Community and conservation reserves in southern India: status,
challenges and opportunities
Arun Kanagavel 1, Revati Pandya 2, Cynthia Sinclair 3, Aditya Prithvi 4 &
Rajeev Raghavan 5
1,2,3 Wildlife Information Liaison Development
Society (WILD), 96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
4 Department of Econometrics, University of
Madras, Tholkapiar Campus, Chepauk,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600005, India
1,5 Conservation Research Group (CRG), St.
Albert’s College, Banerji Road, Kochi, Kerala 682018,
India
5 Systematics, Ecology & Conservation
Laboratory, Zoo Outreach Organization (ZOO), 96 KumudhamNagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
641035, India
1 arun.kanagavel@gmail.com (corresponding
author), 2 revati.pandya@gmail.com, 3 sinclair.cynthia@gmail.com,4 solar.ads@gmail.com, 5 rajeevraq@hotmail.com
Abstract: Community Reserves and Conservation
Reserves illustrate a community-based co-management model, a first of its kind
within the protected area (PA) network of India. Such reserves mark a shift towards an
inclusive and decentralised approach within PAs in the country. Three such reserves in southern India:
the Aghanashini Lion-tailed Macaque Conservation
Reserve, Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve and Thirupaddaimaradur Conservation Reserve, were selected to
examine the reasons for their creation, management and stakeholder dynamics,
with an aim to review their productivity and potential replicability. The study was carried out through
semi-structured interviews with Forest Department officials, local community
members and researchers working in the three reserves. Insufficient interaction between the
stakeholders appeared to be a common issue in two reserves. The functioning of the reserves was also
influenced, and in some cases negatively affected, by local politics. Financial stability was crucial in the functioning
of reserves, as was consistency in interaction and appropriate monitoring of management
plans. These elements are recommended for sustaining such reserves and creating
community-based management systems for conservation, to support an inclusive
approach to PA management.
Keywords:Aghanashini, Forest Department, Kadalundi-Vallikunnu,
local community, non-governmental organization, researcher, stakeholder
assessment, Thirupaddaimaradur, Western Ghats.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3541.5256-65
Editor: Anonymity requested. Date
of publication: 26 December 2013 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # o3541 | Received 27
February 2013 | Final received 10 December 2013 | Finally accepted 11 December
2013
Citation: Kanagavel, A., R. Pandya, C.
Sinclair, A. Prithvi & R. Raghavan (2013). Community and conservation
reserves in southern India: status, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 5(17): 5256–5265; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3541.5256-65
Copyright: © Kanagavelet al 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 UnportedLicense. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this
article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate
credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: The study was undertaken
with financial support from the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
(CEPF)-Western Ghats Small Grants Program through the AshokaTrust for Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE), Bengaluru, India.
Competing Interest: Authors declare no competing
interest. Funders had no role in study design, collection and interpretation of
data and manuscript writing. One of
the authors (CS) is currently working with CEPF-ATREE. However she was not
associated with this organization, during the time, the study was carried out.
Author Contribution: AK and RR were involved in
designing the study. AK, CS, AP and RR undertook the surveys. AK, RP, CS, AP
and RR were involved in manuscript preparation.
Author
Details: Arun Kanagavel, keen on research that would
inform conservation action, is interested in social dimensions that influence
perception of nature and its conservation, and the potential of local
communities in linking biodiversity conservation and protected areas. Revati Pandya is interested in natural
resource management, its plurality and understanding the same through
stakeholder perceptions as a basis for conflict resolution. In relation to
this, she is specifically interested in the potential of protected areas in
conservation and exploring the nature of collaborative management. Cynthia
Sinclair has a Masters in Conservation Biology and is interested in
human-wildlife interaction, approaches to sustainable development, livelihood
issues in forests, forest governance and its relationship to conservation. She
is currently working with the CEPF Western Ghats Program. Aditya Prithvi is interested in
understanding the effects of income disparity in societies and its effect on perception
towards day to day events including wildlife
conservation. He is also interested in the interaction between the various
strata of society. Rajeev Raghavanis interested in interdisciplinary research focused on generating information
and developing methods to support decision-making especially in freshwater
ecosystems.
Acknowledgements: The
first author would like to thank Bhaskar Acharya, Vijayalakshmi, P.A. Kanagavel, Anvar Ali and Shrinivas Kadabagere for their
help and support during the study; Varun Vikraman for volunteering on the surveys and Sethu Parvathy for her
suggestions on the manuscript. The second author would like to thank Mamata Pandya for her comments on
the manuscript. The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and
the Subject Editor for their comments and suggestions that have improved this
article.
This article forms part of a special
series on the Western Ghats of India, disseminating the results of work
supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), a joint initiative
of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the European
Commission, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the
MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. A fundamental goal of CEPF is to
ensure civil society is engaged in biodiversity conservation. Implementation of
the CEPF investment program in the Western Ghats is led and coordinated by the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
(ATREE).
