News on Action Towards Joint Protected Area Management

No. 12 December 1996

Our natural environment is important for its ecological and wildlife value, as also for being the survival base of hundreds of millions of rural people. While it is morally imperative that nature and wildlife be protected in their own right, the survival rights of these people cannot be swept aside in the process. And vice versa.

The Supreme Court orders to throw out all encroachments from the Delhi Ridge Reserved Forest (See NEWS FROM SPECIFIC PROTECTED AREAS), which includes the area of the Asola Wildlife Sanctuary, has threatened several thousand slum-dwellers and villagers with eviction. Predictably, government and private agencies (including the armed forces and luxury farmhouses), the biggest destroyers of the Ridge, remain relatively untouched.

In Pench National Park (See NEWS FROM SPECIFIC PROTECTED AREAS), a recent petition has stopped fishing by local people in the reservoir, and a counter-petition by fisherfolk has challenged this. Conservationists point out that outside vested interests, such as fish traders, often benefit in the name of the poor. But in the process of targeting these unscrupulous elements, it is the poor who are worst affected, including the handful of families in Pench for whom fishing is the main livelihood. Unfortunately, conservationists have done little to help such people gain a respectable livelihood which can take them away from the clutches of commercial interests. Unfortunately too, human rights activists have ignored the fact that legally protected areas have often been the best defence against destructive industrial expansion, and that the poor are often a facade for vested interests.

Urban conservationists have to rid themselves of the blind spots which often lead them to have a touching faith in bureaucracy, to avoid confronting their own consumerist lifestyles which cause far more damage than local communities, and to continue with an attitude (rather unscientific) that assumes any resource use (except tourism!) as detrimental to biodiversity. On their part, social activists would do well to be sensitive to the intricacies of wildlife habitats, and the dangers of populist versions of local community control. Such reorientation of both sides of the debate will be crucial, given the increasing level of conflicts in and around protected areas, and the fact that there is a petition before the Supreme Court asking all state governments to move ahead with the procedures concerning rights in protected areas.

Unfortunately, the commercial-industrial economy has pitched environmentalist against environmentalist, activist vs. activist, as can be seen in the Asola, Pench, Rajaji, and other protected areas. Those who have realised that the only beneficiaries of this fight are industrialists/contractors/politicians, are trying to join hands in a common cause: saving the natural habitats which are the homes of wildlife and the resource base of forest-dwellers and fisherfolk and pastoralists. On an understanding that environmental sustainability and social justice are non-separable, conservationists and human rights advocates need agreement on some basic elements of a common platform, e.g. no forcible displacement of local communities from either environmental or developmental projects; no exploitation of threatened wildlife species; rejection of commercial-industrial projects in natural habitats; and equitable partnerships for conservation and livelihood generation.

We invite your comments and suggestions on this vital issue.

Nature’s Beckon, an NGO which was instrumental in the declaration of the Chakrashila Wildlife Sanctuary, has reported that villagers are contributing significantly in the protection of the area. The Sanctuary harbours a population of the endangered Golden langur. In 1994 the NGO had facilitated a meeting between the Forest Department and local communities to work out the principles of Community Forest Management (CFM). Initial efforts at CFM have been undertaken in the forests of Salkocha Range. In January 1995 the villagers are reported to have apprehended four tiger poachers in the Sanctuary, and later that year in June, timber smugglers were also caught by them.

The organisation has organised awareness and education programmes in and around several other protected areas in Assam including Manas Tiger Reserve, Kaziranga National Park, and Dibru Saikhowa, Pabitora, and Rajiv Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuaries. Education material like booklets, folders and posters have also been developed in local languages. The group brings out a newsletter highlighting its various activities (see WHAT’S AVAILABLE?).

Contact: Soumyadeep Datta, Director, Nature’s Beckon, "Datta Bari" Ward No. 1, Dhubri 783 301, Assam. Tel : 03662-20 167; Fax : 03662-20 076.

