Regional Workshop on Community-Based Conservation:

Policy and Practice

9-11 February 1997

Indian lnstitufe of Public Adm*nistration, New Delhi, India

Sponsored by

United Natiorts EducationaC Scientific and CuItural Oqpniwtion, Nau Delhi, India

I

___.... --_-.

Regional M1ur~Pop on Community-Based Con.servation:

Policy and Practice

9-11 February, 1997

c

Organized by: Indian Institute of Public Admini.str~“on, New Delhi, India

Sponsored by:

United Nations Educationul, Scientifi and Cultural Organisation, New DeLhi, India

. . -

TABLEOFCONTENTS )

Preface List of .4hbreviations

1. Background to the Workshop 2. introductory Session 3. Global and Regional Overviews 4. Country Papers 5. Presentations on Specific Issues and Case Studies 6. Working Group Sessions 7. Concluding Session

1. Workshop Schedule 2. List of Participants 3. Participants of the Working Groups 4. List of Papers Presented

3 4 5 6 7 8 13 20 24

PREFACE

This is a reporl of the deliberations at a three-day Regional Workshop on Community-Based Conservation: Policy and Practice, organized on 9-I 1 February. 1997, at New ~Delhi. Sponsored by the UNESCO Regional Office for South and Central Asia, the Workshop was organ&d by the Indian Institute of Public Administration. Participants included a cr clfesection of interests from Bhutan Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Iran, Mongolia, Maldives, France, India, Switzerland, and United Kingdom.

This Report is arranged accordirrg to the schedule of the Workshop (See Annex i), and includes a complete fist of participants, and List of papers presented. b is of course impossible to fully capture the liveliness of the presentations and discussions, nor have we attempted to put down every statement made, but we hope that the essen:e of the deliberations has been captured in the key points that we have hi&lighted here. In disttIhng this essence from several hours of discussions, it is veq likely that certain distortions may have crept in. We hope these are not serious, and request readers to respond if any are noticed. We apologize if we have inadvertently m&presented any comment.

The Workshop, and this report would not have been possible without inputs f&m a large number of people and institutions. In particular we wish to thank UNESCO (csptciany John Kingston,

’ Warren Mellor and Sudba Mehndimtta), and IIPA (especiaily M. Wadbwani, S.N. Suri B.B. Malhotra, K.R. Nair, RX. Sethi, Leela Dhar, Pundhk Thakre, Kishan La! Katyal, R.K. Yadav, R.K. Hazare, SK. Cbandalaya, Ved Prakash, Vijay Sharma, Hira Sin&, Neel ?&r&t, Shiv Narain, A.S. Satyanarayan, Dan Singh, S. Chacko, Vishal Thakre, V&&r Anand, Sangeeta Kaintura, Fat-bad Vania. Priya Das, KChtistopher, Suniti Kumar Jba). We would also like to say a big “thank you” to the rapporteurs without whose diligent notes we would not have been able to compile this report, and the chairpersons and moderators of the dif%rent t3C&OIWWhOdthC

smooth progress of the proceedings (their names appear in Annex 1).

The 3O-odd papers presented at the Workshop (see Annex 4), ate being compiled into a book. Interested readers are requested to contact us at the address below:

Ashish Kothari, Ahma Pathak, R V.Anumdha

Contact address: Ashish Kothati, Indian Institute of Public Administration, LP.Estate, Ring Road New Delhi- 110002. Telephone: 91-i i-3317309 (extn. 214). Fax: 91-l i-3319954. Email: akothari@v.unv.crnct.in & ashish @g&d101 .vsnl.nct.in.

3

LIST OF ABBFUWIATIONS

BCN CBC CM EL4

: l.. E-FT ----=-’ ICIMOD

IIPA IUCN JFM LCK

MNC c NAREPP

NGO NP

PA PI

<; UNESCO UNRED UPOV WG WI1 WWF

Biodiversity Comervation Network Community-Bawd Conscrva~ CoIlabomh~t Environmental Impact A!3ses!ment Forest Protection Committee Xntemational Centre fix Integrated Mountain Development Indian Institute of Public AdmisGtntion WorId Conservation Uniqn Joint Forest Management LocalCommunityKno~c Man and Biosphere Muhi-National @poratbn Natural Resource and Emironmental Policy Project Non-Govemmental~on Natkmd Park Non-Timtm Forest Produce Protected Arc8 People’s InstiMion ‘Trade Related Intckctual Rqs&y Rights United Nations Educational, Scientific and CuIturaI organiz;iton United Nations Reacarch Institute for Susbablc Dcvekpmt Union for Protection of Plant Varieties working Group Wildlife Institute of India World-Wide Fund for Nature

REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION: POLICY AND PFUCTICE

Full report

I. BACKGROUND TO THE 1WNKsHoP

Worldwide, them is increasing recognition that environmental conservation is not possible without the active involvement of local communities. Across the Third World, conver&nal models of consmtion have focused on centralised planning and de&ion-making proccsrrta, putting faith only in the ability of govemmgnts to achieve consqvation, and not enuusting communities with the responsibility for this. While these have had some success in saving many threatened species and habitats, their success is increasingly being undermined by the growing co&&s over natural resources in and around areas identified for umsexvation, by increasing pot&al oppo&ion to conservation and by the tendency of governments themselves to sacrifice these areas for short-term commercial or political gain.

A radical change is now slowly taking place, as governments and em&nmentahs@ re&% the hort-sighti and unjust nature of top-down -on policies and strategies, and as communities themselves find their v&e. Community participation in naturai resource management is now being seen as critical to long-teml success. Various forms of coMorati& joint/ participatory management practices are being tried out in many court&s, in which the decision-making role of local communities varies from a token gesture to predominant control. In many areas, communities have taken back total control, to the extent of completely prohibiting entry by officials into conserve d areas. In others, the g ovemuncnt retains contd, but encourages varying degrees of people’s involvement. Even in such efforts, there is evidence that whete communities have greater decision-making power, -on is more effecuvely achieved.

However, devolving resource management powers to the local communities is by no means a simple solution. It has also been reahsed that such communities may thcmschrts have social disparities and serious inequalities, and many have got inuicatety linked to outside market ecxmomies, lost their traditional sustainable practicc~, and have O&II lost also the confidence or capacity to manage the resources on their own. These are some of the challenges that face Community-Based Conserva tion (CBC), and need to be thoroughly asses& and a&mssed.

In an attempt to initiate this, BPA organized the Workshop, with the following spe&c objee&s:

a) To make a comparative assessment of CFK attempts across the south and central Asian region; b) To learn fMm the strengths and weaknes.qes of the conservation attempts made in each country; c) To analyse the policy and legal iruph~ations of CBC in each courta?/ and in the region; d) To initiate networking amongst groups and individuals of various countries of the region; and c) To develop recomnzndations for follow-up action at policy, legal, and programmatic levels.

The Workshop began witt~‘Ashish Kdhuri. Ixcbxu. IPA. and a rmnber of the Workshop Coorctinating Team, wtshmiq ail the jmdi+m& fobwed by the pmicipma kt.mducing themselves.

Mr. M. Wadhwani. Director, IIPA, in his addrtes to the participants, h@i&ted IIPA’s active involvement in issues relating to peoples’ participation in natural msourees management. He assured that IIPA would take concrete steps to give effect to the recommendations made by the Workshop par&pants.

Dr. Warren MeUor, Director a.i., UNESCO Regional Office, explained UNESCO’s Mttr and Biosphere prosguume. Through the concept of Biosphere Rcscnm, the MAB programme a&~ to achieve co lWvation0f~tcms,ensure bemcfh for IocaJ popubions, and enlist their f\ln participation in the managcmmt of the rcmvu. In March 1995, at a rcvim of the MAE3 ~~einSpain,UNESCOarrivedatthcScviIltStrattgywithttnkcypointsfor~t of biosphom macrvoa. A now UNESCO Gtktivu odod Eoo-to&niquo aims at dovoioping human

“, and institutional capaci& for land use piaming and sustainable resource use through a multi- disciplinary approach. UNESCO’s programme involves collalwration with g ovemmm@ tientic institutions and NGOs in the rehabifitation of degtaded lands, development of indigenous knowlcdgc systems and attempts at community involvement in conservation.

Ashish Kothari explained the objectives of the Workshop, which include: inter- exchange between the participants from the different countries; analysis of policy and legal implications of , invohfing communities in ccmsewation; iirkrhg the process of networking in the region; and aniving at a specific set of actions to be taken in each of the countries. The structure of the Workshop as laid out in the Schedule (Annex 1) was explained.

This was followed by the presentation of the oven&w paper by Ashish Kothari (on behalf of Co- authors Neema Pathak and R.V. Anuradha), in which he outlined the major issues for consideration at the Workshop. He explained the shift f&n the CoIlvmtional view in which conservation is assumed to be the responsibility of the State, towards involving and benefiting communities in conservation efforts. He defined Community-Based Conservation as conservation of biological diversity based on a key or substant&al role of local communities in decision-making sttwtures Eletncnts of CBC would in&de:

l Identification of contmumties, for instance on the basis of criteria such as dependence on the resources, prim existence in the area, and proximity to the resource.

l An adequate knowledge and resource base, the challenge being how to achieve a muma@ respectful relationship between local community knowledge and outside formal knowltdgc for achieving CBC.

0 Incentives and stakes for local communities in the form of economic, social, cultural and politicaI benefits.

l h~titutiod atr~~turcs consisting of true decentralization and empowerment, involvement Of .actual useta and custodians. contkct management.

. Issues of equity and social justice to be addressed to ensure that these do not undermine conservation efforts, and aAso that the latter does not accentuate inequities.

. A legal and policy framework. inctuding recognition of customary law, akgning legal status to the benefits and stakes or’ local communities, guaranteeing access to inf0l-tmt.i~ formukatmg

‘,

processes ibr participation, eMuring su’ns;sttncc and Evehood Aights, and lxgdahg hctivities to ensure ctmscrvalicm.

The above wtm also some of the major issues which the Workahop could address over the next three days.

3. GLOBAL AND REGIONAL OVERVIEW,~

Grazia Borrini-Fqerabend of the IUCN Social Policy Group shared with the participants IUCN’s experience in Collaborative Management (CM). The basic question she addressed was: Can CM reconcile effectivlentss of cod on and equity, avoid dumping on the environmen tthepriceof social justice, be politically kgitimate and appealing? She ana+ed the elements invoh4 in CBC: the problems in using the term commpzi@, which might obscure the plurality of &zests invoh4 and generate inequities. She thercforc proposedcuse of the term stakeholders idc&ficd by criteria such as: geographical proximity, historical associatiq existing rightq dip&me for survival/ livelihood, institutional man&te, unique knowledge and skitls, losses tid w incurred, degree of effort/ investment, equity considerzztions, and impact on resources. comment was defined as a partnership by which governmen t agencies, local ccmtmunities and resource tlseq NGOs and other stakeholders negotiate as appropriate to each context, the author@ and responsibility for management of a specific area of set of ~t~oun‘~8. She briefly illu&ated this

, through IUCN’s expaience in Uganda. The me&s of the CM approach are that it is upfron about the multiplicity of inmts inv~lvcd. However the problems are that not all the stake IUX equal, and hence the system may not be ready for it.

