WITH problems mounting around the
issue of conservation of national parks
and sanctuaries, the present state of
India's wildlife and protected areas (PA)
is in Jeopardy. In most of the cases, the
malady has been identified as the largely
unscientific and anti-people approaches
adopted in dealing with the management of these regions. The Centre for
Science and Environment (CSE), New
Delhi, strongly believes that India needs
a more rational, sustainable and effective conservation policy which cares for
the people's needs and rights.
While trying to evolve an effective
system, the government must accept
that present policies are myopic and
view the whole wildlife management issue very dogmatically. The CSE believes
in nurturing a strong concern for poor
people who are essentially forest-dependant for their survival - people who are
always neglected while conservation
processes are planned and implemented, people who are denied access to their
natural resources, as more and more
LNO areas get earmarked for protection.
Inefficient and ineffective
India today has 521 national parks and
sanctuaries that cover 4.3 per cent of
our geographical area. There are ambitious plans to increase the number to
five per cent comprising about 15 milbon ha of land. The Eighth Plan had earmarked Rs 37.63 crore as assistance for
the development of national parks PAS.
The Project Tiger itself has received
Rs 7.7 crore in 1994-95. Despite this lavish arrangement, the tiger population
has declined from 4,334 to 3,750
between 1989 and 1993 - showing a
decrease of 553 (according to official statistics). The actual situation might
actually be worse.
Notwithstanding the fund for tackling poaching (more than Rs I crore
between 1990-1993), there are agonising speculations that we might lose the
tiger forever by the century's turn. And
this is not even 20 years after the Project
Tiger had won laurels as one of biggest
success stories in international conservation programmes.
However, the fact that a Tiger Crisis
Cell had to be created in 1994, is indicative of the government's realisation
about the impending doom. Besides,
the tiger crisis indicates a larger malaise
in this complex biodiversity system. As
ecologist Madhav Gadgil puts it, "There
are very large opportunity costs
attached to any conservation effort.
Consequently, such efforts enjoy the
support of a relatively narrow segment
of the society, mostly from the urban
middle class. In particular, there is little.
support to state- sponsored conservation efforts by the local people."
Unscientific approaches
The existing policies smack mostly of an
unscientific temperament. Reserve siting and management are often based on
imported conservation models largely
inappropriate for developing countries
as they carry very little insight about the
past and present land-use in countries
like India. All this defeats the purpose of
preserving biodiversity.
There has been increasing evidence
showing that a wrong premise underlies
the policy of trying to keep reserves pristine andfreefrom human intervention.
In fact, a large part of the world's so-called virgin or primary forest areas are ecosystems modified through centuries
of human-nature interactions.
That biodiversity is best preserved
when human intervention is reduced to
the minimum possible, is being rapidly
discarded as a myth. Evidencefrom India
and elsewhere is suggesting that controlled
human intervention has sometimes been
instrumental in enhancing biodiversity.
Studies on a Panama lake show that
humans may have influenced rates of
forest diversification and prevented the
dominance of any one species. In the
Bharatpur National Park of India, the
ban on grazing of cattle inside the
reserve which led to police firing in
1981, has now proved to be a scientifically misguided decision. The Bombay
Natural History Society studies show
that cattle movement had helped to preserve grass and wetland ecosystems
since ancient times.
Therefore, stringent measures to keep
off human beings from trespassing forests
areas can slowly impoverish wildlife habitats. The fact that diverse biodiversity actually flourishes outside PAS where
vital, human-modified ecological
processes have maintained it through-
out the ages, is very often conveniently
ignored.
In fact, by prohibiting people from
using forest resources, the indigenous
knowledge base about species and their
multifarious uses as crop, food, medicines, and rural technologies may simply erode away. For instance, hec 'tic
conservation of the rainforest biota has
led to the extinction of valuable
germplasm of indigenous crop vard.
Balendu Prakash, an eminent vaid
working in Dehradun, confirms this
possibility. He says, "The Gujjars have
learnt a lot from nature and in turn,
have taught vaids a lot about herbs."