For figures, images, tables -- click here
Introduction
Protected areas (PA) for biodiversity conservation based on the
preservationist principle have affected millions of people and their
livelihoods in India over the past 40 years (Madhusudan& Raman 2003; Wani & Kothari 2007). More than 100,000 people have been
relocated in various parts of the country for the creation of PAs and denied
access to traditional lands and resource-use (Kothari et al. 1996, cited in Wani & Kothari 2007). Forced relocations have morphed into
induced relocation procedures wherein communities have no real choice, since a
driving factor—such as severe restriction on resource usage—induces
them to accept resettlement packages (Lasgorceix& Kothari 2009). A further five million people in India face eviction due to policy
amendments (Kothari 2004, cited in Brockington et al.
2006). Moreover, adoption of
the recent Indian Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act 2006 will see an increase
in these figures, as it calls for resettlement of people, including indigenous
people, from areas that are found to be critical tiger habitats (MoEF 2010a).
In synchrony with international mechanisms, there has been an increasing
focus in India to integrate local communities into biodiversity conservation (MoEF 2010a,b) through the setup of various policies that
assist communities in sustaining livelihoods without compromising biodiversity
conservation (Pathak et al. 2006). The National Forest Policy of 1988 and
Joint Forest Management guidelines helped set up the Joint Forest Management
programme which supports local livelihoods and conservation of natural
resources. The Panchayat(Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, empowers local traditional
institutions by allowing them to decide and participate in the governance of
issues concerning the utilisation of non-timber forest produce (NTFP). The Scheduled Tribes and other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 recognises
the rights of forest-dwelling communities and empowers them with
land-entitlement, utilisation of natural resources within PAs and informed
consent during resettlement procedures. The Biological Diversity Act 2002 and the Wildlife Action Plan
(2002–2016) strengthen the role of communities in the utilisation and
management of biodiversity both within and outside PAs. The most promising of these official
initiatives is the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002, which allows for
the creation of Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves as a third type of
formal PA other than National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries (MoEF 2010c; Kanagavel et al.
2013).
Community Reserves and Conservation Reserves
Conservation Reserves (IUCN Category VI) are community
co-managed biodiversity rich areas, which are particularly close to existing
PAs and serve as a buffer and/or corridor to establish a continuous PA
network. Conservation Reserves can
be declared only on government-owned lands (MoEF2010c). Community Reserves (IUCN
Category V) on the other hand can be set up on biodiversity abundant lands that
are privately or community-owned, and are managed by the
individual(s)/communities in possession of the area. Both these reserves allow for extraction
of natural resources, the levels of which are governed by a multi-stakeholder
Reserve Management Committee (MoEF 2010c).
A Conservation Reserve Management Committee must consist of
representatives from the local village Panchayat,
non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and the Department of Agriculture and
Animal Husbandry. Similarly, a
Community Reserve Management Committee is to consist of five representatives
nominated by the local Village Panchayat or the Gram Sabha, and one representative each from the State
Department of Forest and Wildlife. A chairman would be elected by the committee who would also serve
as a Wildlife Warden of the reserve (MoEF2010c).
These reserves mark a shift towards a more inclusive and decentralised
approach within the PA network, where the management entails participation of
multiple stakeholders, which is the emphasis of community-based management (Agrawal & Ribot 1999; Ribot 2004).
There are more than 58 Conservation Reserves in India, 34 of which are
concentrated in Jammu and Kashmir (WII 2010a). The TiruppadaimarathurConservation Reserve in Tamil Nadu, a 0.03km2 heronry, is the
smallest of its kind (TFD 2007). The largest is the 299.52km2 AghanashiniLion-tailed Macaque Conservation Reserve in Karnataka, which has the largest
population of these ‘Endangered’ macaques in the world (Kumara et al.
2008). There are currently five
community reserves in India (WII 2010b) of sizes ranging between 1.5km2(Kadalundi Community Reserve, Kerala; The Hindu 2007)
and 12.67km2 (Lalwan Community Reserve Punjab;
DFWP 2010).
Kokare BellurCommunity Reserve, Aghanashini Lion-tailed Macaque
Conservation Reserve, Bedthi Conservation Reserve,
Hornbill Conservation Reserve and Shalmala Riparian
Ecosystem Conservation Reserve in Karnataka, and the BhorkadaConservation Reserve in Maharashtra together encompass 420.59km2,
representing 0.0025% of the entire Western Ghats. In spite of a large number of such
reserves existing in the country, very little information is available
concerning why they were set up, what their management approaches are, and what
interactions exist among their stakeholders. Through this study, carried out in two
conservation reserves and one community reserve in southern India, we attempt
to fill this knowledge gap by trying to understand the management approaches
adopted, interactions between stakeholders, challenges faced and potential
opportunities.