Michel Pimbert of WWF-Switzerland, who ww p&km in his individual capacity, expL&d someoftheconceptsandfin~inhispaperonR~of~~andSustainabitjrin Community Based Conservation, which was based on a UNRTSD study on the social and ecological impacts of PAS. He identified one of the problems in implemepting CBC as its reliance on centmlised bureaucracies. The reversals for CBC, he said, could be achieved by: reaf&m@ the value of historical analysis; embodying concepts of local rights and taritory in everyday management practice in PA categcries and land use schemes; strengthening local control over the access and end uses of biological resources, knowkdge and tiotmal innovations; ensu&g genuine participation and professional reorientation in com3en&on bureaucracits; building on local priorities, and on local systems of knowledge and management.

Ln tie discussion that followed, G. Raju., Visiting Roftsaor f&m Institute of Rural Management, India, expressed his fear that CM was cleveriy defined to please bureaucrats, with no real sharing of power. Dhrupad Choudhury f?om the G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environmcn: and Development, highhghted the d.ifIiculty in applying CM in areas such as North East India where conservation often does not have government invohlent. In a situation when people are not immune to ma&et forces, he pointed out that cmmumkst vales would untie conservation. Neena Singh &om the Centre for Science and Envir ortment, Delhi, asked how the process of genuine participation would be sustained over the long term. Sharachchandra Lelc from the Institute of Social and Economis Change, Bangalore, commented that ofIen it was tjnc rcnkdcing -group, with no interest in conservtion or equity, but only in profit, that is dominant. He stated that in the JFM programme in some Indian states, the motive is often to attract extemal loans. Suki Ekaratne from the Depment of Zoology, Univcrsi ty of Colornbo, wondered whether experiences .zithecorltcxtof-ccOSliJlcnrS~bc- roothcrspheres.GeorgeMic~ ‘C:nkrsity of hiotrtgttiia, France. pin&d c?-ut the kpduxx of educaticm of people, ad its rx,ihicd impbbcm Zktinc Jayawicii lkos~ SAREpPI CZxAocnbo, expmwd ha fur tbf grcaca~~Luu!to~dcht~olbjectnc.

7

Inherreqxmsetosor~~eofthequericsandcommemq BeFcytrabend ;>ointed out that ioCzi . -*-c-- p&-Jmmw a m a;tways 7 ,a%iptt~‘~avarietyof~~ ’

behaviour towards the environment. CM acknowledges the multiplici~ of interests of the various social groups; it reties on an approach that is less threatening and more compromisii. The problem of who decides, however, is a. complex one, and would depend upon how much of weightage is given to what group. Pink-t acknowledged that people are not immune to market forces: and that one should acknowledge the web of relationships, and the links between micro, national and international level processes afkhg peoples’ responses. He pointed out that one cannot extrapolate studies from terrestrial ecosystems to marine ecosystems and that studies on .some ecosystems have indicated that moderate levels of disturbance can be important for ecosystem balance. To the query regarding greater participatic~ his rtsponst was that wherever people had not been involves c onservation had been a disaster. He pointed out the importance of addressing political questions regarding the nature of human society and its nlationship with nature.

Shakhar Singh of IIPA, the -for the aeff;i(#i, hi@i&ed rome issuea that had a bearing *._-. on the topic: change of pcrccptions towards F with &nge in the &velopment modek problems in stakeholder identification; what the definition of dis&rbance should be; and the cdallenges presented by a world whose present &graded state we are responsr’be for, and in which sustainable management is often not possible.

4COUNTRYPMERS

I. INDU

Arvind Khare ffom W-India briefly presented a social, political and economic profile of India HehighQ@itheambiv&nceofIndian conmvationists who applaud devoktion of powers to local COUINAS, birt are apprehensive of similar devolution to the state governments. He then proceeded to draw the nexus between forest biodiversity, tribal&m&ted areas and poverty in India, and pointed out that. dependence on forests is often the main survival strategy for India’s poor. Among the threats to biodiversity and community knowledge systems arc habitat destruction by commercial forces and economic processes; temnial insecurity caused by a continuous onsiaught on the righta of forest dwellers; disempowerment of communities; and new international developnients such as the TRIPS and the UPOV agreements. The existing law and policy on wildlife constrvation stresses on the conc;ept of PAs, and has little to recommend for people kng in and around PAS. The official response to c-on seems to be a repeat of the colonial discourse. However, eco-development, which attempts to respond to hardships fkced by people in and around PAS, and the JFM programme, which aims at rezognition of rights of organizcd communities over degraded patches of forests, are two noteworthy official attcmp& to respond to the situation. But there are problems with the manner in which eco-de~ciopment is sought to be operationalised, including its acceptance of the cun-ent legal structure. Khare concluded by s~esting some proposals for titure action: the need to shed the policy of exclusion of communities; comrmmitics to become the focal point of new strategy; PAS to be segmented into diflerent zone, with commuriity participation to W the objectives of conservation and community sutitence needs, and substantial changes in policy and law to achizve these goals.

In the discussion that foltowcd. Avanthi Jayatilake of NAREPP, Colombo, wondered what the 0flicA response to comm3ni~y participation was. kanjith Bandara of the University of Coionlbu asked about the in..titutionaI arrangement for conservation. Sharachchmdra 1,ele pointed out that

R

there is no entity such as ,a homcgenous community. Neema FM’ mern’ber ot’ ihe Workshop Cnordinatinp Team. IIPA. tipad the iaaue ot voluntary relocation and asked whether thiu could be

a viable ~tcn~.& Skekhar Singh stated that P.4s did cater IO the resou~cc needs of people living within them and only prohibited unsustainable rcsouru use. Seema Bhati of the Biodivcrarity Consnvation Network, New Delhi, asked who would fir&y determine what use was unsustainable. R.S. Rana of WWF-India pointed out the problem of accommodating the interests of the new generation among local commnities.

Khare’s response was that poky changes with regard to peoples’ participation has been influenced by a number of histtical factors, initiated both by peoples’ movements and experiments at the official level by some forcsttrs. The existing institutional arrangement comprises of the Forest Ikpaatment. On the issue of voluntary resettlement, he expnsscd his doubts regarding the “voluntariness”inthemanncrinwhichitissoughtfobcdoneinthcproposadtcodcvdopmtnt schemes. Regarding local communities’ use of mources withinPAs,hestatedthatmoetofsuch ustisdcemedillegal,~dhtactthtrcisnoinctntivctoMvlcthcr#loun;e.Thtf;rctthatthtreieno homogenous local community, he stres&, e not undemtine the need for ident@ing local communities,~~tfiiswouMbtadifficuhpr~.Onthtaspirationsofthcntwgcncration, hcpointedoutthatthesewilIiaqelybeshape+ibythcopti onsava&b~etothcpnwcntonc,andone canonlyhopethattheywouldchoosetheprudentpath.

II. RHUTAN

~Kunamg Do@, Communications Officer ant3 Head, Communications. DiGon, National Environment~on, Bhutan, presented a Mef OvcNicw of the umse~~&on situation in his countxy, and then proctedcd to discuss a case study fi-om Jii Do@ National Park (JDNP). As yet Bhutan does not have too many problems, 70 percent of the laud is under natural f&est cover, and there has been an increase in the same between 1984 and 1995. The mt is comrnittedtomaintaininga~60ptrccntoflamdforestcove;r.Theimportanccto cxmsavation in Buddhism and the efforts of the ruling class have contributed to the current state of affbirs. Bhutan’s self-imposed isolation, a small population and traditional agrarian lifestyle have also been responsible for the same. There is official recognition of the fact that sociWc development must be consistent with the needs of the people, and the carrying c+acity of the environment. The Jiie Dotji National Park is the west of all the PAS of Bhutan. It has a substantial number of people living within and outside it, who are dependent upon the natural resources of the NP fat their k&hood. Studies were conducttd to understand the patterns of resource use by the local communities. The effort of the Government is to initiate a number of developmental activities to improve the living conditions through the Integrated Conserve tion and Development Programme, which includes family planning and health care, alternate energy uses, programmes for regulation of harvesting and collection of incense plants and medicinal plants, akmate livelihood and income generating activities such as eco-tourism, recruitment of local people as the Park staff, and education and awareness pv.

In the discussion that followed, Sakmi Suri, an independent researcher, asked about the involvement of NG0s in Bhutan. Roma of Ghad Kshetra Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti, an Indian NGO, asked how family planning programmes were relevant. P.S. Ramakrishnan of the Jawaharlal Nehru Unkrsity, Delhi, commented upon how Buddhism adds a cultural dimension to conservation. Seema Bhatt’s question was whether the medkinal plant harvesting occurred in zones, or all through the PA. Neema Pathak wanted to know about the institutional fYi-amewo& for tiP4 ~~kharSioghw~iftbeclaimof~~infcKtetco\E#.~~aoof~e~ definition of forest area. Soumyadeep Dattn t+om NW’s Bockon, ~I&I, drew rtlatMn co the

KwzangDoji~dthatthcrtarc~thtetN~~thatthtRoy~SocitryforProttction of Nature has been invoh& in educational activities. To Roma’s question he mpodcd that family planning was r&want to contain the pqulation pressure on the environmen t. He agreed with Ramakrishnan that nature was revered in their religious beliefs. To Datta’s co&ent, Dorji responded that remedial measures were being undertaken, and EiAs were being conducted.

II.. IRAN

Asghar Jeddi Nia, Director of Extension and Paqb’ Participation. J&ad’s Oq@&ion in Giibn 3r~,Iraa,dcscn’badhiscoun~‘srich~and~ofthcsamcthroilghtht PA network Around 250,000 people in iran are prim&@ dcpemtent on the natural ~esouxes. Womenin~,sharcacloserelationrrhipwithMturt,snd~arich~~erboutthe same Hc explained the main objecti of natural resources c otvmvuion as: protection of natural b%4XJfS~~gtaeticbiodivtntity,Conrhrcting~d~ting~betW~

thcpcoplcandlllrtunrlrtsouncs.Planstothiscfftctcrcistfordcscrtsandforw&.‘Forcsbyco- opcratks have been established in some of the provinces. Vii Councils play ti active role in protection. The govcmm cntal plans to focus, among othera, on the use of media fbr gcncrating awarenessand otpndh of resident and pastoral populations.

In the dseqwnt discussion, Farhad Vania asked about the PAS and !he management stluctnre , therein. Jcddi Nia expkmd the same through a fascinating range of slides, and said that the management of the PAS is done through the won for Environrncnt, a government agcn~y.

