80

Chapter 4. Issues Affecting Biodiversity Management

This chapter presents the key issues affecting biodiversity management in the country and

analyses them.There is a complex matrix of management issues at the State level and

common national issues. Case studies of four individual States- Uttar Pradesh, Odisha,

Tripura, Gujarat–are provided, followed by the presentation of thecritical issues at the

national level.The issues affecting biodiversity management in the country are pervasive and

growing in trend.This chapter also sets the basis for analysing the biodiversity management

regime in the following chapter.

4.1. Case studies of States

4.1.1. Uttar Pradesh

There are multiple challenges facing biodiversity management in the state. Reduction and

fragmentation of habitats and poaching are pushing a large number of species to threatened

status. Forest degradation and the increasing loss of grasslands lead to the reduction of

habitats for wildlife species. And on the other hand there is the trend of impoverishment of

the traditionally forest dependent communities, there are multiple causative factors driving

this twin problem that impede the sustainable management of the forest biodiversity.

The Protected Areas of the State have about 1,407 villages in and around them, a situation

that hampers the livelihood of the traditionally forest dependent villagers due to the

inaccessibility to the resources in the reserves which puts them in conflict with wildlife and

on the other hand the local people are viewed by wildlife managers as a problem to the

protection of wildlife. The total number of villages in and immediately around the Protected

Areas of the State is given in table 4.1.This data has been assembled from different scattered

documents at the Forest Department headquarters, at the offices of the Deputy Conservators

of Forest (DFCs) responsible for the seven reserves, and discussions with forest officials in

the field and local people.

81

Table 4.1. Total numbers of villages in/around Protected Areas in UP

Name of Protected Area District Total number

of villages

Dudhwa Lakhimpur Kheri 131

Kishanpur Lakhimpur Kheri 42

Katarniaghat Bahraich 63

Sohelwa Balrampur,Shrvasti 105

Sohagibarwa Maharajgunj 86Bakhira Sant Kabir Nagar 24

Parvati Arga Gonda 16

Chandraprabha Chandauli 43

Kachhua Varanasi 4

JP Narayanan (Surhatal) Balia 12

Kaimur Mirzapur,Sonbhadra 138Ranipur Chitrakoot 48

Vijay Sagar Mahoba 18

Mahavirswamy Lalitpur 5

National Chambal Etawa, Agra 130

Sur Sarovar Agra 11

Patna Etah 16Okhla Gautambudha Nagar 26

Saman Mainpuri 12

Sandi Hardoi 23

Nawabganj Unnao 19

Samaspur Rai Bareilly 21

Lakh Bahosi Kanauj 21

Ambedkar Pratapgarh 4Hastinapur Ghaziabad, Meerut, Bijnore,

J.Phule Nagar, Muzafernagar389

Total 1,407

The dependence of local communities on livestock in many reserves aggravates conflict

between local communities and the conservation project. The area available for grazing has

been severely limited by the designation of Protected Areas. The populations of cattle in

seven PAs of the State are given in table 4.2. This was calculated based on documents

obtained from the offices of the DFCs managing the sites and from Ecodevelopment

Committees in some of the villages.

82

Table 4.2. Cattle population in selected Protected Areas of Uttar Pradesh

Name of PA District Cattle population

Dudhwa (NP) Lakhimpur Kheri 62,000

Kishanpur Lakhimpur Kheri 19,000

Katarniaghat Bahraich 40,000

Sohelwa Balrampur, Shrvasti 65,000

Ranipur Chitrakoot 15,000

Kaimur Mirzapur, Sonbhadra 10,500

The spread of invasive species like Lantana camara, Parthenium hysterophoru, Cassia tora,

etc poses a serious threat to the native flora and efforts to eradicate these have been only

partially successful. Many of the wetlands are infested with Eichhornia crassipes chocking

the wetlands and blocking access for the birds to the waterscape. The rivers are excessively

dammed altering the contiguity of habitats for aquatic biodiversity; the Ganga river in UP, for

example, has 14 dams on it.

Wildlife depredation is another perennial issue in the forest villages aggravating the human-

wildlife conflict. Attacks on humans, lifting of cattle and crop raiding are not infrequent in

many of the wildlife sites. Four persons were killed and 26 injured in the State during the

financial year 2008-9. There were also 62 reported cases of killing of cattle during this

period. The government pays a compensation of Rs 50,000 for the loss of human life, the loss

of crops is also compensated though such compensation is regarded as inadequate by the

affected. Many cases often go unregistered because of the cumbersome procedure involved

and also partly due to fear of penal action by the wildlife authorities.

The final notification for only two of the protected areas of the state has been issued, while

this has still to be done for the remaining 23 sites. Even in the absence of final notification all

the restricting measures take effect though the settlement of claims by the local people

remains inconclusive. Another management challenge is the poaching of endangered species

like Tiger that occurs despite the protection accorded. 32 cases of poaching were reported

from Dudhwa in 2006 and in Katarniaghat an average of 25 cases of poaching occurs every

year since 2003.

The Wildlife Wing within the Forest Department also has problems of inadequate funds for

the conservation management programs. It is heavily dependent on central government funds

for the management of Protected Areas, but this funding is often far less than the actual

83

requirement.

4.1.2.Odisha

Commercial development activities are perhaps the single most factor impacting on the

forests and biodiversity of the State. Mining, dams and irrigation projects and industries

permanently damage the forests and impact on the biodiversity of the areas beyond their

proximity too. During the period 2001-2003, 792 sq km of area of forests was officially

permitted to be converted for 693 such projects in Odisha, in line with the Forest

(Conservation) Act (PCCF, 2004). There has been no let up in this trend and according to

information obtained from the Forest Department 1120 sq km area was thus converted during

the period 2008-10. This has been happening despite the resistance of the statutory Village

Forest Committees and the operation of the Forest Rights Act that requires the consent of the

Gram Sabha for clearance for forest conversion as per the Forest (Conservation) Act. The

2012 verdict of the Supreme Court that affirms the power of the Gram Sabha to decide on

the proposals for conversion of forests bears new hope for the forests and for the local people

whose livelihood is dependent on it.

Overgrazing is an issue that critically affects the forest ecosystems. New saplings and the

undergrowth are the victims of overgrazing, and regeneration of the vegetation is constrained

this way. As per the 2001 census, Odisha has a total of 29.3 million heads of livestock, of

which 20.3 million are cattle. Most of the cattle population is concentrated in the forest areas,

impeding the regeneration of the vegetation.A significant number of cattle grazing in the

forests are actually unproductive. Just as problematic as overgrazing is the approach of

Protected Areas management banning any grazing in such sites, which is ecologically

counter-productive and socially unacceptable. Grazing regulated with community

involvement can reduce the conflict and the encouraging the provision of stall feeding and

cultivation of fodder grass can ameliorate the situation.

The conflict with the local population in the conservation areas is a critical problem found

throughout the areas of recorded forests and Protected Areas. The livelihood of the people is

constrained by the restriction regime imposed by the conservation project without addressing

the livelihood needs of the local communities (Photo 6). Communities in and around

Protected Areas are particularly affected. Some villages are recognised as Revenue Villages

but most are not, called forest villages. These villages and the conservation project are in a

perennial state of conflict. The numbers of villages in four Protected Areas of the State are

given in table 4.3.

84

Table 4.3: Number of villages in selected Protected Areas of Odisha

Forest fire is another intractable issue almost throughout the forest areas. Data obtained from

the Forest Department shows that Odisha has lost 970 sq km of forest cover due to fire during

2009. This was 915 sq km during the fiscal year 2007-08. However, it is estimated that the

actual area affected is more as many instances of fire go unreported, and most of the time the

fire spreads along the ground storey, destroying the new growth, though sparing the trees.

Forest Department’s technical capacity and manpower is too limited to handle the scale of

forest fires in the summer months.

Shifting cultivation also takes a toll on the forests, though sometimes the figures of forests

affected seem to be exaggerated. Although once practiced sustainably by maintaining long

periods of gap between two crops on a

site when the forests were abundant

and the societies had unrestricted

access to forests, today shifting

cultivation as practiced by certain

groups causes some damage to the

forest. There are, however, wide

variations in the statistics available.

