public disclosure authorized v3 e2215 - world bank · no compensation for livestock losses ......

E2215v3

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

1

THE WORLD BANK IN INDIA

T he Biodiversity Cons ervation and Rural Livelihood Improvement Project (BCRLIP) was conceptualized in 2005 to resolve the confl ict between man and animal among rural people living on the fringes of important protected areas. The primary aim of the

project is to engage local communities in sustaining biodiversity conservation while improving their livelihood prospects.

The project area, called a landscape, includes protected areas like national parks, sanctuaries, tiger reserves and forests rich in fl ora and fauna outside the protected areas.

Six landscapes have been selected under the project. These include the Upper Indus landscape (Changthang) in Jammu and Kashmir. Changthang falls in the District of Leh and includes the Changthang wildlife sanctuary. Askot in Pithoragarh District of Uttarakhand includes the Askot musk deer sanctuary. Little Rann of Kutch in Gujarat falls in Kutch and includes the Hadakiya and Kachch Creeks and the Wild Ass Sanctuary; Satpura in Madhya Pradesh covers the districts of Hoshangabad, Chhindwara and Betul and includes the Satpura National Park and the Bori and Panchmarhi wildlife sanctuaries. Dampa in Mizoram falls in Mamit district and includes the Dampa tiger reserve. Agasthiyaramalai, spread across Tamil Nadu and Kerala, runs through 13 districts (Theni,Tiruneveli, Srivilliputtur, Kanyakumari, Virudnagar, Thiruvanthapuram, Konni, Punalur, Thenmala, Achencoil,and forest divisions of Shendurney, Neyyar and Pappara and includes one tiger reserve (Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger reserve) and fi ve wildlife sanctuaries: Grizzled Squirrel WLS, Kanayakumari WLS in Tamil Nadu and Shendurney WLS, Neyyar WLS and Pappara WLS in Kerala.

The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, is the nodal body for the project.

The BCRLIP is based on the lessons learned from the earlier India Eco-Development Project that focussed only on protected areas. However, it has a much wider canvass as it encompasses not only the PAs but also the areas contiguous to it.

CONSULTATIONS

Consultants PEACE and ATREE had the responsibility of assisting the seven states selected for this project to develop detailed landscape-specifi c plans through a consultative process. The forest and wildlife departments, which are the fi eld level implementing agencies for the project, began consultations in 2005 with all stakeholders within each of the selected landscapes.

Introduction to BCRLIP


2

They had discussions with private and public sector agencies operating in the area; with civil society organizations; and most importantly with local communities, to develop plans for the sustainable management of the area’s biodiversity while ensuring livelihood needs of the people living there.

Since the areas of some of the landscapes like Agasthiyarmalai and Changthang are much larger than the traditional PAs, their management has to be different. There was need for partnerships and coalitions with a wide range of actors and stakeholders. Such multi-stakeholder forums and local landscape foundations require a focus on transparency and information dissemination to ensure that all views and concerns are addressed in the management of the landscape.

So far, for each landscape there has been at least one landscape level and one state level meeting. In addition, all communities living in villages falling within the landscape were consulted. These include panchayat members, women, village elders, Hill Council members (as in Changthang), agriculturists, herdsmen, fi shermen and traders.

Issues

During the consultations, concerns were expressed on the need for balance between biodiversity conservation and improvement of rural livelihoods.

The common issues that surfaced across all the landscapes were:

■ Rights of people not settled although some protected areas were notifi ed in 1973

■ Stringent provisions of Wildlife(P) Act 1972 limit livelihood options of those who live within landscape

■ Man-animal confl ict

■ No compensation for livestock losses

■ Need for greater livelihood options

■ Poaching, hunting

■ Disruption of land use

■ Declining agriculture production resulting in livelihood insecurity

■ Remoteness of villages leading to their marginalization

■ Migration

■ High illiteracy and poverty, lack of development

■ Lack of health and education services

■ Declining traditional wool crafts dues to poor marketing and promotion

■ Religious tourism not creating local employment and outside porters destroying homes and habitat

3


■ No proper rail connection leading to inadequate marketing and loss of income

■ Construction of check dams on seasonal rivers and streams leading to low fi sh turnover

■ Ignorance about various agricultural and other government schemes

• Lack of non-land based income options

■ Remote location

■ Lack of roads leading to high transportation costs

Opportunities

The remoteness of the villages within the landscape has deprived communities of the benefi ts of development. Although the project cannot resolve all concerns like lack of education, water, health infrastructure, electricity and communications, it does provide an opportunity to take stock of these issues and address them.

A crucial component in any project is the convergence of government and line departments and this project will help to facilitate this process with greater transparency.

In addition, with the recent establishment of the NTCA and the promulgation of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, there will be new opportunities to engage with communities to sustain and manage natural resources to support rural livelihoods

Contacts

Agasthiyarmalai:Dr VN Singh,Chief Conservator of Forests (wildlife), Tamil Nadu Forest Department044-24312574, 09443931799Email: [email protected]

Dr. Sukhdev Thakur, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of Tamil Nadu044-24321738, Email: [email protected]

Mr KJ Varughese, Chief Wildlife Warden, Kerala0471-2529238. Fax: 0471-2322217Email: [email protected]

Askot:SS Raisaili, Conservator of forests, North Kumaon05962-231099, 09412085434Email: [email protected]

S.S. Vaish, Field Director, Pithoragarh Forest Department05964-225234

Dampa: LR Thanga, Chief Wildlife Warden, Govt of Mizoram0389-232537109436142355Email: [email protected]

Little Rann of Kutch:Pradeep Khanna, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Gandhinagar079-23254126, 09427306163Email: [email protected]


4

Bharat Pathak, Chief Conservator, Wildlife, Junagarh0285-2631678, 09978406191Email: [email protected]

SatpuraSS Rajpoot, Conservator of Forests, Satpura Tiger Reserve07574-25439409425091875Email: [email protected]

UIL (Changthang): Jigmet Thakpa, conservator, forests; regional wildlife warden, Leh09419178739. Phone/Fax: 01982-255733Email: [email protected]

A.K. Srivastava,Chief Wildlife Warden, Jammu & Kashmir0194-2452469, 0191-257257009419202383Email: [email protected]

PEACEManoj Misra011-2271900509910153601email: [email protected]

ATREERavi Chellam080-2363877109900901112email: [email protected]

NTCADr. Rajesh Gopal, IGF & Member Secretary (NTCA), Ministry of Environment & Forests011-2338442809868286591email: [email protected]

Dr. T. WangdiAdditional Director, BCRLIP, Ministry of Environment & Forests011-2338769109810822059Email: [email protected]

Ganga SinghJoint Director (NTCA), Ministry of Environment & Forests011-23389988309868885596Email: [email protected]

5


T he Ministry of Environment and Forests, National Tiger Conservation Authority organised a national workshop on the Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihood Improvement Project (BCRLIP) at

the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on May 24-25, 2007.

