A status survey of existing Community and Conservation Reserves in south

India

Arun Kanagavela,b, Rajeev Raghavanb,c, Cynthia Sinclaira and Aditya Prithvid

aWildlife Information Liaison Development Society, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi

Road, Coimbatore - 641 035, ,

! bConservation Research Group (CRG), 96, St. Albert’s College, Banerji Road, Kochi

- 682 018, , India

cDurrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and

Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NR, United Kingdom

! dDepartment of Econometrics, University of Madras, Tholkapiar Campus, Chepauk,

Chennai – 600 005, Tamil Nadu, India!

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Preferred Citation: Kanagavel, A., R. Raghavan, C. Sinclair & A. Prithvi (in prep). A status survey of existing Community and Conservation Reserves in south India.

WILD, Coimbatore.

The purpose of the following study was to document the management approaches adopted, interactions between stakeholders, challenges faced and lessons learnt at existing community and conservation reserves in south India. Face to face semi- structured interviews were conducted with local communities, conservation researchers and forest department (FD) officials at the Aghanashini Lion Tail

Macaque Conservation Reserve of Karnataka, -Vallkunni Community

Reserve of Kerala and Tiruvidaimaradur Conservation Reserve of Tamil Nadu. Given the lack of basic information on the management of these community-based reserves, a semi-structured interview model with open-ended questions that allowed for in- detail discussion with respondents was used.

Existing literature on the relevant reserve were summarized after which, the stakeholders interviews were summarised, any difference within and among stakeholders being highlighted.

Aghanashini Lion-tailed Macaque Conservation Reserve

The Aghanashini Lion-tailed Macaque Conservation Reserve (ACR), located in the

Sirsi-Honnavarra forest division of the Uttara Kannnada district, Karnataka supports the largest population of lion-tailed macaque, 650 in 32 groups (Macaca silenus) within its range. In 2008 a plan was submitted to the PCCF and Western Ghats Task

Force Committee to declare the area as a Conservation Reserve. Later, the Deputy

Conservator of Forests, Karnataka resubmitted a new proposal that included new sensitive areas along the Aghanashini River, prioritised through detailed surveys that incorporated the occurrence of endangered and endemic species, critical corridors and threats (Dandekar 2011; Kumara 2011). There could have been an opposition from politicians towards reserve establishment due to confusion over resource utilization rights by local communities (The Times of India 2010). The reserve spanning across

300 sq. km was formally declared in June 2011 and would be managed in collaboration with the forest department and gram panchayaths without restricting resource use (Kumara 2011; The Times of India 2010).

A local respondent at Aghanashini Lion-tailed Macaque Conservation Reserve

A forest department official, two locals and a team of three from a local NGO were interviewed during this study.

The reserve was identified through designating potential sites, based on the forest cover, priority species and ecosystems and a threat index from across the district of

Uttara Kannada. It aimed to protect the LTM, Myristica swamps and new amphibian species and the entire landscape from the impending threat of dams. Participatory rural appraisal and community mapping were undertaken to understand the occurrence of priority species and non-timber forest products (NTFP), NTFP usage, changes in the area over time, conflicts, sites the local communities would like to protect and their perceptions towards conservation. The resulting information, ecological and primarily the economic benefits of conserving the priority sites were conveyed to decision makers.

Non-governmental organisations (NGO) lobbied for the formation of the reserve through presentations made to several ministers including the forest minister and chief minister and with support from the Director of the Tiger Task Force, the area was declared as a Conservation Reserve on 11th May 2011. While one respondent from the local community was aware of reserve demarcation since the NGO had approached her and discussed the plans of the forest department and their organization’s, another was unaware. A continuous association of over 30 years through empowering the local communities in sustainably harvesting NTFPs and value addition assisted the

