News on Action Towards Joint Protected Area Management
No. 15 January 1998
EDITORIAL
Judicial Activism vs. Wildlife and Local Communities?
The Supreme Courts recent (August 1997) order on protected areas, in a petition filed by the World Wide Fund for Nature - India (WWF-I), has unwittingly condemned several million people and countless wild animals and plants to a future of uncertainty. Amongst other things (see NATIONAL NEWS), the order asks each state government to complete the procedures for settlement of peoples rights related to protected areas (PAs) within one year.
On face value, this order is a victory for conservationists. Non-settlement of rights has been a major reason for uncertainty regarding the management of PAs. Unfortunately, however, the order is only likely to cause further problems. Both the WWF petition and the learned judges' order are devoid of any sense of ground reality. Over 3 million people live inside India's PAs, and they along with several million others living in surrounding areas are heavily dependent on local natural resources for survival. However, the legal and administrative status of many human uses is unclear, with poor official records. Several customary rights are not recognised at all. The procedure of inquiring into and settling rights is shoddily done, with little or no information being given to villagers on its background. As most villagers (largely tribal in these areas) cannot even read the notices they are being given (to claim their rights), they are dependent on interpretations given by NGOs, forest staff, or the few literate people in their village. So misunderstandings are rampant: in most places, villagers think the notices are for eviction. There have been only sporadic attempts by officials and NGOs to clarify the situation.
While the notices do not in fact mention eviction, this may well be the eventual outcome of such a process. Notices issued by District Collectors in some areas like Semarsot Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh state that once final notification for the PA is issued, no one will be allowed to collect any non-timber forest produce (NTFP) any more. For a tribal whose life and livelihood depends on NTFP like fruits, gum, honey, leaves, thatch, etc., this is like telling urban residents that they can continue to live in their houses, but cannot use piped water, electricity, or gas! For a majority of forest-dwellers, this would be tantamount to forcible displacement. Conservationists who talk of properly rehabilitating such people are being irresponsible or ignorant, given the appalling record of rehabilitation of much smaller numbers in the past.
Already in Madhya Pradesh, the results can be seen. Murmurs of protest by villagers have built up to mass demonstrations, politicians (and some activists) have jumped in with demands of denotification, and latent conflicts between forest staff and people have turned into violent clashes. In Phoolwari ki Nal Sanctuary, Rajasthan, a village sarpanch has petitioned the high court asking for the sanctuary notification to be quashed.
Given the above process, and the short time period given by the Court, three final 'official' results are possible: status quo will continue as the Collector admits helplessness in dealing with an increasingly volatile law and order situation; the state government will denotify the area to get rid of the headache; or the Collector will simply carve out all inhabited areas from the PAs, which will knock off at least one-third of the area under protection in India.
Indeed, a meeting of all Principal Chief Conservators of Forests held after the order in Delhi, explicitly recognised these dangers. They warned that trying to force a settlement process in one year in current circumstances would make local people hostile to conservation attempts.
It may not be too late to retrieve the situation. Settlement of peoples rights must be fully participatory. Teams containing villagers, district officials, the Forest Department, local NGOs, and research groups, should spend the next year or two determining all resource uses (and not just officially-recorded rights) in each PA, analysing indicators to assess the ecological impacts of these uses, and deciding on what activities and rights can and cannot continue, depending on the conservation value of the area. It may be worthwhile trying out the process in a few PAs first, then use the lessons learnt for the rest of the country's PAs. Eventually, a system of participatory or joint management of PAs can be worked out, which builds partnerships between all the forces who are interested in conserving natural habitats and wildlife.
WWF has been requested by several NGOs to propose such a process of settling rights to the Court, but so far it has been reluctant to do so. If it does not get off its high horse soon, it may well be remembered in the history of conservation as the group primarily responsible for intensifying the schism between people and wildlife, and chopping up an already beleaguered protected area network. The good intentions will not matter any more.
LOCAL NEWS
ANDHRA PRADESH
Tiger poaching in Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve
The results of the 1997 tiger census in Nagarjunsagar-Srisaliam Tiger Reserve have been the most depressing for over a decade. Figures available for census years show a steady decline of tigers in the Reserve since 1989 (94 tigers); 1993 (54); 1995 (35); and 1997 (25-30).
While poaching has been identified as the major cause for this decline, other factors that may have been responsible include the building of the Nagarjunsagar and Srisailam dams which submerged large areas of habitat and cut off wildlife corridors; and the development of towns and villages in the vicinity of the protected area and their spiralling demand for resources.
Several stakeholders in the region pursue their own agendas, not all of which are beneficial to wildlife. The Forest Department is often at odds with the local Chenchu community and other tribal groups, who in turn are supported by naxalites, while timber contractors and smugglers exploit the entire situation to meet their own ends.
