The document discusses the history of environmental destruction and conservation efforts in India and their impact on communities. It argues that past conservation approaches have negatively impacted local livelihoods and caused displacement without consent. However, recent legal innovations like the Forest Rights Act and Wildlife Act amendments aim to increase community participation and recognition of traditional rights. If properly implemented, these could help make conservation more equitable and democratic in India.

1. Nature, Equity and Communities:
Towards Effective and Democratic
Conservation in India
Ashish Kothari
Kalpavriksh

2. • General Points: history of environmental destruction and
conservation / interface with livelihoods and equity
• Conservation and equity inside protected areas
• Conservation and equity outside protected areas
• Recent national innovations in law and policy
• International context
• The way forward
Nature, Equity, and Communities
Overview

3. Context:
Destruction of India’s environment
– 50% forest disappeared in last 200 years
– 70% waterbodies polluted or drained out
– 40% mangroves destroyed
– Some of the world’s most polluted cities and
coasts
– Nearly 10% wildlife threatened withextinction
Smitu Kothari

4. The social context
• Ecosystem-dependent people (60-70% of
India’s population): food, medicine,
livelihoods, fuel, shelter, clothing, culture
• Environmental destruction = livelihood, cultural,
and physical displacement…for tens of millions of
people

5. • Communities have longest history of ecosystem management &
conservation (sacred sites, water/resource reserves, regulations
on exploitation, etc): focus on range of ecosystems and species
across landscape
• Pre-colonial rulers: some (e.g. Ashoka) active managers (forest
reserves, hunting reserves, strict protection reserves): mostly
focused on timber and megafauna
• Colonial and post-independence state take-over of forests
(centralised control, ‘scientific’ forestry … parts of north-east,
Kumaon, Jharkhand left out): earlier commercial, very recently
conservation focus
• Modern state-managed conservation (Wild Life Act, National
Wildlife Action Plan, Project Tiger, etc): ecosystem or species
focus, megafauna and protected area centred
Nature, Equity, and Communities
History of Management & Governance
of Ecosystems

6. Natural resource management affected by inequities:
• Humans vis-a-vis nature
• ‘Development’ vis-a-vis conservation
• Urban/industrial elite vis-a-vis rural communities
• State vis-a-vis civil society/citizens
• Powerful castes/ethnic/classes vis-a-vis weaker ones
• Men vis-a-vis women
• Modern conservationists (scientists, bureaucrats)
vis-a-vis traditional conservationists (communities)
Nature, Equity, and Communities
Issue of Equity

7. Nature, Equity, and Communities
Conservation in protected areas
Protected areas (national parks
and sanctuaries) major state-
sponsored method of
conservation
Over 650 protected areas, ~5% of
India’s land
Crucial for reviving many species,
conserving a critical part of
remaining wildlife, sustaining
ecosystems functions

8. But also home to rural communities: between 3 to 4
million people inside protected areas, many million
more outside but dependent on resources inside
• Communities living in/near natural ecosystems for
generations, dependent on them for survival,
livelihoods, cultural bonds
• Relatively low impact lifestyles
• Traditional institutional structures and norms for
resource use and management
• However, economic, demographic, and social changes
in most communities…loss of traditions, weakening of
institutions and leadership, lifestyle changes … over-
exploitation and unsustainability in many places
Nature, Equity, and Communities
Conservation in protected areas

9. Wildlife conservation programmes in India are
based on the following key assumptions:
a) Practices/knowledge of local communities are
irrelevant to conservation, only modern wildlife and
forestry science needed
b) All human uses are necessarily detrimental for
conservation objectives of the PA (except tourism!)
c) Local communities necessarily damage natural
ecosystems…hence people have to relocate, or
resource uses have to stop, once a PA is declared
So, conservation orientation mostly exclusionary
Nature, Equity, and Communities
Conservation in protected areas

10. Impacts of wildlife policies on people include:
+ve:
1. Buffering from negative impacts of ‘development’ projects
2. Some employment, ecological benefits (e.g. water)
-ve
1. Physical displacement (between 1 & 6 lakh people)
2. Loss of critical source of livelihoods, survival, food
(several million)
3. Alienation of people / lack of security and tenure
4. Distrust of the FD, clashes, hostility
5. Destructive resource uses, support to poaching and
timber theft, out of desperation / vengeance
Nature, Equity, and Communities
Conservation in protected areas:
social impacts