Life versus wildlife
Traditional communities have always
been dependent on natural resources,
including forests, for their livelihood
needs. It is therefore quite natural that
they should have rights over the land
they have lived in and resources they
have used and replenished for centuries.
But the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,
later modified in 1991, prohibits all
human intervention or settlement in
national parks, and allows only a very
limited intervention in sanctuaries.
While the government have taxed the
loIcals to pay for biodiversity conservation, it does not guarantee any benefit to the latter from this exercise.
This alienation has spurred a serious
backlash from local communities, and in
places, this resentment has manifested
itself in the violation of PA laws by the
local inhabitants. And this is true not
only in India, but has also been reported
from other parts of the world, especially
the developing world.
In Africa, in a sad show of antagonism to PAS there has been cases of poisoning animals and beating up of forest
guards. To cite a case in Namibia, in 1990, the Ovambo tribals
living on the boundary of
the Etosha National Park,
lebrated their freedom
by cutting the game fence and -hunting
down animals ruthlessly.
Similarly, the creation
of the Amboseli National
Park in Kenya denied the A111%ppam- local Maasai pastoralists
access to the dry season
grazing lands and water
points. The irate locals expressed resentment by killing lions, rhinos and other
precious wildlife. The Maasais@have
killed black rhinos to near extinction,
not so much for, their horns, but
because they held the rhinos responsible
for the park's creation, and consequently, the sole reason for their land being
forfeited. Closer hnme in India, the displaced Jeri Kurumbas and Betta
Kurumbas residing in the Nagarhole
National Park, reportedly burned down
approximately 20 sq km of forest
protesting against the wildlife guards
who killed a poacher.
In the Manas Tiger Reserve in
Assam, the insurgents have taken
advantage of the resentment ofthe local
Bodo tribals who have lost thei@ land to
the reserve, to carry out their activities.
With most guards deserting the area, the
Bodos have been killing the wildlife to
provide funds to the insurgents.
It is therefore evident that the government's conservation policy has badly boomeranged and has rather become a
threat to biodiversity itself. The people-exclusion policy has failed to generate any positive moves.
The local resentment in India has
recently intensified at the apparent
duplicity of state management.While
the laws are very effectively used to har-
rass the poorest of the poor, commercial
interests have continuously violated all
the laws, often in connivance with the
Forest Department, to plunder the for-
est wealth. Take the case of
Shoolpaneshwar Sanctuary inGujarat,
where people are strident in their
demand to denotify the sanctuary, the
reason being that while they are pre-
vented from extracting small amounts
of bamboo, trucks full of barnboo regu-
larly rumble out of the sanctuary, under
the benevolent gaze of the authorities,
to feed a near by paper mill. In the pro-
posed Rajaji National Park in Uttar
Pradesh, the authorities are desperately
trying to displace the few thousand
Gujjars, living inside the park, while
turning a Nelson's eye to blatant
encroachment and violation of laws by
large government -owned industrial
complexes, and an army ammunition
dump. There is, therefore, growing cyn-
icism about the sincerity of the state-
managed conservation strategy.
Sober solutions
In an attempt to reduce human and eco-
nomic pressures on PAS, the government
initiated the ecodevelopment approach.
This approach, however, only has an
objective of providing alternative
resources and income generating activi-
ties outside the PAS. There is no structur-
al change in the policy involved, and the
people are still not recognised as part-
ners in effective park management.
In fact, the ecodevelopment indica-
tive plan, stays away from formulating
any plan for people residing inside the
PAS. The plan does not comment on the
issue of rehabilitation of the forest people. As this is the basic issue to tackle before any plan is chalked out, the plan
has a major loophole.
Additionally, this approach is heavily dependent on foreign finding, mainly through the World Bank and the
Global Economic Facility (GEF), and
shows little scope for generating its own
resources for various intended activities.
More importantly, the World Bank support is in form of loans. Paying off this
loan is a million dollar question.
In fact, it is unfortunate that India
today lags behind in a world that is fast
realising the plus points of involving the
local communities in the whole process of
biodiversity conservation. Several experiments in Africa, Central and South
America, and even Australasia, have
shown that the people, NGOs and park
authorities, can successfully share benefits and responsibilities of biodiversity conservation. International organisations like the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the World Conservation Union,
Christian Action Research and
Education, and the Development
through Conservation Project, have
been actively involved in the funding
and guiding of such interventions.
