Building Bridges – Wildlife conservation and people’s livelihood rights, a journey of 6 years

BUILDING BRIDGES:

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND PEOPLE’S LIVELIHOOD RIGHTS

A JOURNEY OF THE LAST SIX YEARS 

Pankaj Sekhsaria and Ashish Kothari

Kalpavriksh 

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1. National Level Processes

• Protected Area Update
• Jungle Jivan Bachao Yatra
• National Consultations on Wildlife Conservation and People’s Livelihood Rights
• Conservation and Livelihoods Network
• Committee to amend the Wild Life (Protection) Act (WLPA) 1972
• Supreme Court Case on the settlement of rights (SOR) in protected areas
• Voluntary Relocation Scheme for Protected Areas 
• National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) 
• Ecodevelopment
• Community Based Conservation outside PAs

1. State and Regional Level Processes

• Rajasthan
• Orissa
• Maharashtra
• Madhya Pradesh

1. Individual Protected Area Level Processes

• Himachal Pradesh: Great Himalayan National Park
• Kerala: Periyar Tiger Reserve
• Karnataka: Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Sanctuary
• Rajasthan: Sariska Tiger Reserve and Kailadevi Sanctuary
• Maharashtra: Koyna Sanctuary, Bhimashankar Sanctuary, and Melghat Tiger Reserve
• Uttar Pradesh: Rajaji National Park

5. Conclusion

1. INTRODUCTION

Over the last few years there has been a growing attempt to try and integrate the concerns of wildlife conservation and livelihood rights of communities living in and around wildlife habitats, particularly wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. The attempt has taken various forms, each one different from the other and yet unified in their basic aims and objectives. There is for instance, the widespread official process called ‘ecodevelopment’. Then there are informal NGO and community efforts within and around protected areas (PAs), which are increasingly taking the form of Joint Protected Area Management (JPAM).

How successful have these efforts been? Where have these attempts moved from and where are they heading?  These and other related questions need to be answered and a critical analysis of these processes of the last few years must be attempted if the future of our wildlife habitats and of the human communities that depend on them are to be assured. This will also help us understand  what the challenges for the future are and what we need to do best. 

The report that follows is such an attempt at taking stock. The report is based on news and information reported in the Protected Area (PA) Update that has been published regularly by Kalpavriksh over for the last six years. Additionally it relies on the many personal involvements and interaction of members of Kalpavriksh, who have also regularly contributed to the PA Update. 

There definitely will be events, places and issues that are not covered, simply because we are not aware of everything that has happened or is happening. We would be grateful, if readers could help plug the gaps that they see.

2. NATIONAL LEVEL PROCESSES

Protected Area Update

The Protected Area (PA) Update was started in November 1994, as a follow-up of a workshop on Joint Protected Management held at the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), New Delhi. It was called the Joint Protected Management Update (JPAM) Update. The scope, coverage, design and presentation of the publication has changed and evolved over the years in response to the needs of its readers and the changing circumstances. The name was changed from JPAM to PA Update recently in July 1999, and today it is being published every two months from the Kalpavriksh office in Pune. The PA Update is now posted to around 700 individuals and sent in its electronic form to another hundred. The attempt has been to reach to as diverse a set of people and organisations and this includes, the Forest and other Government Departments, Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs), community organisations and the scientific community. Additionally the Update is hosted by four websites that deal with issues related to the natural history of South Asia. 

Jungle Jivan Bachao Yatra (JJBY)

One of the most significant events that helped in the process of building bridges at the national level was the JJBY that was held from January to March 1995. About 35 villagers, activists and researchers started this journey on January 14, from the Sariska Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan. Over a period of 45 days they traveled about 15,000 kms, passing through 18 national parks and sanctuaries in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. The Yatra held its final programme in Delhi over a two day period on Feb 28 and March 1. Though each of the protected areas had its unique situation and set of problems, the common themes that came to light indicated that there was a strong readiness amongst local communities to participate in conservation and natural resource management, provided their legitimate rights and needs are guaranteed. It was also found out that forest officials are opening up to the idea of involving local people in conservation. Most importantly, all sectors realised that the greatest threat to protected areas came from commercial demands and development projects, against which a common front had to be forged.

