JPAM UPDATE No. 13

The city of Nagaon, on the NH 37 between Guwahati and Jorhat, possesses an active nesting colony of Greater adjutant storks. The nesting site, covering an area of about 5 bighas, is located in a residential part of the city with houses, some still under construction, all around. There are several large trees (80-100) on the site, of which five trees with about 24 nests, are being occupied by the storks. It is not yet known why the storks prefer to nest only in the trees on this plot when there are several others of the same species around town and in a nearby Reserve Forest.

The site is under threat as its present owners are considering giving it up for development as a housing colony. The storks on this site have been under investigation since September 1994, under a joint project between the Centre for Wildlife and Ornithology, Aligarh Muslim University, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Green Guard Nature Organisation. There is a proposal under consideration to buy up the plot and convert the area into a sanctuary. It is estimated the plot would cost around 15-20 lakhs at current prices.

The Greater Adjutant Stork is globally endangered, with only a few hundred remaining individuals. Assam has the majority of this population. Lesser adjutant storks, also reported to be nesting in the same trees, are considered Vulnerable as per IUCN standards.

In another incident in early March ‘97, a senior Nagaland police official was involved in killing a Lesser adjutant stork in Uriagaon, near Nagaon. The local villagers apprehended the official and his party and handed them over to the local police. A local NGO, Aaranyak Nature Club, has protested against the incident.

In 1996, several tribal activist groups in Karnataka (see Source below) had jointly filed a public interest litigation in the Karnataka High Court against the leasing of land in Nagarahole National Park (now called Rajiv Gandhi NP) for the establishment of a holiday resort. The Karnataka Forest Department had entered into an 18 year lease agreement with the Taj Group of Hotels, to set up and run the Gateway Tusker Lodge which would be located at Murkal. The project, estimated to cost Rs.4.80 crores, would have involved the construction of tourist facilities, including the installation of powerful diesel generators for electricity, at the site of an abandoned saw mill. No prior clearance from the Central Government had been sought for the project, even though it is mandatory under the Forest (Conservation) Act.

The Karnataka High Court interpreted tourism to be a ‘non-forest activity’, and in issuing its final order on the case, ruled that the Taj group must stop all its activities on the forest land in question and hand over its possessions to the State Government. The Supreme Court order of 12 December 1996 (See National News) was also partially instrumental in deciding the case in favour of the petitioners.

On 5 March 1997 the Supreme Court passed its final judgement on the Pench National Park case (See JPAM Update 12). In May 1996 the Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh had granted permits for fishing in Totladoh reservoir to 305 persons who had been displaced in the 1970s, following submergence due to the construction of the Pench Hydro-electric Project Dam. The granting of these permits had been challenged by the Delhi-based Animal and Environment Legal Defense Fund as being a violation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. A counter-petition was filed by the Jan Van Andolan Samiti, representing the affected fisherfolk.

The judgement is a mix of elements favouring both parties: "While every attempt must be made to preserve the fragile ecology of the forest area, and protect the Tiger Reserve, the right of the tribals formerly living in the area to keep body and soul together must also receive proper consideration." It upholds fishing, by the dam-affected people, as an activity to meet their livelihood requirement. However, recognising the potential problems this may create for conservation, it also lays down several conditions to be met prior to the actual commencement of fishing. Finally it asks the MP government to expedite the final notification of Pench National Park. The Court has also asked the Jan Van Andolan Samiti, based in Totladoh, to enable the fisherfolk to understand the conditions of the judgement.

The terms and conditions to be met are:

1. Photo identity cards will be issued to all legitimate permit holders, in the form of a non-transferable "personal right."
1. The MP government will appoint a person of appropriate authority to demarcate the parts of the reservoir where fishing will be allowed. Movement inside the Park will be regulated through a series of check-posts to be set up by the Park authorities.
1. Access to the reservoir will only be allowed on the Totladoh-Thuepani road. Fishing will be banned from July to October.
1. No night halts inside the Park will be permitted nor will fishermen be allowed to light fires for cooking or any other purpose on the banks of the reservoir.
1. The MP government will sanction an adequate number of personnel and obtain necessary equipment to monitor the activities of the 305 fisherfolk.