According to data obtained from the

Forest Department, 670 sq km area

has been subjected to shifting

cultivation in. However, Odisha

Remote Sensing Application Centre’s data, obtained through remote sensing in 2002, showed

198 sq km having been affected thus. The unsustainable manner in which shifting cultivation

is practiced allowing no time for the vegetation to regenerate itself, mainly due to the, hostile

attitude of the Forest Department, contributes to the depletion of biodiversity.

Name of PA District No of villages

Satkoshia Gorge Angul, Cuttak,Nayagarh,Boudh

102

Hadgarh Keonjar 8

Kotgad Kondmal 65

Lakhari Valley Gajapati 36

6.Koraput Adivasis face extreme poverty in spite of the rich forest around

85

Human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) are a perennial issue of concern for the peripheral villages

of wildlife habitats. Animal depredations cause widespread damage to human life, crops,

livestock and property and also damage to the involved animals themselves. Elephant, Sloth

bear and Leopard are the key species that come into direct conflict with humans. Although at

the root of the problem is the shrinkage of habitat for wildlife, Elephant is thought to venture

out to the villages in search of crops such as paddy, sugar cane, banana, etc. According to the

records of the Odisha Forest Department 3425 cases of animal depredations had occurred

during the period 1994-95 to 2003-04 (OFD, 2004). There were 400 cases in the year 2007-

08. However, the actual figures could be higher than since these figuresare based only on the

cases where compensation has been paid to the victims, and instances of crop raiding have

not been included.

Elephant is the predominant species involved in the wildlife conflict and the problem stems

from the loss of migratory corridors, in addition to the animal’s attraction for certain

agricultural crops. There were about 2888 cases of Elephant depredation during the period

1994-5 to 2003-4 making up 84 per cent of all the cases of human-wildlifeconflicts. The

human toll from Elephant attacks was more than 228 during the ten year period mentioned

above, the depredation obviously being rooted in the fragmentation and loss of habitats.

Information obtained from the Forest Department puts the cases of Elephant depredations at

3100 during 2010-11.

Problems with Leopard occur when the cat strays into the villages and 78 cases of leopard

depredations have been registered in the Forest Department during 2008-9. Tigers look out

for cattle and seldom harm people unless provoked; cases of Tiger depredations are few in

comparison with Elephant. Sloth bear is another megamammal that figures in the conflict

with the villagers. However, the case of bears is different in that they seldom venture out of

the forests and the attacks on people occur when they step into the animal’s feeding grounds,

especially in the early hours of the day. Many cases of bear attack happen in mahua(Madhuca

longifolia)areas where the local people come to pick the freshly fallen mahua flowers which

is a delicacy of the Bear.

The human-wildlife conflict has grown to become a major issue in the state. The government

pays compensation to the victims/relatives of animal depredations averaging about Rs 40

million per year in the past decade. The issue remains somewhat intractable due to the

increasing fragmentation of the habitats and the inadequacy of resources for the Forest

Department.

86

4.1.3.Tripura

Even as Tripura holds a remarkable biodiversity, a progressive erosion of the same is at play,

and the forest dependent people remain impoverished. Habitat degradation and biodiversity

loss are caused by a number of factors that lie mainly in the socio-economic realm and

therefore socio-economic interventions are critical in addressing these problems.

Conflicts with people in and around Protected Areas remain a vexing issue in most of the

reserves of the State. The total number of villages in each of the Protected Areas of the State

is given in table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Number of villages in selected Protected Areas of Tripura

Name of PA District No of villages

Sipahijala West Tripura 13

Trishna South and West Tripura 28

Gumti South Tripura 35

Rowa North Tripura Nil

However, the areas of some of the human habitations are excluded in the Sipahijala Sanctuary

notification, which allows them legal rights though they are nevertheless constrained by the

legal restrictions in the adjoining Sanctuary areas. The Rowa being the smallest (85 ha) PA is

not affected by settlements. The protected area management system sees the people as a

threat to the reserves while the people, being poor and marginalized, are left with no better

options. A reconciliation between conservation needs and survival concerns is slow in

emerging.

The clearance of forests for development purposes remains another serious issue affecting

biodiversity management. Information obtained from the Forest Department shows that

during the period 1990-2006, 66.59 sq km area of forests was cleared for various

development works, mainly for the extraction of natural gas. MoEF has issued clearance for

the diversion of another 53.73 sq kms of forests for commercial plantations in 2006. Some

forest areas have degraded and are now replaced by thatch grass. Gram Sabhas are beginning

to assert their role in areas proposed for future forest clearance.

Overgrazing remains another major management issue. Tripura has a total of 1.93 million

livestock population according to the 2001 census and of these 1.16 million heads,

comprising 60% of the total livestock population, freely graze in the notified forest areas of

87

the State. This causes substantial damage to the forest ecosystem, especially in the form of

preventing new growth. Herders also sometimes burn patches of dry areas during summer for

getting early fresh growth. Once again the problem is closely related to the livelihood

concerns of the impoverished Adivasi communities and it is further compounded by the

absence of pasture lands. Nor are there provisions for stall feeding.

Forest fires also take a toll on biodiversity. According to the Forest Department, up to 20% of

the forest area of the State is affected by forest fire at the end of winter every year

(TFD,2000). Although the fire is mostly confined to the forest floor it affects forest

regeneration and the ground fauna. Frequent fires also lead to the selection of hardy species

reducing the species that are more vulnerable to fire, thus posing a threat to the diversity of

species. The Forest Department remains inadequately equipped to handle the increasing cases

of forest fires, insufficient communication facilities and lack of firefighting equipment remain

a crippling problem.

While shifting cultivation, jhuming, practiced in the traditional ways of the past used to be an

environmentally harmonious form of resource use, in contemporary times it has become an

environmental liability weakening ecosystem integrity and causing biodiversity degradation

mainly due to the increasing frequency with which the sites are reused for cultivation. The

increase in frequency, in turn, is due to the severe restrictions imposed by the Forest

Department. The accelerating social deprivation of the Adivasi groups on one hand and the

restrictions on forestland use on the other hand has contributed to such a culmination of the

ancient practice of shifting cultivation. The area of forest lost to shifting cultivation during

2001 has been estimated at 384 sq. km. (FSI,2003), an obvious consequence of such forest

destruction is a significant level of degradation of biodiversity. However, this is the livelihood

of over 55,000 families who have no access to other feasible means of sustenance and the

conundrum defies attempts to resolve, often because such attempts are fragmented and short

on understanding the socio-economic dispossession of the communities.

Animal depredations pose another set of management problems in the State. Elephant and

Leopard are the species involved. At least two deaths due to Elephant attack are reported

every year. Reducing habitats and loss migratory corridors cause the elephants to move out

into human habitations.

4.1.4.Gujarat

Though the state has a large area of protected area network covering 17,081 sq km, a greater

88

part of the area is represented by the two saline desert sanctuaries of Kachch totalling 12,458

sq km. The final notification of most of the sanctuaries are yet to be done, due to the delay in

the settlement of rights as provided in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, indeed 4 reserves

(Narayan Sarovar, Wild Ass, and Desert Wildlife sanctuaries and Marine National Park) are

subjects of legal disputes. On the other hand, the livelihood of a large population of rural

poor, in particular, living in villages located in protected areas and on the peripheries remains

severely constrained in the absence of alternative livelihood support. On the other hand, the

livelihood of a large population of rural poor, Scheduled Tribes in particular, living in villages

located in Protected Areas and on the peripheries remain severely constrained in the absence

of alternative livelihood support. The number of villages located in the seven Protected Areas

is given in table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Number of villages in selected Protected Areas of Gujarat

Name of PA District No of villages

Vansda (NP) Navsari 11

Purna Dangs 26

Shoolpaneswar Narmada 104

Jambughoda Vadodara 26

Ratanmahal Dahod 11

Balaram-Ambaji Banaskantha 96

Jessore Banaskantha 17

The clearance of forestland continues in the State, already having lost 546 sq km of forest

during the period 1980-2005 causing irreparable loss of biodiversity and habitats. The state

has over 230 small and large dams with an inundation area of 14,00 sq km and this has taken

a heavy toll on the forests. It is interesting that such irrigation infrastructure was created in a

state having about 400 natural water bodies, excluding the rivers, with a combined water

spread of over 2000 sq kms. Extensive mining for marble, granite and limestone is another

source of threat to biodiversity, five protected areas, includingBakaram- Ambaji and Narayan

Sarovar, are being affected by mining projects

Overgrazing remains an issue of conflict between the local people and PA management.

