7/28/2019 Gadgil Biodiversity[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gadgil-biodiversity1 1/6

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Conserving Biodiversity as If People Matter: A Case Study from IndiaAuthor(s): Madhav GadgilReviewed work(s):Source: Ambio, Vol. 21, No. 3, Economics of Biodiversity Loss (May, 1992), pp. 266-270Published by: Springer on behalf of Royal Swedish Academy of SciencesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4313937 .

Accessed: 17/12/2011 00:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer and Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Ambio.

http://www.jstor.org

7/28/2019 Gadgil Biodiversity[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gadgil-biodiversity1 2/6

Article Madhav Gadgil

ConservingBiodiversitys i f P e o p l

Matter: A C a s e S t u d y f r o m I n d i a

Indiahas rich raditionsof nature conservationas well as a vigorousofficialprogramof protectionof nature reserves developed over the last 40 years. However, theofficialprogram uffers from otalrelianceon authoritarianmanagement arrangementsin which decisions are made centrallyand coercion is used to implement hem.Atthesame time, the state apparatus organises subsidized resource flows to the urban-industrial-intensiveagricultural omplex which promote inefficient,non-sustainableresource-use patterns that are inimical to conservation of biodiversity. Theseprocesses are illustratedwithin he concrete setting of the districtof UttaraKannadain southern India. It s suggested that the interests of conservation would be served

far better byan approach that withdraws he subsidies to the elite so that a muchmore

efficient, sustainable and equitable patternof resource use, compatible withcon-servation of biodiversity,can be instituted.Inconjunctionwith his, the largersocietyshould involve local people in working out detailed plans for conservation ofbiodiversity and offer them adequate authority as well as appropriatefinancialincentives to implement these plans. The paper goes on to illustratehow such anapproach may be implemented inthe case of UttaraKannada.

INTRODUCTION

With xtensive racts f humidropicalorestsand great heterogeneityof environmentalregimes, India is one of the top twelve

megadiversityountries f the world.Giventhe argebiomassneedsof itstribal ndruralpopulationsand the exploding resourcedemands of its growing urban-industrial-intensiveagriculture omplex, conservingthisheritageof biodiversitys a formidablechallenge. ndiahasrich raditions f natureconservation;ollowing ndependencet hasalsodevelopedanextensivenetwork f na-turereserves.

TheProjectTigerwith 17reserves pan-ningthe countryhas savedthis magnificentanimal rom the brinkof extinction.Thereare howeversigns that all is not well withthecountry'sprograms f conservation.n-

dia's cultural raditionshave preservedanenormous network of trees of the genusFicus, an important keystone resource-throughouthe countryside.These trees arenow being increasingly felled to bakebricksand o makecrates.Atthe same ime,key reserves n thenetwork f ProjectTigersuchas Kanha ndManasare hreatened ydiscontentedocaltribalpeople.The mpor-tantquestions hatmustnowbe tackled, e-late notonly to identifying hedeficienciesin the coverageof the nationalnetworkofnaturereserves,but to how decisions aremadeon whatelementsof biodiversity reto be conservedandhow this is to be ac-complished 1, 2).

It is important o look critically at theprocessesaffectingoverallpatterns f natu-ral-resourcetilization ndnotjust atthoseimpinging n nature eserves.Very broadly

theongoingprocessesmaybe summarizedas follows:

a. Intensification of resource fluxes in

favor of industry-organizedervices-in-tensive agriculturalomplexinvolvinglarge-scale tatesubsidies.

b. Increasing iomassdemands f a grow-ing ruralpopulation orcedto meet itsrequirements rom open-accesspubliclands.

Togetherthese two kinds of pressurespromotenonsustainable,nefficientuse ofnatural-resources,esulting n decimationof biodiversity.This s coupled o

c. Attempts tconservation f biodiversityin a network f officiallyconstituted a-turereserves, elyingon policingby the

state apparatus,while the traditionalpractices f conservationregiven shortshrift.

How do these processes affect biodi-versity? What specific elements are re-sponsible ornegative mpacts?Howmightthese problemns e overcome and whatwould come in the way of overcomingtheseproblems?