The Yatra also spun off a number of related initiatives at the individual PA level (like Koyna and Bhimashankar in Maharashtra), at the level of states as a whole or even at bio-geographical region level. 

National Consultations on Wildlife Conservation and People’s Livelihood Rights

Another of the important developments in the process has been the series of annual consultations called Building Bridges that began in 1997. The 1^st one was held in  Bhikampura in Rajasthan, and was organised by Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS), Sanctuary Magazine, Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) and Kalpavriksh (KV). The 2^nd one was also held in 1998 in Bhikampura and was jointly organised by TBS and KV. The 3^rd Consultation was held in Bhopal in 1999 and was jointly organised by Ekta Parishad and KV, while the 4^th one in April 2000 is being held by Vivekananda Girijana Kalyan Kendra (VGKK), the Ashoka Trust for Research in Environment and Ecology (ATREE) and KV. Again, as in the case of the JJBY, the Consultation process has initiated a lot of activities and also fed into many ongoing ones. At the same time these other ongoing processes have provided very important and critical inputs into the Consultation process. 

Conservation and Livelihoods Network

The Building Bridges, National Consultations which started in 1997, catalysed the formation of an informal and loose network called the Conservation and Livelihood Network. It was activated following the 2^nd National Consultation held in Bhikampura, where a number of participants expressed a need for more detailed information and communication, that would be more than just the news that was being carried by the PA Update . As a response, a regular monthly mailer was started in June 1998. It goes out to around a hundred people and contains an assortment of documents, new policies, details on new developments, protest notes, campaign notes etc. 

The Conservation and Livelihoods  Network (CLN) was formally agreed to at the 3^rd Consultation in Bhopal in May 1999. The central hub of the network is presently working from the office of Kalpavriksh in Pune. 

The Network, has in the last one year tried to meet some of the objectives it set for itself in Bhopal. However, how successful is this network, how important is the role that it is playing, what are the future plans and what is it that the network needs to do are some of the questions that needed to be critically asked and debated, if it is be made more effective and successful. 

Committee to Amend the Wild Life (Protection) Act (WLPA) 1972

Several submissions were made to the Committee that was set up to review the WLPA in 1996, with the aim of strengthening the conservation procedures and trying to incorporate local communities in the management of PAs. Several of these submissions were triggered by a call put out in the JPAM  Update, at the request of the committee. Those who made presentations included the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), New Delhi, The National Committee for the Protection of Common Land Resources (NCPCLR), The Karnataka Rajya Moolnivasi Budakattu Janara Vedike and Tribal Joint Action Forum, Karnataka, VIKSAT, Ahmedabad, Wildlife First!, Bangalore, Econet, Pune, Rhino Foundation, Guwahati, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Nature Lovers Movement, Thiruvamkulam, Ranthambhore Foundation, New Delhi, Van Vidhayak Samiksha Samanway, Pune and Kalpavriksh, New Delhi

Probably, as a result of the demands of a number of groups for the greater involvement of local communities in the management of PAs and for the recognition of their efforts at conservation, the proposed Amended Wildlife Act has proposed two new categories of protected areas; the ‘Community Reserve’ and ‘Conservation Reserves’ (see box below on Community Based Conservation Outside PAs).

The latest status of the Amended Wildlife Act is however not known.

Supreme Court Case on the Settlement of Rights (SOR) in Protected Areas

A Supreme Court order in 1997 in a case regarding protected areas filed by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), gave District authorities all over the country a time of an year to settle the rights of people in and around protected areas and issue the final notification declaring the sanctuary or national park. 

This order has created severe complications. In various places the order of the court has been and continues to be misused (particularly by the Forest Department ground staff) as eviction orders for villagers, causing increased hardships for the local communities. In many other places across the country this order has been used to delete / denotify large portions from the protected area map of the country, stating that is being done in interest of the local people and their rights. The real intention as has been evident in most of these cases are the commercial / industrial forces like mining (Bhagwan Mahavir Sanctuary, Goa)  and power projects ( Great Himalayan National Park, Himachal Pradesh).