Materials and Methods
The study was carried out during January and February 2012. Interviews were conducted with local
communities, conservation researchers and Forest Department (FD) officials in
three reserves located in different states in southern India, viz., the Aghanashini Lion-tailed Macaque Conservation Reserve (ACR)
in Karnataka, Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve
(KCR) in Kerala and Thirupaddaimaradur Conservation
Reserve (TCR) in Tamil Nadu (Fig. 1).
Aghanashini Lion-tailed Macaque Conservation Reserve
This reserve located in the Sirsi-HonnavarraForest Division of the Uttara Kannada District,
Karnataka supports the largest population of the ‘Endangered’ Lion-tailed
Macaque Macaca silenus,
comprising more than 500 individuals in 31 groups (Kumara et al. 2008). In 2008, a plan was submitted to
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Department of Forest and Wildlife,
Karnataka, and the Western Ghats Task Force Committee to declare the area as a
Conservation Reserve (Kumara 2011). The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Karnataka resubmitted a new proposal
that included new sensitive areas along the AghanashiniRiver, prioritised through detailed surveys that incorporated the occurrence of
threatened and endemic species, critical corridors and threats (Dandekar 2011; Kumara 2011). The reserve reportedly faced initial
opposition from politicians towards establishment due to confusion over
resource-utilization rights by local communities (The Times of India 2010). On 13 June 2011 ,the reserve spanning across 299.52km2 was formally declared and was
to be managed in collaboration with the FD and gram panchayatswithout restricting resource use (The Times of India 2010; Kumara 2011).
Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve
Spread across 1.5km2, the Kadalundi-Vallikunnuestuary located in Kozhikode (Calicut) and Malappuramdistricts of Kerala State is the first Community Reserve of India, declared in
2007 (Chitharanjan 2011). A wintering ground for migratory birds;
nearly 110 species of avifauna including the ‘Critically Endangered’
Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus, Lesser
Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus,Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica and Crab Plover Dromas ardeola have been recorded at this estuary which
is surrounded by patches of mangroves (The Hindu 2007; Aarifet al. 2011; Images 2,3). The estuary faced several
threats from sand mining, dumping of wastes, coir retting (the process of
segregating fibre found in coconut husks out of coir;
see Rajan & Abraham 2007), defoliation,
collection of oysters and mussels, as well as infrastructure development(Remani et al. 1989; Nair 2007; Aarifet al. 2011). The Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve (KCR) was set up not
only to reduce these threats but also to promote it as a birding destination
and improve local livelihoods through tourism (Nair 2007; The Times of India
2011). The government reaffirmed
that the reserve would not pose a threat to local livelihoods and would promote
community participation (The Hindu 2009a). Activities like setting up of rest houses, watch
towers for bird watching, a museum on mangroves and boating were part of
the management plan. Tourist guides
were also to be engaged from the local communities. A
coir factory outside the mangrove area was started by the KCR management
committee to compensate for loss of livelihood opportunities after the
formation of the reserve.
The Reserve Management Committee headed by the Kadalundi Panchayat is managed by six members, three from the Vallikunnu Panchayat, two from Kadalundi Panchayat and a
forester from the Thamarassery range of the Kerala
Forest Department (The Hindu 2009b). The official formulation of this committee reportedly took two years due
to a power struggle between the Kadalundi and Vallikunnu panchayats which was
resolved after the intervention of the Forest Minister of Kerala, as per which
it was decided that the chair of the committee would be rotated between the twoPanchayats (Protected Area Update 2008; The Hindu
2009b). In the year 2009, funds
were reportedly released by the central government to formulate reserve
management plans to realise the above-mentioned aims after conducting a
participatory rural appraisal (PRA) with the local communities (see The Hindu
2009c). However, the formulated management plan was reportedly not accepted by the state
government and these initiatives have not yet begun (The Times of India
2011).
Thirupaddaimaradur Conservation Reserve
This reserve, around the village of Thirupaddaimaraduris situated on the banks of the river Thamirabarani,
30km away from the city of Tirunelveli in Tamil
Nadu. This was the first
Conservation Reserve in India, set up in 2005 to primarily protect birds around
the village (The Hindu 2005). The
reserve which serves as a nesting ground for 200–400 pairs of Painted
Storks Mycteria leucocephalaand egrets is managed reportedly by a committee composed “of the public, forest
department, NGOs, scientists, member of the legislative assembly (MLA) and the Panchayat president” (The
Hindu 2005).
With the reforestation initiative undertaken by the FD, which included
participation from the local community, and initiatives of the panchayat such as banning the use of firecrackers and
rehabilitating chicks that fall off nests, the conservation regime at the
reserve has begun to improve (Images 4,5). Awareness campaigns and exposure visits for the local communities to the
community-managed Koonthankulam Bird Sanctuary, Tirunelveli District, undertaken by the FDhelped to improve their understanding of community-based conservation.
Methods
At ACR, one FD official, two locals and a team of three representatives
from a local NGO were interviewed. At KCR, two FD officials, four locals (two each from Kadalundiand Vallikunnu) and two researchers were interviewed.