11. TN Godavarman (Forest) Case:
Order of Feb. 2000 in IA 548
“…In the meantime, we restrain respondents Nos. 2 to 32 from ordering the
removal of dead, diseased, dying or wind-fallen trees, drift wood, and
grasses etc. from any national park or game sanctuary…”
MoEF interpretation
‘Handbook of FCA, 1980; FC Rules, 2004 and Guidelines and Clarifications
(upto June 2004)’ - Pg 19
“…In View of this, rights and concessions cannot be enjoyed in the
Protected Areas (PAs)”
CEC Clarification dated July 2, 2004
“…In view of the above order, any non-forestry activity, felling of trees /
bamboo, removal of biomass, …etc. in the protected area are not
permissible without prior permission of the Hon’ble Supreme Court…”
Nature, Equity, and Communities
Supreme Court orders: increasing inequities

12. Net result: In many states, all rights and
resource uses of people being
stopped, leading to huge loss of
livelihood and beginnings of mass
migration
Orissa: drop in NTFP income by factor
of 10; possible malnutrition deaths
Nature, Equity, and Communities
Supreme Court orders: increasing inequities

13. Official responses …
Ecodevelopment: provision of alternative
fuel/fodder sources & livelihoods
‘weaning’ community dependence away
from forests; involvement in management
• Some community benefits
• Unclear conservation results, v. little
monitoring
• Top-down: No community involvement in
decision-making

14. Participatory Approaches for Protected Areas
Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala: from hostility
to cooperation
• Regular consultation and dialogue with
adivasi residents, by Forest Dept
• Generation of benefits from PA, e.g.
employment, ecotourism revenues
• Converting poachers into supporters of the
reserve
• People’s own initiatives: Vasant Sena
• Long-term sustainability, through Periyar
Foundation
Not yet fully co-management …

15. I N D I A
Chilika Lagoon
B a y o f B e n g a l
Courtesy:
Ajit
Pattnaik

16. Chilika lagoon and Nalabana Sanctuary, Orissa
• Revival of lagoon, combining modern and traditional knowledge,
and involving local communities
• Planning with fisherfolk, and catchment area villages: ecological
restoration, enhanced livelihoods (fisheries, tourism)
• Anti-poaching and protection through village committees
• Inter-sectoral integration by Chilika Development Authority
Recent problems reported: inconsistency of official efforts, uneven
benefits, weaker dialogue and collaboration
Nature, Equity, and Communities
Innovative Participatory Approaches for PAs

17. •Community conservation: government-
initiated and self-initiated
•Sites under other government agencies
Nature, Equity, and Communities
Ecosystem conservation & management
outside official protected areas

18. Van Panchayats and self-initiated
community forests, Uttarakhand
12,000 VPs (12-13% of state forests) … colonial
concessions to mass protests
Other (self-initiated) community forests (e.g. Chipko)
Substantial conservation/livelihood benefits (not universal)

19. Joint Forest Management
Initiated 1990…. now >22 million ha.
Substantial regeneration of forests in many areas
Social benefits: substantial to minimal
Serious inequities in decision-making and sharing
of benefits
Divisive role in many communities; major hurdle
to recent community rights claims
Timber orientation: biodiversity results uncertain
(no monitoring of wildlife impacts)

20. Self-initiated community forests in
Orissa (over 10,000!)
Dangejheri…
all women’s
forest
protection
committee
Ranpur: forest protection committees of
180 villages joined in a Federation
Many now threatened by mining leases,
proposal to re-open commercial forestry

21. Tribal self-rule, with conservation
1800ha of standing forests conserved by villagers of
Mendha-Lekha, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra

22. Informed decisions
through monitoring, and
regular study circles
(abhyas gat)
All decisions in gram
sabha (village assembly);
no activity even by
government officials
without sabha consent

23. Khonoma village has:
•Declared 2000 ha. for protection of Blyth’s Tragopan (Tragopan blythii)
•Banned hunting throughout the village territory
Nagaland: community conservation in the face of
rampant hunting

24. Nagaland:
About 600 villages have declared forest and wildlife reserves
Luzaphuhu WL
reserve
Forest reserve of
Chizami and 5
villages
Khonoma Village
Tragopan Sanctuary
Sendenyu WL reserve,
with its own “Wild Life
Protection Act”

25. Other Community Conserved
Areas / Species
• Heronries with threatened species, e.g.
Kokkare Bellur (Karnataka)
• Regenerated forests/catchments, e.g.
Arvari (Rajasthan)
• Marine turtle nesting sites,
Orissa/Kerala/Goa
• Freshwater wetlands (waterbirds, fish)
• Herbivore species, e.g. Blackbuck

