JPAM Update 11, September 1996
*********************************************************************
Dear Friends, here is the next edition of the JPAM Update. I hope people
out there still find it useful; some mail to that effect would be
helpful; even more useful would be contributions, criticisms...
There may be some problems with transmission wof tables in this , hope
some sense can be made of them!
Ashish
JPAM UPDATE
News on Action Towards Joint Protected Area Management
No. 11 September
1996
________________________________________________________________
EDITORIAL
Regular readers will notice that JPAM
Update has been going through changes in
format, and has also started providing
information on protected areas in general, not
just strictly restricted to what can narrowly be
defined as joint management issues. Shri
Kishore Rao of the Ministry of Environment
and Forests (MoEF) has rightly asked: why
this dilution in focus? We have increasingly
been feeling that it is difficult to define a
clear boundary between people-wildlife
issues and other issues facing protected areas,
including commercial threats, management
problems, and research activities. Hence the
expansion of scope, though we are
continuing to keep out certain items like
purely biological research. Other readers may
like to react to this: should we restrict
ourselves to people-wildlife issues or also
cover other matters related to protected
areas?
Our senior-most bureaucrat on wildlife, Shri
S.C. Dey, Addl. Inspector General of Forests
(Wildlife) in the MoEF, has recently come
down heavily on NGOs who are critical of
the government's track record vis-a-vis
wildlife (see National News, in this issue).
Since the precise text of his oral statement,
made to senior forest officials, is not
available, one cannot respond in detail. But
one comment may be in place: rather than
policing the activities of NGOs in and
around protected areas, our government may
be much better off ensuring the
accountability of its own officers, offering to
work with local communities and NGOs, and
ensuring open public access to all
information and programmes relating to
wildlife. In this way, much greater support
from the non-governmental sector can be
obtained, and criticism of government may
then be more informed and constructive.
Last, a comment on the major controversy of
the month: criticism of India's (and in
particular WWF's) efforts to save the tiger,
by Tiger Trust, a UK-based group. A
substantial part of what the Trust has said
(faults within the governmental and NGO
set-up; wastage of funds in pomp and show,
etc.) is true. However, the Trust sounds
amazingly fascist when it contends that funds
used in meeting the needs of people near
PAs, and in issues like "equity and
sustainability", are a "drain". Certainly field
conditions of the wildlife staff need
tremendous improvement, but no amount of
guns and guards will save the tiger if local
communities are hostile because their needs
and rights continue to be disrespected by
conservation agencies. Tiger Trust would
have done the tiger a greater favour by
focusing on such structural problems relating
to conservation, rather than training its guns
on one NGO.
NEWS FROM SPECIFIC
PROTECTED AREAS
BIHAR
Workshop on Dalma Sanctuary
A two day workshop on Dalma Sanctuary:
Prospects for Conservation, was held in
Jamshedpur on 12-13 August, 1996, jointly
organised by Indian Institute of Public
Administration (IIPA), New Delhi, and the=20
Rural and Community Services Division,
TISCO, Jamshedpur. Around sixty persons
attended, including local villagers, NGO
representatives and Forest Department staff.
Several critical issues facing Dalma
Sanctuary were discussed: perspectives of the
importance of Dalma Sanctuary among those
associated with the area; the relationship of
local communities with the Forest
Department; livelihood issues of the local
villagers; impact of the Sendra (traditional
annual hunt of the local tribes) on wildlife;
elephant-human conflict; local self-initiated
forest protection groups; and external
pressures on the Sanctuary. An attempt was
made to analyse existing problems and
possibilities of an alternative strategy of
management.
A joint resolution was adopted, with
participants agreeing to work together to
conserve Dalma Sanctuary, and
recommending the following:
i) Equal protection needs to be provided to
Dalma Sanctuary as well as the rights of
local villagers to forest resources.
ii) The forest protection groups established
by local villagers must be recognised and,
to the extent possible, supported by the
Forest Department.
iii) Local people must be assured a decisive
role in planning and management of the
Sanctuary.
iv) The practice of Sendra needs to be
suitably reformed to mitigate its impact
on wildlife, without unduly affecting the
cultural and religious importance of the
activity for local tribes.
v) Crop damage compensation needs to be
increased and procedures simplified.
vi) Where necessary, relevant government
orders and notifications should be
passed, or existing ones suitably
amended, to facilitate the above steps.
