Karnataka
1. Proposed Joint Management of Biligiri Rangaswamy Sanctuary (BRT): The Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple (BRT) Sanctuary is an important hilly forested habitat in southern Karnataka, well-known for its elephant population, medicinal plant diversity, the Soliga tribals, and the ancient temple itself. Several tribal hamlets have been in these forests for generations, and continue to stay there, possibly since the Forest Department realises that they do no appreciable damage to wildlife or its habitat. Proof of their sustainable ways is coming from the preliminary results of a study being conducted by the Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) and other agencies, on the impact of non- timber forest product collection on biodiversity. Another group based inside the sanctuary, the Vivekananda Girijan Kalyan Kendra (VGKK), has been working among the tribals for over 15 years. Apart from health and education-related activities, and some marketing of tribal produce, VGKK is also helping with resettling tribals who want to move the sanctuary's periphery, and in promoting agro-forestry among them. Both TERI and VGKK are now exploring further possibilities of tribal entrepreneurship based on the area's biological resources, including local processing of medicinal plants (the ingredients of the famous Trifala come from these forests), honey, and other non-timber forest produce.
On a recent visit to the area, IIPA had detailed discussions with members of these groups, as also with a senior forest officer at Bangalore. Dr. H.S. Sudarshan of VGKK felt that there should be some move towards involving the tribals in the management of the sanctuary, since they were extremely knowledgeable about the area's biodiversity (much of TERI's field work is based on the plant identification skills of the Soligas), and since they have a right to a sustainable harvest of the resources. We agreed, and gave him a brief note on how we think this could proceed. This note is enclosed at Annex 1. Interestingly, back in Bangalore we dropped in to see Mr. M.L. Ramprakash (whose proposal for joint management at Nagarahole National Park was reported by us in Update 3), who revealed that he had proposed joint management of BRT some years back. While the proposal was not taken up at that time, perhaps with the backing of the local groups, it could move forward.
There are, of course, many issues to be sorted out before any form of joint management of BRT can be started. Some of these are listed in the appended note; others will come up when and if the discussions start between the Forest Department, the NGOs, the tribals, and independent conservationists who have been associated with the area. We would stress the importance of taking all parties into confidence right from the start; on this visit, IIPA was not able to talk with the forest officials in charge of the sanctuary, so we have stressed that VGKK should do this soon.
Contacts: Dr. H.S. Sudarshan, Vivekananda Girijan Kalyan Kendra, P.O. B.R. Hills, Mysore Dist., Karnataka. Ph: 08224-8125/8425.
Dr. K.S. Murali, Tata Energy Research Institute, 50/7 Palace Road, Bangalore 560052. Ph: 080-2268296; Fax: 2255760
Divisional Forest Officer (WL), Forest Department, Chamrajnagar, Karnataka.
Madhya Pradesh
1. Campaign against destruction of Achanakmar Sanctuary: An NGO working in Bilaspur (Madhya Pradesh), Nature Club, has regularly been visiting the Achanakmar Wildlife Sanctuary (AWS). They recently reported that the sanctuary is being affected by serious overgrazing and disturbance caused by 'daihans' (cattle camps), belonging to influential owners from outside the area. These camps hold some 20,000 cattle, who are allowed to graze freely in the forests. Since the owners are people with clout, the Forest Department is unable to fully control the situation, though it has repeatedly tried. Competition between wildlife and cattle is reportedly severe, especially during summer when there is anyway water shortage. In addition, Nature Club members report that a large number of Gaur and deer (Spotted?) have died because of a disease spread by cattle known as 'Khurha'. Other problems, which may be related to the higher incidence of local human intrusion, is the increasing number of attacks on humans by Sloth bears. Nature Club also alleges that 'daihan' owners help poachers in killing wildlife, including tigers and leopards.
Nature Club is now taking up a campaign on the issue, both locally in and around Bilaspur as well as in the state. Recently they have begun to consult the villagers living inside the sanctuary (many of whom, being pastoralists, are also seriously affected by the 'daihans', and are therefore vehemently opposed to them). They hope that with the help of these villagers, and the Forest Department, they can put adequate pressure on the government to curtail the activities of the daihans.
Contact: Anurag Shukla, Nature Club, Mans Associates, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh. Ph: 07752-22181.
Maharashtra
1. Dialogue at Bhimashankar Sanctuary: Kusum Karnik of Ekjoot Sanghatan recently reported that there was a consultation between forest officials, local tribals, and NGOs, on the various issues faced by the Bhimashankar Sanctuary in the Western Ghats. She also says that they are continuing to push for a joint management system with the Forest Department, local tribals, NGOs, and independent conservationists/activists being involved. She has promised to send a write-up on the latest situation; we will report it in the next issue.