Attempts have been made since the order was issued by the court, to intervene in the process and prevent undesirable consequences like those mentioned above. NGOs and people’s organisations in many places have been trying to reach information to the villagers to be affected by this process and simultaneously also to start a process where their rights could be recorded to present to the court. A number of groups also got together and filed an intervention in the SC, but unfortunately the Court refused to admit it, stating that it did not want to ‘expand the scope of the case’.

A detailed documentation of the process has been attempted. A note by Kalpavriksh, explaining what SOR exactly means and what the process should be was widely circulated and used. Simultaneously, a denotification alert was also issued by Kalpavriksh and circulated widely. Many organisations like the Bombay Natural History Society, Sanctuary Magazine and others helped in building up a detailed picture. At least a dozen PAs are slated for deletion/denotification, and this may only be the tip of the iceberg, as we do not have information from several states. 

Another petition arguing for the continuation of people’s rights in forest areas and PAs was also filed in the SC by CORD and Ekta Parishad, independently of the earlier case. This petition is presently being heard by the SC.

Voluntary Relocation Scheme for Protected Areas 

In 1998 , the above mentioned ministry under the leadership of Maneka Gandhi, proposed a scheme to reduce human-wildlife conflicts and address the critical livelihood needs of people living inside PAs. The draft plan was sent out to NGOs and others for comments. There were serious drawbacks with scheme and there were criticisms of it on the following counts:

• for assuming that tribals can only participate in conservation by ‘voluntarily’ agreeing to move out
• for not critically defining ‘voluntary’
• for not explicitly rejecting forced displacement and 
• for not laying out essential aspects of what would constitute a fair resettlement process (such as a public hearing, independent assessments, etc.)

Subsequently the scheme was revised and some of the comments and suggestions made were incorporated into it. However, the final status of the plan and its implementation is not known.

National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) 

A National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) was developed for India in 1983, and this has been serving as the basic guide to wildlife programmes in the country. However, noting that there are several new circumstances and challenges, the Ministry of Environment and Forests set up an expert group in 1999 to formulate a new NWAP. A draft has emerged in early 2000. It contains considerably more stress on participatory conservation processes and consideration of livelihood concerns, than were present in the first NWAP. This draft is awaiting finalisation by the group and approval by the MoEF. 

Ecodevelopment

A major move by the Government of India, and several state governments, to respond to the conflicts between conservation and local communities, has been the ‘ecodevelopment’ scheme. Started in 1990 as a Central Scheme, and subsequently aided through GEF/World Bank projects, a large amount of funding has gone into this effort. The basic thrust is towards diverting the biotic pressure of local communities in wildlife areas, by providing alternative livelihood options. Not much information is available on the ground impacts of this move, but what is available shows mixed results. Several conservationists have criticised the scheme for being insensitive to wildlife requirements, and actually hastening destructive processes (e.g. in Nagarhole) by diverting forest officials away from protection work. Social action groups on the other hand have been severely critical of it for not being sufficiently sensitive to issues of resource rights and possibilities of community-based or joint management. Also seriously problematic is the involvement of agencies like the World Bank, which is seen by many groups as the purveyor of destructive ecological and social trends. Several officials and some NGOs report, however, that where ecodevelopment has worked over a number of years, it has helped to change attitudes of both forest staff and local communities, and thereby built bridges. Results from areas such as Periyar indicate that livelihood status may be improving (see below, under INDIVIDUAL PROTECTED AREAS). As yet, therefore, the verdict on ecodevelopment is mixed, but clearly conservationists and social activists will have to critically engage with this major new thrust in Indian conservation policies.  