As part of follow-up to this workshop, a
second, village level, workshop is being
organised on 14-15 October at Gobarghusi
village in the adjacent area of Dalma
Sanctuary. This workshop will be organised
by a local NGO, Shramjivi Unnayan.
Contact: Pramod Kumar, Shramjivi
Unnayan, PO Gobarghusi 832 105, via
Patamda, East Singhbhum, Bihar.
For the full report on the workshop (in
Hindi), pl. contact K. Christopher, c/o
Ashish Kothari, at the editorial address.
MEGHALAYA
Statement against mining near
Balphakram National Park
Balphakram National Park, one of north-east
India's critical wildlife habitats, is threatened
with the proposal to start mining and set up
of a cement factory near it (pl. see, for
details, Update 9). A statement has been
issued by several prominent conservationists
against this proposal. They have argued that
it would disrupt the important corridor
between Balphakram and other elephant
habitats, and increase elephant-human
conflicts. They have urged the government to
drop the proposal, and instead acquire the
corridor area for declaration into a protected
area. Signatories include scientists from the
Indian Institute of Science, Wildlife Institute
of India, AMU Centre for Wildlife, Indian
Statistical Institute, Zoological Survey of
India, Bombay Natural History Society,
Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural
History, and Ranthambhor Foundation.
For a copy, pl. contact Ranthambhor
Foundation, 19 Kautilya Marg,
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110 021.
Tel:(011) 301 6261; Fax: (011) 391 6261;
Email: tiger.linking@axcess.net.in.
HIMACHAL PRADESH
Eco-development project in Great
Himalayan National Park (GHNP)
In 1993 the Ministry of Environment and
Forests initiated proceedings to undertake an
ambitious eco-development project in two
PAs, Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve,
Tamil Nadu and Great Himalayan National
Park, Himachal Pradesh. Preliminary work
towards detailed eco-development planning
for GHNP began in 1994. In 1995 the
Wildlife Institute of India began a long-term
research project in the Park, on resource use
activities and the potential for eco-development activities in the=20
villages adjacent
to GHNP.
While World Bank project documents state
that NGOs and local communities are to be
involved right from the conceptual stage of
the project, reports from the area seem to
indicate that this has not happened.
Representatives of two local NGOs working
in the area, Kisan Mazdoor Hak Sangathan
and Society for the Advancement of Village
Economy (SAVE), held meetings in Delhi
on 29 & 31 July 1996, to discuss problems
of local communities in and around GHNP
and the likely inability of the proposed eco-development project to deal
with them. The
groups have reported a limited understanding
of the project among major stakeholders in
the Park, primarily due the lack of availability
of accurate information. There is also
absence of data on the extent and ecological
impact of human use of the Park, especially
herb collection and seasonal grazing. They
have also claimed that the Forest
Department, which could be a source of
reasonably accurate information on the
proposed project, has not made much effort
to communicate the same among local
communities or NGOs.
The meetings explored the possibility of
establishing a GHNP support group in Delhi,
and facilitating informal research and analysis
of local issues that could be undertaken by
the organisations based there. It was also
decided to make a list of questions on eco-development drawn up by the=20
local groups
for wider circulation; initiate a study focusing
on local conservation methods; and later
organise a meeting on various issues facing
GHNP.
Contact: Hukam Ram, Kisan Mazdoor Hak
Sangathan, vill. Upper Railah, via Sainj, Dist.
Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Iqbal, SAVE,
Sainj 175 134, District Kullu, Himachal
Pradesh. Savyasachi, Delhi Support Group,
C-24 Press Enclave, New Delhi 110 117.M
Tel: (011) 6967674.
UTTAR PRADESH
Rajaji National Park in the news again!
In May 1995 the Chief Wildlife Warden, UP
had issued a government order (GO) (no.
719/12-1) regarding the controlled removal
of grass and fallen trees from selected PAs
and other forest areas of the State (see JPAM
Update 9). The GO states: "In Jan.-Feb.1996, grass may be removed from
national parks and sanctuaries in the interest
of wildlife conservation, by local
communities who have had customary rights
to do so in the past."
