Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
16
OCTOBER 1, 2016
vol lI no 40
EPW
COMMENTARY
EPW
OCTOBER 1, 2016
of the existing forestland under the forest department has been claimed and
recognised under this provision as CFRs
(not including the data from some of the
states). A recent study by the Rights and
Resources Institute (RRI)4 has estimated
that CFR rights can be recognised over a
minimum of 40 million hectares of
forestlands (which, they state, is still a
very conservative estimate).
Vague and Confused
However in dealing with laws of such
bearing the DWAP appears vague and
confused variously mentioning their enactment to be harmful for wildlife at
times and something that is a fait accompli about which nothing can be done
at other times! Rarely, if at all, does the
DWAP attempt to meaningfully integrate
the provisions of these laws to fundamentally change the manner in which
peoples participation in wildlife conservation has been viewed or sought so far.
On the contrary, when talking about specific action points on strengthening peoples participation the DWAP still takes
shelter behind conventional forest department dominated institutions such as
eco-development committees (EDCs), joint
forest management (JFM) and village
forests committees (VFCs).5 For example
on page three, paragraph 1, it underscores the increasing need for peoples
support for conservation of wildlife and
recommends strengthening core buffer
multiple use surrounds through higher
inputs for eco-development, education,
etc. It does this without any review of
the extent to which these conventional
schemes and institutions have been able
to create an environment for effective
peoples participation in wildlife conservation till now! The DWAP talks about
giving legal backing to these institutions
instead of acknowledging newer legally
backed local institutions that already
exist under FRA and PESA. The entire
document in fact completely ignores the
community forest resource management
committees (CFRMCs) to be constituted
under the FRA. Such committees have
already been constituted in hundreds of
villages across the country.6 Interestingly,
the DWAP does mention Section 5 of
the FRA (under which these committees
vol lI no 40
COMMENTARY
Strategies, Plans
and Coexistence
While reviewing the management strategies of the protected areas as envisaged
in the DWAP it is important to take into
account Section 5 of the FRA (which empowers the local gram sabhas to protect
and conserve wildlife and biodiversity);
Rule 4(e) (mandates gram sabhas to constitute CFRMC); and Rule 4(f) (empowers
the gram sabhas to prepare a conservation and management plan for their
CFR). The FRA also provides for the
integration of these village conservation
plans with conservation and management plans of the forest department. On
page 71 (point 1(iii) of the DWAP), Section 5 of the FRA is mentioned but there
are no action points related to this anywhere in the document, no elaboration
on how this is to be done. This is also of
significance as all the financial resources meant for management and conservation of forests and wildlife are (by
implication) to be provided to the forest
department-established JFM committees
or eco-development committees. The
action points have completely ignored
the local CFRMCs from its strategies and
action plans.
Linked to this, the DWAP (page 68,
point 2) recognises that exclusionary
models of conservation have resulted in
a lack of peoples support to wildlife conservation. Disappointingly however, the
only suggested action point towards garnering support for wildlife conservation
is strengthening ecodevelopment. This
is in disregard of not only the FRA as
mentioned earlier but also Section 38(v)ii
of the Wildlife Protection (Amendment)
Act 2006. This significant provision
(which remains unimplemented) provides for developing coexistence strategies in the buffer zone of tiger reserves.7
This is one of the most crucial steps if
local support for tiger conservation is an
identified need.
The draft would have done well to
suggest actions related to developing coexistence plans for tiger reserves integrating Section 38(v)ii with FRA. This
has often been suggested to the government by civil society groups, including a
draft set of guidelines towards coexistence.8 Such integration, however, would
18
involve implementing the FRA to recognise and establish the forest rights of
the local communities; recognising the
CFRMCs as important institutions for
forest governance, management and
conservations; and using Section 38(v)ii
of the WLPA to draft co-existence plans.
Indeed there are already examples which
the DWAP needs to take into consideration. The Soliga tribe residing in the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple (BRT) Sanctuary have already shown that it is possible to carry out a tiger conservation plan
with the local communities (Desor et al
2011). Similar planning for tiger conservation has been done in the Similipal
Tiger Reserve in Odisha, where the district administration and civil society
organisations have helped the villages
located within the reserve to file for the
CFR rights. Of the 43 villages which have
received titles to their CFR rights, 21
have prepared and submitted management and conservation plans, which will
now be needed to be integrated into the
tiger conservation plan of the forest
department.9
Convention on Biological Diversity
Very significantly, using the IUCN definition of protected areas which says that
a protected area is a clearly defined
geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or
other effective means, to achieve the
long-term conservation of nature with
associated ecosystem services and cultural values the DWAP makes a claim
(page 11, point 3) that in addition to the
nearly 5% area under the protected
areas in the country, the 20% area under
the forest department can also be considered to be area under other effective
means to achieve long-term conservation. This is towards fulfilling the AICHI
11 target under CBD (which sets a target
for each country to bring 17% of the terrestrial area under effective wildlife
conservation).10 This is in stark contradiction to another claim of the Ministry
of Environment, Forest, and Climate
Change (MoEFCC).11 Here, in order to justify that forest areas be leased to industry for plantations, the MoEFCC has claimed that 40% of the forest (of the 20%)
is severely degraded and is under open
OCTOBER 1, 2016
vol lI no 40
EPW
COMMENTARY
actions committed by parties in decisions of the 9th and the 10th Conference
of Parties (CoP)13) specifically deals with
goals and targets for achieving Governance, Equity, Participation, and Benefitsharing14 These include goals to promote equity and benefit-sharing by
establishing mechanisms for the equitable sharing of both costs and benefits
arising from the establishment and
management of protected areas and to
enhance and secure involvement of
indigenous and local communities and
relevant stakeholders by full and effective
participation of indigenous and local
communities, in full respect of their
rights and recognition of their responsibilities, consistent with national law and
applicable international obligations, and
the participation of relevant stakeholders, in the management of existing, and
the establishment and management of
new, protected areas.
