2 4 36

62

170

483

577

623

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Nu

mb

er o

f P

As

Decade

Trend in Protected area declaration in India

WLPA 1972

2 2

32 26

108

313

94

46

0

100

200

300

400

1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Num

ber

of

PA

s

Decade

Trend in Protected area declaration in India

WLPA 1972

0

2000

4000

1972 1979 1984 1989 1993 1997 2004 2006 2010

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

1990 1972 1979 1984 1989 1993 1997 2004 2006 2010

History of colonial forest management in India

(Grove 1995, Williams 2000)

Pierre Poivre, French Commissioner of Mauritius in

1766 – suggested that deforestation causes rainfall

decline, and affects incidence and spread of

disease.

He created reserves to protect plants and animals

and established Mauritius’s botanical garden.

Poivre’s ideas about forest loss affecting rainfall

and runoff found great currency in India; the

regulations for forest management and reservation

were applied in St. Helena and then transferred to

India and the rest of the world.

Environmental History in India – based on Pyne

1994

The British differentiated between primitive

practices and its own practices by identifying fire,

a ubiquitous traditional practice, as ‘their chief,

almost their only enemy’.

A state-making rational exercise rooted in an

imperial project continues to dictate forest

management today.

‘There are no virgin forests today, nor

were there in 1492.’

William Denevan

‘The pristine myth: the landscape of the

Americas in 1492’

Trouble in Tigerland: why

conservation efforts continue to fail

Nitin Rai (Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment)

www.atree.org

Forest area

Tiger Reserve

Schedule V: Tribal area

50 poorest districts

Report of the Tiger Task Force 2003, Government of India

The number of internally displaced persons in India (Indian Social Institute 2008)

Dams - 16.4 million

Mines - 2.55 million

Industrial development - 1.25 million

Protected areas - 0.6 million

(3 to 4 million live in PAs and face eventual ‘displacement’)

Protected area policy 1972 National Park Wildlife sanctuary 2002: Community conserved areas Conservation reserves 2006 Tiger reserves

Conservation projects have largely failed • Produced marginal communities (landless and ‘arborealised’)

• Erased social and cultural histories

• Elevated levels of poverty • Altered ecological systems

Coffee

Encroachments

Water

Evergreen Forests

Semi-Evergreen Forests

Riparian Forests

Tree Savanna

Scrub Woodland to Thickets (dense)

Tree Plantations

Scrub Woodland to Thickets (with bamboo)

Scrub Woodland to Thickets (discontinuous)

Vegetation Types and Land Use

Woodland to Savanna Woodland (tall)

Shrub Savanna (Grassland)

Woodland to Savanna Woodland (short)

Biligiri Rangaswamy TempleWildlife Sanctuary

N. Barve, et al. 2005. Measuring and mapping threats to a wildlife sanctuary in South India. Conservation Biology 19:122 – 130.

SOLIGA SETTLEMENTS IN BRT

Monukai

SOLIGA SETTLEMENTS IN BRT

Time line of Monukai podu

1880-85: Menchi Gulli

1885-91: Achehare Mavu, Marish dore (British) lived in Honna

metti, and he roamed the forest. He had his camp in Joodi

gere.

1891-06: Munnukai Podu, Soliga and Badagas lived together.

They had Patta for 383 acres. 60 Soliga and 60 Badaga families

lived in Munnukai Podu. Dodda mari disease struck resulting in

people settling elsewhere.

1906-10: Budi dindu Podu

1910-14: Mathi Guddi Podu

1914-22: Siddaiahna Dembha Podu

1922-26: Dodda Hatti

1926-32: Erekanni

1932-34: Mullada Kallu

1934-40: Gali Gulli

1940-46: Giraji mara Hagu

1946-48: Karagilanni

1948-54: Maridembha

1954-57: Joodare Gudde

1957-63: Kongana hare

1963-66: Edira Bore

1966-68: Geresi kallu

1968-71: Joodigere

1971-74: Gadde salu

1974-77: Gerumala

1977-89: Munnukai Podu, Veerappan kills five Soligas, all

families flee, settle in Hannina Thotta Podu

1990-96: Karube Guddi

1996-99: Munnukai Podu

Clans

Selikiru Kula

Teneyaru Kula

Suriru Kula

Halaru Kula

Beliru kula

Baleyaru kula

Sacred sites

Veeru

Habbi

Devaru

Maramma

Kallu guddi

Samadhi

593 sites

85 Soliga informants

1.5 years of mapping

The impact of conservation policy on poverty

1972: Wildlife Protection Act 1972

1974: Wildlife sanctuary notified

2002: WLPA ammended to ban NTFP collection

2006: Forest produce collection banned in BRT

2011: Tiger Reserve established

1995 2006

NTFP 7105 6614

Agriculture 2350 4366

Labour 2526 8395

The impact of conservation policy on household

income – BRT household income

Hegde et al 1996; D’Souza, Rai and Madegowda 2011

1995 2006 2006 adjusted with CPI

NTFP 7105 6614 3785

Agriculture 2350 4366 2498

Labour 2526 8395 4799

The impact of conservation policy on household

income – BRT household income

Hegde et al 1996; D’Souza, Rai and Madegowda 2011

2000 2006 2010

NTFP 1457 839 516

Agriculture 811 216 427

Labour 867 3210 5242

*Uma shaankar et al 2000, $ ATREE 2006, Harisha et al 2010.

