Can Community Forestry Conserve Tigers in India? Shibi Chandy David L. Euler Abstract—Active participation of local people through community (Ontario Ministry for Natural Resources 1994). In most forestry has been successful in several developed countries. In the developing countries, like India, the socio-economic prob- early 1980’s, developing countries tried to adopt this approach for lems will have to be addressed first to achieve the objectives the conservation and management of forests. Nepal, for example, of conservation (Kuchli 1997). has gained considerable support from local people by involving them Royal Bengal Tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) (fig. 1) are in conservation policies and actions. This paper illustrates that endangered and almost on the verge of extinction. Conser- people living near the Sundarbans Tiger Reserve/National Park in vation of these animals in Asia poses serious problems, as India should not be considered mere gatherers of forest products. their population has been reduced significantly due to They can also be active managers and use forest resources hunting, poaching, and habitat shrinkage. Reserves and sustainably, which will help in the conservation of tigers. parks have been established to protect the animals and separate people from the forests. This, however, has caused Conservation of tigers in Asia, especially in India, is a major concern. The Sundarbans offers a unique habitat for tigers, but the conservation strategies followed for the past 20 years have not yielded much result. One of the major reasons is that local people and their needs were ignored. Lack of concern for the poverty/forest interface, which takes a heavy toll on human lives, is another reason for failure. Tigers are the keystone species in this region, and it is necessary to preserve the whole ecosystem to maintain tigers. Humans are an integral part of the Sundarbans landscape, and as such, their needs also must be considered. Better socio-economic conditions, through income gen- eration from the forest, can focus conservation beyond the protected area boundary. Community forestry can help local people meet their needs while conserving the forest; this, in turn, will benefit tigers by maintaining the ecosys- tem in which they live. The purpose of this paper is to recommend the application of principles of community forestry to the conservation of tigers in the Sundarbans Tiger Reserve/National Park. In developed countries, like Canada, community forestry is recognized as power sharing between local communities and the government. Experiences from community forestry in British Columbia (Allan and Frank 1994) and four com- munity forest pilot projects in Ontario, suggest that a greater degree of public participation in decisionmaking helps in the process of community development. For commu- nity forestry to work and establish itself, principles like employment, economic stability, and the community’s inter- est in decisionmaking and planning are of vital importance In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., comps. 2000. Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilder- ness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II; 1998 October 24–29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Shibi Chandy is Graduate Student, and David L. Euler is Dean of Forestry, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, Canada, e-mail: [email protected], and [email protected]. Figure 1—The Royal Bengal Tiger of the Sundarbans (picture courtesy of the Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta). USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 155 resentment among the people living nearby. When parks Community forestry has been well known and widely and reserves are created by the government to protect accepted in India since the late 1930’s when cooperative endangered species, local inhabitants are not involved in forestry management was introduced in Bastar, Madhya decisionmaking or resource sharing. Almost overnight, Pradesh. Dense population resulted in excessive cutting of use of the forest resources becomes the greatest threat to trees. Uncontrolled use of firewoods and unrestricted graz- wildlife (Seidensticker 1997). The conflict that ensues may ing also took a heavy toll on the forests in the region. not solve the problem of tiger conservation because it does Fortunately, the local people and the administration recog- not consider the help of local people, nor does it try to educate nized, in time, the gravity of the situation and devised a the people. Instead of being part of the solution, local people simple working solution. They decided to entrust actual become part of the problem. management of the forests to committees either elected or In the early 1970’s, the World Bank and other aid agen- appointed by the people. The project allowed the local people cies realized that 40 percent of the rural population in to take their requirements of firewood, bamboo, grass for developing countries lived below the poverty line, and that grazing, and minor forest products from the protected forest there was a need for “people’s participation” in rural devel- area, but they were not given any proprietary rights over the opment. It was recognized that any development must forests. Community forestry in the Bastar region has had a consider the economic and social conditions of the rural far reaching consequence on the nature of forestry policies in people themselves as essential. This new approach drew India, particularly in recognizing the importance of the attention to the “dependence” of rural people on forests and local people on issues directly connected with their daily on forest products and their importance in the forest commu- livelihood—problems related to population pressure, nity (Tarnowski 1995). overgrazing, agricultural land, and firewood collection Community forestry has been defined and named accord- (Anderson and Huber 1988). ing to the context and country in which it is practiced. The most well-known community forestry program in Following a World Conference on Agrarian Reform and India was launched by the Community Forestry Wing of the Rural Development in 1979, programs were launched in Gujarat State Government in the 1970’s. The program developed countries like Canada and in underdeveloped involved 3,500 village woodlot projects, each on the common countries like India, Nepal, and Thailand, under different land of a village panchayat (the local self-governing body names such as “social forestry,” “forestry for local commu- at the village level). Each of the lots (about 5 ha) were given nity development,” or “community forestry.” As defined by out to the villagers for fuelwood and fodder production for the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Na- a period of 4 years. The Gujarat government provided tions (FAO) in 1978, “community forestry” involves: management assistance, seedlings, and machinery; the …local people in a forestry activity. It embraces a panchayat provided labor and plant protection. At harvest, spectrum of situations, ranging from woodlots in areas the government deducted the costs incurred and gave the which are short of wood and other forest products for local rest of the produce to the panchayat to be redistributed to needs, through the growing of trees at the farm level to individual villagers. Although this project began as a state- provide cash crops and the processing of forest products at sponsored project in 1979, the World Bank funded the the household, artisan or small industry level to generate income, to the activities of forest dwelling communities. project from outside and helped it make “tremendous strides” (Blair and Olpadwala 1988). Community forestry is intended to provide rural families At an FAO workshop held in Dehra Dun, India, in 1977, with certain basic needs from nearby forests on which they participants from countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, depend for their livelihoods. For a successful implementa- Nepal, Pakistan, and India, recognized how important it tion of this goal, programs in community forestry must was to involve rural people in planning the development of ensure participation of rural people in the conservation of forest lands and forest industries in less developed coun- forests, wildlife, and forest resources. tries. The success of forestry development programs de- pends on the extent to which people adjacent to the forest Community Forestry in Southeast areas are made participants in decisionmaking. A good example was provided by India, which, through its “Social Asia and India __________________ Forestry” or “Forestry for the People” program, success- fully involved local people in forestry plantations that The potential of community forestry was perceived by were planned to provide support to agricultural activities developing countries in the 1970’s and 1980’s as a method to such as windbelts and shelterbelts around farmlands, rejuvenate degraded forests (Blair and Olpadwala 1988; small timber for fencing, and small cottage industries (FAO Tarnowski 1995). Nepal is a leader in the demonstration of 1977). conservation ecology through community forestry. The The Indian National Forest Policy of 1952 emphasized Royal Chitwan Park in Nepal, a habitat for tigers and “the need for a sustained supply of timber and other forest rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), was endangered