UTTARAKANNADA

Thetworichesthumid ropical orest ractsof India all in thebiogeographic rovincesofEastem

Himalayas ndMalabar,he attercomprisinghewest coastand he hillrangeofWestemGhats3, 4). Thedistrict fUttaraKannada13052' to 15030'N and74?05' to750 5'E)withanareaof 10200 km2 iesat he

centerof MalabarFig. 1). It is a regionofgentleundulating ills,risingrather teeplyfrom a narrowcoastalstripborderingheArabian ea to aplateau t an altitude f 500m withoccasionalhillsrisingabove 600 to860 m. The annualprecipitationargelyconfined o themonsoonmonthsof June oSeptemberangesbetween3500 mm on thecoast,rising o 5000mmon thecrestline nddecliningo 1000mmontheeastern lateau.An interpretation f the Landsat magery

suggests hataround 900 km2 f the districtis under orestcover,around2000 km2 sunderpaddyandmilletcultivation, 30km2undercoconut and betelnutorchards, 00km2underrockyoutcropsand the balanceunder habitationand reservoirs 5). Thistractof 6900km2 f forest and s the argestsingle contiguous ractof humidtropicalforest nPeninsularndia.Today, t harbors1741 species of floweringplantsand403speciesof birds. Notablewildlifeincludesthe tiger, elephant,gauror Indianbison,liontailedmacaque,Wynaadaughinghrush,Travancoreortoise,everal peciesofleglessamphibiansnddipterocarprees(6).

ColonialPeriod

Uttara Kannada has been well knownhistoricallyor tsforestsandwildlife.Inthe17thcenturyboth heBritishandDutchhadestablished rade tations n itscoast.Thesedealt extensively in wild pepper andcardamom,andalandteak woodandpoon(Calophyllum elatum) for ship masts.Accounts fEuropeans howorked tthesestationsmentionthe rich wildlifewith anabundance f tiger,panther, lephant, isonand several species of deer. The districtcame nto Britishhands n 1799.Buchanan,

a naturalistn theemploy of theEast IndiaCompany ravelled xtensively hroughhedistrict in 1800-1802. His very detailedaccounts onfirmhat partrom hesouthernpartsof the coastaltract, the districtwasthicklyforestedandaboundedn wildlife.He alsomentions, heculturalraditions flocal people that focused on naturecon-servation uchas sacredgroves.However,he interpretsthe almost-totalprotectionoffered othesegrovesasa"contrivance"opreventBritish ulers rom ayingaclaim owhatwasnowitsrightfulproperty 7).

Thehistoryof the Britishperiodcan besummarized s a seriesof attemptsby the

colonialpower oappropriateherich orestresources f thedistrict scheaplyaspossi-ble. To thisend,thecommunity-basedys-temsof restrainedseandconservation adto be scuttled. This was accomplished

266AMBIOVOL. 21 NO. 3, MAY 1992

7/28/2019 Gadgil Biodiversity[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gadgil-biodiversity1 3/6

through efusal o recognize he legitimacyof allcustomary ndcommunity wnershiprights. The British recognized only twoformsof ownership, tateownershipof allnon-cultivatedandsandprivateownershipof all cultivated ands. The bulk of state-ownedlands were converted nto reserve-forest ands.A fraction,about25%was setasideas minoror leaf-manure orestlandsfor meetingthe subsistencebiomassneeds

of local people.Theseare substantialinceagriculture n this hilly district with itslaterizednutrientdeficient soils dependsheavilyon organicmanure nputs.But theminor/leaf-manureorestlandscame to betreatedas open-accessresourcesandhaveconsequentlybeen subject to escalatingdegradation s envisaged n the tragedyofthe commonsscenario.The reserve orestswerededicated o supply cheapraw mate-rial, primarily, eak to servecolonialinter-ests of shipbuilding,railways and otherconstructions. s a result, heywerealmosttotallydepletedof naturaleak between heyears 1800-1850;followedby depletionof

other hardwoods, especially TerminaliaandLagerstroemia pecies,and conversionto single species plantationsof teak. Theevergreen ree species were of little com-mercialvalueuntil he 1940s,andupto thattime forestworkingfocussedon their re-placementby the more valuedtimberspe-cies. Although a succession of manage-ment plans initiatedin early 1900s pro-fessed sustainable arvestsas theiraim,infact there was only furtherdepletion.Allmanagementplans were set aside duringthe two worldwars, permittingotallyun-regulatedharvesting rom reserve forests(8-10).

Since Independence

The Britishforest-managementegime inUttaraKannadawas dedicated o exportofteakandother imber s cheaplyaspossible.WorldWarII broughtaboutan importantchange,however,when the Britishdecidedtoencourage lywoodmanufacturenIndia.With its rich evergreenforestsprovidingabundantawmaterial,one of India's firstplywood factorieswas set up in the UttaraKannadadistrict.This was followed by apaper actoryanda polyfiber ndustry, othof which were established soon afterindependence.