The objective was to discuss the ‘draft fi nal report on BCRLIP’ submitted by the consultants and presentations made by project coordinator/ authorised offi cer from each of the six landscape sites detailing various project components. These presentations were to highlight the following:

■ key activities proposed in accordance with project area development components,

■ extent of stakeholder consultations,

■ issues, responses, extent of consensus and its documentation

■ how the project design meets peoples concerns

■ specifi c institutional arrangement for each landscape

■ arrangements for coordination within and outside forest departments

■ composition and timing of establishment of core planning teams

■ implementation, role and responsibilities within landscapes

■ fund fl ow arrangements

■ establishment of landscape societies /foundation

■ state receptiveness, timing and its role

■ site specifi c risks

It was attended by representatives from civil society organisations, ministry of environment and forests, state forest departments of the proposed six landscape sites, intended benefi ciaries, World Bank and the consultants to the BCRLIP project. (List of participants is attached)

Workshop on Biodiversity

Conservation and Rural Livelihood

Improvement Project

May 24-25, 2007 New Delhi


6

Dr Rajesh Gopal, member secretary, National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), which is implementing the project, welcomed the participants on behalf of the ministry.

Mr V Prasad, Director General Forests and Special Secretary, said conservation was a formidable task especially in India where there was great dependence on forests for livelihoods. He asked the participants to make landscape specifi c suggestions that could be discussed and debated over the next two days.

Ms Asmeen Khan, senior rural development specialist, World Bank, said the purpose of the workshop was to take stock of the current level of project preparation, started in 2005. PEACE were appointed consultants to help the seven states selected for this project develop detailed landscape specifi c plans. The wildlife departments conducted several consultations with the stakeholders, including private and public sector agencies operating in the area, civil society organizations and, most importantly, local communities. This was to develop plans for the sustainable management of the area’s biodiversity while improving the livelihood needs of the people. How these concepts could be turned into practical working plans would be shared at the workshop.

Landscape-level management required a very different concept of management compared to protected areas (PAs) she pointed out. The size of these areas was much larger than the traditional PAs. Greater partnership with all stakeholders was crucial for landscape management. Establishment of a Foundation that would insure transparency and effective communication was required so that the views of all stakeholders were represented, said Ms Khan.

The recent establishment of the NTCA and the promulgation of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 were new opportunities to engage with communities at these sites to manage natural resources and support rural livelihoods.

The World Bank viewed this project as a programme of support to scale up unique local initiatives like micro planning in Ladakh, community management of village forest reserves in Mizoram and partnerships with private landowners in Agasthiyarmalai landscape she said.

The BCRLIP, in fact builds on the lessons learnt from the Global Environment Facility-supported India Eco-development project that ended in 2001 but continued for two more years because there was some unspent money. Due weightage has also been given to the recommendations of the high level Tiger Task Force appointed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to look into the dwindling number of tigers in the country.

These include:

■ Supporting local capacity to plan and implement, and not overwhelm the sites with more money than they can spend

■ Supporting a more focused approach on new livelihood interventions, as opposed to the Ecodevelopment Project which did not suffi ciently meet the livelihood needs of fringe communities

7


■ Working with existing delivery systems and mechanism rather than creating new institutions e.g. Panchayati Raj Institutions and other local institutions

■ Developing partnerships with other rural development agencies to support the livelihood agenda

■ Focusing on ways of improving productivity and value addition of products produced by communities living in the landscape

■ Giving people living in the fringe areas management decisions and rights over forest land e.g. concept of community reserves.

Dr Gopal pointed out that the BCRLIP was an innovative way of mainstreaming development. Lessons learnt from the earlier projects like Kalakkad Mundanthura Tiger Reserve, Project Tiger, India Eco Development Project and Periyar Tiger Reserve show that conservation is not possible without the support of the community living in and around the protected areas.

He said that the four components of the BCRLIP were strengthening biodiversity management in the eco systems; conserving traditional practices of villagers in the area; improving learning and participatory processes; and improving national and state level capacities for landscape conservation.

Dr Gopal said that the workshop would bring out the bottlenecks in implementation, extent of stakeholder consultations and the degree of consensus received from the local communities for BCRLIP.

While talking about the proposed institutional arrangement, Dr Gopal said that a Foundation could be created for each landscape and the codifi ed guidelines of the Wildlife Protection Act (amended in 2006) would help in implementation and coordination of the project. The BCRLIP co-ordinator would work through the Foundations. He should be aware of all district level welfare schemes and enable sectoral integration for mainstreaming wildlife concerns.

On fund fl ow, Dr Gopal said the money would come through the Central government. However, a MOU could be signed with the state governments for project implementation. This would ensure that funds reached the Foundation directly and thus cut down the delays in transfer of money.


8

T he heavily populated Agasthiyarmalai Landscape (ALS) covering 8023 sq km in the southern Western Ghats ranks among the few chosen global biodiversity hotspots. Of the six BCRLIP sites, this impacts the lives of the greatest number of people within

and beyond its boundaries, while simultaneously having the highest number of endemic species living in it.

This is also the only site that falls within two states – Kerala (2555 sq km) and Tamil Nadu (5468 sq km). About 57 per cent of this area is classifi ed as Forest Land and the remaining 43 per cent is occupied by villagers and development activities. This landscape includes four wildlife sanctuaries and a tiger reserve.

The Agasthiyarmalai hills forming the southernmost tip of the Western Ghats have high rainfall and elevation gradients that combine to create a hotspot within a hotspot. A high number of plant and animal species exist here.

Unique vegetation in this landscape includes the freshwater Myristica swamps ecosystem, bamboo brakes, Ochlandra reeds and high elevation shola grasslands. There are numerous medicinal plants and important genetic resources such as the wild species of grains, fruits and spices. The ALS has many rare and endangered species of fauna like the Flying Squirrel. As the area receives very high annual rainfall, it performs important hydrological and watershed functions.

It is home to at least three native communities – the Kani, Malampandaram and Paliyam. They are repositories of traditional knowledge about forest resources. In fact, the Kani community’s traditional knowledge has spread globally, prompting the recognition of the importance of Intellectual Property Rights. The ALS is also the cradle for the plant-based indigenous medicinal system of Siddha.

AGASTHIYARMALAI LANDSCAPE

9


Agasthiyarmalai Landscape, 8023 sq kmsAdministrative units — Kerala and Tamil Nadu

Stakeholder Categories

Relevant Stakeholder Characteristic (location, size)

Interest Issue raised Response

Government Policy Makers

• TN Dist Adm offi cial,• Dist Collector

Tirunelvelli

Date: 23.08.06Location: Tirunelvelli, TN

Understanding project andDevelopment welfare of local residents

• Secy, Ministry of Forest;• MP• MLA

• Addl D.G. MOEF

Jt Director, MOEF –

Date: 18.8.06Location: Thiruvananthapuram Kerala

Date: 25.08.06Location: Chennai,

Date: 21.08.06Location:Thiruvanthapuram, Kerala

Conservation and environmental management

same

same

Implementing Agency Staff

• Forest Department, Kerala

• Wildlife Dept, Kerala

Date: 12.12.06Location: Thiruvanthapuram, Kerala

Conservation and environmental management and development of village welfare

Very large no. of tribal settlements inside forest area; Shencottah Gap to be bridged on priority basis; funding needed to acquire estates; elephant problem in Trivandrum;PA boundaries to be rationalized; no major infrastructure project planned in this landscape

Forest Dept commissioned study on rationalization of PA boundaries


10




• Forest Department

• Field Director, KMTR, Eco Development Offi cer

Date: 18.12.06Location: Tirunelvelli, Tamil Nadu

Replication of successes of KMTR model for BCRLIP

Planned interventions suggested, cross border confl ict issues like poaching, demarcation of state borders, encroachment, smuggling of timber and illicit NTFP collection; near total reduction of cattle incursions into KMTR

