powerpoint presentation...trend in protected area declaration in india wlpa 1972 . 2 2 32 26 108 313...
TRANSCRIPT
2 4 36
62
170
483
577
623
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
Nu
mb
er o
f P
As
Decade
Trend in Protected area declaration in India
WLPA 1972
2 2
32 26
108
313
94
46
0
100
200
300
400
1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
Num
ber
of
PA
s
Decade
Trend in Protected area declaration in India
WLPA 1972
0
2000
4000
1972 1979 1984 1989 1993 1997 2004 2006 2010
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
1990 1972 1979 1984 1989 1993 1997 2004 2006 2010
History of colonial forest management in India
(Grove 1995, Williams 2000)
Pierre Poivre, French Commissioner of Mauritius in
1766 – suggested that deforestation causes rainfall
decline, and affects incidence and spread of
disease.
He created reserves to protect plants and animals
and established Mauritius’s botanical garden.
Poivre’s ideas about forest loss affecting rainfall
and runoff found great currency in India; the
regulations for forest management and reservation
were applied in St. Helena and then transferred to
India and the rest of the world.
Environmental History in India – based on Pyne
1994
The British differentiated between primitive
practices and its own practices by identifying fire,
a ubiquitous traditional practice, as ‘their chief,
almost their only enemy’.
A state-making rational exercise rooted in an
imperial project continues to dictate forest
management today.
‘There are no virgin forests today, nor
were there in 1492.’
William Denevan
‘The pristine myth: the landscape of the
Americas in 1492’
Trouble in Tigerland: why
conservation efforts continue to fail
Nitin Rai (Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment)
www.atree.org
Forest area
Tiger Reserve
Schedule V: Tribal area
50 poorest districts
Report of the Tiger Task Force 2003, Government of India
The number of internally displaced persons in India (Indian Social Institute 2008)
Dams - 16.4 million
Mines - 2.55 million
Industrial development - 1.25 million
Protected areas - 0.6 million
(3 to 4 million live in PAs and face eventual ‘displacement’)
Protected area policy 1972 National Park Wildlife sanctuary 2002: Community conserved areas Conservation reserves 2006 Tiger reserves
Conservation projects have largely failed • Produced marginal communities (landless and ‘arborealised’)
• Erased social and cultural histories
• Elevated levels of poverty • Altered ecological systems
Coffee
Encroachments
Water
Evergreen Forests
Semi-Evergreen Forests
Riparian Forests
Tree Savanna
Scrub Woodland to Thickets (dense)
Tree Plantations
Scrub Woodland to Thickets (with bamboo)
Scrub Woodland to Thickets (discontinuous)
Vegetation Types and Land Use
Woodland to Savanna Woodland (tall)
Shrub Savanna (Grassland)
Woodland to Savanna Woodland (short)
Biligiri Rangaswamy TempleWildlife Sanctuary
N. Barve, et al. 2005. Measuring and mapping threats to a wildlife sanctuary in South India. Conservation Biology 19:122 – 130.
SOLIGA SETTLEMENTS IN BRT
Monukai
SOLIGA SETTLEMENTS IN BRT
Time line of Monukai podu
1880-85: Menchi Gulli
1885-91: Achehare Mavu, Marish dore (British) lived in Honna
metti, and he roamed the forest. He had his camp in Joodi
gere.
1891-06: Munnukai Podu, Soliga and Badagas lived together.
They had Patta for 383 acres. 60 Soliga and 60 Badaga families
lived in Munnukai Podu. Dodda mari disease struck resulting in
people settling elsewhere.
1906-10: Budi dindu Podu
1910-14: Mathi Guddi Podu
1914-22: Siddaiahna Dembha Podu
1922-26: Dodda Hatti
1926-32: Erekanni
1932-34: Mullada Kallu
1934-40: Gali Gulli
1940-46: Giraji mara Hagu
1946-48: Karagilanni
1948-54: Maridembha
1954-57: Joodare Gudde
1957-63: Kongana hare
1963-66: Edira Bore
1966-68: Geresi kallu
1968-71: Joodigere
1971-74: Gadde salu
1974-77: Gerumala
1977-89: Munnukai Podu, Veerappan kills five Soligas, all
families flee, settle in Hannina Thotta Podu
1990-96: Karube Guddi
1996-99: Munnukai Podu
Clans
Selikiru Kula
Teneyaru Kula
Suriru Kula
Halaru Kula
Beliru kula
Baleyaru kula
Sacred sites
Veeru
Habbi
Devaru
Maramma
Kallu guddi
Samadhi
593 sites
85 Soliga informants
1.5 years of mapping
The impact of conservation policy on poverty
1972: Wildlife Protection Act 1972
1974: Wildlife sanctuary notified
2002: WLPA ammended to ban NTFP collection
2006: Forest produce collection banned in BRT
2011: Tiger Reserve established
1995 2006
NTFP 7105 6614
Agriculture 2350 4366
Labour 2526 8395
The impact of conservation policy on household
income – BRT household income
Hegde et al 1996; D’Souza, Rai and Madegowda 2011
1995 2006 2006 adjusted with CPI
NTFP 7105 6614 3785
Agriculture 2350 4366 2498
Labour 2526 8395 4799
The impact of conservation policy on household
income – BRT household income
Hegde et al 1996; D’Souza, Rai and Madegowda 2011
2000 2006 2010
NTFP 1457 839 516
Agriculture 811 216 427
Labour 867 3210 5242
*Uma shaankar et al 2000, $ ATREE 2006, Harisha et al 2010.
