0449-B3
Maitreyi Mandal 1
India is unique in richness of bio diversity due to diversity of physiography and climatic conditions. It ranks as the sixth among the 12-mega bio diversity countries of the world. The protection of wildlife has a long tradition in Indian history. So far India has adopted in-situ and ex-situ conservation strategies for conservation of wildlife. Having protected areas (national parks and wildlife sanctuaries) is the most important in-situ conservation method. The Protected area (PA) network consists of 3 types of protection viz. National Park, sanctuary and closed area. It has also launched major species conservation projects to regulate the export and import of wildlife and their parts and derivatives. However many problems exist in the PA Network of India. Studies and assessments made it clear that one of the most difficult challenges facing PA managers was the reconciliation of the local community's demands for biomass and incomes from the PA with the requirement of biodiversity conservation. India Eco development Project (IEDP) was conceived as a pilot project in June, 1994. The main objective of the Project is to conserve bio- diversity through eco development and aims at Improved Protected Area Management, Village Eco development and Eco development support. While the IEDP programme took care of some of the existing problems but still a wide gap exists towards effective forest management and bio diversity conservation. The management practice should evolve towards greater participation of community including preparation for working plan of PAs.
India is unique in richness of bio diversity due to diversity of physiography and climatic conditions. India ranks as the sixth among the 12-mega bio diversity countries of the world. Moreover, out of 18 unique `biodiversity hot-spots' two are located in India-North-Eastern Himalayas and Western Ghats. India's bio diversity is unique for the range of biological diversity, harboured by virtue of its bio-geographical positions and the array of physical environments. India has so far adopted Ex-situ and In-situ conservation measures to conserve bio diversity. Species that have been identified as threatened or particularly endangered can be preserved in suitable locations outside their natural habitat. Representative samples of such threatened or endangered species are successfully conserved and propagated in botanical and zoological gardens, research centres, acquaria and other such locations. For the conservation of genetic diversity, especially of plants, field gene banks, seed banks and in vitro storage are the best methods. The preservation of species in its natural ecosystem is called in-situ conservation. It is by far the most ideal form of bio diversity conservation. Having protected areas is the most important in-situ conservation method.
The protection of wildlife has a long tradition in Indian history. Wise use of natural resources was a prerequisite for many hunter-gatherer societies of India, which date back to at least 6000 BC. Extensive clearance of forests accompanied the advance of agricultural and pastoral societies in subsequent millennia, but an awareness of the need for ecological prudence emerged and many so-called pagan nature conservation practices were retained. As more land became settled or cultivated, so these hunting reserves increasingly became refuges for wildlife. Many of these reserves were subsequently declared as national parks or sanctuaries, mostly after Independence in 1947. Wildlife, together with forestry, has traditionally been managed under a single administrative organisation within the forest departments of each state or union territory, with the role of central government being mainly advisory.
In 1970, the Indian Board for Wildlife drafted a national wildlife policy. This policy identified the cause for wildlife depletion and made specific recommendations for wildlife conservation in the country. The major threats to wildlife species and habitats identified were: habitat changes, use of pesticides, lack of legislative support, commercial exploitation, introduction of exotics, poaching, biotic interference, use of crop protection guns and lack of organisation and guidelines for management. The policy recommended that establishment of a central organisation to maintain territorial integrity of wildlife areas and suggested that 4% of total land area be managed as national parks by a central organisation. Following the 1970 policy on wildlife conservation, several major initiatives were taken during the decades of the 70s and early 80s. These included:
a) The enactment of the Wildlife (protection) Act in 1972. This provides for three categories of protected areas: national parks, sanctuaries and closed areas. However levels of protection afforded in each category differ, as do the degrees of restriction on human activities.
National parks are given highest level of protection, with no grazing and no private land holding or rights permitted within them.
Sanctuaries are given a lesser level of protection, and certain activities may be permitted within them for better protection of wildlife or for any other good and sufficient reason. The state government may declare an area closed to hunting of wild animals for a specified period; other activities are permitted to continue.
