Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1183 Categorie S of Pas Lies with the Stat E Forest Departmen T (FD)
1801 Democratizing Forest Governance in India
Wildlife Institute of India (WII). 1995. 'Survey of the Potential Sites for Reintroductio n of Asiatic Lions'. Dehradun : Wildlife Institut e of India . Williams, M. 2003. Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis. Chicago : University of Chicag o Press . 5 Willis, K.J., L. Gilson, and T.M. Brncic, 2004 . ' H o w " V i r g i n" is Virgin Rainforest? ' Science, 304 (5669) : 402-3 . NEEMA PATHAK BROOME SHIBA DESOR ASHISH KOTHARI ARSHIYA BOSE
Changin g Paradigm s in Wildlife Conservatio n in India
Background
ntil ver y recently , the dominan t conservatio n paradig m in Indi a has Ubeen a 'fortress ' approac h (Brockingto n 2002 ) focuse d on the estab - lishmen t of a networ k of wildlife reserve s emphasizin g la w enforcemen t throug h 'fences and fines' (Gadgil and Guh a 1993). Althoug h th e history of competin g claim s over forest common s may be as old as the history nl conservation itself, these contestation s were heightened after the
i icatio n of state-governe d Protected Areas (PAs), a term which gained legal standing and prominenc e after the promulgatio n of the Wildlife Protectio n Ac t ( W L P A) in 1972 (Saberwa l et al. 2001) . Thi s A c t (hereafter idare d to as the WLPA 1972), an d subsequen t amendment s in 200 2 and .'Olid, allowe d fo r the establishmen t of PAs o f variou s categorie s such as N.ttional Park, Wildlife Sanctuary, Conservatio n Reserve , Communit y Hrscrve , and Tige r Reserve . Although , contro l o f acces s and use in thes e categorie s varies, with National Parks and Tiger Reserves being the mos t strictly restricted , the majorit y of decision-makin g powe r across all 1821 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1183 categorie s of PAs lies with the stat e forest departmen t (FD). The under- 2012) , has reveale d that whil e globally , PA c o v e r a g e has gone up in bot h lying assumptio n behind strict PAs was that human use is necessaril y number s and sprea d in the last two decades, bringing unde r them 13 detrimenta l to biodiversity/wildlife. However , it can be argued that the per cent of the world's land area, global biodiversit y has declined at rational e to maintain fortress PAs wa s as political as it was scientific , a population , species , ecosystem, and possibly geneti c levels. Th e verte- form of enclosur e and impose d land-use based on a notio n of what is brat e population s are reported to have declined by as much as 30 per desirabl e by a certai n section of society, particularl y thos e who are not cent since the 1970s. The report goes on to say tha t 51 per cent of the directl y affecte d by such enclosure s (Saberwa l et al. 2001) . sites identifie d b y the Alliance for Zer o Extinction as critically importan t The social costs of PAs are well documente d across the world and lor some endangere d species and 49 per cent of Importan t Bird Areas in India too, PAs hav e had severe consequence s for communitie s resi- i IBAs) are still outsid e PA coverage . The report acknowledge s that not den t in and dependen t on forests and other natural resources (Adams .ill PAs hav e led t o an increas e in biodiversit y an d tha t not all specie s may et al. 2004 ; Brockingto n et al. 2006; Ghimire et al. 1997; Saberwa l et al. requir e conventiona l PAs fo r protection . 2001) . Studie s sugges t tha t ther e are thre e to four million people living It is increasingl y b e i n g argue d tha t local stewardshi p for conservatio n insid e PAs, and severa l million more around these , with livelihood s an d canno t be buil t i f conservatio n paradigm s do not addres s the social costs culture s that are related to the forests and other ecosystems in thes e of conservatio n or take into accoun t traditiona l indigenou s knowledg e (Kothari et al. 1995). Many of them have faced physica l displacement , and commo n propert y managemen t practised by local communitie s for or negative social and economi c impact s through the loss of access to i he pas t millennia. There is no w a growin g bod y of knowledg e about resource s (Lasgorceix and Kothari 2009). The economic, social, and and political movement s in suppor t of what are globall y calle d the ter- political rights of local communitie s within PAs have been undermined , ritorie s and area s conserve d by indigenou s people s and local communi - usuall y withou t consultation , consent, and the provision of adequat e iics. These are finding space within the Indian conservatio n discourse alternative s (Wani and Kothari 2007). In a country with widespread .is Communit y Conserve d Areas (CCAs).1 Numerous examples exist hunge r and poverty , political marginalization , an d overal l poo r human- In India where forests, wildlife, and biodiversit y are being conserved developmen t indices, the legitimac y o f exclusionar y PAs as the primar y by people based on their socio-cultura l and livelihood relations and strateg y of wildlife conservatio n has been strongly questione d by civil dependenc e on the forests around them (Pathak 2009). In the Ranpur societ y and grassroot s social movement s (Brechin et al. 2002 ; Wani and block nea r Bhubaneshwar , Odisha, 180 village s (man y of them adivasi Kothari 2007). settlements ) have conserve d forests for severa l decades , and have come The conservatio n effectivenes s of exclusionar y PAs and policies is togethe r to form a federation . This is to enable combinin g thei r forest also a highly debate d issue. While PAs have been successful to some conservatio n initiative s at a landscap e level, to minimizing conflicts, and exten t in protectin g ecosystem s and species, they have also adversely to providin g a unified organization . Severa l hundre d Van Panchayat s in impacte d environmenta l stewardshi p at a local level as well as the eco- I l i t a r a k h a n d have conserve d forests for severa l decades , under stat e leg- logical securit y of wildlife. In man y PAs i n India , ther e are strong local islation. In Nagaland , the Khonom a Tragopa n and Wildlife Sanctuary constituencie s against conservatio n where people have been compelle d sprea d over 2,000 hectare s (ha), is an exampl e where through decision - to engag e in activitie s detrimenta l to wildlife, either directly through makin g by communities , huntin g and resourc e extractio n is completel y extractio n or indirectl y throug h lack of active suppor t for PA manage - prohibited ; in anothe r 50 sq. km or so, very minimal resource use for ment . The ecologica l integrit y of island PAs and endangere d species In mie-us e only is allowed . In the nearby Sendeny u village, too, residents continue s to remai n in doub t if conservatio n efforts do not also addres s huve establishe d a Biodiversity Reserv e with a complet e ban on huntin g ecosyste m conservatio n at a landscap e level, especially the rapid eco- and destructiv e resource extraction . Such efforts have historicall y bee n logical degradatio n outside PAs due to 'development ' activities and Ignore d in conservatio n policies and continue to find compromise d intens e human use. The Global Environmen t Outloo k 5 repor t (UNHP spaces , if at all, withi n conservatio n legislatio n eve n today. 1841 Democratizing Forest Governance- in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1185
This chapter attempt s to gain an understandin g of the extent to shift towards more inclusionar y policie s was in order (Kothari et al. which the idea of democratizin g wildlife conservation has actually 1996) . progresse d in Indi a legall y an d i n practice , and the challenge s tha t hin- Amongs t the first shifts toward s such inclusionar y policie s wa s the der this progression . We focus o n three importan t new provision s tha t Fores t Policy of Indi a in 1988, which prioritize d ecologica l an d social could potentially lead to democratizatio n of conservation , namely, I unction s over commercia l ones, and led to schemes such as ecode- Critical Tige r Habitat s (CTHs) unde r WLPA 2006; and Critical Wildlife velopmen t (includin g th e World Bank funde d India Ecodevelopmen t Habitat s (CWHs) and Communit y Forest Rights (CFRs) under the Project ) on PAs an d the Join t Forest Managemen t (JFM) schem e on
Schedule d Tribes and Other Traditiona l Forest-Dweller s (Recognitio n i he rest of the forested landscape. However , becaus e thes e schemes of Forest Rights ) Act, 2006 (hereafte r the Forest Right s A c t o r FRA). The Licked the necessary legal foothol d and democrati c vision, and their chapte r attempt s to explor e answer s to the following questions: unplementer s lacked the intention to relinquish power, they did not fully addres s many critical issues such as tenur e security, access 1. To wha t extent do new legislativ e provision s suppor t possibilitie s o f ,ii ul rights to resources , and communit y rights to decision-making . democratizin g and diversifying PA governanc e in India, in particu - < )n the contrary, the implementatio n of thes e schemes has largely lar, recognizin g an d vestin g access and ownershi p rights to relevant mean t constitution of local committees to implement activities rights-holder s and stakeholders ; providing possibilitie s o f inclusiv e predetermine d by the state, through funds provided by the FD decision-makin g processes , and creatin g avenue s for the co-existenc e |1 las 2007). Till very recently, thes e were the only legal and policy of humans and wildlife within PAs? Ho w is the actual implementa - space s availabl e to the local communitie s to voice their concern s in tion of thes e provision s playin g ou t on the ground? biodiversit y management . These schemes have come under criti- 2. What are the wider challenge s that need to be tackled whil e imple - Clim on a numbe r of grounds , including tha t the committee s were mentin g these, which have and would hamper their progression (•lien undemocraticall y constitute d and suffered from elite capture, toward s realizin g tru e transformatio n on the ground? Hid also undermine d institution s and initiative s set up by comrau- Admittedly , legal provision s are necessar y but not sufficien t to ensur e nltle s themselves (Shahabuddin 2010). Meanwhile the Panchayat democrati c practice s in conservation , as numerou s social and political (Pxtensio n to Schedule d Areas) Act, 1996 was passed. The Central factor s also com e into play. But we have limited the scope of this chap- A11 provided for the extension of the panchayat local governance ter to the newly emergin g legal space s to provide a windo w into the •ysicm to 'scheduled ' areas , with predominantl y tribal populations . progres s towards democrati c conservatio n in India . Ii oquired stat e laws to be made 'in consonanc e with the custom- |ry law, social and religious practice s and traditiona l management pi .ut ices of communit y resources' . Gram sabha s were considered Emergence of Democratic Spaces in i 'impoten t to protec t communit y resources . They were expected to Laws and Policies in India Approve developmen t plans and project s at the village level. This Ac t Was, however , much diluted in stat e adaptation s and limited rights In India durin g the 1980s, question s about exclusionar y conservatio n Writ- eventuall y grante d to the communitie s concerned , thus result- policies becam e a mor e visible and vigorou s par t of publi c debate . The iii); in muc h less devolutio n and fewer benefits to local communitie s mobilizatio n of forest-dependen t communities through grassroots «• compare d to their expectation s (Vagholikar and Bhushan 2000). social movements , and advocac y by associate d social and environme n Tills once again reflected a lack of willingnes s of the state and its tal activists , researchers , intellectuals, and other s brough t issues about Inn. nonarie s to relinquis h power . the social impacts of conservatio n to the forefront of environment.i l The decade of 2000 saw further mobilization , includin g protest s debate . Wha t followed in the next two decade s was a highl y polarize d I advocac y in the wake of a directive by the Union Ministry of discussio n abou t the existin g fortres s approac h and whethe r a paradig m 1861 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1187