Thepolicyof dedicating tate-ownedor-est lands ofurnish cheapsupplyof indus-trial raw materialswas carried o furtherextremes after independence. Thus, in1958, bamboo, earlier prescribedto beeradicated s it constituteda weed in teakplantations, n spite of its manifoldruraluses, was sold to the paper ndustry.Theprice was as low as Rs. 1.50 (USD 0.30 atthe then prevalent exchange rates) pertonne, i.e. over a thousand imes less thanthe marketvalue. Giant wild mango treesthat regularly yielded much valued fruitworthmore hanRs. 100 peryear,werealsomade over to plywood ndustry or as little

as Rs. 150 for a whole tree. Theresulthasbeen rapiddecimation f a whole rangeofspecies n the morehumid racts, speciallyon the steeper western hill slopes. Other

natural-resources ave also been madeavailableat highly subsidizedratesto theurban, industrial, intensive agriculturecomplex.For example,there have been aseries of state sponsored hydroelectricprojectswithinthe district.The electricityso generated as beensuppliedo industrialconsumers ndurbanhouseholds s wellasused nwater ifting or rrigated gricultureat greatly subsidized rates. At the same

timethe cultivatorswhose lands weresub-merged under the reservoirs have beenpoorlycompensatedndoftenforced o en-croachon forestland to eke out a living.This whole systemof subsidizedresourceuse has ensured hatneither esourceman-agersnorresourceusersareconcernedwithresource-use fficiency.

While the commercialpressureshavemounted, o havethe subsistencedemandsof the ruralpopulationhathas grownrap-idlyas a resultof theeradication f malariaafterWorldWar II. Thesesubsistencede-mands continue to be met from open-ac-cess public lands,with furthererosion of

traditional racticesof disciplinedharvestsfromcommon ands.Consequently, ighlyinefficientandwastefulpatterns f natural-resourceusehaveprevailed1 1).

Traditionsof Conservation

In commonwith the rest of the Indianso-ciety,people fUttaraKannadaave nheriteda rich variety of traditions of natureconservation12, 13).These nclude:- Protection f individualplantsand ani-

mals considered o be sacred,e.g., treesof the genusFicus or monkeyssuch asthe hanuman langur and bonnet

macaque.- Protection f specific ife history tages,such asbirdsbreeding theronaries.

- Protectionof entire biological commu-nities in the sacredgroves and sacredponds.

- Protection f animals rom overhuntingthroughdevices,such as a ban onhunt-ing of fruitbatsat theroosting ites butnotoutside he sites.

The British colonialistsand, followingindependence,Indian resource managershave bothconsistently ttacked hese tradi-tionsin many ways. Forexample, he ply-woodindustry as harvestedFicus nervosaas a preferredspecies and many sacredgroveshave beenclearcut o supply imber.Fisheriesmanagershave poisoned sacredponds removing indigenous fish and re-stockedthem with exotic carps for sale tooutsideagencies.

StateInitiatedConservationEfforts

The main focus of regulationof huntingduringheBritish eriodwas on he raditionalsubsistence/ritual untingby local people,whichaimed o ensure upplyof game o theEuropeanhunters.These huntersbegantohuntmany pecies, uchas elephant, hathadpreviouslybeen immunefrom huntingbylocal people. They also vigorouslypursuedexterminationf speciesperceived s verminsuch as the Indianwild dog. Indeed, here

BOMBAY

16'

GOA UTTARA KANNADA

ARABIAN

SEA MADRAS

12'

8N

76? 80?E

Figure 1. A map of peninsular India indicatingthe location of the hill range of WesternGhats. The district of Uttara Kannadastretches from the coast, across the hills tothe peninsular Indian plateau.

wasarapid eclinenwild-animalopulationsduring he Britishregime.Thepaceof thisdecline ncreasedurther fterndependencewith the introductionof the jeep andwidespread vailability f firearms14).

Thiseveraccelerating epletionof wild-life led to the beginningof conservationmeasures n the 1950s with the establish-mentof an IndianBoard orWildlifeandofWildlifeWings n ForestDepartments.hemaintoolof conservationhatwas adoptedwas abanonhunting f endangeredpecieseverywhereogetherwiththeestablishmentof WildlifeSanctuaries ndNationalParks.