Mhmmed Z&air, Ass&ant Envkonment Analy&, Minisw of Plan&g, Human Resource and Environtncnt, Maldks, stated at the outset that the concept of CBC was new to his country. He then elaboded on the range of biodiwn&y in the island nation. Tourism and fish&s ark the mainsby of the exonomy. The major threats to cofmrva tion are the small land area, b-3 popuMionprcwurcandwraIminbg.Of&ialcffortsat conservation have conccntratcd on dtsignationofPAaConrmunityandNGOeffortsartvcryrecenl.~koffunds,lowlevelof awareness and absence of laws rcwgG&g CBC arc some of the constraints for a CBC approach. Zuhair prop04 that there should be programmes for developing cons&usncsq the law should f&We CBC, there should be authentic dialogue between the Govemm ent and communitiq and schemes should be &loped for sharing benefits with communities.

When the discussion was thrown open to the house, Madhav Gad@ f?om the Lndian Insti~tc of Science asked whether the CBC approach existed tr&tionaEy in coral reef fisheries. Priya Dao, IIPA wondered why the need for community involvement in conserva tion was felt in the Maldives. Avanthi Jayatilake asked about the steps taken to counter coral mining. Stoma Bhatt’s query WBS whether the local communities obtained any benefits horn tourism. Shtie Jayawickrama asked if owners of hotels and tourist resorts collaborated in conscwation schemes. Neema Pathak wonti if introduction of new species ir.to the ecosystem had caused any problems. Prabhakar Rao of Upav&sh asked whether any population control measures were being undertaken.

In his rtsponsc, Muhammed Zuhair said that certain traditional fishing practices existed, however these were not officially recognised. The ntcd for community involvcmcnt he said, was bting

rtcognisaj ~CGWSC of the fact that the government on its own cannot ta&k the problem of

resource overuse. The coral mining issue, he said, was being tackied by rcsi&ing It to designated are;rsfilzfrom~.Regpdt\gthtqueryon~~he~loc;ll~~barcfit some extent through sale of handicrafts. At times there were cmfkts bctwam fi&iag &acsta and tourism interests, and an attempt was being made to reso& the same. Regarding &o&ment of tourist resorts in consmation, he commented that some of these provided protection to tu&s. He stated that no problem had been perceived because of introduction of species into their ecosystem. He mentioned that Maldives did have a family play@ programme to tackle the issue of population pressure.

D. Myugmursuren, Director, National Service for Protected Areas and Ecotourism, Ministry of Nature and Environm cnt,Mongolia,ed~anaccountofthebiodivcrsity~~~ofhie country. Conservation is ptimady done through a netwo& of PAS which are divided into zanes. In ~ecoreareaofeachPAverylimiteduseispennitted.Inthebufferzonepastun,fiehingand hunting are pert&&d to a limited extent. A law on special PAS was recently enacted. Involvement oflocaico ~tieshadraotyetbeenoffic~rtcogrristdinMongdiaButplarmingwasin progress to ensure the same. To ensure sustainable use, My- StlXXSCdtfiatthCfuture course of action should concentrate on increasing awareness, f&cilitating w&&oration, and improvingtheIawandpolicyfran-lcwork.

Ln the discussion on the above issues, Borrini-Feyerabend asked the response of local communities towards PAS. Farhad Vania’s query was whether PAS afZ&ed pastoraiisti and nomads. Saloni Suri asked whether people lived in the core zone, and if so, what was the nature of rights they had. U.M. Chandrashskara from the Kerala Forest Research Institute asked whether the government provided the people any incentives to move out of the core area. RV. Anuradha, member of the Workshop Coordinating team of IIPA, asked how the new law on Environment Protection delegated to NGOs the responsibility to implement various aspects of it.

Myagmarsurcn responded by saying that local communities were largely supportive of PAs. They are granted certain concessions as well as benefits. The law regulates the activities of nomadic communities. PeOple do not live in the core area, but only around it, and the (favenuncnt was undertaking activities to respond to their needs. R& NGOs, he stated that the move to delegate reaponsihilities to NGCk was a recent one, and was quite succes&l.

VI. NEPAL

Bharat Shrcstha, a Development Economist fi-om Mobil&at& and Development, a~? organizacion based in Nepal, gave a general account of the biodiversity of Nepal, as weu 88 of ita po&al, social and economic structure. Conservation is sought to be achieved through national parks and wildlife reserves. The major issues in this regard are: conflicts with regard to use of and ~QXX to natural resources; crop raidii; loss of life due to increase in animal population; invokvement of the army in managing PAS, and conflicts resulting from this. The 2988 Forest Policy ma&d a turning point in the approach towards wildlife management. It laid down the guidelines for community forestry, which was also embodied in the 1993 amendment to the forest law. The thrust of the new law is to hand over forests to user group committees. The major constraints in this regard are the peoples’ id& of crus.x m !hc govcrmnaa, w& k-& e- m; iadgrratcM& ~&q.xky ~-~&ng &mar&on of the area and identification of the degree ot‘ dependence on fms. ?icKks :h,aw been irlvolved in i.hc pC*;css cf gtncrrttng awareness ~~ptopst.~ .5.hra;tna~cl!thispcoctsssbouldbc~ tocilkcgrepa cornm*rnwm

II

. S Theothexstcpsforfihueactmhcrecoaweadbd forest bound&

wt3-c: up to date dcfrufcatim oi , incentives for field pemoNxLand+tnedxnan~i0ffixca3tE. .

In the discussion that followed, B.M.S. R&ore of the WildMe Institute of India asked about the response of the user groups. R.V. Anuradha a&cd about the criteria used to identi@ these groups. Avanthi Jayatilake asked whether the handing over of forests was done on the ba@ of community demand, or whether by government discretion. Sherine Jayawickrama’s query was whether the rights assigned to the user groups included the right to exciude. Neema Pathak requested information on any success stories of community management. Ashi& Kothari asked whether community involvement wiis being considered inside PAS a24o.

Shrestha’s response WAS that only degradtd or semi-degraded forests were handed over to the communities, and the process was mainly initiated by the go vcmrnent. User groups were identified by the communities themsehxs, and the main criteria used was proximity to the natural resource. Regarding success stories, he poi7ted out that prior to 1990, the forests were handed over to Panchayat bodies, and not to the real users; hewever the situation was undergoing a change now. Usershadtherishttomanagt:theana~tothem,andthisincludtdtherightto~& outside users. Thcrc had been limited success with attempts to invohz communities in PAS, such asintheMakaluandAnnapuma conservation arms.

VII. PAKISTAN

GM. Khattak, Senior Advisor, IUCN, Environment Section, Pakistan, tie@ described the extent and natun of biodixrsity resources in his countxy. He then gave an account of the of&&l policy towards conservation, which has la&y not taken into account the actual users. The refutation programmes of the 1970s were mainly targeted at the big land owners. Conservation progrAmmcs also largely do not take into account the real needs of the people, viz., health, education, access to food and water. The rural poor are expected to underwrite the development process for the urban elite, without their needs ever being addressed. Most of the forest land is under the control of the Forest Department. Local communities are perm&d limited access to timber and fixhvood. The Foresters are trained only in physical and biological sciences, and have no idea as to the importace of involving local communities. The chaIlenges therefore are: to raise the potential of the area to meet the needs of the people as well as achieve conservation; change the thrust of forestry education; and recognize the role of local communiti~ in conservation. Some efforts At thisweretakingplsccinthecaseofaftwPAa,andnon-PAforcstare~.

h the ensuing discur.sion G. Raju asked what A better @ategy would be: to replace the existing Forest Department, or to retain it and make relevant changes in the law. Avanthi Jayatilake asked if there were any examples of compensation to the local communities by the authorities. Borrirti- Feyerabend inquired if there had been any debate as to the responsibilities of local communities.

Khattak pointed out that in Pakistan, it is very easy to make laws, but the probkzn arises because of lack of implementation. He stated that making the law which cannot be enforced is bringing the law into disrepute. Existing institutions can be reformed by retraining foresters since they are limited in number He felt that interacting with countries in the region would enable emergence of better strategy. With regard to examples of oticial compensation to local communities, he said there were no actual examples, but a recent project by the European Union was addressing this issue. An easy way to tackle the situation, he felt, would be to heip w the livelihood requirements of the commtity. III this process. however it is important to work with communities to find out their axpactntions The Go vemmcnt ofton does not live up to ita obligation to protect the

interests of communities. Dissemin ation of information was another major pro&m, and Khaki felt his wan an area where the UNESCO could pcssibh lulp.

Avanthi Jayatilake, of USAID’s Natural Resources and Environmental Policy Project, Colombo, and Nirmalie Pallewatta of h4arch for Conservation, Colombo, made a joint presentation of Sri Lanka’s country report. Conservation is sought to be achieved @rough designation of reserves and sanctuaries. The legal and inst&utional constraints to effective CO~MIW&II afethatthercaretoo many agencies with little co-ordination between them. There is great deal of eagerness to translate poticies into law, however, a number of crucial issues are often not qmsidered. The main drawbacks are: there is no legal sanction given to community participati~ except in the recent Conservation Act and the EIA proc&xe; political connivance in e&r&~ disnqtivc activity is another hindrance to effective WnseWation; effect of other governmental policits, e.g., the agricultural and industrial policy on l&x&x&y are not examined; there is general reluctance to devolve authority to the local level; there is lack of institutional capacity to implement any changes made in the law; there is no mechanism for feedback from communities in the planning and implementation stages (though this is sought to be reversed in the Special Area Management Plan to be incorporated as an amendment to the Coast Conservation Act). NGOs have played an active ;ole in Sri Lanka, especially in the Community Based Resource Management Project (an example of which is the human-elephant conflict reduction effort), conservation of medicinal plants, and in cmstal management efforts.

The discussion that ensued consisted of the following comments and queks: G. Raju asked about the criteria to gauge participation levels; Chtisto Fabricius from the International Institute of Environment and Development pointed out that in Zimbabwe, elephants were “used” (hunted) by the communities, and wondered if this was a possibility in Sri Lanka as weI& Seema Bbatt asked whether there was any religious sanction against killing of elephants; B.J. Krkhnan hrn Save Nilgiris Campaign wondered whether the civil strife in Sri Lanka had any impact on conservation, and on peoples’ participation.

In their response, Jayatilake and Pallewatta stressed that the openness in the decision making process was an important criterion to gauge participation levels. About using elephants in Sri Lanka, they f&It that this could be a possibii. It was illegal to kill or injure elephants, however there was no clear elephant management strategy in Sri TLanka. Elephants are k&d sometimes for commercial purposes. Local communities also killed them wherever they were a menace. Responding to Krishnan, they said that ethnic conflict was a problem, however there were also cases of reserves where different communities peacefully co-exist.