26. www.kalpavriksh.orgUrgently need recognition and support…

27. Section 36 A to Section 36 D:
New categories of protected areas (2003):
Conservation Reserves (for non-forest govt lands e.g. reservoirs)
Community Reserves (for community and private lands)
• Can bring a larger area under protection for wildlife
• Ensure people’s participation in their declaration and management
However, faulty provisions limit applicability of Community Reserves:
• One uniform institution all over India, with forest officer
• Community reserves not possible on government lands
• No land use changes allowed without state govt permission
• Result: only 4-5 CRs in last 10 years
Conservation Reserves: ~45, but most previous J&K Game Reserves; other govt
agencies not keen to bring areas under WLPA
Nature, Equity, and Communities
New PA Categories in the Wild Life Act

28. • Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act 2006
• Wildlife Amendment Act 2006
Nature, Equity, and Communities
LATEST LEGISLATION: DEMOCRATISING
CONSERVATION?

29. Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act 2006

30. Key objectives / features
– Correction of historical injustice to forest-
dwelling communities, so far denied
guaranteed access to forest lands and
resources
– Provision of rights to secure livelihoods
and cultures of these communities
– Applicable to Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers
– Applicable to all kinds of forests and forest
lands, including protected areas

31. Main provisions
• Provision of rights over:
– Forest land already occupied (pre Dec-2005) for
cultivation / residence
– Forest resources (NTFP, grazing, fish, etc)
traditionally used
– Conversion of forest villages into revenue villages
– Protection of traditional knowledge
– Management of community forest resources
– Small-scale development facilities (exempted from
Forest Conservation Act)

32. Main provisions (contd)
• Empowerment of Gram Sabhas to protect
habitat against destructive forces…with
responsibilities to protect wildlife and
forests, safeguard watersheds, etc.
• Thus far, ~1 million acres titled to
communities as Community Forest
Resource (in theory, full control)

33. Community Forest Rights (FRA)
Assertion of CFRs against industrial projects (e.g.
POSCO), mining (e.g. Vedanta), commercial logging
(e.g. Baigachak), monocultural plantations (Odisha)
Several hundred claims
accepted in Maharashtra
(>7 lakh acres), Odisha
(>1.5 lakh acres), MP &
Andhra (>1 lakh acres
each)

34. Mendha-Lekha, Maharashtra: CFR over 1800 ha forests
Vivek Gour-Broome
Earnings from sustainable NTPF use (over
Rs. 1 crore in 2011-12), and use of govt
schemes towards:
•Full employment
•Biogas for 80% households
•Computer training centre
•Training as barefoot engineers
Considering 10% untouched for wildlife

35. Rights without benefits?
Transit permit powers still with FD till
recently (new Rules give them to gram
sabha)
MFP nationalisation (of some or many
species) continues in all states;
ownership under PESA/FRA of all MFP,
mostly not transferred
Some devolution of tendu/kendu leaf collection and
sale in Maharashtra and Odisha
Bamboo as ‘timber’ vs. MFP
MoEF letter, proposed IFA amendment:
bamboo as MFP
Issue of sustainability of harvest/use of
several species

36. Baiga chak (Madhya Pradesh):
‘modern’ conservation by ‘primitive’ tribe
Stopping commercial logging,
claiming community forest
rights

37. Forest Rights Act 2006 (contd)
• In protected areas:
– Declaration of Critical Wildlife
Habitats (with local ‘experts’)
– Determination of damage by
human activities
– Exploring possibilities of co-
existence
– Relocation with consent
– CWH where relocation has taken
place, cannot be diverted for any
other use

38. Legal provisions (contd)…
“CWH from which rights holders are relocated
for the purpose of wildlife conservation shall not
be subsequently diverted by the State or
Central Government for any other uses.”
Strongest conservation provision
in any Indian law
(but not yet in use)

39. The Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple
Sanctuary & Tiger Reserve, Karnataka
I N D I A
-------------
25 CFR titles to Soliga adivasis,
~25,000 ha (>half of sanctuary);
community-based conservation
planning based on resource and
critical wildlife habitat mapping

40. +ve points
• Enhancing livelihood security
• Greater voice and participation of communities
• Greater stake in sustainability and conservation
• Legal backing to community conserved areas
(‘community forest’)
• Empowerment to resist destructive projects and
processes
• Legal protection to knowledge
• Relocation/eviction only after community consent
Forest Rights Act