At the TCR, two FD officials, two local community members and two researchers
were interviewed. The researchers
interviewed were those who had visited, worked, or were working either in the
reserve or in the larger landscape.
Interviews were mostly undertaken in person, wherein they were recorded
using a digital recorder and transcribed. In cases where it was not possible to meet respondents
in person, either telephonic interviews or interviews via electronic mail were
undertaken. Given the lack
of basic information on the management of these reserves, semi-structured
interviews (Appendix 1) with open-ended questions that allowed for detailed
discussion were used. The
respondents were first asked to describe the reserve and the reason for its
setup. The role of the concerned stakeholder in the reserve and the roles of
other stakeholders and their interaction with them were then inquired. Specific questions were asked regarding
whether and how the FD officials, researchers and local communities were
involved in reserve declaration. The respondents were then asked about reserve
management, people involved in the management, how management plans were
decided, and how the reserve management committee was chosen. Information on
the frequency of committee meetings was also sought. Finally, respondents were asked to
provide information on any difficulties that were faced with respect to the
establishment or running of these reserves and whether they had any suggestions
which could help in the setting up and implementation of similar reserves,
elsewhere.
The stakeholder interviews were summarised as per specific issues. Any difference in perceptions within and among stakeholders havebeen highlighted.
Results
While two reserves (TCR, KCR) were set up to conserve the area from
localised threats, one (ACR) was set up against the possible construction of a
dam. While two of the reserves (TCR, KCR) were set up to conserve the bird
diversity, the third (ACR) was set up to conserve a threatened primate and
specialised ecosystems. Only one (ACR) was set up after rigorous prioritization
based on ecological parameters. While KCR was setup to improve livelihoods through tourism, tourism
initiatives at TCR and ACR were targeted following reserve declaration. Two (ACR, KCR) of the reserve
facilitators conducted a PRA with local communities before they were
declared. Both ACR and KCR faced
initial hurdles from local communities and politicians. At two reserves (KCR and TCR), which
were set up nearly five years ago, stakeholder interaction was absent, and the
form of participation by local communities was largely that of abstaining from
resource use.
Aghanashini Lion-tailed Macaque Conservation Reserve (ACR)
ACR was identified by designating potential sites
based on their forest cover, priority species and ecosystems, and a threat
index from across the district of Uttara Kannada. It aimed to protect the Lion-tailed Macaque, Myristicaswamps and newly described amphibian species and the entire landscape from the
impending threat of dams. PRA and
community mapping were undertaken by the respondents to understand the
occurrence of priority species, types and utilization of NTFPs, changes in the
area over time, human-animal conflicts, and, the perceptions of local communities
towards conservation and the sites they would like to protect. The resulting information on the
ecological, and primarily the economic benefits of conserving the priority
sites were conveyed to decision makers.
Non-governmental organisations (NGO) lobbied for the formation of the
reserve through presentations made to several state ministers including the
Forest Minister and Chief Minister of the Government of Karnataka, and with
support from the Director of the Tiger Task Force, the area was declared as a
Conservation Reserve.
Our surveys revealed that while one respondent from the local community
was aware of reserve demarcation since the NGO had approached the individual
and discussed the plans of the FD and their organization’s, another was
unaware. A continuous association
of over 30 years through empowering the local communities in sustainably
harvesting NTFPs and value addition assisted the NGO team in garnering the
participation of local communities. The reserve is currently in the process of setting up its management
committee, which would consist of representatives from the local community, FD
and the relevant NGO. Two such
committees would be chosen to manage the lower and upper part of the reserve,
as the spatial distance would make it difficult for locals from both parts of
the reserve to meet at a common place. Interested local individuals would be chosen as committee members from
the Village Forest Committee and Joint Forest Management Committee.
Local respondents stated that they mainly depended on the forests for
firewood, which remained unaffected after the reserve declaration. The local respondents’ contribution to
the conservation of the reserve was by abstaining from hunting and tree felling
and informing officials about offences. The members of the NGO stated that the priority of local communities was
not in conserving tigers but the sustainable use and conservation of NTFPs and
issues like education and health. They however stated that the FD was not very interested in collaborative
management and some officials may not be willing to convert Reserve Forests to
protected areas with enhanced protection, as it would lead to a loss of
benefits for the FD.
Both respondents from the local community stated that there was minimum
interaction with the FD, and that the FD officials walked through the
settlements once in a while and distributed money to them under the Joint
Forest Management program. On the
other hand, the FD respondent stated that their responsibility was to serve as
the administrator of the reserve, which was a joint effort between them and the
local communities, and that the FD would provide support to local communities
in undertaking conservation activities.
Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve (KCR)
All the respondents were aware of the purpose behind the establishment
of the reserve, as an attempt to protect the estuarine biodiversity. However, the researchers who were
interviewed perceived that the reserve was also set up to reduce resource
utilization, primarily of mangroves since the locals wanted to fell them in
their land, thereby protecting the avifauna and associated tourism. In contrast, the FD official stated that
the reserve was setup to safeguard local livelihoods while attempting to
improve the estuary in parallel. The respondents stated that bird watchers, “environmental lovers”, Panchayat, NGOs, FD, the Kozhikode District Collector and
state government were involved in declaring the reserve. The researchers stated that local
communities were not interested and protested against the reserve declaration
due to the assumption that their resource utilization would be restricted.
The respondents’ views towards reserve ownership differed. While the FD stated that the reserve
land belonged to private individuals and only the river belonged to the FD,
local communities stated that the land belonged to them, while a researcher
stated that both the government and panchayat owned
the land. The local community was
indeed part of a PRA exercise wherein individuals living within 200m of the
estuary were inquired about land ownership, their education qualification and
livelihoods. It was stated that thereserve boundary was demarcated by the FD based on the
availability of the mangroves and land availability, with little input from the
local community.
Most of the respondents stated that resource extraction was not curbed
after the reserve establishment. One of the researchers stated that resource utilization had not changed
but coir retting was discontinued, whereas the other researcher stated that
hunting and coir retting were “stopped” while “sand mining and fishing
continued”. The former also stated
that fish and avian diversity had reduced probably due to land-use changes and
spread of mangroves.
While half of the respondents knew that a committee managed the reserve,
one individual from the local community stated, “There is no management.
Nothing has been done here”. Similarly one of the researchers claimed to have no idea of its
existence and the other researcher stated that the communities did not support
the committee since their perceptions were not considered; they did not have
any role and was nominated by the government and not by them. It was stated that since the PRA
exercise, no other activities have been undertaken at the reserve and the
Government did not accept the draft management plan.
The much-publicised difference between the Kadalundiand Vallikkunnu panchayatsduring the reserve committee’s formulation was stated as due to the panchayats being managed by opposing political
parties. Since most of the area of
the reserve fell within Vallikunnu, this panchayat demanded for a larger representation in the
committee. However it was decided
that there would be equal representation from both panchayatsand that the chairman would be elected from Kadalundi,
which led to the reserve’s non-functional state from an imbalance of
power. Moreover, it was stated that
currently the committee was led by the opposition political
party, which was why the ruling party wanted to dissolve the existing
committee.
The committee is said to have employed two to four guides/watchers from
the local communities whose salaries had not been paid to date. Local communities stated that they had
no role in the management of the area while the FD official stated that no
stakeholder was currently involved in the reserve’s management due to
unavailability of funds. While one
researcher stated that there was no specific role for the local community
towards the management, another pointed out that being part of the committee
represented their aspirations but activities needed to be generated to foster
their role. Members of the local
community felt that the FD had to do more work to make the reserve functional,
and though they did not have any expectations from the reserve, they did not
want to lose rights over their land and resources. They also perceived that there was no relationship
with the FD, since there was no activity in the reserve. A researcher said that there was no
regular interaction between the local stakeholders and FD, who did not make any
significant contribution other than setting up sign boards and conducting
workshops with students.
Thirupaddaimaradur Conservation Reserve (TCR)
The primary reason for reserve declaration was the intensive sand mining
undertaken by locals and outsiders on the riverbanks, which threatened the
safety of the village, as the sand functioned as a barrier when the river flooded. Secondly, the trees around the village
supported numerous resident and migrant birds including Asian Openbill Anastomus oscitans, Black-headed Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus and cormorants Phalacrocorax spp. that nest in large numbers. Only local communities cited the former reason whereas the latter, which was instrumental in its declaration as a Conservation
Reserve, was stated by all the stakeholders. A retired Supreme Court Judge, a
resident of the village was stated to have played a pivotal role in the area’s
declaration as a Conservation Reserve. A local respondent stated that the Judge and the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests aided in reserve declaration, while the respondent
contributed by providing a checklist of avifauna.
Although, initiatives of tree planting to prevent soil erosion began in
1996, it became successful only after 1999 with financial assistance from the
Judge and the provision of saplings by the FD. Post reserve declaration, another
planting initiative was taken up, which was managed by two staff from the local
community employed by the FD, who also monitored the reserve and guided
tourists. Except for small
quantities for use by the local community, sand mining was subsequently
discontinued. Respondents from the local community stated that they contributed
to reserve management by not hunting birds, initiating fires or using
firecrackers, and disallowed outsiders from such activities. A respondent from the FD also supported
this statement, but argued that firecrackers had not reduced and their use
during festivals and special occasions resulted in reduced avian
abundance. The locals were also
involved in rescuing chicks that fell out of nests, which were subsequently rehabilitated
by the FD at the residence of the Judge in the village.
While one individual from the community stated that grazing had stopped
after reserve declaration, the other stated the reverse. A FD respondent mentioned that grazing
was the biggest problem to the reforestation initiative, and that fines were
imposed on livestock owners to reduce it in the reserve limits. Fencing was also initiated especially to
protect freshly planted saplings. De-fencing was undertaken when the plants had grown sufficiently.
