The New Nation - Internet Edition

Ashok K. Behuria

The political forces in Pakistan would like the Army to stay on as a prop, an insurance against any politician with despotic ambitions, comments Ashok K. Behuria

Pakistan is getting ready for the next elections amid many uncertainties. General Musharraf is caught between the PPP (Pakistan People's Party) and PML-Q (Pakistan Muslim League Quaid-i-Azam). Benazir Bhutto is back in Pakistan without any express assurance that she could have a third term as prime minister. Chaudhury Shujaat Hussain is undecided about Musharraf's reconciliation proposals and is hobnobbing with PML-Nawaz. Within the PPP, Benazir is soft on Musharraf while veteran party leader Aitzaz Ahsan is baying for the General's blood. The MMA (Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal) is torn from within; Qazi Hussain wants total confrontation while Maulana Fazlur Rehman wants cautious accommodation. Anti-Musharraf combines like the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) and All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM) are defunct. The MQM (Muttahida Quami Movement) is sitting on the fence. Every political actor who counts appears tentative about his/her next move.

The judiciary is proactive. However, it is vacillating between the lure of taking on the Army and the anxiety that it may overreach in provoking the Army to undermine the institution of judiciary itself. Issues awaiting the judiciary's pronouncement include the return of the Sharifs, legality of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), and Musharraf's re-election as president with uniform. Each issue has the potential of setting Pakistan on a roller coaster ride.

Meanwhile, there have been three interesting opinion polls, which provide some clues about the popular perception of the political situation in the country. The first, by the International Republican Institute (IRI) of the US Republican Party, came seven days before Benazir landed in Pakistan. It said that Musharraf, Benazir and Nawaz had popularity ratings of 21%, 28% and 36% respectively; Musharraf, it may be noted, had 63% approval rating in a poll conducted by IRI in September 2006. Another interesting turn in the results was the massive opposition to Musharraf's re-election with uniform (74%). In February 2007, just before he moved against the Chief Justice, more than 50% had approved of his re-election as President.

Another poll, conducted by ACNielsen Pakistan for WorldPublicOpinion.org weeks before Benazir's return, but brought out on 20 October, suggested that Musharraf, Benazir and Nawaz had popularity ratings of 21%, 27% and 21% respectively. The latest, by Outlook India, says that the attack on Benazir has not kicked off any sympathy wave in her favour.

In other words, Musharraf's popularity has plummeted since the episode involving Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry; while Nawaz Sharif's has risen since his aborted trip back home in September. Benazir has found it difficult to go beyond the 20-30% mark in popularity ratings for a long time. Her deal with Musharraf has rather depleted her support base among the moderates.

Let us now see the electoral prospect of different parties, as almost 78 mn Pakistani electorate get ready to elect 272 members of the National Assembly and 577 members of the provincial assemblies. The political situation, as it obtains today, gives Benazir's PPP a distinct lead over others in rural Sindh, while urban Sindh is likely to side with MQM. Benazir has some committed followers in Punjab, and given the PPP's past performance, it may win about 10-15% of popular vote from the province in a situation most favourable to her. The rest of the Punjab will be divided between pro-Musharraf and pro-Nawaz forces, with Jamiat-i-Islami likely to secure its share of 45% of popular votes.

The last local elections in August 2005 showed the declining influence of MMA in the NWFP (North West Frontier Province). But with state action against the militants in full swing, the MMA, especially JUI-F (Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam Fazl), is likely to retain its hold in the province. Popular disenchantment with MMA may shift marginally towards the nationalists and thus the Awami National Party (ANP) may stage a better performance. PPP and PML-Q are unlikely to sping any electoral surprise, while PML-N may show some gains because of its anti-Musharraf image and its sympathies for Islam.

Popular sympathy in Balochistan is likely to be divided between JUI-F and Baloch nationalist parties. If the nationalist forces come together, which does not seem impossible now, they may score an unprecedented electoral success in the province. If the PPP forms an alliance with these forces, the combine will be even more formidable.

In all likelihood, Pakistan is heading for a hung Assembly with the existing political groups and alliances. The uncertainties can change the direction of Pakistani politics ? towards or away from democracy ? but not the electoral prospects of the political groups seeking power through ballot. Unforeseen events such as assassination of prominent political leaders could, however, change the situation dramatically.

The only institution that will survive all uncertainties is the Pakistan Army, with or without Musharraf. It is the only professionally organised political force in Pakistan that has been perpetually in power and seeking more power in opportune moments. With Musharraf it has substantial support from the moderates. Even with plummeting approval ratings if Musharraf still carries a significant 21% support. But for his 'unforced errors' in recent months, he would still be on top. Even his worst critics admit that but for his overriding zeal to stay in power, his hands are clean and he is more open to criticism than any of his predecessors in uniform.

In case the Army considers it necessary to dump Musharraf if his popularity shrinks further and political forces muster up nationwide support against him and take to the streets in the worst-case scenario, the Army will hardly lose anything by getting back to the barracks and calling the shots from there. Musharraf has obliged the US too much, too long, and is sure to be rewarded with a comfortable retirement in some posh villa in the West.