Following the Workshop on Dalma Sanctuary: Prospects for Conservation, organised in Jamshedpur by the Indian Institute of Public Administration (as part of the project on Participatory Management of Protected Areas), and Tata Steel Rural Development Society in August 1996 (See JPAM Update 11), a series of village-level meetings have been planned. The first of these was organised by Shramjivi Unnayan, a local NGO at Gobarghusi, in end-November 1996. The aim was to discuss in greater detail the recommendations of the Jamshedpur workshop, and develop specific plans for some aspects of Dalma Sanctuary’s conservation and local community livelihood. A report on the meeting is awaited.

Contact: (For information on Dalma and the earlier workshop) K. Christopher, at the editorial address. (For information on the Gobarghusi workshop) Pramod Kumar, Shramjivi Unnayan, PO Gobarghusi 832 105, via Patamda, East Singhbhum District, Bihar.

The 7,777 ha. Delhi Ridge forest has been under constant threat for several decades, from the development pressures of the capital of India, including construction of roads, armed forces activities, conversion to parks, etc. Pressure from environmental organisations over several years has resulted in some level of protection, including its declaration as a Reserve Forest.

In the most recent incident the State Government has been forced to implement a Supreme Court order to free the Ridge from all encroachments. However, in the several months since the judgment, most major occupations by government/private agencies have continued, while the authorities have moved quickly to evict poor slum-dwellers and villagers. In the latest incident, eviction notices were issued to residents of Sanjay, Balbir and Indira Colonies from the Asola Sanctuary area of the Delhi Ridge. The several thousand strong affected population primarily comprises construction worker families who have been living in these colonies for over twenty years. While some alternate area has been identified, this also appears to be a part of the Ridge, though not in its legally notified part. Mostly ravinous, the site is in any case unfit for habitation.

The people have now organised themselves, with help from members of the National Alliance of People’s Movements, under the banner of Gram Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, to oppose their forced eviction. Environmental groups like Kalpavriksh, Srishti, Vatavaran, WWF-I (Delhi-Haryana State Unit) and Development Research and Action Group (DRAG) have supported their struggle; they have asked for the removal of the bigger destroyers (including the Indian Army) first, a negotiated settlement with the villagers, and an investigation on why luxury farmhouses adjacent to the villages have not been targeted for eviction.

Contact: Gram Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, Sanjay Colony, Bhatti Mines, New Delhi 110 030. Vimal, National Alliance of People’s Movements, c/o Delhi Forum, F 10/12 Malviya Nagar, New Delhi 110 017. Tel: 011-642 6783.

The Dhrangadhra Wild Ass Sanctuary, falling in five coastal districts of Gujarat, was established in 1973 to protect the Indian wild ass (Equus hemionus khur) and its last remaining habitat in the Little Rann of Kutch. The adjacent area of the Sanctuary is reported to have 107 villages. These, and additional villages from further away, are dependent on the Sanctuary for salt manufacture, grazing and fishing. Roughly 20% of the salt produced in India is reported to come from this region. An estimated 40,000 people and large numbers of vehicles associated with the salt manufacturing industry are reported to operate inside the Sanctuary.

A local NGO, Dhrangadhra Prakruti Mandal (DPM), has expressed concern over threats facing the Sanctuary. Indiscriminate expansion of salt manufacturing and a possible move to denotify the Sanctuary under pressure from the salt industry, needs to be urgently countered. The organisation has made the following suggestions to mitigate some of the problems presently affecting the Sanctuary:

• Regulation of the salt manufacturing industry.
• Completion of the rights and leases settlement procedure for the Sanctuary.
• Management and enforcement; improvement of degraded habitat.
• Studies on various aspects of flora, fauna and pressures affecting the area.
• Pollution control and halting desert expansion.
• Shifting of military activities out of the area.
• Vigilance among NGOs/conservationists against attempts to denotify the Sanctuary.

A petition to this effect has been filed in the Gujarat High Court by DPM on 2/11/96, with Jhalama Unnati Astha (Dhrangadhra) and Gujarat Nature Conservation Society (Baroda) as co-litigants. Notices have been served by the court to the central and state governments. In addition, the Delhi-based organisation Kalpavriksh has written to the Governer, Chief Minister and Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat and Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, seeking clarification on some of the issues concerning the Sanctuary, and suggesting a participatory planning and management process for defining an appropriate land use plan for the area.