5PRESENTATIONSONSPECIFlCISSUESANDCASESTUDIES

Grassroots Consmalion Praclices

nfadhav Gad.@1 of the Indian institute of Science, Bangakq India, reflected on the forces of change tcsponsible for erosion of community conservation practices. He traced the evolution in forms of m measZ% !%xn +k fxmcfgt of the sacred t9 social uxnvntjonq ?nd f&!& 10 state regulations. He termed the last as being often gp_ar_lgc 2x-e ~%FAads confh rather than ~011scrva?ion. The ConcqJt of the sam% iK f&t bd lseen m&d amdmbh; W&I & spread oir.lJJdmL sciedfis, intin- 4 ~C~.~e~e;eaa~o~~~tai~~~in~

13

cases, but not in large scale societies where communities require the support of higher level institutionr. SW regulation needs to be changed keeping in view the ten&a of: &central&d resource control; decentralized development planning and implementation; respect for practical emlogical knowledge; and financial rewards. Decentralized governance is particularly important in view of the fact that the environmental concern of a politician is inversely proportional to the size of his/ her constituency. The potential of Panchayati Raj institutions therefore needs to be developed. The other important factor that has not be-en adequately developed is that of positive incentives to encourage communities to conserve. Gadgil felt that this would be a more effective means of conservation than spiritual sanctions, social conventions and state regulations.

ln the Asctcssiofr that followed reacting to Maclhav Gadgil’s perception of sacred groves, P.S. Ramakrishnan stated that sacred groves can still be the basis for certain kinds of conservation practices. Gadgil clarified that the concept of sacred per se will not continue to work, and that it should be backed by legal and other mechanisms. Regarding Panchayati Raj institutions, G. Raju pointed out that there had been no real tri+le down of power in these institutions. Ajay titogi from ICIMOD, Nepal, felt that often Panchayati Raj displaces traditional administrative bodies. Gadgil responded that Panchayati R;\i was just a step in the light direction, and that the process has to be accompanied with capacity building. Also important is the need to resolve the confIicts between Panchayati Raj and traditional structures.

conserving the Sacred

P.S. Ramakrishnan of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, discussed the value of sacred groves in conservation practice. He explained that “sacred” applies at the levels of species, sub- species, ecosystems an4 landscapes. Many species, often keystone ones are venerated as sacred, and the concept has a great value for conservation. However, official attitudes towards conservation often dismiss the sacred as superstition; NGO efforts are oflen at the other extreme, and tend to get emotional about it. There is an urgent need to find the middle path between the two. He proceeded to explain the three criteria necessary to measure sustainable development in tropical forest management: economic, social and ecological. In many areas where traditional socieues live, there is need for a different paradigm for forestry management, by arriving at a balance between ecological and social processes.

The above issues elicited the following respmses during the discussion: Anil Gupta of the Indian Instimtc of Management, Ahmedabad, India, wanted to know whether sharing the information on the indicaton for sustainable development helped the process of conservation. Ramakrishnan drew his attention to an experiment in Nagaland (North East India), where the locals had listed WOO- 6000 species as valuable in the natural ecosystems that they were managing. To Ash&h Lothari’s question on how the notion of the “sacred” could be integrated into conservation, Rnmnkrishnnn replied that the functional sacred grove coukl servt: as an important way in which to um.scxv~

certain keystone species Whiie ecologists would take 10- 15 yeam to identify keystone species, i&ntiIicatiou of locall~~ valucj spec;ica ;LS kcys~oue 01~s would result in some sure hits.

;;I:/ S;lpta of Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India, began his presentation with threr: ideas: (i) the sacred and secular are intertwined, and there are examples of the sacred space king used to cnf’orcc rcguWms on secular activity; (ii) the ideal situation for sustainabili~ is \+hcn external incentives are replaced by internal ones; (iii) conservation will take place best when people are self-motivated to do it. NO one set of incentives can give answers to consewation problems or issues. Incent& will have to be different, for example, when the ownership is

private, communal or ihe siaie. iie drew reference to ihe &gums in his paper r”or the Workshop, to CX&ill thC diB~lWlCecl in individupl ;md ~lilld &&eg, mat,&d & non-&d incentives, and the variations ari&ng in view of the specificities of each situation. For instance, . . . mdrvrdual Illilterial inccnhs could take the form of intellectual property rights, fees and rewards; individual non-material incentives would include honours to the person; community material incentives would comprise of trust funds and risk funds; community non-material incentives could be facilities for education.

In the discussion that fohowed, Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend related instances from Africa where herbalists were given identity cards to collect herb6 from national parks; and in Zimbabwe, it had been observed that incentives should be proportional to the efforrs at conservation. Gupta pointed out that proportionality could not serve as a factor in situations where the benefits are felt only over a period of time, or are inter-generational. George Michellou pointed cut that in Central Africa the flow of international aid for development had deereaaed the rate of resource use; but instead of this lessening the value of the-species and leading to their cutting, there was a move towards regard@ them as sacred, and people wor&ipped the same. Gupta qrced that lesser use ofaresolw;toAenItdto~~ortsatwnstrvation,andpointcdouttothesu~tfforts towards wnsexvation at Corbett Tiger Rcscm in India, w-here young, local persons were being trained to serve as guides in’the Reserve. Sharachchandra Lele commented that often seem&& secular (e.g. the aesthetic) incentives are applied to protect spaces and species, and that in a sense these are another notion of the sacred itself. Ramakrishnan pointed out that there were cases where incentives were getting institutionalised as sacred, as in the designation of World Heritage Sites. Michel Pimbert asked about the process of working out incentives. Gupta replied that in general it bad been observed that communities argue for communal ‘rather than individual good, also communities often do not demand their due share, hence the range of choices should be widened and made available to them.

TIM Case of Lagoon PIawn Fisheries in Sti Lank

Suki ERaratne of the Department, U.niversity of Colombo, spoke about community based coastal natural resources management in the Rekawa Lagoon in Sri Lanka. Here the main problems faced resulted from proposed export-oriented farming which could lead to degradation of the natural mangrove habitat for setting up prawn farms. With the interventi~ of extcmal research institutions, the communities were organised to farm prawns in a sustainable manner. Instead of creating more f&ma, cage cultures of prawns were put into bags and given to the fisherfolk. The communities were taught to set up net cages in the lagoon where conditions of salinity, etc, have to be mcnitored. The programme of stock enhancement of lagoon prawns was discussed with the fishing community, and has been started recently. The experiment seems to be successful and now the communities are eager to try the same on their own. Ekaratne highlighted that intensive interaction with the communities was one factor which contributed to the success of the venture. Another factor is the organization of the f’lshing community to form the Lagoon Fishermen’s kssociation, which takes care of storing the prawn catch in a community freezer, and sells that to the consumer.

In the ensuing discussion, Nexma Pathak wondered who started the initiative: the people or the researchers. She also wanted to know the effects on biodiversity caused by the stock enhancement of the prawns. Ekaratne explained that the project was initiated by surveys and environment profiles which were compiled by researchers. Once the formation of a Fishermen’s Association was facilitated, the combined process of scientific research and social interaction gave shape to the initiative. The amount of stock enhnncement wa8 also scientikicaliy determined to en5ufe minirrul ecological impacts. To Sharachchandra Lele’s question about the relative benefits between the

15

conventional system and the new initiative, Ekaratne pointed out that there were substantial monetary benefits to the community, in addition to which were the benefits to the environment. Saioni Suri asked if there were any traditiona! methods of fish harvesting and conservation. Ekaratne answered that traditional methods continued sustainably in some places where through discussion and interaction, the fisherfolk were convinced that informing the traditional methods with a scientific base would be beneficial in the long run.. Michel Pimbert asked about the trade rou:e between the fisherperson and the actual consumer, which Ekaratne explained was handled by the Lagoon Fishermen’s’ Association, a co-operative which sold the prawns directly to the c;onsumer, thus eliminating the middleman. Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend asked about the nature of future institutions, and the type of te&nical assistance for the same. Ekaratne stressed the need for on-going technical inputs, and also stated that the Government of Sri Lanka might undertake similar programmes in other lagoons and facilitate self-sustaining models for lagoon fishermen.

Cota.wv&n of Mtx§cinai Hunt& .

LIarshan Shanhar of the Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions, Bangalore, India, presented the case of medicinal plants being particularly amenable to community based conservation. The political processes of marketing and other forces had affected the knowledge systema and the cultural diversity related to medicinal plants. He pointed out that the model of intellectual Property Rights posed a threat to that diversity, since that concept does not fit into the non-western cultural tradition characterized by plurality of knowledge systems, The focus of our policy makers in the context of medicinal plants, has been on prevention of biopiracy; but the more important issue is that of loss of culture. Practical methods of restoring and preserving that culture, and returning benefits to the community when their cultural use is widely applied, need to be examined. ‘Lhis return of benefits cannot take the shape of market requirements alone. Efforts should be directed towards development of non-market benefits/ uses such as benefits for the rejuvenation of cultural aspects of the community. The example of the Tropical Botanical Garden Research Institute returning some of the benefits derived from the knowledge of the Kani tribe back to the community, is an important model that could be developed in other situations as well.

ln the subsequent discussion, Anil Gupta commented that industrial use of biological resources, whether by an Indian Ayurvedic company, or by a MNC, has little concern for conservation. He expressed his skepticism about USC of biodiversity only for cultural purposes as being a viable option. Dar&an Shankar pointed out that it is true that narrow economic benefits are being enjoyed by the industry; however one should acknowledge that the largest users of the resources, in terms of the number of species, are the local communities. Michel Pimbert observed that benefit sharing as we understand the term today, is a Western concept. If the same were to be culturally sensitive, he asked what the elements of benefit sharing should be in terms of policy making, training, and building of institutions. P.S. Ramakrishnan wondered that in a scenario of shrinking knowledge base regarding medicinal plants, what should be the mechanism for reversing that trend. Dar&an Shankar a&owledged the problem but pointed out that knowledge of plants is not restricted to a few people, and that there is a great deal of documentary evidence in the form of anc;iGnt manuscripts, as well as recent efforts to further that process. He stressed on the need to incorporate the knowledge and practices of folk practitioners into the system of primary health care, and draft new guidelines for institutions such as the World Health Oganization, which would reflect the health traditions of different regions.

Enterprise Development and CvnservaaSon

:kvttld Bhatt of the Bioclivcrsity Conservation Network (BCN), New Delhii India. and Sh~lrachchundr,J Lele of the Lnstitute of’ Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, India. made a

16

joint presentation on the issue of how revenue generation as an ;inherent component of CBC could be achieved through an ent.erp&e-based approach to Hon. Seetna Bhatt explained that the hypothesis which informed BCN’s attempt in three projects in &kent parts of India was that in a community of stakeholders who are directly linked to biodive&y, the goals of conservation and generation of benefits can be achieved sirnuhaneously. The hput of grants was made in two phases: planning and implementation. An inherent component of BCN’s work is periodic monitoring to assess the sustainability ot harvest rates. Sharachchandra Lele then proceeded to elaborate on the project in the BR Hiiis in Kamataka among the Soiiga tribe. The benefits sought to be achieved are: eccnomic benefits through employment; and political benefits which invoives increasing the barga%ng power of the community. The responai&il.ities which go hand in hand with ihese are: sustainable harvesting of NTFPs; b&livers@ conservation; and ensur& equitable distribution of benefits The aim of the enterprise is to develop a co-operative society controiied by the tribai collectors of NTFPs, do away with middiemen and explore new markets. The important questions which the project seeks to answer are: is the enterprise economicaiiy viable; and wiil the community monitor the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity? At the core of the project is the attempt to enhance the stake of the community by ensuring community rights to tenure, to harvest, to exclude others, to seil to’the person of one’s choice, and to manage the co-operative society. The aim is: to er~~unz sustainability by providing incentives for the same.