Environmen t and Forest s (MoEF) to evict forest-dwellin g communities , peopl e workin g o n PA issues , and include d abou t 200 representative s of viewed by the MoEF as 'encroachers'. 2 In the policy arena, a number indigenou s people s and other local communities . The presence of the of interestin g change s took place. Recommendation s for collaborativ e latte r was instrumenta l in the WP C i n bringin g abou t the muc h sought managemen t of PAs wer e containe d in th e National Wildlife Action Plan paradig m shift represente d by the trend s mentione d earlier. This was (NWAP) 2002, the draft Nationa l Biodiversity Strateg y and Action Plan furthe r pushed by a numbe r of civil society representatives . Elements (NBSAP) 2004, and the Nationa l Environmen t Policy (NEP). However , of new conservatio n paradigm s endorse d by the WP C wer e include d i n the NWAP and the NEP are still at the policy level, with implementa - each of its key outputs : the Durba n Accord, the Durba n Plan of Action, tion yet to begin , and the submitte d draft of NBSAP in 2004 was not the Message to the CBD3 and recommendation s on Good Governanc e accepte d by the government , which came up with a muc h mor e dilute d of PAs, Diversity of Governanc e Types of PAs, Indigenou s Peoples and versio n of its ow n (TPCG and Kalpavriksh 2005). Th e more significan t PAs, Co-managemen t of PAs, CCAs, Mobile Indigenous Peoples and of legislativ e change s was the promulgatio n of FRA in 2006 . To a lesser Conservation , and Poverty and PAs. The Convention on Biological extent , but nevertheles s important, the WLPA 1972 was amended in Diversity (CBD) Conferenc e of Parties (CoP) 7 in 2004, heavily influ- 2006 with the inclusion of a sectio n on tige r reserves . Provision s o f CFRs ence d by WP C outcome s and civil society organization s (CSOs) and and CWHs within the FRA, and CTH within the WLPA 2006 include d Indigenou s Peoples networks mentioned above, adopted a compre- aspect s with potential for greate r participatio n and consultation in hensiv e Programm e of Work on PAs (PoWPA), which included clear par t of the formal conservatio n landscape . Before both of these , the goal s and actions for movin g toward s new governanc e models for PAs, and improvin g participation , equit y and benefit-sharing . A subsequen t Biological Diversity Act, 2002 offere d some possibilitie s o f participatio n (2008 ) revie w of PoWPA by the CBD Secretaria t however showe d tha t throug h village-level institution s both inside and outside PAs, thoug h progres s on thes e aspect s was highl y dissatisfactory . ther e was little in it to overrid e the alienatin g provision s of the WLPA 1972 and other forest legislations. It focused more on documentin g This brings to the fore a global trend, namely the reluctance of local traditiona l knowledg e than actually empowerin g the knowledge - stat e to relinquish their own power and devolve it to other rights- holder s and ensurin g their continue d access to the concerne d elements holder s and stakeholders . The reason s cited by the signatory states , of biodiversit y (Patha k Broom e et al. 2012) . including India, for lack of implementatio n included lack of capac- ity. Consequently , since 2010, a group of agencies including IUCN, Deutsch e Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Global Discourse on Democratizing Conservation (ImbH, the ICCA Consortium , an d the CBD Secretaria t have compile d Laws and Practice and publishe d a resource kit to help signatory countries implement governanc e reforms in PAs more effectively and locate them within The democratizatio n of conservatio n laws and practice have been the internationall y accepted principles of good governanc e (Borrini- discusse d internationall y for a few decades, but their acceptance at Iryeraben d et al. 2013) . global conservatio n forums has been more apparen t since 2003. The Internationa l Union for Conservatio n of Nature (IUCN) World Parks Congres s (WPC) at Durban, 2003, and the Seventh Conference of Primary Values for Democratizing Partie s of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP7), .it Conservation in the Global Context Kuala Lumpur , 2004 , have bee n two majo r internationa l event s to brin g thes e trend s int o greate r focus. The above-mentione d local an d globa l processe s have led to the concep- At the WPC, ove r 3,000 conservatio n practitioners , policymakers , t ualizatio n of element s tha t woul d be crucial for the democratizatio n of and others , gathere d for wha t till then was the largest ever gatherin g ol conservatio n globall y an d within India, including: 1881 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1189
1. That territoria l and resource rights of indigenou s people s and other 5. That instea d of bein g immutable , the institution s and rule s governin g local communitie s tha t have traditionall y lived in or used natural PAs must be dynami c and adaptiv e in respons e to existin g challenge s ecosystems , need to be respecte d in conservatio n policie s an d prac- and change . Such adaptiv e governanc e should be cautiou s and well- tice, and tha t the costs and benefit s of conservatio n need to be much informed , and nested within a larger vision, develope d collectively mor e equitabl y distributed . by all rights-holder s and stakeholders . 2. That governanc e of PAs need s to be distinguishe d from manage- 6. That diversifie d governanc e of PAs itself is not enough to achieve men t of PAs. T h e effectivenes s of PAs doe s not merely depend on democrati c and effectiv e PAs. Equally importan t are the processe s by wha t decision s are taken but also on how the decisions are taken, who which democrati c institution s are set up, thos e involved in decision - takes them and what processes and information systems are followed to take makin g processe s are chosen, the processes by which decision s are these decisions. PA governanc e is define d as 'the interaction s among made , the processe s and knowledge-bas e which is used to set goals, structures , processes and tradition s tha t determin e how power and the fairnes s with which institution s function , and ho w effective , trans- responsibilitie s are exercised , how decision s are taken and how citi- parent , accountable , and well informe d the concerned institutions , zens or other stakeholder s have their say' (Borrini-Feyeraben d et al. system s and processes are. The answers to these questions would 2013) . help determin e the quality of PA governance. Legal and institutiona l 3. That ther e is not only one kind of governanc e of PAs (by govern- change s related to governanc e of PAs alon e will not lead to desired ments) , but several kinds; in particular , collaborativel y or jointly result s till the actual implementatio n on the ground is monitore d manage d ones, and tha t local communitie s and indigenou s peoples for the quality of governance usin g principle s o f goo d governanc e and themselve s can and are conservin g site s and specie s across the world. parameter s of effective management . The governanc e quality of a While governanc e regimes for PAs var y greatly around the world, PA, or of a PA system , can be evaluate d against a numbe r of broad IUCN and the CBD PoWPA distinguis h fou r broa d governanc e types principle s of goo d governanc e that have been develope d by a variet y (Dudle y 2008): of people, nations, and United Nations agencies, including legiti- mac y and voice ; direction ; performance ; accountability ; fairnes s and • Governance by governmen t (at various levels and possibly com- right s (see Box 5.1). bining variou s institutions ) • Governance by various rights-holder s and stakeholder s together (share d governance) Box 5.1 Principles of good governanc e of PAs • Governance by privat e individual s an d organization s
• Governance by indigenou s people s and / o r local communities 4 Legitimac y and voic e
4. It is importan t to note in this context that ther e cannot be a stan- • Legitimacy of a governanc e arrangemen t comes from the establishmen t dard governance arrangement for all PAs. Governanc e models of institutions with a broad acceptanc e and appreciatio n in society ; as are appropriat e only whe n tailored to the specifics of its context much as possibl e attributin g managemen t authority and responsibilit y to and effective in deliverin g lastin g conservatio n results, livelihood the capable institution s closes t to natura l resource s (subsidiarity) ; ensur- benefits , and the respect of rights . Tha t specific ecological , histori - ing tha t all mutuall y agre e rule s are honoured . cal, and political contexts, and the variety of worldviews , values , • Voice i n a governanc e arrangemen t is ensure d by makin g availabl e appro - knowledg e (includingth e local ) and outsid e experts, skills, policies , priat e and sufficient informatio n to all rights-holder s and stakeholders and practice s (including informa l and local) tha t contribut e to con- and ensurin g tha t they have a say in advisin g and/o r making decisions ; seekin g activ e engagemen t of all vulnerabl e groups , such as indigenou s servation , should be reflected in the governanc e regime for each specific PA . (Cont'd) 1901 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1191
peoples , women , youth , and other s in decision-making ; maintainin g an • Evaluating th e performanc e of the PA, of its decision-maker s and of its activ e dialogu e and seekin g consensu s on solution s tha t meet , at least in staff , and linking the quality of results with concrete and appropriat e part , the concerns and interest of everyone ; mutua l respect among all reward s and sanctions . rights-holder s and stakeholders . • Establishing communicatio n avenue s (for example , websites ) where PA performanc e records and report s are accessibl e Directio n • Eincourage performanc e feedback from civil society groups and the • Developing and following a consisten t strategic vision for the PAs and media . conservatio n objective s grounde d on values mutuall y agree d by all rights- • Ensure that one or more independen t public institutio n (for example , holder s and stakeholders ; ensuring that governanc e and management ombudsperson , human rights commission , auditin g agency) has the practic e for PAs are consisten t with the agree d values . authorit y and capacit y to overse e and questio n the actio n o f the protecte d • Ensuring governanc e and managemen t practice for PAs are compatibl e area s governin g bodies . and well-coordinate d w i t h the plans and policie s o f othe r levels an d sec- I'airnes s and rights tors in th e broade r landscape/seascape . • Ensuring governanc e and managemen t practic e are respectfu l of nationa l • Striving toward s an equitabl e sharin g of the costs and benefit s of estab - and internationa l obligation s (includin g CBD PoWPA). lishing and managin g PAs and fairnes s in takin g all relevan t decisions . • Providing clea r policy direction s for the main issue s of concer n for the • Making sure that the livelihood s o f vulnerabl e people are not adversel y PA and, in particular , for contentiou s issues (for example , conserva - affecte d by the PAs; tha t the costs of PAs—especially whe n born e by vul- tion priorities , relationship s with commercia l interests , and extractiv e nerabl e people—d o not go withou t appropriat e compensation . industries) . • Making sure that conservatio n is undertake n with decenc y and dignity , withou t humiliatin g or harmin g people . Performanc e • I )ealin g fairly with PA staff and temporar y employees . • Achieving conservatio n and other objective s as planne d and monitored , • Enforcing laws and regulation s in impartia l ways , consistentl y throug h includin g throug h ongoin g evaluatio n of managemen t effectiveness. time , withou t discriminatio n and with a righ t to appea l (rule of law) . • Being responsiv e to the need s of rights-holders and stakeholder s by pro - • Taking concret e steps to respect substantiv e rights (legal or customary , viding timel y an d effectiv e respons e to inquirie s an d reasonabl e demands collectiv e or individual ) over land , water , and natura l resource s relate d to for change s in governanc e and managemen t practice . I'As, and to redres s pas t violation s o f suc h rights. • Ensuring tha t PA staff , rights-holders, and stakeholders , as appropriate , • Taking concret e step s to respec t procedura l rights on PA issues , includ- hav e the capacities necessar y to assume their managemen t roles and ing: appropriat e information and consultatio n of rights-holder s and responsibilitie s and tha t thos e capacitie s are used effectively . stakeholders ; fair conflict managemen t practices ; and non-discriminator y • Making an efficient use of financial resources and promotin g financial recours e to justice . sustainability . • Respecting huma n rights, including individual and collectiv e rights, and gende r equity Accountabilit y • Ensuring strictl y the free, prior, and informe d consent of indigenou s • Upholding the integrity and commitmen t of all in charge of specific people s for any propose d resettlemen t related to PAs. responsibilitie s for the PAs. • I'nminting the active engagemen t of rights-holder s and stakeholder s in • Ensuring transparency , with rights-holders and stakeholders having lltablishin g and governin g PAs. timely acces s to informatio n about , what is at stake in decision-making ? • Ensuring a clear and appropriat e sharing o f roles for the PAs, as well as '..MII, ,. lijsed on descriptio n of the principle s by Abramsrtai . (2003) : Borrini-Feyeraben d lines o f responsibilit y and reporting/answerability . I ,i( 12006); Eagle s (2009); Graha m etal. (2003); Institut e on Governanc e (2002). • Ensuring tha t the financial and huma n resource s allocate d to manag e the PAs are properl y targete d accordin g to state d objective s and plans . 1921 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1193