Vansda National Park, for example, has a total of 10270 cattle, while Purna Sanctuary has

11447 cattle heads. The recurring forest fire contributes to the erosion of biodiversity by

selecting only the fire hardy species and eliminating the vulnerable species, apart from

89

causing extensive habitat damage. Forests in the southern districts are more prone to fire.

The growing incidence of human-wildlife conflict is another issue of concern. During the

period 2000-5 there were 51 cases of deaths and 752 cases of human injuries caused by

wildlife attacks, mainly involving Leopard and Sloth bear. The victims are invariably the

rural poor. Bluebull and Blackbuck cause extensive damage to the crops.

4.2. Biodiversity management issues at the national level

4.2.1.Community-conservation conflicts

India’s forests are home to people as well, FSI (2009) has reported that 200 million people

are dependent on forests for meeting their subsistence and livelihood needs and this includes

about ninety percent of the 104 million Adivasi population of the country. Managing the

issues arising from deficiencies in the law, the inappropriate implementation of the laws and

the resulting conflicts with the local communities remains a perennial challenge in most of

the forest areas of the country, and the Protected Areas in particular. Because of the

restrictions imposed in the Reserve Forests notified according to the Indian Forest Act 1927,

and in the Protected Areas notified as per the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, the life of the

historically forest living Adivasis has become severely constrained in most of the forest areas.

While these laws themselves will be analysed in detail in the next chapter, it is pertinent to

mention here that the provisions contained in these laws in terms of recognition of traditional

rights including the right to access biodiversity are often ignored.

In declaring Reserve Forests, the Indian Forest Act requires two phased notification. The

State government first notifies the intention to declare a particular area as Reserve Forest with

a call to raise claims, if any (Section 4). As per Section 11 the claims shall be admitted by the

Forest Settlement Officer orrejected after due consideration. Similarly, claims can also be

raised on pasture landsand forest produce as given under Section 12. It is after the settlement

of rights that the Reserve Forest is finally notified (Section 20). However, the law, even as it

is constraining on the forest dependent communities since the Forest Settlement Officer can-

in principle- unilaterally extinguish their rights, has not been duly followed in the

establishment of Reserve Forests, leaving the Adivasis in a precarious state of existence.

They are treated as illegal occupants in their own traditional lands and their traditional

resource harvesting has been curtailed. Most of the villages in the forest areas were not

recognised as revenue villages but simply as ‘forest villages’ often with the connotation of

being illegal.

90

The Protected Areas, established according to the Wildlife Protection Act 1972, have

deepened this community crisis in the forests. This law too have provisions for raising

traditional claims following the initial notification of Sanctuary and National Park and

settling the claims before the final notification, as will be discussed in Chapter 5.Settlement

of claims in or over the forestland as per Sections 21 and 24 of the Act needs to be done

before the final notification of Sanctuaries and National Parks. The Supreme Court of India

has taken a strong position on this continuing delay in settlement of claims in a large number

of Protected Areas. The Supreme Court, in an order in 1997, directed the State governments

and Union Territories to ‘issue proclamation under Section 21 in respect of the sanctuaries/

national parks within two months and complete the process of determination of rights and

acquisition of land or rights as contemplated by the Act within a period of one year1…’ The

Supreme Court emphasised this again in 2006 whenthe petitioner pointed out that the process

has not been completed in 14 out of 85 National Parks and 170 out of 494 Wildlife

Sanctuaries, as per the affidavits placed by the State governments before the Court (ELDF

and WWF India, 2009).

Human population inside Protected Areas

As described above,Protected Areas in the four States studied have significant human

populations inside and around them whose lives are severely constrained by the legal

protection regime, by imposing restrictions on their traditional resource use.This turns the

historical custodians of the forests against the governmental conservation project and, on the

other hand, renders their livelihood overly precarious. The situation is the same in the rest of

the country too. There is a paucity of data available on the size of population living in and

around Protected Areas across the country, published studies are scanty. The data on the

number of villages or population in a few Protected Areas in different parts of the country as

obtained from the available studies and own data are given in table 4.6, apart from those

given above.

1 Supreme Court order dated 22.8.1997 in Centre for Environmental Law vs Union of India and others (WritPetition no 337 of 1995)

91

Table 4.6. Human populations/villages in some Protected Areas in different States*

Name of PA State Population/Noof villages

Source

Bandhavgarh NationalPark

MP 14 villages Rishi et al,2008

Mudumalai Sanctuary Tamil Nadu 7400 people Silori and Mishra, 2001

AskoteSanctuary Uttarakhand 129 villages World Bank, 2009

The BiligiriRangaswamy Temple(BRT) Sanctuary

Karnataka 4700 people Lele and Srinivasan,2013

Buxa NP and TigerReserve

West Bengal 2 villages Khalid, 2003

Ranthambore NP Rajasthan 64 villages Reddy, 2008Kailadevi Sanctuary Rajasthan 24 villages Reddy, 2008Anamalai NP Tamil Nadu 93 villages Own data collectionChinnar Sanctuary Kerala 11 villages Own data collection

*Other than UP,Odisha, Tripura and Gujarat which are given in the foregoing part

There has not been any estimate of the number of people in the Protected Areas in the

country. And the absence of any national level data in this respect seriously hamstrings the

development of management initiatives that are inclusive. An extrapolation of this data is

made here based on the data available for the 28 Tiger Reserves (TRs) of the country,

presented in table 4.7, obtained from the report of the high level committee, the Tiger Task

Force, appointed by the central government (Tiger Task Force, 2005). The Tiger Reserves are

spread across the different States, fairly reflecting the diversity of habitats and social

conditions. The data must have been supplied by the reserve managers, however the criteria

applied and the methodology used are not described, and apparently there could be variations

in the criteria and methodology used by individual reserve managers; nevertheless this is the

only data source where recent data on human populations inside Protected Areas is presented.

The data for the entire individual TRs is used rather than for the core area since the condition

in the core area, being less inhabited, is not representative of the Protected Areas in the

country in general, but the entire TR could be taken more or less as representative of the

Protected Areas in general. It is also pertinent to note that even this high level committee

could not obtain direct data on the population inside the Protected Areas, but had to

extrapolate for some sites based on the number of villages reported.

92

Table 4.7. Human population inside the 28 Tiger Reserves in India

Tiger ReserveCore area Overall TR

Villages Families Population Villages Families PopulationBandhavgarh 6 210 1,050 75 2,625 13,125Bandipur 54 2,592 12,960 54 2,592 12,960Bhadra 0 0 0 5 67 335Buxa 0 0 0 89 3,122 15,608Corbett 0 0 0 25 875 4,375Dampa 0 0 0 61 2,135 10,675Dudhwa andKatarniagh 1 35 175 37 1,295 6,475Indravati 56 1,300 7,956 56 1,300 7,956Kanha 19 665 3,325 169 5,915 29,575Kalakad-Mundanthurai 15 1,703 9,580 16 1,728 9,700Manas 0 0 0 167 5,845 29,225Melghat 19 1,585 7,925 58 2,950 24,607Nagarjunasagar-Srisailam 24 840 4,200 149 8,432 43,978Namdapha 2 52 260 2 52 260Nameri 0 0 0 8 630 3,150Pakke 0 0 0 0 0 0Palamau 3 105 525 164 5,740 28,700Panna 45 1,565 7,825 45 1,565 7825Pench (Maharashtra) 1 52 239 1 52 239Pench (MP) 0 0 0 99 3,465 17,325Periyar 0 0 0 4 599 2,995Ranthambhore 4 140 700 25 875 8,643Sariska 11 6,337 34,185 27 7,793 43,506Satpura 6 224 1,122 60 2,114 35,548Simlipal 7 245 1,225 65 2,275 11,375Sundarbans 0 0 0 0 0 0Tadoba-Andhari 0 0 0 6 210 1,050Valmiki 0 0 0 20 700 3,500Totals 273 19,215 101,077 1,487 66,516 380,535

Source: Tiger Task Force, 2005. Note: populations for some sites are extrapolated from the number ofvillages, in the original report.