In the discussion that foliowed, Sherine Jayawickrama wondered how monitoring was done, what kind of indicators were appiied for assessing community participation, and how problems such as lack of data, and information, were tackled. Bhatt answered that the monitoring mechanism differed from project to project, since it had to be site specific. She pointed out that attempts were being made to incorporate indigenous techniques into the monitoring mechanism. Raju asked what the structure of the community institution was to whom the project would be handed over. Lele pointed out that the endeavour of their project was to put in place such an institutional structure; there was no new structure that had been established as yet. Khare asked what kind of measures were necessary to ensure elimination of middlemen. Lele answered that examining the different ways in which this could be done was in itself a learning experience, and that the best way to tackle tht: problem would be to reform the existing co-operative structure.

Tiibal Communiiies and Conservation

Anita Bmiskur, Lecturer of Sociology in the Deihi School of Economics, Delhi, India, elucidated some of the critical issues arising in the context of tribals, and emphasised that fostering conservation in a triba! community should be seen in view of larger poiiticai processes. Lack of rights of access to forest produce, and secure tenure are two main problems for tribais. Because of their direct eon.tIontation with the state, their access to external funds or expertise is also limited. Their exigencies of survivai are often a constraint on their invoivement with conservation. Loss of access to natural resources compels them to resort to unsustainable use, and often forces them to migrate. Also, under the influence of political and cultural forces, tribal societies are undergoing rapid changes, as a result of which their l&styles are not aiways compatible with conservation of biodiversity. Whiie scme tribais are forced to degrade the environment to survive, there are others who do so under the tiluence of the market economy. Also, there is some contradiction between tribal political forces at the state level which are clamouring for a greater share for bib& in the benefits from the market and industriai development, and the local level movements which believe in the value of sustainable development. The right to self-determination of the tribal-s is an important issue, but tnis may not always be compatible with biodiversity.

17

Ir. tht: brief discussion that followed, Lele commented that the fact that these communities do nor have economic resources pouring in need not always be a &ability. It could be a powerfkl way of developing internal resources, as well as ensuring accountabilhy. Baviskar agreed that accountability and transparency might be increased. However she pointed’out that lack of external funds could be a constraint on undertaking larger projects.

G. Rqu! %&.ing Fellow at the Institute of Rural Management, Anand, India, provided an insight into the instit~&onal structures for CBC. The normal structure of institutions is a general body and an executive committee. Activities range from protection to management. The Joint Forest Management programme in several parts of India are restricted in the degree to which they allow for peoples’ participation, mainly allowing only protection activities. With an increase in the range of activities, the issues of decision making, benefit sharing and conflict resolution become more complex. Another important issue is that of-‘equity within and between institutions. In several parts of Ina, peoples’ institutions (PIs) at the village level have formed federations of peoples’ in&u&q which provider the fom for them to share and learn from each others’ experiences. Federations of PIs have an important role in capacity building. However, no ideal conflict resolution mechanism had yet been developed. With regard to legal structures to support the devolution of power, the JFM programme in India does not have any legal backing; Van Panchyats in several parts of India have statutory legitimacy. The example of Forest User Groups under the Forest Act in Nepal provides an ideal example for establishing community level institutions for CBC.

During the brief &scrrssion, B.M.S. Rathore commented that JFM is not static, and that with time it would become more participatory, and the legal legitimacy will also be put in place. Raju expressed his reservations about this optimism.

The example of North Eas! In&a

Soyu c’hl?ngkiju of the G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, and .Solln!\&eep Datt‘? of Nature’s Beckon, both related their experience in North East India, where the situation is unique because the laws ‘lest vast tracts of land under the control of tribal communi!ies. Changkija presented a case study from the state of Nagaland, North East India, where Naga tribes have had ;1 long standing tradition in conservation. Each village has its own system of tenure and the adminktration is under the control of the village council. The pattern of land ownership is based on the clans in the village. The traditional pattern of Jhunt (shifting) cultivation is sustainably practiced in many areas.

Soumyadeep Datta elaborated on his NGO’s work in the peripheral areas of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. and in village forests. In the Chakrashiia Sanctuary area, (declared after considerable pressure from the NO), the tribals have a strong voice. There are a number of external threats faced by the area, in the form of MN-3 and foreigners, and refugees from * Bangladesh. The complexities of the area often confuses NGOs and researchers. One of the important institutions put in place there is Tq>ovan, whichais a conservation education school th;it seeks to co-operate with tribals in management of the sanctuary. Among the diierent activities the communities there have been involved in are: development of a nursery, building of an approach road for minor forestry, indigenous t-ice and tree cultivation, and building of bunds for irrigation. Women’s’ participation in these activities is quite high. Datta then showed a fascinating range of slides to provide an insight into the activities at Chakrashila.

Lqd and Poiicy issues

BJ. Krfshnan of the Save N&iris Campaign, India, discussed some of the legal Issues involved in CBC in India. Prior to the 19th century, community norms and regulations governed use of natural resources. The forest laws enacted during the colonial period gave the Forest Settlement Offtcer the power to reco& rights of people, the purpose being to ensure their continued access.to the forest. However, this did not happen in practice. The Forest Act also provided that village forests could be assigned to communities by the State Governments. This again did not happen because of lack of commitment on behalf of the state governments. Customary law is recognised under the In& Constitution, and under this there is scope for recognising traditional laws and practices in relation to forest resource use. This also has not been applied mely. Krishnan concluded by saying that the Man and Biosphere concept initiated by UNESCO can be creatively used to itnphment many of the above principies.

In the dmussiun, Sanjay Upadhyay of the Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India, pointed out that the Forest Act in India is a law- directed towards regulation of use of forest resources, while the Wildlife Act 4 meant for wildlife protection. Given this thrust, he wondered what the scope was in the existing laws to incorporate CBC. Krishnan’s response was that Section 28 of he Iudiark Forest Act allows for the estabLish.ment of Village Forests, and this provides ample scope_ for optrationalising CBC.

Formath of Panbuslrips for CoUubor&c Management

BA4.S. R&ore of the Wildlife htitut~ of India (WII), and Roma of Ghad Kshetra Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti, India, made a joint presentation on the issues that need to be considered while fkming partnerships for collaborative management. Rathore identified the major issues in collaborative management as follows: there has to be co-ordination betfleen various departments; various ecological, economic and social factors have to be considered; finances could be a problem. He briefly described the situation in the Rajaji National Park where there are a number of interests invoked: the different local communities living in and around the Park; govtmrnent departments; NGOs; and research institutions. The Wildlife Institute of India has tried to invotve itself in training and capacity building programmes, but has not been abk to arrive at any solution; perhaps that indicated the need for a more active intervention by them.. He identified the key stakeholders as the local community and the front-line staff; and stressed on the need to assess the knowledge that the staff has. Local entP;rprise development was one of the elements of WITS initiath’e.

Roma briefly spoke about the involvement of people’s/ NGOs’ initiatives in the Rajaji National Park. She referred to a report on the Park by Justice P.S. Poti on behalf of the Indian People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Environment, whic.h stressed that there could not be any conservation without ensuring sustainable livelihood for the communities in the area. In terms of institutional structures for people’s participation, she stated that a major challenge was the r,eed to build an organiz&onal strategy, and strengthen the peoples’ bargaining power to facilitate more efYective negotiation with the policy makers. Another significant aspect to be considered was the impact of external donors such as the World Bank.

In the brief discussion, Sharachchandra L4e commented that the issue of processes and strategies for community empowerment should be discussed in the working group session.

ii WORhZNG GROUP SHSIONS: KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Having spanned through a broad range of conceptual issues, Working Groups were formed on 10 February to enable parallel in-depth discussions on four major aspects: (i) the role of local community knowledge in conservation, (ii) the sharing of benefits of conservation efforts, (iii) -estaMiskiRg itppmp&einst.itutlons; and (iv)forrn&ingsuppCrGV~ 1SiV3 and ~pOkies. kiSssue which permeated all the discussions was that of equity: ensuring that all concerned sections of sock& and especially ciisprivileged ones, participate in decision-making and in receiving benefits of conservation. The members of each Group are listed as Annex 3 to this Report. Within these Groups discussions were held on conceptual issues as wcIl as on case studies presented by some of the participants of the Groups. Each Working Group presented to the plenary (on 11 February) a report of the issues discussed, and the recommendations for fixture action. This was followed by discussion on the same. The responses and comments of the participants were then used to modify each Group’s report, and presented at the Concluding Session. Following is a consolidated report of the issues discussed in the Working Group, as well as the comments and responses from the plenary to each Working Group report.

I. ROLE OF LOCAL COMWJNITY KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS IN CBC

Part@ants stzssed the great significance and depth of local community knowledge (LCK) with regard to natural resources. They noted that the appropriation of natural resources by centralised authoritieq inappropriate laws and policies, displacement by the formal development sector, official bias towards formal scientific knowledge, and other factors have caused a serious erosion of LCK. There was thus a geat need for protecting/revi~uaing LCK. However, it was also recognised that ah LCK is not necessar4y valid or environmentally sound, and all formaVmodem knowledge is not invalid. Complementarities between the two therefore need to be explored.

The gt+ot.p also briefly discussed the meaning of tradition and noted that no society/ community is StatiS, and that there is a continuous process of change. Several examples of the revival, documentation, and continuation of LCK were presented and the need to greatly expand and intent@ such efforts was expressed. For instance, Rajendra Singh of the NGO Tarun Rharat Sangh explained some of the traditional practices of forest management in the Alwar district of Rajasthan, India, which were displaced by the official forest law and policy; however, recently, efforts have been made by Tarun Bharat Sax&t to revive the past traditions and environmental awareness. Their efforts have resulted in mviving of local ski& and traditional technology in Ihe building of johuds (water tanks), check dams, and in protecting the forest areas through formation of local 8roups. The WG also discussed oxamplea from the North East of India, Nepal, Bhutan and Africa where traditional knowledge of local communities plays a vamable role in conservation.

Participants recommended that:

1. LCK which is specific to a certain community should be recorded and registered in the name of that conununity, so that it is not appropriated or misused by outsiders. The legal regime has to be developed to recognize people’s rights over their knowledge and resources.

2. More research work involving both LCK and formal knowledge should be done, to understand the Sir&ages between ecosystems, social processes, and technologies.

3. En;ironmental impact assessments should be carried out with the full invoh~~~~ent of local communities, using their kuowlcdgc base as an important ingredient.

4. Alternative and traditional methods of creating awareness, (e.g. theater), should be encouraged.

20

5. Political will needs to be demonstrated in support of LCK., especially in the form of substan&-&y greater investment in its Revitalisation and supportive policies and legislation.