NGO team in garnering the participation of local communities. The reserve is currently in the process of setting up its management committee, which would consist of representatives from the local community, forest department and NGO. Two such committees would be chosen to manage the lower and upper part of the reserve, as the spatial distance would make it difficult for locals from across the reserve to meet at a common place, which would conduct its meetings close to the communities. If existing and interested, local individuals would be chosen from Village Forest

Committee and Joint Forest Management (JFM) Committee. Local respondents stated that they mainly depended on the forests for firewood, which was unaffected after reserve declaration. Their involvement in the reserve was by not hunting and felling trees and informing the officials about offences. The NGO team stated that the priority of local communities might not be conserving tigers but the conservation of

NTFPs and their use and factors like education and health. They also stated that the

FD was not really interested in the collaborative initiative and with the person in charge of the committee being from the forest department, could be problematic as had occurred in case of the Joint Forest Management program (JFM). They also stated that the enforcement of policy varies between each official and some may not be willing to convert such Reserve Forests to protected areas of higher protection as it would lead to a loss of benefits.

Both respondents from the local communities stated that interactions with the forest department were “very little” and that they walked through the settlements once in a while and distributed money to them under the JFM. The FD respondent stated that their responsibility was that of an administrator of the reserve, which was a joint effort between the FD and the local communities and that the department would provide support to local communities in undertaking conservation activities.

Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve

Spread across 1.5 km2, the Kadalundi-Vallikunnu estuary located in Kozhikhode and

Malappuram districts of Kerala is the first community reserve of India, declared in

2007 (Chitharanjan 2011). The estuary surrounded by patches of mangroves serves as a wintering ground for several species of migratory birds and supports 110 species of avian fauna including the critically endangered Spoon-billed Sandpiper

Eurynorhynchus pygmeus, Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus, Bar-tailed

Godwit Limosa lapponica and Crab Plover Dromas ardeola (The Hindu 2007; Aarif et al. 2011). The estuary faced several threats from sand mining, dumping of wastes, coir retting, defoliation, collection of oysters and mussels and infrastructure development (Remani 1989; Nair et al 2007; Aarif et al. 2011) and the reserve was setup not only reduce these threats but also to promote it as a birding destination and improve local livelihoods (Nair 2007; The Times of India 2011). The government reaffirmed that the reserve would not pose a threat to local livelihoods and would promote community participation (The Hindu 2009a). It is managed by a six member

Reserve Management Committee, headed by the Kadalundi Panchayath consisting of three individuals from the Vallikunnu Panchayath, two from Kadalundi Panchayath and a Forester from the range of the Kerala Forest Department (The

Hindu 2009b). It took two years to formulate this committee due to a power struggle between the Kadalundi and Vallikunnu Panchayaths which was resolved due to the intervention of the Forest Minister of Kerala as per which it was decided that the chair of the committee would be rotated between the two panchayaths (Protected Area

Update 2008; The Hindu 2009b). In 2009 funds were released by the central government to formulate reserve management plans through a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) with the local communities and realise the above-mentioned aims (see The Hindu 2009c). However the formulated management plan was not accepted and these initiatives have not yet begun (The Times of India 2011).

The estuary flanked by the railway line, magrove and coconut plantations at the Kadalundi-

Vallikunnu Community Reserve

Two FD officials, four locals (two each from Kadalundi and Vallikunnu municipalities) and two researchers were interviewed in this study.

All the stakeholders were aware of the purpose behind the establishment of the reserve, as an attempt to protect the estuarine biodiversity. However the researchers perceived that the reserve was setup also to reduce resource utilization primarily mangroves since the locals wanted to fell them in their land, thereby protecting the avian fauna and associated tourism. Contrastingly the forest department official stated that the reserve was setup to safeguard local livelihoods while attempting to improve the estuary in parallel. The stakeholders stated that bird watchers, “environmental lovers”, panchayath, NGOs, FD, Calicut collector and state government were involved in declaring the reserve. The researchers stated that local communities were not interested and protested reserve declaration since their resource utilization would be restricted. Stakeholders’ views towards reserve ownership differed slightly. While the Forest Department stated that the reserve land belonged to private individuals and only the river belonged to them, local communities stated that the land belonged to them and contrastingly the researcher who undertook the PRA stated that the

Government and panchayath owned the land. The local community was indeed part of a PRA exercise wherein individuals within 200m of the estuary were enquired about land ownership, education qualification and livelihoods. The reserve boundary was demarcated by the FD based on the availability of the mangroves and land availability with little input from the public.