The total human population inside the 28 TRs is 380,535, and these reserves cover a total

area of 37,761 sq kms. The total size of Protected Areas in all categories is 161,221 sq kms.

Therefore the total number of people living in the country’s Protected Areas:

380,535x 161,22137,761 = 1624,698

This figure of estimation of population within the PAs is only approximate, due to the fact

that there are variations between regions and the small area of PAs outside the forest areas (eg

wetlands, desert) has a different situation of human habitation from the rest.Besides, since

this is based on the data obtained from the forest departments, this can be an under estimate

93

as the forest departments tend to under report the human population inside the Protected

Areas;some officials may not even report human habitations inside Protected Areas as they

consider these as illegal. The conservation areas (Protected Areas and Reserve Forests) are

sites of high levels of poverty, a contribution of the resource use constraints imposed on the

Adivasi communities. 47.3% of the Scheduled Tribes population lives below the poverty line

set by the standard of Rs. 356 per month per capita consumption expenditure (Planning

commission, 2008). The Schedule Tribes constituted 15% of the total poor in India during

2994-05, which was about double their population ratio according to 2001 census. It is a

paradox that the larger part of the country’s forest biodiversity is found in the 188 tribal

districts of the country, as identified by the Integrated Tribal Development Program, whose

people live in such abject poverty. Of the total 692,027 sq kms forest coverage of the country

as reported by FSI (2011), the tribal districts host 424,596 sq kms which is 61.3 per cent of

the total. And in the case of the very dense forests (canopy density of 70 per cent and above),

the tribal districts share as much as 71.7 per cent of it ie. 57,849 sq kms out of the national

total of 83,471 sq kms. Evidently, the Adivasis have served as the historical caretakers of the

forests, and yet they live in extreme poverty which is in part a contribution of the

conservation regime that is built on the colonial legacy.

Resettlements of people

When people are displaced from Protected Areas relocation is seldom provided, and when

provided, it is often poorly planned, extremely inadequate and deepening the poverty of the

affected people as shown by a long-term study of resettlement carried out from Kuno

Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh where the resettlement had a marked adverse impact on people’s

livelihoods. There was little attention paid to the sociological dimensions and many of the

displaced wanted to move back to the sanctuary despite the chance of starvation (Kabra,

2009), this is the situation in regard to most resettlements. However, because of the complex

situation arising in Protected Areas due to the forceful or induced displacements of people,

the government introduced in 2008 a scheme for compensation to the affected amounting to

Rupees ten lakhs per family (MoEF, 2008). This money is either provided as cash to the

family and the government playing no further role in their future, or the forest department

organizing their resettlement in the new place with the amount provided to the families for

items such as building of house, buying and developing farm land, farming support,

associated community infrastructure, and some cash support within the same amount. Two

related resettlement sites- a conventional resettlement and the other as per the new scheme-

94

were visited as part of the study to understand the situation. These are the new locations of

two villages relocated from the Satpura Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh, namely Dhain and

Bori.

Satpura Tiger Reserve in Hoshangabad district covers a total area of 1488.67sq.km

incorporating the Satpura National Park (528.7 sq.kms), Bori Sanctuary (485 sq. kms.) and

Pachmarhi Sanctuary (417 sq.kms). Both Bori and Pachmarhi sanctuaries were established,

independently, in 1977, the Satpura National Park established in 1981, and Tiger Reserve was

declared in 2000. The Satpura Tiger Reserve is an important ecosystem complex in the

Satpura range, bearing 52 mammal species, 287 species of birds and 31 reptilian species. At

altitudes ranging from 300 to 1352 meters MSL, the area is drained by Thava, Denwa and

Sonbadra rivers. Conflict with the local people has been perpetual in this prime Tiger habitat,

indicated by the 2000 reported cases of human-wildlife conflict in the year 2006. The Tiger

Reserve has a total of 60 villages located inside, and the relocated villages Dhain and Bori

were in the Bori Sanctuary. Dhain was relocated during 2004-5, with the conventional

support of Rs one lakh per family, and Bori village in 2009 making use of the new provision

of Rs 10 lakh compensation per family. The visit was also to understand the difference, if any,

the new system of resettlement has made, especially since the Bori resettlement is claimed as

a ‘saga of success’ by the MP Forest Department (Dungriyal, undated).

Naya Dhain: The relocated Dhain was one of the 17 villages located inside Bori Sanctuary

and had 97 families. This was to release 116.6 ha of land traditionally held by the villagers

and to eliminate the negative impact they were considered to have beyond this area. The MP

Forest Department mooted the idea of relocation of the village as early as the late 90s and

was attempting to induce the people to move out, the people, on their own, did not ask to be

moved out. As part of this they were sent on an exposure visit to Melghat Tiger Reserve in

October 2001 where a resettlement was undertaken and they also paid a return visit to Dhain

village a year later. All these campaigns, aided by a local NGO, and the promise of new

provisions at the relocated site induced the villagers to agree to relocate. They were shifted to

the newly developed site named Naya Dhain in Khorda Gram Panchayat in Hoshangabad

district where 91 families were provided free housing on a residential plot of 5,600 sq ft each,

and a cash incentive of Rs 36,000 for each family, besides faming land of 2 hectors per

family. The village was also provided amenities like access road, tube wells for farming and

open wells, power line, community hall and primary school building. The Forest Department

had an overall investment of Rs one lakh per family. The settlement had a total population of

95

332.

However, in the discussions with several individuals (4 males and 3 females) and focus

group discussion with a group of 14 persons (photo.7) it turned out that they were unhappy

with the current situation and would have been happier in their original village, even with all

the constraints that prevailed there. A community not used to farming, their farming has been

failing especially in the absence of adequate water. Besides, they found it difficult to procure

seeds and manure due to lack of funds. They miss the income, though small, that they had

obtained from collecting the forest produce. A tusser (Sal as host plant) making training

facility was set up by the Central Silk Board but tusser making as a micro enterprise has not

taken off the ground. The primary

school gives a new opportunity for

the small children to attend school;

however, the school often does not

have teachers. They also miss their

indigenous gods and ancestors’

lands, especially the elderly ones.

People often fall sick and there is

no clinic in or within the vicinity of

the village. There was hardly any

public transportation facility

available. To the question whether

they prefer the new location or the old village, nearly all of those who interacted had no doubt

that they preferred their original village, with all the constraints therein.

It is also interesting that a total of 243 ha of forestland was cleared for the resettlement, and

its ecological cost was unaccounted in the resettlement project. Besides, the land had its own

story of dispute. A group of people from nearby areas who raised claim on the land and

settled there had to be eventually evicted forcefully to prepare the resettlement site. In

deciding the relocation there was no socio-ecological studies that proved that the presence of

the village was seriously hampering the survival of wildlife. While estimates are made of the

economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem services at huge levels, these values are not

reflected in the size of compensation paid to the people when they are dislocated from their

ancestral habitations, bearing the cost of conservation. The villagers indeed could have been

adopted as caretakers of the forest biodiversity in their habitations, instead of a new band of

7.Discussion with members of the resettled group at NayaDhain

96

outsiders, namely, the forest department staff migrating and settling in the forest area, the new

network of roads constructed inside the reserve and the tourism facilities constructed for

visitors from afar.

Naya Bori: Bori village of 107 families in the Bori Sanctuary was relocated to a site now

called Naya Bori (photo 8), near Semri in Hoshangabad district in 2009. Like in Dhain

village the people of Bori belonged to the Korku tribe. An area of 120.5 ha was to be released

through the relocation, besides eliminating the people’s influence that is considered as

negative by the MP Forest Department. On the other hand 246 ha of forestland in Naya Bori

was converted for the resettlement.

