News from Specific Protected Areas
Madhya Pradesh
Proposal to include Bori Sanctuary and Satpura National Park under Project Tiger Opposed: The local NGO actively involved with the people of this area is the Kisan Adivasi Sanghatan and the Samajvadi Jan Parishad. On the basis of information send in to us, 25 villages from these two protected areas would have to be relocated, with a total of 987 families. The people of this area have already been relocated from here on account of the Tawa dam, Ordinanace factory, and the Sardi electricity house. Several coal mines and other such commercial pressures have destroyed thousands of acres of forest area.
One of the main problems of this area is of the forest catching fire. The question which comes to mind now is that once the people here are moved out, who is going to put out the fire?
Contact: Sunil, Kisan Adivasi Sanghatan / Samajvadi Jan Parishad, Kesela, Dist. Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan
1. Proposal on Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary: Readers may recall an item on Kailadevi Sanctuary (part of Ranthambhor Tiger Reserve) in Update 5, in which we had reported on existing collaboration between the Forest Department and local people, and on a possible study towards joint management. Now, Arun Jindal who has recently set up an NGO (Society for Sustainable Development) at Karauli, adjacent to the Sanctuary, has proposed a study and activities on issues which he would like to take up at the field level. He will work under the Conservation Corps Programme of World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) India. Jindal says that the most severe problem faced by local villagers is of water shortage, and he hopes to first tackle that. He would also be looking at other resource uses in the sanctuary, and focusing at how the already good relations between the Forest Department and the local people can be strengthened, and how they can work together for conservation. The project is for two years. Under a separate project (see below), the Indian Institute of Public Administration may help in some of the work.
Contact: Arun Jindal, Society For Sustainable Development, Shah Inayat Khirkiya, Karauli 322241, Rajasthan.
Uttar Pradesh
1. Proposal on Rajaji by Wildlife Institute of India: The Wildlife Institute of India has proposed a two year project in Rajaji National Park. The project is aimed at creating an enabling environment among key stakeholders (particularly park managers and local communities), to help develop processes for more participatory problem-solving and management in Rajaji National Park. WII will undertake training for, and facilitate interaction between park staff and local communities; it will initiate village ecosystem planning, help develop local enterprise, and undertake documentation and research. The proposed project has been approved for funding by the Ford Foundation.
Contact: B.M.S. Rathore, Wildlife Institute of India, P.O.Box.No.18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248001, Uttar Pradesh. Ph: 620912 to 620915. Fax: 0135-620217. Email: wii.isnet@axcess.net.in.
Regional/State News
Madhya Pradesh/Maharashtra
1. Satpura Bachav Abhiyan: The Nature Conservation Society of Amravati, Maharashtra, proposes to undertake a footmarch along the Satpura ranges in central India, to highlight the growing fragmentation of forest and wildlife habitats. They will travel along four protected areas, Melghat (Mah.), Bori, Satpura, and Pachmarhi (M.P.), investigating the threats to them and to the corridors connecting them, and campaigning for declaration of the whole area as a biosphere reserve. Attempts will be made to generate public support in the area. The march is planned for January (exact dates not yet fixed).
Contact: Kishor Rithe, Nature Conservation Society, c/o Prof. N.W. Kale, "Ambasadan", Rukhmininagar, Amravati 444606. Ph: 086457-673434.
National News
1. Workshop at Bharatpur: The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) India and WWF International are currently holding a workshop on "Participatory Planning and Local Institution Building" at Keoladeo (Bharatpur) National Park, Rajasthan, from 20th November to 9th December. The workshop will train participants in participatory rural appraisal (PRA) techniques and will conduct PRA exercises in 14 villages around the PA. The workshop will also prepare an analytical report indicating methodology, key findings, and recommendations for implementation and follow-up by the park management and by WWF-India.
Contact: Rashmi de Roy, WWF India, 172 B, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, India. Tel: 011-4693744. Fax: 4626837. Email: wwfindel@unv.ernet.in.
2. I.I.P.A. Projects: The Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development (SPWD) and the Ford Foundation have recently cleared grants to the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), for work on participatory management of protected areas. Following the national workshop on JPAM last year, IIPA has been helping to network with various groups and individuals through the Update, as also helping in local activities. The grant will enable a small team to continue fulfilling this networking/servicing role, and to undertake research on the institutional, legal, and policy-related issues necessary for the implementation of joint protected area management. Study areas supported through the SPWD grant are Rajaji National Park (Uttar Pradesh), Ranthambore Tiger Reserve (Rajasthan), and Dalma Sanctuary (Bihar).
