivation of GM corn in the country.

The constitutional amendment enshrines that last measure in a more permanent manner. While GM corn has faced planting restrictions for more than a decade, the constitutional ban represents an important act of resistance and sovereignty, particularly in light of the flawed decision by the tribunal.

Trade panel fails to consider evidence

Corn is central to Mexico’s agriculture, cuisine, nutrition, and culture. Mexico is the center of origin for corn, where the crop was domesticated thousands of years ago. It remains at the core of the country’s farming, diet, and culture. As President Sheinbaum acknowledged in approving the constitutional ban on GM corn cultivation, “Sin maiz no hay pais” – without corn there is no country.

In defense of Mexico’s 2023 decree, the panel acknowledged that the government presented scientific evidence from qualified and reputable sources of “risks to human health arising from the direct consumption of GM corn grain in Mexico, and risks to native corn of transgenic contamination arising from the unintentional, unauthorized, and uncontrolled spread of GM corn in Mexico.” (That evidence is summarized in an extensive publication from Mexico’s national science agency.)

The trade tribunal dismissed concerns about such risks in its ruling, essentially giving itself a pass on reviewing the scientific evidence of human-health risks by arguing that Mexico had not conducted an approved risk assessment “based on relevant scientific principles,” a reference to prevailing international codes for such processes.

The panel also failed to evaluate the risks to native corn. Mexico presented strong evidence that GM corn has cross-pollinated native corn varieties, gene flow that threatens to undermine the genetic integrity of the country’s 64 “landraces” and more than 22,000 varieties adapted by farmers over millennia to different soils, altitudes, climates, foods, and customs.

The tribunal argued that no special protection from GM corn was needed because gene flow already takes place from non-GM hybrid varieties of corn, and GM contamination is no different from non-GM gene flow. “Mexico has not demonstrated how the threat to the traditions and livelihoods of indigenous and farming communities from GM corn is greater than the threat posed by non-native, non-GM corn,” the panel wrote. Cross-pollination from hybrid corn “could equally threaten the genetic integrity of native corn.”

Equating contamination from GM corn with that of hybrid corn is a serious misreading of the science and of Mexico’s culture. GMOs by definition – and by explicit definitions in the constitutional amendment – involve crossing species boundaries, introducing, for example, a gene from a bacterium into a corn plant to repel insects. In contrast, hybrid corn is produced by cross-breeding different corn varieties, the resulting offspring remaining pure corn, with no non-corn genes in its DNA.

Mexican farmers have a long history of developing some of their own cross-pollinated varieties, intentionally combining a native variety with a hybrid that has properties the farmer desires. Such cross-pollination has nothing in common with unwanted contamination from GM corn, imposed on farmers without their informed consent. They call it “genetic pollution.”

It can pose a long-term risk to native varieties. Transgenic traits do not always reveal themselves after contamination. That means farmers can unknowingly spread such contamination from their pollen year after year to other corn plants. Mexican researchers discovered such contamination in their 2013 survey of native corn varieties. Biotechnologist Antonio Serratos reported that some of the native varieties he found even within Mexico City had transgenic traits in their DNA.

“In Mexican fields, transgenic native maize is being created,” he told me at the time. ”If [GM] maize seeds are sold or exchanged, the contamination will grow exponentially. That is the point of no return.”

Seed-sharing under threat

The tribunal’s alternative recommendation for controlling unwanted gene flow suggested that “the informal seed exchange practices of indigenous and farming communities” was one of the “underlying issues” Mexico should address to prevent contamination instead of restricting imports.

Limiting seed-sharing is entirely at odds with the science of seed diversity and evolution, says researcher Erica Hagman, who helped prepare Mexico’s defense in the USMCA dispute. Mexico’s rich corn diversity is the direct result of millennia of adaptive practices by farmers in their fields. The tribunal’s suggestion that Mexico should limit such seed-sharing to prevent GM corn contamination runs counter to the practices of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity.

Mexico’s constitutional ban on GM corn cultivation ensures that such misguided reasoning will not guide public policy. The amendment was strengthened by proposals from civil society that extended the ban to new genetically engineered seeds by banning any crops “produced with techniques that overcome the natural barriers of reproduction or recombination, such as transgenics.” This limits some of the new generations of genetically engineered crops.

