JPAM UPDATE 8, February 1996

News from Specific Protected Areas

Rajasthan

1. Village Representatives' Meeting on Ranthambhor: On 16th and 17th of December 1995, a meeting of village representatives was held at the Dastkar Kendra, Kutalpura village, Sawai Madhopur, to discuss issues relating to the Ranthambhor National Park. This was the outcome of a suggestion for such a meeting, made by villagers themselves. Ranthambhor Foundation facilitated its organisation, with a view to enable villagers to come forward and express firmly their opinions on the protected area and its management.

Over 200 people from 55 villages participated. Among the participants were one Deputy Pradhan, 16 Sarpanches/Ex-Sarpanches, 4 Directors of Panchayat Samitis, representatives of 44 different local organisations, many local leaders, and concerned representatives of all sections of the community including the landless. Such a gathering had never assembled before. The concerns expressed by the people were that permits must be issued to allow people to extract dry wood from the forest, the ban on the issue of licences for guns should be removed, and subsidised LPG cooking gas should be made available. Alternatives must be found for their day to day needs, like using steel for building their houses. In return, villagers agreed that no one would cut the forest any longer and that the forest would be saved at any cost. Today all the villages living on the fringe of the forest were grazing their cattle without any objection from anybody, in the pasture land inside the forest which was once theirs. The ex-Sarpanch of Dumoda village requested all those present  not to do this. A suggestion also came forth that efforts should be increased to encourage women's education and development in the area.

The following is the summary of recommendations and suggestions:

a. A Forest Protection Society must be formed in each village along the periphery of the national park, with the majority of the members being of the younger generation.
b. Alternative energy sources like  bio-gas, solar energy and LPG should be provided. All wasteland in the area surrounding the park should be fenced, and fodder plantations and trees should be regenerated. Village pasture lands should be developed and fodder plantations done with full involvement of the local people. Checkdams should also be made for water and soil conservation, and employment possibilities must be linked to the park's improvement. c. Education should be a a vital means to increase the awareness towards the park and its problems.
d. Environmentally friendly industries for employment opportunities must be stressed upon.
e. A deep trench should be dug all around the national park, especially to prevent wild animals from raiding the crops.
f. Livestock from outside the region should be prohibited from entering the park or the surroundings.
g.  All the income generated from tourism in the park should go towards a village fund and representatives of different villages should form a Samiti to manage this.

It was universally accepted that the present situation of the park was the worst it has ever been; therefore along with local people it is important that forest officials become more active in its protection.

Contact: Ranthambhor Foundation, 19 Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110021. Ph: 11-3016261. Fax: 3019457. Email: tiger.linking@axcess.net.in.

Gujarat

1.Shoolpaneshwar Sanctuary: In 1989, the Dumkhal Sloth Bear Sanctuary was extended from 15,000 ha. to 60,000 ha., reportedly to offset the loss of forests and wildlife under submergence of the Sardar Sarovar Project. It was renamed Shoolpaneshwar. According to the local social action group ARCH-Vahini, this extension affected 40,000 tribals of 100 villages, and has created severe conflicts. While the economic and social rights of the villagers are restricted by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the Central Pulp Mill, Sonagadh, Surat has been given permission to cut and remove thousands of tonnes of bamboos from the core zone of the sanctuary. All developmental work has been halted inside the sanctuary, making  life very difficult for the villages inside. The Vahini also reports that a gang of wood-cutters descended in the months of November-December 1994, and felled 'thousands' of teak trees, allegedly in collusion with some forest officials.

Tribals and NGOs have been protesting against a policy which allows free reign to industry and commercial interests, while discriminating against poor tribals. The situation is felt to be so bad that the tribals have been demanding denotification of the sanctuary. Whether that would be a wise decision or not is a matter of debate, but there is no denying that unless the legitimate rights and needs of the tribals are ensured, public support for wildlife conservation in the area cannot be gained.

Contact: Trupti Parekh, ARCH-Vahini, P.O. Mangrol, Tal. Rajpipla, Dist. Bharuch, Gujarat. Tel: 40140, 40154. For the Forest Department's view, contact: Deputy Conservator of Forests, Rajpipla (East), Rajpipla, Dist. Bharuch 393145, Gujarat.

Assam/Bhutan

1.Threat to Manas National Park: The Bhutan Government is reportedly constructing a road through the Bhutanese part of the Manas National Park, jeopardizing one of the world's most valuable wildlife heritage sites and biodiversity zones. The road passes through the park covering a distance of 13 kms. from the border demarcating Indian and Bhutan portions of Manas, to Panbung Dungkha, a small town inside Bhutan. Nature's Beckon, an environmental activist group from Assam, has condemned this project, and has appealed to people to raise there voice against it. It says that there is hardly any need for constructing a wide road through the park. There is no village or market inside the park. On the other hand, the road will only provide greater opportunities for the extraction of rare orchids, agar wood, and timber, as also for tiger  bone collectors, rhino horn hunters, and wildlife poachers.
     