In JPAM Update 10 we had reported on the efforts of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to collaborate with Orissa Krushak Mahasangha, an NGO based in Bhubaneshwar, and the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, on minimising the adverse impacts of a missile test range currently under construction on Outer Wheeler Island in Bhitarkanika Sanctuary. At the time the DRDO had agreed to undertake the following measures:

1. As far as possible, missile test firing will not be carried out between November and April, which is the peak turtle nesting period at Gahirmatha beach.
2. Lighting arrangements on Outer Wheeler Island during construction, and thereafter, will be suitably altered to prevent confusing turtle hatchlings, who have been observed heading away from the sea under the influence of lights.
3. The DRDO will request the Indian Coast Guard, and possibly the Indian Navy, to assist in patrolling and anti-poaching operations during the nesting period.

By January this year the DRDO, on the advice of the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Ministry, is reported to have made the following arrangements:

• Lights being used at the construction site have been masked.
• The activities at the site have been rescheduled so as not to cause undue disturbance during the peak nesting period.
• Indian Navy and Indian Coast Guards have been requested to provide protection around Gahirmatha Beach, one of the largest turtle nesting rookeries in the area.

While these are sound initial measures in themselves, they will only be put to test when the mass nesting of the Olive Ridley turtle begins. According to reports from the area the nesting had not commenced till end-March, an unprecedented delay compared to previous years. A few thousand turtles have nested at Rishikulya in Ganjam district, but Gahirmatha beach remains bare. The reasons for this delay are as yet unclear, however there is speculation that the large numbers of turtles killed by fishing trawlers in recent months may have had an effect. The Orissa government is reported to have indiscriminately issued licences for trawlers, which are reported to have flouted regulations by fishing within 20 km of the coastline.

We have been regularly reporting the progress of IIPA’s Participatory Management of Protected Areas (PMPA) project in Kailadevi Sanctuary (see JPAM Update 9 & 12). On 6-7 December 1996 a workshop had been organised on ‘Kailadevi Sanctuary: Prospects for Conservation’, which was followed up by a meeting on 30 January 1997. Apart from residents of the Sanctuary villages, the meeting was also attended by representatives from Gopalpur and Faria villages. (These villages had been relocated from the Ranthambor National Park in the 1980s and settled in the Khandhar region of Sawai Madhopur. WWF-India has an ongoing field project in these villages.) Some Forest Department officials also attended the meeting. The following points came up for discussion:

Forest Department/district administration response: There has been virtually no constructive response from either the Forest Department or the district administration on any of the resolutions of the December ‘96 meeting (See JPAM Update 12). The Forest Department has claimed that the issue of amendments to the livestock/crop damage compensation procedure, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Sanctuary-level authorities. However, no commitments have been made to take it up at a higher level.

Follow up action: The villagers have decided to take their own initiative on some the resolutions adopted at earlier meetings. As a first step, one village has agreed to identify land suitable for agriculture that legally belongs to the Forest Department but is devoid of any forest cover. They will also identify equivalent revenue land, some with existing forest, which can then be exchanged for the land they wish to cultivate.

A group of villagers also decided to visit Tarun Bharat Sangh, an NGO based on the outskirts of Sariska Tiger, to hold discussions with people there on their initiatives in water conservation. (This visit took place on 8-10 March ‘97, but no additional details are currently available.)

In another meeting, held on 20 February 1997, an informal evaluation of the PMPA project initiative in Kailadevei was done, with most people of the opinion that it had been an extremely positive experience for them to have been able to interact with the Forest Department as equals.

Future meetings will be the responsibility of each Forest Protection Committee (FPC) adhyaksh, including arranging for representation from villages under their FPCs. Participants have decided to issue pamphlets in their villages with information on their progress so far and announcements for upcoming meetings.

India Ecodevelopment Project: The Sanctuary will be taken up in the second phase of the India Ecodevelopment Project proposed for Ranthambhor Tiger Reserve. There is virtually no reliable information available on this project at the village level. In November 1996 the Forest Department held a four-day workshop to orient their front-line staff (and some Forest Protection Committee members from the Kailadevi villages) with different aspects of the project. However, the participants did not report any significant change in their understanding. This has not prevented the Forest Department from claiming that many of the problems currently being experienced by the villagers will be taken care of under the India Ecodevelopment Project.