This is the third instance of a wildlife sanctuary in Gujarat being threatened with denotification. The first was the infamous case of a large area of Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary being denotified to make way for a Sanghi industries cement plant; the second was to aid the establishment of the proposed Reliance Oil Refinery adjacent to Marine National Park, which has fortunately not yet materialised.

Contact : Dr. Harin Vadodaria, Dhrahgadhra Prakruti Mandal, opp. State Bank of India, Dhrangadhra 363 310, Gujarat. Tel : 02754-22 023, 22 291.

A petition filed by Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund in the Supreme Court has resulted in a stay on fishing in the Pench reservoir inside Pench National Park and Tiger Reserve which straddles both MP and Maharashtra. While the government of Maharashtra has banned fishing, MP had recently issued fishing licenses to 305 families who had been displaced when the reservoir came up. Conservationists allege that the actual beneficiaries of the licenses are contractors, and that the fishing activity causes considerable disturbance in the Park.

A counter-petition has been filed by some of the fisherfolk, arguing that their survival is threatened by the stay order. Already displaced by the Pench Dam, benefits from which do not reach them anyway, they are bitter that now conservationists are cutting off their livelihood source.

Once again, a classic case of environment vs. livelihoods (see EDITORIAL), created by an ill-conceived development project, threatens to snowball into a major controversy, unless some mutually acceptable compromise can be worked out, which ensures a secure livelihood to the villagers while maintaining the conservation value of Pench National Park. An independent investigation is urgently required. JPAM Update will keep you posted on further developments; meanwhile, readers with information and ideas on this issue are urged to write in.

A workshop was conducted at Kailadevi on 6-7 December 1996, by the Indian Institute of Public Administration (as part of the project on Participatory Management of Protected Areas), and the Society for Sustainable Development, Karauli. The workshop was aimed at initiating constructive dialogue between villagers living inside the Sanctuary, wildlife officials and NGOs, on issues affecting conservation of the area as well as the resource requirements of local communities. Kailadevi Sanctuary is a part of the buffer zone of the Ranthambhor Tiger Reserve.

The two-day Workshop was attended by about 60 villagers from 20 villages, three NGOs (Society for Sustainable Development, Karauli, WWF-India, Ranthambor and IIPA, New Delhi), and several other concerned individuals. Regretably, the Forest Department was absent from the Workshop, other than a solitary Forest Guard, despite repeated assurances (including a personal one from the Field Director Shri S.S. Chaudhry) that they would come. The Workshop had already been rescheduled once, from November to December, at the request of the Forest Department. However, a few retired Forest Department officials made significant contributions to the discussions.

The major issues discussed at the Workshop were the following:

• The rights of villagers to natural resources for sustenance and to sources of livelihood, keeping in consideration the conservation value of the Sanctuary.
• Measures to stop the various external pressures on the Sanctuary including: illegal felling, entry of livestock such as the migratory sheep of the Rabari community, and mining.
• Empowering the village forest protection committees/panchayats, to conserve the area more effectively.

Workshop participants issued a joint resolution on these issues, containing recommendations for specific measures. On the issue of livelihood and employment it was recommended that water availability be urgently enhanced, the productivity of their limited land and livestock be improved, and suitable sources of employment be provided. In addition, adequate and quick compensation for the damage done to crops and livestock by wild animals should be paid. The villagers rejected any attempts at forcible displacement, and stressed that they would ensure conservation of the forests while meeting their livelihood requirements in their existing locations. On the issue of external pressures it was recommended that cattle camps set up by villagers from outside the sanctuary not be permitted once adequate water/fodder arrangements for the resident villagers were available inside; that migratory Rabaris with their sheep herds not be permitted into the entire area; and that illegal felling from outside be tackled by giving more powers to the village level committees. Related to this was the third issue, that of people’s participation in the management of the Sanctuary. For this, it was recommended that the village-level Forest Protection Committees (FPCs), elected by the whole village, should be legally recognised and registered, and should consist of all caste/ethnic communities of the village. At least two out of five members should be women. The FPCs should have the powers of a Forest Ranger, in order to check illegal activities; they should be involved in arbitration in cases of forest offenses committed, and should get 50% of all fines levied in such cases.