A total of Rs 10 lakh per family was spent for the relocation from Bori village; instead of

giving the entire cash to the affected families the MP Forest Department has been organizing

the resettlement on their behalf. Construction of new houses, procurement and development

of agriculture land at the rate of 2 ha per family, development of access paths, community

facilities like primary school building, community centre, etc were covered under this. Each

family was provided Rs 3.5 lakh in cash within the Rs 10 lakh budget. Rice, soybean and dal

were the key crops they have farmed in the new village.

In the focus group discussion

with 14 persons most of them

appeared satisfied with the new

location, though they had a

number of complaints. The crop

had failed in the first year but

there were signs that the crop

was thriving in the second year

mid-way through the season

when the visit was made. Naya

Bori had better housing than

Naya Dhain, and better common infrastructure. However, the school was largely non-

functional, water taps were often without water and the power supply failed to reach all the

houses as was promised. Some go to work as wage labours in the nearby villages, but the

wages are far below the legal minimum wage. The farming they were newly introduced to

requires input of chemicals and that was turning out to be expensive for them. The cattle they

had were gradually being lost due to the lack of fodder or grazing facility. Even as the Forest

Photo 8.NayaBori resettlement site

97

Department claims this relocation as a success story, the lives of the resettled community is

not certain in the new location. The factors that made those who appeared satisfied were

mainly due to the relief from the perceived harassment of the Forest Department in the old

village and the availability of some cash that was paid as part of the compensation. Given that

there was ten times more payment for the affected families at Naya Bori than at the earlier

resettlement of Naya Dhain, it is natural that the people here had better condition, even when

that remains inadequate. In comparison to Naya Bori, other resettlements like Kuno

Sanctuary (Kabra, 2009) or Rajaji National Park (RLEK, undated), were the induced

settlements with barely any facilities and have deepened the deprivation of the affected

people.

Displacements from Protected Areas

Displacements, without any provision for resettlement, of Adivasis constitute a critical issue

of conflict between the conservation project and the local communities. The Protected Area

establishment has seen the displacement of a large number of local communities, almost

always Adivasis. There is, however, no national scale data available on this critical issue,

except for a few case studies and the governmental report regarding Tiger Reserves. The

displacement data gathered by the current study from 6 Protected Areas in 6 different States

is given in table 4.8, which is largely representative of the condition in other Protected Areas.

Table: 4.8. Representative cases of displacements from Protected AreasName of Protected

Area StatePeriod of

displacementNo of households

displacedGir Sanctuary Gujarat Since 1972 580Rajaji NP Uttarakhand Since 1983 1415

Bori-Satpura TR MP Since 2005 252

Chandaka- DamparaSanctuary Odisha Since 1984 190Dudhwa TR UP Since 1987 29Wayanad Sanctuary Kerala Since 1973 80

The Tiger Task Force (2005) report points out that since the inception of Project Tiger in the

1970s, a total of 80 villages and 2,904 families along with their 46,341 livestock have been

relocated from areas designated as Tiger Reserves. Rangarajan and Shahabuddin (2006) have

estimated that the Protected Area establishment, particularly in the 20th century, has resulted

in the displacement of approximately 49,000 to 120,000 forest-dwelling people. Kothari and

Lasgorceix (2009) have reviewed 28 published studies on displacements from Protected Area

98

and estimated the number of people displaced at about 100,000; this cannot, however, be

taken as an estimate for all the Protected Areas. Protected Areas like Wayanad Sanctuary and

Kudremukh National Park had violent clashes with the Adivasi communities resulting in

human casualties (Janu, 2003).

This situation can be addressed in an effective manner only by a paradigm shift that regards

Protected Areas as an inclusive conservation enterprise where the people who have been the

traditional custodians of biodiversity should be seen as partners in conservation and their

livelihood concerns recognised. The government has, hesitantly though, recognised this need.

In the Thematic Report on Protected Areas submitted to the Convention on Biological

Diversity in 2007, MoEF states that in order to ensure the full and effective participation of

the indigenous people and local communities, in respect of their rights and recognition of

their responsibilities in the management of existing PAs and in the establishment and

management of new PAs, and highlighted the preference accorded to two new legal

categories of PAs, namely, the Conservation Reserve and Community Reserve in expanding

the PA network as they provides for community participation. It further stated that the State

forest departments were in the process of identifying sites for the establishment of these two

categories of PAs and clearly acknowledges that more needs to be done in this respect. The

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,

2006 strengthens this approach and provides the legal tool to operationalize the same and sets

categorical terms for resettlement of people, whether for conservation or development

purpose, though its implementation remains problematic. Both these issues will be addressed

in chapter 5.

4.2.2.Human-wildlife conflicts (HWC)

Human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) involve crop raiding, injuring or killing livestock and

attacks on humans, sometimes including deaths, caused by wildlife. Conflicts between

humans and wildlife are increasing in several areas and are a threat to biodiversity as well

as being a serious threat to human life and goods. Elephants, Tigers, Sloth bears, Leopards,

Wild boar, Blue bulls, etc. are species that run into conflict with the human populations in

the adjoining villages. A national level summary of the HWC issue is given in table

4.9.Conflicts arise as a result of reduction in size or quality of habitat and fragmentation of

habitats. There is also movement by animals to the nearby villages due to the easier

availability of food and/or more palatable food. Some species may prefer to settle on the

fringes of protected areas and closer to human settlements, as is the case with Leopards.

99

Reduction in prey base also prompts predatory animals to foray into the villages. Loss of

habitats in the corridors of seasonal movements of elephants is one major reason for

elephant-related conflicts. However, HWC is not a recent issue. In the preface to the

acclaimed Book of Indian Animals, first published in 1948, the author identifies this as a

critical issue (Prater, 1971).

HWC is a global issues though varying in scale and intensity. Distefano (undated) provides a

global review of the HWC issues and underlines the urgency of the need to address the

problem.

Table 4.9: Human-wildlife conflicts in India

Species involved Nature of conflict Main areas of occurrence

Panthera pardus (Leopard) Cattle depredationAttacks on humans

All over its range

Panthera tigris (Tiger) Cattle depredationAttacks on humans

All over its range

Panthera leo (Lion) Cattle depredationAttacks on humans

Gir forest of Gujarat

Canis lepus (Wolf) Cattle depredationChild-lifting

All over the country, child-lifting happens mainly inUthar Pradesh.

Elephas maximus (Elephant) Crop raidingAttacks on humans

Southern Western Ghats,parts of Eastern Ghats,Northeast region.

Melurus ursinus (Sloth bear) Attacks on humans All over its range,particularly in central India

Sus scrofa (Wild boar),antelopes

Crop raiding All over their ranges

Scale of damages

It is estimated that on average 400 people are killed annually by elephants and 100 elephants

are killed by people in retaliation (MOEF, 2010b). Annually, elephants also damage 0.8 to 1

million hectares of crops, affecting over 50,000 families (Bist, 2002).In a three year study in

two elephant range districts of Assam, Davies et al (2011) found 1,761 cases of elephant-

human conflicts that damaged crops in 359 ha area. According to Madhya Pradesh Forest

Department, 166 human deaths and 3,131 injuries from wildlife attacks occurred in the state

during the five year period of 1998-2003. 14,090 heads of cattle were also reported to be

killed carnivorous during this period.

According to information obtained from Tamil Nadu Forest Department, 259 human

casualties occurred in the state during the period 2002-03 to March 2010, 139 of which were

100

caused by elephants. Odisha Forest Department reported 3,425 cases of animal depredations

during the period 1994-95 to 2003-04 (OdishaForest Department, 2004). There were 400

cases during 2008-09. In Gujarat, as noted by the forest department, there were 51 cases of

deaths and 752 cases of human injuries caused by wildlife attacks during the period 2000-

05, mainly involving Leopards and Sloth bears. Blue bull and blackbuck cause extensive

damage to the crops here. In Bhadra Tiger Reserve of Karnataka, 219 livestock heads were

lost to predators and crop damage to the order of Rs 5,100 per household- equivalent of

thirty per cent of the average annual income of a household- occurred in a year in five

sample villages studied in the early 2000s(MoEF, 2010b). The official reports of wildlife

caused damages and mortality often miss many cases. The wildlife attacks, apart from its

human and social costs, also turn affected communities against the wildlife species in

question as well as the wildlife authorities.