• Forest Dept, TN• Wildlife Dept, TN

Date: 23.08.06Location:, Tirunelvelli, TN

conservation • Why only two out of four watersheds in the LS are mentioned in project

Two watersheds require urgent attention, but rest important too

• Forest Dept, Kerala• Wildlife Dept, Kerala• Animal Husbandry Dept• Soil Conservation Dept

Date: 18.8.06Location: Thiruvanthapuram, Kerala

same • Population pressure on Reserved Forests leading to confl ict between villagers and forest dept

• Pressure from cattle grazing inside forests

• Forest Dept, TN• Wildlife Dept, TN• Animal Husbandry Dept,

TN• Social Welfare Dept, TN

Date: 25.08.06Location: Chennai, TN

Balancing conservation and livelih oods

conservation

• Need to learn from success of KMTR

• inter sectoral and inter state coordination needed

• identifi cation of BSAs

• need to relook at method of forest classifi cation system as also inventory and distribution of species

11





Coordination in conservation and livelihood options

• Management zoning issues

• More details of micro planning work in villages

• development packages need to be indicated so that FD can discuss these and offer them to EDCs.

• Legal provision should be made to regulate collection of rich medicinal plant species of area

• Strengthening of anti poaching camps manned by tribal youth under supervision of forest guard

• Post project sustainability

• EDC and SHG models working well within KMTR and experience to be used to strengthen project activities


12




Forest Dept, Kerala

• Wildlife Dept, Kerala

• Depts of Agriculture, Rural Development, Soil Conservation, Social Welfare, Scheduled Tribes Development; Panchayat Directorate

Date: 21.08.06Location:Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

Development of livelihood opportunities and conservation

• Project tenure and quantum and source of project funds

• Need of primary data collection for biological assessment on a sample basis

• Need to include agro-biodiversity

• Should study similar projects’ impacts and lessons, particularly Kerala’s MAB

• consider appointing a professional outside the Forest Dept to be CEO

• inclusion of local reps in steering committee

• creation of new posts of VCCs/EDCs

• Plans on watershed basis required, using application of space technology

• need to ensure post-project sustainability

13





Interest Groups(NGOs) and others

INTACH Date: 12.12.06Location: Thiruv., Kerala

Partnering conservation efforts

Delineation of the landscape arbitrary; lack of data with FD on critical and fringe areas; success of Periyar Tiger Reserve unlikely to be replicated as hoped; role of communities’ in forest protection not specifi ed; employ tribal communities for forest restoration; ensuring people’s rights and responsibilities at community level masses

• Project should take up soil erosion mitigation measures in estates

• Proper roads to estates required

• Solar fencing inside estates

Private Estates Date: 21.08.06

Location:Thiruvananthpuram, Kerala

Date: 23.08.06Location: Nirunelvelli, TN

Cultivation andLivelihood

• Estate own-ers respon-sible for controlling erosion caused due to cultiva-tion without conservation safeguards


14




RAMCO Industry Date: 18.8.06Location: Thiruvananthpuram, Kerala

livelihood • need to enhance RAMCO’s initiative of supporting education of 150 tribal children, so that every village child educated

• Estate owners responsible for roads and solar fencing

Academicians Date: 25.08.06Location: Chennai, TN

Development welfare of people

• Tribals inside forest should not be relocated as they protect forests

Scientists Dept. of Botany M.G. College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala; TBGRI Palode)

Same and conservation

• Negative impact of pilgrims to LS

• Setting up of medicinal plants garden for participatory biodiversity conservation with Kani tribals

• Detailed documentation of LS biodiversity and cultural diversity required, particularly traditional knowledge of tribals

• Focus on convergence, as no inter departmental coordination at state and district levels presently; stakeholders must be empowered to ask for due inputs from line agencies

15





• How biodiversity conservation and livelihood interventions can be made complementary by making social and cultural interventions that acknowledge ecology as part of heritage and central to local economy

Intended benefi ciaries in Kerala (Ker) and Tamil Nadu (TN)

Rajathottam Van Samraksha Samiti (VSS), (Ker)

Date: 1.12.06Location: Thenmala Division, Ariyankavu Range

Situational analysis and livelihood challenges

• Need for productive forestry

• Promotion of ecotourism with locals’ involvement

• Relocation problems of Kanis from Thenmala division and of people inside Rosemala

• NTFP issues

• Lack of jobs/work for locals in Forest Department

• Issues related to functioning of VSS

• Functioning of livelihood-promotion activities, employment schemes and small enterprises

• Road, water and electricity issues


16




• Issues relating to cash crop economy

• Collection and cultivation of medicinal plants

• Sustainability of BCRLIP project

• High unemployment - workers laid off polluting factories

• Employment opportutinities through forestry activities

Rosemala settlement (Ker) Date: 14.12.06Location: Kulathupuzha Panchayath

Mallapandarams’ Settlement (Ker)

Date: 14.12.06Location: Near RFO offi ce

VSS, Palaruvi (Ker) Date: 14.12.06Location: Palaruvi, Thenmala division

President of Thenmala Ecodevelopment Cooperative (Ker)

Date: 14.12.06Location: Thenmala division

VSS, Pottomavu Date: 15.12.06Location: Pottamavu

17





Residents of Thanumoodu village; residents of Kochhadappupara village residents; residents of Varattakala village (Ker)

Date: 15.12.06Location:Thanumoodu village,Varottakala and Kochchadappupara villages

Residents and VSS members of Kallar (Chanda colony), Orupara village, Podiakala village and workers in Bonnecaud estate (ker)

Date: 16.12.06Location: Villages Kallar (Chanda colony), Orupara, Podiakala and Bonnecaud estate

Members of Puttukala EDC; residents and EDC members of Mayam village; residents/members of Thenmala EDC; Kombai, Pattayamvachai and Ayaramkal settlements (Ker)

Date: 17.12.06Location: Villages Puttukala and Mayam; Thenmala ; Kombai, Pattaymvachai and Ayarmkal settlements

Residents of Papanasum and Mylar villages(TN)

Date: 19.12.06Location: Villages of Papanasum and Mylar

Members of Village Forest Committees and Van Samraksha Samitis in TN part of LS

Date: 23.08.06Location:, Tirunelvelli, TN

Livelihood and conservation opportunities

• No electricity in villages

• Housing for villagers with proper toilets required

• Schools in LS must focus on conservation awareness programmes

• Soil theft from river banks

• Forest dept to provide training and knowhow for main-taining solar fencing that can be done through project, but responsibility with villagers


18




• Solar fencing to protect agricultural land from animals

• More funds for VFCs and SHGs which are doing good conservation work, funds can be given directly by World Bank to VFCs

• More employment opportunities in Forest Dept for Kani tribals

• Address migration of unemployed landless villagers

• NGOs should be strengthened under the project

• Exploitation of forests by private estates

• Develop-ment of Fisheries as a livelihood option to prevent migration of locals

Kerala LS village Panchayat representatives; members of village eco development committees and heads of Van Samraksha Samitis

Date: 18.8.06Location: Thiruvananthpuram, Kerala

Development welfare of villagers and conservation

• Alienation of adivasis, need for livelihood improvement programmes for adivasis