The participating villagers also sent a letter to the Rajasthan Chief Minister, protesting the absence of the Forest Department at the workshop, and demanding that it be present for future such meetings.

A full workshop report is currently under preparation and will be available shortly. Participants have decided to meet again on January 30, 1997, at Kailadevi, to review steps taken as follow-up to this workshop.

Contact: Priya Das, at the JPAM Update editorial address. Arun Jindal, Society for Sustainable Development, Karauli, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. Tel: 07464-20 065; 21 065.

Following two meetings between local community and NGO representatives, the Field Director, Rajaji National Park, and representatives from research institutions including the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun and the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, a proposal to facilitate the implementation of the UP Chief Wildlife Warden’s order of May 1995 (see JPAM Update 9) has been drafted. The Field Director is currently in the process of seeking formal approval for this proposal.

The major issues discussed and alternatives suggested were the following:

• Controlled removal of bhabbar grass should be allowed for a period of four months annually, from November to February. The activity will be regulated by village-level committees.
• Haqdari (right-holding) villages will need to identify legitimate resource users in their respective villages, each of whom will be given an identity card.
• The actual removal of bhabbar will be monitored by both the village-level committee and representatives of the Forest Department.
• All the bhabbar extracted from Rajaji National Park must be for local use only.

In an incident related to bhabbar grass extraction, a clash took place on 2 December 1996, in Chilawali Range of Rajaji National Park. Local villagers from Banjarewala, a village situated outside the boundary of the Park, and some Gujjars of Chilawali Range apparently clashed over bhabbar stocks that had already been cut by the Gujjars. Normally the Gujjars do not have any use for this grass. The Ghad Kshetra Mazdoor Sangarsh Samiti, a local organisation, has deplored the role of the Forest Department in this incident for aiding the villagers, rather than controlling the situation before it turned violent between the two groups. On 9 December 1996, at a meeting in Mohand between village and Gujjar representatives, it was resolved to prevent such incidents from taking place in future.

Contact: Diwakar Kumar, Field Director, Rajaji National Park, 5/1 Ansari Road, Dehradun 248 001, Uttar Pradesh. Tel: 0135-621 669; Fax: 0135-621 669. Jaiprakash/Roma, Ghad Kshetra Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti, Village & Post Buggawala, District Haridwar, Uttar Pradesh. B.M.S. Rathore, Wildlife Institute of India, PO Box 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, Uttar Pradesh. Tel: 0135-640 112-5; Fax: 0135-640 117; Email: wii.isnet@axcess.net.in.

According to newspaper reports (The Hitvada 10/08/96), the Maharashtra State Wildlife Board, at its meeting in Mumbai in July this year, is reported to have recommended that nine new protected areas be established (see full list below). It is estimated that these sanctuaries will together cover an area of 854.02 sq km. Seven of the new sanctuaries are in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. There are currently 29 protected areas (5 national parks and 24 sanctuaries) in the State, covering an area of approximately 14,775 sq km.

A candid survey of the willingness of officials of the Forest and Environment Departments to oppose pressures to make available forest land, particularly wildlife habitats, for industry and other development needs, has led to some depressing findings. The following is a selection of examples from Bittu Sahgal’s report in the Deccan Herald (3/11/96):

Nagarjuna-Srisailam Tiger Reserve, Andhra Pradesh: The construction of a tail pond for the Nagarjunsagar Dam is expected to submerge 81 ha of forest land. The Forest Department has justified the move by stating it will create a wetland area suitable for crocodile, fish and aquatic birds.

Palamau Tiger Reserve, Bihar: The Horilong Mine Project has sought to divert 11.92 ha from Palamau Tiger Reserve. The Deputy Conservator of Forests (Core) has apparently directed that the boundary of the Reserve be redrawn to exclude this area. Information from the Ministry of Environment & Forests has confirmed that there are dry sal forests on this land. An additional 794.91 ha of forest land will be brought under mining in the adjacent area.