Legal Spaces for Democratization of Conservation smalles t (recorded or unrecorded ) hamlet and settlement or mobile communities . It also vest s in the village assembl y of such a settlement in India (with a Focus on PAs) the right to constitute the governance and managemen t committee,
The promulgatio n of legislation s like the FRA 2006 , the WLPA 2006, and ensure s participatio n o f wome n and schedule d tribes (STs) in such and a number of other legal changes mentioned above, and at the committees . internationa l level, processe s within the CBD, have been a conceptua l FRA also has a provisio n fo r creatio n of CWHs within PAs, where turning-poin t in the way that forest- and other ecosystem-dependent the rights of the local communitie s can be partiall y or totally modi- communitie s access and interact with traditionally state-governed fied, if proven to be irreversibly damagin g for wildlife. However, space s like PAs. However , th e complexit y o f implementin g thes e legisla- n o such modificatio n can be carried out without following clearly tion s on the groun d is tha t the process would involve a paradig m shift, laid out steps for doing so in the Act. These include the establish- not only in the process of changin g word s on a piec e of paper but also men t of rights where they have not been established legally, local in the historica l vision, powe r dynamics , and mindse t of variou s actors consultation s with the rights-holder s and stakeholder s and conduct- involved. The big questio n is whethe r or not the Indian stat e would be ing scientific researc h to establish impacts of human activities. The willing to enable the redistributio n of powe r and the building of capac- WLPA 2006 amendmen t (coming jus t two months before the FR A was enacted) , introduces the category of CTHs for exclusiv e protec - ity that is require d to implemen t thes e legal change s in a meaningfu l manner . tion of tigers in additio n to other PA categories . It also supports a participator y proces s for relocatio n and modificatio n o f rights while This section describes the legal provision s within the FRA and creatin g thes e CTHs. WLPA, which have attempted to provide democrati c space s for con- servation , their interface, and the manner in which they are being implemente d on the ground. What is visible today is a mix of situa- Critical Wildlife Habitats and Critical Tiger Habitats tions . While on the one hand, ther e is often reluctance in the FD to implemen t the recent legislation and policy changes, on the other Critical Wildlife Habitat (CWH ) and Critical Tiger Habita t (CTH ) hand , local people, civil society organizations , and conservationist s are, therefore , two similar-soundin g c o n c e p t s introduce d by FRA and advocatin g for participator y forest governanc e do now have some legal WLPA respectively 5 withou t eithe r of the laws makin g a referenc e to provision s in thei r favour. the other. Both are special provision s for conservatio n in PAs , which were introduce d into policy discours e in 2005-6 , mainl y in anticipa - tion of the impacts on conservatio n of wildlife after recognitio n of The Provision s right s under the FRA, which was then being discusse d and debated. However , both the laws explicitly support the recognition of the The FRA a i m s to undo historic injustic e to tribal and non-triba l forest right s proces s before the creatio n of thes e categorie s and also specify resident s and dependen t communitie s in India by establishin g their tha t no relocatio n can take place withou t following a proces s as pre- right s to forest land and resources , includin g w i t h i n PAs. In additio n to scribe d in bot h the laws. These two categorie s are being used as an the establishmen t of rights of ownershi p and use, FRA als o provides exampl e her e as they have emerge d in a perio d wher e recognitio n of for establishmen t and conservatio n of CFRs, hence creating a possi- acces s and rights of local communitie s have received more priority , bility and potentia l for decentralizin g forest governance . As muc h as and hence carry a greate r potentia l for democratizin g PA governanc e possible , it aims to attribute managemen t authority and responsibilit y (see Box 5.2). to the capable institution s closest to natural resources, that is, to the 1941 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 119 5
Community Forest Resource Rights Box 5.2 Similarities and difference s betwee n CWHs and CTHs As mentione d above, the FRA ha s certain provision s tha t entrus t the The provisions for CWHs and CTHs are similar in tha t the y are bot h marke d gra m sabha s (villag e assemblies ) with the rights and responsibilit y for out of PAs; both are define d as area s require d to be kept as inviolat e o n the sustainabl e use of their CFR. The CFRs, protectio n of which is p r o v i d e d basi s of scientifi c an d objectiv e criteria ; bot h requir e evidenc e of irrevers - as a right (under Section 3[1] i), is traditionall y accesse d as customar y ible damag e being caused , of co-existenc e not being possibl e and consent commo n forest land, an d may includ e suc h area s within PAs. The gram of the village assemblie s or gram sabha s befor e making an area inviolat e sabha s are empowere d to creat e mechanism s for the conservatio n of for wildlife. biodiversit y and wildlife, preservatio n of natura l and cultura l heritage , Ther e are a few difference s though: the purpos e of CTHs is tiger con - for ensurin g interna l and externa l factor s do not destro y their com- servatio n wherea s the purpos e of CWHs is wildlife conservatio n i n general , tha t indicatin g a differenc e betwee n a single-species-base d an d biodiversity-base d munit y forests, and for maintenanc e of ecological balanc e (Sectio n 5). approach . As a pre-conditio n fo r relocation , C W Hs mentio n 'free informe d For performin g thes e functions , gram sabha s are to make committee s consent ' of the gram sabha obtained in writing, whereas CTHs require (unde r Rule 4[1] e). As per the preambl e of the Act, thes e provision s 'informe d consent ' only. For right s modification , a pre-conditio n for CWH are for strengthenin g the conservatio n regim e while ensurin g livelihood is recognitio n an d vestin g o f forest rights wherea s for CTHs, the pre-condi * and food securit y for the concerne d community . tion is recognition , determination , and acquisition o f land an d forest rights. Therefore , the CFR provision s could be a powerfu l basis for initi- CWHs from which relocation has taken place, cannot be subsequently atin g processes towards co-existence, co-management , and shared diverte d by the stat e government , central government , or any othe r entity governanc e resulting in a diversit y of PA governanc e categories and for any othe r uses ; thi s is potentiall y the most powerfu l conservatio n provi- othe r forest conservatio n sites , and supportin g equitabl e distributio n o f sion in India n legislation . There is no such restrictio n on a CTH, which is benefit s thus arising . CFRs, throug h Sectio n 5 o f FRA, also giv e powe r ironical, given the high degre e of attentio n that tigers have receive d from to the communitie s to stop destructiv e developmen t activities , i f they formal conservationist s compare d to othe r species . so desire . This has been further strengthene d by a circular , issue d on 3 Augus t 2009 b y the MoEF, statin g tha t all d e v e l o p m e n t projec t proposal s Source: FRA (2006) and WLPA (2006). requirin g diversio n of forest land need to enclos e evidenc e tha t rights of the local peopl e who are likely to be affected have been recognize d unde r FRA, and that consent of the relevant gram sabha s has been In term s of their interfac e with the local communities , thes e provision s obtained , before any clearance s are sought under Forest Conservatio n can be interprete d to allow for the following broa d elements : Act, 1980 (MoEF 2009). 1. They provid e for somewha t broade r societa l inpu t into the constitu - By takin g thes e element s into account , the FRA to a certai n extent, tion of C WH / C TH areas , as they explicitly requir e input s for natura l establishe s the principle of legitimacy, voice, and subsidiarity as and social scientists . mentione d in Box 5.1, as well as certain element s from the principl e 2. They provid e fo r explorin g possibilitie s o f co-existenc e (whic h remain s of fairness and rights. The WLPA is also attemptin g to move in that legally undefined ) betwee n local communitie s and wildlife, even if, i n directio n but falls short by not dealin g with a numbe r of contradiction s the case o f CTHs, exploratio n o f co-existenc e is restricte d to the buffer tha t arise becaus e of the two Acts being silent about each other, and zone s of CTHs only. henc e not meetin g the requirement s of direction, one of the principle s 3. They provid e for a jus t process of relocatio n of communitie s from of good governanc e mentione d in Box 5.1 . For example , the WLPA is the proposed CWHs/CTHs, where their presenc e is show n to be silen t abou t the settlemen t of right s proces s tha t has been prescribe d in irreversibl y detrimenta l and they consen t to relocate . WLPA for declaratio n of PAs, which is in contradictio n with the FRA. 1961 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1197
This contradictio n is furthe r apparen t in a lack of clarity on the exact of hurdle s as describe d in the process of implementatio n in the follwing relationshi p of the two Acts with each other; for example , if local com - section . munitie s claim CFR rights insid e a PA, wha t would be the exact relation - ship betwee n many such CFRs within a larger PA? O n what grounds Implementatio n of the Provision s would the managemen t and governanc e strategie s be decided? Who would decide them and wha t would be the mechanis m to brin g variou s This section describe s the official guideline s framed for the process of actor s together . implementin g the above provisions , and the statu s of ongroun d imple - In addition , the Acts do not describe the process of identificatio n mentation . of CTHs and CWHs other than mentionin g tha t the basis shoul d be 'scientifi c and objectiv e criteria ' althoug h official protocol s and guide- lines to implemen t the provision s are presen t or under preparation. Critical Wildlife Habitats