As part of the project, two micro-plans are reported to have been drawn up by the Forest Department for Lakhruki and Maramda villages in the Kailadevei area. However, the people of these villages are unaware when this exercise was carried out nor have they actually seen a copy of any micro-plan for their village.

The World Bank Project Appraisal Mission visited Ranthambhor Tiger Reserve in February, and reportedly asked for all micro-plans to be redone in the next 6 months, this time with more meaningful involvement and participation of the local people.

The Roads and Buildings Department of Andhra Pradesh is in a process of upgrading its state highways and major district roads. The World Bank is supporting a part of the APSHP with a loan of Rs.1,100 crores. An environmental impact assessment of the project undertaken in 1996 indicates that a section of the Pericherala-Guntoor road passes through Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve for a distance of over 12 km, while the Warangal-Pollacolu road passes close to the western boundary of Sri Venkateswara Sanctuary.

Environmentalists have expressed concern at the potential impact the road building activities and the increased traffic on the roads once completed, will have on the habitat and wildlife of these areas. The Infrastructure and Miscellaneous Projects Environment Appraisal Committee of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in its last meeting has asked for the following:

1. All sections of the APSHP affecting protected areas will be realigned, heading away from these areas.
1. The MoEF will hold back clearance for the project pending site visit reports by its Environment Appraisal Committee to the affected areas.

A number of people’s organisations have grouped together under the banner of Campaign on People’s Rights Over Sanctuaries and National Parks in Madhya Pradesh. These include Ekta Parishad, Chhatisgarh Mukti Morcha, Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Sangathan, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Adivasi Mukti Sangathan, Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangathan, and several other groups from the state working on forest/people issues. Over the last few months, the Campaign has been organising a series of actions aimed at pressurising the Madhya Pradesh Government to review its policies and programmes related to forests and wildlife in the state.

On 19 January, 1997, the Campaign along with the Chhatisgarh Institute of Law organised a one-day Seminar on People’s Rights Over Sanctuaries and National Parks, at Raipur. The meeting was attended by affected tribals from several of MP’s protected areas (Sitanadi, Udanti, Barnawapara, Bandhavagarh, Kanker Ghati, and Kanha), and academics and activists from Raipur, the Chhattisgarh region, and Delhi. The meeting highlighted the suffering that was being caused to tribals in the state’s protected areas, due to top-down insensitive policies, and recommended that local people be involved in managing these areas, as also be ensured adequate means of livelihood.

On January 30, a public meeting and one-day fast was held at Bhopal, to protest against the World Bank funded MP Forestry Project, and to highlight the case of people living in and around protected areas. Local people from several protected areas attended the meeting including: Kanha, Bandhavgarh, Sanjay, and Panna National Parks and Kanker Ghati, Sitanadi, Bori, and Semarsot Sanctuaries. A recent problem in some of these protected areas has been the zealous implementation of the central government directives to district collectors to complete pending procedures regarding people’s rights under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (see National News, below). There is little reliable information available at the village level and rumours of displacement are widespread.

A statement issued on the day stated that:

1. The destruction of forests is more due to industrial and urban demand rather than that of tribals and other forest-dependent communities.
1. Forest-related policies, projects and legislation that have been formulated without prior consultation of forest dwellers are totally unacceptable.
1. The government has failed to protect forests. It is the local people who can protect forests and forest-dependent livelihoods.
1. Displacement of people in the name of national parks, sanctuaries or plantations is unacceptable.
1. The World Bank MP Forestry Project will be opposed at all costs.

On April 2, the Campaign held simultaneous rallies, dharnas, and public meetings in district and tehsil headquarters across the state. People participating in the activities included affected villagers from Bandhavagarh, Sanjay, and Panna National Parks, and Sitanadi, Udanti and Kanker Ghati Sanctuaries, and from the forests of Dhar, Chhattarpur, Tikamgadh, Bilaspur, Satna, and Shivpuri. The main demands were similar to the above.

A public meeting is now planned to be held in the Madhav National Park and Palpur Kuno Sanctuary area, on April 12.

