making the peripheral “region”

23
IGU COMLAND Meeting and Field Trip, Slovenia June, 23 rd – 27 th , 2016 Atrium of the Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (address: Novi trg 2). Making the Peripheral “Region” - From a Case of Nagarahole National Park Koichi KIMOTO, Ph.D. Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, JAPAN 00 FMaRG ReGFF

Upload: others

Post on 11-Feb-2022

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Making the Peripheral “Region”

IGU COMLAND Meeting and Field Trip, Slovenia June, 23rd – 27th, 2016

Atrium of the Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (address: Novi trg 2).

Making the Peripheral “Region” - From a Case of Nagarahole National Park

Koichi KIMOTO, Ph.D.

Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, JAPAN

00

FMaRG ReGFF

Page 2: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Field Work FMaRG ReGFF

01

Field (1993-): India (Karnataka, Rajasthan, Assam), China (North-east), Russia (Far-east), Scotland, Romania, Indonesia, Kenya Project (2009-) : # LUCC scheme (SLUAS project 2009-13) – Future Earth (1) Forest Management as Regional Governance (FMaRG) 2010-12 (2) Regional Governance of Forest Fringe (ReGFF) 2013-16

“Regional Governance”

Page 3: Making the Peripheral “Region”

02

Declamation to be premised (for consideration)

FMaRG ReGFF

Damaged forest

(British period and also after the independence)

Joint Forest Management

(JFM)

Bio-diversity Hot spot

(PAs)

Re-generation Conservation

Forest Cover (All India) (%) Early 19c - - - - - 40 % Early 20c - - - - - 20 % 1980’s - - - - - - - 10 % 2001 - - - - - - - - 20.6 %

Cf. 2001 - - - -19.96 % (Karnataka)

Page 4: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Bengal records highest increase in forest cover, says survey

Of the 5,871 sq km increase in the forest cover of India West Bengal accounts for nearly 64 per cent of this rise, reveals the latest report of the Forest Survey of India.

A study conducted by the Forest Survey of India that was recently published, points out that West Bengal’s forest cover has increased by 3,810 sq km, which is followed by Odisha where the increase has been 1,444 sq km and Kerala with about 622 sq km.

Commenting on the increase in the forest cover in West Bengal, State principal chief conservator of forest Azam Zaidi told The Hindu that along with other steps the State’s joint forest management, which involves the participation of the local people, is one of the reasons for the increase.

“Increase in the forest cover of the State is mainly due to coppice growth (dense growth of small trees) and afforestation inside the forests, growth of commercial plantations and shady trees in tea gardens,” the FSI report states. (The Hindu 15th Feb. 2015)

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/kolkata/bengal-records-highest-increase-in-forest-cover-says-survey/article6897267.ece

Evidence

03

FMaRG ReGFF

Page 5: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Depletion Interestingly, the States from the Northeast like Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura and Manipur, whose forest cover comprises over 75 per cent of the State’s area, have shown a decrease in forest cover. “The current assessment shows a decrease of forest cover to the extent of 627 sq km in the region. The main reason for this decrease is attributed to the biotic pressure and shifting cultivation in the region,” the report states.

… continued

04

FMaRG ReGFF

Page 6: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Today’s topic ? FMaRG ReGFF

05

What has happened in the process of this “recovery”? Where it has happened? Who were joined in it? What happen in the de-forested area around “forest”?

Af-forestation

De-forestation

De-gradation / conservation

Page 7: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Area Number

(forest cover (%))

De-forestation

Decreasing wildlife Elephant (as a symbol) Cf. biodiversity

indicator

Notice (initial) Solution

Re-frame work

06

①De-gradation

②Enclosing

③Conflict Competition

Desertification Boarder issues Human-Animal Conflict (HAC), HEC People-G., G.-G., H-H

FMaRG ReGFF

Af-forestation

Conservation

participatory

Page 8: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Method / Methodology FMaRG ReGFF

07

Secondary data; census, maps, satellite image, etc.