A number of CSOs argue tha t the seeds of democrati c governance In 2007, a set of guideline s were issued for implementatio n of CWHs. of PAs lie in the process by which they are identified and declared. Som e element s of thes e guideline s had the potentia l to enhanc e conser- While the importanc e of wildlife science in this process cannot be vation of biodiversit y throug h more scientific and democrati c means. overestimated , many CSOs (including thos e within a nationa l net- For example , accordin g to this document :
work called Futur e of Conservatio n or FoC)6 submit tha t the knowl- edg e relevant for such identificatio n also exists amongst amateur 1. The process of identificatio n of CWHs would have required the wildlife enthusiasts , and even more so with local communitie s who involvemen t o f expert s from both within and outsid e the government . have valuable traditiona l knowledg e and resource managemen t sys- 2. Section 4 (vii, viii, ix) require d that informatio n to be submitted tems . In particular , give n tha t the CWH /CTH process could involv e along with the applicatio n for CWHs by the stat e shoul d includ e a the modificatio n of people's rights, it is crucial to build a sens e of resolutio n of the gram sabha certifyin g tha t recognitio n and vesting ownershi p amongst local communitie s who live in or use sites that of rights is complete . are likely to be propose d as CWHs/CTHs, and their say in the deci- i. Section 5 mandate d the Exper t Committe e to engag e in an ope n pro- sion related to the declaratio n is a must in creatin g this sense . This ces s of consultation s with local communitie s in area s to be declared clearly indicate s a lack of complet e commitmen t to the principl e of CWH and even require d a quoru m of two-third s of the adults in the voice and legitimacy . gram sabha s withou t whose consent a C W H could not have been declared . The premis e for relocatio n for creatin g CWHs and CTHs is to creat e 'inviolate ' zones . However , neithe r WLPA nor FRA define what 'invio- Thes e guideline s did have a few limitation s (Fo C 2007) , but in gen- late ' means. In this regard, many CSOs have argued that interpretin g eral, thes e were considered as a good starting-point . However, thes e a CWH/CTH to be completel y human-fre e (as appear s to be in the guideline s were suddenly withdrawn by the Ministry in 2011 citing
mind s of many conservationist s and stat e forest officials implementin g deman d from various quarters' 8 as a reaso n and a ne w set of guideline s thes e laws ) would lead to only ver y smal l area s bein g notified , whereas wer e issued in Februar y 2011. The new guideline s were criticized for interpretin g it to mean free of incompatible human uses would enable thei r lack o f space for democrati c approache s to determinin g suc h habi -
much large r area s to be notified. 7 tats ; and insufficien t attentio n to a prope r scientific , knowledge-base d All the above-mentione d factors, along wit h the fact tha t ther e are no approach . independen t public institution s (with representatio n of all rights-hold- Following publi c protest , includin g b y FoC members , the February ers and stakeholders ) that have the authority and capacity to oversee .'oil guidelines were withdraw n and a revise d set was made public for the issues and practic e related to PA governance , has led to a number comments . These draft guideline s or implementatio n protoco l (as they 1981 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1199 wer e called) wer e a significan t improvemen t over the earlier guidelines . in Odisha. The proposa l of the Guru Ghasiram NP mention s that Thes e had a much greate r emphasis on public consultation s and on co-existenc e is not possible as grasslan d had been converte d to agri- acknowledgin g the possibilit y o f co-existenc e within CWHs (as man- cultura l fields and cattle from 78 village s depen d on it for grazing , date d by the FRA). With some minor changes , this protoco l could be but does not give any scientifi c p r o o f of the same. very helpfu l in furtherin g the caus e of wildlife conservatio n by respect- Recognition of rights: In most proposals , ther e is no mention of recog- ing people's livelihood rights and hence generating their support and nition of rights under the FRA (excep t the Sitamata WS where it stak e for conservation . Thi s protocol , however , has been with the MoEF is mentione d that the verificatio n proces s under the FRA is under sinc e March 2011 and a final version had not been issued till the time of progress) . In the Guru Ghasiram NP, the 'recording of rights' had writing this chapter. been done by the collector for 29 out of 78 villages , bu t not under In the meanwhil e the state FDs have approache d the identificatio n the FRA. of CWHs in diverse ways, ranging from total exclusio n (contrar y to Gram sabha consent for relocation: Consent for relocatio n by the gram the provision s o f FRA themselves ) to stickin g t o the implementatio n of sabh a was not attached in any of the proposals . Proposal s from the FRA both in lette r and spirit . Assam , o n the one hand, and Kerala on the sanctuarie s of Gahirmath a and Chilka mentioned that there was other , represen t thes e two position s with other state s locate d at variou s n o question of rights as there were no human habitation inside, point s of this continuum . The Assam Stat e FD had planne d to declare ignorin g completel y the dependenc e of a large populatio n on thes e a total area of 9,67,366.43 6 ha, consistin g of all existin g PA s as well as ecosystems . The proposa l of Guru Ghasira m N P mention s eight vil- som e Reserved Forests (RFs) outsid e PAs as CWHs. This proposa l was lage s giving thei r consent , but doe s no t provid e copie s of gra m sabha not inclusive of the views of the local communitie s or any scientific resolutions . repor t showing whethe r the impact of local people on thes e PAs was irreversible . O n the other hand, the Kerala FD publicly state d tha t gram Som e of thes e issues seem to have been noticed also by the Central sabha s have a crucial role in the implementatio n of the FRA. lixpert Committe e constitute d in 2007 for evaluatin g state-leve l pro- Proposal s for CWHs from different states (Sitamata Wildlife posals , as indicate d in a respons e by the Minister of Environmen t and Sanctuar y in Rajasthan , Guru Ghasiram Nationa l Park , Chhattisgarh , forest s in the Rajya Sabha on 8 Ma y 2012 . The respons e state s tha t the and Gahirmath a Turtle Sanctuary , Chandak a Elephan t Sanctuary , and CWH proposals submitted by Odisha to the central-leve l committee Chilka Bird Sanctuar y in Odisha ) base d on the earlier guideline s o f 2007 were found to be incomplet e and have been sent back for revisio n and
wer e reviewe d by Kalpavriksh in 2010 . Copie s of thes e proposal s were i ('submission.' 0 obtaine d through RTI applications . The review reveale d the following This has not necessaril y led to the state s following the legally pre-
issues , amon g others:9 scribe d procedure . The FRA actio n plan of Tripura presente d on 3 I Jccembe r 2012 specifies that a CW H is being establishe d and 2,055 Involvement of local communities: Out of all th e above mentione d propos- families have been selected for relocation . There is no mentio n in the als, only one (Sitamata WS) had organize d a proces s that engaged plan of the process used for selectio n of this site or the villages to be with local communitie s to some extent. The proposal mentioned relocated . It also doe s not specify whethe r or not there has been prior that : a) a notice to gram sabha s was sent throug h the sarpanchs al recognitio n of rights and whethe r the consent of the gram sabha has the concerne d villages; b) the 2007 C WH guidelines wer e distribute d been received for relocation . to the concerne d gram panchayats. In Maharashtra , in a respons e to a circula r issue d by the department Establishing possibilities of co-existence: Little or no evidence is give n CO "I revenue and forests, the process of identificatio n and declaratio n of establis h that co-existenc e is not possible in proposal s which men (:WI Is bega n in 2012 . In some PAs suc h as the Bhimashanka r Wildlife tione d a need for relocation , such as in the case of Chandak a WS Smutuar y in Maharashtra , the FD held detaile d consultation s with all 2001 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1201
the concerne d gram sabhas, which rejected the proposal for the cre- Thu s it is apparen t that neithe r the CTHs have been demarcate d on ation of CWH, fearing stron g restrictions . In other s such as the Yawal the basis of any 'case by case scientifi c study ' as require d by Sectio n Wildlife Sanctuary , a proces s of identificatio n of CWHs was initiate d 38V (4) of the Wild Life (Protection ) Act nor have the concerned by the FD, b u t discontinue d whe n in April 2013 the local communitie s forest-dweller s been consulted , or their consen t taken, in any mean- and CSOs raised the issue tha t implementatio n canno t be initiate d on ingful manner on this demarcation , nor any attempt s made to asses s the basis of draf t guidelines , withou t discussion s with the local commu - possibilitie s of co-existenc e with the local communities . Becaus e of nities , and withou t prior recognitio n of the pendin g claim s unde r the [his, man y civil society group s and local communitie s conside r thes e FRA to the affected village s (Patha k 2013). Thus , CWHs have not been CTHs as illegal. actuall y implemente d anywher e yet, and wher e proposal s are pending , At the time of writing this chapter, there was no single documen t they all fail to follow due process. consolidatin g guideline s for notificatio n o f tige r reserve s and the variou s issue s relate d to them in a holistic manner . A draft set of guideline s on (o-existenc e and identificatio n o f such area s has been submitte d by the Critical Tiger Habitats FoC an d could form a usefu l basi s fo r discussion. 1 2 It ma y be usefu l to add Unlike CWHs, which have not been declare d anywher e yet, CTHs have her e tha t in a meetin g organize d by the MoEF on the revised guideline s
bee n declare d all ove r the country . Available informatio n reveal s tha t the lor declaratio n of CWHs held on 4 March 2011, 1 3 it was decide d that
notificatio n of most CTHs in the country has been in violation of the i he member secretary of the National Tiger Conservatio n Authority WLPA and FRA. The declaratio n of CTHs started with rushed notifica- (NTCA) will prepar e two protocol s relate d to tiger reserves : one regard- tion s of severa l core/critica l tiger habitat s in 200 7 arguabl y to creat e such ing village relocatio n from tiger reserve s and anothe r for 'declarin g ne w area s befor e the implementatio n of FRA began. On 17 Novembe r 2007 nge r reserves after the Forest Rights Act , 2006 has come into effect.' the National Tiger Conservatio n Authority " asked all state s to set up While the protoco l o n relocatio n from CTHs has alread y bee n prepared , exper t committee s to 'finalise and delineat e core or critical tiger habitats i her e are still no guideline s o n demarcatin g tige r reserves , securin g them of tiger reserves.. . within 10 day s of the receip t of this letter' . All relevan t lor conservatio n and explorin g possibilitie s of co-existence , particularl y state s complie d b y sendin g in proposal s for core or CTHs. As a result , of in (he buffer areas , clearly indicatin g wha t the priorit y for the govern- the total 41 CTHs notified till 2012, 31 wer e already notifie d by the end men t is. This issue of a comprehensiv e set of guideline s has been also of 2007 with several of them notified on 31 Decembe r 2007. It is not a raise d in the matter of the Ajay Dubey vs. NTCA and others case , com- coincidenc e tha t this was jus t one day befor e the FRA rules wer e notified , monly know n as the 'tiger touris m case ' (see Box 5.3) . o n 1 Januar y 2008. It shoul d be clear from this tha t no prope r scientifi c or The protoco l on relocatio n from the CTHs has been finalized in consultativ e proces s would have bee n possibl e in suc h a rush . 2011 without addressin g issues of concern raised by many groups