Source: E-mails dated 11&14/9/97 on the nathistory-india electronic mail discussion site.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Not quite cricket, nor a celluloid fantasy...
Film actress Sharmila Tagore and cricketer Nawab of Pataudi reportedly went on a two-day hunting spree in the Hokera Wetland Reserve, accompanied by two senior ministers of the state, Mustafa Kamal and Iftikhar Ansari. Jammu and Kashmir is the only state in India where such hunting is still technically permissible; however, following an understanding with the central government, for the last 8 years the state Wildlife Department has not issued shooting licences. It had to break this agreement under pressure from these VIP hunters.
The area was cordoned off by the police during the two-day hunt, on the pretext that an anti-militancy operation was going on. Minister Ansari, who heads a board overseeing the restoration of the Dal Lake ecosystem, defended himself by saying that he shot 30 birds and not 100 as reported !!!
The states conservation organisations have protested against the incident, but no explanation has been forthcoming from the state government.
Readers may recall an incident some time back in which another popular film star, Sanjay Dutt, was caught poaching in south India. Looks like apart from tax evasion, our screen heroes have other things to answer for...
Source: Indian Express, Pune, 9/12/1997
KARNATAKA
Army ceases firing exercises near Cauvery Sanctuary
In 1985 the Indian Army had obtained permission to use a forested area on the banks of the Cauvery river as a firing range for field artillery target practice. In 1987 an area of 510 sq km was declared protected as Cauvery Sanctuary by the Karnataka state government. The area was reported to contain threatened species such as four-horned antelope and grizzled squirrel. The Army was granted an extension of two years in 1995 to continue using the area for target practice, but has since not sought any further extension. Apparently the Army has realised the disturbance their activities were causing to local wildlife and hence have decided to cease their involvement there.
Source: Indian Express 26/8/97.
Bhadra Sanctuary to be made Project Tiger Reserve
Bhadra Sanctuary will be given the status of Project Tiger Reserve in the 9th Five Year Plan period with a sum of Rs. 8 crores being allocated for the purpose. The 492 sq km Sanctuary is located in the Chikmanglur and Shimoga districts of Karnataka. There are also reports of an unspecified number of villages that will be relocated from within the proposed Tiger Reserve over a period of two years, for which a Special Land Acquisition Officer has been appointed by the government.
Whether this is a violation of a recent Project Tiger Steering Committee decision not to allow forcible displacement (see Update 14) is not clear. No further details are available on the proposal or its implementation.
Source: Indian Express 13/9/97.
MADHYA PRADESH
Saving Kanha National Parks sal trees
The magnificent sal (Shorea robusta) forests of Madhya Pradesh are reportedly in serious trouble, with a widespread attack by the sal borer beetle. The Forest Department is planning to fell about 12 lakh trees to contain the epidemic in the state as a whole (primarily in East Mandla and Dindori forest divisions), but for Kanha National Park, where such felling would in itself be disastrous, another strategy has been adopted. One or two trees are to be selectively felled per hectare, and cut into logs.. The sap oozing from the bark of these logs will hopefully attract beetles from the surrounding trees, which can then be trapped; eventually the logs will be burnt. According to the Park Director, Mr. Rajesh Gopal, this strategy is possible in the core zone of the Park because the infestation is sporadic. However, it may not work in the buffer areas, where the attack is severe as in other parts of the state. It is not known whether this innovative method has been tried yet and with what results.
Contact: Rajesh Gopal, Field Director, Kanha Tiger Reserve, Project Tiger Office, Mandla, Madhya Pradesh.
Source: Times of India, Mumbai, 5/12/1997.
Tourism kills tigers in Madhav National Park?
Tourism in protected areas, especially involving captive species, may need to be seriously re-examined following the deaths of 5 tigers in Madhav National Park in October 97. Until recently there were 12 captive tigers kept in a large forested enclosure, but hardly enough home range for a dozen tigers! The animals are reported to have been fed buffalo meat once a day and did not hunt for themselves. Tourists visiting the protected area were almost assured to sight at least one of these captive tigers from the several observation posts along the periphery of the enclosed tiger safari area.
It appears that the tigers may have fallen prey to a mysterious epidemic that they were unable to combat due to in-breeding. Wildlife safaris, a more benign form of zoos, are a popular form of keeping captive animals, especially large carnivores, enabling tourists to view these animals in what appear to be natural conditions. However, the above incident has indicated the need to exercise utmost care when dealing with animals in captivity. Tourism, under no circumstances, can be accorded higher priority than the health and welfare of these animals.
Contact: Bittu Sahgal, 602 Maker Chambers V, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Tel: 91-22-283 0061; Fax: 287 4380;
Email: bittu@ecologist.ilbom.ernet.in.
Source: Deccan Herald News Service, Bhopal, 9/9/97.