However, it is highly improbable that the hopelessly divided political forces would come together to pose a challenge to the Army and force it to stay in the barracks. Rather, they would like the Army to stay on as a prop, an insurance against any ambitious politician who would seek dictatorial power by manipulating the democratic system. The Army, on its part, will never be in a position to rule directly for long. It will seek collaborators and fragment the political forces and usher in an imperfect democratic system that may keep the door open for the Army in the future. The future of Pakistan has its roots in its past. The more things change, the more they will remain the same.

(Source: Asian Affairs)

Am Johal

Environmentalists and researchers say that climate change is a significant factor in the pine beetle epidemic that has ravaged forests in the western Canadian provinces of British Columbia (BC) and Alberta.

In some areas of the BC interior, almost 80 percent of the lodgepole pines will have been devastated by the beetles within 10 years, resulting in widespread economic consequences, according to resource experts.

"The pine beetle infestation is the first major climate change crisis in Canada," Doug McArthur, a professor of public policy at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, told IPS.

"The pine beetle has survived the warmer winters due to global warming. The result is the rapid cut of forests to salvage the wood, which could, within seven or eight years, result in some communities being without a forestry industry which has sustained many regions for decades. The potential economic impact of this climate change issue is massive," he said.

A temperature of -40 degrees Celsius for a few days is needed in the winters to kill off the beetle adequately. Ben Parfitt, a resource policy analyst with the BC chapter of the non-profit Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, told IPS, "To contextualise the magnitude of the devastation, it is probably the biggest landscape-level change since the ice age."

"There are forestry disease issues across the continent right now," he said. "The pine beetle has hit lodgepole pine, but it could spread across the continent to boreal forests as well. This could very well be only the beginning of the implications of climate change for forests in North America and other parts of the world." The beetles kill the trees by boring through the bark into the phloem layer on which they feed and in which eggs are laid. Canada's boreal forests account for nearly one-third of the world's total forest area.

Parfitt added, "This could hit 25 percent of the trees in BC, and in interior areas like Quesnel, 80 percent of the trees could be unsalvageable within five to 10 years." Proponents of logging in the beetle-infested areas say it reduces the risk of forest fires by removing dead wood, and allowing surviving stands to recover and regrow faster. But Parfitt and others believe it has contributed to the current situation by leaving older trees susceptible to the insect.

"There have also been disease manifestations in Alaskan spruce and other insect outbreaks in other areas of North America where climate change has been a contributing factor," said Parfitt.

Eric Doherty, a board member of the Vancouver-based Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, told IPS, "Without a doubt, the consumption levels of first world urban centres and transportation policies which contribute to the ecological footprint are a contributing factor in climate change and symptoms of it, such as the pine beetle crisis."

"We have to deal with the root cause of the problem, which is to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions. Climate change is underway and we have to adapt to the changes. On the ground, in the forest, it is difficult to deal with this in the short term," he said. "It has to be a comprehensive and long-term approach by governments."

Rob Duncan, a spokesperson with the Sierra Club of Canada, agreed that the core issue is climate change.

"When the government found out about the infestation, they developed a management strategy which was about salvaging as much wood as possible by logging it as much as possible for commercial purposes," he said. "The warmer weather in the winters allowed the beetle to proliferate to a size over 9 million hectares."

"It was a gold rush mentality which resulted in cutting down what were essentially community futures without thinking about long-term timber supply and basic issues of sustainability and long-term viability," he told IPS. "It was a short-sighted approach."

Duncan added, "We need a mind shift to adequately deal with the problem. It is a symptom of climate change which can only be dealt with by radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There has been a six percent CO2 increase [in Canada] as a result of the policies to cut the trees down faster. Trees are carbon neutral, but when you cut them down the release is instantaneous."

Aboriginal communities have also been impacted. The annual cut in BC's interior has increased by a third, to about 12.73 million logs, according to BC journalist Terry Glavin. This increase, plus the growing beetle infestation, has changed wildlife migration patterns, which has affected traditional hunting.

Over the next five to 10 years, an estimated 250,000 people, both indigenous and non-indigenous, could be directly and indirectly affected if the situation does not change.

Canada's Globe and Mail paper reported that the federal government is redirecting 74.8 million dollars from its mountain pine beetle fund to help communities in the BC interior diversify their economies and support major transportation infrastructure. The federal government has promised to spend 936 million dollars over a decade to mitigate the impacts of the beetle epidemic, but interior communities have said that the funding has come too late to deal with the problem, which first emerged in the mid-1990s.

In late March, the federal government announced that it would make 23 million dollars available immediately to British Columbia to fight the spread of the pine beetle along the BC-Alberta border. The combination of global warming and the increased supply of older trees due to improved forest fire prevention methods has increased the potential territory which the beetle could impact.

On Apr. 12, the government of Alberta declared a state of emergency over the mountain pine beetle when the infestation increased from 19,000 trees last year to 3 million this year. The invasion has stretched south to the Kananaskis Country region and the eastern slopes of the Rockies.