Compensation

The provision for compensation for death and injuries to human beings, agriculture and

cattle has been introduced in nearly all states. The compensation system in various states is

given in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10. Compensation for wildlife caused losses in various States (in Rs)

Name of State

Humanmortality,permanentincapacity,

injuries

Damage tocrops

Loss oflivestock

Damage tohouse/

property

Andhra Pradesh 20,000 max Equivalent tothe losses dueto naturalcalamities orriots

Marketvalue

Equivalent tothe losses dueto naturalcalamities orriots

Assam 20,000 max n.m n.m n.mBihar 6,000-20,000 500/ acre n.m. 200-1,000Gujarat 25,000-100,000 250-5,000 n.m. n.m.Jharkhand 33,333-100,000 2,500/

hectare500-3,000 1,000-

10,000Karnataka 25,000-100,000 2,000/ acre n.m. 5,000Kerala 75,000 max 100% of the

loss or Rs75,000whichever isless

n.m n.m.

Madhya Pradesh 10,000-50,000 n.m. 5,000 n.m.Maharashtra 50,000-200,000 n.m. 3,000-9,000

or 75% ofn.m.

101

marketvaluewhicheveris less

Meghalaya 30,000-100,000 3,750-7,500/hectare

100-1,500 5,000-10,000

Odisha 2,000-100,000 1,000/acre n.m. 2,000-3,500Tamil Nadu 20,000-150,000 15,000/ acre

max.10,000 forcattle; 1,000for sheep

5,000

Uttar Pradesh 5,000-50,000 150-2,500/acre

n.m 400-3,000

West Bengal 5,000-20,000 2,500/acre 70-450 500-1,000n.m= not mentioned in the government orders concerned.

However, the compensation amounts are considered to be inadequate and besides, these are

often not adhered to and most often the process to get compensation is so complex that

communities do not pursue it. The Elephant Task Force (2010) has observed that more than

two thirds of the funds spent on elephant conservation have been on issues directly or

indirectly related to elephant-human conflicts. The amounts paid as compensation in 25

Tiger Reserves of the country are given in fig 4.1.

Fig. 4.1. Compensation paid by Tiger Reserves from inception till 2002

Source: Tiger Task Force (2005) (Notes: the amounts are in Rs 100,000; KMTR=

KalakkadMundanthurai Tiger Reserve)

102

Preventive and mitigation measures

Preventive measures are location and species specific and therefore vary considerably.

Elephant-proof trenches and electric fences are practices followed to prevent elephant

depredation, but with varying degrees of success. The elephants in many cases eventually

find ways to cross the trenches or to damage the electric fence, rendering such efforts

ineffective. The application of chilly power laced fence has been found particularly useful to

thwart elephants in Assam (Davies et al, 2011). Spotlights and crackers are used against

different animals with varying degrees of success. Forest department officials in certain

problem areas are equipped with tranquilising guns, trapping cages,etc to capture and release

to the wild large predators. In the Sundarbans mangrove forests which have a high intensity

of Tiger-human conflicts, the local residents have used a human face mask on the backside

of the head as the animal is used to approach from the back. This method has been useful for

some time but the animal eventually had understood the trick. Habitat improvement of

protected areas, however, provides the long term solution to the problem in relation to most

species. Awareness building among the local population is also important.

The MoEF has formulated Guidelines for the Human-Leopard Conflict Management

(MoEF, 2011b), which also prescribes a protocol to be followed in the event of leopard

attacks. The Elephant Task Force (2010) has recommended the formation of permanent

Conflict Management Task Forced in areas of high conflicts, with experts in various related

fields and stakeholders representatives, to address the elephant problems in the area.

The 5thWorld Parks Congress of IUCN had recommended2 the establishment of a

multistakeholder global platform to address HWC issues and called for international

cooperation in developing measures to address HWC in conflict areas and called on

international funding organisations to provide funding for HWC prevention and mitigation

programs. A workshop on HWC held as part of the World Parks Congress had recommended

the creation of a ‘toolbox’ of methods, strategies, success stories, etc for the use of

practitioners on HWC issues (Madden, 2004). It has also called for greater recognition of the

HWC issues. The workshop had recognised that the failure to effectively address HWC

issues will render the conservation project ineffective and will cause the loss of the much

needed local community support.

2WPC Recommendation V..20. Preventing and Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflicts www.iucn.org

103

4.2.3. Overgrazing

The issue of grazing has been viewed in a polarised manner, between arguments of pervasive

overgrazing and that being reckonedas the singular reason for forest degradation to total

denial of overgrazing as an issue affecting the forest biodiversity. Grazing by livestock within

the carrying capacity of the habitat in question does not cause any significant damage to the

ecosystem but contributes towards the livelihood of the forest dependent communities on,

and in certain cases like the grasslands of the Protected Areas of Terai region can help

manage the habitat. However, when the grazing exceeds the carrying capacity of the area it

can negatively influence the habitat integrity. Grazing is not permitted in most of the

Protected Areas; the Supreme Court order of 2000 has reinforced this in principle although

grazing takes place in a large number of Protected Areas. The management objective would

be to manage grazing within the regenerating capacity of the resource base and the livestock

not posing a serious completion to the wild species or brining diseases to the forests.

India has a disproportionately large size of the world’s livestock population- the 518.57

million livestock of the country constitutes 15 per cent of the world’s livestock population. Of

these, 199.6 million, constituting 38.49 per cent of the national livestock population, are

dependent on the forests, mostly in open grazing (FSI, 2011). The livestock populations in the

forest areas of various States are given in table 4.11.

Table 4.11: Population of livestock in the forest areas of different States

State/UT Livestock dependenton forests (in Lakh)

Andhra Pradesh 25.14

Arunachal Pradesh 0.90

Assam 5.89

Bihar 1.24

Chhattisgarh 10.43

Gujarat 4.95

Haryana 0.00

Himachal Pradesh 5.18

Jammu and Kashmir 3.02

Jharkhand 2.78

Karnataka 17.80

Kerala 1.36

104

Madhya Pradesh 21.73

Maharashtra 31.46

Odisha 8.89

Punjab NA

Rajasthan 24.47

Tamil Nadu 4.72

Uttar Pradesh 10.05

Uttarakhand 4.88

West Bengal 11.54

Other NE States 2.36

UTs 0.80

Total 199.58

Source: FSI, 2011

The high density of livestock in the forests is though not a matter of alarm needs to be

managed in cooperation with the local communities. Livestock grazing has been a historical

practice, continued in many protected areas. This study has estimated the cattle population of

Satpura NP (Madhya Pradesh) at 4000 and that of Kaimur Sanctuary (UP) at 5500, based on

information obtained from local officials of therespective Protected Areas.

Silori and Mishra (2001) have reported more than 9282 livestock from Mudumalai Sanctuary

(Tamil Nadu), each household there having an average of 15 animals. Rishi et al (2008) have

reported 77260 livestock from and around Ranthambore National Park (Rajasthan) which can

be a significant biotic pressure on the reserve. On the other hand in certain Protected Areas

like Dudhwa National Park (UP), the park management seeks extra funds for physically

removing the tall grass growth as part of what is called habitat management. While it is

important to ensure that grazing does not grow to become overgrazing, the solution is not to

lock the livestock entirely out without providing adequate feasible alternatives to the affected

communities.

4.2.4. Capacity development constraints

The forest departments that manage the mainstay of the country’s biodiversity face capacity

constraints in many respects. State forest departments have a total national strength of

115,000 staff members while the Indian Forest Service (IFS) has 2,800 members. However,

the training and orientation of the forest management staff at various levels lack socio-

105

economic understanding of the forest management issues, and similarly there is insufficient

training in wildlife management issues.

The Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy (IGNFA) provides two year inception training to

the IFS officers, and they further undergo three mandatory in-service training courses

conducted by the Academy at various points during their career. However, these training

courses are on a broad spectrum of forestry issues, none of which focuses on

biodiversity/wildlife management or the crucial socio-economic issues as shown by an

analysis of the curriculum and confirmed by the director in an interview. It was mentioned,

however, that plans are on the pipeline to newly incorporate socio-economic issues in the

curriculum. There is no specialized wildlife management cadre either; officers are transferred

between wildlife and other divisions in the forest departments. The Wildlife Institute of India

(WII) provides training in wildlife management to both IFS officers and lower-level officers

through short-term training courses, in addition to a postgraduate diploma course where

forest officers are also admitted. However, these opportunities are very limited considering

the huge number of staff engaged, especially that of the State forest services.

The Directorate of Forest Education,under the MOEF, is responsible for the planning and

management of training courses of the State Forest Service (SFS) officers and the Forest

Range Officers (FRO). It has three colleges for the SFS officers at Dehradun, Coimbatore and

Burnihat (Assam) and one for forest rangers, at Kurseong, West Bengal. Thedirectorate,

through these institutions, conductson an average a total of 24 short-term refresher and

theme-based courses a year for the SFS officers and FROs. However, only about 400 officers

can participate in the training programmes organised by these institutions in a given year but

the SFS officers and FROs total about 14,500, obviously the facility available is far short of

actual need. The training curricula of these institutions too have little provision for socio-

economic issues, conflict management or wildlife management.

The frontline forest staff of the States (Guards, Foresters and Deputy Range Officers) in the

country totals 100,500 in addition to the officer level State staff and they also have limited

opportunities for receiving training in wildlife management or soci-economic issues and they

are transferred across wildlife and other divisions. They are trained by training centres

established by the State forest departments. The low level of the training of wildlife

management staff has been highlighted by several evaluation studies of protected areas. An

evaluation of the 28 Tiger Reserves in the country conducted in 2006 has pointed out

inadequate staff training as a management constraint in most of the reserves evaluated

106

(Project Tiger Directorate, 2006). A 2008 meeting of the highest-ranking forest officials from

all the states of the country has also set the training of frontline wildlife staff and Protected

Area managers as a priority (Anon, 2008).

The WII offers short-term training programs for state-level forest staff, although the programs

are limited in scale. Some states have also begun their own centres for wildlife training: the

Maharashtra forest department has established a Wildlife Research Centre at the Ranidoh in

Pench Tiger Reserve; a similar centre has been established at the Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve

in Madhya Pradesh; and Rajasthan has established a centre at the Ranthambore Tiger

Reserve. These efforts are very recent and have been made with limited resources both in

terms of infrastructure and training content.

A new project for training State forest staff was launched by the Directorate of Forest

Education, MoEF in March 2009, with the financial support of the Japan International

Cooperation Agency. This five-year project is to train state forest offices portrayed the

frontline forest officers and will also improve the training curricula and resource materials.

However, even this project also does not adequately address the wildlife training needs and

the socio-economic and community related issues.

Capacity development of Biological Diversity Act-related institutions

A number of institutions have been established under the Biological Diversity Act (BDA)

including the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs), and

local-level BMCs. The BDA marked a difference in conservation law by incorporating the

provision for benefit sharing and by factoring in the local communities in biodiversity

management. However, effective implementation of the law is possible only with the

strengthening of the related statutory institutions. The NBA can fulfil its responsibilities as

per the BDA only if it has the required technical capacity and infrastructure. In a discussion

with the Member Secretary of NBA it was evident that the NBA was understaffed, did not

even have legal experts when it was expected to register and precede cases of infractions. 23

states have so far established SBBs but many lack the essential technical and infrastructure

support needed to carry out the multiple responsibilities they are expected to discharge under

the provisions of the BDA. In many States the forest department senior officials double as

SBB functionaries too. 3,955 BMCs have been established in various states. Most of them are

in Karnataka, and thousands of BMCs will be established across the country as the capacity

of the SBBs increases. These bodies need to be adequately strengthened adequately with

107

manpower and resources in order to effectively implement the Act. That is also important in

order to harness the beneficial provisions of CBD.

4.2.5.Biopiracy

Commercially valuable properties of a wide-range of species as well as traditional knowledge

from the biodiversity-rich developing world have been patented by Western agricultural and

pharmaceutical companies. This is happening without the prior informed consent of the

source countries, without mutually agreed terms between the source countries and the

accessing countries and without the provision for mutually agreed benefit sharing as required

by CBD. This misappropriation or biopiracy in violation of CBD and the Biological Diversity

Act (BDA) is a continuing story. The long list of plants from India patented by Western

multinationals includes neem, turmeric, serpentine, castor, ginger, Basmati rice, pepper, etc.

The Basmati patent has attracted an intense but short-lived media interest in India and the

Indian government has opposed the patent in the US Office of Patents and Trademarks, which

was eventually turned down.

Monsanto has misappropriated the viral resistance trait of Indian melons and bred

Closterovirus-resistant melon plants for which the European Patent Office (EPO), Munich

issued patent (EP 1962578) in May 2011. The indigenous Indian trait was introduced in the

Western melon variety through conventional breeding. Yet the opposition was turned down

by EPO.

A case of massive biopiracy, committed by a group of British citizens, in the biodiversity rich

Kerala part southern Western Ghats, occurred in the second half of the 90s. This group had

formed an NGO called Nelliampathy Hills Area Conservation Society and bought about 300

acres of land in Nelliampathy, Palakkad district and set up an expensive laboratory

infrastructure for bioprospecting. They collected samples of valuable medicinal plants,

investigated their properties and prepared extracts which were then smuggled out of the

country. This illegal access of biodiversity and it smuggling occurred during the period 1995

to 2000 largely uninterrupted. A committed forest officer of the Nenmara Forest Division had

alerted superiors about the group’s activities but governmental action was slow in

forthcoming, due to the influence the group has built. Investigations were eventually

launched by the State’s Law Department and Forest Department. The reports of these

investigations were accessed, and both the Forest Department’s CCF Vigilance3 and the Law

3vide report no. 4-1755/96 of 1 December 1997

108

Department4 had determined various counts of offense by the group and recommended stern

action against them and their local accomplices. Subsequently the Forest Department

Secretary asked the CCF(P) to confiscate the property owned by the Society5. However no

action was taken against the culprits who had already left the country, nor was the issue taken

up with the British government invoking the provisions of CBD.

In the biodiverse Kerala even a government research organisation had gotten into an

agreement with a foreign entity for providing extracts of medicinally valuable plants

collected from the Western Ghats forest of Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The

Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute (JNTBGRI6), Palode had

entered into an unequal agreement with Singapore's Center for Natural Products Research

(CNPR), a Glaxo Welcome-funded biodiversity prospecting institution based at the Singapore

National University, in 1995. Far from following the terms of equitable benefit sharing as

required by CBD, the agreement stipulates, ‘For discoveries and inventions made by CNPR

on materials from this collaboration, Glaxo Welcome has the first right’7. The contract also

requires that work carried out by CNPR and Glaxo Welcome with the samples and any

information relating thereto will be the confidential property of CNPR or Glaxo Wellcome.

JNTBGRI had by 1999 sent to Singapore 1000 samples of extracts of 400 species of

medicinal plants but no useful research results were reported back to JNTBGRI. It is

pertinent to note that the information collected by the Government of India’s All India Co-

ordinated Project on Ethnobotany, for which JNTBGRI acted as coordinator, through its

twelve years of work when data about 9500 plant species, of which 7000 used in tribal

medicine, have been used in implementing this project. It is interesting that the entire benefit

to India for providing this invaluable stock of genetic resources was less than USD 1,40,000

as per the contract, which was the actual expenses related to the collection and transfer. The

issue became a public controversy through media coverage, however, no attempts were made

to seek remedial measures for protecting the national rights over the genetic resources sent

abroad.