This step could have played a major role in
reducing the conflicts between Park officials
and local villagers. However, according to
reports received from the Ghad Kshetra
Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti (GKMSS), a
people's organisation working in the area for
the last six years, there has been a distorted
interpretation of the GO by the Park
authorities. Instead of giving the
responsibility of the extraction to local
communities, the authorities allegedly gave it
to contractors, who then sold the grass to
villagers! There has been considerable public
resentment due to this.
On 1 Sept., 1996, GKMSS organised a
public meeting at village Buggawalla, in
which about 50 people from seven villages
adjacent to the Park participated. Apart from
discussing the above issue, there was also a
detailed discussion on the establishment of
forest protection committees at the village
level, which could legitimately avail of the
opportunity offered by the provisions of the
GO. This is also in keeping with the
recommendations of the interim report on
Rajaji National Park prepared by Justice P.S.
Poti for the Indian People's Tribunal on
Human Rights and the Environment (See
JPAM Update 4).
The forest protection committees will be set
up at the village level with 20-50 people as
members, depending on the size of the
village. 50% of committee members will be
women. GKMSS has subsequently written to
the U.P. Forest Department to ensure that
bhabbar grass extraction is given to the local
communities in the coming season (winter
1996-97).
Contact: Jaiprakash/Roma, GKMSS, vill.
Buggawala, via Biharigarh, Dist. Haridwar,
Uttar Pradesh. Ashok Choudhary, Vikalp,
11 Mangal Nagar, Saharanpur 247 001,
Uttar Pradesh. Tel: (0132) 724 507.
NATIONAL NEWS
Addl. Inspector General (Wildlife) reacts
to adverse publicity
The Addl. IG (WL), Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Shri S.C. Dey, has
reacted strongly to recent accusations by
NGOs over the deteriorating state of wildlife
conservation in the country. According to
newspaper reports (The Pioneer 16/08/96)
the Addl. IG has accused un-named, foreign
funded organisations of carrying out research
in PAs "without obtaining proper permission
of the concerned State or the Union
Government."
The Chief Wildlife Wardens of all states have
been asked to keep a check on wildlife
research activities currently in progress,
besides highlighting the achievements of the
state Forest Departments themselves. They
have also been asked to provide accurate and
up-to-date information on various aspects
including current levels of human use of
PAs. On the issue of availability of resources,
the Addl. IG pointed out that there was little
return investment by state governments in
forests and wildlife when compared to the
revenue generated by the sector, which is
about Rs.40,000 crores.
More eco-development news
On 5 Sept. 1996, the India eco-development
project, covering seven PAs across India
(Periyar, Gir, Ranthambhor, Rajiv
Gandhi/Nagarahole, Pench, Buxa, Palamau)
received formal approval for funding from
the World Bank.
This project has been at the centre of
controversy for the last couple of years;
JPAM Update has been carrying occasional
news (see, for instance, No. 9, on
Nagarahole). The latest salvo was fired by a
group of eminent people on 12 July 1996,
who issued a statement drafted by the Centre
for Science and Environment (CSE), New
Delhi. They stated that eco-development, in
its present framework, could not relieve
pressures on PAs, which was in fact the main
objective of the project. The fundamental
premise of the project, that poverty forces
people to depend on PAs and other forests,
is wrong. It is in fact the disempowerment,
brought about by the implementation of
wildlife laws that do not consider the needs
of local people, that is the major problem
facing local communities, and not poverty.
The project does not address this issue in any
significant way. In addition, the project does
not consider reducing the commercial
pressures on PAs, as part of its strategy.
The statement was also critical of the
substantial loan component of the project,
and the absence of space to provide any
meaningful role in management to
communities. It demanded an immediate
withdrawal of the project and urged that
alternate community based conservation
initiatives be encouraged and supported.
Signatories included: Medha Patkar
(Narmada Bachao Andolan activist), Rajni
Kothari (political analyst), Madhav Gadgil
(Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore), Anil
Agarwal (CSE, New Delhi), Walter
Fernandes (Indian Social Institute, New
Delhi), George Fernandes (Samata Party
leader), Avdhash Kaushal (Rural Litigation
and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun).