6. Keeping LCK alive necessar@ entails its continued use by communities, which also means that they must he allowed rights of access to the natural resources to which the knowledge is related. The full use of LCK which is already documented, taking care to protect the rights of those whose knowledge it is, should be encouraged.

7. The fomu&modern sector needs to learn the underlyiq premises, methods, and other aspects of LCK, rcmgnkg it as a valid form of knowledge. This should include the exposure of formal sector students to LCK, by its incorporation into their cticula.

8. Specialists at the community level should be encouraged through appropriate incentive. 9. There is also a need for periodic monitoring and reviewing of local knowledge/ techn4ogy, vis-

a-vis the resource base, to ensure conservation of &at resource. 10. The manner in which rights and power are devolved to the community should ensuze that this

is not concer&ated among the community leaders; equity considerations should be taken into account to ensure community erlzpowerment.

11. School and college c;urricula should be developed at a decentralized level, building on LCK and making it more relevant to local situations.

II. BENEFITslirARIA’G

Participants noted that official conserv;ition programmes usually end up with no benefits to local cotnntties; in- these -unities often pay the Wst of loss of access to resources, while the benefiis (of tourism, etc.) are enjoyed by outsiders. It is therefore not s;lrprising that local people have no clear atake in conservation, and turn hostile to agencies which attempt to protect wildlife and habitats. Wherever the state allows use by the community of the resource base, such allowance is in the form of concessions, and not rights.

Even i? many official and non-official efforts at involving communities, the beneficiaries are often a handful of elite within local communitits, while a substantial section is left out. In particular, it was pointed out that women, landless people, tribals, and other disprivileged sections are adversely affected by both development and conservation programmes.

Participants recommended that:

1. A C&U pces~ of identifying stakeholdas should be evolved, to determine who should be involved in de&ion-making, in sharing of benefits, and in management decisions regarding conservation. Criteria to determine the primary stakeholders could include (i) the wilhngness to contribute to conservation, including unique abilities and knowledge; (ii) dependence on the resources which are sought to be conserved; (iii) traditional rights and practices; and (iv) proximity to the resource. There has to be a distinction between primary and secondary stakeholders, with the primary stakeholder enjoying greater benefits, rights to decision making, and assuming greater responsibilities. The needs of special interest groups such as nomads should be taken into account. In the distribution of benefits among the stakeholders prioritisation should be done on the basis of the extent of stakeholder input; for this criteria used can be: extent of labour input, capital input, or any other support for the CBC,process. A relative in&x or ranking process can be arrived at, where indices such as proximity, capacity, etc., can be incorporated.

2. Considerations of equity need to be taken into account. Special measures should be taken to benefit those who are disprivileged, such as women, hibals, and landless people, or who have unique circumstances, such as nomads.

21

3. The benefits of conservtion which should flow to local communities could be both economic and non-economic, in&ding: (j) rights to resources used for subsistence and livelihood purposes, &tubing rights to fores1 pro@x, r@hrs to market the produce 10 rhe besr paying buyer, and to exciude others; (ii) revenues from tourism, (iii) subsidies for maintaining baditionsl pfaCtiCes Mmducive to conservation; (iv) employment; (v) social rewards and dtural protection; and others. Both protected areas and other areas should be open to the provision of such benefits, with appropriate safeguards.

4. In cases where there are inadequate immediate benefits arising from the conservation effort (e.g. in areas to be stictiy protected), the nation/world as a whole should be prepared to provide benefits to local communities to offset the loss of opportunities they face. This could be done through National and International Biodiversity Funds, generated by taxing industries aud elite consumers who use biological resources, by donations from within and outside the countty, and other sources.

5. Adequate protection to the knowledge of local communities could ensure that when that knowledge is used by outsiders, the communities get appropriate rttums from such use. EYcihg Intellectual Property Ri&ts systems not being adequate for the purpose, there should be development of appropk3te new (sui generis) systems as well as modifications in the existing ones to allow for such return of benefits. The social implications of such systems should be car&Q analysed.

6. There is also a need for a general change in attitude of the state bureaucracy, funders and researchers, to enable a genuine sharing of powers and responsibilities with communities. Also importmt is the need to build the capacity of the local comrntities, their political and social self esteem, so as to increase their bargaining power.

‘7. Creation of stakes and sharing of benefits rjhould be accompanied by corresponding respxdilities and duties, to ensure that all human activities are in tune with conservation requirements. This is especially critical in the case of market-getlerated benefits.

The workshop recognised that on the one hand, official agencies and institutions were not capable of consenring biodi~~~@ on their own, and on the other hand, traditional community institutkns have also become weak or unable to handle new chaknges of conservation. There is therefore a need to revive or modify local and wider-level institutions, or create new ones, which could be empowered to achieve CBC. Several examples of such institutions were provided by participants, inchiding community-initiated or government spo&xxxed Forest Protection Committees and Van Panchayats in India, Forest IJser Groups in Nepal, Forest Cooperatives in Iran, and Fisherfolk A#laoctions in Sri Lanka.

Such inatins are required to ensure the follmving: (i) equity in benefit shaxing; (ii) equitable representation in decision making, of those directly/indirec~ dependent on resources; and (iii) clear demarcation of rights, roles, and responsibilities in CBC.

CBC will require ix~titutional structures which will Wer from situation to situation, and which will be at various Levels from village to nation and beyond. Howler, the broad principles which these institutional struc;tures could follow include: openness to all stakeholders, special provision for c&privileged groups, transparency and accountability, flexibility to evolve in changing situations, rules to determine negotiations on an egalitarian basis, and open access to information.

Based on the above, the participants strongly recommended that conservation-related institutions invoive local communities as central members, and that the following issues be urgently addressed:

22

1. The cvtition or iI.Mk&m hich cmurc rxgmation of 4g=-=wmm responsibilities and other functions for each stakeholder.

2. Provisions to ensure that such agreements are respected, enforced, monitored and reviewed. 3. Methods by which institutionaI structures meant to secure livelihoods could also ensure

consclvation. 4. Ways to resolve the potential conflicts between different institutional structures with overlapping

juridictiotts, powcn~ and rcsponsibilitics. Also important is the need to build effcctk intra- community conflict resolution mechanisms.

5. Linking iditutional structures for CBC with ongoing processes of decentralisation, such as the Panchayati Raj constitutional 2mendment in India.

6. Building capacity of various sectom, viz, the community, state officials, NGOs, etc. to achieve CBC. Particularly important is the need to build the negotiating skills of the community.

7. Addressing aspects of funding, management of resqurces and training. 8. Specif)ing important goveming pzitkiples for institutional strengthening: clear legal status and

recognition of the institution; rights of access, clearly specifying control and ownership of resources; enhancing the knowledge base.

IV. LEGAL AND POLJCY ISUES

Participants noted that current consenmtion policies and laws in all countries of the region attempt to exclude local commUnities from conservation areas, 0~ at least to severely restrict the activities of these communities. Such blanket policies are often not even based on the c~nsen&on priorities of the area. In addition, the laws are often incffk&ve in the face of the various threats faced by wildlife, and in the absence of strong local community qport. Finally, they do not take into account +&e customary laws and practices of commu&ies, which may ofkn be very strongly conservation-oriented The effect of these weze inietly discussed by UM. Chandrashekhara of the Kerala Forest Research Institute, in the -text of the Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala, Tndia, where it has been observed that law and policy afkting traditional lifkstyies adversely afkcts biodivtity.

Participants recommended that

1. Forest and wildHe laws should allow for the inclusion of local community rights and practices . withinconscrvahron pfqpmmes, including in protected xeas. Restriction8 on activities shouldbebuedonthcspecific conscrvstion priorities of the area, rather than on blanket prescriptions; these could be achieved through appropriate zoning practices, which are detded in a participatory manner with the local communities. (IladiCatim Of fortst land should be done in a numner to ensure that the intemsts of ecology, equity and ecofKnnic development alv xkkssed.

2. Customary laws relating to the conservation of naturaI resources should be recogked in formal kgihth, espe~idly in the forest and wildHe related laws.

3. The law has an importmt role to play in specifjing the criteria for stakeholdtr identification. 4. The law should ensure pafticipaticm of communities at difserent levels of decision-n=kk?

#Ipccialtybycnsuring access to irbrmdon, public h-, mcmbc~~hip in institutions respcdi for cunsen&oq and other such measuzs.

5. Aspects of land tenure, ownership, control over resources, and livelihood security, should be clearfy~iulaw.

7. There has to be co-ordination between different laws and policies affecting the same resource (e.g. law-s and policies relating to forests, minerals and minirq, and tourism).

8. Laws should not be very specific and detailed to the point of beii rigid, and often detrimental to well-meaning policies; they should allow fkMity to respond to site-qecific variations, while not allowing i.terpretations which could undermine the objectives of conservation and livelihood security.

8. The concept of protected areas should be expanded, to demarcate areas which are critical for protection, &eas in which restricted IKWIWW use can be allowed, and areas where more widespread or intense uses can be per&ted. They should a&r allow for categories in which the cultural diversity and biological diversity can ‘both be conserved; in particular, Biosphere Resenm and community protected areas should be given legal sanction.

9. Legal sanctions against commercial, developmental, or industrial activities which threaten biodiversity or local community livelihoods, should be strongly enforced.

7 CONCLC'DINGSESSION

After the final Working Group presentations were adopted, Ashisb Kothari strtssed on the need to arrk at certain specific reconuuendations for follow-up action. The participants decided on a number of follow-up actions:

1. Recommendations made at the Workshop would be taken to various forums, to influence actions and policies at local, national, and international level. This includes:

(i) The Committee to amend the Indian Wildlife Act, set up by the Government of India. (ii) Tbz bodies formulating national biodiversity conservation action plans in Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Maldives. (iii) Bodies formulating and implementing relevant legislation in several south and central Asian countries. (iv) Various regional and international forums and bodies, includii the Asia Forestry Network, ICIMOD, Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, the Convention on Biological Diversity (especially the upcoming conference on indigenous people and biodiversity), international donors, and NGOs who are w&ing on related issues.

2. Increased exchange of information, including the circulation of relevant policies and laws b&veen various countries, case studies, newsletters, and other relevant material.

3. Continued dialogue and exchange on various aspects raised at the Workshop, including institutional structures and involvement of communities in protected area management.

Following this, Sudbn Mehndirattn from the UNESCO Regional Oflice, the sponsors of the Workshop, briefly commented upon UNESCO’s supportive role to the issue of CBC, which would include advocating the issue at various national and international fora; disseminating the recommendations of this Workshop to a wide audience: and supporting a publication of the papers pcsented at the Workshop.

l‘he Workshop ended with Kothari thanking all those who made it possible, including the sponsor, UNESCO, the entire IIPA administrative and hostel staff, research colleagues, speakers, ihairpersons, and rapportews.

