STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
7.1 Strategies and Actions for Wild Biodiversity
7.1.1 Wild Biodiversity: Strategies and Actions for Enhancing Understanding and Information
Overall strategies 1. Undertake comprehensive inventories, mapping, monitoring, and valuation of biodiversity, including of ecosystems, species, and genes, with special emphasis on (a) threatened, endemic, and neglected biodi- versity, (b) ecological/ecosystem benefits and benefits, (c) sustainable use levels, and (d) combining tradi- tional knowledge generating tools and new ones like remote sensing and GIS; 2. Create a multi-layered database and information regime, including an Indian Biodiversity Information System (IBIS), linking local to national levels, and capable of conveniently being accessed by the public with adequate safeguards for traditional knowledge protection; and, 3. Enhance knowledge of the links between cultural5 and biological diversity.
7.1.1.1 Strategy: Consolidate, Increase and Update the Knowledge on Ecosystems and Taxa Surveys and assessments are needed to upgrade knowledge and data on biodiversity in India. These need to cover at least the following aspects: 1. Inventory of biodiversity elements, including at ecosystem, species, and genetic levels. 2. Study and monitoring of the status of these elements. 3. Assessment of the current coverage of in situ and ex situ conservation, including official, community and pri- vate initiatives. 4. Study of the links between biodiversity and human uses, including cultural and linguistic diversity, impacts of resource uses, estimation of sustainability of uses, etc. 5. Systematic organisation of the existing and newly generated data, and creation of database and information systems that can service the public.
While the general actions relating to this are dealt with below, some specific aspects are also dealt with in other strategies, e.g. assessments of protected area coverage in Strategy 7.1.2.1,and of community conserved areas in Strategy 7.1.2.2. It is therefore recommended that all these actions be taken up in a coordinated fashion, though not necessarily in a centralised manner since suggested responsibilities for each of these may be different.
Actions
1. Undertake a Comprehensive Inventory and Status Survey of Taxonomic Groups Undertake surveys in representative ecosystems, i. To inventorise taxonomic components of biodiversity,at species and genetic levels,within a statistical frame- work that contains acceptable sampling and estimation methods of species/genetic richness and population sizes (given the enormous difficulties and exorbitant costs of doing total biodiversity inventories); ii. To document the presence and status of these components, building a baseline for future monitoring; iii. To specially focus on (a) neglected taxonomic groups, including non-flowering or non-vascular plants (including bryophytes, fungi, ferns, lichens, and algae), amphibians, invertebrates, micro-organisms etc.; (b) endemic and threatened taxa; and (c) taxa used for special purposes by humans.
Justification: India is one of the twelve megadiversity countries in the world, but the documentation of its bio- diversity is still far from complete. This is clear from the recent reports on numerous new species of plants and animals, especially from less-explored ecosystems like marine areas and rainforests. There is possibly no site of appreciable size in the country, where a total inventory of species is available. Without an adequate knowledge of the range of taxonomic diversity in the country, conservation action will remain piecemeal.
Suggested Responsibility:MoEF to lead (building on the All-India Co-ordinated Project on Taxonomy under
423 NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN, INDIA
Biodiversity Conservation), in collaboration with Department of Ocean Development, and with key responsibili- ties being borne by existing national surveys and institutions, such as Botanical Survey of India, Zoological Survey of India, Fisheries Survey of India, the proposed Microbiological Survey of India, NBRI, ICFRE, NIO, Centre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology at Annamalai University,the networks of specialists set up by Zoo Outreach and other organisations, research departments in colleges and universities, and other research institutions and NGOs, along with local community groups and knowledgeable individuals.
Time Frame: Immediate initiation, and ongoing, with realistic targets set for every 2 year period, accompanied by regular evaluation of target achievement.