41. Concerns
• Official agencies resisting / delaying implementation.
Need for clear political message
• Will politicised and incapacitated gram sabhas deliver
justice and achieve conservation? Need for facilitation
• Has FRA fuelled further encroachments due to focus
on individual land titles? Need for CFR focus
• Lack of clarity on precise relationship with other
related laws, confusion on ground. Need for
harmonisation of laws/policies
Forest Rights Act

42. Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act 2006
• Creation of National Tiger Conservation Authority and Fund
Authority: officials, NGOs, independent experts
• Notification of tiger reserves after due process
• Identification of “inviolate areas”, from where relocation can
take place if co-existence not possible
• Informed consent for relocation
Nature, Equity, and Communities
LATEST LEGISLATION: DEMOCRATISING
CONSERVATION?

43. • Biological Diversity Act 2002:
– Biodiversity Heritage Sites
– Notification of protected
species
– Biodiversity Management
Committees
• Indian Forest Act
– Reserve/Protected/Village
Forests
• Environment Protection Act
– Eco-sensitive Areas
OTHER LAWS

44. Other relevant laws and plans
• Biological Diversity Act 2002: Biodiversity Heritage Sites, and
Biodiversity Management Committees (need to change
national Rules under Act; states free to make more
progressive ones, e.g. MP, Sikkim, Karnataka, Nagaland)
• Indian Forest Act: Village Forests (hardly used)
• Environment Protection Act: Eco-sensitive Areas
• National Wildlife Action Plan (slow implementation)
• Need for guidelines and rules for above, drafted through
consultative process
Nature, Equity, and Communities
OTHER LAWS

45. Policies relevant to wildlife
conservation
National Wildlife Action Plan 2002
National Forest Policy 1988
National Environment Policy 2006
National Biodiversity Action Plan
2008

46. • India is party to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
• In 2004, CBD countries agreed to a Programme of Work on
PAs (PoWPA):
- Ensuring community participation at all stages of PA planning,
establishment, governance, and management
- Full recognition of rights and responsibilities of communities
- Developing better, transparent, accountable practices for PAs
- Promotion of various PA governance types to support
people’s participation (collaborative or joint management of PAs)
and community conserved areas
- Developing policies with full participation of communities
- Prior informed consent before any relocation
Nature, Equity, and Communities
International Context

47. IUCN matrix of protected areas categories and
governance types (2008 Guidelines)
Governanc
e type
Category
(manag.
objective)
A. Governance
by Government
B. Shared
Governance (co-
management)
C. Private
Governance
D. Indigenous Peoples
& Community
Governance
Feder
al or
nation
al
minist
ry or
agenc
y
Local/
municip
al
ministry
or
agency
in
change
Govern
ment-
delegat
ed
manage
ment
(e.g. to
an
NGO)
Trans-
boundar
y
manage
ment
Collaborati
ve
manageme
nt (various
forms of
pluralist
influence)
Joint
manageme
nt (pluralist
manageme
nt board)
Declare
d and
run by
individu
al land-
owner
…by
non-
profit
organis
ations
(e.g.
NGOs,
univ.
etc.)
…by for
profit
organis
ations
(e.g.
corpora
te land-
owners
)
Indigenous bio-
cultural areas &
Territories-
declared and run
by Indigenous
Peoples
Community
Conserved
Areas -
declared and
run by
traditional
peoples and
local
communities
I - Strict Nature
Reserve/
Wilderness
Area
II – National
Park
(ecosystem
protection;
protection of
cultural values)
III – Natural
Monument
IV – Habitat/
Species
Management
V – Protected
Landscape/
Seascape
VI – Managed
Resource

48. ILLEGAL RELOCATION:
WITHOUT FRA IMPLEMENTATION, NOT OFFERING
OPTION OF STAYING ON WITH RIGHTS
(e.g. Simlipal, Achanakmar, Tadoba, Sariska, Melghat Tiger
Reserves)
Ambadiha
relocation site
(from Simlipal
TR)
Family moving
from Tadoba TR,
2012
CTH relocation protocol doesn’t define
‘inviolate’, ignores crucial FRA issues

49. • MoEF circular (30.7.09) requires state govts to comply with FRA & seek
gram sabha consent for diversion of forest land
• But mostly violated by states and MoEF; 200,000 ha forest diverted
without FRA process
• Exemption for linear projects (roads, railway/ transmission lines); over-
riding powers with Cabinet Committee on Investments
FRA violation in diversion of
forest land for mining, dams,
industries, etc
POSCO
Vedanta-
Niyamgiri

