a. M.L. Ramprakash, Conservator of Forests (Bangalore), has put in a proposal to the PCCF suggesting that one of the vulnerable ranges in the Bandipur National Park be taken up for Joint Management with tribals living in the area, as a voluntary organisation Vivekanand Yuvak Kendra has done some work with the locals of the area. The proposal is to make Tribal Forest Committees in Bandipur with the help of this local organisation, and entrust full protection of the park to these committees. There would be arrangements to allow the committee to harvest NTFP, work bamboo clumps and collect stag horns etc., on the basis of the Joint Management plan and market them. The proceeds from this will go to meet the expenditure of a well planned social and economic development of the tribals in the region. It is heartening that a forest officer has, on his own, initiated this move. For details, please contact Mr. M.L. Ramprakash, Conservator of Forests (D), Office of the Principal Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Bangalore.
b. A unique experiment of community participation in planning resource utilization from within a National Park was carried out in the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. In 1991, a decision was taken to identify 20% of the park as multiple use area, in which surrounding communities would have access to NTFPs on a sustainable basis. The species to be selected for utilization, their quantity and users were decided through community discussions using PRA and JFM techniques. The observations have shown that suspicion and mistrust from both sides has been replaced by a fruitful working relationship. Uganda National Parks is now developing a resource sharing policy applicable to all Ugandan Parks. Details of this project can be obtained from: Robert Wild, Development Through Conservation Project, CARE Uganda, PO Box 7280, Kampala, Uganda. Fax: 256 41 258 569.
c. Justice Poti's IPT investigation report on Rajaji will be ready this month. Justice Poti will be visiting Rajaji again, end of March or early April.
d. Stan Thekaekara and Anita Verghese of ACCORD have framed a proposal to work on a long term sustainable programme that makes the tribals living in Gudalur district, near the Madumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, a part of the management of the Park. Please contact them at Action for Community Organisation, Rehabilitation and Development, Accord House, Health Camp, Gudalur, Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu- 643211.
e. A proposal has been received by the Steering Committee, from R. J. Ranjit Daniels on peoples' involvement in the conservation of biodiversity in protected areas. His study area is also the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. Contact: M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundation, 14, Second Main Road, Kottur Gardens, Kotturpuram, Madras- 600085.
f. S.K. Mukherjee, Director , Wildlife Institute of India, has framed a proposal on the need for relocation of villages and ecodevelopment planning in the Gumti Wildlife Sanctuary, Tripura. Contact: WII, P.O Box 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun- 248001.
2. Regional / State Level Activities
a.Rajasthan: The Centre for Environment Education (CEE), in collaboration with the Forest Department and IDRC had a regional workshop on "Joint Protected Area Management and Micro Planning for Protected Areas" from 14th to 16th of February, '95 at Sawai Madhopur. This meeting was attended by the local NGOs working in and around PAs in Rajasthan. Based on discussions in the workshop, the follow up actions were:
-CEE would initiate a consultation process within the Forest Department. -ASTHA would help in initiating a dialogue among the local people in 3-4 PAs in South Rajasthan, to discuss JPAM.
-CEE would take up the responsibility of having a JPAM update at the Rajasthan level.
-JPAM would be put forward at the Gujarat level meeting on PA management in May at Ahmedabad (see below).
-Concrete proposals of JPAM in Ranthambhore, Phulwari ki Nal, Jaisamand and others need to be further built upon.
-CEE would establish an independent fact finding team to investigate bamboo felling in Shoolpaneshwar Sanctuary in Gujarat.
It was mutually decided by the gathering that a simple discussion note on JPAM for widespread distribution in local languages was needed. It was also expressed that a workshop with forest guards and local people be organised.
A Rajasthan state coordination committee for JPAM was formed, consisting of: Sachin Sachdeva (CEE), Rajendra Singh (Tarun Bharat Sangh), Ganesh Purohit (Jagran Jan Vikas Samiti), Rajiv Khandewal, Shakti Mohan , Rakesh Faujdar (Keoladev Research Foundation), Laksman Lal Rawal or Govardhan (Prayas), Representative of the Forest Department, Lalu Ram, and Bhanwar Singh Chandana (ASTHA). Please contact Sachin Sachdeva, CEE, 25, Jawahar Nagar, Sawai Madhopur-322001.
b. Maharashtra: The NGOs in Maharashtra are organising a meeting on people and protected areas of the state, at Koregaon, between 4th and 6th of April. Contact B.J. Avinash, Satyashodh, At and Post Koregaon, Dist. Satara-415501, Ph: 02163/20452
c. Gujarat: JPAM is to be one of the topics to be discussed at a meeting on the state of Gujarat's PAs, being organised jointly by CEE, GEC, and the state Forest Department. The meeting will be in May. For details, please contact: Preethi Nambiar, CEE, Thaltej Tekra, Ahemedabad.
d. Bharat J.Pathak of Gujarat Ecological Commission (GEC), has suggested to form Coordination Committees at the state level, with one or two official representatives of concerned departments. Such state level groups would be able to give greater consideration to local variations.