Contact: Kusum Karnik/Anand Kapoor, Solat Building, Manchar, Tahsil Ambegaon, District Pune - 410503, Maharashtra.
Rajasthan
1. Fresh Threat to Sariska Tiger Reserve: Rajendra Singh of Tarun Bharat Sangh reports that a major hotel project of the Birlas has started construction within the boundaries of the Sariska Tiger Reserve last month. The TBS has organised villagers to protest against this, and managed to stall construction by physically blocking it for a few days. However, he has appealed for urgent help from outside, as the forces behind the hotel are very powerful, and have the backing of the state government.
Readers will recall the famous struggle against mining, which was successfully waged by the villagers inside and adjacent to the Tiger Reserve. That struggle involved actions ranging from local blockades to a petition in the Supreme Court, considerable media attention, and support from the Forest Department. Perhaps something akin to that is needed against this new threat. Once again, this shows that in such situations some form of collaboration is needed, for any single party on its own may not be able to fight the vested interests bent on destroying the last of our wildlife habitats and rural livelihood resources.
Contact: Rajendra Singh, Tarun Bharat Sangh, Bhikampura - Kishori, Via Thanagazi, Alwar -301002, Rajasthan. Ph: 014652/4443.
Regional/State News
Gujarat
1. Bharat Lal, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Junagadh, Gujarat, who has been working on the peripheries of the Gir National Park, has written to us supporting the idea of people's involvement in protected areas. Lal had been honoured by a local NGO, during the Jungle Jivan Bachao Yatra in January 1995, for his pioneering work in regeneration of forests in the Girnar area. Local conservationists report that not only has the grass output for livestock in the area increased significantly, but that some lions and other wildlife which had disappeared earlier have been resighted, possibly having moved back from the adjacent National Park.
Lal has sent in an interesting document on the work done in the area, titled "Moisture Conservation Strategies in Drought Prone Areas: Technological Alternatives To Enlist People's Participation". In a recent note he has also written about the efforts of the Department to regenerate the productivity of the state's grasslands to meet the fodder requirements of livestock, and has reiterated that this sort of effort, along with watershed development, should be the endeavor of the Department in and around PAs.
Contact: Bharat Lal, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Working Plan Division, Sardarbaug, Junagadh, Gujarat 362001. Ph: 0285-23180.
National News
1. Workshop on Conflict Resolution: The Center for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund For Nature-India (New Delhi), organised a Workshop On Conflict Resolution in Biodiversity Conservation, in Bhopal from 27-29th July 1995. The workshop provided a forum where conflict situations could be discussed by various interest groups. The sessions included specific case studies of protected areas like Narayan Sarovar (Gujarat), Bhitarkanika (Orissa), Melghat (Maharashtra), Rajaji (Uttar Pradesh), and Pulicat (Andhra Pradesh/Tamil Nadu). Though unfortunately no concluding session could be held, WWF-I is hopefully formulating some concrete follow-up. The report of the workshop and the papers presented, are being published by WWF.
Contact: Sanjay Upadhyay, Center for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund For Nature - India, 172 B Lodhi Estate, New Delhi 110003. Ph: 011- 4624197; Fax: 4626837; Email: wwfindel@unv.ernet.in.
2. Committee to Recommend Conservation Measures: Alarmed at the recent spate of poaching and habitat destruction all over the country, and following the directives of the Delhi High Court following a writ petition by conservationists, the Ministry of Environment and Forests has set up a committee to recommend urgent measures to protect wildlife. The committee is chaired by the Inspector General of Forests, S.M. Ahmed. Unfortunately, while the committee has many eminent wildlife experts, it has no representative of groups who are working among people in and around our wildlife habitats, nor of course any community representative. Nevertheless, we feel that the opportunity should be used to lobby the members to bring in the urgent measures which are needed to secure people's livelihoods in wildlife areas, both as a measure of social justice, as also to gain the support of these communities in conservation efforts. Concrete recommendations on wildlife protection, of course, are also critically needed. The committee has only six months to finish its work, so we would urge readers to write in with suggestions as soon as possible.
Contact: Ashok Kumar, Member-Secretary (Wildlife conservation committee), Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003. Ph: 011-4361669; Fax: 4360678; Email: envmis@hub.nic.in.
3. Wild Life Act Amendments?: It is learnt from some officials in the Ministry of Environment and Forests that a committee has been set up to look into possible amendments of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972. The composition of the committee, and its terms of reference, are not known at the time of bringing out this Update. Readers may wish to contact the Ministry for further details.