Contact: Ashish Kothari/Saloni Suri at IIPA (address at end of Update).
3. Bagh Bachao Andolan: Over one hundred NGOs involved in wildlife conservation across the country have joined hands in a move to save the tiger, which is facing a grave threat from poaching for trade. The "Bagh Bachao Andolan" was launched on 1st October, 1995, in Delhi. The Andolan's nationwide programme aims to muster political support and create public opinion favoring the conservation of wildlife and forests in India. A delegation of senior conservationists met the Minister for Environment and Forests and presented an appeal to the Prime Minister of India. Some highlights from the appeal are as follows:
* The problem has been greatly compounded by the alienation of the several million people living in and around wildlife habitats, for whom these habitats have been sources of livelihood and life-support.
* We need a new national covenant, and such a covenant must empower a Special Tiger Task Force and should be responsible across India to coordinate immediate field action, before it is too late. This Special Tiger Task force must have your full support.
* This task force must work closely with true forest dwelling communities whose trust and confidence we must win back. The first step in this direction can be taken in keeping with government policy, by offering employment guarantee for one million people living in and around our protected areas and tiger habitats.
The Andolan is an initiative of the Tiger Link, an informal network of conservation organisations throughout India, working to save the tiger. Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan, in a letter to the Prime Minister, has also extended the support of the people of the Narmada valley in demanding the protection of the Tiger.
Contact: Bagh Bachao Andolan, c/o Wildlife Protection Society of India, 124 Janpath, New Delhi 110001. Tel: 011-3320573. Fax: 3327729.
4. Wild Life Act Amendments: In Update 6, we reported the formation of a loose NGO network aiming at analysing the changes needed in the the Wildlife Protection Act (1972), to enable local community involvement and benefits. The group has recently held its first meeting at Pune, hosted by Econet. The meeting aimed at critically analysing both the Wildlife Act as also the proposed Biodiversity Conservation Act of the Government of India. A report from that meeting is awaited.
Meanwhile, the IIPA team circulated a note for facilitating further discussion on the subject. The note is annexed.
Contact: Vijay Paranjpye, Econet Office Premises, 5 Sanket, 2123 Vijaynagar Colony, Sadashiv Peth, Pune 411030, Maharashtra. Ph: and Fax: 0212-331250.
A committee has also been set up by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to look into the possible amendments of the Wildlife Protection Act (1972), as was mentioned in our previous Update. Members of the Committee have agreed, orally, to our suggestion that widespread NGO and local community inputs be taken before finalising the amendments. Readers are urged to write in to the Committee Chairman, Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh, with specific comments on the Act.
Contact: Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh, Director-General, CAPART, Habitat Centre, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003.
International News
1. Uganda Moves Further Towards Joint Management: As reported in previous Updates, Uganda has piloted some experimental Joint Management measures in a couple of its national parks. Now, in an effort to consolidate this effort, and to review it in the light of experiences from other countries, a workshop on "Collaborative Management (CM) of Protected Areas - Exploring the Possibilities in Uganda", was held at Mbale, Uganda, from 23 to 27 October, 1995. The Workshop was organised by the Uganda National Parks (UNP), with technical support from IUCN - The World Conservation Union and Makerere University for Environment and Natural Resources, and financial support from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and USAID/APE. Participants (numbering about 50) included the wardens and other UNP staff from various protected areas, staff of community development projects, NGO members, donor representatives, Forest Department officials, local community representatives and politicians. Resource persons from other countries (Tanzania, India, Canada, Madagascar, Switzerland) also participated; one of us from the IIPA team was called as facilitator and speaker.
The workshop included a range of activities. Formal presentations were made regarding CM in general, CM experiences from some other countries (India, Canada, Tanzania, Madagascar), and CM experiences from four national parks in Uganda (Mt. Elgon, Rwenzori, Bwindi, and Lake Mburo). Field trips were organised for participants to meet communities living adjacent to the Mt. Elgon National Park, and to briefly visit the park itself. Special sessions were held on conflict resolution, and on processes of initiating CM on the ground. Small group discussions, role playing, and informal sessions were held to maximise participation.
A short report containing the major issues raised at the Workshop, and the main recommendations, has been prepared by the team at IIPA, and will be finalised and put out by UNP/IUCN. It can then be had from IUCN by request. A full workshop report, along with the papers presented, is likely to published sometime early next year.