MAHARASHTRA
Spurt of Activity at Sanjay Gandhi National Park
The last few months have seen a sudden increase in activity in the Sanjay Gandhi (Borivali) National Park, the 103 sq km. forested patch adjacent to Mumbai. Following a petition by the Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG), the Bombay High Court ordered the removal of all encroachments in the Park within a specified period. The government has moved to remove pre-1995 settlers, but claims to have come up with serious constraints in finding alternative sites for their relocation, citing, ironically, the Coastal Zone Regulations as an obstacle in finding land near the coast! Environmental groups argue that this is just an excuse for not using land within the city which has been declared excess under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, because it wants to retain this land for buildings.
Meanwhile, the Pune-based group ECONET has come out with a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment of human activities in the Park (see WHATS AVAILABLE?), and naturalist groups like Anala Ark, WWF-I, BNHS, VJTI Nature Club, and others, have launched an ambitious awareness campaign to build up public support for the Park.
Contact: Bombay Environmental Action Group, c/o Shyam Chainani, 9 St. James Court, Marine Drive, Mumbai 400 020. Tel: 91-22-514 7574; Fax: 511 5810; Email:beag@axcess.net.in; ECONET (see WHATS AVAILABLE?; the report by this group also contains a full list of individuals and organisations associated with the Park).
Sources: Times of India, Mumbai, 12/12/1997 and 22/12/1997; ECONET report.
Forest Spotted Owlet rediscovered!
In one of the major ornithological finds of this century in India, two American researchers have rediscovered the Forest spotted owlet Athene blewitti, a species thought to be extinct for several decades. The last authentic sighting and collection of this bird was in the 1880s (a sighting in 1912 has been discredited as being fraudulent), from two widely separated sites east of Bombay.
Smithsonian Institute researcher Pamela Rasmussen and ace ornithologist Ben King went to explore these and other sites in the Satpura hill ranges in November 1996, and on the 8th day of their visit, were rewarded with the sight of two separate individuals. Rasmussen claims that they have enough video footage to show the distinct diagnostic features of the bird, and that there was no need for a specimen to be caught.
Readers may be aware of the rediscovery of another bird thought to be extinct in India, the Jerdons courser Cursorius bitorquatus, a few years back. It seems that at least in some instances, the juggernaut of extinction which humans have unleashed, gets rolled back...
The inevitable next question will be: should the area where the Forest spotted owlet was rediscovered be made a protected area?
Contact: Pamela Rasmussen, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA. Email: mnhvz102@sivm.si.edu.
ORISSA
Olive Ridleys vs. shrimp fishing at Gahirmatha
In previous issues of the Update (see Nos. 13&14) we have reported on the nesting of Olive Ridley turtles in Bhitarkanika Sanctuary and the adverse impact of construction activity being undertaken by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) on the nesting activity. However, following intensive discussions between the DRDO, Forest Department and local NGOs, several progressive steps were agreed upon that would facilitate the safe arrival and nesting of turtles.
On 27 September 1997 the Orissa government declared the Gahirmatha beach, considered the worlds largest Olive Ridley nesting rookery, along with additional coastal area as a marine sanctuary. The Gahirmatha Beach itself is already located within the Bhitarkanika National Park. The notification is reported to cover an area of 1,435 sq km and extends 10 km from the coastline into the Bay of Bengal, bounded by the Dharma fishing harbour to the north and Paradip port to the south.
The move will effectively terminate all fishing activity in the seas off this part of the Orissa coast and is likely to affect several small fisherfolk. Besides local regulations, it has also been reported that in countries, where shrimp from this region is exported, there is increasing pressure to only accept produce from those countries which make it mandatory for fishing nets to be fitted with Turtle Excluding Devices (TEDs), a relatively simple and inexpensive mechanical device that allows turtles to pass through fishing nets. The Trawler Owners Association has taken exception to the stringent demands of the government and are worried over the loss of fish catch once the TEDs are fitted on their nets.
In the past the government had tried to impose a ban on fishing activity around the Gahirmatha coast during the turtle nesting period. This had proved to be virtually ineffective and many turtles continuing to be caught in fishing nets. However, with the declaration of the sanctuary and with support from the Coast Guard, the Forest Department is confident of reducing the overall mortality of Olive Ridleys coming to nest each year.
Source: India News Network Digest, 10/10/97; Email from Raghupathy Kannan and Jagdish Krishnaswamy 13/10/97; Indian Express, 12/11/97.
TAMIL NADU
Proposed road across Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve resurfaces
In Update 14 we had reported on the proposal of the Tamil Nadu State Government to build a 11.3 km link road, within Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, that would connect existing roadheads between Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
Interestingly, a local newspaper Dina Thanthi is reported to have once again initiated the campaign in support of the road. There are unconfirmed reports that the newspaper is owned by a big industrialist who also happens to own a paper mill in the region. While the road proposal still awaits clearance from the central government, preliminary surveys having already started for the project. These surveys are apparently taking place without the consent of the Forest Department, and a case of trespass has been registered against a Junior Engineer of the Highways Department who was caught making measurements without proper permission inside the Tiger Reserve.