Contact: N.R. Krishnan, Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003. Ph, Fax, Email, as above.
In a parallel development, some NGOs and individuals who have recently been involved in presenting a people's version of the revised Forest Act, have decided to analyse the Wild Life Act from the twin objectives of securing people's involvement in protected areas, and safeguarding these areas from destructive commercial-industrial forces. A small team has been set up for the purpose, and it plans to meet in Pune in late November.
One fear that a number of conservationists have expressed is that the argument for people's involvement and benefit-sharing in and around protected areas should not become a entry point for destructive forces, which are constantly eyeing the rich wood and mineral resources they contain. To this end, and for other purposes, readers are urged to send their comments and suggestions; especially useful would be concrete recommendations on specific clauses of the Act.
Contacts: Vijay Paranjpye, Econet, Durga 92/2, Erandawane, Pune 411004, Maharashtra. Ph: 0212-332448 (res.); or
Ashish Kothari (see address at end).
4. Debate: A debate on people and protected areas is being organised by the Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, on 10 October, 1995. Issues related to protected areas and the Wild Life Act are on the agenda. Unfortunately, since the IIPA JPAM team has not been invited, we will be able to report on the debate only if and when we get news from the organisers.
Contact: Anil Agarwal, Centre for Science and Environment, 41 Institutional Area, Tughlaqabad, New Delhi 110062. Ph: 011- 6986399/6981124; Fax: 91-11-6985879; Email: cse@unv.ernet.in.
International News
1. Uganda Moves Further Towards Joint Management: Readers may recall a brief report, in Update 5, regarding the move of the Uganda government to start collaborative management of forests, wetlands, and protected areas. Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend of the Social Policy Service of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) reports that there is now a new policy in Uganda, stating that a collaborative system is one of the legal ways of managing a national park. The main challenge is now on how to implement this policy. A meeting on the subject is being organised at Mt. Elgon National Park, Uganda, by the Uganda National Parks in association with IUCN, on 23-27 October, 1995. IIPA has been invited to participate; we will report about the meeting in the next Update.
Contact: Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Social Policy Service, IUCN-World Conservation Union, Rue Mauverney 28, Ch-1196 Gland, Switzerland. Ph: 0041-22-9990001; Fax: 9990025; Email: gbf@hq.iucn.ch.
2. Resourcebook on Conservation: IUCN has also been working on a detailed resource book called "Social Sustainability in Conservation", which is aimed at incorporating social concerns in the appraisal, planning, implementation, and evaluation of habitat/wildlife conservation programmes. The first draft, dated April 1995, is currently being reviewed and revised.
Contact: As above.
3. Profile: In the last few Updates, we have been presenting case studies of participatory management of protected areas from other countries. Valmik Thapar of the Ranthambhor Foundation reports that one of these, on Kakadu National Park in Australia, where we had reported successful collaboration between the aborigines and officials, is actually nowhere near a success story at all. He has promised to send details. Such responses from readers would greatly help, especially since we have stressed that our reporting of these foreign case studies is based on secondary literature (with the source always mentioned).
With that word of caution, we continue the series below.
Michiru Mountain Conservation Area (Malawi)
The Michiru Mountain Area is an experiment in the integration of conservation and multiple land use in Malawi (Hough 1991). The Michiru mountain stands on the eastern edge of the African rift valley and ranges in altitude from 700 to 1470 meters. It covers an area of approximately 46 sq. kms. During the 1960's and 1970's, high demand for firewood and charcoal from the nearby town, Blantyre, led to a progressive denudation of the mountain on the eastern and the southern sections, subsequent grass fires led to major soil erosion and rapid water run-off from the mountain. At this point of time 82% of the mountain area was controlled by the Forest Department while 18% belonged to an European landowner who operated a 840-hectare dairy farm.
As a response to the degradation, an integrated land-use management program was initiated. Management of the conservation area was placed in the hands of the Department of Forestry National Parks and Wildlife (DFNPWL) and the private landowner, with consultative input from the Land Husbandry Department. The coordinator, though assigned to DFNPWL, reported directly to the Ministry of Forests and Natural Resources. Throughout the development and establishment of the conservation area, the role of the coordinator was critical, as he had to balance out the differences between the local people and the Forest Department.
Sharing Management and Control: The development of a local co-ordinating body, which received support from the high Government officials and the local people proved critical in the plan's eventual implementation. Although local political leaders were represented in the planning process, there was little direct consultation with the people. However, before any strict controls were implemented a major educational effort was made to educate the people, and a successful management plan was achieved by combining a variety of demands.