Indeed , a membe r of the National Board of Wildlife who was .Hid networks , including FoC.1 6 The guideline s do not explain what involved with the above notification s of core or CTHs, has recently happen s where ther e is scop e for co-existence . Nor doe s the checklis t admitted : li H relocatio n requir e (as should have ideally been the case) a report ili.n would show evidenc e of irreversibl e damag e and no scope of co- Declaratio n of cores was done in a rush in orde r to insulate our tiger rxistence . While the protoco l mention s that recognitio n of rights of area s agains t the Forest Right s Ac t (FRA), which came into bein g befor e NTs and OTFDs shoul d preced e relocation , ho w such rights and their the end of 2007... . A ne w core had been create d overnigh t with little ba- sis in science . In Ranthambore , Kailadevi Sanctuar y becam e a cor e criti- rrcord in official document s would be useful to the villagers in the cal habita t encompassin g 595 sq k m with one tiger, 25,00 0 people , 40,00 0 pin c to which they are relocate d is left unclear . Even though settle- livestoc k and 44 villages. This makes up 53 per cent of Ranthambore' s ment of right s as a concep t and a ter m is only give n in WLPA and not CTH. (Thapa r 2012) I'KA, in many instance s 'recognition ' and 'settlement ' are used in a 2021 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India | 203
Box 5.3 The Ajay Dubey cas e and conservatio n throug h Tiger Reserve s The delineatio n of buffers without any detailed guideline s for co-exis - tenc e in buffe r zones of tiger reserves , which are inhabite d by thousand s of One noticeabl e developmen t in the tiger conservatio n scenari o has been the tribal and non-triba l forest-dependen t communities, makes it appea r that cas e of Ajay Dubey vs. NTCA and others. In 2011, a writ petitio n was filed reconcilin g conservatio n and livelihoods throug h co-existenc e is no t a prior -
befor e the Madhya Prades h High Court, by Ajay Dubey 1 4 for stoppin g 'al l ity for the decision-makers . kinds of tourism , mining, developmen t or any activit y within the core/criti - cal area s of "Tige r Reserves'" . The petitione r also aske d for the preparatio n Source: Authors . and implementatio n of a 'Tige r Conservatio n Plan' as well as the statu s o f notification s pertainin g to core and buffer areas . In respons e to one of the order s passed on the case, man y stat e government s rushed to notif y buffers. singl e sentence . For example , 'In cas e of voluntar y relocatio n also, the The case also led to an NTCA affidavit stating tha t a 'comprehensiv e set of right s of people should be recognize d and settled before relocation' guideline s is bein g frame d by the NTCA and the Ministry of Environmen t 9). Ho w communit y rights like intellectua l propert y and tradi- and Forests with regard to fixation of core areas , buffe r areas , and tourism , (pag e including welfare and religious touris m as contemplated , amongst other tional knowledg e related to biodiversit y and cultura l diversity , access laws i n force , unde r Sectio n 38- 0 (c) o f the Wildlife Protectio n Ac t as well as to sacred sites, to grazin g in specifi c areas , and so on can be 'settled' is with regard to the protectio n of the tigers in fores t area s as well as non-for - unclear . There must be a procedur e or clarification on how the more est areas' . It was also submitte d that the NTCA 'would conside r all aspect s intangibl e rights, such as use and access rights, are transferre d to the while formulatin g the guideline s after taking the views of Expert Bodies relocatio n site. and after letting all stakeholder s participate' . However , the guideline s were Despit e the legal provision s and the protocol , a survey carried out put in the public domai n as a websit e link for only one week of comments . in 2011 by Kalpavriksh along with local CSOs in fou r tiger reserve s (the Moreover , the committe e which finalized the guideline s limited its scop e to Simlipal Tige r Reserv e in Odisha , th e Sarisk a Tige r Reserv e in Rajasthan , touris m and did no t cover issue s relatin g to identificatio n an d declaratio n o f i lie Melgha t Tige r Reserv e in Maharashtra , and the Achanakma r Tige r core/buffe r area s as also issue s relate d to co-existence . Som e of its member s Reserv e in Chhattisgarh ) found that legal requirement s for creating state d tha t the committe e also had a mandat e to formulat e guidelines on (THs or for relocatio n (even in accordanc e with thes e flawed guide- identificatio n and declaratio n of core/buffe r area s of tiger reserve s and tha t lines) wer e not carrie d out. 1 7 Even the reports of the NTCA monitorin g this aspec t had not been completed. They believed tha t this need s to be done , but by following a muc h wider consultatio n process . The latter how- t ommittees 1 8 point to thes e violations , as summarize d by the author s ever was neither mentione d in the submissio n to the Court by the NTCA in the table below . nor subsequentl y done. Even while man y CSOs are attemptin g to draw the attention of the The NTCA finally did not frame guideline s for the fixation of core and M< »EF, Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA), and stat e FD s abou t provision s buffe r areas . It has also not framed comprehensiv e guideline s for various nl the law not being fulfilled during relocatio n from tiger reserves , the aspect s of tiger reserves, from identificatio n to demarcatio n to zonation , NTCA recently has approve d a proposa l for usin g Rs 1000 crore s per year NTCA management , and governance . What did submi t to the Cour t (men- li >t th e next five years from the funds of the Compensator y Afforestatio n tioned above) as guideline s are essentially a set of data and principles. " I mid Managemen t and Planning Authorit y (CAMPA) for relocation Thes e principle s have also not gone through the process of consultatio n In mi CTHs and CWHs of PAs (Kalpavriks h et al. 2013). It is no t surpris- with all concerne d stakeholders , particularl y the local communities . Many ing that this decisio n had receive d the disapprova l of many CSOs, who CSOs felt that the NTCA had not fulfilled its responsibilit y and mandat e have expresse d their concer n to the MoEF, urgin g tha t relocatio n shoul d unde r Sectio n 38Vc of the WLPA and an interventio n has been filed by In stopped until ther e is a detaile d investigatio n on ongoin g violations , Kalpavriksh raising the above-mentione d issues of concern. There was an interi m ba n on tourism in the CTHs but the same was lifted with the IIH lulling prio r recognitio n o f rights before relocation , and processe s of enforcemen t of the guidelines . The cas e is still bein g heard . 111 managemen t and participatio n implemente d in PAs. Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1205 c
> > u 00 > o § village, Murumbodi falling under the Bhikarmaushi gram sabha c o O after recognition of fishing rights over the village lake in 2011, vil- lager s proteste d against leasing of the lake by the block developmen t < officer to the Co-operative Fishing Societ y of the Dihvar commu- e u nity withou t any discussion s with the villagers. The y also demanded i th .8 o z benefit-sharing . The Society had to comply to their demand and 50
ctio E o P per cent of the benefits are at presen t with the villagers (Jatha r and L n o Patha k 2012). At the same time, the reason s for such success can be a
T3 varied , and require an environmen t of facilitation or a history of c bo •fl community-base d efforts. For instance, Mendha-Lekha had moved G •2 E o 0 l M toward s self-rule and forest conservation nearly two decade s prior o §0 O c c a. re to the Act. Gadchiroli district has also had a history and currently 5 V •a J -a c an environmen t of collectiv e civil society action. A few communitie s I c o 5 8 > ^ T3 I have also mobilized . This, along with a pro-activ e tribal and revenue O 3E > S u departmen t have contribute d to effective implementatio n of the Act o • E from the incident in the BRT Tiger Reserve when a range officer In some areas where the process of recognition of rights was essen- confiscate d honey collected by the gram sabha of Hosapodu village tially government-driven (as in Godda and West Singhbhum districts of in Chamarajanaga r taluk (Madegowd a et al. 2013). The village, after Jharkhand) and had taken place without active engagement of gram receiving CFR rights , had initiated honey-processin g and local market - sabhas as required, not much has changed after recognition of rights ing as an activity independen t of the LAMPS cooperative . This hap- (Tenneti 2013) . pene d after discussion s with the local NGOs (Zilla Budakatt u Girijana Slowly, examples are emerging where the CFR provisions are being Abhivruddhi Sangha [ZBGAS] and Soliga Abhivruddhi Sangha [SAS]) used in and around PAs to move towards a more democratic resource as well as the conservato r of BRT. Yet, on 9 May 2013, the range forest planning. In BRT Wildlife Sanctuary (also declared a tiger reserve in officer of the Punanjanu r Range seized the honey stored in the village 2011) where CFRs have been recognized in the CTH area, the Soliga communit y hall and destroye d the processin g equipment , filing a forest adivasis have developed a three-part plan for collaborative management offenc e case unde r the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 along with a plea for conservation, livelihoods, and governance structures, with some for immediat e disposal of the honey. The gram sabha appeale d to the landscape-level meetings. However, the villages demand recognition Court, claiming ownershi p of the honey unde r Section 3(1) (c) of the of rights for all the villages of the sanctuary before implementation of FRA and requeste d the Court to stay the disposal of hone y and for it to the plan (Madegowda et al. 2013) . In Maharashtra, 45 CFR claims have lie returne d to them . On 23 May 2013, the Yellandur Court ordere d tha t been filed and titles received in and around the Melghat Tiger Reserve. the honey be returne d to the interim custody of the gram sabha , stat - KHOJ, a local g r o u p that has facilitated the process has also moved ahead ing tha t the gram sabha is empowere d to collect minor forest produc e by drafting and implementing a co-existence plan in some of these vil- lor their livelihoods, leading to subsequen t releas e of the confiscated lages, which lie in the buffer zone of the reserve. These villages have honey. 2 0 formed committees for wildlife management under Section 5 of the Act CFRs are also bein g used , especiall y in the post-recognitio n scenario , and Rule 4(1 )e. In the Yawal wildlife sanctuary in north Maharashtra, .is a tool for demandin g mor e democrati c processe s of decision-makin g the local tribal organization called Lok Sangharsha Morcha (LSM) has on forests. An exampl e is the case of local oppositio n to coupe-felling used the provisions of the PESA, FRA, and WLPA, to initiate a process in forests of Baiga Chak (Dindori district, Madhya Pradesh) using of verification of rejected claims under FRA, identification of illegal (TRs as a mean s of assertion. Their argumen t for protest s is occupations causing damage to the PA, and micro-planning for social these hat coupe-felling is leading to degradatio n of their customar y forests development and conservation in 17 villages inside and around the t and any such felling canno t take place without gram sabha consent . sanctuary. Although the process has a long way to go, it is a beginning They have been successful in stalling felling operation s in some CFR made possible by a strong local resistance movement, using the above- forest s (Deso r 2013b ; Kothari and Desor 2013). The FRA and associate d mentioned provisions. circular s are also being used in some parts of the country by forest- Similarly 33 villages of the Shoolpaneshwar WLS in Gujarat have dependen t communitie s to protes t agains t developmen t activities seri- received CFR titles. Now meetings are being organized for post-recog- ously affecting their livelihood base or other interaction s with forests, nition conservation and management, with the help of Arch-Vahini, a mid/or to asser t thei r right for a greate r democrati c engagemen t with local CSO. There are also other PAs such as the Tadoba Andheri Tiger the proces s of fores t diversion for 'development ' projects . The struggle Reserve in Maharashtra and the Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in of the Dongria Kondh against Vedanta company' s proposal to mine Rajasthan, where although there has been no recognition, people have in its habita t (including a