• Lack of roads

• Shift system in schools causing hardship to parents

• Opposition of Forest Dept to development of forest villages

• new proj-ect would not affect various de-velopment activities underway, nor relocate villages

19





• Focus on livelihood improvement and employment generation

• Importance of strengthening VSS

• Relocation of interior settlements to the fringes

• Importance of developing eco-tourism with help of locals

• Ensure sustainable collection and distribution of NWFP

• Earlier projects promising village eco development having failed

• Accumulation of plastic garbage and waste by pilgrims coming to LS can be removed with help from locals


20

B ound on one side by Tibet and Himachal Pradesh on the other, the Upper Indus (Changthang) Landscape of 22,588 sq kms in the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir, is the largest of the six sites selected in the country under the BCRLI (biodiversity

conservation and rural livelihoods improvement) project. It is also the highest landscape of the country. Snow bound for almost six months in the year, the region is home to the chiru, the famed Tibetan antelope, which provides the pashmina wool, the endangered snow leopards, kiangs or wild ass and the wild yak. There are ten biologically signifi cant areas in the landscape.

The increasing number of households and livestock threatens the pastoral economy of the region. A large chunk of the pastureland was lost to China after the 1962 war and there has been an infl ux of Tibetan refugees to the region. Man-animal confl ict in the region is high and because of shrinking pasturelands, people are in dire need of other livelihood options.

Since March 2006 till mid-May 2007, nine consultations were held with stakeholders ranging from offi cials of the Ladakh Hill Development Council, village elders, panchayat representatives, NGOs and the forest department representatives to ensure better livelihood for the community while protecting the biodiversity of the region. Meetings were held in Leh as well as in the villages of Nyoma and Durbuk blocks. About 500 people participated in these meetings and shared their concerns about how the BCRLIP would impact on their lives

Upper Indus (Changthang) Landscape, 22,588 sq kmsAdministrative units—Nyoma Block, Durbuk block and Changchenmo valley


Relevant Stakeholder

Characteristic (location, size)



• Ladakh Hill Development Council(Five Councillors)

• Deputy Commissioner

Date: 25 March 2006Date: 25.03.06

Location: Leh (5 councillors)

To understand the defi nition of the landscape

UIL defi nition and delineation

Nyoma, Durbuk blocks and Changchenmo valley to be included in BCRLIP

Upper Indus

(Changthang) Landscape

21






• Chief Executive Councillor

• Executive Councillors

Date:04.09.06Location:Leh (2 councillors, 2 Executive Councillors (health); (agriculture)

Presentation of draft indicative plan

Man-animal confl ict;Alternate livelihood for nomads;Satisfi ed with consultations

• Elected reps • panchayat

members

• Gobas

Date:31.08.06Location :Nyoma (100 reps)

Determination of BSAs

Two categories defi ned based on conservation status of species; BSA I comprises large populations of species typical of UIL and BSA II is slightly lower conservation priority but has other endangered species including snow leopards and high incidence of man-animal confl ict

• Councillors Date:21.10.06Location: Skilmang

Livelihood challenges

• grazing rights• threat to crops

from locusts• declining

pasture lands

• Ladakh Hill Development Council

Date:14.05.2007Location :Leh(12 councillors)

Development welfare of local residents

Need for consultation with political parties on proposed WLS.

To follow up and look for convergence with other projects


22





• Panchayat reps 2 blocks Same Need for additional development supportCouncillors need to inform their constituents as local people scared sanctuary declaration may restrict rights

Council members to organize meetings with local communities

• Deputy Commissioner

Settlement of rights

Hot-spots where people are living need to be accommodated

Decline in wildlife due to hunting by Army

Wildlife department to review boundaries and current laws and speak to army chief


• Forest Department Date: 25.03.06Location: LehDistrict Forest offi cer

Identifying areas for BSAs

No specifi c comments

• Wildlife Department

Chief wildlife warden Inclusion of Changchenmo valley in landscape (because of chiru and Tibetan argail)

project cell headed by regional wildlife warden set up

23






• Sheep and livestock department

• Forest Dept (watersheds)

• Wildlife dept

Date: 14.05.07Location : Leh

Head of Dept (Leh)

District forest offi cer

Chief Wildlife Warden

Improvement of grazing, movement of cattle

Watershed development

Identifying BSAs

settlement of grazing rights

Confusion over implementing authority, revenue/wildlife depts

-Settlement process on-going and not linked to the project, communities have opportunities through their councillors to raise these issues with DC

Will try to improve information dissemination on process, include micro-planning activities facilitated by TISS

Interest Groups(NGOs)

• TISS 13.10.06Location: Leh1 rep

Data Collectionfor sustainable development

14.05.07Location :LehI rep

Participating in project on local level planning

Need more information on how ngos/stakeholders can participate in project implementation

Project to follow up with individual NGOs

• Dorabji Tata Trust 13.10.06Location: LehI rep

Data Collectionfor sustainable development


24





• WWF 04.09.06Location: Leh(Two reps)

14.05.07Location: Leh(project manager, Leh)

participating in project on stakeholder outreach


• Snow Leopard Conservation Trust

04.09.06Location: Leh1 rep

conservation

14.05.07Location: Lehproject director, Indiarep from Karnataka

participating in project on stakeholder awareness research

• Karma Nature Conservation Foundation

Date 04.09.071 rep

conservation

• Buddhist Association

Consultations yet to take place

25






Intended Benefi ciaries

Villagers of Kharnak, Samad, Rongo,Mudh, Hanley, Chumur, Koyul, Nider, Tsaga, Khatpoo,Kungyam, Nyoma (TR), Nyoma (Changpa), Mahe, Sato Kargyam,Chushul, Phobrong, Korzok villages, including village elders, sarpanchs, herder, women, gobas

Location: in villages mentioned Dates: June, July, August, 2006

15-20 October 2006

May 9-13, 2007


• Man-animal confl ict

• threat to graz-ing rights

• need for great-er livelihood options

• poaching, hunting by army

• unplanned road construc-tion and en-hanced tourism destroying habitat

• settlement rights, imple-mentation of

Tribal Act

• crop damage by locusts

Monasteries Hemis

Thiekse


Pvt Sector Eco-Tourism Groups

Mining

Renewable Energy



26





Army Border Roads

Regiments

Date: 14.05.2007Location: LehAll blocksConsultations yet to take place

Interested in supporting better environmental management of roads

Needs follow-up by project to meet command-ing offi cer

Project to follow-up

Tibetan Refugee Organization


27


T he Dampa landscape, which is spread over 988 sq km, encompasses the Dampa Tiger reserve. Bound by Tripura in the north and Bangladesh in the west, it is rich in biodiversity and unique among the six landscapes chosen as it is the only one to boast

of Indo-Malayan fl ora and fauna. It is home to seven of the eight non-human primates including the hoolock gibbon, the only ape found in India. Rare species of cats like the Clouded Leopard and the Marbled Cat can be found here as well as the endangered Malayan Sun Bear.

Agriculture is the predominant means of livelihood for the Mizo, Reang and the Chakma tribal communities living in the 30 villages in the landscape. Conservation has not been a priority here and poaching is not considered an offence mainly due to low awareness of environment related policies and laws. Lack of convergence and coordination between government departments has added to the problem.