On 13 March 1997, the IBWL convened after a gap of eight years. The meeting was chaired by the Prime Minister and attended by the Minister for Environment and Forests, other officials, and NGO representatives.

Some of the IBWL members issued an appeal to the Prime Minister urging the implementation of the following:

1. An address to the nation by the Prime Minister on the threats to wildlife and the need for urgent action.
2. Support from the Prime Minister’s Office for reforming the country’s mechanisms for conservation.
3. Ensuring that the budgetary allocation of Rs.2,500 crores, for the Ministry of Environment and Forests, is obtained without any cuts.
4. Establishment of new co-ordination mechanisms between the Centre and states to ensure effective implementation of policies and timely availability of funds.
5. Reforms in the Indian Forest Service to enable it to meet emerging challenges, and improvement in the service conditions of field officers.

The outcome of the meeting will be reported in the next Update.

District authorities in several states have issued notices to villages within and around protected areas, to register claims regarding their rights to resources inside the protected areas. This follows a Supreme Court observation asking the Central Government to specify what steps it is taking to ensure that the Wild Life (Protection) Act provisions are being complied with.

Reports of the process having being initiated have been received from Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. The experience does not seem to have been very positive.

In Melghat Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra, the Revenue Department published a full page notification (No. 1/1996 dated 21/12/96) in a local newspaper (Loksatta 29/12/96) identifying the boundaries of the Reserve and the names of 22 villages to be covered in the settlement process. Included in the notification was a sample application form, for individuals to make out their claims of existing rights and expected compensation. The last date for filing claims was 21 February 1997. According to a local NGO, Van Vidhayak Sameeksha Samanvaya, besides publication in the newspaper, the notification was also sent to sarpanches of panchayat samitis, but no copies were reported to have been received in the villages themselves.

Similar notices have been issued in villages in protected areas in Madhya Pradesh. In Semarsot Sanctuary, for example, villages (predominantly tribal) have received such notices along with copies of ‘Form 8’ (the format to file claims). 95% of the local population is reported to be illiterate. After some initial uncertainty over trying to understand what the process was all about (no official explanation was given), they have organised themselves under the Semarsot Abhyaranya Sangharsh Samiti. Several demonstrations were held in Sarguja, the district headquarters, with petitions being sent to the Collector and state government demanding greater clarity about the situation. The last date for filing claims was 28 December 1996. The current situation in the area is not known.

Readers are urged to write in to the Editorial address, about any other instances of notices being issued to villages in order to complete the settlement process for any protected area, and related problems.

With the opening up of India’ economy, tourism has also received a major boost, raising fears of adverse impacts on India’s environment and cultural diversity. A 2-day Conference on Management of Tourism in National Parks and Sanctuaries: The Human Experience, was organised to discuss these and related issues, in New Delhi, on 26-27th March, 1997. The conference was organised by the Jawaharlal Nehru University and the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. More details of the outcome are awaited.

A two-day workshop on ‘People and Protected Areas’, organised by the National Committee for Protection of Land Resources, was held at Nagpur on 7-8 December 1996. Participating organisations included: Sahbhagi Vikas Kendra (Orissa), Joint Council for Tribal Action Tamil Nadu), Abhiyan (Bihar), Ekta Parishad (Madhya Pradesh), Nagarahole Budakattu Hakku, Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (Karnataka), and Setu (Gujarat). The participants resolved to:

• Lobby with the government to adopt and implement the Bhuria Committee Report on tribal autonomy;
• Oppose the policy of leasing of forest lands to industry;
• Oppose the India Ecodevelopment Project, currently being implemented in seven protected areas across the country (See past few issues of JPAM Update).

Participants demanded that the government first acknowledge the traditional approaches to conservation of tribal communities, before going in for large externally funded projects. The meeting also sent a jointly signed letter to Digvijay Singh, Chief Minister, Madhya Pradesh, protesting the handing over of forest land to commercial interests in Betul, Chhindwara, Seoni and Rajnandgaon districts of the state.

The Committee set up by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to amend the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, is still in the process of drafting its final recommendations.