While the constitutional reform does not include some of the original language restricting GM corn consumption, no doubt in deference to the trade ruling, the final version shows a clear preference for non-GM crops, leaving the door open to tighter regulation.

Tania Monserrat Téllez from the Sin Maíz No Hay País coalition called the reform “a major step forward for the defense of native corn varieties, the health of the Mexican population, and the protection of Mexico’s biocultural heritage associated with corn.”

Timothy A. Wise is the author of Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food (New Press 2019) and a researcher at Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

How to Put the ‘Sexy’ Back into Agriculture – Thoughts From CGIAR Science Week

Posted on by admin

Africa, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Conferences, Cooperatives, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Food Systems, Global, Headlines, Population, Poverty & SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

Food Systems

Dr Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of CGIAR. Credit: Busani Bafana

Dr Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of CGIAR. Credit: Busani Bafana

NAIROBI, Apr 11 2025 (IPS) – This week presented a beacon of hope for young people so that the “girl from the South and the boy, of course” could stay in the developing world, Dr Ismahane Elouafi, Executive Managing Director of CGIAR, said during a press conference on the final day of the CGIAR Science Week.

Science and innovation could whet their appetites, especially as research and innovation can change the perception that it is a drudgery-filled occupation to one where there is room for ambition – and it made business sense.

“In the face of slow productivity and rising risks, the case is clear. Investing in agricultural research is one of the smartest and most future-proof decisions that anyone can make,” she said.

Elouafi, along with the other panellists Dr Eliud Kiplimo Kireger, the Director General of KALRO and Eluid Rugut, a youth agri-champion at the Ban Ki-moon Centre, alluded to the broad value chain of agriculture, which will make it attractive to young people.

Dr Eliud Kiplimo Kireger, the Director General of KALRO. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Dr Eliud Kiplimo Kireger, the Director General of KALRO. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Kireger commented that people say, “Agriculture is not sexy, and so we need to make it sexy,” and encourage young people into science. Apart from encouraging young kids into science, there was a space in it for young people who don’t want to see returns on their investments in years but in months.

Rugut’s personal experience backs the claim up; he told the press conference that he first had to convince his father to give him a little land – and this wasn’t an easy task. Rugut, who represents both the youth and a smallholder, said it was only once his father saw the benefits of the new technologies that he was prepared to give his son the benefit of the doubt.

“It was very hard to convince my dad to give us land, but over time, these technologies that I was trying to bring to the farm – like drip irrigation, water pumps and drought-tolerant seeds,” Rugut said, but in the end, “I was able to convince him. Also, my mom was able to convince him.”

Kireger said the week-long conference had shown the power of collaboration, especially because research was expensive and the need was great. However, digitisation had meant that a lot of the research was no longer stuck in the labs and was now in the hands of farmers.

and Eluid Rugut, a youth agri-champion at the Ban Ki-Moon Centre. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

Eluid Rugut, a youth agri-champion at the Ban Ki-Moon Centre. Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

He encouraged farmers (and the journalists at the conference) to take a look at the Google Play store, where there are KALRO apps.

“So, if you go to Google Play Store, you will find many KALRO apps which you can download onto your phone. So, if you’re a coffee farmer, for example, you can download a guide on your phone.”

This digitisation is key to scaling research and making it accessible.

Elouafi, too, said investment in agribusiness was crucial to transforming the sector There was a need for public-private partnerships so farmers were no longer only involved in production but down the value chain too.

“So strategic investment in agricultural research isn’t just necessary; it is economically smart. We have seen a USD 10 return on every dollar spent on research and development in the agriculture sector.”

She provided several examples. Participating in the value chain could transform USD 300 of wheat into USD 3000 through pasta production. Likewise with quinoa, millet and sorghum, which cost USD 4 in the market, with production, can fetch USD 50 to USD 100 per kilogram in the market.

This opportunity is where policies and subsidies come in, to put this potential into the hands of the farmers. “This is a gap we need to bridge,” Elouafi said.