Conservation can be possible once economic self suffi ciency can be assured. However, being a rainfed agrarian economy there is limited scope for irrigation. Declining agricultural production has resulted in livelihood insecurity especially in the absence of non-land based income options. With jhum cultivation being a part of the Mizo cultural ethos, conservation efforts would be better served by improving cultivation and productivity of the land. For this, villagers need to be educated on soil and moisture conservation measures and improved varieties of seeds that they can introduce.

The state needs a new paradigm that would focus on water conservation and its linkage with the forests.Village councils have an active role to play here as does the Young Mizo Association and Mizo Women’s Association. All these bodies have been involved in participatory consultations for BCRLIP.

From March 2006 to mid-May 2007, two state level and one landscape level meeting and consultations in all 30villages were held with stakeholders ranging from members of the Village Council, Eco Development Committee, farmers and representatives of the forest department, Young Mizo Association and other active NGOs. Views of all stakeholders were solicited to improve project design to ensure better livelihood for the community while protecting the biodiversity of the region. Over 300 people participated in these meetings and shared their concerns about how the BCRLIP would impact on their lives

Dampa Landscape


28






Deputy Commissioner (Mamit District)

Date: 12.05.06Location: Aizwal

Date: 7.08.06Location: .Aizwal

Date:17.03.07Location: .W.Phaileng


Need to ensure people’s participation in BCRLIP, transparency in accounting crucial, employment opportunities must be given to local residents, need for powerful district level committee for BCRLIP implementation

Consultation with residents at village and hamlet level already taken place since March 2006

Secretary, Envion-ment and Forest, GOM

Date: 7.08.06Location: Aizwal

Environmental management and conservation

Chairman of BCRLIP Society should be E&F minister and not Mizoram CM

Finance secretarySenior Scientifi c Of-fi cer

Date:17.03.07Location: W.Phaileng

Fund allocationPartnering conservation and livelihood project

Minister, E&F, GOM Same Livelihood options 100 persons to be employed as wildlife protection squads

29






Under secretary, E&FJoint Director, School education, GOMDistrict Education Offi cer (Mamit )Information and Public Relations Dept, GOM

Disseminating information on need for conservation

Livelihood options

healthcare

steps for conserva-tion

greater people’s participation

100 persons to be employed as wildlife protection squadsPlantations under VDCs not under govt control

Village council members

Date:24.11.06Location:Daparengpui

Date:25.11.06Location:Kawnmawi

Date:26.11.06Location Pukzing Vengthar &Phuldungsei

Date:27.11.06Location:WPhaileng & Dinthar

Determination of BSAs and landscape delineation


• Increasing pres-sure on land available for cul-tivation

• Loss of tradi-tional land for jhuming;

• Hunting and poaching by army;

• Livelihood inse-curity

• Marginalization of women

• Apprehension of lack of choice of livelihood op-tions of practical use

• Confusion over implementing authority

Proper guidelines to be framed to ensure sense of ownership among people

VDC to implement rural livelihood programmes for village, modus operandi being worked out


30





Date:17.03.07Location:W.Phaileng27 reps from 14 villages

Date:31.07.06Location : West Phaileng (20 reps from 11 villages)

• Fear of VDC plans being cut down by PICC

• Non-payment of compensation for crop damage by wild animals, crops should be verifi ed on the spot to facilitate compensation

• Possibility of more piggery, poultry and ecodevelopment programmes

• Possibility of funding of school construc-tion by BCRLIP

• Lack of clarity over status of certain villages like Teirei, Status of Belkhai

• Status of Rawte tiang

• Possibility of de-veloping agricul-tural land

VDC microplans to be approved by PICC but all plans conforming to BCRLIP objectives will be cleared

GOM has no budget for compensation, limited funds available from MoEF but inadequate as is for entire state

Assurance of assessment by wildlife guards

Should be possible

Channeling of funds from other govt schemes part of BCRLIP and school construction costs to be met from convergence

Belkhai to continue to be part of Rajiv Nagar and families jhuming in

31






with irrigation facilities meant for wet rice culti-vation

Serhmun will do so according to land use of Serhmun Area under VC of Chhippui-Kawnmawi

Ample scope under development component of project for doing so. Agriculture department to follow up

Eco development committee mem-bers

Date: 31.07.06Location:Six reps

Date:17.03.07Location: W.Phaileng12 reps

Conservation

Deputy Commis-sionerUnder secretary, E&F, GOMSDO

Date:17.03.07Location:W.Phaileng



Forest Department Date:31.07.06Location:W.Phaileng

Identifying areas for BSAs and landscape delineation

Lack of clarity over status of Teirei as its administration is under W.Phaileng


32





Confusion over fi nancial allocation

Allocation yet to be made

How concept of PICC evolved into Society

Learning from other initiatives showed Society model worked best. Therefore PICC modifi ed into society model although all elements of PICC to be incorporated into Society model

Wildlife Department Chief wildlife warden

Conservation Funding pattern be on lines of FDA to ensure smooth implementationDelay in release of fund could be harmful

Forest Dept Date:17.03.07Location: W.PhailengDistrict Forest Offi cerACF Range Offi cers/Forsters (13 reps)

Environmental management

Various ongoing rural development schemes under central govt

Wildlife dept Chief Wildlife Warden

Conservation Alienation of people in the landscape from conservation

BCRLIP Society has to be established to promote convergence between govt depts

33






• Adverse law & policy environment – lack of awareness

• Agrarian economy – rainfed

• Slash & burn – not enough yield

Interest Groups (NGOs)

MHIP Date:07.08.06Location: Aizwal1 rep

Date 24.11.06Location:Rajiv Nagar

Date:25.11.06Location:Chippui-Kawnmawi &Lallen

Date:26.11.06LocationPukzing Vengthar &Phuldungsei

Date; 27.11.06W.Phaileng &Dinthar


17.03.07Location :W.Phaileng9 reps

Participating in project on local level planning




34





Young Mizo Asso-ciation

Date:25.11.06Location:Chippui-Kawnmawi &Lallen


Date:26.11.06Location:Phuldungsei


Date 17.03.07Location:W.Phaileng83 reps

MUP Date:07.08.06Location:Aizwal

Date:26.11.06LocationPukzing Vengthar &Phuldungsei


Date 17.03.07Location:W.Phaileng2 reps

same

All Mizoram Chak-ma Union

Date:07.08.06Location:Aizwal2 reps

same

35







Villagers of Phul-dungsei,, Koilam,Hruiduk,

Location: Phuldungsei Date:29.07.0613 farmers

livelihood challenges


• disruption of land use

• need for greater livelihood options

• poaching, hunting

• Disruption of land use

• Ignorance about various agricultural and horticultural schemes

• Declining agriculture production results in livelihood insecurity

• Lack of non-land based income options

• remote location • no proper rail

connection leading to inadequate marketing and loss of income

Church Consultations yet to take place


36





Pvt Sector Eco-Tourism Groups Consultations yet to take place

Army Border Roads Date: 14.05.2007Location: LehAll blocks

Interested in supporting better environmental management of roads

Needs follow-up by project to meet commanding offi cer

Project to follow-up

Regiments Consultations yet to take place

PRS Salvation Army Date:07.08.06Location:Aizwal

same No issue raised

BSF Date:07.08.06Location:AizwalDy Comdt

same No issue raised

37


The Askot Landscape, which is spread over an area of about 4500 sq km, borders Nepal in the east and China (Tibet) in the north. Situated in the north eastern part of the newly created state of Utaranchal, the landscape lies within the district of Pithoragarh and encompasses the famous Askot Musk deer sanctuary. High snowbound mountain peaks like the Suitilla, Adi Kailash, Bamdhadhura and picturesque valleys like the Vians, Darma and Ralam characterize the landscape.