sacred mountain ) in Odisha is well known been filing claims and initiating processes towards such recognition ill id it uses FRA as one of its prime tools for assertio n of community (Desor 2013a) . lorcs t rights (Patnaik 2013). In Singrauli in Madhya Pradesh, first-stag e While CFRs include rights of ownership over NTFP, there have i le.nanc e for coal-mining was given based on what NGOs claim were been certain challenges in exercising such rights in PAs. This is evident Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1209 2081 Democratizing Forest Governance in India fake gra m sabha resolutions . Simultaneously , th e CF R c l a i m s proces s is relocatio n over explorin g co-existenc e in area s considere d important underwa y in 62 village s with many villages protestin g against negled for species and their habitat . Direction s in goo d governanc e (Box 5.1) of their fores t livelihoods due to the diversio n (Deso r 2013b ; Kohli et al. includ e a consisten t strategi c vision for conservatio n grounde d on val- 2012) . In Than e in Maharashtra , villager s ar e fighting against the illegal ues mutuall y agree d by all rights-holder s and stak e holder s and ensurin g constructio n of the Kalu dam (being constructe d to provid e wate r to compatibilit y with plans and policies of other sectors in the broader Navi Mumbai) with the help o f the Shrami k M u k ti Sanghatna . The dam l.mdscape/seascape . Both of thes e seem to be missing . Th e following was bein g constructe d withou t completin g p r o c e s s e s under FRA. Many sectio n deals with some of the challenge s which have led to the cur- affecte d village s hav e filed CFR c l a i m s , thu s assertin g their communit y rent stat e of implementatio n despit e the legal provision s bein g strong , rights . Thoug h the project proposal was rejected by the central gov- continuou s pressur e from the ground , regula r supportin g circular s from ernment , a fresh proposa l has been presente d by the projec t proponen t the MoTA, amon g othe r reasons , which shoul d hav e led to a diversit y o f to the governmen t in March 2013 and this has been recommende d by I'A and conservatio n governanc e model s in the country . the FAC (Fores t Advisory Committee ) on 4 April 2013, despite non- completio n of the FRA process . In mos t instances , forest land continue s (challenges Obstructing Effective to be diverted for non-forestr y purposes such as mining and power project s without rights recognitio n and gram sabha consent. Many Implementation of Such Provisions such instance s are also within or aroun d PAs. An exampl e is the forest clearanc e granted to the windmills project of Enercon-Indi a in 2009. I ,;ick of Clear Definitions and Explanatio n within the Law Thes e reserved forests that were cleared were within the boundaries The WLPA state s tha t explorin g co-existenc e is a ke y objectiv e o f declar - of 14 village s i n Pun e distric t and situate d within a 10-km radiu s of the ing buffe r area s o f tige r reserves . However , as mentione d in th e sections Bhimashanka r WLS. Despite this, no consent was taken from the 14 above , it doe s not defin e co-existence . Variou s CSOs have argue d for and village gra m sabhas.2 1 I he MoEF has agree d to the need for a set of guideline s o n co-existence , An analysis of official efforts towards implementatio n of the pro- but this has not been done so far. On the other hand, the protoco l on vision s related to co-existence , and a number of associated events, i elocatio n ha s alread y bee n prepare d and is i n use , clearl y reflectin g tha t including judicial processes , indicates an overall lack of seriousnes s in the priorit y fo r implementin g agencie s is relocation . moving toward s co-existenc e and co-managemen t in PAs an d hence a Both the FRA a n d WLPA mention creatio n of 'inviolate ' area s for mor e democrati c and divers e PA governanc e system . This is particularl y ellectiv e wildlife management . For thi s purpose , rights of the local com- so in CTHs and CWHs. Even in other PAs or in forests outside PAs munitie s are to be modified and relocatio n ca n be carrie d out . However , wher e CFR provision has been used by the local communitie s to asser t as also mentione d earlier, the term 'inviolate ' ha s not been defined in thei r right s and responsibilit y o f wha t they call their communit y forest eithe r of the Acts. There is an urgen t need for it to be clarified. Does it resource , there is no linkage betwee n the practices to be followed in mea n 'no-use ' or 'human-free ' areas, or could it also includ e 'compat - thes e area s and the provision s of the WLPA. Despite the potentia l of ible uses' tha t do not violate conservatio n objectives . CSOs have give n CFR provision s in movin g toward s shared governanc e systems within specific suggestion s based on wid e consultation s to the MoEF in which and outsid e PAs, ther e is an apparen t lack o f synerg y in implementatio n i he y have suggeste d broad ecological criteria, 2 2 which could be used of the two laws. Neithe r of the Acts clarifie s the relationshi p betwee n lor identifying CWHs. While thes e criteri a provid e greate r conceptua l the people who would gover n thes e area s an d the state , which has gov- clarity man y practica l complication s coul d arise in implementin g these . erne d them so far and continue s to have certai n lega l j u r i s d i c t i o n over In .i data-deficien t scenario , it may be necessar y to use thum b rules for them . The mindset that conservatio n cannot take place with people decision-makin g give n the urgency of notifying such areas , with the insid e PAs continue s to be very strong, leading toward s prioritizing 2101 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1211 provis o tha t as data gap s are filled in, adaptiv e managemen t can revie w necessaril y wor k out perfectly , and local ecologica l o r socia l situation s and revise earlie r conclusion s and conservatio n recommendations . may change in unexpecte d ways. It is, therefore , necessary to bring Ther e is also a lac k o f clear directio n or guideline s on what should in a continuou s monitoring , evaluation , and feedbac k process, which be the progressio n of the decision-makin g proces s while establishin g is fully participatory , and contains independent oversight. Such a CTHs and CWHs. Should it be first establishmen t of rights, then proces s could poin t to crucial change s in managemen t strategies , gov- explorin g co-existenc e models, and then if prove n to be not possible , ernance , boundaries , or other parameters . This also implie s tha t the relocation ? If yes, as suggeste d in the Acts, then the mechanis m by governanc e and managemen t institutio n must be flexible and open which this progressio n is ensure d is not clear. This lack of clarit y has lo such changes . This is a critical issue and if the process is to move led to a situatio n wher e it is bein g assume d that co-existenc e is simpl y quickly, then adaptive managemen t must be built into the decision - not possible , and relocatio n is bein g insiste d upon , at least in the case makin g system . of CTHs. A mbiguit y in Governanc e Becaus e of Lack of Clarity in the Lack of Knowledge , Capacity, and Forum s Kclationshi p Betwee n FRA and WLPA for Monitoring and Evaluatio n The forest governanc e regime in PAs is currentl y ambiguou s as the Lack of adequat e ecologica l a n d socio-economi c knowledg e and lack o f precis e relationshi p of the FRA w i t h the WLPA is unclear , leading to adequat e system s for incorporatin g traditiona l and local knowledg e is it p< issibl e confusio n on the groun d of wha t action can be taken if a right challeng e for identificatio n o f area s importan t for wildlife, and effective grante d under the Act violate s a provisio n of the WLPA. A conflic t conservatio n management . Governmen t officials, local communities , Could arise in a situatio n where the managemen t practices/belief s of and CSOs often work in isolation , with little interfac e to synergize the village committe e recognize d unde r FRA are in contradictio n with knowledg e and experienc e and develop a long-ter m vision for gover- the managemen t practice s of the FD recognize d under WLPA or the nanc e and managemen t of PAs an d other conservatio n sites. This leads oilier way around . For instance , traditiona l use of fire, shiftin g cultiva- to a situatio n where the FD identifie s an area, decides whethe r or not iiini, and extractiv e use for commercia l purpose s are potentia l points co-existenc e is possibl e (the knowledg e and informatio n basis used for i>l conflict ; thes e are necessaril y detrimenta l to conservation , as official this conclusio n is often unclear) , and finalizes a managemen t strategy. mindset s would have us believe (nor, of course, can they be unregu- In the absenc e of any forma l foru m for interventio n and/o r participa - lated) . Ho w this situatio n will be resolve d and what kind of supportiv e tion, the CSOs and local communitie s are left to express their views .Mid regulator y mechanis m need s to be in place , is not clear from the throug h articles, protes t letters, mass movements , rallies, and othei rxistin g provision s in the two laws and will requir e furthe r clarification. suc h methods. \dilnjonally , althoug h FRA empower s gram sabha s to ensur e conser- Officially, none of the CTHs or PAs have carried out an extensive vatio n and to set up committee s for this purpose , it is not clear what plannin g proces s taking into accoun t all the ecologica l and socio-eco - happen s if, for instance , the rights to harvest of a non-timbe r forest nomi c data and all rights-holder s and stakeholders . Nor doe s an incltl M M mice adversel y affec t its conservatio n status , in case s wher e no limits sive syste m exist tha t coul d constantl y monito r the implementatio n ol base d on ecologica l criteri a are set for resourc e extraction . Conversely , law s and the progres s of jointl y establishe d objective s and managemen l ll ilie FD impose s conservatio n or managemen t regime s on commu - goal s toward s an adaptiv e managemen t strategy. nitie s who demonstrat e or feel tha t such regimes are detrimenta l to Clearly, a one-tim e plannin g exercis e is no t adequat e to ensur e thai biodiversit y (for example , a ban on fire where regulated fire is helpfu l implementatio n of such concept s meet s its objectives . Unanticipate d in IIH .il biodiversity) , b y wha t mechanis m woul d suc h feedbac k and the problem s always crop up. Even the most well-made plans do mil impropriat e action be taken? 