Mangroves at the Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve

Most of the respondents stated that resource extraction had not been curbed after reserve establishment. A researcher stated that resource utilization had not changed but coir rotting was discontinued and the other stated that hunting and coir rotting were “stopped” while “sand mining and fishing continued”. The former also stated that fish and avian diversity had reduced probably due to land-use changes and spread of mangroves.

While half of the respondents stated that a committee managed the reserve, one individual from the local community stated, “There is no management. Nothing has been done here” while a researcher exclaimed “No idea. Does it exist?” A researcher stated that the communities did not support the committee since their perceptions were not considered, they did not have a role and it was nominated by the government and not by them. Since the PRA exercise, no other activities have been undertaken at the reserve and the Government did not accept the draft management plan formulated.

The committee employed two-four guides/watchers from the local communities whose salaries were not paid. Local communities stated that they had no role in the management of the area while the forest department official stated that no stakeholder was currently involved in the reserve’s management due to unavailability of funds.

While one researcher stated that there was no specific role for the local community towards the management another pointed out that they represented their aspirations by being part of the committee but as such activities need to be generated to foster their role. The local community felt that the FD had to do more work to make the reserve functional and though they did not have any expectations from the reserve they did not want to lose any freedom over their land and resources. They also perceived that there was no relationship with the FD as such since there was no activity in the reserve. The forester visited the area often and was also part of the management committee. A researcher said that there was no regular interaction between the local stakeholders and forest department who did not make a significant contribution other than setting up sign boards and conducting workshops with students.

The much-publicised difference between the two panchayaths during the reserve committee’s formulation was because two opposing political parties ruled the panchayaths. Since most of the reserve occurred within Vallikunnu, this panchayath demanded for a larger representation in the committee. However it was decided that there would be equal representation from both municipalities and the chairman was elected from Kadalundi, which lead to the reserve’s non-functional state from an imbalance of power. Moreover currently the committee is lead by the opposition political party due to which the ruling party wants to dissolve the existing committee.

Thirupaddaimaradur Conservation Reserve

This reserve around the village of Thirupaddaimaradur situated on the banks of the river Tamarabarani, 30 km away from the city of in Tamil Nadu was setup in 2005 to primarily protect birds around the village and biodiversity in general (The

Hindu 2005). The reserve which serves as a nesting ground for 200-400 nesting pairs mainly Painted Storks (Mycteria leucocephala) and egrets is managed by a committee composed of the public, Forest Department, non-governmental organizations, scientists, MLA and panchayat president. From reforestation to the locals themselves banning the use of firecrackers and rehabilitating chicks that fall off nests the conservation regime at the reserve has begun to improve. Awareness campaigns had been undertaken for the local community whose representatives had also been taken to the community-managed Koonthankulam Bird sanctuary to improve their understanding of community-based conservation.

The forest department staff employed from the local community feeding juvenile painted storks being rehabilitated at the Thirupaddaimaradur Conservation Reserve

Two forest department officials, two locals and two researchers were interviewed during this study.

Retired Supreme Court judge Rathnavel Pandian, a resident of the village was known to be pivotal in getting this area declared as a CR, the first in the country which supports 76 avian species. Two main reasons behind its declaration were stated, one being the intensive sand mining undertaken by the immediate locals and outsiders along the riverbanks, which threatened the village’s safety as the sand, functioned as a barrier when the river flooded. Secondly, the trees around the village supported numerous resident and migrant birds including open-billed storks, white ibis and cormorants that nested in large numbers. Only local communities cited the former reason whereas the latter, which was instrumental in its declaration as a conservation reserve, was stated by all the stakeholders. A local respondent stated that the Judge and the PCCF undertook reserve declaration reserve and he had contributed to it by providing a checklist of bird species.