The project has local political support in Tamil Nadu. However, on the Kerala side it has been opposed by the Raja of Singampatti on environmental grounds, who still has considerable following among the local communities there. It is estimated that about 150 ha of forest area will be destroyed to make way for the road, without substantially reducing the time/distance to be travelled between Tiruvananthapuram and Tirunelveli.
Contact: Rauf Ali, Aurodam, Auroville 605 101, Tamil Nadu.
Email: rauf@auroville.org.in.
Source: Email from Rauf Ali 10/10/97.
UTTAR PRADESH
Ecodevelopment workshops in Corbett Tiger Reserve
In March 1997 ten workshops were organised in different villages around Corbett Tiger Reserve. The initiative was part of the UP World Bank Forestry Project, which has a biodiversity conservation component relevant in selected PAs across the state.
The workshops received an enthusiastic response from men and women in the local villages and were attended by Gram Pradhans, farmers, school teachers as well as Forest Guards. Topics covered at these meetings included the ecological values of Corbett Tiger Reserve, ongoing management initiatives and an outline of the ecodevelopment project. Participants were expected to identify the various ways in which they were affected, both negative and positive, by the Tiger Reserve and their suggestions to reduce/enhance these. The consolidated outcome of these workshops will be put out in the form of a report.
Contact: Rajiv Bhartari, Dy. Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve, Ramnagar 244 715, District Nainital, Uttar Pradesh. Tel: 91-5945-85 489; Fax: 85 376.
Source: Corbett Newsletter, Spring/Summer 1997.
Farmers upset about acquisition for Hastinapur Sanctuary
Farmers of several villages spread over seven districts in Uttar Pradesh are agitated about government plans to acquire their land for developing the Hastinapur Sanctuary. In what may to be yet another outcome of the ill-advised move of the Supreme Court following a petition by WWF-India (see EDITORIAL), the Forest Department has issued an order regarding this acquisition. Farmers were planning to hold a rally near the Bijnore barrage against this move.
Source: Times of India, Mumbai, 9/11/97.
Rajaji Park Director derails reconciliation process
Rajaji National Park in the Siwalik range has been the centre of intense conflicts between human communities using the area and the Park officials. Over the last couple of years, however, a process of reconciliation has been going on due to efforts by local peoples organisations, outside NGOs, and others.
Over the last year, a series of meetings moderated by the Wildlife Institute of India have resulted in an agreement between the Forest Department and local villagers to harvest bhabbar grass (used by villagers for making ropes, a major source of livelihood) in a regulated manner, and form village-level forest protection committees to help in conserving the Parks wildlife. Only those fully dependent on bhabbar grass would be allowed to enter. This agreement was formally notified (no. 1122/28-5) by the then Park Director on 19 December, 1996, in which it was stipulated that grass cutting would be free and carried out under joint supervision by the Forest Department and Village Forest Committees (VFCs), cutters would be issued identity cards, and the period of cutting would be November to February. Subsequently, committees were made in a democratic process in 8 villages, and lists of grass-cutters were prepared, with the help of the Ghad Kshetra Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti and other groups.
However, in a sudden change on 25 October 1997, the new Park Director reportedly called a meeting of the areas Gram Pradhans (village heads), and issued a new set of rules, under which these Pradhans were made heads of the VFCs and forest guards their secretaries, identity card issuing was revoked, and the period of cutting was reduced to one month (15 November to 15 December). No consultation with other villagers was apparently carried out. This new development has thrown the painstaking process of democratically building up the VFCs out of gear, caused internal rifts within villages, and created widespread resentment amongst the local population. Gram Pradhans are apparently making their own lists of grass-cutters (mostly excluding women), extracting money from villagers who want to be listed.
At a mass meeting on 9 November 1997, villagers who are part of four local mass organisations put forth a memorandum asking the government to revert to the earlier agreement, to recognise VFCs which are democratically set up by the entire village and which have 50% womens representation, and build better co-ordination between forest staff and villagers to curb illegal cutting and poaching.
Contact: Roma, Ghad Kshetra Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti (GKMSS), Vill. and Post Buggawala, District Haridwar, Uttar Pradesh; Sunil K. Dube, Director, Rajaji National Park, 5/1 Ansari Road, Dehradun 248 001, Uttar Pradesh. Tel/fax: 91-135-621 669.
Source: Memorandum sent to District Collector, Haridwar, by GKMSS and others, dt. 9 November, 1997.