The adoption of a National Policy for Wildlife Conservation in 1970 and the enactment of the Wildlife (Protection) Act in 1972 lead to a significant growth in the protected areas network, from 5 national parks and 60 sanctuaries to 69 and 410 respectively, in 1990 (Panwar, 1990).
b) Establishment of the central and State Directorates of Wildlife Preservation,
Initiation of major species conservation projects to Project Tiger, Elephant, Rhino, Asiatic Lion, Himalayan musk deer, turtles and crocodile, regulating the export and import of wildlife and their parts and derivatives;
Project Tiger was launched on April 1, 1973 on the basis of the recommendations of a special task force of the Indian Board of Wildlife with the following main objectives:
Tiger reserves, created in 1973, there are 23 such reserves by 1996 spreading over in 14 States and covering an area of about 33,000 sq. kms. They consist of a core area free of almost all-human activities and a 'buffer zone' where restricted human land use is allowed. Tiger reserves are not legal entity but all contain national parks or sanctuaries as their core and in some cases their buffer zones.
c) Launching of new centrally sponsored schemes for development of National Parks (NP) and sanctuaries, acceding to major international conventions dealing with wildlife; inclusion of forests and wildlife under the concurrent list of the Constitution of India, enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act in 1980 to regulate diversion of forestland for non-forestry purposes.
d) Establishment of wildlife Institute of India (WII) in 1982;
e) Adoption of the National Wildlife Action Plan in 1983 and setting of a Central Zoo Authority in 1992.
The PA network of India faces several problems. Most important of them are:
According to the First Indian Survey of Protected Area Network of India, it was found out that a huge number of NPs and sanctuaries of India have human population within their boundaries. The Population density as this survey found out is shown in the table 1 below:
Table 1: Population density in National Parks, Sanctuaries as per First Indian Survey
The average population density of India is about 2.5 persons/ha. Source: Kothari etal, 1989
This survey also found out the huge population pressure in the areas adjacent to parks and sanctuaries, which was estimated is shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Population adjacent to parks and sanctuaries as per First Indian Survey
Of the 16 national parks and 88 sanctuaries which had human population inside them and which had responded to this survey, 5 (31%) of the parks and 4 (5%) of the sanctuaries had proposed to relocate a part of whole of their population prior to 1984. Actual relocation till 1984 had been done in 4 (255) of the national parks and 3 (3%) of the sanctuaries having human population and responding. This does not however mean that relocation has been complete i.e. all the villages proposed for relocation have been shifted.
Fig.1 below demonstrates the external pressures to protected areas of India.
Fig 1: External Pressures to Protected Areas of India
Source: Protection of nature parks: Whose business? State of the environment Series 2, Centre for science and Environment.
iv) Grazing by livestock
As has been mentioned earlier, India supports 18% of world's cattle population in 2.5% of geographic land cover. Indian forests suffer from dwindling pressure of cattle grazing inside protected areas. Though some NPs and sanctuaries allow limited grazing within it's boundaries but unauthorized grazing was reported from many protected areas. This survey also found out that the densities of grazing by different livestock, as the ecological impacts are different. The range of densities obtained is shown in the Table 3A below:
Table 3A: Cattle density in National Parks/Sanctuaries as per First Indian Survey
The national density was roughly 0.81 cattle per ha. Going by the 1982 figure of 260 million heads of cattle. Source: Kothari etal, 1989
Table 3B shows the Density of Goats in National Parks/Sanctuaries.