A reserve management committee consisting of the local community and FD
was set up. The local respondents
stated that village elders as well as the panchayathead represented the local community in the committee, whose meetings were
conducted at the village temple. Since 2005, there had been two meetings but none in the last five
years. The FD officials stated that
due to a lack of funds there was nothing to be discussed by the committee. The FD had previously provided loans to
the locals through the village forest committee, which was subsequently
discontinued. It was stated that
the judge financially supported numerous initiatives in the reserve including
the provision of basic salaries for the forest watcher who was not on the
permanent payroll of the FD until recently.
Local respondents felt that getting the village declaredas a Conservation Reserve had been largely beneficial for them, as tourism had
improved their local economy and brought recognition to their small
village. To help tourists, a small
guesthouse, financially supported by the judge was also constructed. More such amenities, like watchtowers
and benches in the temple premises, have been proposed to be
built, when funds are available.
Researchers helped document the biodiversity and formulate the Reserve
Management Plan. They are currently
involved in assessing bird diversity, in conservation education and in bat
surveys with the participation of local children.
Current and future challenges
The challenges commonly faced at all the three reserves were the lack of
appropriate interaction between the local communities and FD, absence of a
follow up to management plans, consequential arguments among stakeholders on
the lack of their execution and unstable revenue. A local respondent from ACR mentioned
that there was an increase in tourists from urban areas whichwas a menace to them.
Specifically, the respondents stated that politicians disturbed the
functioning of KCR, which was referred to as a “paper park”. In this reserve, no scientific
mechanisms existed for the sustainable utilization of natural resources that it
allowed for. There was a lack of facilitators to solve issues within and among
stakeholders. Garbage was disposed
off within the reserve boundaries and one of the respondents stated “the local
communities lack awareness about the cons of such disposal”.
Suggestions for setting up similar reserves
Respondents stated that facilitators should know the landscape,
concerned local communities and the FD well, and maintain a good relationship
with stakeholders. Before reserve
declaration, relevant stakeholders need to be identified. Avenues for capacity building for local
communities and their organizations (panchayat) need
to be opened, and empowered through the provision of opportunities. Opportunities and incentives (like
ecotourism, value addition of NTFPs) need to be created for local communities to
participate in the management. Local communities cannot always be expected to
participate in an initiative which may not give them
any benefits. The members of the
reserve committee should also have access to a regular source of income. Political involvement in the reserve
should be kept to a minimum, and for declaring such a reserve the government
could be approached with a motivated and mobilized citizen group.
As a researcher pointed out “factors like threat index, ecological and
corridor values may not be relevant to the common man living inside the
reserve”. Since the priority of stakeholders differed, one needed to approach
each of them differently, not only through an ecological rationale, but a
socio-economic one as well. A
respondent from KCR suggested that such reserves in general should not be
declared if they were to be inactive, reduced to “paper parks” and being a
financial burden on the government.
Discussion
Care needs to be exercised while extrapolating the results of this study
to other Community Reserves and Conservation Reserves in India, given that this
study only deals with a few such reserves in southern India and involves a
small sample of respondent stakeholders.
In two out of three reserves, there was major support from local communities. There was an absence of dedicated
financial support for these PAs. Protected areas like Community and Conservation Reserves need
continuous, year-round financial support due to their collaborative nature,
which in order to sustain, requires periodical stakeholder-meetings and
monitoring of the initiatives set up. A system of trust funds and ensuring an inflow of money to these funds
from livelihood initiatives like tourism or private donors (McNeely 1994) could
ensure much-needed financial sustainability that these reserves lack. Tourism
initiatives have been proposed at all the three surveyed reserves to engage the
community and generate income for them as well as the reserve. However, this needs to be carefully
assessed since the financial input from tourism varies among PAs and could
support their management only in certain cases (Karanth& DeFries 2011), and also because tourism has
potentially negative environmental and social impacts, which need to be
carefully managed. Promising livelihood
options to local communities needs to be done sensitively. The attitude of local communities
towards KCR could have resulted from such promises not being fulfilled.
Recognition of differences within local communities and among
stakeholder interests, including those within the management committee is
vital. This aids in local
involvement in management and conflict resolution to effectively manage PAs
(McNeely 1994; Agrawal & Gibson 1999). At TCR for example, the perceived goal
for reserve creation was not entirely consistent among all stakeholders.
Political differences have affected the formation and functioning of the
reserve management committee at KCR where such differences surfaced when the
committee was to be formed and, continued thereafter. If the local panchayatsare to be a part of reserve management, the tenure of such stakeholders in the
committee should be set accordingly. In the case where two or more panchayats are
involved, adequate representation must be allocated based on the extent of the
reserve within the respective panchayats. Also, monitoring the management
committees’ functionality would need to be a part of the protocol since its
formation.