There appears to have been no public
response from the Ministry of Environment
and Forests so far.
Contact: Ravi Sharma/Neena Singh,
Center
for Science and Environment,
41
Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi
110 062. Tel: (011) 698 3394; Fax: (011) 698 5879;
Email: cse@unv.ernet.in.
Further contributions by NGOs to the
Wildlife Act amendments committee
The Committee set up by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of
India, to recommend amendments to the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, continued its
deliberations and started actual redrafting of
the Act (see the last three JPAM Updates for
information). Some more NGO submissions
that have come in:
Sharad Kulkarni and Ajay Dolke of the Van
Vidheyak Samiksha Samanvay,
Maharashtra, put together the comments and
ideas of several NGOs and individuals and
completely redrafted the Act itself. Their
(draft) version has several thrusts:
1. Constitution of new bodies at the central
and state level, including a Central
Wildlife Act Monitoring and
Implementing Commission (to replace
the existing Indian Board for Wildlife), a
State Wildlife Act Monitoring and
Implementing Board (to replace the
existing Wildlife Advisory Boards), a
Sanctuary Settlement Board (to replace
the Collector in the inquiry regarding
people's rights), a Commissioner of
Wildlife Conservation, and local
management committees.
2. All major decisions regarding protected
areas and wildlife to be taken by
governments only in consultation with, or
by permission of, the above bodies
3. In addition to National Parks,
Sanctuaries, and Closed Areas (already in
the Act), two other categories to be
established: Conservation Areas and
Biosphere Reserves.
4. National and State Biodiversity
Conservation Funds to be constituted,
with tourism revenues, national and
international donations, etc.
The authors are still looking for comments on
this draft. Contact: Sharad Kulkarni/Ajay
Dolke, Van Vidheyak Samiksha Samanvay,
c/o Anubhav Shiksha Kendra, 1B Kaul
Building, Gurunanak Nagar, Shankarshet
Road, Pune 411 042, Maharashtra. Tel:
(0212) 416 283.
Ashish Kothari, on behalf of the Indian
Institute of Public Administration JPAM
team, submitted a completely revised version
of the Act's chapter on protected areas, with
the following thrusts:
i) Expansion of the categories of protected
(renamed "conservation") areas to
include four new ones: Strict Nature
Reserves (with no human use, managed
by government), Resource Reserves (for
sustainable extraction of resources,
managed jointly by communities and
government), Community Reserves
(sacred groves, etc., managed entirely by
communities), and Biosphere Reserves
(conservation and traditional resource
uses over a large landscape, managed by
regional boards consisting of all
stakeholders). Criteria and management
strategies for each category have been
briefly laid out.
ii) Detailed procedures for establishing the
rights and activities of local communities,
and determining the
termination/continuation of these with
full involvement of the communities.
iii) Constitution of Conservation Area
Management Committees for each
conservation area of the following
categories: National Parks, Sanctuaries,
Resource Reserves, and Biosphere
Reserves.
iv) Stringent procedures for screening new
activities proposed within and around
conservation areas, especially to
safeguard against destructive
developmental/industrial projects.
v) A one-time national review of existing
protected areas, to recategorise them, and
to constitute appropriate Committees for
their management.
vi) Periodic reviews of the state and national
wildlife plans.
vii) Creation of a Conservation Fund
for each area, to be fed by tourism and
other revenues, and to be used for
conservation work, staff welfare, and
livelihood generation for communities.
A copy of the revised chapter can be
requested from us at the editorial address.
Suggestions for changes in the Wildlife
Protection Act have also been sent in by
individuals. Sanjay Upadhyay, a Delhi-based lawyer has suggested the
following:
i) The term "right" or "rights" must be
clearly and unambiguously defined by the
Act itself, and should include traditional
usufruct and easement rights.
ii) Provision must be made to ensure public
consultation before any area is declared
a sanctuary or national park. Central
government approval, or that of a
committee appointed by it, prior to the
declaration of an area as sanctuary or
national park, or to boundary alteration,
must also be mandatory.
iii) The Wildlife Advisory Board must be a
statutory body, with rules governing its
functioning incorporated in the Act.
iv) Penal provisions should be made more
stringent and all wildlife related offences
made non-bailable. In addition, the
maximum sum payable for compounding
an offence (currently Rs.2000), should
be raised.
v) The Schedules in the Act listing
endangered flora and fauna should be
simplified, and in the case of plants
substantially expanded.