Table 3B: Density of Goats in National Parks/Sanctuaries as per First Indian Survey
Density of goats for India as a whole was roughly 0.30/ha, given the 1982 figure of 95 million goats in India. Source: Kothari etal, 1989
Table 3C shows the Density of sheep in National Parks/Sanctuaries
Table 3C: Density of Sheep in National Parks/Sanctuaries as per First Indian Survey
The density of sheep in India was roughly 0.15/ha, if one took the 1982 figure of 48 million sheep in the country. Source: Kothari etal, 1989
v) Extraction of Timber and Non Timber Forest Products:
The law prohibits the extraction of timber and other forest produce from national parks. From Sanctuaries, timber and other biomass can only be extracted if its extraction is " for better management of wildlife". After the 1991 amendment, extraction can also be allowed from a sanctuary if it is a right that has been allowed by the Chief Wildlife Warden. Still, illegal extraction of Timber and Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) from Protected areas is one major problem.
vi) Conflicts often arise regarding compensation for cattle killed by carnivores in the reserves or for damages caused to crops by wild animals.
vii) The PAs have not been integrated through forested corridors (for maintaining genetic continuity) or establishing complimentary multiple use areas. In many cases the Pas remain as isolated islands.
viii) There is also lack of integration of PAs with surrounding areas or buffers. Vaccination of local domestic cattle to protect the wildlife is rarely done.
ix) Insufficiency of funds and facilities, lack of public awareness, limited jurisdiction and training of staff, lack of work force and lack of necessary information base make the functioning of PAs a difficult task.
x) It may also be noted that environmentally unsustainable activities take place both within and outside forest areas. Outside PAs there is limited recognition of conservation values. For example, widely distributed wetlands outside forests are important for wildlife conservation, but there are no arrangements to manage and provide a safe-shelter for wildlife in such areas. Overall, the situation calls for action in multiple fronts, with due consideration for social realities.
"Conservation cannot be imposed from above. Any conservation effort must involve the local people, based on their interests, skills, self-reliance and traditions and it must initiate programs that offer them spiritual and economic benefits." (Schaller, 1993)
The first survey of PA Network of India conducted by Indian Institute of Public Administration and other studies and assessments made it clear that one of the most difficult challenges facing PA managers was the reconciliation of the local community's demands for biomass and incomes from the PA with the requirement of biodiversity conservation. The law, on the one hand, prohibited access to almost all the resources within a PA. On the other hand, these communities had few other survival options. Besides, many of the local people living in and around Pas had been using these resources for years, sometimes for generations and usually from well before PA was constituted. The sudden restrictions on their access not only resulted in severe hardships but also made them hostile to the PA managers.
India Eco development Project was conceived as a pilot project in June, 1994, on the basis of an Indicative Plan prepared by the Indian Institute of Public Administration on behalf of the Govt. of India after the study of eight sites selected by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. This study was funded by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The Project was confined to seven sites and the total cost was US $ 67 millions. The Project is being implemented in seven sites in seven different States viz. Palamau in Bihar, Buxa in West Bengal, Nagarhole in Karnataka, Periyar in Kerala, Pench in Madhya Pradesh, Gir in Gujarat and Ranthambhore in Rajasthan.
The main objective of the Project is to conserve bio- diversity through eco development and aims at Improved Protected Area Management, Village Eco development and Eco development support. Eco tourism has been cited many times as the probable cure of the conflict between PA managers and indigenous community. There are generally few opportunities to earn income from PAs. Eco tourism provides one of the few opportunities to earn income from them.
The appeal of eco tourism is that it may allow nature conservation and economic gain to be combined, thereby, providing an economic incentive for nature conservation. IUCN, 1980, pointed out that nature-based tourism might provide a means by which developing countries may at least recoup some of the costs of conservation of bio diversity. As Convention of Biodiversity (CBD) has came into effect, question of how to finance conservation of bio diversity and to compensate local communities for reduced access to nature resources, have assumed increasing importance.