3. Jungle Jivan Bachao Yatra
About 35 villagers, activists, and researchers started on a unique journey, on 14 January, from Sariska National Park in Rajasthan. The Jungle Jivan Bachao Yatra was aimed at initiating a dialogue between various local communities living in and around national parks and sanctuaries, as also between these communities and the Forest Department. In its 45 days of travel, covering about 15,000 km., the Yatra has passed through about 18 national parks and sanctuaries in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. The yatra held its final programme over two days on February 28 and March 1, in Delhi.
The full report of the Yatra is under preparation. A report of the follow-up actions decided on at the final sammelan in Delhi, is available with IIPA on request. Meanwhile, the final conclusions and recommendations of the Yatra are summarized below.
Major Observations
While each of the protected areas (PAs) visited by the Yatra has presented a unique set of issues and problems, and there is no attempt to generalize on the basis of the limited observations during the Yatra (please see enclosed note 'Major Issues in Each Protected Area Visited by the Yatra'), some common themes have come up time and again:
1. There is in many places a strong readiness amongst local communities to participate in conservation and natural resource management of the habitats and wildlife of these areas; indeed, in many places, they have not only traditionally been protecting forests (e.g. sacred forests in Bhimashankar Sanctuary), but have also in recent times waged struggles against destructive forces like mining. The example of Sariska Tiger Reserve, where villagers organised themselves to stop several hundred mines, was highlighted during the Yatra.
2. However, there is also a strong feeling of alienation among local communities, as their traditional access to the forests has been curtailed by the imposition of the Wildlife Protection Act. In many places, the Yatra found people pointing to the "government's forests", or the "sarkari tiger", and expressing their inability or unwillingness to help in their conservation if there is no reciprocal acceptance of their access to forest resources. The Yatra got the feeling that support for conservation can only be achieved if the legitimate rights and needs of these communities are guaranteed.
3. Forest officials are opening up to involving people in the conservation of these areas; the Yatra met several officers who were categorical that they could not on their own save wildlife. The Yatris feel that this could be a basis for government to accept a central role to local communities in the management of protected areas.
4. Most disturbing is the hypocritical nature of government policies with regard to critical wildlife habitats: on the one hand local forest-dwelling communities are being denied their traditional rights and access to forest resources, in the name of wildlife conservation, while on the other hand the same areas are being opened up to commercial uses and elite tourism. Examples include Sariska (mining), Gir (temple trust), Bhimashankar (temple complex), and Shoolpaneshwar (bamboo felling for paper mill).
5. Indeed, the Yatra found that the greatest threat to forests and wildlife in these protected areas is from commercial demands and development projects, especially mining, dams, illegal logging, poaching, encroachment. Forest Department officials expressed their limitations, as government functionaries, in single-handedly countering strong commercial and vested interests; local communities also admitted that on their own, they would not be able to stop such destruction.
Conclusion and Recommendations
From the above observations, it appears to the Yatris that conservation of wildlife and natural habitats can only be achieved if there is strong and sustained cooperation between local communities, forest officials, conservation and social action groups, and independent ecologists. Such cooperation will require the following:
1. A clear and strict national policy not to allow industrial, urban, and commercial pressures to impinge on PAs, including a ban on denotification of PAs for such purposes;
2. An official recognition of the legitimate resource rights and needs of local traditional communities, and measures to meet these needs;
3. A central role for local communities in the planning, protection, and monitoring of protected areas, including in the determination and enforcement of inviolate core zones and sustainable use buffer zones;
4. Planning the management of protected areas based on a healthy interaction between formal ecological science and traditional knowledge, learning especially from traditional practices which have helped to conserve and sustainably use natural resources.
5. Greater sharing of the benefits of protected areas, including biomass rights, tourism income, employment in wildlife/forest related work, alternative livelihood opportunities, and others.
JPAM Update 3 was prepared by Neena Singh, Saloni Suri, and Ashish Kothari. Ideas and comments may please be addressed to Ashish Kothari,
Indian Institute of Public Administration, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110002. Ph: 3317309; Fax:3319954; Email:akothari@unv.ernet.in.
| |
Last modified on: Tue Apr 5 15:37:35 2005