NATIONAL NEWS
Supreme Court directs states to step up PA management
In an order of potentially far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court directed all state governments to take certain steps regarding protected areas. In a petition filed by World Wide Fund for Nature - India, the Court asked states to:
finish procedures regarding settlement of peoples rights relating to PAs, within one year;
arm forest staff working in PAs, within six months;
refer proposals for denotification to the Indian Board for Wildlife, and present the Boards advice to the state legislature before taking a decision;
appoint Honorary Wildlife Wardens for each area.
This order was orally given in August, and circulated in September, after which a flurry of activity has started in various states. A meeting of Principal Chief Conservators of Forests was held in New Delhi, at which the officials reportedly stressed that completion of procedures regarding peoples rights was not possible within one year, and that state governments would not release adequate funds for arming forest staff. They also warned that if such steps were hurried through, local communities would become even more hostile to conservation efforts. Some governments have reportedly filed responses to this effect in the Court.
Reactions have also started pouring in from villagers in several PAs, and from NGOs working in these areas. Understandably, these reactions are hostile, ranging from anxiety to angry demands to denotify PAs. The implications of the Court order are indeed worrying (see EDITORIAL). Several NGOs have demanded a meeting with WWF and a more open process in future, but have not met with a positive response. These NGOs are now contemplating filing counter-petitions in the Court. The whole issue appears ready to blow up into a major confrontation, the consequences of which can only be negative for both wildlife and local communities dependent on Indias protected areas.
Contact: Samar Singh, Secretary-General, WWF-I, World Wide Fund for Nature - India, 172 B Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003. Tel: 91-11-4633473; Fax: 91-11-462 6837; Email: wwfindel@unv.ernet.in. Raj Panjwani, Advocate, Chamber ???, Delhi High Court, New Delhi 110001.
For an analysis of the implications of the order, pl. see article by Ashish Kothari in The Hindu, October 30, 1997.
INTERNATIONAL NEWS
Review of global protected areas network
At a week-long meeting in Albany, Australia, organised by the World Commission on Protected Areas of IUCN-The World Conservation Union, experts from several countries met to review the state of the worlds protected areas network. The meeting, called Protected Areas in the 21st Century: From Islands to Networks was a mid-term assessment of the 10-year global programme that the World Parks Congress had initiated at Caracas, Venezuela, in 1992. A central message emerging from the meeting was the need to move protected areas (PAs) away from being isolated patches to being integrated into larger land/seascapes with a mosaic of wilderness, multiple use areas, etc. Products from the meeting included a Message from Albany, a proposal for bioregional planning of PAs, and strategies for the next 5 years of the Commissions work until the next World Parks Congress in Africa in 2002.
Unfortunately the meeting was dominated by speakers from the industrialised nations and South-Central America, leaving out crucial experiences from Africa and Asia, and underplaying critical aspects such as livelihood security of people dependent on PAs, and protected area-local community interface. Hopefully the next few years before the Africa meeting will come to terms with these issues, learning from all the regions of the world.
Contact: David Sheppard, Head, IUCN Programme on Protected Areas, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 28 Rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland. Tel: 41-22-999 0001; Fax: 41-22-999 015; Email: das@hq.iucn.org.
Forum 97: New Linkages in Conservation and Development
The Conservation and Development Forum (CDF) held its first meeting Forum 97: New Linkages in Conservation and Development, at Istanbul, Turkey from 16-20 November 1997. It was attended by a wide range of NGO and government representatives, academics and scientists. While the meeting covered a wide range of topics both in conservation and development, the issue of protected areas figured prominently at several sessions. Interesting experiences of wildlife conservation and increasing examples of the involvement of local communities were reported from Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and Australia.
Contact: Conservation Development Forum, University of Florida, 304 Grinter Hall, P.O. Box 115531, Gainesville, FL, USA 32611-5531. Tel: 1-352-392 6548; Fax: 1-352-392 0085. Email: cdf@tcd.ufl.edu.
IUCN TAKES A STEP.... BACK!
In a move that has sent shock waves through the conservation community, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, the worlds largest conservation organisation, laid off several key people working at its headquarters in Gland, Switzerland. It cited a major resource crunch as the reason. However, the reasoning for certain people being laid off and not others is not clear; there was an apparently total lack of transparency in the process, taking even long-time IUCN staffers by surprise. Of special concern to our readers will be the unceremonious sacking of Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Head of the Social Policy Unit, which along with the Biodiversity Unit has been bringing much-needed social sensitivity into IUCNs somewhat conservative outlook. Grazia has championed collaborative or participatory management processes for protected areas and other natural resources, through workshops, funding, information, and capacity-building in several countries. She recently edited the immensely useful handbook Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation (see WHATS AVAILABLE?), and was mid-way through compiling a state of the art report on co-management, when the news came.
Readers may recall a similar incident in WWF-International a couple of years back, when Michel Pimbert and others, who were bringing in similar sensitivity into that organisation, were sacked.
