Thinking Point
Dr HS Pabla
Former Chief Wild Life Warden of Madhya Pradesh and a bestselling author of books on wildlife conservation like ‘Road To Nowhere’(Wildlife Conservation in India-1), ‘Wardens in Shackles’ (Wildlife Conservation in India-2), ‘Laws At War’ (Wildlife Conservation in India-3), and ‘Besides Loving the Beasts' (Wildlife Conservation in India-4)
The creation of a network of protected areas (PAs) is a globally recognised strategy for the conservation of wildlife and biodiversity. A PA is generally a forest, a stretch of a river, or a part of our territorial waters, notified as a national park (NP), wildlife sanctuary (WLS), community reserve, or conservation reserve under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA). Although technically speaking PAs are of these four kinds, the real PAs are only the NPs and WLSs as the other two categories have not been accorded any special protection by the law. Therefore, in this article, a PA would refer to only NPs and WLSs.
Although NPs and WLSs are created under different sections of the Act, they have a common definition and there are only minor differences in the way they are managed. Thus, a sanctuary or an NP is an area “of adequate ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural or zoological significance, for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wildlife or its environment” (Section 18 and 35 of WLPA). Once an area has been notified as a WLS or as an NP, sections 29 and sub-section (6) of section 35 of the Act become applicable to them. These sections also have a common language which says that “No person shall destroy, exploit or remove any Wild Life including forest produce from a National Park/Sanctuary or destroy or damage or divert the habitat of any wild animal by any act whatsoever or divert, stop or enhance the flow of water into or outside the Sanctuary/National Park, except ---- for the improvement and better management of wildlife therein ----.” Thus, when an area becomes a PA, no authority, including the government, has the power to tinker with it except for improving wildlife or its habitat.
Apart from the above sanctity accorded to a PA by the law, we have created many additional layers of protection for our PAs. Some of the PAs are the core areas of tiger reserves and have a mandatory buffer zone around them. Although the buffer zones are not meant to be managed as PAs, most of the forest departments hardly differentiate between a core and a buffer when imposing restrictions on the local people. Further, the Supreme Court of India has mandated that every PA must have an eco-sensitive area (ESA) around it, as defined in the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. This gives the government the power to regulate human activities in an ESA in order to minimise any adverse impact on the PA or its wildlife. Thirdly, the net present value (NPV) which a user has to pay to the forest department if a forest land is to be used for any non-forest purpose, is 5-10 times more if the land is in a PA. Although sections 29 and 35 (6) do not allow the diversion of PA land for any other purpose as illustrated before, our authorities, and courts, do often allow such a diversion to meet other national and local needs.
Protected Area Network
Our country has decided to create a network of PAs that represents all its biomes and ecosystems. The concept of a PA network was first mentioned in our first “National Wildlife Action Plan” of 1983. A study by the Wildlife Institute of India (Wildlife Protected Area Network in India-a review -1988 & 2002) then recommended that 5-10% of each biome should be given the status of a PA.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) has also recommended that approximately 10% of the surface of the planet should be protected against rampant exploitation and suggested the creation of several kinds of PAs depending on the local conditions and attributes of the land in question. These categories are:
• Strict Nature Reserve/Scientific Reserve (1)
• National Parks (2)
• Natural Monument/Natural Landmark (3)
• Managed Nature Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary (4)
• Protected Landscapes And Seascapes (5)
• Resource Reserve (6)
• Anthropological Reserve/Natural Biotic Area (7)
• Multiple Use Management Area/Managed Resource Area (8)
However, India has not followed this classification and has created her categories as mentioned above. The current status of our PA network is as shown below:
• National Parks: 104 (43,716 km2)
• Sanctuaries: 566 (1,22,420 km2)
• Community Reserves: 214 (4483 (1302 km2)
• Conservation Reserves: 97 (1302 km2)
• Total Area: 171921 km2
This is approximately 5.03% of the geographical area and 25% of the forest area of the country. Thus, we have already reached the minimum level of PAs recommended by the Wildlife Institute of India and most biomes are now represented in this network.
India’s Protected Area Network
Globally, 22.5 million km2 (16.64%) of land and inland water ecosystems and 28.1 million km2 (7.74%) of coastal waters and the ocean are within documented protected and conserved areas. It is unlikely that India will ever be able to reach this level of coverage because of our high human density. Therefore, it is important that we protect and manage our PAs more effectively than the rest of the world because we do not have the luxury of putting any more land in the PA network.
Importance of PAs for Wildlife
Wild animals are protected by law everywhere, i.e. they cannot be killed, captured, or driven away without permission from an authorised officer, except in the defence of a human being. However, the forests in which they live do not enjoy the same level of protection against degradation or destruction everywhere. Although government forests are also protected by law, they are managed for various purposes which may not always be conducive to the needs of wild animals. However, a PA is managed and protected solely for the benefit of wild animals and the law does not allow any other kind of intervention in them. Therefore, PAs are the only places where the habitat and animals are protected together. This protection is not only against illegal activities of the public but even the government cannot touch these places or divert them for any other purpose. As PAs constitute only about 5% of the geographical area of the country, their role in conservation is critical. It is this little land that provides food and water to most of the big wild animals.
