PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL WILDLIFE
HABITATS IN NATIONAL PARKS AND
WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES UNDER SCHEDULED
TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST
DWELLERS (RECOGNITION OF FOREST
RIGHTS) ACT, 2006
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment,
Bangalore www.atree.org
Foundation for Ecological Security, Anand www.fes.org.in
Himal Prakriti, Munsiari
Kalpavriksh, Delhi/Pune www.kalpavriksh.org
Samrakshan Trust, Delhi www.samrakshan.org
SHODH, Nagpur www.shodh-research.org
Vasundhara, Bhubaneshwar www.vasundharaorissa.org
Wildlife Conservation Trust, Rajkot
WWF-India, Delhi www.wwfindia.org
FUTURE OF CONSERVATION NETWORK1
December 2007
1
The Future of Conservation in India (FoC) is a network of ecological and social organizations and individuals
committed to effective and equitable conservation of biodiversity. FoC 's objective is to foster dialogue and
engagement in complex conservation issues, and help tackle the increasing threats that both biodiversity and
people's livelihoods face. This includes joint action on areas of agreement, and attempts at evolving common
understanding on issues where there are differences.
FoC is not an organization, but a forum where organizations and individuals can meet, dialogue, and take joint
actions.
1
Introduction
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act, 2006 (hereafter referred to as STOTFDA) provides for identification of
critical wildlife habitats (CWH) in existing and proposed National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries. This is for the purposes of making such CWH inviolate2. In such areas
that are designated as critical wildlife habitat, the STOTFDA provides for voluntary
relocation of human settlements, or to pursue strategies of co-existence along with
specified and negotiated curtailment of rights.
Given (a) the large number of protected areas located in diverse biogeographical and
eco-climatic zones ranging from cold and hot deserts to tropical evergreen forests,
coastal, marine and mangrove ecosystem; (b) the diversity of ecosystems, species and
ecological communities involved; (c) the huge pressures of industrial development
related biomass extraction, mining, deforestation, change of land use and
fragmentation of habitats for several types of development projects including dams,
canals and roads, pressure of local hunting and human settlements within and around,
and (d) the many traditions of conservation and sustainable use amongst populations
traditionally dwelling in or using such areas, the task of identifying critical wildlife
habitat should be informed by the best science and traditional or local community
knowledge, based on the precautionary principle (Myers, 1993). The next task is to
secure such areas against threats, in ways that are democratic and socially just.
This process needs to be seen in the context of larger conservation strategies. It is
clear
from existing scientific research and local community knowledge that a mix of
approaches is needed to secure wildlife and ecosystems across India’s landmass,
including no-use, minimal use, and multiple-use areas. Increasingly, there is growing
scientific evidence and support for maintaining diverse landscapes as production
landscapes rather than islands of protected areas with zero production surrounded by
an over-exploited production landscape (Bengtsson et al., 2003). In some cases, there
is a need for reserves and off-limits areas that can serve as breeding grounds, seedbanks, sources of dispersal agents and the generators of essential regulating and
maintenance services for the larger socio-ecological landscape (Elmqvist et al., 2003).
Criteria for identifying CWH
1. This will apply to all existing PAs with first notification issued and for all new
PAs. Tiger Reserves and other important sites for tigers are excluded from the
purview of this note, as they have already been covered under the NTCA
exercise for which a separate note has been prepared and submitted 3. Wildlife
2
‘Inviolate areas’ can be defined as those within which there will be either no human activity allowed,
or only minimal human activity is allowed that is not a threat to species or ecological communities;
such minimal activities could include resource use, protection, tourism, and research.
3
Proposed Guidelines on Identification Of Critical Tiger Habitats, Co-Existence, and Relocation Related To Tiger
Reserves (In Pursuance Of The WLPA as Amended In 2006). Suggestions to the National Tiger Conservation
Authority. Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Council for Social Development, Himal
Prakriti, Kalpavriksh, Samrakshan, SHODH, Vasundhara, Wildlife Conservation Trust, WWF-India. September
2007
2
includes all uncultivated wild flora and undomesticated fauna.