REGIONAL WOPYSEOP ON CO ~-BASED CONSERVATION

INDIAN lNSlTl’UTE OF PUBLIC ADMINlSTRATlO~ NEW DELHI. 9-l 1 FEBRUARY 1997

SUXMARYPROGRAMME

Sunday, 9 February 1997 10.00 a.m. - 11.00 a.m. : Introduction to Workshop

Introduction of Pwticipants Welcome: M. Wadhwani (Director, UPA)

Warren L. Mellor (Director a.i., UNESCO) Structure of the -Workshop and Mroduction to the Issues for Discussion : Ashish Kothari

11.15 a-m- 1 .OO p.m. : GIobal and Regionnl Overviews chairperson : ShekharSingh speakcrs : Grazia BolTini-Pcycrabend

Michei Pimbc!rt Rfqplteurs : S-lay upadhyay

Farhad Vania

2.00 p.m.- 6.00 p.m : Country Papers: Presentation and Diwusion (15 mimlte presentation and 15 minute discuaion each)

zmi Ashish Kothri

2.00 pm - 2.30 p.m. 2.30 PJIL - 3.00 p-m. 3.00 pm - 3.30 pm. 3.30 pm. - 4.00 p.m. 4.00 p.m. - 4.30 p-m- 4.30 p.m- - 5.00 p-m- 5.00 p.m. - 5.30 p-m. 5.30 p-m. - 6.00 p.m Rapporteurs :

ArvindKke(India) Kunvurg Dorji (Bhutan) Asgar JeddiNia (Iran) Muhammed Zuhak (Maldives) D. v (Mongolia) Bhamt Shreahtha (Nepal) G.M. Khzutak (Pakistan) Avanti Jay&lake (Sri Lanka) Bansuri Taneja Priya Das

6.30 p.m. - onwards : Films on CBC related topics, from Sri La&n. Mogolia, and India.

Monday, 10 February 1997 9.00 a.m.- 1.30 p.m. : Presentations on Specific Issues and Case Studies

(10 minute presentation and 5 minute discussion each! Chairpefson : ArvindKhare speakers : MadhavGadgil

P.S. Ramakrishnan AnilGupta suki Ekafatnc DmhanSh8nkar Seana Bhatt and Sbamchcti Lele Amita Baviskar G. Raju Sapu Changkija and S0umyadeep D*aa B.J. Krishnnn B.M.S. lbthaz and Roma

bppoltcurs : sunita Rae saloni suri Bansuri Tanejs Pl+DfU

2.00 p.m. - 5.30 p.m. : Working Group Discussions

I. Role of community traditional rysten&knowkdge Modaators : P.S. Ram&&Mn

Kunang Dofji

II. Benetkhrtng and Equity issues Moderators: - Shamchchandm Lcle

Suki Ebratue

III. lmtltutlonal issues: Structurea and Processes for CBC; Conflict resolution; Capacity-building

Modemton: G. Raju Bharat Shrcstha

IV. Legal and Policy issues Moderators : 0-J. Krishxw

Shuine Jayawickrama

7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p-m. : hkrmal discussloa on nationA, regional, nnd global iniilatives; Madbav Chdgil (Community Biodivtxsity Register), Gmia Bon&i-Feyerabend (ILJCN Asia CoIIabomtive Mamqement

J+i=t), Christo Fabricins (IlED Gxumunity Wildlife Management Project).

Tuesday, 11 February 1997 9.00 a.m - 1.15 p.m :Working group preseotntions to htll plenary

(20 minute presention and 40 minute discussion each) chairperson: s-singh

9.00 am. - 10.00 bm. 10.00 a.m - 11 .OO a.m. Rappatetus :

wofbgGrcnlp1 working Group II PriyaDas Bunsuri Taneja

11.30 am. - 12.30 p-m. WorkingGrOUpIII 12.30 p.m. - 1.30 p.m. workillgGroupIv

Rapportcurs: saloni suli Nccna Singh

2.30 p.m - 4.30 p.m : Concluding session: suggestions for follow-up actlon Rapprmre : SeenuBhlbtt

Farhad Vania PemumcntRqweur: RV.Anudha

ANNiExumE 2

REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON COMMUNITY -BASED CONSERVATION-POLICY AND PRACTICE (February 9-11,1997)

INDIANINm OF PUBLIC ADMINBTRATION, NEW DELHI (Sponmred by UNESCO Regional OffIce)

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Ranjith Bandara Lecturer, Department of Economics, University of Colombo, Colombo-3, Sri Lanka * Ph : 94-l-582666 Fax : 94-l-502722

Amita Baviskar Sociology Department, Delhi School of Economics, 3814 Probyn Road, New Delhi-1 10007, India Ph. : 91-1 l-7257978

Rajiv Bhartari Deputy Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve, Ramnagar-244715, District Nainital, Uttar Pradesh, India Ph : 91-5945-85489 Fax : 91-5945-58376

SeemaBhatt B&livers&y Conservation Network, cl0 JPS Associates, R-16, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi-l 10016, India Ph. . 91-1 l-6862193,6862487 Fax : 91-1 l-6844547

Grazia Borrini-Feyerabead Social Policy Group, IIJCN-World Conservation Union, 28 Rue Mawerney, CH 11% Gland, Switzerland Ph. : 4 l-22-9990274 Fax : 4 l-22-9990025 E-mail : gbf@hq. iucnorg

Dr. U.M. Chatldrashekhara Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi-680653, Kerala, India Ph. : 91-0487-782037 Fax : 9 I-487-782249

Sapu Changkija G.B. Pant Institute for Himalayan Environment and Development (North-Eastern Unit), OB 49 Naga Shopping Arcade Dimapur, Nagaland - 797112, India Ph. : 91-3862-21653 Fax : 91-3862-21653

champakchatterjee Jt. Secretary (UNESCO)/ Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-l 10001, India Ph : 91-1 l-386995

Ashok Chaudhary VIKAL.P, 11 Mangal Nagar, Saharanpur-24700 1 Uttar Pradesh, India Ph : 91-132-724507

Dhrupadchaudbary Incharge, G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development (North- Eastern Unit), OB 49, Naga Shopping Arcade, Dimapur-797112, Nagaland, India Ph : 91-3862-21653 Fax : 91-3862-21653

Klmzang Dog’ Communications Ot?icer and Head, Communications Division, National Environment Commission, P-0. Box 466, Thimpu, Bhutan Ph.andFax : 975-2-23384

Priya Das Indian Institute of Public Administration Indraprastha Estate, Ring Road, New Delhi- 110002, India Ph. : 91-ll-33173091214

.Fax : 91-1 l-33 19954

sounlyadeepDatta Nature’s Beckon, Ward No. 1, Dhubri-783301, hsam, India Ph. : 91-3662-21067 Fax : 9 l-3662-20076

suki Ekafatne Senior Lecturer, Department of Zoology, University of Colombo, T&stain Road P.O. Box 1490, Colombo-3, Sri Lanka Ph. : 94-l-583108,60026 Fax : 94-l-583810 E-mail : suki@?zoo.cmb.ac.ik

Christo Fahricius Co-ordmator, Community Wildlife Project, IlED, 3 Endsleigh Street, London WCLH ODD, United Kingdom Ph : 44-171-3882 117 Fax : 44-171-3882826 E-mail : ccfiied@ao!.com

Madhav Gadgil Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian institute of Science, Bangalore- 12, India Ph. : 91-80-3346376 Fax : 91-80-3341683 E-mail : madhav@ces.iisc.ernet.in

Michaloud George Labcratoire de Botanione, University of Montpellier, 163 rue A Broussonet, 34090 Montpellier, France. Ph : 33-467-63 1793 E-mail : n~ichalou@isem.univ-momp2.fr

.%nl Gup Indian InstiMe of Management Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-3800 15, India Fax : 91-79-6427896 E-mail : anilg@iirnahd.ernet.in

Francois Houllier Director, French institute, 11 Louis Street, Ponciicheny-60500 1, India Ph : 91-413-34168,34170 Fax : 91-413-39534

Avanti Jayatilake USAID’s Natural Resource and Environmental Policy Project, 356 Galle Road, Colombo-3, Sri Lanka Ph. : 94-l-574333 Fax : 94-l-574264,574500

She&c Jayawickxama USAID’s Natural Resources and Environment Policy Project, International Resources Group Ltd., 1 Cower Street, Colombo-5, Sri Lanka Ph. : 94-l-586099 Fax : 94-1-583175 E-mail : usaep~sI@eureka.lk OR

nasepirg@sri.lanka.net

Suniti Kumar Jha Indian Institute of Public Administration Indraprastha Estate, Ring Road New Delhi- 110002, India Ph. : 91-1 l-33173091214 Fax : 91-1 l-33 19954

Arun Jindal Society for Sustainable Development, Shah Inayat Khirkiya, Karauli-32224 1, Distt. Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, India Ph : 91-7464-20065,21065

K. Christopher Indian Institute of Public Administration Indraprastha Estate, Ring Road New Delhi-1 10002, India Ph. : 91-ll-33173091214 Fax 91-l l-33 19954

2

ArvindKhare Honorary Advisor, Wo;-ld Wkb-m for Nature - India 172-B, Lcdi Estate New Delhi-l 10003, India Ph. : 91-l l-4693744 Fax : 91-11-4626837

G.M. Khattak senior Advisor (IUCN), Environment section, PE & D Department, Civil Secretariat Peshawar, NWFP, Pakistan Fax : 92-521-272517 Email: mail@iucn-pwr.sdnpk.undp.org

Ashish Kothari Indian Tnstitnte of Public Administration, I.thpmh Estate, Ring Road, New Delhi-l 10002, India Ph. : 91-1 l-3317309 Fax : 91-1 l-3319954 E-mai! : akothari@cv.unv.emet.in

B.J. Ibhnan Save Niligiris Campai~ Nilgiri Centre, Hospital Road Ootacamund-643001, Nilgiris Tamil Nadu, India Ph. : 91-423-42075 Fax : 9 1X23-42530

Sharachchandra Lele Fellow, Tata Energy Research Institute Project Director, Institute for Social and Economic Change, P.O. Nagarabhavi Bangalore-560072, India Ph. : 91-80-3387013 Fax : 91-80-3387008 E-mail : slele@?isec.ka.r.nic.in

Suclha Mehndiratta Unit for Ecologica! Sciences, 8, UNESCO House, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-l 10057, India Ph. : 91-I 1-6146308,6146588 Fax : 91-l l-6872724

D. Myagmamm Directm, National service fmprotcctcd Arcasand lSxmurism,MinisuyofNm and Environment, Hudaldaany Gudamj- 5, Ulan Bator, Mongolia Ph. : 976-l-326617,55807 Fax : 976-l-321401

Asghar Jeddi Nia Director of Extension and People’s .,.i Participation, Jihad’s Orgamzation in Gillan Province, P.O. Box 1479, Rasht, Iran Ph. : 89-131-38531,30014 Fax : 89-131-30111

Nimalie Pall- MaxhforC onsewation, College House, P-0. Box 1490, University of Colombo, Colombo-3, Sri Lanka Fax . E-mail 1

94-l-594490 nlfixmw.lk

Neema Fathak Indian Institute of Public Administration Indraprastha~WWWa4 New Delhi-l looO2, India Ph : 91-1 l-3317309/214 Fax : 91-11-3319954