Contact: Soumyadeep Datta, Director, Nature's Beckon, Datta Bari, Ward No.1, Dhubri, Assam. Tel: 03662-21067. Fax: 20076.

Karnataka

1. Biodiversity initiatives in Biligiri Sanctuary: Readers may recall our report on the initiatives taken in the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Sanctuary in Karnataka, to enhance the livelihood security of the Soliga tribals resident inside the sanctuary while ensuring the conservation of the area. A number of studies relating to livelihood and biodiversity are underway. The various groups working in the area have now started an newsletter Biodiversity Conservation Committee Newsletter, to report on these efforts.

Contact: Dr. K.S. Murali, TERI, 50/7 Palace Rd., Bangalore 560052. Ph: 080-2268296. Fax: 2255760.

State/Regional News

1. Satpura Bachao Abhiyan: As announced in Update 7, the Nature Conservation Society, Amravati, in association with other organisations, organised a Satpura Bachao Abhiyan in the last week of January. The aim was to highlight the continuous fragmentation of wildlife habitats in the Satpura ranges, and plead for the conservation of what remains of this rich forest tract. The Abhiyan consisted of a march starting simultaneously from Pachmarhi in Madhya Pradesh and Chikhaldara (Melghat) in Maharashtra, and meeting at Betul (M.P.). A full report of the journey is awaited.

Contact: Kishor Rithi, Nature Conservation Society Amravati, c/o Prof. N.W. Kale, 'Ambasadan', Rukmini Nagar, Amravati 444606, Maharashtra. Ph: 086457-673434.

National News

1. Wildlife Act: Responding to the suggestion made in Update 7, G. Raju of VIKSAT has sent in some suggestions on amendments to the Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972, to the committee which has recently been set up by the MoEF to look into this. He has pointed out some underlying principles that can be derived from the experiences of joint management of forests and other natural resources:

1. creating space and support for emergence of people's institutions and other natural resources;
2. creating an empowered management council from the Forest Department, NGOs, people's institutions, for overseeing development and implementation of management plans;
3. evolving flexible management plans/systems in consultation with people and their implementation in a transparent way;
4. developing multiple zones within a protected area (PA). These may be (a) Habitat Zones (b) Agricultural Zone (c) Forest Use Zone and (d) Undisturbed Zone. Such a zonation can be evolved through a consultation mechanism of the empowered management council;
5. formation of people's institutions, similar to those set up under JFM, at the village/hamlet or cluster level, for the protection, development and management of PAs. They should be explicitly recognised in legislation, and their roles, responsibilities, and authority defined;
6. assigning other roles to these institutions, including plantation, moisture conservation, tourism, and nature education;
7. identifying alternatives for direct benefits to local people;
8. strengthening legislation against the threats from commercial activities and large scale development projects that have emerged since the advent of new economic policies.

Contact: G. Raju, Director, VIKSAT, Nehru Foundation for Development, Thaltej Tekra, Ahmedabad 380052. Tel: 079-426220, 442642. Fax: 420242.

2. NGOs recommend peoples' participation in conservation: A national meeting of NGOs was held by the Minister for Environment and Forests, Shri Rajesh Pilot, on 23 January, 1996, in Delhi. Some 300 representatives of NGOs and the entire senior staff of the Ministry were present. At the meeting, the following recommendations were finalised:

1. Identify natural forests of this country. Commercial exploitation and non-forestry use should be banned particularly in the tropical rain forests of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Western Ghats and North-East.
2. Management of forest should be made people oriented. While the initiatives on JFM were welcome, orientation of lower level staff is essential. Apart from the issue of usufructs, an important area to be addressed is the sharing of control and management (power) with the communities. JFM resolutions should ensure adequate representation of women in the general and executive bodies.
3. In the management of areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, local communities should be involved through the process of joint protected area management. A Government of India resolution encouraging States to adapt such management after working out relevant guidelines is urgently needed, for which the Wild Life Act may also be appropriately strengthened.
4. To strengthen the management of protected areas (PAs), MOEF should reconsider, legislate suitably, and implement vigorously, the Biosphere Reserve concept.
5. Degraded forest areas should not be leased to industries. Requirement of raw material for industries should be met from farm forestry sector as also from degraded forests developed by village communities.
6. Monocultures should be discouraged in afforestation schemes, and emphasis should be on indigenous species. Greater reliance should be placed on natural regeneration.
7. Integrated watershed planning concept should inform the Forest Department's programme for afforestation. The MoEF should address this problem, because presently there are difficulties in coordinating activities of MoEF, Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Agriculture, etc.

The Ministry will presumably be preparing a report of the full meeting.

Contact: Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003.

