Introduction
674 km²
Sanctuary Area
60-70
Villagers Participated
~20
Villages Represented
The 674 sq.km. Kailadevi Sanctuary is part of the buffer zone of the Ranthambhor Tiger Reserve, one of India's 21 tiger reserves. The Sanctuary is characterised by not only its wildlife (though considerably depleted due to many reasons), but also by several settlements of predominantly pastoral people. These communities have taken significant steps in the last few years to regenerate and protect the forests around them. However, several internal and external pressures continue to affect the Sanctuary. Though the level of conflicts between the local communities and the Forest Department, managing the Sanctuary, is not as great as in many other protected areas of India, nevertheless there are serious issues of livelihood security and illegal activities which need to be tackled.
The Workshop was organised as a part of IIPA's Project 'Towards Participatory Management of Protected Areas', and was a culmination of our field research at Kailadevi Sanctuary over the last several months. The objective of this Project is to research the possibilities of people's participation in the management and conservation of Protected Areas, and to initiate a dialogue towards the same. The Project is sponsored by the Society for Promotion of Wasteland Development (SPWD) and The Ford Foundation, New Delhi. The co-organising agency, SSD, has an ongoing programme of involvement with the villagers of the area, in the various issues facing them.
Workshop Objective
The main aim of the Workshop was to initiate a constructive dialogue between the various interest groups on issues that affect the conservation of the Sanctuary and consequently the livelihood requirements of the people residing in it.
Participants included: 60-70 villagers from about 20 villages, both in and around the Sanctuary; three NGOs (World Wide Fund for Nature-India, SSD, and IIPA); a few concerned individuals; a few retired forest officials; and a lone Forest Guard.
Disappointment
Unfortunately, the Forest Department (FD) officials, despite repeated assurance of their participation, failed to turn up at the Workshop. There is as yet no explanation for this rather regrettable behaviour. The absence of the FD, a crucial stakeholder, was considered highly disappointing, as it stymied the process of dialogue. Nevertheless, with significant contributions from the retired forest officials present, and the lone Forest Guard, the discussions were insightful and constructive.
The villagers acknowledged that this was the first time that they were offered a common platform to discuss at length the various issues of livelihood and conservation with regard to the Sanctuary.
Workshop Structure
The discussions at the workshop were held in three phases:
Phase 1
An open session on all major issues, in which all participants took part.
Phase 2
Working groups dwelling on three specific clusters of issues.
Phase 3
A concluding phase consolidating results, adopting a resolution, and deciding follow-up.
Ashish Kothari of IIPA spoke on the significance and objectives of the Workshop, and the Project on Participatory Management of Protected Areas. Citing examples from various parts of the country, he explained the importance of people's participation in the management and conservation of protected areas. The objective of the Workshop was to enable a dialogue between various 'stakeholders', that is, those who have an interest in the conservation and use of the forests and wildlife in the area, and in particular the local community and the FD. This would not only help reduce the misgivings the two have about each other's intention with regard to conservation of the Sanctuary, but also enable the two to gain from each others experiences and suggestions.
Arun Jindal of SSD enumerated the role of NGOs in such efforts. According to him, the "third party", as he called the NGOs, are much needed mediators, facilitating and abetting the process of communication between the FD, the Administration and the local people. He felt that their role as information disseminators is also crucial. According to him, the NGOs could also be a critical support force, acting as a moral boost for people's initiatives vis-a-vis development and conservation policies and schemes.
Ramveer Singh of WWF-I, Khandar, lauded the people's efforts at conserving forests in Kailadevi, and cited similar examples from Khandar (near Ranthambhor National Park), where the WWF-I sponsored eco-development scheme is operational. He urged the people to work as a united force towards any commitment that they make. He also spoke on the force and importance of social sanctions, and of governance at the level of village panchayat.
Speaking on behalf of the villagers, Bharose Meena of Rahar stated that for the past 15 years, the people by taking conscious and deliberate measures had effectively protected and conserved the forest of the Sanctuary area. He acknowledged both gains and losses from the Sanctuary. The greatest disadvantage is the limitation it imposes on their agricultural activities. A considerable amount of arable land has been taken over by the FD. Besides their livestock and crops are constantly under the threat of being attacked by the wild animals.
He felt that if the villagers are taking the onus of conservation of the Sanctuary, the FD and the concerned authorities should make provisions to take care of the livelihood requirements of the villagers.
Three Key Issue Clusters
- The rights/access 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 outside pressures on the Sanctuary (illegal cutting, entry of outside livestock including migratory sheep of Rabaries, and mining).
- Ways of empowering the village-level forest protection committees (FPCs) or "kulhari-bandh panchayats", to more effectively conserve the area.
Resolution Highlights
At the end of the final session on the last day, a resolution was passed encompassing the various issues discussed and making specific recommendations. Key points included:
- Water: Surveys for constructing anicuts, small dams and bore wells for livestock, drinking, and irrigation.
- Cultivable Land: Exchange arable forest land for uncultivable revenue land where possible.
- Crops: Strong fences around fields, crop insurance, and adequate compensation for crop-raiding by wild animals.
- Livestock: Regular medical services, vaccination/inoculation at accessible distances.
- Cattle-lifting: Simplified compensation procedures, FPC endorsement considered valid, livestock insurance.
- Milk: Establish milk cooperatives and dairies for marketing milk products.
- Other employment: Alternative employment sources until remedial measures take effect, local people given individual mining leases instead of private contractors.
- Displacement: No forcible displacement; facilities for viable livelihood inside the Sanctuary.
- Cattle Camps (Khirkaris): Maintain old camps but no new ones; remove outside cattle camps if adequate water sources provided inside.
- Illegal Felling: Mandatory fines to FPC when offenders caught; legally binding action by FD on FPC complaints.
- Mines: No mining inside Sanctuary; local people given individual leases for mines outside Sanctuary.
- Migratory Sheep: Complete ban on entry of migratory sheep to entire region; existing resources inadequate for both residents and migrants.
- Formation: FPC members elected by village-level meetings.
- Representation: Equal representation from every caste/community; at least 2 of every 5 members should be women.
- Legal Status: Body registered and legally recognised by government.
- Meetings: Regular meetings (at least twice monthly); proceedings documented in register.
- Empowerment: FPCs empowered with Forest Ranger powers to check illegal felling.
- Development: All development and construction work channelized through FPC.
- Police Support: FPCs accorded police help as needed.
- Joint Arbitration: Complex cases jointly arbitrated by FPC and FD; 50% of fines to FPC.
- Resource Use: Local community allowed to extract forest produce for limited personal use with FPC permission.
Outcome & Follow-up
Protest Note
Prior to the end of the workshop, the insulting conduct of the Forest Department was taken up for discussion. The villagers were ready to take to demonstration or at least call on the FD and register their protest in person. But after much debate it was decided that since this was the first occasion, the villagers would only send a protest letter to the Rajasthan Chief Minister (CM), and the NGOs present would ensure that this gets appropriate publicity.
The letter was sent to the CM, Rajasthan, senior forest officials of the state, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, and Project Tiger, New Delhi.
Follow-up Meeting
As a follow-up action to the workshop, a meeting was scheduled for 30th January, 1997. All participants pledged to attend. In the letter to the CM, the villagers urged that the FD be present for this meeting.
This meeting would assess the responses of the concerned authorities to the various recommendations made at this Workshop, and the follow-up by NGOs. Depending on the response from the various groups and villages, an agenda for future action could be drawn up.
Report prepared by: Priya D. Das with help from Ashish Kothari (Date: 2/1/1997)