List of NGOs who have made submissions to the Wildlife Act amendments=20
Committee
Organisation
Summary in JPAM Update
No.
1 National Committee for Protection of Common Land
Resources, Ootacamund, Tamil Nadu
2.
VIKSAT, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
8 & 9
3.
Karnataka Rajya Moolnivasi Budakattu Janara Vedike and
Tribal Joint Action Committee Karnataka, Karnataka
4. Wildlife First!, Bangalore, Karnataka
9
5. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi
9 & 11
6.
Econet, Pune, Maharashtra
10
7.
Rhino Foundation, Guwahati, Assam
10
8. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, Karnataka
10
9.
Nature Lovers Movement, Thiruvamkulam, Kerala.
10
10.
Ranthambhor Foundation, New Delhi.
10
11.
Van Vidheyak Samiksha Samanvay, Pune, Maharashtra
11
For more information on the progress of the Committee's work, pl.=20
contact: Kishore Rao, Addl.
Inspector General of Forests (Wildlife), Ministry of Environment and=20
Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003. Ph: (011) 436 0957; Fax:=20
(011) 436 0678.
Mining projects threaten Indian PAs
The MoEF has recently granted clearance to
several large-scale mining projects across the
country, according to a press report
(Hindustan Times 21/08/96). While the
Environment Impact Division of the MoEF
has been rapidly clearing projects on the
assurance that their environmental impact
will be adequately managed, the wildlife
section of the Ministry has filed an affidavit
in the Supreme Court endorsing the claim
that PAs be treated as no development
zones.' Conservationists have strongly
objected to the spate of ongoing and
proposed mining projects in and around PAs.
The table on the next page gives information,
from various sources, on mining in/around
PAs across the country.
Palamau Tiger Reserve, Bihar and Tadoba
Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra are also
threatened by mining but details are not
known. Readers who have more information
are urged to send it to us, to include in future
issues of JPAM Update. In addition,
information on this issue is being put together
by Bikram Grewal, who can be contacted at:
101/4 Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New
Delhi 110 016. Tel: (011) 696 1520. Fax:
(011) 686 4614; Email:
bikram.gmpltd@axcess.net.in.
Mining in and around some protected areas (information from various
sources)
Company
State
Mineral
Lease area
PA likely to be
affected
Ambujas
Gujarat
Limestone
905 ha
5 km from Gir
National Park
SAIL,
Kemanngundi
Karnataka
Iron ore
not known
6 km from Bhadra
Sanctuary
Kudremukh Iron
Ore Corp. Ltd.
Karnataka
Iron ore
Over 4000 ha
Kudremukh National
Park
Not known
West Bengal
Dolomite
not known
Buxa Tiger Reserve
Private operators
MP
Limestone
930 ha
Proposed extension of
Madhav National
Park
Private operators
MP
White sandstone
not known
Panna Tiger Reserve
Private operators
Rajasthan
Red sandstone &
limestone
630 ha
Kailadevi Sanctuary
(part of Ranthambhor
Tiger Reserve)
ACC
Meghalaya
Limestone
not known
Near Balphakram
National Park
INDAL
Maharashtra
Bauxite
not known
In and near
Radhanagri Sanctuary
INTERNATIONAL NEWS
Session on People and Parks' at World
Rainforest Movement (WRM) meeting
The WRM is a loose coalition of NGOs,
both from the North and South, working on
a wide range of issues related to forests. A
major concern of WRM is the impact of
international treaties, multilateral and bilateral
aid, and other processes, especially on
indigenous people and other poor and
marginalised communities. The group is also
involved in tracking private investment in
logging, plantations, paper mills, etc.