Initiatives of tree planting had begun in 1996 to prevent soil erosion and became successful only after 1999 with financial assistance from the Judge and saplings provided by the FD. On declaration another planting initiative of 10,000 samplings was taken up which was managed by two staff employed by the forest department from the local community who also monitored the reserve and guided tourists. Except for small quantities for use by the local community, sand mining is currently discontinued. Respondents from the local community stated that they contributed to the reserve by not hunting birds and initiating fires and firecrackers and disallowed outsiders from such activities. A respondent from the FD also stated the same but that firecrackers had not reduced and their use during festivals and special occasions was reducing the avian abundance. The locals also rescued chicks that fell out of nests, which were rehabilitated by the FD at the Judge’s house in the village. While one individual from the community stated that grazing had stopped after reserve declaration the other had stated the reverse. A FD respondent stated that grazing was the biggest problem to the tree planting initiative and fines were imposed on livestock owners to reduce it in reserve limits. Fencing was also initiated for this reason especially to protect freshly planted saplings. The FD de-fences the area around plants that have grown sufficiently and allows for grazing.

The sand banks of the river Tamarabarani bordered by the fenced plantation initiative being undertaken at the Thirupaddaimaradur Conservation Reserve

A reserve management committee consisting of the local community and forest department was set up for to work conjointly towards the reserve’s upkeep. The local respondents stated that the village elders and the panchayath head represented the local community in the committee whose meetings were conducted at the village temple. Since 2005 there have only been two management committee meetings and there have been none after the old DFO’s tenure expired 5 years ago. Forest department officials stated a lack of funds due to which, there was very little to be discussed with the reserve committee. The FD had previously provided loans to the locals through the village forest committee (VFC), which was discontinued. The judge financially supported numerous initiatives in the reserve including basic salaries for the forest watcher who was not on the permanent pay rolls of the FD until recently.

The resultant vegetation of the decade long planting initiative at the Thirupaddaimaradur

Conservation Reserve

Local respondents opinionated that getting the village declared a CR had been largely beneficial for them as tourism had bloomed helping their local economy and brought recognition to the small village. To aid tourists, a small guesthouse, financially supported by the Judge was constructed. More such amenities, like watchtowers and benches in the temple premises have been proposed to be built, when some funds are available from the FD.

Researchers did not play any role in reserve declaration and are currently involved in assessing bird diversity and in conservation education and bat surveys with the children.

Challenges faced

Respondents stated the following as affecting the reserve. Politicians were said to be disturbing the functioning of Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve, which was referred to as a “paper” park and inactive. No scientific mechanism was available here for the sustainable utilization of natural resources that it allowed for. There was no periodic interaction between local communities and FD and a lack of facilitators to solve issues within and among stakeholders. Garbage was disposed off within its boundaries and local communities were considered to lack awareness towards the cons of such disposal.

A local respondent from the Aghanishini Conservation Reserve stated that the menace of urban tourists had begun since reserve declaration. A researcher who worked in and around Thirupaddaimaradur Conservation Reserve involved in planning a similar reserve, Vagaikulam tank at Tirunelveli since three years which has been unsuccessful since the FD were not very interested in such a collaborative-initiative due to a loss of revenue.

