Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nitin Rai
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE)
Number of PAs
313
94 46
1980s
1990s
2000s
Decade
Protected areas and tiger reserves National Parks 102 Area 39,888 sq km
(1.21%)
Wildlife Sanctuaries 521 Area 119,930 sq km (3.65%) Tiger Reserves 41 Area - 49,112 sq km
(1.49%)
Number of internally displaced persons in India (Indian Social Institute 2008) Dams - 16.4 million Mines - 2.55 million Industrial development - 1.25 million Protected areas - 0.6 million (3 to 4 million live in PAs and face eventual displacement)
Indian conservation policy has failed Produced marginal communities (landless and arborealised) Erased social and cultural histories Elevated levels of poverty Altered ecological systems
Forest Type
1 Nadu Kadu 2 Ore Kadu (Beggadu)
Sub-class
Halla kadu Gadde Kadu Are Demba; Henne; Matta Kadu Kere Kadu Betta Kadu Hanni Kadu Halla kadu Are Kere Hullu thotti kadu Bore Kadu Demba; Henne; Matta kadu Gudde Kadu Betta kadu Halla kadu Bore Kadu Bore Kadu Halla kadu Hullu Gudde
3 Male Kadu
1972: Wildlife Protection Act 1972 (WLPA) 1974: Wildlife sanctuary notified 2002: WLPA ammended to ban NTFP collection 2006: Forest produce collection banned in BRT 2011: Tiger Reserve notified
The impact of conservation policy on household income BRT household income 1995 2006
The impact of conservation policy on household income BRT household income 1995 2006 2006 adjusted with CPI 3785 2498 4799
The impact of conservation policy on household income MM Hills household income 2000 2006 2010
Forest structure and levels of biodiversity in BRT are a result of centuries of use and transformation by Soligas. This has been ignored in management, leading to unforeseen consequences. FIRE Lantana camara Hemi-parasites
Taragu Benki
Litter fire
Historically, Soligas have used controlled ground fires in forest management Fires were lit early in the season, resulting only in the burning of leaf litter, thus preventing large fires that might damage trees Ground fires helped in regeneration of tree species and controlled the spread of hemiparasites (Loranthus sp.)
Lantana stems/ha
A significant relationship between increasing fire frequency and reduction in lantana density over time
Jasanoff and Martello (2004): (1) the culturally, historically, and place-based specificity of much local knowledge appears in the global context as more truly reflective of complex environmental realities (2) the incorporation of place-based local knowledge counters the simplifying, reductionist, and erasing tendencies of scientifically defined environmental standards; (3) creating space for local knowledges in environmental governance could potentially create environmentally aware social identities, thereby increasing support for robust management practices
The Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006 is a new law that gives tribal and forest dwelling communities rights to cultivate, use, and manage forests.
Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006 Individual rights Rights to land currently cultivated Community rights Forest resources Community management of forests
Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006: Section 3 (1): i) right to protect, regenerate, or conserve or manage any community forest resource, which they have been traditionally protecting and conserving for sustainable use.
The Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006: Section 5: Gram Sabhas are .empowered to: a) protect wild life, forest and biodiversity; b) ensure that adjoining catchments area, water sources and other ecological sensitive areas adequately protected; c) ensure that the habitat of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers is preserved from any form of destructive practices affecting their cultural and natural heritage; d) ensure that the decisions taken in the Gram Sabha to regulate access to community forest resources and stop any activity which adversely affects the wild animals, forest and the biodiversity are complied with;
1516 Soliga households have been granted individual rights to land for cultivation.
Nearly 60 percent are landless and have not yet received rights to habitation.
FRA implementation in BRT Community forest Rights were awarded to 25 gram sabhas of BRT in October 2011 by the MLA and District Commissioner in Chamrajanagara district.
1. Right of ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of Minor Forest Produce as defined under 2(i) and 3(1)(c) of Act. 2. Right over collection and ownership of products from water bodies such as fish; access to grazing and customary rights (including of nomadic and pastoralists communities), and seasonal resources and other rights defined under section 3(1)(d) of the Act. 3. Right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage any community forest resources for sustainable use under section 3(1)(i) of the Act and managed by a committee constituted by the Gram Sabha under section 4(1)(e) of Rules. 4. Right of access to biodiversity and community right to intellectual property and traditional knowledge related to biodiversity and cultural diversity as per Section 3 (1) (k) of the Act. 5. Right to visit, access and worship at the 489 sacred sites by Soligas under the section of 3 (1) (k) of the Act.
The Soligas and the Forest department are in conflict over crucial governance issues: Who controls the area for which rights have been received by adivasis under the FRA? What might be a new institutional arrangement for the sharing of power? How does the Gram Sabha exercise its community forest rights in the face of an increasingly protectionist agenda in PAs?
Deccan Herald
25/12/2011
Collaborative management plan for BRT Governance and Management: Potential of FRA to manage BRT Forest management committee in each podu for conservation of 10 km radius Taluka level committees Biligiri Community-Based Tiger and Wildlife Sanctuary Committee with representation from Forest Department, civil society groups. Soligas do not seek an exclusively communitydriven model Strongly felt that management is only possible along with Forest Department
FRA for collaborative governance The FRA provides an unprecedented opportunity to evolve collaborative systems of forest governance in protected areas. Forests have historically been used and transformed by local communities, whose situated knowledge is crucial in ensuring the continued ecological functioning of forests.
FINAL POINTS Conservation policy has adversely impacted local communities, and shown mixed success Local people have a more nuanced understanding of ecological process than outside experts WLPA and the FRA are silent on the institutional arrangements for decentralised and collaborative governance of forests, and need to be amended The gap between WLPA and FRA is as much a gap in knowledge systems as it is a gap in governance