Important socio-economic benefits of Eco tourism are:
IEDP also envisages preparation of Future Bio diversity Projects covering a larger number of Protected Areas
The India Eco development Project has been able to demonstrate a direct relationship between conservation of biodiversity and improved local livelihood and incomes, along with increased empowerment and decision-making responsibility to the community-level. Village Eco development Committees (EDCs) now represent the most effectively functioning institution at the village level. These EDCs are officially recognized by the local governments and financial institutions, increasing opportunities for local people to collectively access benefits for other government schemes and programs. In some of the Eco development project sites, local communities have been able to attract substantial outside funding for water resources and agricultural development, income-generation activities and infrastructure improvements in the village. In some of the Eco development sites, government policy now favors the direct transfer of financial resources to local community organizations for implementation of project activities. In Periyar and Pench Tiger Reserves all the Eco development investment funds are transferred to EDC accounts thus providing greater financial and decision-making authority to local communities than ever provided in the past. This represents a major deviation from normal government accounting and financial practice and policy and has been extended to non-project protected areas in other states in India as well. Strong transparency within the committees, arrangements for systematic audits, and leadership within some of the Project entities have given the program a strong local reputation for honesty relative to other government investment programs. Planned steps to further increase transparency through systematic annual public reviews of protected area wide expenditures and to disseminate experiences are expected to further improve understanding and support for the program. Concern for sustainability has already been demonstrated through the focus on revolving funds, local contribution requirement, and community monitoring. Similarly, some sites have achieved relatively strong participation of women, both in decision-making of the EDCs, and as beneficiaries and in some cases women represent over 50% of the total alternative livelihood beneficiaries.
Yellowstone National Park of USA was the first the first National Park established in the world in 1862 to conserve exclusively forest biodiversity. This model was replicated later in many countries including India to set up an exclusive network of Protected Areas to conserve genetic diversity. Settings up of PAs have been marked with conflicts with indigenous communities living inside the forest for generations. It had been debated widely nationwide who should be the authority of such PAs; the forest official or the community or a joint authority should be envisaged upon. While introducing the IEDP programme took care of some of the existing problems but still a wide gap exists towards effective forest management and bio diversity conservation. The management practice should evolve towards greater participation of community including preparation for working plan of PAs. NGOs and grass root organizations have a greater role to play not only to act as the interface between the forest department and community but actually being a part of monitoring and evaluation process of eco development programmes. Overall increased awareness should be created towards importance of biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection.
Bustard, H.R. 1982. Crocodile breeding project. In Saharia, V.B. (Ed.), Wildlife in India. Dehra Dun. Pp. 147-163.
Kothari, A., Pande, P., Singh, S., Variava, D. 1989 Management of national parks and sanctuaries in India: a status report. Environmental Studies Division, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. Pp 298.
IBWL 1972. Project Tiger. A planning proposal for preservation of tiger (Panthera tigris Linn.) in India. Indian Board for Wildlife, Government of India, New Delhi. Pp 114.
ICBP 1992. Putting biodiversity on the map: priority areas for global conservation. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, UK. Pp 90.
IUCN 1986. Review of the Protected Areas System in the Indo-Malayan Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. Pp 461.
MacKinnon, J. and MacKinnon, K. 1986. Review of the Protected Areas System in the Indo-Malayan Realm. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. Pp 284.
Panwar, H.S. 1982. Project Tiger. In: Saharia, V.B. (Ed.), Wildlife in India. Natraj Publications, Dehra Dun. Pp. 130-137.
Pillai, V.N.K. 1982. Status of wildlife conservation in states and union territories. In: Saharia, V.B. (Ed.), Wildlife in India. Natraj Publishers, Dehra Dun. Pp. 74-91.
Rodgers, W.A. and Panwar, H.S. 1988 Planning a wildlife protected area network in India. 2 vols. Project FO:IND/82/003. FAO, Dehra Dun. Pp 606.
Rodgers, W.A. and Panwar, H.S. 1988. Planning a wildlife protected area network in India. 2 vols. Project FO:IND/82/003. FAO, Dehra Dun. Pp 339, 267.
Schaller,G.B. 1993. The Last Panda. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Pp 35.
1 Junior Research Fellow
Centre for Development and Environment policy
Indian Institute of Management Calcutta
D.H. Road, Joka, Calcutta: 700104, India
Phone: 91-033-4678300-04 (O), 91-033-4169708 (r)
Fax: 91-033-4678307/467-7851
[email protected]
[email protected]
Web site: www.iimcal.ac.in/centers/cdep
Paper submitted for the XII World Forestry Congress at Quebec, Canada, September 21-28, 2003