While the major part of it falls in a high altitude zone, the climate in the landscape varies from sub tropical to polar. This wide attitudinal variation supports 2300 plant species including 47 per cent of the north western Himalayan orchid fl ora and 29 species of mammals including the endangered snow leopard. It is home to 225 bird species including the critically endangered satyr Tragopan, Monal pheasant and cheer pheasant.

The landscape, which contains 121 revenue villages, is predominantly occupied by Bhotias, a scheduled tribe community, and Ban Rajis classifi ed as `the primitive tribe’. Settlement of rights has not taken place as the Askot Wildlife sanctuary is still under the process of re-notifi cation. The proposal for re-demarcation of the sanctuary to 600 kms in keeping with the demands of the community living in the landscape is under consideration by the central government.

Over 30 village level meetings and two landscape and state consultations were held during the period between March 2006 to November2006 with stakeholders ranging from village elders, block pramukhs, representatives of Gram panchayats and Van panchayats, NGOs and the forest department representatives to ensure better livelihood for the community while protecting the biodiversity of the region. Meetings were held in all 36 villages in the landscape and about 1300 people participated in these meetings and shared their concerns about how the BCRLIP would impact on their lives

Askot Landscape


38






District magistrate Date:02.06.06Location: Jauljibi village

Date: 04.09.06Location :Dharchula


No specifi c issue raised

Dismal state of education, health; lack of personnel and infrastructure

Electrifi cation of all villages in area to be completed by 2008;local scheme to promote livelihoods by making available Rs 25 lakh for improving micro-hydel projects

Project implementation should be done through cluster model and funds be given directly to community and responsibility of monitoring project

Project implementation to be done through appropriate village level institutions in collaboration with local organizations and govt orgs

• Gram panchayat members

• block pramukh

• chairperson, nagar panchyat

• Van panachyats

(35 reps) Determination of sanctuary borders


Possibilities of pursuance of livelihoods despite restrictions

Apple plantations and its storage facilities, cold water fi sheries and mini microhydels could offer good livelihood

Possible after re-demarcation of sanctuary

39






• Principal secretary, govt of Uttaranchal

Date: 15.09.06Location: Dehradun

Conservation and welfare of people

Need to design project according to climatic and geographic areas

Overall development of village required; roads, water supply, electricity especially as landslides leading to loss of life, livestock and property

BRO rep assured roads to be built soon

• Revenue secretary, GOU

• Additional secretary, energy

• Additional chief secretary, GOU

• Secretary, forests• Advisor, health• Joint director ,

tourism

funding

conservation and improvement of livelihoods

BPL procedures and processes

Process of selection of BSAs

People alienated from conservations efforts because of Sanctuary borders still to be redefi ned, people willing to conserve as shown by Napalchu forest considered sacred to locals

Process of budget allocation

BSAs chosen in consultation with all

on basis of degree of attention and management required for conservation of species


40





Budget allocation not fi nalized yet

• Councillors Date:02.06.06Location: Jauljibi village1 MLA

Date:04.09.06Location: Dharchula1MLA


No specifi c issues raised


• Forest Department

Date: 04.09.06Location: DharchulaDistrict Forest offi cer, Pithoragarh

Conservator forests (kumaon),

SDO, ForestsRange offi cers (ascot, Munsiari and Dharchula range)

Identifying areas for BSAs

conservation and partner in BCRLI project

Inclusion of biodiversity rich areas in Gori basin, Johar; recruitment of unemployed youth as cluster reps to assist project implementation

Concerns over inclusion of villages within Askot sanctuary raised at level consultation meetings

Askot sanctuary to be demarcated to 600 kms in keeping with demands of community; proposal sent to central govt

• Forest Dept

• Wildlife dept

Date: 15.09.06Location : Dehradun

District forest offi cerConservator, ForestsChief Conservation of forestsChief Wildlife Warden

Identifying BSAs

conservation

Remoteness of villages leading to their marginalization; need for developmental projects and information on existing schemes

landscape area to be re-calculated and re-confi rmedWill try to improve information dissemination on process, include micro-planning activities

41






Interest Groups(NGOs)

• Himal Prakriti April to August, 2006Location: in all 36 villages in landscape

FAO, participating in project on local level planning

Concerns raised at village and cluster level consultations during April –August 06Including sanctuary restrictions, medicinal plant collection and cultivation, governance issues, roads, education, sanitation, water electricity, health and other developmental issues


Villagers of 36 villages divided into 12 clusters: Byans-Kuti Basin, Chaudans, Darma Basin,Sumdum Khola, Tawaghat-Galati, below Galati to jauljibi, Kanar Baram Basin (including Jauljibi to Kanar, Bungapani) Paina valley, Madkanya valley,Jaul Dhunga Region (Basantkot to Bui), Ralam (and Paton),

Dates: April to August, 200614-21 November 2006Location: in village clusters mentioned


• Migration

• Confl ict over collection of cordyceps


• no compensation for livestock losses

• need for greater livelihood options

• poaching,

• lack of roads leading to high transportation costs


42





Ban Raji village clusters including village elders, block pramukhs, and women

• landslides lead to loss of live and property

• deteriorating condition of Van Panchayats

• religious tourism not creating local employment, outside porters destroying homes and habitat

• high illiteracy and poor or no electricity

• lack of health and veterinary services

• declining traditional wool crafts dues to poor marketing and promotion

Pvt Sector Religious Tourism Groups

Mining

Renewable Energy


Army Border Roads Date: 04.09.06Location: Dehradun

Interested in road management

Pursue road constructions

43


The 3149 sq km Satpura landscape includes some of the poorest tribal belts of Hoshangabad, Chhindwara and Betul in Madhya Pradesh. It includes 2382 sq km of fi ne teak and sal forest as well as the 200 sq km Tawa Reservoir.

The Satpura region constitutes a major part of the single largest continuous tiger belt remaining in the world, with 14 protected areas. The tiger is the fl agship species of the landscape which currently includes Bori Wildlife Sanctuary, Panchmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary and the Satpura National Park. The sanctuary is famous for a temple where kajal (kohl) is applied on Nag devta deity.

The three protected areas of the landscape form a single unit where the access rights of the local communities have been removed by law. However, the State government has only issued an intention notifi cation for the National Park, so the rights of the people as envisaged under the 1972 Wildlife (Protection) Act have not been implemented. While some people do not want to leave the forests, others want a rehabilitation package and resettlement near large townships. The enactment of the Forest Rights Act may change the scenario that currently obtains in this landscape.

The forest villages currently get a few days of labour employment in a year from the forest department. To compensate for their loss of access to forest goods, it has been suggested that relocated villagers should get 150 days of employment.

Consultations for the landscape began in August 2006. While two large stake holders consultations were held in which 43 and 57 people participated, there were over 20 smaller meeting with villagers and other experts.