COMMUNITY BASED CONSERVATION OUTSIDE PAs 

Increasing evidence is emerging of very widespread and substantive efforts by village communities to regenerate, conserve, and enhance the natural ecosystems they live amidst. These initiatives have taken many forms: continued protection of sacred spaces (groves, tanks, landscapes) and sacred wildlife species; regeneration of degraded lands into full-fledged forests (several million hectares under Joint Forest Management, Van Panchayats, as also self-initiated efforts such as Bhaonta-Kolyala, Rajasthan, and Jardhargaon, U.P.), some of them extremely diverse and harbouring significant wildlife populations; protection of standing forests against destructive commercial threats (e.g. Mendha-Lekha, Maharashtra; several Chipko forests in U.P.); protection of nesting or wintering populations of birds (e.g. Kokkare Bellur, Karnataka; Kheechan, Rajasthan); and so on. What is critical about these efforts is that they have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to integrate livelihood rights, local management controls, and habitat/wildlife conservation requirements. In doing so, they provide critical lessons for the management of official PAs also. Many of these would be ideal candidates for the use of existing provisions such as Village Forests in the Forest Act of 1927 (unfortunately rarely used), or new ones such as the category of ‘Community Reserves’ in the proposed Wild Life Amendment Act (see above, Committee to Amend the Wild Life Act).

3. STATE and REGIONAL LEVEL PROCESSES

State and regional  level processes in most states have been rather weak (or are poorly reported) in the attempt to build bridges between wildlife conservation and livelihood rights.

Rajasthan

As a direct follow up of the IIPA workshop on joint management in 1994, a state level workshop was organised in 1995 by several NGOs. Several follow-up actions were decided upon, but it is not clear what further state-level work has been done. The community group Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS) has been playing an active role to network in the state on various issues like conservation of water and forests and against hunting. Arun Jindal of the Society for Sustainable Development (SSD) has started an Hindi newsletter called Aranyavarta, which is modelled after the Protected Area Update. 

Orissa

Close on the heels of the JJBY (reported above), a 41day Jana Jungle Chetna Yatra was proposed for the month of May 1995 in Orissa. The Yatra was to start from the Simlipal Tiger Reserve, and reach the state capital Bhubaneshwar after passing through the forest-tribal-mining-industrial areas and the eastern coastal areas of the state. Interestingly, this march was completely independent of the Jungle Jivan Bachao Yatra (JJBY). There is however, no further information on this march.

Maharashtra 

The Satpura Bachao Abhiyan, a march to highlight the continuos fragmentation of wildlife habitats in the Satpura ranges, and plead for the conservation of what remains of the forests here, was organised in January 1996. This march was jointly organised by groups in the states of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.

In October 1996, the 3^rd Maharashtra state level Conference on Sanctuaries was held in Malwan, Sindhudurg district. The meeting was attended by local people living in and around several PAs like Radhanagari, Koyna, Bhimashankar, Sanjay Gandhi NP,  Melghat, Pench and Nagzira. 

Another group of about 25 odd wildlife conservationists, government officials and media persons had a meeting in November 1997 in the Melghat Tiger Reserve in an attempt to explore new working policies for the protection and conservation of wildlife and forests in Central India.

In September 1998 a meeting was held in Mumbai of people affected by protected areas in Western Maharashtra. This meeting was attended by  people from Bhimashankar, Koyna, Radhanagari, Malvan, Harishchandragad and Kalsubai Wildlife Sanctuaries. Issues discussed were the situation arising from the WWF case, proposed changes in the Wildlife Act and damage to human life, crop and property by wild animals. 

Another meeting on ‘Biodiversity Conservation in Maharashtra ‘ was held in September in Nagpur. Called by the Maharashtra FD, it was spurred by the preparation of the ‘Directory of National Parks and Sanctuaries in Maharashtra’ by IIPA and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) – India. Over 100 persons from various sectors attended this meeting. Recommendations of the workshop included strong steps against destructive commercial activities around PAs, need for conservation measures across the entire landscape (and not restricted just to PAs), and guaranteeing the right to life (including bonafide biomass resources) to local communities.

In October 1999, a meeting, probably the first of its kind in country was called in Mahabaleshwar by the then Jt.Secretary, Forests, Govt. of Maharashtra to discuss issues related to settlement of rights (SOR). The participants of the meeting included many District Collectors, who have the major responsibility for the settlement of rights. A set of draft guidelines for the SOR process was also prepared and circulated on the occasion. However, noting that this draft had several deficiencies, Kalpavriksh prepared an alternative draft and sent it to the Maharashtra government. The matter is currently pending with the government.