A unique Memorandum of
nderstanding was signed between the
Uganda National Park authorities and
the people of the Moungu Parish community in the Bwindi Impenetrable
National Park in 1994. The first such
memorandum of this kind in Uganda
and perhaps the first in the continent,
the mou reflects positively on the recognition of the biota and livelihood needs
of the communities, as well as on appreciation of knowledge and the people's
commitment towards conservation of
their land and its flora and fauna.
Management societies, consisting of
community leaders and park authorties, have been elected. From among the
community, resource users - to be
responsible for providing for the community's needs - have been identified,
and issued identity cards. The Uganda
National Park authorities allow nominated members access to the park's
resources, and the general public to use
the footpaths and the hotsprings inside
the park. A few herbalists and basket
makers are allowed to collect some
listed medicinal species, and specific
raw materials. Such parks are called
multiple-use areas. In return, the people
have to observe certain laws. Resource
collectors also must assure that resource
utilisation will be sustainable and
should report any noticeable decline in
species being harvested. The boundaries of the multiple use
zone is to be strictly adhered to, and to
uce t e community's dependence on
the park, the people have agreed to grow
the forest resources they collect from
the park, in theirown lands.
Coburg National Park, situated in
the northeastern part of Darwin,
Australia, is another such example.
Here, an eight-member management
board was constituted under the
Coburg Act in 1981, out of which four
members were aboriginal residents and
the other four members belonged to the
Conservation Committee of the Northern Territory. The Australian
National Parks and Wildlife Service
employed three aboriginal people as
cultural advisors to guide them in managing the park.
Similarly, in the Kakadu National
Park, although there is no formal sharing as in Coburg, the aborigines had
formed local organisations like Gajudju,
Djabulukgu and lawoyn Associations.
They played an informal, but important role in advising the authorities. Twelve aborigines were trained as
park rangers, out of
which eight gained
formal employment
in the park. The relationship between the pe
ple and the park authorities
is reported to be excellent with frequent
interactions, paving the way for informal exchange of ideas.
The traditional aboriginal knowledge
proved immensely valuable in u-nderstanding the area's ecological pro&esses,
the best examples beingfire management
and environment restoration. The people, besides benefitting directly, continue to have access to traditional lands, to
practise their traditional methods.
Employment scopes and a share in
tourism revenue are added advantages
for the aborigines.
In Papua New Guinea (PNG), while
formulating new environmental laws in
1978, the government rejected the idea
that the only way to conserve anything
is by taking it away from the people.
Western biologists are demanding that
50 per cent Of PNG'S land be protected, a
demand strongly resented by local
landowners. It was soon realised that
any conservation effort had to involve
landowners and NGOs right from the
planning stage. National Conservation
Councils have been set up to identify
sites for conservation, while each site
had a separate committee, including the
landowners. These committees also
monitor various activities in the area,
and even direct the rangers. The laws
formulated in 1978 has acknowledged
the local conservation values, and
helped shed PNG'S colonial hangover.
Understandably, there is considerable
need for experimentation to develop
wildlife management strategies suited to
different Indian cultures and regions.
While the csE strongly believes that community-based wildlife management
strategies -given strong government and
NGo support systems - will be most effective, it welcomes the idea of experiments in appropriate institutional development.
It believes that any singular policy formulated at the national level is bound to run into serious implementational trouble, the ultimate cost being paid by
India's wildlife and biodiversity.
Conservation strategies which assign
charges to the people, and specific roles
to the state and environmentalists,
would definitely work better than state-
managed strategies if there is enough
experimentation and scientific implementation. Institutional flexibility, a
marriage of conservation and development priorities, and creation of local
stakes in biodiversity conservation, is
the only answer. Otherwise, the entire
conservation movement in India will
get throttled in its infancy.
The CSE statement should be read together with the Debate: Stressed
woods, and the Analysis: Keep forests ... shall feed