212 I Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India |21 3 Ther e are also som e mor e genera l post-rights ' recognitio n issue s • line is tru e o f the FRA, especiall y in PAs . Stat e government s and thei r needin g resolution , for th e fores t landscap e as a whole . At th e polic y / loca l department s have simpl y bee n reluctan t to shar e administrativ e governanc e level , appropriat e institutiona l arrangements , grantin g of ,ii id financia l powers . Ther e is also a continue d belie f in conservatio n power s to gra m sabha s akin to thos e o f the FD , s h a r i n g o f suc h power s I > V e x c l u s i o n as indicate d b y th e violatio n o f FRA an d i n genera l huma n betwee n gra m sabha s and the F D an d th e relationshi p betwee n gra m rights , in CTHs mentione d above . Ther e hav e bee n no fundamenta l sabh a plan s and FD' s workin g plans , or othe r suc h arrangements , still i l u n g e s in the India n Fores t Service s curriculu m to cove r legislativ e remai n to be worke d ou t (Join t MoEF-MoTA Committe e 2010) . This development s like the FRA , w h i c h coul d suppor t a mor e democrati c is especiall y relevan t in vie w of the continue d operatio n of FD con - mode l o f conservatio n (Kothar i 2013) . tro l and works , eve n wher e communitie s are objectin g to these , such Thi s difficult y i n implementin g th e FRA ca n b e understoo d b y recog - as plantation s and workin g pla n activitie s (for example , in Rajastha n nizin g tha t forest s an d wildlif e habitat s in Indi a ar e space s tha t hav e bee n and Odisha , the governmen t is collaboratin g w i t h funder s lik e th e Japa n largel y controlle d b y th e India n state , firs t colonia l the n independent . It Internationa l Cooperatio n Agenc y (JICA) to implemen t forestr y proj- II nild b e argue d tha t th e purpos e of implementin g th e FRA withi n thi s ect s unde r whic h plantation s are carrie d ou t in communit y lan d claime d .i.iic-centre d contex t is a struggl e over governmentality , withi n whic h unde r the FRA). , i mai n type s of exclusionar y conservatio n model s have bee n histori - Ther e is als o an absenc e of plannin g an d institutiona l structure s for call y deploye d to furthe r th e government' s large r ai m o f managin g the conservatio n and managemen t at a landscap e level , that coul d bring live s of its constituent s (Foucaul t et al. 1991) . Suc h centralize d contro l togethe r gra m sabha s (or village-leve l fores t managemen t committees) , f.ei. s internalize d bot h withi n the constituent s of the state , and also th e FD, the tribal department , othe r relevan t departments , an d loca l civi l amongs t man y peopl e outsid e the state , creatin g enormou s resistanc e societ y organizations . Suc h agencie s coul d monito r and guid e forest / in paradig m shifts requiring decentralize d redistributio n of power wildlif e conservatio n an d enjoymen t of CFR rights, facilitat e landscap e (Agrawa l 2005 ; Bryan t 1998 ; Foucaul t 1991) . leve l plannin g an d implementation , and facilitat e convergenc e of vari I lowever , despit e the large r challenge s of movin g th e state , ther e hav e ou s scheme s toward s thes e objective s (Join t MoEF-MoTA Committe e bee n a numbe r of official s withi n the environmen t bureaucrac y wh o 2010) . Moreover , ther e is a lac k o f convergenc e betwee n differen t fores t hiv e show n differen t way s o f doin g thing s on the groun d (fo r example , relate d law s an d policies , partl y becaus e the governmen t has no t issue d in promotin g triba l livelihood s linke d to the Periya r Tiger Reserv e in any clarificatio n o n the relativ e powers , roles , functions , and responsi - Kerala , or providin g e m p l o y m e n t option s to pastoralis t communitie s in bilitie s o f the gra m sabh a an d th e FD , d e s p i t e clea r recommendation s in i observatio n area s o f Sikkim) . This ha s resulte d in polic y leve l change s thi s regar d fro m a numbe r o f source s includin g th e Join t MoEF-MoTA W illi mor e conviction . Additionally , othe r wing s of government , such Committe e an d th e Nationa l Advisor y Committe e (NAC). a-, ili e MoTA in th e cas e o f the FRA, in th e perio d fro m 2011 onward s hav e als o take n mor e proactiv e rol e in influencin g conservatio n policy . (lutsid e of the state , ther e is an almos t equall y powerfu l forc e of Conservativ e Attitude s and Reluctanc e to Shar e Powe r ii Msiance: a stron g sectio n of forma l secto r conservationist s continu - Anti-democrati c attitude s and reluctanc e to share powe r amongs i ini; io believ e in or espous e exclusionary , top-dow n conservation . governmen t agencies , are one of the key challenge s slowin g down I h e debat e on tige r protectio n is dominate d by suc h people , as they th e decentralizatio n of decision-makin g powers , or the mov e toward s dogmaticall y hol d to the assertio n that onl y 'inviolate ' (read : human - collaborativ e or community-base d conservation . This is alread y in ln e, excep t tourists ) areas will do if the tiger has to be saved . This evidence , for instance , in the abysma l implementatio n of the pan tuiiomaticall y lead s to one of the problem s mentione d above , tha t eve n chayat i raj constitutiona l amendments , especiall y thos e pertainin g CO wher e the law mandate s an exploratio n o f co-existence , it is relocatio n iliii Schedule d Areas , nearl y tw o decade s afte r the y wer e promulgated . Th e r,et s all the attention , budgets , and politica l will . Even increasin g 214| Democratizifing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1215 scientifi c evidenc e of the possibilitie s of co-existenc e withi n specifie d up for large-scal e commercia l touris m i n th e nam e o f ecotourism . Suc h limit s of hum;ia n activity , and the ethica l imperativ e of democrati c pressure s wil l onl y increas e as globalizatio n make s furthe r inroad s decision-makinn g (whic h the y ma y eve n asser t in othe r contexts) , ha s no t Int o Indi a unles s seriousl y challenge d by bot h environmenta l and substantiall y shhifte d thi s mindse t amongs t a smal l bu t powerfu l sectio n luima n rights g r o u p s workin g wit h loca l communities . Also , focusin g of the conservatio n community . mi merel y th e PA networ k fo r conservation , as seem s to be th e cas e in nllicia l implementation , coul d leav e ou t man y crucia l wildlif e habitat s Developmen t Contex t lb.i t are currentl y outsid e the PA network , suc h as mos t o f ou r marin e ri (isystems . It wil l als o impac t migrator y specie s an d specie s wit h larg e It is importan t to loo k at the large r landscap e (and seascape ) withi n hom e ranges . Therefore , wha t is lackin g an d is urgentl y required , is whic h eac h or CFR is located . Suc h area s wil l no t surviv e lon g as plannin g at landscap e (an d seascape ) leve l wher e natura l resource s an d island s withi n ;a landscap e o f unsustainabl e development , for soone r o r biodiversit y bot h withi n and outsid e of PAs ar e conserve d and manage d late r th e forces * o f deman d an d conversion , an d long-rang e phenomen a (TI'CG and Kalpavriks h 2005) . Yet, the large r developmenta l proces s lik e pollutio n and climat e change , will als o ente r these . Possibl y the I LIS no interes t in o r tim e fo r conservation , an d eve n les s fo r participa - greates t threa t to bot h wildlif e and fores t dependen t livelihood s in Indi a tor y conservation . toda y is India' s economi c growt h model . In th e pursui t o f a double-digi t growt h rate , environmenta l prioritie s hav e bee n brushe d asid e in the *** las t few decades . Sinc e 1991 in particular , wit h economi c liberalizatio n and globalization , this proces s has greatl y intensifie d (Shrivastav a an d Ib e FRA 200 6 and WLPA 200 6 (throug h its newl y inserte d provi- Kothar i 2012) . Ther e is pressur e for dilutio n o f norm s of gra m sabh a ilons) , provid e significan t lega l opportunitie s for India n conservatio n consen t o f affecte d village s in th e proces s o f fores t clearanc e to spee d up in take step s toward s mor e democrati c and effectiv e conservation . clearance s an d remov e 'bottlenecks ' to th e inflo w o f hug e investments . Tin s include s participator y an d knowledge-base d way s of identifyin g Suc h a pressur e has led to the formatio n of a Cabine t Committe e of .mil managin g specia l area s for wildlife , strategie s fo r a wid e rang e of Investment s aid recen t exemptio n (throug h an MoE F circula r o n 5 Jul y wivcrnanc e arrangement s dependin g on the loca l context , a focu s on 2013) fro m the nee d of gra m sabh a consen t fo r linea r project s suc h as tin lusio n an d co-existence , stron g lega l an d socia l protectio n of criti- roads , highways , and canal s (Kothar i 2012) . i id i onservatio n area s agains t destructiv e developmen t processes , an d Suc h polices , lackin g a focu s on area s outsid e of the PAs, creat e an rnl.iigin g the scop e of conservatio n to includ e entir e landscape s an d ever-increasin f competitio n betwee n the loca l people , urba n needs , Ifrtsi ape s rathe r tha n onl y island s o f protection . Thes e coul d als o hel p industria l neels, and need s o f wildlife , particularl y th e les s charismati c lea d to greate r livelihoo d security , and mor e democrati c and robus t ones , for th e ast-reducin g ecosystem s an d resource s therein . As fue l governance , acros s suc h scapes . Bu t to enabl e this potentia l to be met , and fodde r resource s outsid e a PA diminish , peopl e inevitabl y try to j iivil societ y organization s and thos e withi n the governmen t who are ente r int o thePA ; as minin g an d hydro-electricit y site s reduc e outside , ] •i le.itiv e to suc h issues , wil l nee d to joi n hands , an d als o wi n the trus t commercia l a.encie s inevitabl y ask fo r th e openin g up o f PAs. In a situ - j • •I mid hel p empowe r loca l communitie s wh o hav e bee n thu s far at th e atio n wher e n> loca l communit y stak e ha s bee n create d in th e continu - I n 11 ivm g en d o f bot h th e 'development ' and th e 'conservation ' sticks , atio n o f th e R governmen t agencie s an d conservatio n NGO s wil l fin d hinde r legislativ e change s are needed , especiall y to strengthe n (wit h it impossibl e » contai n thes e forces . Alread y severa l PAs ar e threatene d Iflricncc to Box 5.1 ) th e direction , accountability , and performance . wit h suc h fore s (for example , severa l doze n hav e minin g goin g on or I I lin e will nee d to be continue d shift s in mindse t and attitudes , throug h propose d wit' m or jus t adjacen t to thei r boundaries) . Man y PAs, from j J illitlui '.iie, assertio n of communit y controls , change s in th e trainin g o f wher e traditiiia ' communitie s are bein g move d out , are bein g opene d j j • In Imes t bureaucracy , an d greate r publi c participation . Perhap s mos t 2161 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 121 7 7. MoEF circular F. No . 1-39/200 7 WL1 (pt) dated 7 Februar y 2011 by important , the conservatio n 'community ' will need to seriousl y chal- I >eput y Inspecto r Genera l Prakrit i Srivastav a to all chie f wildlife wardens . leng e the currently dominan t economic developmen t model in the 8. Informatio n based on a summar y of RTI dat a from 2010 receive d by searc h for sustainable , equitabl e alternativ e models . Nreetam a Guptabhaya , membe r of Kalpavriksh , Delhi/Pune . This is a ver y difficult task , bu t not impossible . In man y way s India 's 9. Respons e by MoEF minister , Rajya Sabha on 8 May 2012 to questio n no. conservatio n story has been one of swimmin g agains t the tide with 1,4 S4 aske d by Ramachandr a Khuntia on the Notification of Critical Wildlife som e remarkabl e stories of reversin g processe s of extinction . W e need I l.ibitats i n Odisha . a simila r resolve , this tim e with a muc h stronge r knowledg e and demo - 10. Vide its circula r No. 1501 /1 1 /2007-P T (Part ) to all relevan t states . crati c base , to achiev e lastin g conservatio n and livelihood s security . 11 See FoC, 2007, 'Proposed Guideline s for Identificatio n of Critical Wildlife Habitat s in Nationa l Park s and Wildlife Sanctuarie s Unde r Schedule d Tribe s and Othe r Traditiona l Fores t Dweller s (Recognitio n O f Fores t Rights ) Notes Ai i. 2006, submitte d on Decembe r 200 7 to NTCA. 12. See MoEF, 2011, 'Summar y record s of the meetin g held on 4 March 1. Globally thes e are now terme d Indigenou s Peoples ' and Local Communit y .'ii 11 to discuss the issue of revise d guideline s for declaratio n o f Critical Wildlife Conserve d Territorie s and Area s (ICCAs), mirrorin g (an d havin g emerge d from) I l.ibitats' , 23 March. the concep t and practic e of communit y conserve d area s in India ; for conceptua l 13. SLP(C)no. 21339/201 1 (Ajay Dubey vs. Union of India ir Ors). treatment , cas e studies , and analytica l report s on ICCAs, see www.iccaforum.org . 