The reserve management committee has the freedom of creating the
management plan with the help of its committee members. This, however, calls for developing
protocols for stakeholder interactions, which would aid in the efficient
implementation and management of committee plans. Multi-stakeholder management committees
enable initiation of such interaction, yet the productivity and sustainability
of the same depends on stakeholder interest and incentives. While collaborative management within
other PAs (national parks and sanctuaries) may not exist officially there have
been initiatives in this regard, based on stakeholder interest and trust. At PeriyarTiger Reserve in Kerala, for example, reserve officials have worked with the
villagers to develop employment opportunities through community-managed
ecotourism (Lockwood et al. 2006). Villagers have also voluntarily taken up patrolling the reserve,
managing tourist inflow and using traditional skills and systems to manage
various initiatives. Reserve
officials have considered integrating villagers into reserve management.
Consistency in interactions prior and subsequent to the formation of the
committee also needs to be considered and monitored. Effective governance of forest resources
is also based on frequent stakeholder interaction, which aids in building trust
among them (Singh & Pandey 2010).
Effective resource governance is also based on
formulating rules, monitoring and enforcement by local communities (Singh & Pandey 2010). A Joint Forest Management initiative in
the Deulgaon community, Maharashtra State, India,
involved management norms formed by the locals, which led to improved
monitoring. Norms like resource
extraction limits and prohibition were complied with, as the governance was
based on strict monetary sanctions and the penalties were
decided by the executive committee (Ghate& Nagendra 2005).
Conclusion
The Western Ghats-Sri Lanka Hotspot is the most densely populated
biodiversity hotspot (Cincotta et al. 2000) in the
world with the presence of numerous forest-dwelling communities, and, Community
Reserves and Conservation Reserves provide opportunities to promote effective
conservation by including local communities in PA management rather than
excluding them. This may avoid
exhausting scarce financial resources through expensive resettlement programmes
and the creation of conservation refugees in the process, and could help
rectify the negative effects that PAs have had on local communities (Mulongoy & Chape 2004). The multi-stakeholder component of
reserve management needs to be monitored, interactions
between stakeholders maintained and their livelihoods supported in accordance
with the management plans. The most
critical challenge remains financial sustainability, which must be ensured for
such reserves to be functional.
References
Aarif, K.M., P.K. Prasadan & S. Babu (2011). Conservation
significance of the Kadalundi-Vallikkunnu community
reserve. Current Science 101(6): 717–718.
Agrawal, A. & C. Gibson (1999). Enchantment and
disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4): 629–649.
Agrawal, A. & J.C. Ribot(1999). Accountability in decentralization: a
framework with South Asian and West African cases. Journal
of Developing Areas 33: 473–502.
Brockington, D., J. Igoe & K. Scnhmidt-Soltau (2006). Conservation, human rights, and poverty reduction. Conservation
Biology 20: 250–252; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00335.x
Chitharanjan (2011). Kadalundi reserve all set to lure nature lovers. The Times of
India.http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-06/kozhikode/30118701_1_migratory-birds-kadalundi-bird-sanctuary
(accessed 15 February 2013).
Cincotta, R.P., J. Wisnewski & R. Engelman(2000). Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature404: 990–992.
Dandekar, P. (2011). Novel
Conservation reserves on Kali, Bedthi and Aghanashini in the Western Ghats. South
Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People, Delhi. http://sandrp.in/rivers/Novel_Conservation_reserves_on_Kali_Bedthi_and_Aghanashini_in_the_Western_Ghats.pdf/view?searchterm=Novel%20Conservation%20reserves%20on%20Kali,%20Bedthi%20and%20Aghanashini%20in%20the%20Western%20Ghats
(accessed 9th January 2013).
DFWP, Punjab (Department of Forests & Wildlife Preservation, Punjab)
(2010). Wildlife Protected Areas. DFWP, Punjab. Available from http://www.pbforests.gov.in/Pdfs/statistics/6%20Wildlife%20Protected%20Areas.pdf
(accessed 17 February 2013).
Ghate, R. & H. Nagendra (2005). Role of monitoring in institutional
performance: forest management in Maharashtra, India. Conservation
and Society 3(2): 509–532.
Kanagavel, A., S. Joseph, R. Pandya & R. Raghavan (2013). Potential
for Community and Conservation Reserves in the Western Ghats, India. Asian
Journal of Conservation Biology 2(1): 61–68.
Karanth, K.K. & R. DeFries (2011). Nature-based tourism in Indian protected areas:
New challenges in park management. Conservation Letters 4(2): 137-149; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00154.x
Kumara, H.N.
(2011). Declaration of “Aghanashini Lion-tailed
Macaque Conservation Reserve”. Zoo’s Print 26(7): 5.
Kumara, H.N., V.M. Raj &
K. Santhosh (2008). Assessment of important
wildlife habitat in Sirsi-Honnavara Foert Divisions. Karnataka: with
special emphasis on estimation of Lion-tailed Macaque (Macaca silenus) population. Technical Report 1,
Submitted to Karnataka Forest Department, Sirsi.