Meanwhile, the Friends of Doon, a Dehradun-based NGO, made a submission to the Inspector General (IG) of Forests on wildlife conservation in the country with some suggestions regarding the Wild Life (Protection) Act. These are summarised below:

1. Expanded management categories and criteria to determine management category status for each area, besides giving legal recognition to biosphere reserves and tiger reserves.
1. JFM in limited number of existing protected areas and possibly under some of the expanded management categories. However, total protection for natural rainforests, productive wetlands, coastal protected areas, areas containing endangered species, high biodiversity areas include core zones of national parks.
1. Compensation to people adversely affected by protected areas especially injury/death to humans, and property/crop damage, by wildlife.
1. Settlement of rights and leases in a time bound period, resettlement of inside populations outside, with land rights, monetary compensation and social benefits.
1. Magisterial powers for field directors of protected areas.
1. Terms of employment of Forest Department (Wildlife Wing) staff to be equivalent to that of state police forces.
1. Environmental impact assessment of certain activities adjacent to protected areas to be made mandatory.
1. Field directors to be enabled to take decisions on controlled extraction of forest produce, translocation of wildlife, culling when numbers exceed carrying capacity, etc.
1. Appointment of Honorary Wildlife Wardens for protected areas.

On 12 December 1996 the Supreme Court passed an order on the felling of trees in forest areas in India in the T.N. Godavaram Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and others case (see Source below). The order has implications for all forest areas, including those within protected areas. Key excerpts from the order:

1. "In accordance with Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, all ongoing activity within any forest in any state throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government."
1. "In the tropical wet evergreen forests of Tirap and Changlang in Arunanchal Pradesh, there would be a complete ban on felling of any kind of trees therein because of their particular significance to maintain ecological balance."
1. "The felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in accordance with the Working Plans of the State Governments, as approved by the Central Government."
1. "There shall be a complete ban on the movement of cut trees and timber from any of the seven North-Eastern states to any other state of the country."
1. "Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to: identify areas which are (presently) forests; areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared; areas covered by plantations."
1. "Each State Government should within two months file a report regarding: number of saw/veneer/plywood mills operating in the state with particulars of ownership; the licensed and actual capacity of these mills for stocking and sawing; proximity to nearest forest; and source of timber."
1. "Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to assess: the sustainable capacity of the forests of the state qua saw mills and timber-based industry; the number of saw mills that can be ‘safely’ sustained in the state; the optimum location of saw mills."
1. "Each State Government would constitute a Committee comprising of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and other senior officers to oversee the compliance of this order and file status reports."

The order also contains additional directives for specific states including Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and the hill regions of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal,.

A group of individuals associated with the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, has initiated a South Asian regional survey of community participation in conservation of wildlife and natural habitats, including protected areas. Facilitated by the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), which is sponsoring similar assessments in various regions of the world, the study aims to bring out the key issues arising from participatory and community-based conservation efforts, and feed these into further policy-building in each of the involved countries. The study is in three phases: in the first, a broad overview of the situation in each of the South Asian countries (Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Maldives, and Bangladesh) will be obtained; in the second, detailed field research will be carried out at selected sites in some of these countries; and in the third, the results from this region will be compared with the results from other regions of the world.

Apart from the regional and global reports, the other outputs of the project will be: a detailed inventory of sites where community involvement is taking place, a database of related persons/organisations, and a listing of relevant materials. It is also hoped that the process of networking between these people and organisations will be facilitated during the project.

Readers who are familiar with literature, people/organisations, and ongoing efforts/experiences on the subject, are requested to contact the research team. A questionnaire has been prepared for the purposes of the study; anyone who can help to fill it up will be most gratefully sent a copy, and will also receive the project outputs.

Conservationists, social activists, government officers, and academics from Pakistan, Nepal, India, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bhutan, United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Mongolia participated in a Regional Workshop on Community-Based Conservation: Policy and Practice, held in New Delhi on February 9-11, 1997. The Workshop was organised by the Indian Institute of Public Administration, and sponsored by UNESCO’s Regional Office for South and Central Asia. Discussions covered a range of issues, including legal and policy measures, institutional structures, benefit-sharing measures, and the role of local community knowledge. The major recommendations can be summarised as follows:

• Full respect, protection, and support must be given to local community knowledge relevant to conservation, and complementarity sought between this and formal knowledge systems.
• Innovative mechanisms of sharing the benefits of conservation with local communities must be evolved and employed, keeping in mind the need to equitably distribute these benefits, to ensure benefits to the disprivileged, and to ensure that resource exploitation is sustainable.
• Revival of traditional institutional structures, where relevant, or creation of new ones as needed, should be encouraged; these structures should ensure the full participation of local people (including women), and in particular those that are disprivileged within society.
• Laws and policies related to conservation should ensure the inclusion of local community rights and participation in conservation areas and programmes, while strictly regulating activities which could cause irreversible damage to biodiversity. Such laws should also be flexible to allow for site-specific modifications.