Michel Pimbert World Wide Fund for Nature-Switzerland 14, Chemin de Poussy, 1214 Vernier, Gexxva, Switzerland Ph. : 4 l-22-9393990,9393973 Fax : 41-22-3412784

G. Raju Visiting Fellow, Institute for Rural Management (IRMA), Post Box 60. Anand-388001, Gujarat, India Ph. 9 l-2692-4039 1,40 186,40 177 Fax : 9 l-2692-40188 E-mail : raju@fac.irm.ernet.in

. .i

R.V. Anuradha Indian Institute of Public Administption, Indraprastha Estate, Ring Road, New Delhi- 110002, India Ph. : 91-1 l-33173091214 Fax : 91-1 l-33 19954

P.S. Ramakrishnan School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru UniversiQ, New Mchrauli Road, New Delhi-l 10067, India Ph. : 91-1 l-6167557

2. R:S. Rana

’ World Wide Fund for Nature-India, 132 B, Lodhi Estate New Delhi-l 10003, India Ph. : 91-11-4693744,4616532 Fax : 91-1 l-4626837

sunita Rae Kalpavriksh, C-l 7/A Munirkq New Delhi- 110067, India

KS. Rao Scientist, Head SDRE, G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and De-~elopment, Kosi Almora-263643, Uttar Pradesh, India Ph : 91-5962-81111 Fax : 91-5692-22100

Ajay Rastogi MNR Division, ICIMOD G.P.O. Box 3266, Kathmandu, Nepal Ph. : 977-l-5253 13 Fax : 977-l -524509 E-mail : ajay@icimodorg.np

R.M.S. Rathore Wildlife InstiMe of India, P.O. Chandrabani, Dehra Dun-24800 1, Uttar Pradesh, India Ph : 91-135-640112,640115 Fax : 91-135-640117 E-mail : wii@giasdlOl.vsnl.net.in

Dilys Roe Community Wildlife Project, RED, 3 Endsleigh Street, London WCM ODD, United Kingdom Ph. : 44-171-3882117 Fax : 44-171-3882826 E-mail : DilysRoe@aol.com

Roma G&d Kshetra wr Sangharsh Samiti Village and Post Buggawala, District Haridwar, Uttar Pradesh, India

Vasant Saberwal Research Fellow, Harvard Centre for Population and Development Studies, 9 Bow Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. Ph : 01-617-4453639 Fax : 01-617-4963227 E-mail : vsaberwa@hsphharvardedu

Raghuvansh Saxena World Wide Fund for Nature-India, 172 B, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi-l 10003, India Ph. : 91-l l-4693744,4616532 Fax : 91-11-4626837

DarshanShankar Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT), 50 MI-IS Layout IlStage,IiIMainAnandNagar Bangalore-560024, India Ph : 91-80-3336909,3330348 Fax : 31-80-3334167 E-mail : darshan@filht.ernet.in

ArpanSharma C/o Prof. A. K. Sharma Indian Institute of public Admimstration, Lndraprastha Estate, Ring Road New Delhi-l 10002, India Ph : 91-11-3715382

P

Lecturer, hxlian Institute of Public Administrakn, Indraprastha Est+te, Ring Road, New Delhi- 110002, India Ph. : 91-1 l-3315309:214 Fax : 91-l l-33 19954

Bharat Shrestha Development Ekonomis\ Mobilization and Development (MODE), P.O. Box 2708, Kathmandy Nepal Ph. : 977-l -220595 Fax : 977-I-229186

Damandeq singh Indian Express, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-l 10002, India Ph : 91-11-3311111

samar singh DirectorXkneral, World Wide Fund for Nature-India, 172-B, Lodi Estate New Delhi-l 10003, India Ph. : 91-1 l-4633473 Fax : 91-l l-4626837 E-mail : wwfindel@unv.emet.in

Neena Singh Centre for Science and Environment, 4 1, Instihrtional Area, Tughlaqabad, New Delhi-l 10062, India Ph. : 91-116986399,6981124 Enmil : necna%cse@dalt.e.in

Shekhax Singh Indian In&Me of Public Administration, Indraprastha Estate, Rin8 Road, New Delhi-l 10002, India Ph. : 91-1 l-3317309 Fax : 91-l I-3319954 E-mail : shekars@&iasdlO 1 .vsnl.net.in

Development Consultant.K%akper?3ol$ Sahayak Foundation, D2/7, Indiatl InstiMe of Public Administration, Indqmstha Estate, New Delhi-l 10002, India Ph : 91-11-3715659

saloni sllri C-198, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, India Ph. : 91-1 l-6946889

Bansuri Taneja Kalpavriksh, 75, Golf Links New Delhi-l 10 003, India Ph : 91-1 l- 4694354 E-mail : amber@giasdla.vsnl.net.in

ShaY Upadhyay Ccntrc for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund for Naturt-India, 172-B, Lodhi Estate New Delhi-l 10003, India Ph : 91-1 l-4693744 Fax : 91-114626837 E-mail : wwfkiel@unv.emet.in

Farhad Vania Indian Institute of Public Administration, IndrapmthaEstate, RingRoad, New Delhi- 110002, India Ph : 91-1 l-3317309/214 Fax : 91-1 I-3319954

Muhammed Zuhair Asst. Environment Analyst, Ministry of Planning, Human Resource and Environment Ghazec Building, Ameeru Ahmed Magi Male, Maldives Ph : 960-32-3919 Fax : 960-32-735 1

Rajendra Singh Tanm Bharat Sangh, BhikampuraX.ishori, Via Thanqui, Alwar- 1002, Rajasthan, India Ph. : 9 1-14652-3

PARTICIPANTS OF THE WORKING GROUPS

L ROLE OF LOCAL CO- KNOWLEDGiE S’liSTEMS

Moderators: P.S. Ramakrishnan and Kumang Dorji Participants: Francois Hod.& George h4ihba@ Rajmdra Sit@, D. Myagmarsuren, IXlys Roe, MohammedZuhair, AbhikGhosh, Priy Das.

IL BENEFlT SEARING

Moderators: Sharachchamha Lele and Suki Ekarme Participiants:SccmaBha.tt,MadhavGadgil,DarsbanShankar,prabbalrar Rae, Cluisto Fabriciq Ajay Mahajan, Anil Gupta, Sunita Rao, Neema Path&

III, INmWONAL STRUCTURES

Moderators: G.Raju and Bharat Shmtha Participants: G.M. Khatt& Micheal Pimbcrt, Grazia Bonini-Feycrabmd, B.MS. Rathm, Roma, Saloni Suri, Amita Baviskar, K. Christopher, Arun Jindal, Asghar Jeddi Nia, Nirmalic Pallcwatta, Farbad Van&.

N.LEGALANDPoI;ICYlssuES

Moderatms: B. J. Krishnan and Sherine Jayawickrama Participants: U.M. chandrashekarq Avanthi Jayatilake, Arvind Khare, Sanjay Upadhyay, Sapu Changkija, RV. An&

1. 3. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12. 13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

18. 19.

20.

21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27. 28.

29.

30.

31. 32.

AN-NEXURE 4

LIST OF PAPERS PRESENTED AT TEE REGlONAL WORKSHOP ON COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION : POLICY AND PRACTICE

IIPA, NEW DEJXI February 9 - 11,1997

Badcar, k Tribal Communities and Conservation. Bha& S. Conserving through Conmtunity Enterprise, Chaadrasbekharq U.M. and Sankar, S. Community-Based Conservation : The Case of Chinnar Rildlife Sanctuary. Cban&ija S. and A.&x, A- Community-Based Conservation of Biodiversity and its Prospects in North East India Chaudhary, D. Communi~Based ~onsenwtio~ An Appraisal of the Situation in NtwtMkst India. Das. P.. Christopher, K.. and Jindal. A. Comnabty Based Comervation: Case Studies of ImtiMi~r~~~ Structures in Protected Areas in Rajasthan and Bihar. DattqS.C ommum+4Iased Conservation : Th0 Case of ChakaJhila Wihihfe Sanctuary- DeCosse. P. J. ad Jayawickcama, S.S. C&knagement of Resources in Sri Lanka: Status, kiues and Oportunities. Do@, K. Nature Conservation in Bhutan: A Case Study of Jigme Dorji National Park Ekaratne, S.U.K., tienport, J., Lee, D. and Walgams RS. Communuj&ased Coastal Natural Resources Management : As fiemplified by the Lrrgoon prawn Fisheries at Rekawa Lagoon Gndi5il, M. Grassroots Conservation Practices : Revitahzing the Traditions, Gupta, A. Getting Creative Individuals and Communities their due. Jq-atilaiie, A., Palewa~ N. and Wickramaratne, J. Regional Workshop on Communi@Based Conservation : Sri L.anh Counby Paper. Jed& Nia, A. A Step Towar& Promotion of Natrrrcll Resources Culture: Country Paperfiom Iran Khare, A. Communi@ased Conservation: India Country Paper. Watt& GM. Commum@-Based Conservafion : Country Prqwr from Pakistan Kothri, k, Anuradlq RV. and PatbaL, N. Communiry-BLFed Conservation : Issues and Prospects. tishnas B.J. L.egaI and Policy /&sues in Comntuni@ased Conrervation . Maikhlrr;, RK., Nautiyal. S., Rae, KS., Saxenq KG., Senw& R.L. Community-Based Conservation in the Himtkya : Research &periences from Nan& Devi Biosphere Reserve. Murali, KS., BawaI, KS., L.&z, S. An IntegratedApProach Twards The Management of Tropical Forests For B&action of Non-Timber Forest Products. Myagmarsuren, D. Communi~Based Conservation in the Surrounding Zones of Protected Areas of Mongolia Pimbert, hi. Reversals for Diversity and Sustainability in Community-Based Conservation Rsju, G. Institutional Structures for Comntuni~Based Conservation Ibmakrishnsn, P.S. Conserving the Sacred : Ecological and Policy Impkationr More, B. M.S. New Parmerships for Conwvation: the Case of Rajaji National Park. Satin, M., Ray, L., Raju, M.S., Chatter&z, M., Bannerjee, N. sod HLrmatb, S. % is Ga;ning? cvho is Lusing ? Gender and Equiv Concerns rn Joint Forest Management. Shanka~, D. Conserving a CommuniCy based National Resource: The Case ofMea’icinaf Ptants. . Shrestbq B. Communiry-Blzred Conservation : The Bxpenences of Participatory Communiry Forestry in the Hilis of Nepal. Sin& R. Erpetiences in Cnmrnum~+Based Conservation in Aiwar District in Rajastrhan, Indm hi, S., Sin& N. and Kodk. A. A Partially Anrotated Bibliography on People and Co?ucrvarion Z&air, M. Cnnanutww&ed Conservation m h4aidives. CommwtitpBawd Cmenmrion: Major Issues as Idrntified by Patktpnts. Compiled by Nccma Pe&bk and R-V. AmKndha.