Lasgorceix, A. & A. Kothari (2009). Displacement and Relocation of Protected Areas:A Synthesis and Analysis of
Case Studies. Economic & Political Weekly xliv: 38–47.
Lockwood, M., G. Worboys& A. Kothari (2006). Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide. USA
& UK: Earthscan Publishing.
Madhusudan, M.D. & T.R.S. Raman (2003). Conservation as if Biological Diversity Matters: Preservation versus
Sustainable Use in India. Conservation and Society 1: 49-59.
McNeely, J.A. (1994). Protected areas for the
21st century: working to provide benefits to society. Biodiversity and
Conservation 3(5): 390–405; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00057797
MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Government of India) (2010a). The Wildlife Amendment (Protection) Act 2006. MoEF, New Delhi. Available from
http://www.fra.org.in/laws/wlact2.pdf (accessed 18 February 2013).
MoEF (2010b). State/Union Territory Minor Forest Produce (Ownership
of Forest Dependent Community) Act, 2005. MoEF,
New Delhi. Available from
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/rules-and-regulations/ownership_forest2005.pdf
(accessed 18 February 2013).
MoEF (2010c). The Wildlife Amendment (Protection) Act 2002. MoEF, New Delhi. Available from
http://www.envfor.nic.in/legis/wildlife/wild_act_02.htm (accessed 18 February
2013).
Mulongoy, K.J. & S. Chape(2004). Protected areas and
biodiversity. An Overview of Key Issues. CBD Secretariat and UNEP-WCMC, Montreal, Canada and
Cambridge, UK, 52pp.
Nair, R.M. (2007). Kadalundi-Vallikunnu community
reserve rich in flora, fauna.http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/17/stories/2007101753200500.htm (accessed 9 January 2013).
Pathak, N., T. Balasinorwala, A. Kothari & B.R. Bushley (2006). People in Conservation, Community Conserved Areas in India. Kalpavriksh, Pune,
India, 12pp.
Protected Area Update (2008). Conflict between panchayats over
management of Kadalundi Community Reserve. Protected
Area Update 76: 10.
Rajan, A. & E. Abraham (2007). Coir
fiber-process and opportunities. Journal of Natural
Fibers 3(4): 29–41.
Remani, K.N., E. Nirmala & S.R. Nair (1989). Pollution
due to coir retting and its effect on estuarine flora and fauna. International
Journal of Environmental Studies 32(4): 285–295; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207238908710469
Ribot, J.C. (2004). Waiting for Democracy: The Politics of
Choice in Natural Resource Decentralization. World
Resources Institute, Washington DC, 140pp.
Singh, V.S. & D.N. Pandey(2010). What Makes Joint Forest Management
Successful? Science-Based Policy Lessons on Sustainable Governance of Forests
in India. RSPCB Occasional Paper No. 3/2010, Jaipur: RajastanState Pollution Control Board, 40pp.
TFD (TamilNaduForest Department) (2007). Tiruppadaimarathur Conservation
Reserve. TFD, tamilNadu. Available from
http://www.forests.tn.nic.in/wildbiodiversity/cr_tcr.html (accessed 9 January
2013).
The
Hindu (2005). Conservation reserve planned in Tirunelvelivillage. http://www.hindu.com/2005/05/16/stories/2005051603910500.htm
(accessed 9 January 2013).
The
Hindu (2007). Estuary Declared Community Reserve. The Hindu http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/19/stories/2007101952950300.htm(accessed 9 January 2013).
The
Hindu (2009a). Panel’s assurance to people on project.http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/article372318.ece?css= print (accessed 9 January 2013).
The
Hindu (2009b). Kadalundi representative chosen to head panel.http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/05/stories/2009010551210300.htm (accessed 9 January 2013).
The
Hindu (2009c). Central Funds for community reserve.http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/29/stories/2009042952830300.htm (accessed 9 January 2013).
The
Times of India (2010). Wildlife board Okays community conservation reserves. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Wildlife-board-okays-community-
conservation-reserves/articleshow/6295489.cms -
ixzz0wShi0voo (accessed 9
January 2013).
The
Times of India (2011). Roadblock to Kadalundi development.http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-21/kochi/30425360_1_kadalundi-management-plan-plan-approval
(accessed 9 January 2013).
Wani, M. & A. Kothari (2007). Protected areas and human rights in India: the impact of the official
conservation model on local communities. Policy Matters15: 100–114.
WII (Wildlife Institute of India) (2010a). Conservation Reserves.
WII, Dehradun. Available from http://oldwww.wii.gov.in/nwdc/cr.htm (accessed April
2010).
WII (Wildlife Institute of India) (2010b). Community Reserves. WII, Dehradun. Available from
http://oldwww.wii.gov.in/nwdc/community_reserves.htm (accessed April 2010).