A full report of the Workshop has been prepared by the co-ordinating team of R.V. Anuradha, Neema Pathak, and Ashish Kothari (see below, What’s Available). In addition, the full set of papers presented (about 25) are being edited by the same team, for publication as a book.

In a significant move to diffuse tensions between government authorities and local people living adjacent to protected areas, the Nepalese government has notified the Buffer Zone Management Regulation 2052 (1996) under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2029 (1973).

The Act permits 30 to 50% of the revenue generated by a protected area to be channelled back to local communities; this provision is to be used to provide developmental and other inputs to communities living adjacent to the four protected areas (Chitwan, Bardia, Parsa, and Suklaphanta), in Nepal's terai area. It also brings in a substantially larger area under the control of the PA staff, and provides for the participation of people in management of the buffer areas (though not as yet of the protected area itself). Currently, some work in the above direction has started under a UNDP sponsored People and Parks Project.

Nepal is already well-known for its innovative approach in the Annapurna Conservation Area, where a vast area (over 7000 sq.km.) is under the management of an NGO and a large number of village-level committees.

Following up on a joint statement issued at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) meeting in 1994, the Governments of India and Nepal have adopted a resolution at a consultative meeting on biodiversity conservation, held on 3-5 January 1997 in Kathmandu. The resolution seeks to:

1. Improve national legislation to address the requirements of CITES.
1. Encourage establishment of trans-boundary protected areas.
1. Maintain and share information from appropriate databases.
1. Set up anti-poaching units to tackle illegal trade and encroachment.
1. Investigate the illegal trade routes between the two countries.
1. Monitor the trans-boundary movement of wild animals.
1. Promote mutual co-operation in research, training and visit programs.
1. Initiate measures at the national, regional and local levels to involve people in conservation.
1. Establish a process to involve all relevant government agencies in control of illegal trade.

In earlier issues of JPAM Update (No.’s 5, 6, 7), we reported on new policy and legislation in Uganda, mandating the collaborative management (CM) of its protected areas. A taskforce was set up by the Uganda Wildlife Authority to look into the implementation of CM. This exercise was commissioned by the country’s Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities, given financial support by NORAD, and technical support by IUCN.

The taskforce has come out with its report, which provides a conceptual framework for CM, operational guidelines for implementing it, specific institutional responsibilities, and a 5-year workplan. The detailed document has significant innovative steps to move the country towards CM, integrating aspects of livelihood requirements and conservation.

Consultation on Conservation and People's Livelihood Rights: Building Bridges. Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS), vill. Bhikampura-Kishori, via Thanagazi, District Alwar, Rajasthan. 10-12 April 1997

A small group of wildlife conservationists, human rights activists and community representatives will meet in early April at the Tarun Bharat Sangh ashram, adjacent to Sariska Tiger Reserve. The meeting, called by the Indian Institute of Public Administration and Kalpavriksh, will try to address certain critical issues that are emerging out of the increase in conflicts between local communities and the conservation policies of the state.

An attempt will be made to keep the discussions informal, but within the framework of the following agenda points:

1. The current state of wildlife conservation and local people's livelihoods: major points of conflict, and threats to both;
2. What are the respective positions of various conservationists, local community representatives, social activists, and others?
3. What could be the common ground between these various positions?
4. What are the constraints and opportunities in the current situation, towards achieving progress on this common ground?
5. Ways to move forward on a common minimum/maximum programme on conservation and people's livelihoods.

We will report on the outcome of the meeting in the next Update.