Elouafi reported significant progress this week, particularly in addressing food insecurity. The achievements included the launch of the CGIAR research portfolio, the International Potato Centre (CIP) and KALRO biotech agreement, the IWMI water security strategy for East Africa, and the publication of CGIAR’s flagship report, Insight to Impact: A decision-maker’s guide to navigating food system science.

“Science week  has demonstrated the strength of partnerships. How together we can generate powerful tools, innovation, technologies, knowledge, institutions, policies – all of it – to deliver real-world impact for the communities that we serve.

“In the era of fake news and misinformation, our work, our impact, our partnership, and our commitment to the communities we serve are real, and our impact is real, and we need to have a much louder voice. We cannot let it up because the gap will be filled by misinformation.”

IPS UN Bureau Report,

 

Behind the Feeding of the 5,000 (or Should That Be 10,000) at CGIAR Science Week

Posted on by admin

Africa, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Change, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Global, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Poverty & SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Youth

Food and Agriculture

Ismahane Elouafi Executive Managing Director, CGIAR and Nairobi Chef Kiran Jethwa in discussion during the Good Food for All lunch at CGIAR Science Week 2025. Credit: CGIAR

Ismahane Elouafi
Executive Managing Director, CGIAR and Nairobi Chef Kiran Jethwa in discussion during the Good Food for All lunch at CGIAR Science Week 2025. Credit: CGIAR

NAIROBI, Apr 8 2025 (IPS) – Good Food for All is the motto of The Chef’s Manifesto, a project that brings together more than 1,500 chefs from around the world to explore how to ensure the food they prepare is planet-friendly and sustainable.

It was Nairobi Chef Kiran Jethwa who prepared a menu filled with locally sourced food for the thousands of  delegates on the first day at the GCIAR Science Week in Nairobi.

The menu included High Iron Red Kidney Bean and Biofortified Sweet Potato,  Swahili Curry with Toasted Ginger and Dhania, Tilapia Pilau with Omena (Native Small Fish), Slow Braised Kenyan Kinyeji Chicken Stew with Cassava, Arrow Root with Seared Terere (Amaranth and Millet and Jaegerry Halwa with Raisins and Roasted Cashews.

Delegates snaked towards the tent under beautiful trees on this most exotic United Nations campus situated near Kienyeji forest in Nairobi.

At the Chef's Manifesto lunch on the first day of CGIAR science week. Credit: IPS

At the Chef’s Manifesto lunch on the first day of CGIAR science week. Credit: IPS

Food is central to the debates here, where delegates debate how science can make a difference in the world where hunger is rampant (according to the United Nations, 3.1 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet) and climate change and conflict, among other issues, complicate food production.

As Prof. Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, who chaired the Council of the Wise session in the opening plenary, told the audience, the crisis we are in calls for bold action.

“We’re in a crisis because of climate change. We’re in a crisis because of environmental and health degradation… We are in crisis because of gender inequality, no jobs for our youth, and nutrition insecurity,” she said, and during this week “we are looking for solutions” to this in science.

Summing up the argument of former Prime Minister Dr. Ibrahim Assane Mayaki as AU Special Envoy for Food Systems, Sibanda coined a quote for social media.

“We are in a crisis and Dr. Mayaki says… We need more leaders who are scientists, because scientists solve problems.”

To applause, he agreed.

A healthy plate of sustainably sourced food. Credit: IPS

A healthy plate of sustainably sourced food. Credit: IPS

Former President of Mauritius, Dr. Ameenah Firdaus Gurib-Fakim, asked where the empowerment of women in agriculture was. “Food is produced mostly by women.”

And, she asked, how is it possible to get youth into agriculture?

Agriculture needs to break the stereotype of agriculture as a woman with a hoe breaking hard earth.

“We need the youth to realize that agriculture is a 1 trillion dollar business,” Gurib-Fakim said, emphasizing that it was time to change the narrative.

Sibanda agreed. “Can we have an education that is fit for purpose? Can we have women empowerment and youth as drivers of the food systems, research, and innovation?”

Former Prime Minister of the Republic of Guinea and expert in agricultural finance, Mohamed Beavogui, said it was time for “bold, practical, and inclusive solutions” for ensuring that what was produced on the land ended up on the plate.