Contact: Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Coordinator, 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. Global Biodiversity Forum: IUCN, World Resources Institute, organised a workshop on Local Initiatives in Conservation, as part of the Global Biodiversity Forum meeting at Jakarta, Indonesia, on 4-5th November, 1995. This meeting preceded the Second Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, held during 6-17th November at Jakarta. A number of papers on local community involvement in conservation were presented at the workshop, and a strong plea for putting this aspect squarely at the centre of national and international conservation efforts was made. The papers are likely to published as a book in the next few months; a report on the workshop should be available sooner.
Contact: Jeffrey McNeely, Global Biodiversity Forum, IUCN, 28 Rue Mauverney, CH1196 Gland, Switzerland. Phone: 41-22-999-001. Fax: 41-22- 999-1125. Email: jam@hq.iucn.ch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 7 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE ON NEW DIRECTIONS FOR WILDLIFE LEGISLATION
(A discussion note for the NGO group analysing the Wild Life Protection Act of 1972)
Ashish Kothari
Background
Debates within conservation circles are increasingly focusing on the relationship of local communities and wildlife conservation. These are marked especially by the increasing realisation that local community needs, rights, and knowledge systems have often been ignored in the planning and implementation of conservation programmes, and that this has created hostility towards these programmes. Also increasingly realised is that the major forces impinging on our natural habitats are commercial-industrial, as witnessed recently in the spate of denotification proposals from many states.
No-one denies that natural habitats and wildlife need to be conserved: the question is how, and by whom? The current bureaucratic and legal set-up is clearly not adequate for the purpose; nor, however, can it be assumed that local communities on their own can (or often will want to) protect these habitats and wildlife. If, therefore, conservation is an important goal for our society, we will have to consider ways in which the relative strengths of all sections, especially of local communities and government agencies and conservation groups, can be put together. Such collaboration is especially necessary to counter destructive commercial-industrial forces.
The widespread people's response to the proposed new Forest Act appears also to have brought out these thrusts, towards much greater and more meaningful participation of local communities, towards meeting the basic requirements of these communities, and towards greater curbs on industrial exploitation.
New Thrusts Needed
I would therefore urge that we look at the Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972 (along with its amendments on 1991), from the point of view of four basic parameters:
1. How amenable it is to a central role for communities in the planning, management, and monitoring of wildlife programmes, especially protected areas like national parks and sanctuaries, and what kind of changes would be needed to make it so;
2. How amenable it is to ensuring benefits (in kind and cash) to communities who are traditionally dependent on natural habitats and wildlife, as a recognition of their customary rights and as a means to receiving their support for conservation, and what kind of changes are required to further ensure this; and
3. What kinds of checks and balances it contains to ensure that no party who has rights and powers related to a protected area, abuses these rights and powers, and what kinds of changes are required to ensure such checks;
4. How strong it is in counter-acting destructive activities, especially those emanating from industrial and urban demands, and what kind of changes would be required to ensure the safety of wildlife habitats and wildlife from these forces.
In the case of protected areas, we may like to consider the recommendation that we move towards forms of joint or collaborative management, in which local communities, government agencies, and independent groups/individuals get together to plan and manage an area, with the objective of meeting conservation goals as also the needs of local people.
A Word of Caution
In the current climate of economic 'liberalisation' (euphemism for free- for-all), natural habitats everywhere in India are being eyed for their wealth of resources (minerals, hydro-electricity potential, timber...). Though activists often do not realise it, the Wild Life Act has been one of the main obstacles between industrialists and these habitats (Sariska, Bhittarkanika, Silent Valley, Valley of Flowers....and many other protected areas have been the reason for the dropping of destructive 'development' projects). There is therefore intense pressure from this industrial lobby to further dilute the provisions of this Act, so that they can more easily gain entry into protected areas.
Our analysis of the Act must be sensitive to this fresh threat, so that our arguments for amendments do not play into the hands of the industrial lobby. Any changes made to ensure the legitimate rights and requirements of local communities, and their role in conserving wildlife, must be adequately balanced by provisions which make the entry of destructive forces doubly difficult.
I would therefore appeal that we do not rush headlong into a populist demand for amending the Act (or dropping it altogether, as some activists seem to suggest), but go about it carefully and with abundant caution.
Some Proposed Changes
Annexed here are some tentative suggestions for changes in the Act, as put forward by legal experts Chhatrapati Singh and B.J. Krishnan. Please note that I do not necessarily endorse all these suggestions, but am only attaching them to stimulate discussion.