World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Regional Workshop, Uswetakeyawa, Sri Lanka. 5-7 May 1997

WCPA South Asia, one of the IUCNs several commissions operational in the region, is holding a meeting in Sri Lanka to:

1. Update and finalise the WCPA South Asia Regional Action Plan (RAP)
2. Seek consensus on its adoption by member countries.
3. Establish a framework for action on specific recommendations of the RAP.
4. Develop a work plan of future activities for WCPA South Asia.

Participants at the workshop will include selected members of the WCPA South Asia network including government and non-government representatives working on protected area-related issues; other IUCN members from the region; and representatives of donor agencies.

Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF), Harare, Zimbabwe, 6-8 June, 1997

The 7th session of the Global Biodiversity Forum (a forum for debate established in 1993 to assist in the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity), is being organised on 6-8 June, 1997, at Harare, Zimbabwe. This is immediately prior to the 10th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (9-20 June, 1997). The GBF will focus on four themes: identifying and monitoring the causes of species loss, non-detrimental export and sustainable use of wildlife; access to floral resources, and community-based resource management. All of these themes have implications for people and protected areas.

• GEF/World Bank. 1996. India Ecodevelopment Project. Global Environment Facility (GEF) and World Bank, Washington. Pp 299.

A useful document for those involved in any way with the India Ecodevelopment Project. Provides detailed information upto September 1996 on the status of the project including background information, description of the areas covered under the project, cost estimates, implementation schedule, potential impacts and justification for the project.

• Tiwari, S.K. 1997. Wildlife Sanctuaries of Madhya Pradesh: State of Biodiversity and Human Infringement. APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi. Pp 139. Price Rs.300.

Brief profiles of protected areas in MP including physical features, climate, flora/fauna and constraints to effective management in each area.

• WII. 1995. A Manual for Planning Wildlife Management in Protected Areas and Managed Forests. Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun. Mimeo., pp 260.

Produced by WII for its courses in wildlife conservation and management of protected areas for senior and middle level managers. The document covers most aspects of planning and management that are likely to be encountered, and is now being used to develop plans for selected protected areas (e.g. Dalma Sanctuary, Bihar).

• Regional Workshop on Community-Based Conservation: Policy and Practice - Full Report. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

The full report of discussions at the workshop by the above name, held in New Delhi in February 1997 (see above, International News).

• RGICS. 1995. Protecting Endangered National Parks. Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies (RGICS), New Delhi. Pp 206.

This is a compilation of brief studies on several protected areas (not just national parks, as the title suggests): Manas World Heritage Site (Assam), Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary (Orissa), Dudhwa National Park (Uttar Pradesh), Gulf of Kutch Marine National Park (Gujarat), Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve (Tamil Nadu), and Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (Tamil Nadu). These studies were prepared as part of the National Biodiversity Alliance, chaired by M.S. Swaminathan. The generic issues emerging from the studies include the need to centrally involve local communities in meeting livelihood requirements and in management, greater co-ordination between different government departments, more inter-disciplinary and participatory environmental impact assessments, and specialist training to the wildlife staff.

Nature’s Beckon, a local NGO in Assam, has undertaken a project to compile a bibliography on the wildlife of North-East India. The organisation is looking for feedback on all available sources of information pertaining to the region and its wildlife, including protected areas.

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

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APSHP	Andhra Pradesh State Highways Project
CITES	Convention on Trade in Endangered Species
CM	Collaborative Management
DRDO	Defence Research and Development Organisation
GBF	Global Biodiversity Forum
GEF	Global Environment Facility
IBWL	Indian Board for Wildlife
IIED	International Institute for Environment and Development
IIPA	Indian Institute of Public Administration
IUCN	World Conservation Union
JPAM	Joint Protected Area Management
MoEF	Ministry of Environment and Forests
MP	Madhya Pradesh
NGO	Non-government organisation
PILSARC	Public Interest, Legal Support and Research Center
PMPA	Participatory Management of Protected Areas
TBS	Tarun Bharat Sangh
WCPA	World Commission on Protected Areas
WII	Wildlife Institute of India
WWF-I	World Wide Fund for Nature-India

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 13 was prepared by Farhad Vania, Priya Das and Ashish Kothari. Secretarial support was provided by Vishal Thakre.

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 (or) ashish@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in

Last modified on: Tue Apr 5 15:38:54 2005