While the PAs may be created expressly for the purpose of protecting and propagating large mammals like tigers and elephants, they also provide refuge and protection to myriads of unknown and apparently insignificant species which, in reality, are a critical part of the web of life on earth. While the ecological role of big mammals is becoming more and more insignificant with time due to the growing human capacity to take over their role if need be, the contribution of microbes, insects, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc. to the maintenance of the ecological web on earth is irreplaceable. We cannot replace the pollinators, seed disseminators, and decomposers with our machines and tools. PAs are the only places where this entire diversity of life is fully protected.
PAs also populate the surrounding forests with animals when they breed and migrate to the neighbouring forests. This is important because PAs often cannot hold genetically viable populations of many species on their own. For populations to be viable, they need much larger space than the size of a PA, but these extended habitats can be filled only by the breeding and dispersal of the residents of PAs.
It is important to note that wild animals are often a menace to the local people but they are a beauty to outsiders. Animals living outside PAs are often invisible as they are shy and secretive due to constant harassment from the victim communities. Only animals in PAs can be watched and appreciated as they do not see people as a threat. For the same reason, only animals living inside PAs can generate benefits for local people, in the form of tourism jobs. Thus, while animals outside are a threat, the ones living in PAs are an economic resource, and, also, generate public support for all wildlife conservation.
Public support is critical for the conservation of wildlife. This support is dependent on people’s exposure to and acquaintance with wilderness and wildlife. When a visitor, especially a young visitor, comes to see wild animals in a national park, he/she goes back with a lot of learning and awareness about conservation issues. Without the people becoming aware of the importance of wildlife and issues affecting conservation, conservation cannot be sustained in a democracy.
Importance of Protected Areas to Human Well-Being
Although conservation of wildlife, through the PA network, is ultimately for improving human well-being, PAs also play a more direct role in human welfare. As the forests in PAs are much less vulnerable to destruction and degradation due to stricter laws and supervision, they play a more significant role in slowing down climate change and global warming. Most rivers and streams originate in or around PAs. The intact forests of PAs keep these rivers and springs flowing and alive. Even more critical is their role in supporting significant populations of pollinators, seed dispersers, and decomposers, as mentioned before. As these agents are very diverse, their habitat requirements are equally diverse which can be provided only by a fully protected forest in a PA. Without healthy populations of these species, our crops will fail and life itself will become difficult. Lastly, although PAs constitute only about 25% of our forests, they play a much more important role in keeping our air clean and healthy, because these forests are denser and more diverse than others.
Threats to Protected Areas
Despite the recognition of the importance of PAs to human well-being, they face persistent threats from our growing population and prosperity. The biggest threat to PAs comes from the expansion of our development infrastructure such as highways, railway lines, canals, power lines, etc. which bisect and fragment PAs, making them inviable for many species. India’s per capita land and forest availability is only about 10% of the global average. As most developmental activities need land, the country often has to take this land out of forests and PAs, especially where other alternative lands are not available. Thus, despite the WLPA saying that “No person shall destroy, exploit– except for improvement – of wildlife therein” {Section 29 and section 35 (6)}, our authorities and courts regularly sanction development projects inside PAs. This is clearly a violation of the law. While this violation of the law of the land was doing enough damage to our PAs and other forests, we further amended the WLPA in 2006 to provide that the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the National Board for Wild Life (NBWL) have the power to allow the land inside PAs even for “ecologically unsustainable” uses in “public interest” {Section 38. O (g)}. Although this new provision has not yet done much damage, it has opened the doors that were earlier closed.
As if this was not enough to endanger our fragile and flimsy ecological infrastructure (forests and PAs), the country made a new law in 2006, popularly called the Forest Rights Act, 2006. According to this law, our forests now belong to local communities, especially tribals, and they can claim any forest land for “sustainable use” either as a “community forest resource” or for the collection of minor forest produce or for grazing livestock. These rights can be claimed in PAs also. After such a right is granted, the government cannot interfere in their exercise. Thus, local people can even decide to convert a PA into a plantation or produce anything else. Further, a provision in this law that any forest lands occupied, even illegally, by a member of a scheduled tribe, up to December 2005, for agriculture or residence, becomes his property, is encouraging more and more encroachment of forest lands. Although the full impact of this law is still to unfold, it is one of the most dangerous moves that the country has made to dismantle 50 years of wildlife conservation in the country.
Lastly, local people are often unhappy with the creation of PAs as it bans or restricts their access to their customary forests. Increasing wildlife populations in PAs cause more harm to the crops and livestock of the neighbouring people. Although tourism can compensate for these losses to some extent, only a few PAs in the country are popular with tourists. Moreover, tourism cannot compensate all the people affected by the creation of the PA as India has a very high human density even in remote areas. These victimised people often try to undermine conservation either by killing animals or cutting trees or by creating obstacles in PA administration.