Satpura landscape


44





Govt policy makers Forest Secy,MP

Date:8.09.06Location:Bhopal

Implementationof landscape keeping in mind affi nity between quality of life in forested rural areas and biodiversity

Govt agencies have to play central and synergized role in implementing project. Vital to involve ministry/dept of rural development.

CommissionerJabalpur

Same as above Make landscape synonymous with larger Satpura biosphere

Size of landscape determined by biological diversity, range of diverse human habitation and funding available. Satpura genetic highway between western ghats & Eastern Himalayas.

Collector,Hoshangabad

Date:22.08.06Location: Hoshangabad

Why Satpura landscape smaller than Changthang.Questioned signifi cant differences in 6 selectedLandscapes across country

Laghu Udhyog Nigam(Small enterprises organization)


45






Director, Rural Livelihood project

Public/private partnership vital for sustainable development and improving economy of region. Harvest NFTPs in non- destructive, sustainable manner.

Process the produce to add to its value.

DirectorFisheries

Fishing in Tawa Reservoir

Stringent provisions of Wildlife(P) Act 1972 limit livelihood options of those who live within landscape.

Legally fi shing not allowed; Can approach Supreme Court.

Principal Sec,Rural Dev

Livelihood ofPeople

Fishing lease expiring and this could affect livelihood of fi sherfolk.

Sericulture for tussar would benefi t people in PAs. Tussar an exotic species, so limitations in PAs. More funds will come from line depts.

President, zila panchayat, sarpanch,Panchayat members

Date:22.08.06Location:Hoshangabad24 reps

Welfare of local residents

Agriculture predominant activity.Health facilities inadequate. Questions over separate body for looking at funds-fl ow since money committed is small.

Committee will look at fund fl ow


46





Need education facilities for socio-economic development of region. NGOs have to be made accountable

Implementing Agency

Conservator forests,MP Community forestry project

Date: 8.09.06Location:Bhopal

Date:22.08.06Location:Hoshangabad

Linking biodiversity conservation toLivelihood issues

Food security for forest dwelling units

Conservator- Forests, Chindwara

Date: 8.09.06Location:Bhopal

Relocation and provision of liveli-hoods. Institu-tionalisation of project through ownership and inclusive gover-nance

Reduce role of middlemen to increase profi t margins of people. Provide micro-credit and eliminate middlemen.Biologically rich area but people poor. This needs to be changed. Better communication needed for villages in south of landscape to provide quick relief in emergencies.

In the planning process these issues would be addressed

PCCF wildlife Same as above Enhance capacities of govt functionaries and line depts. With pleth-ora of laws and poli-cies dos and don’ts need to be spelt out.

Conservation does not mean deprivation. Food security will be assured.

47






SuperintendentBori wildlifeSanctuary CCF-WL

Diffi cult to conserve biodiversity when large section of rural people poor.

Eco-tourism should be in sync with Wildlife (P) Act.

Eco-tourism activities that are legal and acceptable to conservationists will be spelt out in management plans

Field Director,Satpura

Habitations inside protected area have legal restrictions and acceptable options needed to move them out

Intended benefi ciaries

Villagers of Piparia, Sohagpur, Bankheri, Siwani Malwa15 reps


Improved livelihood options.

Formation of van sami-ties, controlling power for samities;man-ani-mal confl ict; water for irrigation

Date:Nov 23- Dec 3, 2006 Location: in 18 villages mentioned

Same Village depends on PA for Fuelwood, mahua (getting return of Rs 13 per kg as against Rs 31 in market) and tendu patta.

Local community Date:25.11.06 Location:Naya DhalOnly rehabilitated village in 18 in indicative plans

Govt employment generation scheme like Gokul Yojana failed. Vocational training needed for youth, access to mar-kets. Crop depreda-tion by wild boar. Want right to kill pests or adequate compensation for loss.


48





Women’s Group Date:27.11.06Location: Kursidhana100 households

35,000 trees on degraded forest land chopped for agriculture. Land use: mono crop. Shortage of irrigation so cultivation failed. Better irrigation, sanitation needed.From forest-dependent become market-dependent. Pay fi nes/bribepeople to collect fuelwood

Training in safeHarvesting techniques

Compensation a little lower than value of crop so that no wildlife destroyed for compensation

Forest villages inside tiger reserve

Date: 27.11.06Location: VillageKursidhanaSix women.


No water in summer. Want Senk Dhoda stream dammed. Reduction of herbal plants and mahua plucked before ripening by adjoining villages.

Date:28.11.06Location:Badkachar Village32 families

Want bidi making option & medicinal plants cultivation.Want JFM forest protection and ownershipof forest produce.Village specifi c vocational training to avoid undercutting by other villages.

49






Date:29.11.06Location:Rorighat. village 42 households

Date:29.11.06 Location: Kaajiri village in Bori WL sanctuary.10 reps

Secondary school needed. Anganwadi, hospital, NFTP& medicinal plants training centre not functioning. Water not available for those living away from main road. Wild pigs raid crops. Want check on migration of men for work

Women’s group Date:30.11.06Location;Boodbhad &Churna Villages

60 HHs

No electricity. Get just 5 to 6 days work in a year for constructing fi reline, removing lantana. Payment for last year pending. Extraction of NTFP banned. Not willing to relocate but compelled by SC order. With irrigation want to grow medicinal lants. Eco-tourism, rock climbing.

No electricity. Depend on forest products—mahua, honey, mangoes for survival. FD provides just 2/3 days labour in year. Need employment, rehab for youth.

Good wildlife trails, especially of tiger. Potential for eco-tourism.


50





Forest village with no tourism. Religious tourismon increase but temple & shopkeepers revenue goes to contractor outside village. Main income from mahua liquor. No drinking water source. Bears, wild boars a threat.

Awaiting relocation. Need access to education, health care, employment. Want end to raids by wild animals.

Fishing Community

Date:01.12.06Location:Daudi village (30) reps

No electricity. Farm lands and villages fenced off by Forest Dept. Collect mahua and broom leaves. Do not want to relocate, no access to education.

Supreme Court order affecting fi shing lease given. Disturbed by concerns expressed for crocodiles because of their fi shing

51






Other Interest Groups

Pradan (NGO)

Jatan (NGO)

Disha Samwad

Tawa Matsya Sangh

Adivasi Kisan Sangh

Samajwadi Jana Parishad

Minor Forest Produce Federation


Date:25.11.06Location: Mahendawadi village


Welfare interests of people


Need to understand relationship between land and its usersAlternate sources of livelihood required; fi shing rightsOver 20 years ago 120 villages relocated for dam, ordinance fac-tory. Now since dam in PA, Supreme Court order affecting fi shing lease given. Disturbed by concerns expressed for crocodiles because of their fi shing.Relocated 20 years ago without adequate compensation by ir-rigation dept. Now threatened with ban on remaining liveli-hood options by FD.In draw down area sow wheat and pad-dy. Pump sets used to draw water for ir-rigation. Income from fi shing helps purchase of diesel and fertil-izers. Feel strongly about anti-conserva-tion label to fi shing.Illegality of minor for-est produce extraction creating confl ict.

SC directives to be followed

Participatory resource monitoring & resource regeneration in coordination with CBOs

Same as above

Participatory resource management & sustainable methods. Tribals should have ownership and sale of MFP extraction but land use should be regulated.