2. In many cases, the entire PA could be identified as critical wildlife habitat and
in other cases, the area identified as such will be a part or parts of the PA,
either contiguous or in disjunct area. In such cases, the size of each such part
can be specified based on ecological, biological and landscape ecology
principles.
3. The decision on which PAs, how much and which parts of a specific PA are to
be made inviolate will be made based on certain criteria. These include:
conservation value of the site based on criterion such as irreplaceability of the
site, complementarity, rarity and endemicity of the biodiversity as well as
ecological and biological conservation considerations of maintaining viable
meta-populations that requires ecological and genetic connectivity and
resilience in the larger landscape. In addition criteria such as presence of
Schedule I (or other threatened) species, endemic species, and other such
established criteria could also contribute to the designation of an entire PA or
sufficient parts of it as critical wildlife habitat. The decision should also be
based on what is feasible given socio-economic factors and the process of
relocating bona fide rights holders under the Act. This second criteria is
especially (but not only) relevant where the number of people affected is large,
or the human communities involved are especially vulnerable.
4. The levels and kinds of human uses that need to be curtailed and those that
could continue inside identified CWHs would vary, and should be based on
available verified knowledge (modern or traditional). CWH to be decided on a
case by case basis, with full public participation, as some forms of regulated
biomass extraction or human use/management may be compatible with the
conservation objectives, or even necessary for the ecological processes that
help maintain the habitat for some species or communities.
Process for identifying and establishing CWH
It is proposed that the exercise be done in three nested, hierarchical stages:
In the first stage, a broad national level listing needs to be done, for each
biogeographical zone of the country. Based on available prioritization carried out on
multiple taxa (e.g. see Das et al., 2006 for the Western Ghats), the first shortlist of
protected areas that are considered the highest priority can be prepared. This stage can
be carried out by a committee of scientists/institutions with a track record of credible
work and knowledge in biodiversity/wildlife, and should be open to peer and public
review for an appropriate time before finalization.
In the second stage, this list can be further fine-tuned (and added to, if need be, with
sufficient justification), for each state. This stage can be carried out by state level
committees comprising of national or local scientists/institutions with a similar track
record, local community representatives knowledgeable about landscapes larger than
their own locality, and others.
3
In the third stage, final decision should be taken on each PA, i.e. how much of it is to
be declared CWH, and the processes for doing so. This stage should be carried out in
a fully participatory manner at each PA, involving national/state/local experts and
representatives of traditional long-resident and user communities. Sanctuary Advisory
Committees as mandated by Section 33b of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972 could
be used as a platform to achieve this successfully.
A good example of the above process (relevant especially for marine and coastal
areas), is the prioritization exercise undertaken for the Great Barrier Reef in Australia;
it involved consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders and resulted in ’no-take’
zones, along with multiple use and restricted use zones4. Similar exercises (using
stage 3 above) are currently under way for the PAs of Ladakh (collaboratively
between NGOs, the Wildlife Dept, and local communities), some PAs in Orissa (by
NGOs and local communities), and the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Sanctuary of
Karnataka (by NGOs and local communities).
These guidelines could go a long way in achieving a systematic process to assess
which are the most critical areas for conservation, and move towards ways for people
to either coexist or consent to be relocated. However, caution should be applied when
using the guidelines in complex situations of recent encroachments or settlements
such as in northeast India. Both the imperatives of conservation and livelihoods
security can be met with such an approach.
References and Notes
Bengtsson, J., Angelstam, P., Elmqvist, T., Emanuelsson, U., Folke, C., Ihse, M., Moberg, F.,
and Nyström, M. 2003. Reserves, Resilience and Dynamic Landscapes.
Ambio 32: 389–396.
Das, A., Krishnaswamy, J., Bawa, K.S., Kiran, M.C., Srinivas, V., Samba Kumar, N., and
Karanth, K.U. 2006. Prioritization of Conservation areas in the Western Ghats, India.
Biological Conservation 133:16:31.
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J. et al. 2003. Response
diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Vol.
1, No. 9 pp. 488–494.
Myers, N. 1993. Biodiversity and the precautionary principle. Ambio 22:74-79.
4
Zoning in the Great Barrier Reef. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/zoning; for a history of the
zoning, see http://kurrawa.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/zoning/rap/rap/index.html
4