Interestingly, our growing conservation ambition is also becoming a threat to our PA framework. The creation of buffer zones and ecosensitive zones around PAs spreads their impact on the lives of the local people far beyond their immediate neighbourhood. This scares and worries the people and politicians and any new conservation initiative is seen with suspicion by them. Therefore, the creation of any new PAs is very difficult these days. Moreover, we now also want that animals should be able to move freely between adjoining PAs through “wildlife corridors”. Thus, many development works are disallowed because they are likely to obstruct a wildlife corridor. Wildlife corridors also require that the boundaries of PAs should remain open and porous for the free movement of animals in and out of them. Most of the animals going out of the PAs end up dead either due to poaching or when local people protect their crops through snares, traps, and electric wires. Moreover, open boundaries also allow poachers to enter PAs. Thus, our conservation framework, consisting of PAs connected by interconnecting corridors, itself militates against the effectiveness of PAs as a conservation tool. To ensure the perpetual existence and effectiveness of our PA network, we have to develop a strategy to neutralise these threats.
The Way Forward
It is obvious from the above discussion that the PA network which is the backbone of our wildlife conservation strategy is weakening and bending day by day. As these PAs are critical to human well-being as much as for the well-being of wild animals, we need to redesign our approach to conservation. Some important elements of this approach can be as follows:
• Make Protected Areas Untouchable: We must ensure that once a PA has been notified, it stays intact, wild, untamed, and untampered forever. Any intervention or interference in them in the name of management must be for the welfare of wild animals and nothing else. We must change all the laws that compromise this approach and punish any authority that violates these laws consciously.
• Curb Conservation Ambitions: We must recognise the fact that having dangerous wild animals on every inch of our forest lands is neither possible nor desirable. The best we can do for wild animals is to ensure that whatever land we have dedicated to their conservation, i.e. PAs, is not compromised in any way. If necessary and feasible, we can expand the PAs a little bit here and there in order to improve their ecological integrity. But we must prevent animals from spilling into human habitats as far as possible.
• Treat Wild Animals outside PAs as a Natural Resource for Public Welfare: Wild animals are dangerous and harmful to a large section of our people. Their future can be secure only if local people also see them as useful in some ways. All over the world, wild animals are seen as food like any other food people eat. But we Indians have chosen to follow a different path. This path is not sustainable in the long run because the harm that these animals can cause, if their populations are not controlled, can become unbearable. Thus, we need a more diversified and nuanced approach to conservation. While we can manage our PAs for increasing wildlife populations (even if that has limits) as much as we want, their numbers outside must be controlled by harvesting them sustainably. This will limit the damage they do and it can also meet the dietary needs of the local people. Legal and administrative systems should be developed to ensure that wild animals living outside PAs are harvested only sustainably and that there is no free-for-all.
• Actively Prevent and Mitigate Human-Wildlife Conflict: Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a natural corollary of wildlife conservation, especially in a densely populated and poor country, due to the competition for limited resources between people and animals. We can only manage HWC, but cannot eliminate it completely. While the occasional loss of livestock or human life inside forests can be accepted as a necessary evil, animals coming out of the forests and becoming a persistent threat to people’s lives and livelihoods should be unacceptable. Therefore, we must make sure that animals do not come out of the forests, as far as possible, by raising suitable fences on forest boundaries and by deploying different kinds of deterrents (both modern and traditional). If they cannot be prevented from coming out, they should either be immediately translocated or killed.
An alternative approach can be to treat them as a resource and harvest them sustainably in croplands and treat this income as agricultural income. As it is the government which is putting people at risk by nurturing dangerous and harmful animals in their neighbourhood, the responsibility for protecting them is also of the government. At present the government does virtually nothing to prevent crop damage, except paying some ex-gratia compensation. Even carnivores are usually removed from human habitation only when they have killed a few people. We are reluctant to kill even man-eating tigers and leopards. If authorities ever do take proactive action or kill a dangerous animal, the champions of animal rights give them hell (Remember the tigress Avani of Maharashtra?). All this does not bode well for the conservation of wildlife. If we want to see wild animals around us in the distant future also, we need to ensure that the cases of conflict are few and far between while there is a steady flow of benefits to people, especially locals, from potentially harmful animals.
Thus, although PAs shall continue to be the backbone of our wildlife conservation strategy, we need to do much more than just the creation of PAs in order to ensure comprehensive conservation. Even PAs can play their part in conservation only in a conducive environment where wild animals are seen as assets rather than liabilities. That environment can be created only if we change our current laws and policies. For that to happen, we have to start looking at wild animals with a different mindset. Preserving wild animals as a moral and ecological obligation of man is all fine. But preserving them also as a resource for improving human well-being can take conservation to an entirely different level. Whether we make that switch or not, a strong PA network will always remain the symbol of our desire to ensure that these beautiful but sometimes dangerous animals continue to adorn our planet forever. ([email protected])
Leave a comment