52

T he LRK (Little Rann of Kutch) Landscape in Gujarat is a 6979 sq km sink eco-system that is home to the wild ass. A saline desert, the LRK resembles a reservoir during the monsoons.

Nanda is the only place in LRK with a resident human population. In the three months of the monsoon, the wild ass’ move to the raised islands of Pung, Mardak and Banjana. Rich in marine life, the Gulf of Kutch is the breeding ground for endemic prawn species. Many migratory birds come to this wetland and fl amingoes congregate in two or three sites.

Apart from the Wild Ass Sanctuary, the landscape includes forest lands, government wasteland, 108 villages on the boundary of the sanctuary and Hadakiya Creek that is the live ecological link between LRK and the Gulf of Kutch. Though notifi ed 20 years ago, the rights of people in the sanctuary have not yet been settled.

About 15000 households of the agarias or salt farmers work within the notifi ed boundaries of the sanctuary. Salt farms coming up near the Creek have depleted the supply of saline water to LRK. About 200,000 livestock from 107 villages graze at the fringes of the Wild Ass Sanctuary, threatening the eco-system. There are 9000 fi shermen in the area and 11 species of prawns. There are 22 species of fi sh and the annual catch is about 4050 tonnes. Rivers from 12 major watersheds feed fresh water to the LRK but the quantity has been dwindling.

Consultations began in December 2005 and because of the complexities of the landscape, as many as 65 meetings were held till the end of 2006. While 57 and 38 people respectively participated in the two stakeholders consultations, 10 to 60 participated in each of the village level meetings. Salt workers, traders, fi shermen, including prawn cultivators, and the maldharies or migrant cattle grazers and those involved in charcoal making as well as numerous NGOs participated in the discussions.

The Little Rann of

Kutch Landscape

53







Addl Collector, WA sanctuary

Date: 10.09.06 Convergence of resources.

Addressing complex problems of landscape mapping

Dy Collector, WAS Location: Dhrangadhra

Mobilizing knowledge base partnerships

Addressing livelihood concerns of salt workers, fi shermen and farmers, while conserving biodiversity of landscape

Jt Commissioner, Women and Child Development,

Same as above

Addl Commissioners, Industries

Same as above Need for quick decisions so that salt taxes can be regularly collected

Principal Secy, F&E Dept, Gandhinagar,

Same as above Need to balance conservation & livelihood.

GM, GSFDC Environment & conservation management

Need for low cost, high benefi t livelihood schemes. Need for redesigningCurrent & sustainable harvesting practices

Deputy Salt Commissioner, Director.

Confl ict between salt work and conservation of wild ass population.


Forest Department Date: 10-1-06; Location:Gandhinagar. 10 forest offi cials

Identifying landscape and its objectives

Shifting/ transfer of saltpan lease to marine salt production; alternate livelihood options for traditional salt-workers (agaria) and villagers

Four critical areas of landscape identifi ed


54





Conservation and livelihood

Restricting Salt work in LRK so that prawn farms not affected.

CF, Junagarh Need to balance between conservation and economic production.

PCCF (wildlife) Date: 10.09.06 Location: Dhrangadhra

Same as above

Deputy Director, Fisheries, Govt. of Gujarat

Conserving/ protecting / Fishing and Prawn Farms

Extermination of Hilsa fi sh due to rain water harvesting & dam. Construction of jetty in the creek areas for salt transport adversely affecting prawn farming and fi sh migration

Suptd Fisheries, Gandhinagar

Zoning of salt pans in landscape

Agri & Coops Dept,Ahmedabad

Date: 26.09.06 Location: Gandhinagar, 1 Rep

Improving agricultural practices & livelihood activities

Greater convergence with different line depts needed. Commitment by CM, GOG or CS needed. Identifi cation of Gaps in funding. State Land Use Board should be key partner in identifying BSAs outside Pas

Forest Dept Date: 2.07.06 Development programmes not reaching villages due to PA. Alternative grazing sites sought for livestock. School / education facilities needed

55






CCF Location : Narali village

Add PCCF Date: 3.07.06 Location:Nanda Bet 30 villagers

Livelihood issues and onservation

Need for equal emphasis on sink & source systems

Inadequacy of project funds

Interest Groups (NGOs)

Manav Kalyan Trust

Setu Mahiti Kendra Date:18.03.06 Location: Ropar

To understand conservation & livelihood issues.

Large chunks of common grazing lands encroached and converted. Such encroachments need to be removed.With Narmada water coming to large part of landscape, more common grazing lands will be converted to agriculture fi eldsNeed to regenerate common grazing lands for fodder augmentation. PromoteTraditional fodder crops.


Janpath Date:21.03.06 Location: Ahmedababd

To understand conservation & livelihood issues

Need to promote and support dairy system

Salt workers are devoid of basic amenities like education, health and water and these are top priority

Traders exploiting agarias by lending and interlocking money. A credit and fi nancial


56





support institutional system needed to break this.

Samerth Date:28.03.06, Location: Ahmedababd


Because of poor economic benefi ts in salt making recently, alternate livelihoods need to be promoted

Swati Date:30.03.06, Location:Dhrangadra


Salt cooperatives failed to deliver benefi ts to agarias

Shramik Vikas Date:30.03.06, Location: Wadhwan, Surendranagar

Conservation & livelihood issues

Sansthan

Deepak Charitable Trust

Date:30.03.06, Location:Dhrangadra

Bio Conservation

GEER Foundation Date: 26.09.06, Location:Gandhinagar

Bio Conservation Construction of roads & canals along LRK boundary jeopardizing wild ass movement.

Must address rural poverty issues by studying carrying capacity of landscape

Guj Institute of Desert Ecology

Date:10.09.06, Location: Dhrangadra

Bio Conservation Need for effective communication tools. Focus on Caspian tern, bustard.

Bombay Natural History Society

Bio Conservation Mud-ponds can be tried for fi sh/prawn culture

57







Villagers/ community of Zhinjuwada, Koparni, Jogad, Kuda, Nanda, Venasar, Kharaghoda, Jesada, Nava Ghatila, Narali, Jangi, Palasva, Fatehgadh, Chikhli, Nimak Nagar, Cherabarigam,, Adesar, Taga

Dates: Jan to Sept 06, Location: In the villages mentioned, 24 Meetings and 60 villagers attended

Situational analysis, customary rights, livelihood challenges

Raiding of crops by wild ass and wild boars. No compensation system for damaged crops.

With Narmada water, cropping will be more intense and costly and confl icts likely to increase.

Traditional pastures lost due to sanctuary notifi cation particularly in Bets. Tension with forest dept on issues of grazing.

Loss of livelihood of salt farmers because sanctuary regulations coincide with salt production areas. Salt production costs increasing. Proposed salt zones need to be reassessed for long term potential for supplying underwater brine.

Charcoal makers need permission to extract prosopis from sanctuary. The activity needs to be organized to ensure steady income.

Low fi sh turnover due to increased salinity of waters. Construction of check dams on seasonal


58





rivers and streams has reduced fresh water fl ow into Little Rann, affecting fi sh and prawn.

No program by fi sheries dept in landscape because it is protected area.

Salt and prawn farms seek recognition of customary rights

Sanctuary notifi ed in 1973 but rights of people not settled.

public disclosure authorized v3 e2215 - world bank · no compensation for livestock losses ......

Documents