A majorWildlifeSanctuary,DandeliW.L. S., of over 5730 km2,wasestablishedn1953 in the northem parts of UttaraKannada.However, little protection tonaturalvegetation and wildlife was pro-vided since a largepapermill was estab-

lished n theveryheartof this sanctuaryn1958and a series of damsof thegiant Kalihydelproject overed herest of thesanctu-aryin the 1970s(15). The ban on huntinghas notbeenveryeffectivelyimplementedsince it is operated n a centralized, igidfashionwithoutallowance or local condi-tions.Forexample, armers laim hat herearenow too many wild pigs in thedistrictwith the newlyarrivingweeds,Lantana ndEupatoriumrovidingxcellent helter, nddepletionof panther nd tigerpopulations,cuttingdown predation.These pigs causeseverecrop damageandfarmershunt hemrelentlessly.Nevertheless, untingwildpigremainsan offencein law. So does thean-nual ritualhuntingby local communitiessuch as the HalakkiVakkalswhoengage nsucha huntasa religiousobservance.Atthesame time official managerscontinueto

AMBIOVOL. 21 NO. 3, MAY 1992 267

7/28/2019 Gadgil Biodiversity[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gadgil-biodiversity1 4/6

The coastal landscape of Uttara Kannada. There is little left ofnatural vegetation. However the coastal stretch is covered bycoconut plantations mixed with a tremendous diversity of cultivarsof mango (Mangifera indica) and jackfruit (Artocarpus integrifolia)along with a number of fruit yielding tree species belonging togenera Myristica, Spondias and Garcinia. All of these also occur inthe wild. Photo: M.D. Subash Chandran.

The mosaic of disturbed natural forest and anthropogenicgrasslands near the crestline of Western Ghats in Uttara Kannadadistrict. Such vegetation supports the greatest diversity of birdspecies within this district. Photo: R.J. RanjitDaniels.

An irrigation pond in theeastern part of Uttara

- Kannada district. These

:= L! ~. ~ ~ponds support a wide

.-*~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~diversity of resident and3 migratory waterfowl.

Photo: R.J. RanjitDaniels.

violatetraditions f conservation f the lo-calpeople.

Social Conflicts

Thiswholesystemof resourcemanagementinitiatedunder he Britishrule and furtherelaborated fter independence s based onalienating ocal peoplefrom controlof andaccess to resources.Its primaryobjectivehasbeen o makenatural esources vailableas cheaplyas possible to theelite,be it theBritish ruling classes or the industry-organized services-intensive agriculture

complexof theIndian ociety.The elite thatbenefits from resource mobilization isshieldedrom he ll-effects f thedegradationof the resourcebase,since it can shift to theuse of other resourcesor resourcesfromotherregionsas the occasiondemands.

The pattern f natural-resourcese pro-moted by centralizedauthorityhas beennon-sustainable henviewed from ocal ar-eas such as the UttaraKannadadistrict.Ithas also led to severe conflictswith the lo-calpopulations ttemptingo maintain heircustomaryrights over and access to re-sources 5, 11).Intheprocess, helocal tra-ditionsof resourceconservation ave been

increasingly isrupted r havebrokendownaltogether.

Nevertheless, he effectiveness of tradi-tional conservation an be clearly seen inthe landscapeof UttaraKannada,wherealargenumberof monkeys still survive andthousandsof Ficus trees dot the country-side due to theirreligioussignificance.Theonly remainingnatural tandof the genusDipterocarpus ersists n a sacredgrove,asdoes the last large patch of a Myristicaswamp.

RE-ORIENTINGCONSERVATION

Evidently, here s a case forworkingout a

newapproacho conservation f biodiversityinUttaraKannada.t sclear hat onservationcannotbe consideredn isolation rom ocalpeople, and broaderpatterns of natural-resourceuse anddevelopment, ut mustbecomplemented by policies promotingsustainableand equitabledevelopmentofthe natural-resourcease as a whole. To beeffective, any approachmustgive a largerrole to the local people. Thiswould entailrestoringo themmuchof theauthorityheyhave lost over thepasttwo centuriesalongwithappropriateinancial ncentives.Localpeople mustbe involvedbecause heirwellbeing s still ntimatelyinked o thehealth f

the natural-resourcebase of their ownlocalities,hencethey have a real stake n its

sustainableuse. Thus, in UttaraKannadapeopledependonnatural egetation omeetalmostall theneedsof domestic ookingand