The impact of conservation policy on household

income – MM Hills household income

1997 2008

Spread of lantana 1997-2008

Lantana stems/ha

Sundaram and Hiremath 2011

Soliga explanations of forest change

FIRE: the control rather than the incidence

Lantana: increase in and therefore changing

forest composition

Hemiparasites – increase due to fire suppresion,

leading to mortality of amla trees

‘Taragu Benki’ Litter fire

Historically, Soligas have used controlled ground fires in forest management Fires were lit early in the season, resulting only in the burning of leaf litter, thus preventing large fires that might damage trees Small ground fires helped in good regeneration of forest tree species and controlled the spread of hemi-parasites on trees (Loranthus sp.) Soliga suggest that the control of fire has led to changes in forest structure and wildlife habitat due to the increase in invasive species, with serious implications for forest conservation

Forest Type Sub-class

1 Nadu Kadu

2 Ore Kadu (Beggadu) Halla kadu

Gadde Kadu

Are

Demba; Henne; Matta Kadu

Kere Kadu

Betta Kadu

3 Male Kadu Hanni Kadu

Halla kadu

Are

Kere

Hullu thotti kadu

Bore Kadu

Demba; Henne; Matta kadu

Gudde Kadu

Betta kadu

4 Kanu Kadu Halla kadu

Bore Kadu

5 Sanna Kanu Bore Kadu

Halla kadu

6 Boli Hullu

Gudde

Soliga Forest Classification

BR Hills Collaborative conservation workshop

July 12th and 13th 2011

BR Hills Collaborative conservation workshop

July 12th and 13th 2011

Collaborative management plan for BRT Ecological conservation: • Lantana • Poaching • Tourism • Plastic pollution by tourists • Roads and checkdams • Quarrying • Fertiliser and pesticides in coffee estates

Broad strategies were listed for each: regular patrolling by joint teams of Soliga and forest department staff, restrictions on tourists, and organic production of coffee.

Collaborative management plan for BRT Livelihoods security: • Agriculture • non-timber forest produce collection • Wage labour in coffee estates • Jobs in forest department • Plants from forest, for food and medicine • But marked decline of species due to Lantana • Restrictions in access by the Department • Reduction in bee populations due to pesticides use

in the plains

Collaborative management plan for BRT Governance and Management: • Potential of FRA to manage BRT • Forest management committee in each podu

for conservation of 10 km radius • Taluka level committees • Biligiri Community-Based Tiger and Wildlife

Sanctuary Committee with representation from Forest Department, civil society groups.

Soligas do not seek an exclusively community-driven model Strongly feel that management is only possible along with Forest Department

Reserve Forest ~1880

Wildlife Sanctuary 1974

Tiger Reserve 2011

History of conservation (and conflict) in BRT

Ban on forest produce harvest 2006

Critical tiger habitat or core

About 20 podus are within the core and face relocation

Compensation of 10 lakhs per family

How might we envision a democratic

management of protected areas in India?

The Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006 is

a new law that gives tribal and forest

dwelling communities rights to cultivate,

use, and manage forests.

Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006

Main Objectives

– Vesting forest and land rights to people living

inside forests, so far denied guaranteed

access to forest lands and resources

– Empowering gram sabhas to manage and

conserve ecosystems.

Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006

Individual rights

Rights to land currently cultivated

Community rights

Forest resources

Community management of forests

Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006:

Section 3 (1):

i) right to protect, regenerate, or conserve or manage any community

forest resource, which they have been traditionally protecting and

conserving for sustainable use.

The Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006:

Section 5: Gram Sabhas are ……….empowered to:

a) protect wild life, forest and biodiversity;

b) ensure that adjoining catchments area, water sources and

other ecological sensitive areas adequately protected;

c) ensure that the habitat of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes

and other traditional forest dwellers is preserved from any

form of destructive practices affecting their cultural and

natural heritage;

d) ensure that the decisions taken in the Gram Sabha to

regulate access to community forest resources and stop any

activity which adversely affects the wild animals, forest and

the biodiversity are complied with;

FRA implementation in BRT:

1516 Soliga households have been granted individual rights to land for cultivation.

Nearly 60 percent are landless and have not yet received rights to habitation.

However……….

Community Forest Rights were awarded

to 25 gram sabhas of BRT on 2nd October

2011 by the Member of Legislative

Assembly and District Commissioner in

Chamrajanagara district.

1. Right of ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of

Minor Forest Produce as defined under 2(i) and 3(1)(c) of

Act.

2. Right over collection and ownership of products from water

bodies such as fish; access to grazing and customary rights

(including of nomadic and pastoralists communities), and

seasonal resources and other rights defined under section

3(1)(d) of the Act.

3. Right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any

community forest resources for sustainable use under section

3(1)(i) of the Act and managed by a committee constituted

by the Gram Sabha under section 4(1)(e) of Rules.

4. Right of access to biodiversity and community right to

intellectual property and traditional knowledge related to

biodiversity and cultural diversity as per Section 3 (1) (k) of

the Act.

5. Right to visit, access and worship at the 489 sacred sites by

Soligas under the section of 3 (1) (k) of the Act.

THREE POINTS

THE IDEA OF ‘WILDERNESS’ CONTINUES TO BE

PERPETUATED TO ENABLE CONTROL OF

FOREST AND RESOURCES

LOCAL PEOPLE HAVE A MORE NUANCED

UNDERSTANDING OF LOCAL ECOLOGY THAN

OUTSIDE EXPERTS AND FOREST MANAGERS

CONSERVATION IS AS MUCH A SOCIAL PROCESS

AS AN ECOLOGICAL ONE; A RIGHTS-BASED

APPROACH IS THEREFORE ESSENTIAL.