There has also been a lot of activity in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. The Vidarbha Paryavaran Parishad, an annual gathering of the Non Governmental and Community groups has regularly discussed issues of wildlife conservation and people’s livelihood rights. The latest meeting in Amravati in January 2000 discussed the settlement of rights in protected areas in great detail. In another meeting in March 2000 in Nagpur, a Vidarbha level PA coordination committee was established. The committee is made of 4 NGOs, the Vidarbha Nature Conservation Society (VNCS), Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA), KHOJ and Srujan and it was decided that the first issue to be dealt with will be the settlement of rights in protected areas. 

Madhya Pradesh 

In early 1997, a number of people’s organisations grouped together under the banner of the ‘Campaign for People’s Rights over Sanctuaries and National Parks in MadhyaPradesh. These included the Ekta Parishad, Chhatisgarh Mukti Morcha, Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Sangathan, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Adivasi Mukti Sangathan, Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangathan and others. Later that year, the Campaign, along with the Chattisgarh Institute of Law organised a one seminar on People’s Rights over Sanctuaries and National Parks in Raipur. Subsequently, it has repeatedly highlighted the problems of people’s livelihood rights in relation to PAs, has mobilised communities against the disruptive influences of projects like the World Bank (WB) aided MP Forestry Project (the bank has reportedly rejected Phase 2 of this project), and fought against destructive developmental projects in and around PAs and adivasi settlements. It is also actively seeking to move the PAs in Madhya Pradesh to a JPAM model.

Ekta Parishad is also planning to bring out a newsletter in Hindi for MP on conservation and livelihood issues.

4. INDIVIDUAL PROTECTED AREA LEVEL PROCESSES

There have been interesting developments at the level of several individual PAs. A few are highlighted here (this is a random listing, and only meant to be representative):

HIMACHAL PRADESH

Great Himalayan National Park

One of the most prominent victims of the Supreme Court order on settlement of rights has been the Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP).  More than 10 sq. kms of the park were deleted as part of this process. This was ostensibly done to allow the rights of villagers of Kundar and Manjhan in the north of the park, but the real reason was the facilitation of the Parbati River valley Hydel project. Local groups and village communities living in and around the park were also unhappy about the compensation that they had been given on extinguishing their rights. Many were also unhappy that their access to resources and grazing grounds for cattle would be denied. 

A national protest campaign, coordinated by Kalpavriksh and BNHS was launched, particularly, against the denotification. Several letters were written to the Prime Minister and other authorities. The campaign was taken note of and extensively reported in the national media. The deletion, however could not be reversed and the PM himself went and laid the foundation stone of the project, late last year.

KARNATAKA

Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple (BRT) Sanctuary

The Vivekananda Girijana Kalyan Kendra (VGKK), along with groups such as Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Tata Energy Research Institute, and others, have worked out a model for the integration of livelihoods with conservation. There are strong elements of bioresource-based enterprise, and biological and social monitoring, involved in this effort. Though initially the relationship of this effort with the wildlife authorities was tense, it has over the years built up into one of cooperation and collaboration. BRT could be a very strong candidate for some kind of JPAM initiative. 

KERALA

Periyar Tiger Reserve

The ecodevelopment project in Periyar has developed as its component an interesting ecotourism component called Tiger Trail. Local communities who were dependant on the reserve for their survival were organised into ecodevelopment committees (EDCs) under the World Bank (WB) funded ecodevelopment project. The Tiger Trail has been developed along with a group of notorious poachers who collected the bark of the Wayana tree for sale from within the forests of the reserve. The members of this EDC were trained to identify common birds and patrol the sanctuary, for which a trail was decided upon. Their knowledge of the terrain of the forests made this initiative very successful and the trail was then priced and offered to tour operators. Besides raising funds the trail also is a forest patrol. The trail has been laid across sensitive areas that need monitoring. Each time a different area of the sanctuary is covered. A sociologist, economist and ecologist regularly monitor the impact of the project. 

