Rajasthan
1. As suggested by Tarun Bharat Sangh of Sariska, Kalpavriksh has agreed to do the documentation of the innovative work going on in the Bhairodev Dhakao 'Sonchuri', a 1200 ha. patch of forest declared as protected by the inhabitants of five villages in Alwar district. Villagers have promulgated their own set of rules and regulations, and are zealously protecting the area against any outside encroachments. Violations are dealt with by village councils, which have appointed a "Sonchuri" warden. They proudly say that there are two leopards in the forest, and are going to start an annual census of wild animals. Kalpavriksh members will do a flora-fauna listing, and look at the ways in which the villagers are protecting the area. The study is scheduled for August.
2. In 22 villages of Jamva Ramgarh Sanctuary, Tarun Bharat Sangh has started the work of water and soil conservation, along with some mobilisation of villagers against the mining going on inside.
3. An informal meeting on the people-wildlife relationship in Kailadevi Sanctuary of Rajasthan was called by the Joint Protected Area Management team of IIPA, and hosted by WWF-I, on 2nd June, 1995. The minutes of the meeting have been attached to this Update.
Maharashtra
1. A padyatra and meeting were held at Bhimashankar Sanctuary (Maharashtra), on 30 May, to further discuss and highlight issues of people-wildlife relations. Ekjoot Sanghatan organised the event. For details, contact: Kusum Karnik/Anand Kapoor, Ekjoot Sanghatan, P.O. Narodi, Tal. Ambegaon, Dist. Pune 410503, Maharashtra.
2. Regional/ State News
Maharashtra
1. As reported in Update 4, a meeting on the issue of people and protected areas in Maharashtra was held at Koregaon, in March 1995. A report of the meeting is available in Marathi. Those interested can contact B.J. Avinash, Satya Shodh, Post Koregoan, Dist. Satara-415501. Ph. 02163-20452.
3. National News
1. A report of the deliberations of the Workshop on Joint Protected Area Management, held in IIPA in September 1995, is now available in a printed form titled, Joint Protected Area Management in India: Report of a Workshop. Its 100 pages contain the deliberations, a summary of major issues and recommendations, a list of papers, and a list of participants. All participants of the workshop will get a complimentary copy. For the rest, it It has been priced at Rs. 50 or $5.
2. The Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund For Nature-India (New Delhi), has organised a Workshop On Conflict Resolution in Biodiversity Conservation, in Bhopal, on 27-30th July, 1995. The workshop hopes to provide a forum where conflict situations can be discussed and analysed by all concerned parties. The three day session will discuss general issues such as resource use, mining, leasing of forest land for industrial purposes, regularisation of land rights in forest areas, and role of local government in forest resource management. The specific case studies of protected areas being discussed are Narayan Sarovar, Bhittarkanika, Melghat, Rajaji, and Pulicat. The proceedings of the workshop will be published by WWF. For further details, please contact: Sanjay Upadhyay, Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund For Nature - India, 172 B Lodhi Estate, New Delhi 110003.
3. A few of the actions decided at the end of the Jungle Jivan Bachao Yatra (a full list of follow-up actions was carried in Update 4), have been carried out, while others remain unfulfilled. Some actions taken:
i. Documentation of the Bhairodev Dhakao 'Sonchury' (see above).
ii. Mobilisation against mining inside Jamva Ramgarh Sanctuary (Rajasthan), by villagers with help from Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS). This is a very difficult fight, and TBS has appealed to all NGOs and individuals to help in whatever way they can (including legal action).
iii. A visit, by villagers from Sariska, to communities in other protected areas in Rajasthan, including Nahargarh, Jamva Ramgarh, Kailadevi, Jaisamand, Phulwari ki Naal, Kailamata, and Ranthambhor. The aim was to consolidate the network of people/groups working on issues related to protected areas.
iv. A petition against the dereservation of 50 acres of forest land inside the Gir National Park (Gujarat), to accommodate the growing demands of an existing temple. This was filed by a local lawyer in the Gujarat High Court, after the Yatra had highlighted the issue during its visit to Gir. Details of the case are not yet available.
v. Official and NGO moves against bauxite mining in and around Radhanagari Sanctuary (Maharashtra). Apparently, the Chief Wildlife Warden of the state, Shri Jagir Singh, has used the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Sariska mining case, and the provisions under the Environment Protection Act, to strengthen his position; it is interesting that these tactics were suggested to him by the Yatra members.
vi. A padyatra and meeting at Bhimashankar Sanctuary (Maharashtra), on 30 May, to further discuss and highlight issues of people- wildlife relations.
vii. Some actions and pledges by groups and individuals along the Yatra route, to conserve forests and ensure local community livelihood.