Sitanadi Sanctuary, MP: The Sondur Irrigation Project requires 1,080.22 ha of which 529.70 ha fall within Sitanadi Sanctuary, one of the few remaining areas in the country for Wild Buffalo.

Jhirayiya Tank Project, MP: 128.47 ha of forest land, with more than 86,000 standing trees, has been cleared for utilisation by this project. The Chief Wildlife Warden reportedly did not consider the area significant for wildlife as it did not form part of any existing protected area.

Kudremukh National Park, Karnataka: The Ministry of Environment & Forests granted clearance to the Kudremukh Iron Ore Corporation, for a new ‘prospecting lease’ in the Park. Iron ore mining operations over the last several years have already damaged substantial portions of the Park. An estimated 75,000 tonnes of mining debris now pollutes the Bhadra River which flows into the Bhadra Sanctuary.

Tuirial Hydro-electric Project, Mizoram: The Project is expected to submerge an area of 5,330 ha including an estimated two lakh trees and several crore bamboos. 11 species of endangered animals have also been reported from the area. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests did not believe the area was significant from the wildlife point of view.

Contact: Bittu Sahgal, Sanctuary Magazine, 602 Maker Chambers V, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021. Tel: 022-283 0061; Fax: 287 4380; Email: bittu@ecologist.ilbom.ernet.in.

According to the Press Trust of India (11/11/96) the Minister of State for Environment and Forests has stated that the government intends to declare 73 new national parks and 75 new wildlife sanctuaries across the country. This is in addition to the existing 521 protected areas in the country today. There is also a proposal to increase the number of biosphere reserves from the current eight. This announcement was made at the inauguration of the Pan-Asian Ornithological Congress in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. One hopes that the declaration of new protected areas is done in full consultation with local communities in these areas and respects their livelihood rights, unlike what has happened in the past.

IUCN-The World Conservation Union, organised a session on Collaborative Management for Conservation from 17-20 October, 1996, as part of its General Assembly and World Conservation Congress at Montreal, Canada. Apart from presentation of co-management experiences from several countries, the highlight of the session was the formulation of a resolution on collaborative management. Later adopted by the General Assembly, the resolution urges all countries/members of IUCN to consider co-management approaches to conservation.

Contact: Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Social Policy Unit, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 28 Rue Mauverney, Ch-1196 Gland, Switzerland. Tel: 41-22-999 0001; Fax: 41-22-999 0025; Email: gbf@hq.iucn.org.

Organised by the Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC), Kasetsart University, in collaboration with the World Wide Fund for Nature, the course is designed to provide forestry and natural resource professionals with the necessary skills to effectively plan, implement and monitor projects which focus on local participation in protected area management. Applicants are expected to have direct responsibility in a protected area programme besides a university degree or equivalent experience in forestry, social sciences or related fields. Proficiency in spoken and written English is essential. The course fee is US$3,975 and includes course material, accommodation, daily allowance, field study and health insurance. Sources for financial support suggested by the organisers include: FAO, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Ford Foundation, AusAID, USAID, ODA, DANCED, The Asia Foundation and ITTO.

Contact: Dr. Somsak Sukwong, Director, RECOFTC, Kasetsart University, PO Box 1111, Bangkok 10903, Thailand. Tel: 66-2-940 5700; Fax: 66-2-561 4480: Email: ftcsss@nontri.ku.ac.th.

The Raipur-based Chattisgarh Institute of Law is organising a Seminar on People’s Rights Over Sanctuaries. The objectives of the Seminar include: preservation and promotion of the relationship between people, forests and wildlife; to address certain prevailing myths surrounding wildlife conservation; and to build positive public opinion on these issues. Participants will include academics, lawyers, journalists, environmental activists and government officials. Activists working among the inhabitants of Sitanadi, Udanti and Barnawapara Sanctuaries are also expected to attend.

Contact: Bose Thomas/Gautam K. Bandyopadhyay, Chattisgarh Institute of Law, Raipur, Madhya Pradesh. Tel: 0771-421 926 (R); Fax: 0771-425 163 (Attn. Gautam).