MAHARASHTRA

Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary 

An immediate fall out of the JJBY was the initiative of the organisation Satyashodh, which works in and around Koyna WLS in the Satara district of Maharashtra. A meeting was held in Koregaon immediately after the JJYB and an attempt was made to implement the two resolutions which local villagers had made during the yatra: that they would not permit the sale / transfer of forest produce and forest land by the FD without their permission and they would themselves not sell any private or village land to outsiders. Members of Satyashodh and the Koyna Jivan Hakka Sanrakshan Sanghatana (KJHSS) remained active in the process. A three day meeting, ‘Forests People and the State’ was organised by the KJHSS in Koregaon in February 1999. This was with the background of the Supreme Court order on settlement of rights (see above), the demand for denotification of roughly a third of the sanctuary and the prospecting for minerals that was going along the eastern boundary of the sanctuary. The main focus of the meeting was how to work towards a joint management system for the sanctuary by avoiding forced displacement and denotification and fighting the proposed mining.

One of the main architects of this very promising proactive process was BJ Avinash of Satyashodh. Unfortunately, in January 2000, he and his colleague Chhaya were killed in a tragic road accident. His other colleagues have promised to carry on the work. 

Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary

Another immediate fall out of the JJBY was another yatra, organised by Ekjoot Sangathana through 16 villages of the Bhimashankar WLS in March 1995. There were reports of attempts to get the involvement of all including the FD, local people and NGOs to plan a people’s sanctuary here.Another meeting was organised by Ekjoot Sangathana here in May 1995 to discuss and highlight issues of people-wildlife relations. Further follow up is not known. More recently, the Forest Department has been planning some ecodevelopment activities here and has asked ecologist Prakash Gole of the Ecological Society to help in the preparation of a management plan with ecological and social issues in mind. Earlier, JPAM models for the sanctuary have been suggested by Renee Borges (then with the BNHS) and Kusum Karnik of Ekjoot Sangathana.

Melghat Tiger Reserve 

In 1997 – 98 groups working in Melghat Tiger Reserve (Gugamal National Park & Melghat Sanctuary) co-ordinated a comprehensive documentation of people’s under the ongoing settlement of rights process. The groups involved included Youth YUVA, KHOJ, PREM, NAWPF, and Apeksha.  This is perhaps, the only detailed documentation of its kind done for a PA anywhere in the country. After, this several meetings were held to network between the government, NGOs and the locals.  

More recently, in October 1999, a meeting was held in the Bori village of the reserve, to discuss matters related to the settlement of rights process. First of its kind in the country, this meeting was attended by residents of 18 of the 22 villages in Melghat Sanctuary, representatives of social and wildlife NGOs, forest authorities including the Director & Deputy Director of the Reserve, the Sub-Divisional Officer who conducted the settlement of rights process, the Collector, Amravati, the Divisional Commissioner, and the Jt. Secretary, Forests. Govt. of Maharashtra. Three main decisions were taken at this meeting: the District Collector was to issue a notice that there would be no forced displacement from the sanctuary; the FD and District officials agreed to work together on developmental activities for the villages; and that there was to be a consultative process for the drafting of  a rehabilitation plan for the voluntary relocation of the village of Bori.

RAJASTHAN

Sariska

The forests of Sariska Tiger Reserve have in the last few years seen some of the most successful and significant attempts in the process of building bridges between conservation and livelihoods. The NGO and community group Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS), which has also been a very important contributor to this process at the national level, has initiated an extensive and sustained process for this. Its work has included development of livelihood alternatives that reduce over-exploitation of natural resources, fighting against destructive commercial forces like mining, organising villagers against tree-felling and poaching, and water harvesting work using traditional knowledge and technology. All this has benefited both wildlife and local people in hundreds of villages, a fact that is so visible and apparent that the Forest Department, earlier hostile to the TBS, has turned into a major ally. TBS has now proposed a major networking effort in Rajasthan and the country as a whole, to bring villagers, forest officials, and independent conservationists together to defend wildlife habitats.  Such a network would involve specialist groups of wildlifers, local action groups comprising village committees, legal aid groups, and a larger Sanjha Bhavishya Banavo Parivar (Build a Common Future Fraternity). 

Kailadevi Wildlife Sanctuary

This has been another place where there has been a lot of activity and positive developments in involving people in the management of the sanctuary which is a part of the Ranthambhore Tiger reserve. The Karauli based Society for Sustainable Development (SSD) has played a very significant role in this matter here. 