The Monsanto led Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited has used, without permission

from the statutory authorities and not following the conditions for access and benefit sharing,

4vide report no. 11899/d2/2000/Law of 18 February 20015vide letter no. 18196/c-2/97F&WLD of 16 May 20016The name of the institute was amended by prefixing Jawaharlal Nehru in 2012.7 Contract document titled: Characterisation of Biologically Active Constituents from Indian Plants: ACollaborative Research Proposal between Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute and Centre forNatural Products.

109

a particular gene of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) found in the soils of Mahanandi village of

Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh and traditionally used by the local farmers as an

insecticide. Cry1A(c) gene of the bacterium produces a protein that damages the gut wall of

insects, thus controlling the insect population. According to the Andhra Pradesh State

Biodiversity Board and the Mahanandi Biodiversity Management Committee, the Monsanto

consortium has illegally used this gene to produce its Bt cotton seed introduced in the market

in 2002, claiming to be resistant to bollworm, an insect that intensively attacks the cotton

plant. The gene has been accessed apparently by Monsanto’s research and development unit

Emergent Genetics India Pvt. Ltd which has operations in Kurnool. However, a case has so

far not been registered against the company under the Biological Diversity Act.

The Bt issue of Monsanto generated another biopiracy case in Karnataka. In creating the Bt

Brinjal a consortium of Monsanto, Mahyco and the University of Agricultural Sciences

(UAS), Dharwad has reportedly accessed the genetic resources of six varieties of brinjal

endemic to the country and genetically modified them without the prior permission of the

Karnataka State Biodiversity Board (KSBB) or the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) as

required by the Biological Diversity Act. Following a complaint filed by a Bangalore based

NGO, Environmental Services Group (ESG), the KSBB has found strong evidence for the

violation of the BDA by the Monsanto consortium and sought the guidance and support of

the NBD to proceed on the issue vide its letter of 10 March 2010. However, neither of these

statutory agencies acted for a long period, even after the statement of the Minister of

Environment and Forest in the Rajya Sabha, on 6 September 2011, that the NBA has decided

to prosecute the violators in this case. ESG filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court (Writ

Petition 41352/2012) seeking to direct the NBA and KSBB to perform their statutory duties

as per BDA in addressing the cases of biopiracy.

Thereafter the NBA and KSBB filed a criminal complaint against the UAS Dharwad,

Mahyco Co and Sathguru, a coordinating company in the US Agency for International

Development and Cornell University’s Agriculture and Biotechnology Support Project, with

the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Dharwad in November 2012 (No 579/2012). However, some

of the accused in the case have subsequently obtained a stay order on the case from the

Karnataka High Court; the stay order needs to be vacated in order for the prosecution to

continue.

This is the second case registered under the BDA since the law came into force in 2003. The

first case under BDA that sentenced to jail a Czeck citizen for illegally collecting rare insects

110

from Darjiling was registered by the West Bengal Forest Department. The NBA’s failure in

protecting the nation from biopiracy has been widely criticized by high level Constitutional

bodies of the country (Public Accounts Committee of Fifteenth Lok Sabha, 2012; Committee

on Agriculture of the Fifteenth Lok Sabha, 2012; Comptroller and Auditor General of India,

2010).

With the CBD in force at the global level and BDA at the national level, the tide of biopiracy

was expected to be reversed. However there has been no let up in biopiracy as MoEF pointed

out in January 2010 that over 2000 patents based on Indian biodiversity and traditional

knowledge were taken in Western patent offices every year (MoEF, 2010). And in September

the same year the minister for environment and forests has affirmed that biopiracy is ‘one of

the biggest threats and concerns for India’8.

The global South’s relative failure in challenging Western patents on biodiversity and

traditional knowledge is inherent in the nature of the Western patent regime. The Western

patent laws simply do not recognize countries’ sovereign national rights over theirrespective

biodiversity or the time-tested traditional knowledge systems in the areas of herbal medicine

and farming as provided by CBD, nor do these patent laws recognise the CBD provisions for

access to biodiversity ie prior informed consent, mutually agreed terms and equitable benefit

sharing.

The Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, within the framework of

World Trade Organisation, excludes the patenting of plants and animals but does provide IPR

protection for ‘plant varieties’. That is, the so-called innovations or derived varieties are to be

protected. This disregards the question of a country’s national sovereign rights over its

biodiversity or the historical innovations of the people. And the national IPR laws are based

on TRIPS that contradicts the CBD. However, the controversial article 27.3.b of TRIPS that

provides for patenting of living materials itself is long overdue for review.

The CBD is politically and legally important for India and other developing countries to face

the challenge of escalating biopiracy. However, its remarkable potential has not been

harnessed in facing this threat due to the weak implementation of the treaty, as will be

examined in the next chapter. The statutory institutions of the country need to gear up to be

able to effectively enforce BDA to face the escalating biopiracy. Biopiracy being a global

problem, India needs to step up collective global efforts to face this threat using the

8The Hindu, 6 September 2010

111

provisions of CBD. How this can be done will be proposed in chapter 5.

4.2.6.Disconnect between management institutions

Biodiversity management is a cross-sectoral subject and it entails the involvement of multiple

stake-holding ministries and agencies. However there is a glaring absence of coordination

between the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the focal ministry,and other relevant

ministries and agencies. Inter-sectoral planning with linkages to Adivasi development,

tourism, rural development, agriculture, etc is clearly lacking at different levels; the provision

for such a linkage could indeed have eased some of the management problems at the field

level. Forests are home to most of India’s 104 million Adivasi population, and yet the

Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) does not have any role in forest biodiversity management

issues, nor is there any coordination mechanism between MoTA and MoEF. There is about

another 100 million local community population in and around the forest areas and yet the

rural development or the Panchayat agencies have no role in the forest management

issues.Agriculture and agroforestry have a significant bearing on the forests adjacent to the

farmlands but there is no coordination or consultative mechanism between the agricultural

agencies of the government and the forest departments. The forest departments are the

enforcement agency for the Wildlife (Protection) Act that also covers marine species;

however, there is no cooperative mechanism between the fisheries/marine agencies and the

forest departments who are inherently capacity constrained in marine issues.

Another glaring disconnect is the one between the local communities who protect several

thousand sites of biodiversity significance (Pathak, 2009)- Community Managed Areas- and

the forest departments. The significance of these areas for biodiversity conservation has not

been adequately acknowledged formally, nor have the governmental conservation sector

developed the means to recognize or support them. The importance of the Community

Managed Areas has been realized globally and these are now included in the Protected Areas

Programme of Work under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The World

Commission on Protected Areas has recognised, in its governance types of Protected Areas,

the Community Conserved Areas (referred to as Community Managed Areas in this study) as

a distinct category (Dudley, 2008). The documentation of this vast network of sites in the

country is insufficient and there is hardly any provision to support and sustain these local

community initiatives, addressing this issue is especially important since many CMAs are

struggling against commercial pressures of various kinds

112

4.3 Summary

This chapter presents and analyses the critical issues affecting the management of

biodiversity in the country. The issues in the States of UP, Odisha, Tripura and Gujarat are

examined using secondary and primary data, and the constrained survival of the forest

dependent communities becomes evident. The national pattern is similar too. The critical

national issues analysed bring out the absence of reconciliation between conservation

objective and livelihood needs, and there are management capacity constraints. Both the

Wildlife (Protection) Act and the Indian Forest Act have caused displacement of forest

dependent communities and constrained the livelihood of a large part of the 104 million

Adivasi population. Two sites of resettlement of people from Satpura NP (Madhya Pradesh)

were studied for understanding the impact, and the resettlement with better investment was

seen to be reasonably acceptable to the affected people unlike the case with less investment.

Population of communities living within the PAs of the country has been estimated. The

management system is short of providing for community participation or benefit sharing as

required by CBD.Human-wildlife conflicts remain an intractable issue and their scale and

causes are analysed. The115,000 strongforest protection staff of the country has glaring lack

of training in social/community issues and inadequate training in biodiversity management.

Biopiracy remains a serious and growing threat and several cases of biopiracy are analysed

and the failure in combating biopiracy is examined so also the institutional disconnect

between relevant agencies in managing biodiversity as a cross-sectoral subject. This chapter

sets the basis for analysing the biodiversity management regime in the following chapter.