Looking for a quotable quote, Sibanda summed it up as “LLP from the lab to the land to the plate, that’s a systems approach,” elaborating that CGIAR aims to reform the food, land, and water systems for food security globally.

“Please Tweet that,” she asked the audience, referring to X by its pre-Elon Musk name.

Finally, Sibanda asked former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan why we are still hungry, poor, and not preserving our biodiversity.

He didn’t believe that it was necessary to elect presidents that are scientists; he commented that in Africa leaders probably spend more time thinking about how to “hold onto leadership than thinking about their people.”

But getting the right mix into the cabinet was crucial—it was more about finding the right people and putting them in roles where they can make a difference.

Sibanda sums it up: “The president has to surround himself with the right people… to be game changers in the country.

Sibanda noted the session produced lots of “tweetable tweets.”

Summing up the panel’s view on policymaking, she said it was as messy and inexact—like “sausage making”—but needed to be “contextualized, evidence-based,” and those affected need to be consulted.

The “billboard” message, however, was that youth are the future and science should be at the forefront of agriculture.

IPS UN Bureau Report,

  Source

CGIAR Science Week Seeks Solutions for a Food-Secure, Climate Resilient Future

Posted on by admin

Africa, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Conservation, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Gender, Humanitarian Emergencies, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment, Youth

Food and Agriculture

Sweetpotato crossing block, Uganda. Reuben Ssali, a plant breeder Associate with the International Potato Center. Credit: CGIAR

Sweetpotato crossing block, Uganda. Reuben Ssali, a plant breeder Associate with the International Potato Center. Credit: CGIAR

NAIROBI, Apr 7 2025 (IPS) – CGIAR and the Kenyan Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) are bringing together the world’s leading scientists and decision-makers in agriculture, climate, and health for the first CGIAR Science Week. This gathering will be a key moment to advance research and innovation, inspire action, and establish critical partnerships that can secure investment in sustainable food systems for people and the planet.

IPS’ team of journalists, Busani Bafana, Joyce Chimbi, and Naureen Hossain, will bring you news and interviews throughout the week as the conference unfolds. This will include the launch of the CGIAR Research Portfolio 2025-2030 today (April 7, 2025).

IPS UN Bureau Report,

  Source

How Rare Rhino, Tiger Conservation Has Locked Out Indigenous Communities

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Conservation, Environment, Food and Agriculture, Headlines, Natural Resources, TerraViva United Nations

Conservation

A scene after the Press Conference by Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights protection committee with people holding the Press Conference banner. Credit: Pranab Doyle

Members of the Greater Kaziranga Land and Human
Rights protection committee. Credit: Pranab Doyle

NEW DELHI, Mar 21 2025 (IPS) – While a local community prides itself on caring for a sensitive biodiverse region, and despite centuries-long stewardship of the Kaziranga, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the authorities rebuff—sometimes aggressively—their attempts to remain involved.

Now the broader community, living close to tiger conservancies, has the threat of a wholesale eviction to contend with too.

“We take pride in the fact that the communities around Kaziranga have sacrificed so much to preserve this special biodiverse region. It is one of the areas where communities have sacrificed to protect one-horned rhinoceroses, tigers, and elephants and share a symbiotic relationship with them,” Pranab Doyle, convenor of Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights Committee and founder of All Kaziranga Affected Communities’ Rights Committee, says.

“But the forest department or the modern conservation industry is very antithetical to the way communities look at shared spaces.”

Kaziranga, a national park and a tiger project in Assam, India, is famous for the conservation of the Indian one-horned rhinoceros.

According to an article published in 2019, 102 one-horned rhinoceroses were killed in various parks in India between 2008 and 2018. There are also statistics for the number of poachers killed (40) and arrested (194). A more recent article says that in 2022 no rhinos were killed in the park. Rhinos in Asia and Africa are often poached for their horns, which are used in traditional medicine in some Asian countries.

Despite the success in combating poaching, the community faces conflict due to the wildlife authorities’ strong-arm tactics.

The community says there was a time when wildlife sanctuaries were used for grazing animals, as playgrounds, and for food baskets, and the community shared their crops with the animals living there.