Are the recent pronouncements of these mega-organisations, concerning the necessity of integrating social concerns into conservation, mere lip-service? When their programmes actually start taking such concerns into practice, do they develop cold feet? Are hard-core conservative scientists, rather than more open and sensitive ones, still ruling these organisations? Certainly IUCN has much to explain about its latest move, and amends to make, if its answer to these questions is not affirmative.
Protected areas increase world-wide
Data obtained by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) for the 1997 UN List of Protected Areas indicates that there has been an increase in the total number of protected areas across the world.
1,431 PAs, of 1,000 ha or over, were added world-wide in the period 1990-94. Of the total 224 million ha, 42% fall in IUCN management Category VI (Managed Resource Protected Area), and 4% in Category V (Protected Landscapes). Other Categories to show an increase were IV (Managed Nature Reserves) and II (National Parks). However, a small number of very large protected areas, such as the 64 million ha Ar-Rubal-Khali Wildlife Management Area in Saudi Arabia, account for nearly 30% of the increase.
Contact: World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), 219C Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom. Tel: 44-1223-277894; Fax: 44-1223-277175;
Email: iucn-psu@wcmc.org.uk.
Source: WCPA Newsletter No. 71 October 1997
UPCOMING
Workshop on World Bank Forest Policy
The Bombay Natural History Society in association with Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and the National Committee for Protection of Natural Resources is organising a workshop on World Bank Forest Policy and its Implications for Tribals and Other Rural Poor. These implications will be examined especially in the context of the increasing threats to Indias wilderness areas from unplanned development activities. The World Bank state forestry sector policies are believed by several NGOs as being one of the major threats to wildlife habitats. The workshop will be held at the BHNS office (see address below).
Contact: S. Asad Akhtar, Conservation Officer, Bombay Natural History Society, Hornbill House, Dr. Salim Ali Chowk, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 023. Tel: 91-22-282 1811, 284 3869; Fax: 283 7615.
Meeting on people and protected areas of Maharashtra
The fourth in a series of meetings on the interface between protected areas and people in Maharashtra is to be held on 16-18 January, 1998, at Sevagram, Wardha. It is being organised by the Sahbhagi Vanjivan Sanwardhan Samanvay - Maharashtra. The issues to be discussed include the official and peoples perceptions of PAs, and possibilities of participatory management. Case studies to be presented include the fishing issue in Pench National Park, ecodevelopment in Nawegaon/Nagzira Sanctuaries, and displacement in Melghat Tiger Reserve. Several peoples organisations, NGOs, and the Chief Wildlife Warden of Maharashtra are expected to participate.
Contact: Organising Committee, 4th Maharashtra Protected Areas Meeting, 509 Juni Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440010, Maharashtra.
International Wildlife Law Conference
The Third Annual International Wildlife Law Conference will take place in Washington, DC, on March 31, 1998. It is being organised by the American Society of International Law (Wildlife section), GreenLife Society, and others. The topics being discussed include the interface between World Trade Organisation and international wildlife treaties; sustainable use of wildlife; and regional wildlife treaty regimes. Some funding is apparently available for participants from outside the USA.
Contact: GreenLife Society - North American chapter, 5208 Claremont Ave., Suite B, Oakland, CA 94716, USA. Tel: 1-510-658 4380; Fax: 1-510-658 5946; Email: greenlifesociety@msn.com; WWW: http://EELINK.umich.edu/~greenlif/index.html.
WHATS AVAILABLE?
Hiremath, S.R. Dandavatimath, P.G. and Krishnan, B.J. 1997. Nagarahole for whom? Janapara Vigana-Tantragana Samsthe (JVS), Samaj Parivartana Samudaya (SPS) and Save Nilgiris Campaign. Pp 75.
One of the most prominent campaigns against the infamous GEF-funded ecodevelopment project has been in Nagarahole National Park (see Update 9, 13, 14). The booklet chronicles the struggle of local tribal communities and people organisations against the project as well as providing the outline of an alternate plan for conservation and development.
The other major issue the booklet deals with is the recent case of a resort proposed to be built by the Taj group of hotels inside the Park.
Contact: Janapara Vigana-Tantragana Samsthe (JVS), Nisarga, 6th Cross, Malmaddi, Station Road, Dharwad 580 007, Karnataka; Samaj Parivartana Samudaya (SPS) Ashadeep, Jayanagar Cross, Saptapur, Dharwad 580 001, Karnataka; Save Nilgiris Campaign, Nahar Buildings, Udhagamandalam 643 001, Tamil Nadu. Tel: 91-423-2075; Fax: 2530.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. with Buchan, D. 1997. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. Vol. 1: A Process Companion; Vol. 2: A Resource Book. IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Gland. Pp. 129+283.