14. In Augus t 2012 , Kalpavriks h filed an interventio n in th e Ajay Dubey cas e See www.iccaconsortium.or g for more informatio n on ICCAs and Pathak regardin g violation s of the FRA and WLPA being cause d by the rushed pro- Broom e and Das h (2012 ) and Patha k (2009 ) for India n examples . i ess of notification s of buffe r area s of tiger reserves. It intend s to exten d the 2. Circular no. 13-l\90-FP of Government of India, Ministry of Interventio n to cover overal l issue s of violation s i n the proces s of notificatio n Environmen t and Forests , 18 Septembe r 90. Addresse d to the forest secretarie s ill iigerreserves . of all state s an d unio n territories . I See http://kalpavriksh.org/images/CLN/FOC/Relocation%20proto - 3. See http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap _ . nl Comments.pd f for FoC's comment s on the draft relocatio n protocol . Th e capacity2/gpap_parks2/?2137/2003-Durban-World-Parks-Congress , accessed I col wa s finalized withou t incorporatin g mos t of thes e points . Januar y 2014. In. See Kalpavriksh, 2011, 'Recognitio n of Rights and Relocation in 4. The WLPA amendmen t introducin g th e categor y of CTHs was dated 4 Url.ition to Critical Tige r Habitats' . Septembe r 2006 and the FRA introducin g the categor y of CWHs was passe d 17. Unpublishe d report s provide d b y NTCA, Governmen t of India , i n 2011 . on 29 Decembe r 2006 . IH. However, it shoul d be note d tha t ther e are many gap s and ambiguitie s 5. The Future of Conservatio n in India is 'a networ k of ecologica l and In relatio n to thes e official figures (Deso r 2013a) . social organization s and individual s committe d to effective and equitable 19. Informatio n on the Hosapod u inciden t and the court order was pro- conservatio n of biodiversity . Fo C is not an organization , but a foru m where vi.led by Archan a Sivaramakrishna n (Keyston e Foundation ) and Mahadesh a on organization s and individual s ca n meet , dialogue , and tak e join t actions. ' (Set lielull of the Hosapod u gra m sabha. http://kalpavriksh.org/index.php/conservation-livelihoodsl / networks / 20. From the lette r submitte d toJvIiniste r o f Tribal Affairs on 19 Septembe r future-of-conservation.html. ) 'in l by member s of Kalpavriksh (Neem a Pathak , Saili Palande , and Pradeep 6. See 'Propose d Guideline s on Identificatio n of Critical Tiger Habitats , i Itiivan) on the subjec t 'Permissio n grante d to Andhr a Wind Power Projec t Co-existenc e and Relocatio n relate d to Tiger Reserve s (in pursuanc e of thl j Hnrreon-India , Maharashtra , base d on misrepresente d facts and in violatio n of WLPA as amende d in 2006)' , submitte d in Septembe r 2007, by Ashoka Trull (•division s o f the Fores t Right s Act, 2006' . for Researc h in Ecology and the Environmen t (Bangalore) , Council for Soclll 21. See repor t of the National Workshop on Critical Tiger Habitats and Critical Developmen t (Delhi), Himal Prakriti (Munsiari), Kalpavriksh (Delhi/Pune) , Wildlife Habitats, Ma y 2008 , http://kalpavriksh.org/index.php/conservation - Samraksha n (Delhi), SHODH (Nagpur) , Vasundhar a (Bhubaneshwar) , WildlUe llvehlioods l / networks/future-of-conservation.html . Conservatio n Trus t (Rajkot) , WWF-Indi a (Delhi). 218 I Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1219 References Matter s Incidental thereto' . New Delhi: MoEF; http://kalpavriksh.org / image s / C LN / FOC / foc2007 5 .pdf . Adams , W.M., R. Aveling, D. Brockington , B. Dickson, J. Elliott, J. Hutton, Foucault , M., G. Burchell, C. Gordon , and P. Miller (eds). 1991. The Foucault D. Roe, B. Vira, and W Wolmer. 2004. 'Biodiversit y Conservatio n and the Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago : Universit y o f Chicag o Press . Eradicatio n of Poverty' , Science, 306 (5699) : 1146-9. Gadgil, M. and R. Guha . 1993. This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India. Agrawal, A. 2005. 'Environmentality : Community , Intimat e Government, Berkeley : Universit y o f California Press. and the Making of Environmenta l Subjects in Kumaon, India', Current Ghimire, K.B., KB. Ghimire, and M.R Pimber t (eds). 1997. Social Change and Anthropology, 46 (2): 161-90 . Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Borrini-Feyerabend , G , N. Dudley , T.Jaeger , B. Lassen , N . Pathak , A. Phillips, Areas. London : Earthscan . and T. Sandwith . 2013. Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding Graham , J., B. Amos, and T. Plumptree . 2003. 'Governance Principles for to Action. Best Practice Protected Area Guideline s Series No. 20, Gland, Protecte d Areas in the 21st Century' , Discussio n Paper , Phase 2, Institut e on Switzerland : Internationa l Union for Conservatio n of Nature. Governanc e in collaboratio n wit h Park s Canad a and Canadia n Internationa l Brechin, S.R., P.R. Wllshusen , C.L. Fortwangler , and PC. West . 2002. 'Beyon d Developmen t Agenc y (CIDA). the Square Wheel: Toward a More Comprehensiv e Understanding of Grazia, B.F., N. Dudley , T. Jaeger , B. Lassen , N. Patha k Broome, A. Phillips, Biodiversit y Conservatio n as Social and Political Process' , Society &• Natural and T. Sandwith . 2013. Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding to Resources, 15 (1): 41-64 . Action. Gland, Switzerland : Internationa l Union for Conservatio n of Nature Brockington , D. 2002. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi [IUCN]). Game Reserve, Tanzania. Bloomington : Indian a Universit y Press . Institut e on Governance . 2002. 'Governanc e Principle s for Protecte d Areas in Brockington , D, J. Igoe , and K.A.I. Schmidt-Soltau . 2006. 'Conservation , the 21st Century' . Discussio n pape r for Parks Canada , Ottawa , Canada . Huma n Rights, and Povert y Reduction' . Conservation Biology, 20 (1): 250-2 . I.ithar , R. and N. Pathak. 2012. 'Maharashtra' , in S. Deso r (ed.) 2012. A National Bryant , Raymond L. 1998. 'Power, Knowledge and Political Ecology in the Report on Community Forest Rights under Forest Rights Act: Status and Issues for Third World: A Review' . Progress in Physical Geography, 22 (1): 79-94. Communit y Fores t Right s Learnin g an d Advocac y Process . Pune : Kalpavriksh; Das, P. 2007 . 'Th e Politics of Participator y Conservation —The Case of Kailadevi Bhubaneshwar : Vasundhar a and New Delhi: Oxfa m India , pp. 41-9. Wildlife Sanctuary , Rajasthan' , in G. Shahabuddi n and M. Rangaraja n (eds), |oin t MoEF-MoTA Committee . 2010. 'Futur e Structur e of Forest Governance' , Making Conservation Work. New Delhi: Permanen t Black. in Manthan: Report of National Committee on Forest Rights Act. New Delhi: Desor , S. (ed.). 2013a. Citizens' Report 2013 on Community Forest Rights under Ministry of Environmen t and Forests and Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Forest Rights Act. Pune: Kalpavriks h an d Bhubaneshwar : Vasundhara , with K.ilpavriksh. 2011. 'Recognitio n o f Right s and Relocatio n i n Relatio n to Critical New Delhi: Oxfam India, on behal f of Communit y Fores t Rights Learnin g Tiger Habitats. Pune: Kalpavriksh; http://www.kalpavriksh.org/images / and Advocacy Process; http://kalpavriksh.org/images/LawsNPolicies / Documentation/Advocacy/Recognition%20of%20Rights%20and%2 0 Community%20Forest%20Rights%20under%20FRA%20Citizens%2 0 Relocation%20in%20relation%20to%20CTHs.pdf . Report%202013.pdf . K.ilpavriksh et al. 2013. Open lette r to MoEF, 'No more funds for relocatio n . 2013b . 'Baiga Chak, ' inS . Deso r (ed.) , Citizens'Report 2013 on Community withou t establishing a democratic process!' (citedl July2013); http.7 / Forest Rights under Forest Rights Act. Pune: Kalpavriks h an d Bhubaneshwar : kalpavriksh.org/images/LawsNPolicies/letter%20of%20protest%2 0 Vasundhara , wit h Ne w Delhi: Oxfa m India , on behal f of Communit y Fores t against%20more%20funds%20for%20relocation%20%20july%202013.pdf . Right s Learnin g an d Advocacy Process : 41-9. Kulili, K, A. Kothari, and P. Pillai. 2012. Countering Coal? Community Forest Rights Dudley , N. (ed.) . 2008. 'Guideline s for Applying Protecte d Area Managemen t and Coal Mining Regions of India. Delhi/Pune : Kalpavriks h an d Bengaluru : Categories' . Gland, Switzerland : Internationa l Union for Conservatio n ol < Ireenpeac e India . Natur e (IUCN); http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAPS-016.pdf . Kothari , A. 2012. 'Nationa l Investmen t Board: One More fro m Pandora' s Box'. Futur e of Conservatio n (FoC). 2007 . Comment s on 'Guidelines to Notify Economic and Political Weekly, 47 (45): 10-13. Critical Wildlife Habitats including Constitutio n and Functions of the -. 2013. 'Forestry Education and Training: Time for Major Reforms. Exper t Committee, Scientific Information required and Resettlement Indian Forester, 139 (4): 324-30 . 2201 Democratizing Forest Governance in India Changing Paradigms in Wildlife Conservation in India 1221 Kothari, A., N . Singh, S. Suit 1996. People and Protected Areas: Towards Shahabuddin , G. 2010 . Conservation at the Crossroads: Science, Society and the Participatory Conservation in India. New Delhi: Sage Publications . Future of India's Wildlife. N e w Delhi: Permanen t Black. Kothari, A. an d S. Desor . 2013. 'Baiga's battle' , Frontline, 1 May : 93- 5 Shrivastava , A. an d A. Kothari. 2012 . Churning the Earth: The Making of Global Lasgorceix , A. an d A. Kothari . 2009. 'Displacemen t and Relocatio n o f Local India. UK: Penguin. Communitie s from Protected Areas India: Synthesi s Analysi s in A and of Tenneti , A. 2013. 'Jharkhand' , in S. Deso r (ed.), A National Report on Community Case Studies' , Economic and Political Weekly, 44 (49) , 5 December : 37-^*7. Forest Rights under Forest Rights Act: Status and Issues for Community Forest Madegowda , C , N . Rai , S. Desor . 2013. 'BRT Wildlife Sanctuary, Karnataka', Rights Learning and Advocacy Process. Pune: Kalpavriksh; Bhubaneshwar: in S. Deso r (ed.), Citizens' Report 2013 on Community Forest Rights under Forest Vasundhar a and Ne w Delhi: Oxfam India. Rights Act. Pune: Kalpavriksh; Bhubaneshwar : Vasundhara and Ne w Delhi: Thapar , V 2012 . 'Touris m Did Not Kill th e Tiger' , The Indian Express, 29 August . Oxfam India o n behal f o f Communit y Forest Rights Learnin g an d Advocacy Thatte , M. an d N. Pathak. 2013. 'Maharashtra ' in S. Deso r (ed.), Citizens'Report Process . 2013 on Community Forest Rights under Forest Rights Act. Pune: Kalpavriksh , Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). 2009. 'Diversion of Forest and Bhubaneshwar : Vasundhara, with New Delhi: Oxfam India on behal f Land for No n Forest Purposes under the Forest (Conservation ) Act 1980— of Communit y Forest Rights Learnin g and Advocac y Process . Ensurin g Compliance of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Technica l and Policy Core Group (TPCG) and Kalpavriksh . 2005. 'Securing Dwellers—Recognitio n of Forest Rights Act, 3 August, F.No. 11-9/1998 India' s Future: Final Technica l Repor t of th e Nationa l Biodiversity Strategy FC- PT. and Action Plan'. Prepare d by th e NBSAP Technica l an d Policy Core Group . Ministry of Tribal Affairs Governmen t of India (MoTA). 2013. 'Status Report Delhi/Pune : Kalpavriksh . on Implementatio n of the Schedule d Tribes and Othe r Traditional Forest United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2012. GEOS: Global Dweller s (Recognitio n o f Forest Rights) Act, 2006 [for th e period ending Environment Outlook Environment for the Future We Want. Nairobi: United 30 Jun e 2013]'. New Delhi: Ministry o f Tribal Affairs Governmen t of India . Nation s Environmen t Programme ; http://www.unep.org/geo/geo5.asp . Pathak , N. (ed.) . 2009. Community Conserved Areas in India—A Directory. Pune / Vagholikar, N. and S. Bhushan . 2000. Panchaya t (Extension to Schedule d Areas) Delhi: Kalpavriksh . Act, (1996). A stud y of complementaritie s and contradiction s with laws an d . 2013 . 'N o Basis Yet fo r Declaratio n of Critical Wildlife Habitat: A policies relatin g to natura l resourc e conservation . Kalpavriksh, unpublished . Repor t from Yawal WLS', Protected Area Update. 19 (3): 19 . Wani M. and A. Kothari. 2007 . "Protecte d Areas an d Huma n Rights i n India — Patha k Broome, N . an d T. Dash 2012 . 'Recognitio n and Suppor t of ICCAs The Impact of the Official Conservation Model on Local Communities' , in India' in H . Jonas , A. Kothari , an d H . Shrum m (eds), Recognising and Policy Matters, July, 15: 100-14. Supporting Conservation by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: An Analysis of International Law, National Legislation, Judgements, and Institutions as They Interrelate with Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Bengaluru: Natural Justice and Pune/Delhi: Kalpavriksh. Patha k Broome , N., S. Bhutani , R. Rajagopalan , S. Desor , and M. Vijairaghavan . 2012. An Analysi s o f Internationa l Law, Nationa l Legislation, Judgements , and Institutions as They Interrelat e with Territorie s and Areas Conserved by Indigenou s Peoples an d Local Communities' , Report No. 13. Bangalore : Natura l Justic e an d Pune/Delhi : Kalpavriksh . Patnaik , S. 2013 . 'Dongri a Kondh s Hav e Show n th e Way' . The Hindu, 21 August ; http : / / w w w . t h e h i n d u . c o m / n e w s / n a t i o n a l / other-state s / dongria-kondhs - have-shown-the-way/article5044669.ece . Saberwal , VK., M. Rangarajan , and A. Kothari. 2001 . People, Parks and Wildlife: Towards Co-existence. New Delhi: Orient Longman .