However, because of the power vested in the forestry department, only wildlife or the department’s agenda is given consideration, the community says.

“This has led to a very militarized process in Kaziranga where multiple lines of military establishments are set in the name of protecting wildlife. There are special task forces, forest battalions, commando task forces, and the use of modern techniques of vigilance and armory in the name of poaching,” Doyle says.

Consequently, authorities often resort to victimizing people.

In 2010, a special power was given to the Indian Forest Service, where they were given immunity from prosecution when confronting poachers.

“In the year 2010, the Government conferred the power to use arms by forest officials and immunity to forest staff in the use of firearms under Section 197 (2) of the CrPC, 1973,” according to a press statement released in 2017.

Doyle disputes the official statistics and claims that since 2010, more than 100 people have died because of this law. He says that although there should be executive magistrate inquiries into it legally, there have been none.

According to the Oxpeckers Investigative Environmental Journalism website, investigations have included probes into poaching syndicates.

The strong-arm tactics used by the authorities result in a tense relationship.

“We have been constantly fighting against it, and as a result, the forest department treats us as their enemies. Instead of looking at us as people whose rights have been violated and giving us the opportunity to dialogue, they are treating us as criminals and have put multiple cases on us,” Doyle says. “We cannot go fishing in our own lakes, cultivate our own lands, and collect some basic minor forest products, which are traditionally a part of our culture, thereby annihilating everything that is our identity.”

According to the community, the authorities often cancel public meetings despite prior commitments and retaliate with legal action when pressured through mass agitation.

What is more concerning is the eviction of indigenous communities from around tiger protection reserves by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA).

Doyle claims that they want to evict 64,000 families from 54 tiger reserves in the country. Since 1972, the Indian government has evicted 56,247 families from 751 villages across 50 tiger reserves, according to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) data from 2019. The move has led to petitions and protests.

He says the law doesn’t give them the authority to pass an order of this magnitude.

“We as communities who live with tigers, elephants, and rhinos and have been living there for generations, strongly demand this order be revoked. It should be immediately taken into cognizance by all the bodies that claim to protect Indigenous rights and make the forest department accountable for it.”

Dr. Ashok Dhawale, President, of the All India Kisan Sabha and Polit Bureau Member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), says the exclusionary forest conservation measures that began during British colonization continued after independence.

“The (colonialist) government took control of the forests, seizing them from our tribal people. Although the forests had always belonged to the tribes, who protected them for generations, independence brought little change.

People expected that the forest lands would be returned to the tribal communities, but what was enacted was the Forest Conservation Act of 1980.

This law focused on conserving forests, not on protecting the rights of the people who had safeguarded them for centuries.

“To address this historical injustice—explicitly acknowledged in the act’s preamble—the Forest Rights Act was passed by Parliament in 2006 after immense struggles across the country. This landmark legislation sought to ensure that Adivasis (tribals) were granted ownership of the lands they have tilled and nurtured for generations.”

But since then, India has introduced laws and amendments that undermine the rights of tribal and forest communities.  The Jan Vishwas—People’s Promise, (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, aims to decriminalize and rationalize offenses to promote trust-based governance and facilitate ease of living and doing business. However, it also significantly enhances the powers of forest officers, raising concerns about its impact on the rights and livelihoods of these vulnerable communities.

Another major amendment, the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980, now known as Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Adhiniyam, enforced from December 1, 2023, has emphasized national security in the guise of implementing projects of national importance leading to heavy militarization in the respective areas, Dhawale says.

Madhuri Krishnaswami from Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sangathan (Awakened Tribal Dalit Community), Madhya Pradesh, says that all these legislative changes are designed to undermine the Forest Rights Act 2006.

Krishnaswami says that capital-driven business expansion harms the climate, yet ecologically sensitive communities are unfairly burdened with the blame.

Doyle adds that the relationship of indigenous communities with the land is deeply rooted.

“The survival and health of the land and environment depend on people acting as stewards to care for them—a fact proven throughout history. Instead of empowering communities to preserve and improve their environment, the state is evicting them under the pretext of climate degradation. This approach must be entirely rethought and redesigned to prioritize and support the very people who hold the solutions to combating climate change.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source