Ashish Kothari
Kalpavriksh - Environmental Action Group
C17/A Munirka, New Delhi 110067
and
Indian Institute of Public Administration
I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110002
Ph: 11-3317309; Fax: 11-3319954; Email: akothari@unv.ernet.in
(Note: for correspondence, please use the latter address)
Suggestions by B.J. Krishnan, Save Nilgiris Campaign
(excerpted from 'Legal Implications of Joint Management of Protected Areas', paper presented at the Workshop on Joint Management of Protected Areas, September 1-3, 1994, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi).
1. Restoration of Rights To Scheduled Tribes
In a rare exception, the Wild Life Protection Act exempts the Scheduled Tribes of Nicobar Islands in the Union Territory of Andamans and Nicobar Islands, from its purview (Sec.65). But no other tribal community in India was given this right, though there are many compact tribal communities, such as the Chola Nayakans of the Wynad area in the Nilgiris, who still retain their traditional character. Such communities can be identified and listed in a schedule annexed to the Act. The exemptions given to them may exclude hunting of Schedule 1 species. Sec. 65 of the Wild Life Protection Act may be suitably amended, to provide for the new schedule.
2. Restoration of Rights of the Tribal Villages:
Tribal villages should be recognised as a legal unit under the Wildlife Protection Act. They should be defined under Sec. 2 of the Act as human settlements inside the sanctuary/national park consisting of tribal people (listed in the schedule mentioned above). Sec.27 which deals with the restriction on entry in sanctuary/national park, should be suitably amended, exempting tribal villages.
A new schedule, listing out the Tribal Villages may be added to the Act by necessary amendment. The identification of Tribal Villages and consequent amendments may be left to the state governments.
Hunting and cultivation in the Tribal Villages inside the sanctuary/national park may be regulated under Wildlife Protection Rules notified by the concerned States.
3. Restoration of Rights of Forest Villages
Forest Villages are not a recognised legal entity in the existing enactments. The Indian Forest Act 1927 refers to "forests adjoining villages" but not "villages adjoining forests". However the National Forest Policy states that "while safeguarding the customary rights and interest of such people (tribal and forest dwellers) forestry programmes should pay special attention to the development of Forest Villages on par with Revenue Villages." The term "Forest Village" should be defined as a human settlement consisting of tribals and other forest people situated inside the sanctuary/national park/reserved forest and included in the definition clauses of the Wild Life Protection Act as well as the Indian Forest Act.
The State Governments may list out the Forest Villages and add a new schedule in the Wild Life Protection Act. Consequently the Forest Villages should also not come under the purview of Sec.27 (restricting entry) of the Wild Life Protection Act.
Hunting and cultivation inside the Forest Villages can be regulated under Wildlife Protection Rules notified by State Governments.
4. Tribal/Forest Labour Co02/22/99operatives
One of the major causes for degradation of forest is illegal cutting and removal by contractors and their labour. The contractors should be replaced by Tribal/Forest Labour Co-operatives. Tribal/Forest Laborers Co-operative Societies should be formed for plantation work, harvesting, marketing and distribution of minor forest produce. The Co- operative Societies can take forest contract work. The minor forest produce should be given to these societies either free or at a nominal cost. Forest labourers and artisans should join the Co-operative Societies and can produce baskets, agriculture implements and other products which can be marketed by the Societies.
These Co-operative Societies can successfully function from inside the protected areas and the reserved forests. The Wildlife Warden can be the ex-officio president of these societies and guide the forest dwellers. Institutional arrangements for the marketing of minor forest produce is very essential. State governments can make necessary rules in this regard in their respective Wildlife Protection Rules.
5. Employment in the Forest Management
The Forest Department should employ at least one male member of every tribal family of the area as a Watcher/Guard in the protected area. The minimum qualification for appointment of Watcher/Guard should be relaxed if necessary. These tribal Watchers/Guards should not be transferred to other sanctuaries/national parks. Appointment of Watchers/Guards from tribal families from the respective area should be made mandatory. This should be incorporated in the Wildlife Protection Rules of the States.
6. Village Forest and Wildlife Protection Committees
Village Forest and Wildlife Protection Committees, consisting of local communities, Forest Department officials and NGOs can be formed for Joint Protected Area Management. The working and management plan for any forest area should be finalised only after consulting these Committees. These Committees should be given appropriate legal status.