Steps: i. Collate all available taxonomic data generated by credible institutions. This also needs to be done in elec- tronic format. Inventories of aquatic biodiversity that are known now exist mainly in hard copies. It is recom- mended that each taxon be inventoried electronically, each species assigned an accession number and the databases so generated be made available at websites and on CDs (building on a system of accession num- bers already being developed, and CDs already generated, e.g. for some marine groups, at institutions like National Institute of Oceanography or Centre for Advanced Study in Marine Biology). ii. Consolidate and standardize information on taxonomic details such as nomenclature (both common and sci- entific names) and endemism for the biodiversity present in different ecosystems and protected areas, and evolve mechanisms for continual updating of the same. Build on the information and database developed through the Conservation Assessment & Management Plan (CAMP) workshops, by Zoo Outreach Organisation and others; also link to databases like the Electronic Catalogue of Known Faunal Species at the NDCL Pune Centre for Biodiversity Informatics (see Box 6.8), and to the Global Taxonomic Initiative. iii. Such collation should also include the taxonomic information developed and put together by communities, including in initiatives like Community or People’s Biodiversity Registers. iv. Develop an all-India database on taxonomic expertise (including community-level taxonomists and para-taxon- omists). Further training to develop such expertise could build upon the ongoing All-India Taxonomy project. v. Develop a network of taxonomic survey institutions at various levels. Given the range of India’s biodiversity, all the taxonomic surveys cannot be carried out by a single agency.The surveys need to be decentralised,but with strong linkages between them. The network proposed would serve as this linkage, and also serve as a clearinghouse mechanism for information. The network could be an electronic one, hosted by a central agency that would keep track of the spatial and temporal coverage of the surveys.This needs to be linked to the Indian Biodiversity Information System being proposed under Section 7.1.1.2. vi. Establish a Microbiological Survey of India,with mandates similar to ZSI,BSI and FSI,and building on the CSIR network project on microbial culture collections. vii. Initiate thereafter complete inventorisation of a representative sample of ecosystems across the country, which should be carried out at two levels of intensity – an initial rapid survey to assess across taxa species richness, and a more detailed survey to ensure comprehensive documentation. This should also include genetic diversity within wild species. Subsequently this effort should be modified to fulfill a monitoring role. viii. The revised IUCN criteria should be used, through methods such as used in the CAMP exercises, to assess the conservation status of various species; the status reports should be published once in five years.
Relevant Ongoing GOI Schemes/Programmes: MOEF’s project on Survey and Inventorization of Coastal and Marine Biodiversity,exploratory fishing activ- ities of the Fisheries Survey of India; ICMAM and marine biodiversity inventory projects of DOD (i) Survey of Flora, (ii) Survey of Fauna, (iii) Forest Survey of India under Survey of Natural Resources, MoEF
2. Monitor the Status of Representative Ecosystems Across the Country Initiate a continuous process of monitoring the state of various ecosystems in India, using clear criteria and methodologies, centrally involving community-based monitoring methods.This monitoring should involve:
i. Assessment of the historical spread and status of representative ecosystems in India;
424 STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
ii. Assessment of the current spread and status of these ecosystems; iii. Creation of a comprehensive baseline database for further monitoring; iv. Setting up indicators and generating estimates and projections of the level of conservation or destruction of these ecosystems; v. Special focus on ecosystems so far neglected, including grasslands, deserts and wetlands, especially those in the mountain and hill systems of India; and on critically threatened ecosystem types such as drylands.
A broad programme on ‘Ecosystems Survey of India’should be initiated for periodic mapping and monitoring of each ecosystem type. Ongoing monitoring initiatives, such as Forest Preservation Plots in several parts of the country, or vegetation monitoring by Indian Institute of Science, ATREE, etc., or monitoring by Forest Survey of India, should be built upon.
Justification:Conservation action in India today is based on piecemeal information on the status of ecosystems (and taxa), and there is almost no long-term (or even comprehensive short-term) monitoring that could estab- lish precisely what is happening to these ecosystems. This is particularly true of the knowledge on the qualita- tive aspects of ecosystems,especially in terms of what is happening to the diversity of habitats,species and other taxa within these ecosystems.
Suggested Responsibility:MoEF as lead agency, in collaboration with national and state level institutions and departments including Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Ocean Development, and others already mandated to do national surveys (ZSI,BSI,FSI,ICFRE,NIO,WII,IIRS/NRSA,etc.),NGOs,and community groups.
Time Frame: Immediate initiation, and ongoing, with periodic (every 5 years) assessments and evaluation.