This Workshop has been sponsored by UNESCO, and organised by the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. Participants are expected from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Mongolia, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It will provide an opportunity for participants to share experiences and discuss some of the major issues facing community-based conservation in the South Asian region. Workshop themes will include: policy and law; institutional structures; role of traditional knowledge systems; the challenges of social inequities including caste, class and gender; and issues relating to benefit-sharing.

Contact: Ashish Kothari, at the editorial address.

• CEE. 1996. Seminar on Protected Areas of Gujarat : Recommendations and Abstract of Proceedings. Centre for Environment Education (CEE), Ahmedabad. Pp 41.

The report of a seminar on ‘Protected Areas of Gujarat’, held on 19-20 December 1995, jointly organised by CEE, Gujarat Ecology Commission, Gujarat Forest Department, Gujarat Nature Conservation Society and World Wide Fund for Nature-India, Gujarat. The Seminar was attended by over 130 representatives of the state Forest Department, other government agencies, NGOs, academics, and conservationists. The primary objective of the seminar was to develop strategies for effective management of protected areas in the state.

Working group themes at the seminar included: threats to protected areas from industry and commerce; role of people in and around protected areas; pilgrimage, tourism and interpretation in protected areas; management of protected areas; research methodology for monitoring the health of protected areas; and communications strategy for generating public support.

Contact: Centre for Environment Education, Thaltej Tekra, Ahmedabad 380 054, Gujarat. Tel: 0272-442 642, 442 651; Fax: 0272-420 242.

• EIA. 1996. The Political Wilderness: India’s Tiger Crisis. Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), London. Pp 37.

The second report on the Indian Tiger to be produced by an international agency in recent months. (The first was produced by the UK-based Tiger Trust). The EIA report consolidates a lot of the available information on tiger conservation in India without being sensational, unlike the other report. However, it too gives inadequate coverage to the critical issue of local community involvement in conservation.

The major recommendations the report makes include the following: the Indian Board for Wildlife must be reconvened; additional financial resources should be allocated for wildlife conservation in the next Five Year Plan; the findings of various expert committees must be heeded by the government; and the international community must make available all necessary assistance to enable India to overcome its tiger crisis.

Contact: Environmental Investigation Agency, 15 Bowling Green, London EC1R OBD, United Kingdom. Tel: 44-171-4907040; Fax: 44-171-490 0436; Email: eiauk@gn.apc.org.

• ECONET. 1996. The National Conference on Biodiversity and Legislation in India. 12-14 April, 1996. ECONET, Pune. Pp 25.

Brief proceedings of a three-day National Conference on Biodiversity Legislation in India, organised by the Pune-based organisation ECONET, and attended by over 50 academics, lawyers, NGOs and activists concerned with biodiversity conservation issues in India. The report includes: list of papers presented, detailed recommendations and conclusions of the Conference (including those related to protected areas), a list of references related to biodiversity conservation, and a list of participants.

Contact: Vijay Paranjapye, ECONET, 5 Sanket, Vijaynagar Colony, 2123 Sadashiv Peth, Pune 411 030. Fax: (0212) 331 250, 476 451.

• Gokhle, Yogesh V. and Raghunandan A. Velankar. 1996. Documenting People’s Knowledge About Biodiversity at Supegaon Village, District Raigad, Maharashtra State, India. RANWA Technical Report No. 6. Research and Action in Natural Wealth Administration (RANWA), Pune. Pp 34.

The report carries detailed socio-economic and ecological information on Supegaon village adjacent to Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary, Maharashtra, and includes recommendations for a village-level biodiversity conservation strategy. The study is an example of the practical application of the concept of "community register’ currently being developed by several groups and co-ordinated by the Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT), Bangalore. The text is well supported by several tables, diagrams, local resource use maps and lists of useful plants.

Contact: Research and Action in Natural Wealth Administration, 16 Swatishree Society, Ganeshnagar, Pune 411 052. Tel: 0212-364 218 (attn. Bhushan), 450 036 (attn. Shonil); Fax: 0212-475 942; Email: pune.lascom@axcess.net.in.

• IUCN/WCPA South Asia Newsletter

Newsletter of the South Asia region of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (formerly CNPPA), covering Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Carries protected area related information from these countries as well as other IUCN news. First issue was released in October 1996, copies of which are available on request.