water heating, 90% of fodder needs forlivestock, and 80-90% of nutrient-supplyneeds for cultivated ands.Localpeople arealso dependenton naturalvegetationformaking ropes, baskets, agriculturalandfishingimplementsand for thatching heirhuts and cattle sheds (5). They still collectmany wild fruits,hunt birdsand wild pigsand fish the rivers to providea significantfractionof theirnutrition 16). For them,degradationfnatural-resourcess agenuinehardship, nd of all the people andgroupswho compose he Indian ociety heyare hemost ikely to bemotivated o takegood careof the landscapeandecosystemson which

they depend.Themany traditions f natureconservation hat are still practicedcouldform a basis for a viable strategy ofbiodiversity onservation2).

Involvinglocal people in conservation,however,does notimplyas someGandhianenvironmentalistshave stated that Indiamustabandon ll effortsatindustrializationandreturn llauthorityo villagecommuni-ties in an effortto recreatean agriculturalsocietyin balancewith nature 17). Such ascenario s simplynotfeasible fora varietyof reasons,includingthe pressuresof theinternationalconomicandpolitical ystem.Thepractical ption s tocontinue heproc-esses of industrializationnd ntensification

of agriculture,utwith anemphasisoneffi-cient, sustainableand equitableresourceuse.

The centralargumento farhasbeen thatinefficient,non-sustainable ndinequitableresourceuse is promoted y thelarge-scalestate interventionhrough ubsidies to theindustrial-organizedervices-intensive g-riculture omplexthat s shielded rom thecosts of environmental egradation.Thesecosts are passed on, for instance to thepeasantsand artisansof UttaraKannadadistrictwho have been deprivedof all au-thorityoverthe localnatural-resourcease.Theproper esponsewouldthenbe towith-

draw he subsidies hatpresentlylow totheelite. Instead, he elite should be madeto

268 AMBIOVOL. 21 NO. 3, MAY 1992

7/28/2019 Gadgil Biodiversity[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gadgil-biodiversity1 5/6

BOX

ExistingApparatus forPlanning andImplementingBiodiversity Con-servation in India.

CENTRALGOVERNMENT

Ministry of Environment

and Forests

Primarily advisory, and asdisburser offunds forspecial projects such asProject Tiger since Land

Use, Forestry and Law andOrder are responsibilitiesof State Governments.Advisory Boards provideminimal inputs to the

CentralMinistry.

STATEGOVERNMENTS

Forest Departments:

Territorial and Wildlife

Wings

These two wings have jointjurisdiction throughoutastate. Wildlife Wings are

manned by ForestryPersonnel on temporarysecondment. All thedecision-making power ofthese as well as all otherState Governmentagenciesis concentrated in the handsof Ministers, Secretariesand and DepartmentalHeads operatingfrom thestate capitals. At the statelevel a WildlifeAdvisoryBoard provides minimalinputs, there are no inputsfrom a more local level.

Assessing conservation priorities for Uttara Kannada (6).

Si Attribute Criterion Prescriptions for UK The only or best repre-No.* sentative localities of

conservation interest

1. Species richness Greater value attached Evergreen forests Bharatnalliof constituent to communities with harbor largest Madurahalli,Gunjavatibiological communities larger number of species number of species Range, Bargadda-Patoli,

of flowering plants Huliaevargodlu-and amphibians, and Unchalli, Aganashinimoist deciduous estuary, Kulgi-Virnoliforest zone that of

birds

2. Geographical range Greater value attached Myristicaswamps Kathlekanof constituent to communities with harborcommunitiesbiological more restricted range with a restrictedcommunities range

3. Spatial occurrence Greater value attached Communities of spray Unchalliwaterfalls,of constituent to communities with zones of waterfalls Yanbiological more restricted are of very .communities within spatial occurrence restricted occurrence;their range Limestone outcrops

4. Identity of species The more distinctive Mangrove vegetation Sunken, Thenginagundimaking up the component of and beaches harbor Aganashini estuariesconsitutent species, the greater a highly distinct set Karwar-KamatBaybiological the value of sepciescommunities