Primary data; field work (village-level survey, narrative approach)

*Mysore

*Bangalore

Nagarhole National Park (1983) (Rajiv Gandhi NP) (1988) area:643.39km2 altitude:700 - 960m Project Tiger reserve (1999), World Heritage (2012)

Page 9: Making the Peripheral “Region”

De-forestation (1930 – 2000) Hunsur & H.D. Kote taluk

Total area of the Taluks – 2,486.81 Km2

FMaRG ReGFF

08

Page 10: Making the Peripheral “Region”

around Nagarhole National Park FMaRG ReGFF

09

Tea Coffee

East: Semi-arid region

West: Plantation

Page 11: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Issues

Degradation Desertification

Visible

In-visible

Physical

Social

ground water (level), soil degradation (erosion), Planting (eucalyptus)

FMaRG ReGFF

10

Quality of Forest

Enclosing

Setting Boarders (National Park / Sanctuary, Plantation) Land categories (Wasteland, “forest”)

Forest as a category

CC*

Human-Animal Conflict (HAC), HEC People-G., G.-G., H-H

* Conflict/Competition

Forest related issues

Page 12: Making the Peripheral “Region”

FMaRG ReGFF

11

Degradation Desertification ground water (level), soil degradation (erosion), Planting (eucalyptus)

Quality of Forest

Page 13: Making the Peripheral “Region”

FMaRG ReGFF

12

Degradation Planting (eucalyptus), fulfill the wasteland in village

Quality of Forest

Page 14: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Enclosing Setting Boarders (National Park / Sanctuary, Plantation)

Forest as a category

FMaRG ReGFF

13

Page 15: Making the Peripheral “Region”

FD

RD

Forest (RF) De-forested area

b a

• (a) De-forested pressure from outside encouraged by Revenue Department (RD)

• (b) Re-settlement & Re-location (R&R) schemed by Forest Department (FD)

• Fix the boundary of “Forest”

• Deforestation (vegetation) is promoted by the change of category of forest

Deforestation by outside and inside pressure FMaRG ReGFF

14

Page 16: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Diagram of making forest (PAs) fringe area FMaRG ReGFF

15

( 1 )

( 2 )

( 3 )

( 4 )

Long time before ?

19th century (timber demand) (labor for plantation)

After independence (social welfare) (land demand)

After 1990’s (land demand) (re-habitation)

Page 17: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Ideal and actual condition (PAs) FMaRG ReGFF

16

R E

M

T

Forest Region

Forest +

Forest related area

Page 18: Making the Peripheral “Region”

FMaRG ReGFF

17

CC* Human-Animal Conflict (HAC), HEC People-G., G.-G., H-H

* Conflict/Competition

Forest related issues

Page 19: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Who lives in this area (peripheral region)? FMaRG ReGFF

18

Forest

Protected/Managed as a sanctuary Un-planning/Un-managed/diversity

a

d

c b

e

Governance

from inside (a) ie Tribal from urban region (b) resident (investor) from sub-urban region (c) peasant farmer, from outside of district (d) rich farmer from outside of state (e) farmer

# Forest Sprawl

New comer’s area (not traditional dweller)

Page 20: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Human and Elephant Conflict (HEC) FMaRG ReGFF

19

Source: Gubbi(2012)

NPs is not suitable for Elephant and human For what purpose? Tourism? Logistic? (road construction work, regulation) Jail (for elephants) or Fortress (for human) close, corridor, vegetation

Human – Human conflict diversity of residents (expense for protecting Elephant) How to share? How to make a governance ?

Page 21: Making the Peripheral “Region”

Re-habilitation colony for ST FMaRG ReGFF

20

Page 22: Making the Peripheral “Region”

# Remarks 1. This periphery region is new not as physically, but

as socially.

2. This region has special feature like a periphery of city.

3. In this region, it is difficult to set the joint-ness between Government and Regional Governance.

Remarks FMaRG ReGFF

21

Page 23: Making the Peripheral “Region”

FMaRG ReGFF

22

Thanking you