Contact: Kishore Rao, WCPA South Asia Regional Vice-Chair, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi 110 003. Tel: 011-436 0957; Fax: 011-436 3918; Email: krao@envfor.delhi.nic.in.

• Nature’s Beckon News

Newsletter of the Dhubri-based NGO of the same name. Carries news on the activities of the organisation, as well as from other parts of Assam, in the field of environmental education, wildlife conservation, workshops/meetings announcements and reports, publications, etc. See also above, NEWS FROM SPECIFIC AREAS (Assam).

Contact: Soumyadeep Datta, Director, Nature’s Beckon, "Datta Bari" Ward No. 1, Dhubri 783 301, Assam. Tel : 03662-20 167; Fax : 03662-20 076.

• WWF-India. 1996. Participatory Management Planning for Keoladeo National Park. World Wide Fund for Nature-India Pp 187.

Detailed proceedings of a WWF-India initiated Participatory Rural Appraisal training workshop held at Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan, from 20 November-5 December, 1995. Participants included local villagers, Forest Department personnel, NGOs and conservationists. The report documents the process of analysing resource use, issues and problems confronted and suggested alternatives for each, for six villages around the Park.

The report is available both in Hindi and English. A 15 minute film Conservation with a Human Face has also been made on this effort.

Contact: Parikshit Gautam, Wetlands Division, WWF-India, 172 B, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi 110 003. Tel: 011-461 6532, 469 3744; Fax: 011-462 6837; Email: wwfindel@unv.ernet.in.

Besides sending out copies to a mailing list, the JPAM Update is also put out on a global natural history email conference focusing on India. Responses to the JPAM Update are regularly from subscribers to this conference.

JPAM Update 11, in its section on NATIONAL NEWS, had carried details of a statement on ecodevelopment, issued by the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment and signed by several leading activists, academics and conservationists. Reproduced below is a summary of some of the email responses to this news item:

Rauf Ali, ecologist based at Auroville, Pondicherry (email dated 14/10/96), questioned the position taken in the statement, that it is not poverty but oppressive forest laws which are the crux of the problem. He said that this statement is only an assertion without the backing of "good statistically validated data". Rauf has been involved with Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve for a long time and has seen the ecodevelopment project evolve there. Notwithstanding slow release of funds, the project is reported to have been executed with "genuine participation", by the Forest Department and the Vivekanada Kendra.

Jagdish Krishnaswamy, a PhD student at Duke University, USA (email dated 14/10/96), agreed with the above position and added that "many of the (forest) dependent people were already marginalised long before reserves (and protected areas) came up."

Vinay Sinha, of the College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, USA (email dated 14/10/96), was of the opinion that various levels of demands will continue to be made on forests, often with unpredictable ecological consequences. "The challenge is to search for a really innovative management, which could address both local as well as global demands from the forest. It is useful to look in the past for an idea but one cannot live there."

Nina Sengupta, also an ecologist (email dated 16/10/96), felt that while the issue of poverty and forest dependence was a complex one, some effort was being made to amend existing laws to enable participation of local communities in forest management. However, there still exist problems of implementation and monitoring. "Wildlife laws are not perfect, but they are going in the right direction."

Email contacts: Rauf Ali rauf@auroville.org.in. Jagdish Krishnaswamy jug@acpub.duke.edu. Vinay Sinha vksinha@mailbox.syr.edu. Nina Sengupta sengupta@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu.

Readers are urged to carry on this debate. Interested people can subscribe to the conference at:

JPAM Update is produced every two months as a follow-up to the workshop on Exploring the Possibilities of Joint Protected Area Management (JPAM), organised at IIPA, New Delhi, in September 1994.

JPAM Update 12 was prepared by Farhad Vania, Priya Das, Suniti K. Jha, and Ashish Kothari. Secretarial support was provided by Vishal Thakre, Sangeeta Kaintura and Virender Anand.

Ideas, comments, news and information may please be sent to: Ashish Kothari, Indian Institute of Public Administration, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi 110 002. Tel: 011-331 7309; Fax: 011-331 9954; Email: akothari@kv.unv.ernet.in.