Zoning: For management purposes the mountain was divided into three major natural regions: gentle footslopes, steep escarpment slopes, and a gently sloping plateau. The basic landuse patterns to be established on these regions were, respectively, plantations of fast growing, exotic eucalyptus trees to provide firewood and building poles, complete protection of the existing forests on the escarpment slopes, and afforestation with pines in the plateau areas. Within each of these broad areas detailed management plans were drafted.
Sharing of Resources and Benefits: The program includes provisions for sustained dairy farming and grazing within the area. While local access to firewood was restricted, community forestry plantations were established and portions of the area remained open for firewood gathering on a rotating basis.
Role of Other Agencies: In the early 1970's this dairy farmer decided to take some action against the denuding mountain side and offered to give half of his grazing land to the government, in return for government action. This offer was accepted by the Malawi government.
This integrated approach to landuse, enabled a degraded mountain to retain its traditional productivity, increase its standing crop, improve the abundance and diversity of its wildlife, and provide an educational and recreational resource. By 1984 the conservation area was receiving favorable comments from members of the local community who had come to see an improvement in the health of the mountain and the rapidly maturing plantations. A key factor in this acceptance was a high level of awareness amongst the surrounding communities.
Source: Croft, Trevor A. 1991. Lake Malawi National Park: A Case Study in Conservation Planning. in West, P.C. and Brechin,S.R. (eds). 1991. Resident People and National Parks:Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation, University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JPAM Update is produced as a follow-up to the Workshop on Exploring the Possibilities of Joint Protected Area Management (JPAM), organised at Delhi in September 1994. JPAM Update 6 was prepared by Saloni Suri and Ashish Kothari. Ideas, comments, and news/information may please be sent to Ashish Kothari, Indian Institute of Public Administration, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110002. Ph: 3317309; Fax: 3319954; Email: akothari@unv.ernet.in.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Proposed Joint Management of Biligiri Rangaswamy Sanctuary (BRT):
(note given by Ashish Kothari, IIPA, to Dr. H.S. Sudarshan, Vivekananda Girijan Kalyan Kendra, BRT Hills (see above, News from Specific Areas, for background and contact addresses), August 1995).
Joint protected area management (JPAM) would, in its fullest form, mean: "The conceptualisation, planning, and management of protected areas and their surrounds, with the objective of conserving natural ecosystems and wildlife, while ensuring the livelihood security of local and adjacent communities, through mechanisms which ensure a partnership between these communities, government agencies, and other concerned parties."
JPAM at BRT will need to assess and determine the following:
1. The conservation priorities of the area (elephant, medicinal plants, etc.).
2. The impact of various human uses in the area (NTFP collection, plantations, tourism, etc.).
3. The range and kind of benefits which local communities should be guaranteed (NTFP, share in tourism revenue, etc.) to give a stake in the area's conservation.
4. Alternative activities to, or modifications in, the existing resource use practices which are detrimental to (1) above.
5. The kind and range of conservation/management measures in which tribals can participate (anti-poaching, fire fighting, monitoring, etc.).
6. Methods of integrating tribal skills and knowledge into management.
7. The institutional structures by which joint planning and management can take place (from village forest protection committees to an overall sanctuary protection committee), and the relative share of each party (local community, government agency, NGO, etc.) in its membership.
8. The processes of continuous interaction, dispute resolution, monitoring, etc.
9. The intermediary/other role of various NGOs.
10. Major research requirements.
11. Areas that should be left inviolate, if any.
12. Education/training needs.
It seems that BRT is a very good place for a trial JPAM, given all the ecological and socio-political work that has gone into it, the high degree of tribal mobilisation, a sympathetic forest department, and the presence of strong NGOs. Such a combination exists in very few other protected areas.
I would suggest the following steps:
1. Vivekananda Girijan Kalyan Kendra (VGKK) and Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) should write a brief profile of BRT and its problems, ongoing work etc.
2. VGKK/TERI should do an outline proposal for joint management, and send it for comments to the Forest Department, IIPA and others.
3. Informal discussions with the PCCF and sanctuary officials could be held simultaneously.
4. A formal meeting (exploratory) could then be called, involving all the possible partners/stake holders. It is vital that such a meeting be preceded by homework by the people/groups proposing JPAM at BRT, to put forth a solid case.
What could also be stressed is that such cooperation would strengthen the fight against commercial/industrial pressures, such as quarrying or the coffee plantation activities inside/adjacent to BRT.
| |
Last modified on: Tue Apr 5 15:37:57 2005