The impact of conservation policy on household
income – MM Hills household income
1997 2008
Spread of lantana 1997-2008
Lantana stems/ha
Sundaram and Hiremath 2011
Soliga explanations of forest change
FIRE: the control rather than the incidence
Lantana: increase in and therefore changing
forest composition
Hemiparasites – increase due to fire suppresion,
leading to mortality of amla trees
‘Taragu Benki’ Litter fire
Historically, Soligas have used controlled ground fires in forest management Fires were lit early in the season, resulting only in the burning of leaf litter, thus preventing large fires that might damage trees Small ground fires helped in good regeneration of forest tree species and controlled the spread of hemi-parasites on trees (Loranthus sp.) Soliga suggest that the control of fire has led to changes in forest structure and wildlife habitat due to the increase in invasive species, with serious implications for forest conservation
Forest Type Sub-class
1 Nadu Kadu
2 Ore Kadu (Beggadu) Halla kadu
Gadde Kadu
Are
Demba; Henne; Matta Kadu
Kere Kadu
Betta Kadu
3 Male Kadu Hanni Kadu
Halla kadu
Are
Kere
Hullu thotti kadu
Bore Kadu
Demba; Henne; Matta kadu
Gudde Kadu
Betta kadu
4 Kanu Kadu Halla kadu
Bore Kadu
5 Sanna Kanu Bore Kadu
Halla kadu
6 Boli Hullu
Gudde
Soliga Forest Classification
BR Hills Collaborative conservation workshop
July 12th and 13th 2011
BR Hills Collaborative conservation workshop
July 12th and 13th 2011
Collaborative management plan for BRT Ecological conservation: • Lantana • Poaching • Tourism • Plastic pollution by tourists • Roads and checkdams • Quarrying • Fertiliser and pesticides in coffee estates
Broad strategies were listed for each: regular patrolling by joint teams of Soliga and forest department staff, restrictions on tourists, and organic production of coffee.
Collaborative management plan for BRT Livelihoods security: • Agriculture • non-timber forest produce collection • Wage labour in coffee estates • Jobs in forest department • Plants from forest, for food and medicine • But marked decline of species due to Lantana • Restrictions in access by the Department • Reduction in bee populations due to pesticides use
in the plains
Collaborative management plan for BRT Governance and Management: • Potential of FRA to manage BRT • Forest management committee in each podu
for conservation of 10 km radius • Taluka level committees • Biligiri Community-Based Tiger and Wildlife
Sanctuary Committee with representation from Forest Department, civil society groups.
Soligas do not seek an exclusively community-driven model Strongly feel that management is only possible along with Forest Department
Reserve Forest ~1880
Wildlife Sanctuary 1974
Tiger Reserve 2011
History of conservation (and conflict) in BRT
Ban on forest produce harvest 2006
Critical tiger habitat or core
About 20 podus are within the core and face relocation
Compensation of 10 lakhs per family
How might we envision a democratic
management of protected areas in India?
The Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006 is
a new law that gives tribal and forest
dwelling communities rights to cultivate,
use, and manage forests.
Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006
Main Objectives
– Vesting forest and land rights to people living
inside forests, so far denied guaranteed
access to forest lands and resources
– Empowering gram sabhas to manage and
conserve ecosystems.
Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006
Individual rights
Rights to land currently cultivated
Community rights
Forest resources
Community management of forests
Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006:
Section 3 (1):
i) right to protect, regenerate, or conserve or manage any community
forest resource, which they have been traditionally protecting and
conserving for sustainable use.
The Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006:
Section 5: Gram Sabhas are ……….empowered to:
a) protect wild life, forest and biodiversity;
b) ensure that adjoining catchments area, water sources and
other ecological sensitive areas adequately protected;
c) ensure that the habitat of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes
and other traditional forest dwellers is preserved from any
form of destructive practices affecting their cultural and
natural heritage;
d) ensure that the decisions taken in the Gram Sabha to
regulate access to community forest resources and stop any
activity which adversely affects the wild animals, forest and
the biodiversity are complied with;
FRA implementation in BRT:
1516 Soliga households have been granted individual rights to land for cultivation.
Nearly 60 percent are landless and have not yet received rights to habitation.
However……….
Community Forest Rights were awarded
to 25 gram sabhas of BRT on 2nd October
2011 by the Member of Legislative
Assembly and District Commissioner in
Chamrajanagara district.
1. Right of ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of
Minor Forest Produce as defined under 2(i) and 3(1)(c) of
Act.
2. Right over collection and ownership of products from water
bodies such as fish; access to grazing and customary rights
(including of nomadic and pastoralists communities), and
seasonal resources and other rights defined under section
3(1)(d) of the Act.
3. Right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any
community forest resources for sustainable use under section
3(1)(i) of the Act and managed by a committee constituted
by the Gram Sabha under section 4(1)(e) of Rules.
4. Right of access to biodiversity and community right to
intellectual property and traditional knowledge related to
biodiversity and cultural diversity as per Section 3 (1) (k) of
the Act.
5. Right to visit, access and worship at the 489 sacred sites by
Soligas under the section of 3 (1) (k) of the Act.
THREE POINTS
THE IDEA OF ‘WILDERNESS’ CONTINUES TO BE
PERPETUATED TO ENABLE CONTROL OF
FOREST AND RESOURCES
LOCAL PEOPLE HAVE A MORE NUANCED
UNDERSTANDING OF LOCAL ECOLOGY THAN
OUTSIDE EXPERTS AND FOREST MANAGERS
CONSERVATION IS AS MUCH A SOCIAL PROCESS
AS AN ECOLOGICAL ONE; A RIGHTS-BASED
APPROACH IS THEREFORE ESSENTIAL.