A unique handbook and manual on the social concerns relevant to conservation, including stakeholder analysis, indigenous and local populations, equity issues, land tenure systems, poverty, local knowledge, economic valuation, and others. Vol. 1 is designed to be a companion while formulating conservation programmes, and Vol. 2 is a reference book to be used at various stages in the programme. Every protected area manager should have this!
Contact: IUCN Publications Services Unit, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom. Tel: 44-1223-277 894; Fax: 44-1223-277 175; Email: iucn-psu@wcmc.org.uk.
Karlsson, B.G. 1997. Contested Belonging: An Indigenous Peoples Struggle for Forest and Identity in Sub-Himalayan Bengal. Lund Monographs in Social Anthropology, Lund.
An interesting book, arising from a PhD, looking at the relationship between the Rabha tribe of West Bengal and the forest/wildlife policies of colonial and independent India. A substantial portion of the book is devoted to the problems faced by the Rabhas due to the creation of the Buxa Tiger Reserve, and what the recent GEF-funded ecodevelopment project there means to them.
Contact: Department of Sociology, Lund University, P.O. Box 114, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. Fax: 46-46-2224794.
Kothari, A., Pathak, N., Suryanarayan, J., and Vania, F. 1997. Community Involvement in Wildlife Conservation: South Asia Regional Review. Pp. 193.
An overview of the community participation in conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. This review is one of several such assessments being carried out in different regions of the world, sponsored by the International Institute of Environment and Development. The report contains profiles of the history, current status, and the legal and policy framework of wildlife conservation in each country, an analysis of the regional issues facing community participation, profiles of 14 case studies, detailed bibliographies of material, and list of contacts in the region. The report is to be followed by in-depth case studies in some of these countries, to explore the issues further, during 1998.
Contact: For South Asia review, the authors, at Update editorial address. For reviews of other regions, Christo Fabricius, International Institute of Environment and Development, 3 Endsleigh Street, London WC1H 0DD, United Kingdom. Tel: 44-171-388 2117; Fax: 44-171-388 2826; Email: ccfiied@aol.com.
Kothari, A., Vania, F., Das, P., Christopher, K., and Jha, S. 1997. Building Bridges for Conservation: Towards Joint Management of Protected Areas in India. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. Pp. 356; 4 colour plates. Price: HB Rs. 200 or $20; PB Rs. 100 or $10.
The result of a project carried out by the authors, the book contains detailed reports on the potential for joint management in three protected areas (Kailadevi Sanctuary, Dalma Sanctuary, and Rajaji National Park), along with conceptual essays on the policy, legal, institutional, and other aspects of joint management. A detailed bibliography is also included, along with statements of some relevant recent events.
Contact: Publications Division, Indian Institute of Public Administration, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110002, India. Tel: 91-11-331 7309; Fax: 91-11-331 9954.
Paranjpye, V. and others. 1997. A Comprehensive Environmental Assessment of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (Borivli National Park), Mumbai. ECONET, Pune. Pp. 129. Price: Rs. 150.
A detailed assessment of the human activities and their impacts on the ecosystems and wildlife of the Park, which straddles one side of Bombay. Recommendations include removal of encroachments with humane resettlement, involvement of original tribal populations in receiving benefits from the Park, eco-tourism activities, widespread educational efforts, removal of all buildings of other government departments and private individuals, etc. The study was commissioned by the Maharashtra division of World Wide Fund for Nature - India.
Contact: ECONET, 15 Sankalp, Sham Sundar Society, Pune 411030, India. Tel: 91-212-535 770; Fax: 476 451.
Stevens, Stan (ed.). 1997. Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Island Press, Washington D.C. Pp. 361. Price: $23.
A collection of 10 articles exploring the relationship between indigenous/local communities and protected areas in several countries (including Honduras, Nepal, USA, Canada, Australia, Nicaragua, and Papua New Guinea).
ARCH-Vahini. 1997. The emperor without clothes in the Shoolpaneshwar Sanctuary. ARCH-Vahini, Bharuch. Mimeo. Pp. 6.
A scathing account of the duplicity of the Gujarat government, the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. and the state Forest Department in the management of the Shoolpenshwar Sanctuary. This brief report chronicles the wanton destruction of bamboo by the Forest Department to supply a paper mill, while denying local tribal communities the right to even meet their subsistence requirements of the resource. Subsequent attempts by ARCH-Vahini to move the courts in the case and the outcome of their efforts have also been highlighted.
Contact: Anil Patel/Trupti Parikh, ARCH-Vahini, PO Mangrol, Taluk Rajpipla, District Bharuch 393 150, Gujarat. Tel: 91-2640-40 140, 40 154.
GAVS and PSPKS. 1997. Great Himalayan National Park Ecodevelopment Pariyojana: Prathamik Jaankari. Gramin Arthvyavastha Vikas Sansthan (GAVS), Sainj and Prakritik Sansadhan Prabandh Karya Samooh (PSPKS), Palampur. Pp. 27.
