- News Home
17 April 2014 12:48 pm ,
Vol. 344 ,
Officials last week revealed that the U.S. contribution to ITER could cost $3.9 billion by 2034—roughly four times the...
An experimental hepatitis B drug that looked safe in animal trials tragically killed five of 15 patients in 1993. Now,...
Using the two high-quality genomes that exist for Neandertals and Denisovans, researchers find clues to gene activity...
A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that humanity has done little to slow...
Astronomers have discovered an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf—a star cooler than the sun—500...
Three years ago, Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University proposed that a warming Arctic was altering the behavior of the...
- 17 April 2014 12:48 pm , Vol. 344 , #6181
- About Us
Indian Activists Release Disputed Report
27 September 2005 (All day)
NEW DELHI--Next week, an Indian advocacy group plans to release a massive report on biodiversity that the government commissioned but decided to shelve. It's the latest twist in a bitter battle over a 4-year study that the government once praised for its "highly participatory approach" and that outside experts see as a model for other nations.
The 1300-page report, entitled Securing India's Future--Final Technical Report of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, was commissioned in 2000 by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to look at how the country should manage its rich biodiversity. It concludes that "India's model of development is inherently unsustainable and destructive to biodiversity." Needed improvements, it says, include more attention to the economic and human rights of traditional cultures and greater grassroots participation in government decisions that affect biodiversity.
Last December, ministry officials told Indian legislators that the report, which was submitted to the government early last year, should not be released because its "numerous discrepancies, scientific inaccuracies, and implausible and unacceptable recommendations" would subject the government "to great embarrassment and invite international ridicule and criticism." Shortly after, it wrote to Kalpavriksh, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Pune that has been a central player in the study, that the report "should not be published/distributed either in full or part thereof."
But Kalpavriksh plans to defy that order and release the report. "I don't see how such recommendations can damage India's reputation," says lead author Ashish Kothari, a sociologist working with the organization.
The report is part of India's obligatory response as a signer of the Convention on Biodiversity. The Global Environment Facility put up $1 million for the study, conducted through the India office of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Kothari says that more than 50,000 people around the country were involved in the report, which includes both action plans and background papers.
UNDP's Jo Scheuer calls the process that produced the report "wonderful" and says it is regarded as an "international best practice" by the global biodiversity community. Ecologist Walter Reid, former director of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Science, 1 April, p. 41), says that the Indian exercise "is one of the few that's been taken seriously and had a chance of making a significant impact. It would be a real tragedy if it was not used."
Ministry officials declined further comment on the status of the report. Kothari says that the document to be released next week corrects a few dozen "factual mistakes" contained in the final version.
With reporting by Erik Stokstad.