7. New Classifications of Forest and Protected Areas
It is now broadly admitted that the present classification of forests into Reserve Forests, Protected Forests, Village Forests, Sanctuaries and National Parks, is inadequate in the emerging perceptions of forest management. The Man and Biosphere programme introduced a set of new classifications like Core Zone, Buffer Zone, Manipulative Zone and Cultural Zone. These zones though important have no legal sanctity. Core zones are critical for conservation, and if necessary all human interference and activities should be kept outside the zones. Such areas are few. But such zones are not legally demarcated within the protected areas. On the other hand, areas which are prone to social conflict, and where the conflict cannot be resolved within a protected area context, should be denotified as sanctuaries/national parks and classified as Village Forests. Constituting friendly "Social Zones" within the forests (both protected areas and other forests) should be considered.
Contact: B.J. Krishnan, Save Nilgiris Campaign, Nahar Building, Charing Cross, Ootacamund 643001.
Suggestions by Chhatrapati Singh, Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-I
(excerpted from 'Legal Policy for India's National Parks and Sanctuaries', paper presented at the Workshop on Joint Management of Protected Areas, September 1-3, 1994, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi).
Background
1. Wildlife and forest are in the Concurrent List of the constitution. This implies that the States have the powers to change their policy/law concerning wild habitats or sanctuaries. The Amendment to the Wild Life Act now provides that the States can change the boundaries by passing a resolution by the State Legislature through a simple sitting majority. This has allowed various governments, such as Gujarat, Orissa and Maharashtra to denotify sanctuaries and alter their boundaries in ways which destroy the habitats of wildlife. This amendment to the Act has led to a Constitutional crisis which needs to be immediately set right if sanctuaries are to be safeguarded.
2. The settlement of rights of the local people, under section 24 (2) (c) of the Wild Life Act, has not been done in most sanctuaries as yet. This creates a major problem in determination of occupancy or resource rights of the indigenous people.
3. The conservation practice and plans are operating with various terms which have no legal definitions, such as `Protected Areas' `Tiger Reserves', `Biospheres', `Buffer Zones', etc. These create numerous problems.
Legal Alternatives
A paradigm shift in legal thought is required if the interest of the sanctuaries and the local people are to be safeguarded. A number of experiences reveal that recognition of group right, whether that group is an ethnic one of a tribe, or an administrative one of a committee or a statutory one of a panchayat district or a state, does not in itself guarantee sustainability of the resources. Additional legal principles need to be invoked and implemented to attain this. As noted earlier, a balance of interests and powers seems to be the most efficacious way to attain the goals. This can be achieved in the following way:
2. Interests of the State: The basic interest of the State is to retain sovereign rights over the designated sanctuary. In the interest of the conservation of biological, diversity it is evidently not interested in the trade, transfer or use of the resources from the area.
In the light of this, the Wild Life Act needs to clearly prohibit all trade and transfer of wildlife species by the State or any of its agencies; the state needs to declare that it is holding the National Park or Sanctuary as a trustee for the people of India. With these clear provisions in the Act, the interests of the state will be safeguarded. The State is also evidently, not interested in "developing" such areas. The Law must also prohibit all development activities in these areas.
3. Interests of the Wildlife: The flora and fauna need to certainly stay in the habitat, that would be their first interest. To establish their right to reside Article 19 (1) of the constitution could be extended to apply to all living beings in the national Parks or Sanctuaries, or alternatively, the Wild Life Act could be amended to make the occupancy right of the wildlife non-alienable. The Act must also guarantee the right to resource to all living beings in such areas.
4. Interests of the people: Local people who have established occupancy/residence rights in law and are interested in staying within the parks and sanctuaries, need to be allowed to do this, with a clear understanding that there will be no development activities in such areas, such as schools, roads, electricity and other facilities or services. The Wild Life Act must clearly prohibit all development activities by the states or others in the Parks and Sanctuaries as well as in the buffer zones around such areas. The limits of the buffer zone must be clearly defined in law.
Where such bona-fide occupancy right of non- tribals or outsiders who have recently migrated into the designated area, cannot be established, or whose rights are genuine and wish to move out, the Wild Life Act must clearly state that they will be rehabilitated and compensated for displacement. The Act must make the planning and implementation of rehabilitation and compensation mandatory and also prior to the full legal recognition of an area as National Park or Sanctuary.
Contact: Chhatrapati Singh, Centre for Environment Law, World Wide Fund for Nature - India, 172-B Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003.
| |
Last modified on: Tue Apr 5 15:38:03 2005