Many First Nations peoples in British Columbia traditionally used the wood from lodgepole pine for a variety of purposes, including poles for lodges, homes or buildings. In the spring, they stripped off long ribbons or "noodles" of the inner bark and it was eaten fresh, sometimes with sugar, or stored. Parts of it were used as a base for many different medicines. It was boiled, mixed with animal fat, and used as a poultice for rheumatic pain and all kinds of aches and soreness in muscles and joints.

Lodgepole pine is now harvested for lumber, plywood, and paneling. It is used to make doors, windows and furniture, as well as railway ties, mine props and fence posts.

(This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS and IFEJ - International Federation of Environmental Journalists.)

Sunita Narain

Tigers or tribals? Tribals versus tigers. This is how the discussion on the tribal forest rights act is being framed. The law, which was enacted by parliament a while ago, is aimed at conferring land rights on people who already live in forested regions. The government says it wants to correct a historical wrong against people on whom rights were never settled when forest areas were earmarked for conservation. Quite right. But these homes of the poorest also house the country's magnificent wild animals, like tigers. It is critical that their habitat should be protected and future safeguarded. This is also quite right.

Is it possible to reconcile the interests of what seems to be two competing groups?

Two years ago the debate was stormy. The draft forest rights bill was being worked upon by a government just sworn into power. Around this time, it was discovered-to everyone's horror-that all tigers from what was supposed to be a protected area, the Sariska National Park, had been poached. Opposition to the draft bill mounted; conservationists argued that this "populist" measure would be the last nail in the tiger's coffin.

I was asked to head a task force to suggest how tigers could be safeguarded. Over three months the specialists we met believed that it was important to reserve areas for wildlife. These would need to be inviolate areas-exclusively earmarked for animals where human interference would have to be kept at its minimum. Otherwise, they said, the tiger would not survive. They believed that if the forest rights bill gave people ownership over these lands it would be disastrous.

I approached the issue from different perspectives. I had for long understood that the future of people and forests is entwined. I also knew from experience that regeneration of forests is not possible unless local people benefit. But I was willing to listen to the experience of those who believed in the tiger. If co-existence was not possible, we needed to find strategies to relocate people who lived in the tiger's territory.

The issue seemed simple, but the replies shocked me. After 30 years of wildlife conservation efforts, fronted by the country's most powerful, we had forgotten people. In these 30 years we had managed to relocate 80-odd villages from protected reserves. We estimated that another 1,500 villages existed in just 28 tiger reserves. Worse, relocation was done in the most ham-handed and inhuman manner. We met families who had decided to return to the harassment and poverty of their homes within the sanctuary as their resettled parcel of land was full of stones. The authorities had done just about everything to make people trespassers in their own land; everything to turn them against the tiger we want to protect. This would not work we concluded.

Our answer was two-pronged. One, we agreed that inviolate space was important for wild animals. But the people who were making space for the tiger needed to be given a good deal-not marginal forestland which would make them more destitute. Two, we said that we needed to be realistic. We suggested the need to identify and prioritize relocation of those villages that were in the most critical of wildlife habitats. This had to be done within a time-bound schedule. In the remaining villages, which would have to live in the reserves, we suggested a new bargain-sharing benefits of conservation with local communities-from preferential shares in tourism to collaborative management of our reserves.

This led to some developments. The government agreed to enhance the package for relocated families from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh; it agreed to conduct a census of tigers in the country, which would pinpoint their presence in different habitats. The tiger census is the first step to identify the critical habitats that need to be protected and to list the human settlements that need to be relocated. With this done, the agenda of co-existence will need to kick in.

But unfortunately, the tribal versus tiger paradigm will keep the fires burning. It would seem that the two lobbies are bent on scoring points, not building consensus. First, the tiger lobby blocked the bill. Then, an uneasy truce was brokered to provide for relocation of people and maintain their rights. In late 2005, the bill presented to parliament included a provision that temporary pattas (land deeds) would be given to people who were to be relocated from sanctuaries and national parks. This would ensure that their rights were protected, but also it would ensure that government would undertake their relocation within a time-bound schedule.

Then the tribal lobby, which has the upper hand in parliament upped the ante. In late 2006, the act, finalized by a joint parliamentary committee, dropped this clause. Inside, it inserted an altogether new term, critical wildlife habitats, which would need to be established as areas to be kept inviolate for wildlife. In the rules for the act to go into force, they have rubbed in this point. They want ministries to issue guidelines regarding the nature, process, validation and interpretation of data to be collected and roles of expert committees who will now designate critical wildlife habitats, virtually questioning the legality of all protected areas.

This has led conservationists to react. They want all wildlife areas (some 600-odd) to be re-designated as critical wildlife habitats and removed from the ambit of the act. Now they have the upper hand. For now, the act is stalled. The next round belongs to the tribal lobby. It is after all a wrestling match.

In all this, let us be clear, the losers are tribals and tigers. It is not tigers versus tribals. It is everyone against them.

(The writer is the editor, Down To Earth, New Delhi, India)