At its meeting in Oxford, UK, on 29 August-2 September, 1996, one session
was devoted
to the issue of protected areas and their
impact on local communities. Concern was
expressed at the subtle move in some
countries to turn common lands to protected
areas, and then protected areas to private
property, usually under the control of large
trans-national corporations. An interesting
example of involving local communities in
protected area management was reported
from northern Thailand. The Indian
experience with protected areas was also
presented by a member of the IIPA JPAM
team, including details of the JPAM initiative
being considered for some areas.
The Forest People's Programme (FPP), a
WRM project, will act as a focal point for
networking on this issue. It will also organise
a meeting in South America in February next
year on the issue of people and protected
areas.
Contact: Marcus Colchester/Saskia
Onzinga, Forest People's Programme,
World Rainforest Movement, 8 Chapel Row,
Chadlington, Oxfordshire OX7 3NA,
England, UK. Tel: (44 1608) 676 691; Fax:
(44 1608) 676 743; Email: wrm@gn.apc.org.
UPCOMING
Diamond Jubilee celebrations at Corbett
Tiger Reserve
Wildlife Week events: Various events have
been proposed for Wildlife Week (1-7
October, 1996) at Corbett Tiger Reserve
particularly for educational institutions. These
include: essay writing; painting and quiz
competitions; debate; marathon run; and bird
watching camp.
Fifth bird-watching camp at Gairal: The
Corbett Foundation is sponsoring a bird
watching camp for raptor identification and
behaviour at Gairal. A total of 20 participants
can be accommodated of which 10 places are
reserved for Corbett Tiger Reserve staff. The
camp is expected to cost Rs.300/per
participant. Dates: 11-15 December 1996
Contact: Rajiv Bhartari, Dy Director,
Corbett Tiger Reserve, Ramnagar 244 715,
District Nainital, Uttar Pradesh. Tel: (05945)
85 489, 85 332; Fax: (05945) 85 376.
Orissa State level seminar on Wildlife
Protection Act
The Council of Professional Social Workers
(CPSW) and Media Analysis & Service
System (MASS) are collaborating to organise
a two-day seminar/workshop of Orissa based
NGOs on 2-3 October 1996. The twin
themes will be: a) proposed amendments to
the Wildlife Protection Act (on 2nd), and b)
conservation strategies for the Satkosia
Gorge Sanctuary and Baisipalli area (on 3rd).
The meeting on 2nd will be for groups
working with local communities in and
around PAs of Orissa, while on the 3rd a
larger audience comprising Forest
Department officials, other government
functionaries, scientists, academics, etc. are
also expected to participate.
The organisers have offered to bear all
expenses except travel costs, for selected
participants. Accommodation has been
arranged at Angul, while the venue for the
meeting is Tikarapara. Local transport to
Tikarapara will be made available.
Contact: M. Pradhan, Secretary, CPSW, N
1/188 IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar
751015, Orissa. Tel: (0674) 417 715; Fax:
(0674) 409 156. B. Mishra, MASS,
Sikhyapada, Angul 759 112, Orissa. Tel:
(06764) 302 33.
Meeting on PAs and People in
Maharashtra
The third state-level meeting on protected
areas and people is being organised in
October (dates not fixed), at Malvan,
Sindhudurg District, Maharashtra. The
meeting will attempt to bring together
conservationists, local community
representatives, NGOs and activists, forest
and other government officials, and
journalists, to discuss the various conflicts
facing PAs, in particular related to local
communities.
Contact: Kusum Karnik, At & P.O.
Manchar, Dist. Pune 410 503, Maharashtra.
World Conservation Congress, Canada
The 20th General Assembly of the IUCN-World Conservation Union (13-23
October,
1996), is the occasion for the World
Conservation Congress, to be held in
Montreal, Canada. October 17 to 21st will be
reserved for a series of exhibits, workshops,
and panel discussions on major themes,
including Conserving Diversity, Protecting
and Managing Land for Conservation,
Strategies for Sustainabilty, Involving People,
Economics as a Tool for Conservation, and
Acting on Global Issues.
A three-day workshop on Collaborative
Management for Conservation will be held
on 17-20 October. Participation is from
several countries, with experience sharing of
joint management programmes, and
discussion on a resolution to be adapted by
the General Assembly.