5. Endangerment due to The more endangered Riverine forests Hulidevaragodlu-human pressures communities are greatly Unchalliwaterfalls

are of greater value endangered by

human pressures

6. Attributes ofcomponent species

(a) Restricted Greater value attached Evergreen forests Suremane, Hulidevara-geographical range to species with more harbor birds with godlu

restricted range more restrictedrange

(b) Narrowhabitat Greater value attached Freshwater ponds and Madurahalli,preference to species with estuaries harbor Nyasergi, Salgaum,

narrowhabitat birds with narrow Sanikatta, Masurpreferences habitat preferences

(c) Taxonomic Greater value attached Gnetum, a Hulidevaragodluuniqueness to species with fewer gymnospermous climber

related species of evergreen forestsis the only memberof its order in UK

(d) Endangerment due Greater value attached Wintering waterfowl Aganashini estuary and

to human pressures to species subject to in marshes are hunted Nyasergigreater pressures extensively

(e) Ecological role Species serving as Ficus species are Ficus trees protectedkeystone resources keystone resources on religious groundswould be attached of tropical forests are scatteredgreater value throughout the

district

7. Interactionwith Greater value attached Betelnut plantationsadjacent communities to communities serving serve as links

as links in maintaining between patches ofhigher diversity evergreen forests

SI = Specific locality

compensate he ruralpoorfor thedecline ntheirqualityof life,consequent ndegrada-tion of the natural-resourcease. At thesame time the local people shouldbe in-creasinglynvolved ncontrolling ndman-aging the natural-resourcease of their o-calities.Thisought to promotea farmoreefficient,sustainable ndequitableprocessof intensificationf natural-resourcese, aprocess hatwouldbe compatiblewithcon-servation f biodiversity.

OutsideControl

Thenatural-resourceevelopment pproachadvocated ere,would of coursehave to be

complementedy aneffortmore pecificallyfocused nbiodiversity.hecurrentpproach

treats conservation as a matter of keepinglocal people outof afew large naturereservesandpreventing them fromkilling most largerspecies of wild reptiles, birds and mammalsanywhere within thedistrict.All thedecisionspertaining to such regulations are madecentrally, partly in the national capital ofDelhi and largely in the state capital ofBangalore by the ForestryService personnel(Box). Substantial amounts of funds are thenplaced at the disposal of the Forest Depart-ments to discharge theirregulatory function.The state apparatus has at its disposal littledetailedlocality-specific knowledge of eitherthe distributionof biodiversity or the variouspressures impinging on it. Its functionaries

have no realpersonal stake inconservation ofbiodiversity, nor are they in a position to

effectively discharge theirregulatoryfunction. It is then no wonderthat these

effortshavenotbeenveryfruitful.

Involving the LocalPeople

Afarmore ffective onservationffortwouldfocuson thewhole andscapenstead f a fewreserves,on the whole diversityof speciesand ecosystemsinstead of only on largervertebratesndemphasizepositiverewardsfor promotingconservationin place ofregulation y thestateapparatus. bove all,itwouldplace hemajor esponsibilityor hetask quarelynthehandsofthe ocalpeople,rather han with an impersonal entralized

bureaucracyrtechnocracy.The local peoplewould not howeverbe

AMBIO VOL. 21 NO. 3, MAY 1992 269

7/28/2019 Gadgil Biodiversity[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gadgil-biodiversity1 6/6

ina position ooperate ntirelyontheirownand the conservation ffort would have tobe one of co-planning ndco-management.Local peopledo possess very detailed n-formation n local biodiversity,ts historyand he forces mpinging n it.Butthey acka broader,globalperspective.Outsideex-perts collaboratingwith local scientists,when these are available,could providesuch a perspective6).

Thestarting ointof this exercisewas tonote that we might wish to conservebiodiversity, efinedas the entirespectrumof varietyandvariability mong iving or-ganisms and the ecological complexes inwhichtheyoccur,for a varietyof reasons.Thesereasonsmayincludesubsistenceusevalue, e.g. herbalmedicines used locally;commodityuse value, e.g. cane or wildhoney; non-consumptiveuse value, e.g.watershed ervices;optionvalue,e.g. wildrelativesof cultivatedplants hatmay pro-vide useful genetic material for futurebreedingprograms; ransformativealue,provisionof experienceof unspoiltnature;andexistencevalue,for its own sake.Thisrationale uggestscertainconservation ri-orities. Theseprioritiesmust be related oattributes f any localityto assess the lo-cality's significance for conservation.Ingeneral,a localitywill be valuedmore f itcontains elements that are distinctive,threatened,areor of restricted ccurrence;and if it harborsmanysuchelements(seeTable).