In keeping with the above commitments to CBD, the DWAP needs to identify
and acknowledge the conservation efforts made by the local communities.
This could be done by recognising their
knowledge, practices and institutions
and encouraging and supporting them
through need-based technical, financial,
legal, and policy support where it does
not exist. In case of forest ecosystems as
mentioned above it can be done by incorporating the provisions and institutions under FRA squarely into wildlife
planning, instead of promoting, and
hence co-opting local institutions into
JFMCs or Ecodevelopment committees.
Another strategy in favour of long-term
wildlife conservation would be to support the communities resisting takeover of their lands for giving away to the
industry, as is currently being envisaged
under various forest policies.
Expanding PA Categories
In fact, one of the useful ways to fulfil
AICHI target 11 mentioned above, would
be to effectively develop and implement
Point 3.1 on page 15. Although mentioned just in one line this single action
point could have huge positive implications for inclusive conservation policy in
India. This also directly relates to the
PoWPA actions mentioned above:
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
OCTOBER 1, 2016
19
COMMENTARY
Maharashtra. Project led by KHOJ and supported by VNCS, GSMT, YRAProcess Documentation by Kalpavriksh, April 2015, KHOJ,
Paratwada, Maharashtra.
http://nbaindia.org/uploaded/Biodiversityindia/Legal/15.%20Wildlife%20(Protection)%
20Act,%201972.pdf, accessed on 25 March 2016.
http://kalpavriksh.org/images/CLN/FOC/foc
20073.pdf.
Tribals present forest management plan, http://
www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/tribals
-present-forest-management-plan/article8382
691.ece.
http://www.iccaconsortium.org/wp-content/
uploads/ICCA-Briefing-Note-1-200-dpi.pdf.
Government document F-No. 7-8/2014-FP.
http://www.cbd.int/programmes/pa/powgoals-alone.pdf.
http://www.cbd.int/protected/decisions/.
Also see http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/
governance_of_protected_areas_for_cbd_ pow_
briefing_note_08_1.pdf).
POWPA action points 2.1.2; 2.2.1; 1.1.4, http://
www.cbd.int/programmes/pa/pow-goalsalone.pdf.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
References
Bera, S (2013): Niyamgiri Answers, Down to
Earth, http://www. downtoearth.org.in/coverage/niyamgiri-answers-41914.
BorriniFeyerabend, G, N Dudley, T Jaeger, B Lassen,
N Pathak Broome, A Phillips and T Sandwith
(2013): Governance of Protected Areas: From
Understanding to Action, Best Practice Protected
Area Guidelines Series No 20, Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, pp xvi + 124 (link: http://www.
iccaconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/
GOVERNANCE_WEB.pdf).
Kothari, A (1996): Is Joint Management of Protected Areas Desirable and Possible?, People
and Protected Areas: Towards Participatory
Conservation in India, A Kothari N Singh and
S Suri (eds), New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Lasgorceix, A and A Kothari (2009): Displacement
and Relocation of Protected Areas: A Synthesis
and Analysis of Case Studies, Economic &
Political Weekly, 5 December, Vol XLIV, No 49.
Malhotra, K C, Y Gokhale, S Chatterjee and S Srivastava (2001): Cultural and Ecological Dimensions of Sacred Groves in India, Indian National
Science Academy, New Delhi and Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal,
http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/sah
yadri_enews/newsletter/issue4/Yogesh_CEdimensions.pdf.
Ministry of Environment and Forests (2009): Ministry of Environment and Forests, Asia-Pacific
Forestry Sector Outlook Study II: India Country
Report, Working Paper No APFSOS II/WP/
2009/06, Bangkok: FAO, pp 78, http://www.
fao.org/docrep/014/am251e/am251e00.pdf.
Pathak, N (2009): Community Conserved Areas in
India: A Directory, Pune: Kalpavriksh, https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/258285917_
Community_Conserved_Areas_in_India_-_An
_Overview.
Prasad, R (1999): Joint Forest Management in India and the Impact of State Control over Nonwood Forest Products, available on http://
www.fao.org/docrep/x2450e/x2450e0c.htm,
accessed on 10 March 2016.
Wani, M and A Kothari (2007): Conservation and
Peoples Livelihood Rights in India: Final Report of a Research Project Conducted under the
UNESCO Small Grants Programme, unpublished report, Pune/Delhi, Kalpavriksh, www.
kalpavriksh.org/f1/f1.2/UNESCO%20CNL%
20project%20final%20report.pdf.
Up to 50 PhD scholars will be given access to the EPWRF India Time Series for one year.
(ii)
(iii) PhD scholars can request access to any ve of the following modules of their choice.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Banking Statistics
Insurance
Finances of the Government of India
Finances of State Governments
Combined Government Finances
Power Sector
Health Statistics
Educational Statistics
The application form can be downloaded from our website and may be processed through the research guide/department. For
further details about the modules, interested candidates can access demo version after free registration. For further details, please
visit www.epwrts.in.
Address for sending applications and any query:
The Director,
EPW Research Foundation, C-212, Akurli Industrial Estate, Akurli Road,
Kandivli (East), Mumbai-400 101.
Phone : 022 - 2885 4995 / 96 Email : epwrf@epwrf.in
Website: www.epwrf.in and www.epwrts.in
20
OCTOBER 1, 2016
vol lI no 40
EPW