Contact: Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Social
Policy Unit, IUCN - The World
Conservation Union, 28 Rue Mauverney,
CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland. Tel: (41-22)
999 0001; Fax: (41-22) 999 0025; Email:
gbf@hq.iucn.org.
JPAM workshop in Kailadevi Sanctuary
The IIPA JPAM team is proposing to hold a
workshop in Kailadevi Sanctuary, tentatively
towards the end of October. The objective of
the workshop is to initiate interaction
between the local communities and the
Forest Department. Specific agenda points
will include: rights of local communities;
traditional knowledge and practices; impact
of the local communities on the Sanctuary
and vice versa; community-initiated Forest
Protection Committees; and potential for
joint management.
Contact: Priya Das, c/o Ashish Kothari, at
the editorial address.
16th Maharashtra State Friends of Birds
Meet, January 1997
The Vihang Mandal, a Solapur-based NGO
in Maharashtra is organising its 16th Friends
of Birds Meet on 11-12 January 1997.
Solapur is an arid drought prone district,
forming ideal habitat for the endangered
Great Indian Bustard (GIB). There is a GIB
Sanctuary at Nanaj comprising mostly of
cultivation. There is an urgent need to evolve
innovative management strategies for the
region which will ensure the continued
survival of the GIB as well give local farmers
a stake in its conservation. Participants at the
meet will include ornithologists,
administrators, Forest Department officials,
NGO representatives and other individuals
interested in birds.
Contact: Pravinsinh Pardeshi/Dr. Ninad V.
Shah, 94 Siddeshwar Peth, Umbarje
Building, Solapur 413 001, Maharashtra.
Tel. (N. Shah): (0217) 651 863 (Office).
WHAT'S AVAILABLE?
Singh and S. Suri. 1996.
People & Protected Areas : Towards
Participatory Conservation in India. Sage
Publications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Pp.276. Rs. 200 (PB); Rs. 350 (HB).
A compilation of papers first presented at a
workshop in 1994, this is the first book-length review of the subject in
India.
Contains 17 papers by social activists,
conservationists, foresters and scientists. Also
contains several case studies of specific PAs
and a detailed bibliography.
Contact: Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.,
PO Box 4215, New Delhi 110 048. Tel:
(011) 648 58854, 644 4958; Fax: (011) 647 2426.
conservation in Zimbabwe : the lessons for
Indian conservationists. Unpubl. Mimeo.
Pp.8.
This paper compares the experiences of
state-sponsored wildlife conservation in India
and Zimbabwe. It highlights the successful
(though somewhat controversial)
CAMPFIRE initiative in Zimbabwe and
outlines lessons from it for India. The author
advocates re-introduction of species in
former habitats; meaningful involvement of
local communities in PA management; sport
hunting; and flexibility in the Wildlife
Protection Act.
Contact: K.D. Ghorpade, Dattawad House,
334E Shahupuri, Kolhapur 416 001,
Maharashtra. Tel/fax: (0231) 654 443.
C0dia. 1996. Tiger Conservation
Strategy and Action Plan.. World Wide
Fund for Nature - India, New Delhi. Pp.35.
The document gives brief information on the
status of the tiger including numbers,
distribution, threats, and conservation efforts
both by government and non-government
agencies. The main activities proposed to be
undertaken by WWF-I, over an initial period
of two years, include: influence policy and
decision making; mobilize grassroots support
in tiger range areas; assist and strengthen
enforcement measures; generate greater
awareness and mobilize public support; and
facilitate international cooperation.
Contact: WWF - India, 172B Lodhi Estate,
New Delhi 110 003. Tel: (011) 461 6532,
469 3744. Fax: (011) 462 6837. Email:
wwfindel@ernet.unv.in.
Foundation & WPSI. 1996.
Impact assessment of proposed ACC cement
plant near Balphakram National Park. The
Rhino Foundation for Nature in North East
India, and Wildlife Protection Society of
India, New Delhi. Pp.16.
Dealing with the proposed ACC operations
near Balphakram, the report is a description
of the area and the problems it faces. Though
not a full impact assessment, the report does
identify some of the potential impacts the
ACC cement plant will have on habitat and
wildlife, and provides some baseline
information.