One of the first meetings (an informal one) on people – wildlife relationships in Kailadevi was organised by the Joint Protected Area Management Team of the IIPA and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), in June 1995. Subsequently the SSD took up a two year project to look at the issues of conservation around the sanctuary. The project was aimed at looking at the problem of water shortage that the villagers here face, resource use in the sanctuary and means to strength the relations between the FD and the local people. Detailed action research was conducted here by the IIPA as part of the IIPA project on Participatory Management of Protected areas that also included the Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary in Bihar. This was followed by a series of workshops (December 1996, January 1997 and February 1997) on participatory management of the sanctuary that were jointly organised by IIPA and SSD. 

Kulhadi bandh panchayats (Forest Protection Committees) which have been successfully operating in this region for years have also been documented and efforts have been made to strength them. 

UTTAR PRADESH

Rajaji National Park

Rajaji National Park has over the years become the symbol of intractable conflicts between conservationists, local nomadic and settled communities, and commercial interests. However, there have been a number of positive initiatives at trying to resolve the conflicts. One such was the initiative of the Indian People’s Tribunal (IPT) on Environment and Development, to attempt mediation. It began with the investigation and subsequent recommendations of Justice Poti, former Chief Justice of the Kerala and Gujarat High Courts. His interim report which was released in April 1995, made pathbreaking recommendations aimed at resolving the various conflicts over the management of the park, and balancing the interests of wildlife with those of the local people. He also came down heavily on the commercial and developmental threats to the park. In  May 1995, the UP Government passed an order allowing the removal of bhabbar grass from the Park, both as a measure to control fires and to help local communities with their major livelihood requirement. Groups like the Ghad Kshetra Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti subsequently attempted to get this order properly implemented, which was a struggle because the local forest officials were not particularly keen. Later that year the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) started a project to create an enabling environment among the key stakeholders (particularly park managers and local communities), to develop processes for more participatory problem-solving and park management. This has been carried on by the WII in more recent years, through the ecodevelopment scheme of the UP Government (more details on this are not known). Other attempts include a people’s management scheme for the Park, developed by the Dehra Dun based Rural Entitlement and Litigation Kendra (RLEK) in consultation with the Gujjars of the area. RLEK has also obtained an order from the National Human Rights Commission against any forcible eviction of the Gujjars from the Park. Simultaneously, there are efforts to help those Gujjars who want to be resettled, by the Forest Dept. and NGOs such as Friends of Doon. In all, Rajaji presents a very complex picture of conflicts and initiatives to resolve them, and it is at the moment not quite clear which direction it is headed in. 

5. CONCLUSION

There have been significant moves, both at ground level and policy level, towards a stronger model of conservation based on recognition of the following basic elements, which are increasingly accepted by social action groups, wildlife conservationists, and official agencies:

• the fact that commercial over-exploitation and industrial/urban growth is the common and the main threat to wildlife conservation and community livelihood rights, and that common fronts have to be forged to tackle this (eg. in Sariska, Rajasthan against mining, in Nagarhole, Karnataka against commercial tourism, and in Melghat, Maharashtra, against development projects like dams); 
• the need for legal protection to wildlife habitats and wildlife species through PAs, inviolate zones, and other measures (such that there is now a common struggle against denotifications and deletions of PAs, and even demands to renotify previously deleted areas, such as in Melghat, Maharashtra);  
• the rights of local communities to bonafide survival needs, to their cultural and religious links with nature, and to centrally participate in management of their surroundings (e.g. in Kailadevi, Rajasthan;  BRT, Karnataka;  Periyar, Kerala; and Melghat, Maharashtra; and in national policy measures such as the NWAP); 
• the needs to evolve livelihood alternatives where necessary (e.g. Sariska, Rajasthan,  Melghat, Maharashtra  and Periyar, Kerala); 
• the need to stop all forcible displacement of people from PAs, and to offer a substantial and satisfactory Resettlement and Rehabilitation package to people who willfully want to move out of the PA (e.g. Melghat, Maharashtra; Rajaji, U.P.).
• the need to recognise ecosystems and wildlife populations regenerated and conserved by communities, as critical models in themselves, and to offer them legal backing (e.g. new category in proposed Wild Life Amendment Act).