This booklet in Hindi is a useful addition to material being prepared by individuals and NGOs in vernacular languages to explain state-initiated conservation projects. The exercise, that should in any case have been undertaken by the promoters of the project in the first place, explains in simple terms the activities of the IDA-funded ecodevelopment project in Great Himalayan National Park, Himachal Pradesh. It also includes information on the project implementation mechanism, how much money it involves, and the text of the government directive to set up joint committees between the Forest Department and local communities.
Contact: Gramin Arthvyavastha Vikas Sansthan (GAVS), Village and PO Sainj, via Aut, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh; Prakritik Sansadhan Prabandh Karya Samooh (PSPKS), Kutumb, Tika Aima, Palampur 176 061, Himachal Pradesh.
CORRESPONDENCE
Responses to Alwar statement
Readers may recall our report on, and statement from, Building Bridges: Consultation on Wildlife Conservation and Peoples Livelihood Rights, a meeting held in Alwar district, Rajasthan, in April 1997 (see Update 14). There were several interesting responses to the statement, most of which expressed support for the balance of wildlife and peoples concerns which it reflected. Most gratifying was that the statement has been used at several forums, from very localised instances in India, to a meeting on European protected areas, where it was cited as an ideal approach!
Amongst the critical responses, here are excerpts from a letter from wildlifer Nirmal Ghosh:
I tend to agree with the bulk of the conclusions stated...but would like to contribute to further evolution of the dialogue. The meeting decided that wildlife and wildlife habitats continue to be destroyed by the dominant industrial-commercial economy, and the rampant consumerism of the rich minority. This language should not be set in stone. Should we not accept that the industrial-commercial economy WILL dominate, and rampant consumerism of the rich minority will soon turn into rampant consumerism of the middle class majority? Given this, is it not possible for conservation to exist side by side with these phenomena? ... The key is market solutions (such as) polluter pays principle.... If you make it outrageously expensive for a company to mine in the buffer zone of a sanctuary, it wont mine there. You have to make it impossible for it to mine in the core area through inviolate legislation...what I really like is the suggestion that there should be an inviolate no-development zone around PAs.
I wonder at the following too: We believe that local communities have a fundamental right to resources necessary for living and livelihood, along with the responsibility to conserve these resources in protected areas and other natural habitats, without interference from market forces. This is ideal, but not realistic... Local people want the market as much as anyone else....There is NO WAY you can prevent market forces from interfering in their lives...The key would be to use market forces, or choose the right ones...efforts to develop local communities on the periphery of protected wilderness need not be discarded because they come with the cachet of market-oriented development, they just have to be well channelled....I also believe joint management of forest resources may not work, this is an idea which is very easily hijacked by local political and other vested interests...As far as I am concerned, any initiative that as an end result helps conservation is fine.
This argument from Ghosh evoked critical responses from people like Walter Fernandes, who
stressed that market forces cannot be relied upon to achieve conservation or peoples livelihood security. Readers are encouraged to continue this debate (which has also been carried on the electronic conference nathistory-india@lists.princeton.edu. Copies of the Alwar statement can be requested from the Editorial address below.
CORRIGENDUM
In the last issue of the Update we had announced the availability of a series of booklets on natural history from the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS). These were: The Indian Elephant (Ajay Desai), Extinction is Forever (J.C. Daniel), Predators and Prey (U.K. Karanth), Evolution, the Story of Life (R.M. Borges), Diversity, the Cornerstone of Life (Madhav Gadgil), Moths of India, an Introduction (Issac Kehimkar)
The price for each of these booklets is Rs. 125, and not Rs. 125 for the full set as stated earlier.
Contact: Bombay Natural History Society, see above UPCOMING.
READERS WANT UPDATE TO CONTINUE...
We are greatly heartened by the response from many readers who wrote in to say that they wished to continue receiving JPAM Update because they found it useful. We are, as you know, operating under rather constrained conditions, especially now that we do not have any institutional back-up. Your response is therefore very encouraging. Many readers also offered to pay subscriptions as a response to our appeal for funds. However, it is impossible for us to handle and monitor individual subscriptions, so we have had to regretfully decline the offers. But individual or NGO donations to the Updates printing/mailing costs are most welcome.
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 the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), New Delhi, in September 1994. JPAM Update 15 was prepared by Farhad Vania and Ashish Kothari.
Ideas, comments, news and information may please be sent to the new editorial address:
Ashish Kothari
Apartment 5, Shri Dutta Krupa
908 Deccan Gymkhana
Pune 411 004, Maharashtra, India
Tel/fax: 91-212-354 239; Email: ashish@giasdl01.vsnl.net.in
| |
Last modified on: Tue Apr 5 15:39:11 2005