The local peoplemust be intimatelyn-volved to takethis broadprioratizationur-therand o decideon specificactionpoints.For example, the evergreen forests ofUttaraKannadadistrictare rich in wildrelativesof cultivated ruit rees,as well asmany cultivarsof fruittrees.Quitea fewfarmers avedeveloped argecollectionsofsuch species, especially of generaMangifera,Artocarpus,Myristica, Gar-ciniaandSpondiason theirownlands,outof personal nterest.Many ocalpeoplealsoknow of individualwild mangotreesthatbearfruit of special flavoror have excep-tionallyhigh yields.Their nputswouldob-viouslybe of value n decidingonthefocusof a programo conservewild relativesofcultivatedplants. Similarly some habitattypes are now conservedonly in sacredgroves, e.g. Myristicaswamps in Kathle-kan.Localpeople knowof suchpatches nforest nterior;heyalsoappreciateheirre-ligioussignificance.

Conservationprioritiesmust also takeaccount of the whole set of humande-mandson a given locality. For example,articificialreshwaterrrigation ondscon-structed n preBritishimes in the easternpartsof thedistrict re mportantabitats fmigratorywaterfowl.Thesepondsarenowbeingencroached ypaddycultivators.Thelocal peoplearefully awareof who is en-croaching and what their economicmotivations re.Today,the stateapparatustries oregulate uchencroachmenthroughcoercion.This often fails. Instead, he re-

sourcesdevotedto enforcement ould beoffered o localcommunitieso as to moti-vatethem o continue oconserve hefresh-waterponds n theirown villages.Thedif-

ferentvillagesconcerned ouldsubmitbidsbased on the annual evel of financial n-centivetheywould needto accept hecon-servation ption.If the state hatspeaks orthe broaderpublic nterest inds thesebidsacceptable, t could decide to implementconservationprogramsn partnership ithsome or all of the villages involved.Con-versely, t coulddecide o writeoff someofthe freshwater ondsof theUttaraKannada

district o extendpaddycultivation.Localcommunities houldof coursereceivepay-mentonlyif they succeed n conservinghefreshwater onds nvolved.

Undoubtedly,more researchandpracti-calexperiences requiredo designand m-plement nalternativeothecentralizedndauthoritarianpproach o conservation.Animportantbstacle s likelyto be theresist-anceof thecentral uthority ecausea largebureaucratic pparatus o implementpro-gramsocallywouldsimplybeunnecessary.Rathera much smaller,technicallymoresophisticated pparatuswould be required,onewhichwouldhave acapabilityoassess

broaderpriorities, o help local authoritiesworkoutdetailedplansandmonitor o de-terminewhether he localauthoritiesreinfact implementing he conservationmea-suresas agreed.The localauthoritieswouldhave to be strengthened ndbetterorgan-ized andcapableof taking urther rogramsof decentralization f political and admin-istrativeresponsibilities.Thiswouldentailrendering ocal governmentsmuch moreaccountableo peoplethan s presently hecase.Thecentralauthoritywouldalsohaveto transfer greatdeal of itsjurisdicialandpolicing powers to the more locally-ori-ented nstitutions.

Such a local involvementmanagementstrategy s very much in the spirit of the

proposal o involvelocal communitieshatis an importantelement of the GlobalBiodiversityStrategybeing developed byWRI,IUCN andUNEP(18). It is alsocon-sistentwiththemicrolevelplanning nitia-tive of the NationalWastelandsDevelop-ment Board of the Governmentof India(19). Such international ndnationalsup-port s critical o the successof analterna-tive approach,or it is aptto run nto seri-ous oppositionon thepartof thepolitical-economic-bureaucraticested nterestshatbenefit rom hepresent-dayattern f non-sustainable esourceuse andof a rigidpo-licing approachto conservation.Fortu-nately,the global trendsare todayexcep-tionally favorable for a decentralized,peopleorientedpproach.As a result,moreandmoreattemptsike thatexemplifiedbytheMarineConservationndDevelopmentProgramon the Visayas islands, Philip-pines,are ikelyto beinitiatednthecomingyears(18). Theirsuccesswouldbe greatlyenhanced f they arebackedby a localityspecificanalysisof thesituation n its con-cretehistoricaletting. nvolvementf localpeople is absolutelyessential for imple-menting he conservationmeasureson theground.

References and Notes

1. Rodgers, W.A. and Panwar,H.S. 1988. Planning aWildlifeProtectedArea Network n India, Vol.1. TheReport.WildlifeInstituteof India,DehraDun,India.