3. Deposition before High Court Committee: At the invitation of the Inspector General of Forests, chairperson of the committee appointed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, under the directions of the Delhi High Court, to recommend measures to improve wildlife conservation in the country, Ashish Kothari of IIPA made a written and oral submission on the need to proceed towards joint management of protected areas, and on steps towards curbing urban-industrial pressures in such areas. He presented the findings of the Jungle Jivan Bachao Yatra, and of various other initiatives on the subject.  Committee members were agreeable in principle to the idea of much greater involvement of local communities in the management of PAs, but some were skeptical of the practicality of the idea, especially given the increasing populations and commercial pressures which these communities are subject to. The report of the Committee is to be ready by the end of February; we will keep readers updated.

For a copy of the written submissions, pl. Contact Ashish at the address given at the end of the Update.

4. National debate report: The debate organised by the Centre for Science and Environment, on the issue of people and wildlife, has been reported on in the December 31, 1995, issue of its magazine, Down to Earth. This issue also carries other articles on the topic. A booklet with the full transcript of the debate is to be brought out shortly.

Contact: Neena Singh, Centre for Science and Environment, 41 Institutional Area, Tughlaqabad, New Delhi 110062.  Ph. 11-6986399; 6981124; 6981110. Fax: 6985879. Email: cse@unv.ernet.in.

International News

Continuing our series of case studies from outside India:

Khunjerab National Park  (Pakistan)

Source: Slavin, Terry. 1993. Survival in a Vertical Desert. In Elizabeth Kemf (ed.). The Law of the Mother: Protecting Indigenous Peoples in Protected Areas. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.

For Pakistan Khunjerab is a matter of prestige, tourism potential, and the country's first World Heritage listing for a Natural Site. The park is home to one of the world's only remaining  populations of Marco Polo sheep. It also contains the rare/threatened Tibetan ass, Brown bear, Blue sheep, Snow leopard, and Ibex.

For years, the government had been determined to have a national park based on a Western model, banning all grazing and other human activity. But by the early 1990s, recognition was dawning that this approach, which has pitted the people of Shimshal and other villages against park officials, and conservation groups against one another, was not the right path to take.

Pakistan established this 2,300 sq. kms. park in 1975. Pamir is a range of pasture land on the roof of the Himalayas, where the Shimshali people of northern Pakistan have grazed their animals for hundreds of years. Much of this traditional grazing land is now within the boundaries of the national park. The villagers saw no reason as to why they should abide by the rules of the park because they were convinced that whoever was in charge would "pocket the money, cut down the trees and provide hunting for his pals".

Emotions have also run high among the six villages to the south of the park in Gojal, which hold grazing rights. But the villages lie in the Karakoram Valley tourist belt, and can see the potential in tourism benefits. The villagers say that when the park was formed they were promised compensation for lost grazing rights but received nothing. They asked for grazing permission in a 12 sq. kms area and when they were refused they forcibly moved in until the police forced them out. As a show of defiance all the six villages went on strike and the government then realised that a strictly defined park may not be possible.

Sharing of Resources and Benefits: The head of the management plan team from WWF - Pakistan managed to work with the people of Gojal and sign an agreement, whereby grazing would continue in the park but on a controlled basis. In exchange:

1. 80 % of the new employment opportunities would go the local people
2. There would be spin off jobs created by the extra tourism
3. Once wildlife stocks had increased the park authorities would allow hunting in a game reserve outside the boundaries of the park, and 70% of the proceeds would go the  local people.

Sharing Management and Control: One of the main problems in involving the people at the decision making stage was, that the local villagers refused to nominate anybody from the village to represent them, for fear that this person would be "bought off" by the government. Such was the level of distrust among the villagers. However, the Gojali villagers now patrol the park and outlying areas to protect wildlife from hunting, and are receiving tourism income. But while the Gojali have already begun to police themselves, they remain incensed about the fact that government officials have been coming on shooting sprees. And the Shimshali graziers remain unconvinced about the park. There is hope that once they have seen how the Gojalis have benefited, they might also want to be part of the agreement.

Role of other agencies: When Dr. Per Wegge, a Norwegian wildlife conservationist, surveyed the park for IUCN in 1988, he found that the Marco Polo sheep population was almost wiped out and that the other species had also significantly declined, mainly due to illegal poaching and grazing pressures from animals. He suggested that the area should be developed into a multiple purpose conservation area similar to Annapurna Conservation Area in Nepal. That plan would allow grazing in some areas and controlled trophy hunting in others, with some of the income from the permits going to the villages that have traditional grazing rights there. Shimshal would be developed as a tourist centre. The involvement of IUCN and WWF was partly instrumental in converting the situation of conflict into one of hope.

JPAM Update is produced as a follow-up to the Workshop on Exploring the Possibilities of Joint Protected Area Management (JPAM), organised at Delhi in September 1994. JPAM Update 8 was prepared by Saloni Suri and Ashish Kothari.  Ideas, comments, and news/information may please be sent to Ashish Kothari, Indian Institute of Public Administration, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110002. Ph: 3317309; Fax: 3319954; Email: akothari@unv.ernet.in.
 

Feedback	Something wrong with this page? Please inform Yogesh Wadadekar at yogeshw@yahoo.com.	Indian Wildlife

Last modified on: Tue Feb 26 20:05:28 2002