Steps: i. Develop appropriate methods, including criteria and indicators, led by relevant national institutions includ- ing those working on community-based monitoring; ii. Choose an ecologically representative set of sample ecosystems across the country to start the monitoring, by first doing baseline surveys if not already available (including sites in protected areas,see Box 7.1.1.1;exist- ing forest preservation plots of the Forest Department; and existing vegetation monitoring sites of various institutions and NGOs); iii. Develop a protocol for learning and dissemination of the findings from these initial sites; iv. Train local community and state-level institutions and agencies to carry out further monitoring, using a combi- nation of methods including community knowledge as also modern computer- and satellite-based techniques; v. Set up electronic links between field monitoring sites and central repositories (see Section 7.1.1.2) to enable continuous updating; and, vi. Take up the remaining sites thereafter.
Relevant Ongoing GOI Schemes/Programmes: The Natural Resources Data Management System (NRDMS), Ministry of Science and Technology. The Landscape and Biodiversity Characterisation being carried out under the programme Bioprospecting and Molecular Taxonomy, Department of Biotechnology. The (i) Programmes of the Forest Survey of India,(ii) National Natural Resource Management System under Ministry of Environment and Forests. (i) Assessment of Marine Living Resources under Marine Living Resources Programme (ii) Programme on Coastal Habitats under Infrastructure,Training, R&D and Survey (iii) Surveys and inventorization of coastal and marine biodiversity; all under MoEF.
Under the proposed Ecosytems Survey of India programme, relevant institutions already working at a national level on grasslands (Indian Grasslands Research Institute), deserts (CAZRI), wetlands (SAC and SACON), coastal/marine areas (NIO), mountains (GBPIHED), and agricultural areas (ICAR) should be entrusted with moni-
425 NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN, INDIA
toring and reporting on non-forest ecosystems, in the same manner that the Forest Survey of India does for forests.Appropriate infrastructure needs to be provided to these institutions for this purpose, and a common set of methods, which emphasise biodiversity as a central concern, needs to be developed. Socio-economic aspects also need to be built in.
This monitoring should also become part of the mandate and regular operational plan of various land and water management agencies, including panchayati raj institutions. This should be an ongoing programme with brief annual reporting and comprehensive periodic reporting at large intervals.
The reporting should include updated maps,apart from real-time conservation status reports on the ecosystems from all over the country.The results should feed into the preparation and updating of the Conservation Atlas of India (see Action 1 above).
3. Conduct Research on the Structure, Function, and Interactions Amongst and Within Ecosystems Initiate short, medium, and long-term research on a range of ecological interactions, including: i. Plant-animal interactions (including pollinators) and ecosystem structure and functioning in all major ecosystems of the country, to enhance understanding of various ecological processes;
Box 7.1.1.1 Research and Monitoring in India’s Protected Areas (see Section 7.1.1.1, Action 3)
Research and monitoring efforts in India’s PAs have been far from adequate.In a nationwide survey in the late 1980’s,only 42% of the 38 surveyed national parks and 23% of the 166 surveyed sanctuaries reported that research work had been or was being undertaken, while 20% of the 46 national parks and 11% of the 193 sanctuaries reported monitoring activities (Kothari et. al., 1989). In the MoEF, where there is a window for research projects, out of the 13 projects related to wildlife, six are rele- vant to PAs. A meeting of the MoEF with the various wildlife research institutions in June 1993 revealed an inadequate cover- age of rare and endangered species, and a rapidly changing scenario that required immediate attention. Most of the research on species is on large mammals and avifauna,and there is less work on smaller mammals,amphibians,reptiles and other small fauna, with practically no work on invertebrate conservation (except some on butterflies) (Rajamani Undated). Moreover, in the absence of well-defined criteria for classification of areas as national parks and sanctuaries, areas having highly endan- gered species continue as sanctuaries, while some areas, which are no more than zoos, are classified as national parks.
It has been stressed by concerned persons that the framework of wildlife research in PAs should be especially oriented to management and conservation of biodiversity, though basic research is also of value. Six key ecological areas identified for meeting the manager’s requirement of drawing up a comprehensive management plan are (Rajamani Undated):