2. Gadgil, M. 1991. ConservingIndia'sbiodiversity:thesocietalcontext.EvolutionaryTrends n Plants5, 3-8.

3. Mani, M.S. (ed.). 1974. Ecologyand Biogeography nIndia. W. Junk,TheHague.

4. Nair,N.C.andDaniel,P. 1986. The floristicdiversityofthe WesternGhatsand tsconservation:Areview.Proc.Ind.Acad. Scie. (Anim.Sci/Plan.Sci),Supplement,No-vember1986,p.103-125.

5. Gadgil,M.,Hegde,K.M.andShetty,K.A. 1986. UttaraKannada:A case study in hill area development.In:

KarnatakaState of EnvironmentReport-1985-1986.Saldanha,C.J. (ed.). Centre for Taxonomic Studies,Bangalore,p. 155-170.

6. Daniels,R.J.R.,SubashChandran,M.D. andGadgil,M.A strategyfor conserving the biodiversityof UttaraKannada: A district n SouthIndia.Environ.Conserv.(InPress).

7. Buchanan,F. 1870.JourneyThrough heNorthernPartsofKanara 1800-1802)2.Higginbothams,Madras,ndia.

8. Gadgil,M. and SubashChandran,M.D. 1989. On thehistoryofUttaraKannadaorests. n:ChangingTropicalForests. Dargavel, J., Dixon, K. andSemple,N. (eds).AustralianNationalUniversity,Canberra, . 47-58.

9. Gadgil,M. andIyer,P. 1989. On the diversificationofcommonproperty esourceusebythe Indian ociety.In:CommonPropertyResources:EcologyandCommunityBased Sustainable Development. Berkes, F. (ed.).BelhavenPress,London,p. 240-255.

10. Gadgil,M. 1989.Deforestation: roblems ndprospects.EnergyEnvironmentMonitor5, 3-47.

11. Gadgil,M. 1991. RestoringIndia'sforest wealth.Nat.Res. 27, 12-20.

12. Gadgil, M. 1991. Diversity: culturaland biological.TrendsEcol. Evolut.2, 369-373.

13. Gadgil,M. and Berkes, F. 1991. Traditional esourcemanagement systems. Resource Management andOptimization 8, 127-141.

14. Nair, P.V.K. andGadgil, M. 1980.The statusand dist-ributionof elephantpopulations n Karnataka.ournalof BombayNaturalHistory Society 75 (Suppl.), 1000-1016.

15. Kamath,S.V. (ed.). 1985. KarnatakaState Gazetteer,Uttara KannadaDistrict. Governmentof Karnataka,India.

16. SubashChandran,M.D. andGadgil,M. Stateforestryanddeclineof foodresources ntropical orests nUttaraKannada n Southern ndia.Proceedingsof theInterna-tionalSymposium nFood andNutrition ntheTropicalForest: BioculturalInteractionsand ApplicationstoDevelopment,Paris,10-13, September1991.(Inpress).

17. Shiva, V. 1991. Ecology and the Politics of Survival.Sage Publications,New Delhi, p. 365.

18. WorldResources nstitute t al. 1992.GlobalBiodiversity

Strategy.19. NationalWastelandsDevelopmentBoard,Govt.ofIndia.1991. Guidelines for Micro Planning. NationalWastelands Development Board, Ministry ofEnvironmentand Forests, Govt. of India, New Delhi110003,p.51.

20. I gratefullyacknowledgesupport or this workby theDepartment of Environment,Government of Indiathrougha seriesof long-termresearchgrants. amalsograteful o my colleaguesR.J.RanjitDanielsandM.D.SubashChandranormanyyearsof collaborativeworkthathascontributedo theideasembodied n thispaper.

MadhavGadgilholds a Ph.D. inbiology from HarvardUniversity and

has served as a lecturerat HarvardUniversityand a visiting professorat StanfordUniversity.Forthe past18 years he has been on the facultyof the IndianInstituteof Sciencewhere he currentlyholds the AstraProfessorship in BiologicalSciences. His research interestsencompass mathematicalmodellingas well as field studies in the areasof population biology, conservationbiology and humanecology. He isalso active in policy studies havingserved for 4 years on the ScientificAdvisoryCouncil to the PrimeMinisterof India.Hisaddress:Centrefor Ecological Sciences,IndianInstituteof Science,Bangalore 560012, India.

270AMBIOVOL.21 NO. 3, MAY 1992