50. The biggest challenge…
unsustainable path of development

51. Globalisation vs.
the environment …and people
• Increasing diversion of natural ecosystems like
forests (mining, dams), coasts (aquaculture, ports) …
2 lakh ha. forests in last 5 years
• Over-exploitation of resources for export (commercial
fisheries, minerals…quantum jump) … Indian Ocean
signs of depletion
• Dilution of legal regimes: 30 changes in EPA
notifications relating to coasts and EIAs

52. Impacts: India’s ecological
deficit (mirroring world trend)
• World’s third largest ecological
footprint
• Using twice what can be sustained by
our natural resources
• Decline in capacity of nature to
sustain us, by almost half
(Global Ecological Footprint and CII, 2008)

53. Alienation, disempowerment and
impoverishment of communities by
conventional conservation model
vs.
Collaboration, empowerment, rights
and livelihood security in new
conservation paradigms
Key choices regarding ecosystem
management and conservation…

54. Key choices…
Focus and resources predominantly for
relocation; fact that most people will
remain inside PAs shoved under carpet
vs
Focus on co-existence and where
absolutely necessary or genuinely
desired, relocation

55. Key choices….
Centralised, exclusive governance,
uniform, inflexible and top-down
vs
Multi-sectoral, multiple-agency
governance, much more decentralised,
site-specific, adaptive

56. Key choices….
Exclusive use of ‘modern’, formal
knowledge in wildlife management
Vs.
Integrated use of modern and
traditional knowledge

57. Key choices….
Community fragmentation, commercialisation
and market influences, new aspirations and
changing cultures
vs
Revival of community spirit, new
conservation thinking mixing with or
replacing traditions, new economic/livelihood
options like NTFP, ecotourism

58. Key choices….
Forest Dept continues its role of centralised
governance and control
vs
Forest Dept transforms into service and
monitoring agency, facilitating decentralised
governance, conservation and management

59. • Using a range of no-use to multiple-
use approaches across large
landscapes
• Embedding various governance
types, from govt-managed to
collaborative and community
conserved areas
• Re-orienting land/water uses:
integrating conservation into all
departments, empowering
panchayats and urban wards
• Crucial for climate change too…
Nature, Equity, and Communities
THE WAY FORWARD…
THE LANDSCAPE APPROACH…moving
away from the island mentality

60. Van Panchayats,
Uttarakhand, spread
over several hundred
sq.km…. acting as
as critical wildlife
corridors, spaces for
dispersal…
Courtesy: FES
…integrated in the
Nanda Devi Biosphere
Reserve landscape,
managed through
participatory and
knowledge-based
processes…

61. Governance reforms (where CFR vested, at
village/cluster level)
•Village: Gram Sabha committees empowered similar to FD
•FD transformed into service agency: technical guidance,
capacity-building, monitoring
•Village-level and village-cluster level planning by/with Gram
Sabhas
•Gram sabha consent for any external use of forest land (incl
plantations, non-forest use)
Nature, Equity, and Communities
THE WAY FORWARD…

62. Governance reforms (at landscape/state levels)
•District level agencies (FD, GS committees, NGOs, other
experts)…replacing FDAs
•Co-management committees for PA-buffer
landscapes/Biosphere Reserves/other conservation
landscapes
•State level council (FD, GS/federations, NGOs, other experts)
•All with functions/powers to:
– Facilitate planning at landscape/larger levels
– Monitor forest/wildlife conservation and use, act on violations
– Ensure convergence of schemes/programmes/departments
towards conservation and livelihood security
Nature, Equity, and Communities
THE WAY FORWARD…

63. Alternatives to Destructive
Development:
Radical ecological democracy
• achieving environmentally sustainable
human welfare, through governance
mechanisms that:
– empower all citizens to participate in
decision-making
– ensure equitable distribution of wealth
– respect the limits of the earth and the rights
of nature

64. • People’s movements against dams, mining,
pollution, over-fishing, SEZs….
Resistance to destructive
development…a major
conservation force

65. Signs of hope...
• Citizens’ initiatives: alternative development,
self-governance, livelihood enhancement
• Official initiatives: decentralisation,
employment guarantee, right to information,
livelihood enhancement

66. A natural resource governance regime, which is
fully participatory, site-specific, integrating
conservation and livelihood rights, and
combining traditional and modern knowledge
A development path, which puts conservation,
equity, and sustainability at its core
IN CONCLUSION….we need:

67. Contact
ashishkothari@vsnl.com
For more information
www.kalpavriksh.org