Contact: Wildlife Protection Society of
India, Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New
Delhi 110 001. Tel: (011) 332 0573; Fax:
(011) 332 7729.=20
on. 1996. The World Bank in
Nagarahole (with assistance from the state):
A story of human rights violations, lies and
deceit. Pp.58.
A compilation of letters, statements, portions
of official documents, newsclippings, etc. on
the GEF funded eco-development project in
Nagarahole (now Rajiv Gandhi) National
Park, Karnataka. Includes a critique of the
official eco-development plan that was
presented at the last GEF consultations in
Washington and a useful list of names and
addresses of GEF, World Bank and UNDP
officials associated with GEF projects around
the world.
Contact: Anita & Edwin, 658, 45 Cross, 11
A Main, Jayanagar Block 5, Bangalore 560
041. Tel: (080) 663 5622; Fax: (080)
6633538; Email: admin@bco.frlht.ernet.in.
LETTERS / MISCELLANEOUS
Clarification on JPAM Update 10 news
items on Gir and Narayan Sarovar
Shri Kishore Rao, Deputy Inspector General
(Wildlife) at the MoEF has sent in
clarifications on the news items on Gir
National Park and Narayan Sarovar
Sanctuary that were carried in JPAM Update
10. Relevant parts of his letter are
reproduced here in full:
"I would also like to point out that the news
item relating to the lions of Gir N.P. has
been very casually written and has factual
inaccuracies. We have had a detailed report
on the census operations carried out by the
State Forest Dept. in Gir in May, 1995 and
this document is freely available from them.
Involvement of local and national NGOs and
other experts in the census operation has
been clearly mentioned therein. Moreover,
the exact number of lions inhabiting the
coastal forests, Girnar Hills and Mityala area
has been recorded and the reasons clearly
identified. In fact, the reasons for the lions
straying out of Gir is extensively studied and
documented by the WII as well. I may add
that straying of lions outside Gir is a
historical fact as mentioned in the book on
the Asiatic Lions written by Mr. Rashid and
Dr. R. David. Besides, there is no question
of any forcible relocation of Maldharis from
Gir, particularly because of the fact that Gir
is now a project site under the India Eco-development Project, and the
World Bank's
Operational Directive No. 420 clearly guards
against this eventuality. No relocation can
take place without a detailed study and their
prior approval. You will recall that Simlipal
in Orissa was dropped as one of the project
sites from the India Eco-development Project
because the assurances on voluntary
relocation were not found to be satisfactory
by the World Bank.
As regards the news item on Narayan
Sarovar Sanctuary, I may add that four
NGOs of Gujarat, namely Lok Adhikar
Sangh, Ahmedabad, Centre for Social
Knowledge and Action, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Jan Jagaran Sangh, Banaskantha and Kutch
Lok Samiti, Kutch have filed a Special Civil
Application (No. 8799 of 1995) in the High
Court of Gujarat seeking a stay on the
resolution passed by the Gujarat Legislative
Assembly denotifying a part of the
Sanctuary, and stopping the grant of any
permission or licence for setting up
industries, and for establishing a high
powered committee to go into all aspects of
the matter."
Change of email number
JPAM Update 10 had carried an item on
WWF-International's proposals for tiger
conservation world-wide. The contact
person, Tom Mathews, now has a new email
number. Contact: Tom Mathews, Director
(East and South Asia), WWF-US, 1250,
24th St. NW, Washington, DC 20037-1175,
USA. Tel: (1-202) 293 4800; Fax: (1-202)
293 9211/9345; Email: mathew@wwfus.org.
JPAM Update is produced bimonthly as a follow up to the workshop on
Exploring the Possibilities
of Joint Protected Area Management (JPAM), organised at IIPA, New Delhi,
in September 1994.
JPAM Update 11 was prepared by Priya Das, K. Christopher, Suniti K. Jha,
Ashish Kothari &
Farhad Vania. Secretarial support: Vishal Thakre & Sangeeta Kaintura.
Ideas, comments, news and information may please be sent to: Ashish
Kothari, Indian Institute of
Public Administration, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi 110 002. Tel: (011)
331 7309; Fax: (011)
331 9954; Email: akothari@unv.ernet.in.
BACK TO
*********************************************************************