Suggestions while setting up similar reserves

Respondents stated that facilitators must know the landscape; concerned local communities and FD well and maintain a good relationship with them. Before reserve declaration relevant stakeholders need to be identified. Capacity building should be undertaken with local communities and their organizations (Panchayath) and empowered through the provision of assets and opportunities. Opportunities (like ecotourism, value addition of NTFPs) needed to be created for local communities to participate in the management and one cannot expect them to participate on their own and in an initiative, which does not give them any benefit stating that economic incentives would foster community participation. Political involvement in the reserve should be kept to a minimum and for declaring such a reserve the government should be approached through a strong and motivated citizen group. The members of the reserve committee should have access to regular income

“Factors like threat index, ecological and corridor values may not be relevant to the common man living inside the conservation reserve”. Since the priority of stakeholders differs one needed to approach each of them differently, not only through an ecological rationale, but socio-economic as well. A respondent from the

Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve suggested that reserves in general should not be declared if they were to be inactive like that mentioned in order to reduce the creation of “paper” parks and their financial burden on the government.

References

Aarif, K.M., P.K. Prasadan & S. Babu 2011. Conservation significance of the

Kadalundi– community reserve. Current Science 101 (6): 717-718.

Chitharanjan 2011. Kadalundi reserve all set to lure nature lovers. The Times of India. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-

06/kozhikode/30118701_1_migratory-birds-kadalundi-bird-sanctuary (accessed 15th

June 2012).

Dabenkar, P. 2011. Saving some last remaining free flowing rivers. Novel

Conservation reserves on Kali, Bedthi and Aghanashini in the Western Ghats. Dams,

Rivers & People 9(8-9): 12-16.

Dandekar, P. 2011. Novel Conservation reserves on Kali, Bedthi and Aghanashini in the Western Ghats. South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People, Delhi. http://sandrp.in/rivers/Novel_Conservation_reserves_on_Kali_Bedthi_and_Aghanashi ni_in_the_Western_Ghats.pdf/view?searchterm=Novel%20Conservation%20reserves

%20on%20Kali,%20Bedthi%20and%20Aghanashini%20in%20the%20Western%20

Ghats (accessed 15th June 2012).

Kumara, H.N., V.M. Raj, K. Santhosh. Assessment of important wildlife habitat in

SIrsi-Honnavara Foert Divisions. Karnataka: with special emphasis on estimation of lioon-tailed macaque (Macaca silenus) population. Technical Report 1, Submitted to

Karnataka Forest Department, Sirsi, India.

Nair, R.M. 2007. Kadalundi-Vallikunnu community reserve rich in flora, fauna. http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/17/stories/2007101753200500.htm (accessed 15th

June 2012). Protected Area Update 2008. Conflict between panchayats over management of

Kadalundi Community Reserve. Protected Area Update 76: 10.

Remani, K. N., E. Nirmala & S. R. Nair (1989): Pollution due to coir retting and its effect on estuarine flora and fauna, International Journal of Environmental Studies,

32:4, 285-295.

SACON 2008. Estuary declared community reserve. Sarovar Saurabh 4(3): 6.

The Hindu 2005. Conservation reserve planned in Tirunelveli village. http://www.hindu.com/2005/05/16/stories/2005051603910500.htm (accessed 15th

June 2012).

The Hindu 2007. Estuary Declared Community Reserve. The Hindu http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/19/stories/2007101952950300.htm (accessed 15th

June 2012).

The Hindu 2009a. Panel’s assurance to people on project. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp- kerala/article372318.ece?css=print (accessed 15th June 2012).

The Hindu 2009b. Kadalundi representative chosen to head panel. http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/05/stories/2009010551210300.htm (accessed 15th

June 2012).

The Hindu 2009c. Central Funds for community reserve. http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/29/stories/2009042952830300.htm (accessed 15th

June 2012). The Times of India 2010. Wildlife board Okays community conservation reserves. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Wildlife-board-okays-community- conservation-reserves/articleshow/6295489.cms - ixzz0wShi0voo (accessed 30th June

2011)

The Times of India 2011. Roadblock to Kadalundi development. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-11-21/kochi/30425360_1_kadalundi- management-plan-plan-approval (accessed 15th June 2012).