A lot still remains to be done, especially in following up the dialogue between forest officials and local communities, started in some protected areas during the Yatra. Even the full report of the Yatra is not yet ready, though we are told that the persons responsible are working on it.
International News
1. A detailed discussion paper on "People's Involvement in Protected Areas: Experiences from Abroad and Lessons for India " prepared by Saloni Suri at IIPA, is now ready for circulation. The paper summarises several case studies of protected areas from African, South American, Australian, and Asian countries, and draws tentative lessons from these for India. All those who might be interested in it can get a copy from us (on payment of copying and mailing charges of Rs. 20 each).
2. The World Conservation Union (IUCN), in collaboration with several national organisations and governments, is initiating a major international project on joint management (of forests, wetlands, and protected areas). A draft project proposal (Collaborative Management for Conservation) is ready. As part of its ongoing efforts, it is helping the Uganda National Parks authority to organise a week-long workshop on joint management of national parks, in October this year. For more details, contact: Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, IUCN, 28 Rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland.
3. We continue below our series of case studies of joint/participatory management from other countries, presented with the objective of learning lessons which may be relevant for India:
Gonarezhou National Park (Zimbabwe)
For several decades, a number of far-sighted wildlife biologists and rural development specialists have believed that indigenous wildlife and in particular the large mammals for which Africa is renowned, can and should be used by rural communities to generate income and improve the quality of their lives . These benefits, they maintain, can encourage rural people to change their attitude towards wildlife, help ensure the survival of wildlife habitats and natural ecosystems, and thus reduce the environmental degradation that often accompanies rural poverty. One way of attaining this ambitious plan has emerged in the form of Zimbabwe's Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (Campfire), which enables rural communities to manage and benefit from wildlife and other resources (Environmental Consultants 1990).
Campfire projects are now being implemented in several of Zimbabwe's communal lands. The signs, measured in terms of community benefits and changing attitudes, are encouraging. One such example is of the Mahenye people, in the Gazaland district in S.E. Zimbabwe.
The Mahenye community originally migrated into South East Zimbabwe from the South Africa's northern Transvall, and are mainly hunters by tradition. In 1966 this area was incorporated into the Gonarezhou National Park, and its inhabitants were forcibly evicted. These people then settled on an island on the border of the national park. The community was extremely isolated, and with Zimbabwe's independence in 1980 the Mahenye people and the Department of National Parks came into direct conflict with each other. The wild animals were destroying crops, and the people in turn continued to hunt in the national park, and were also assisting ivory poachers.
Role of Other Agencies: One of Campfire's characteristics is the role that individuals with unique talent have often played in its promotion and implementation. In the case of the Mahenye people this role was played by a local rancher, businessman and hunter. He had grown up in this region and had been intimately involved with the Mahenye people for many years. He was therefore an impartial mediator between the community and external agencies.
He was aware that traditionally the people here had a philosophy that was based on the recognition of the value of wildlife. But the eviction of the community from the national park, combined with the prohibition of hunting inside, had destroyed this sense of identification. He now outlined two possible options for the community. The first one was to fence the area surrounding the national park, the other was to allow the community to manage the wildlife, and to take responsibility for its sustainable use. He then approached the Director of the Department of National Parks, who agreed to provide an experimental quota of two elephants for the community.
Sharing Management and Control: Out of the two suggestions given above the Mahenye people preferred to opt for the second, and to apply their traditional knowledge to the management of wildlife on their land. The villagers themselves took the decision to vacate the island that they were occupying, and turn the area into a wildlife management area. In terms of getting formal recognition from the government body, in 1990 the community finally acquired legal status for two councils, the Gazaland District Council, and the Gaza Khomanani council.
Sharing of Benefits: The two elephant permits issued finally reaped profits as a successful hunt was carried through. Revenues from the hunt had still to be given to the Government treasury, as the Mahenye people had no legal representing body. They now formed a District Council, but the division of funds was not yet equitable, and the only benefit that they got was a small portion of the free meat. Nevertheless the community continued to maintain the island as a wildlife management area and refrained from hunting in the Gonarezhou park.
A wildlife co-operative was also set up in conjunction with a private sector company that would undertake the marketing of hunts, and the provision of professional hunting services. The co-operative would be accountable to the district councils, and would disemburse funds from wildlife management, according to which 15% of the return of the costs will go to the safari company, 15% to the District Council, 15% to the co-operative, and the rest to the wards in which the hunting was done. The wards would then divide the shares equitably among all the households in the area. Some of the proceeds would also provide compensation for crop damage, while some may be invested in projects related to wildlife management, such as fencing to reduce crop damage.
Further trust was instilled among the Mahenya people, when the Department of National Parks spent $33,000 on a school and a maize mill.
So far no external financing had been sought, and the co-operative's expenses had been met by the funds generated by the wildlife project. Although some support would be needed for full implementation of the project, the principle of economic independence in the Campfire project would be adhered to by seeking soft loans rather than grants.
Source: Environmental Consultants (Pvt.) Ltd. 1990. People, Wildlife and Natural Resources - The CAMPFIRE Approach To Rural Development In Zimbabwe. Conlon Printers Ltd. (Zimbabwe), Harare.
JPAM Update 5 was prepared by 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.
Appendix
JPAM Update 5
KAILADEVI WILDLIFE SANCTUARY: REPORT OF AN INFORMAL MEETING
2 June, 1995
Kailadevi, declared a sanctuary in 1983, spreads over 674 sq.km. in Sawai Madhopur district, and is a part of the Ranthambhor Tiger Reserve. It has some 2000 people (mostly pastoralists) inside and 40,000 around it.
The background of the meeting was given by Kothari. At a recent meeting on the possibility of joint management of Rajasthan's PAs, held at Sawai Madhopur, the DFO of Kailadevi, Shri Bharat Temne, had described how the Department had been supported by local pastoralists in conserving the area. When this was subsequently recounted by Kothari at the Tiger Link meeting at Delhi, as a possible case for joint management of PAs, Johnsingh expressed interest in the status of the tiger and other wildlife at Kailadevi. Kothari then suggested that a multi-disciplinary team study the situation, and sent copies of the correspondence to Sachdeva, Rangarajan, Bhatt, and Tinny Sawhney (formerly of WWF-I). Sachdeva and Sawhney urged that a preliminary meeting discuss the objectives and modus of the study. The 2nd June meeting was thus called. Sawhney, unfortunately, could not attend.
Sachdeva circulated a brief note on Kaila Devi to participants, and described a recent visit that he and Jindal had made to the sanctuary. They noticed considerable vegetative regeneration, and opined that this could be due to protection being given by the Forest Protection Committees (FPCs) set up in various villages. These FPCs had recently been registered by the Forest Department. The Department had recently conducted a wildlife census, so figures would be available soon.
The FPCs, apart from protecting the forests around them, had helped the Forest Department to check the movement of nomads, who come with 3-5 lakh sheep every year and reportedly cause major damage. They had also helped to stop destructive mining here. Nevertheless, the nomads remained a major pressure, as they held the sheep of several VIPs, and were not always possible to stop. There was in any case the question of their own lifestyles and needs.
All participants gave their opinions on the kind of study needed, and the major questions to be answered: What was the traditional relationship between the nomads and local people, and how had it broken down? What alternatives can be made available to the migratory graziers? What was the ecological impact of both migratory and resident people and livestock? What was the status of wildlife, including large mammals, throughout the sanctuary? What is the dependence of surrounding populations on the sanctuary? How effective are the FPCs, how many people are involved, and are they spreading? Could they be a forerunner to joint management, and if so, what form would such management take?
Sachdeva warned that the study must proceed with caution and full recognition of what the long term involvement of participants was. Already the activity and movement of officials in the area had put fear in villagers' minds, that it may become a national park, whereby they would all be kicked out. A study team may increase that fear. Jindal informed that he had recently set up a group (Society for Sustainable Development or SSD) in Karauli, from where he hoped to work full-time in Kailadevi. Participants agreed that, given the sensitivity of the situation, it may be appropriate to approach villagers through a local organisation like SSD. Sachdeva also mentioned that the most severe problem currently was of water shortage, and there was the added issue of unemployment caused by the closure of mines. These should be tackled urgently.
There was, first, a need to properly define the objectives and methodology of the study. These could be discussed with local community representatives, to gain their trust. The actual field study could start in October 1996. Meanwhile, the following needed to be done :
1. Formulating the framework of the study : on wildlife status, by Johnsingh; on people and their responses, by Sachdeva; and on management parameters, by Bhatt.
2. Conducting preliminary data collection, on human/cattle population, wildlife diversity and numbers, history of the area, climate, etc - by Sachdeva and Jindal.
3. Circulating the frameworks and available data to all participants and to the Forest Department, for comments and refinement - by Kothari and Suri.
4. Inviting the Forest Department to be involved in the study from the beginning.
5. Making preliminary inquiries on who could conduct the study.
The study frameworks are to be prepared within a month (i.e. by 1st week of July) and circulated. Sachdeva and Jindal will report on the local situation. Jindal may put in funding applications to WWF-I and other agencies for local activities.
Reported by Ashish Kothari
Indian Institute of Public Administration, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110002
| |
Last modified on: Tue Apr 5 15:37:48 2005