Subject: Eco-documentation held at the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun, Nov. 24-26, 1998. This workshop involved a large number of forest officers, conservationists, social activists, etc., and discussed in detail the various experiences and issues arising from the ecodevelopment programmes in India. I had taken the responsibility of sending these recommendations out (they were finalised in January 1999), but I'm not sure I did this. If I have already posted this out before, apologies! Those who want to receive a formated copy (given that the main recommendations are in italics, the text below may not be as user-friendly as the formated one, and one annexure table is missing below), pl. say so. Any queries/responses to this statement may pl. be directed to S.K. Mukherjee / BMS Rathore, Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag 18, Chandrabani, Dehra Dun. Email: wii@wii.gov.in. NOTE THAT THESE SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO ME. Thanks, Ashish Kalpavriksh Apartment 5, Shree Dutta Krupa 908 Deccan Gymkhana Pune 411 004, India Ph. and fax: ++91-20-565 4239 Email: ashish@nda.vsnl.net.in ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Findings & Recommendations of Ecodocumentation Workshop held at Wildlife Institute of India,on November 24-26, 1998 (The recommendations arising out of the findings from the workshop have been put up in Italics) 1.0 : About the Concept and Institutional Framework (including Legal and Policy Issues) : 1.1 Ecodevelopment is a strategy to overcome `unsustainable' and incompatible resource use practices by the dependent communities for their livelihood in and around PAs, through regulated (`sustainable' and compatible) use and alternatives. Stakeholder's participation is the key to success of Ecodevelopment. Various institutions, social groups and individuals who possess a direct, significant and specific stake in the Protected Area could be referred to as it's stakeholders. The stake may originate from institutional mandate, dependence for livelihood, geographic proximity, traditional links, and a variety of other capacities and concerns. The stakeholders may be further distinguished into primary and secondary categories based on a set of possible criteria which may include the institutional mandate and skills for management of resources at stake, degree of livelihood and social dependencies, historical and the cultural relations with the resource at stake and the proximity to the resource/habitat etc. The PA management because of the institutional mandate and the communities dependent for their survival and livelihood on the PA and its surrounds are invariably the primary stakeholders. 1.2 In order to overcome the threats to biodiversity conservation in general and to PAs in particular that are not necessarily coming from the livelihood dependencies of communities (like change of landuse in PA surrounds and other activities that are detrimental to PA conservation, etc.), one needs to move towards larger landscape level planning that integrates PAs into regional development plans. The approach is again based on collaborative efforts amongst different stakeholders. This would also be critical to save biodiversity in PA surrounds including corridors. (There was however a difference of opinion over the scope of `Ecodevelopment' whether the concept of Ecodevelopment should also encompass the processes that drive the landscape planning or Ecodevelopment itself become a part of overall Participatory Planning Process at landscape level. While on the one hand there was a feeling that the concept of Ecodevelopment has caught up with different stakeholder including senior policy makers and by broadening its scope it will be easy to influence various processed critical to landscape level planning. There was however another school of thought which felt that `Ecodevelopment' has been conceived and used for a definite purpose (refer definition 1.1) and is yet to find fullest manifestation in the ground. Changing the scope of the tern at this stage could be counter productive and therefore it should be seen as one of the critical components of overall Participatory Planning at landscape level). Participatory PA Management : The entire landscape level planning including PA zonation needs to be carried out in a collaborative/participatory manner involving various stakeholders. In this, decision making should be jointly done by `primary stakeholders' while other stakeholders should be part of the consultative process. WII to revise and update the guidelines so as to explicitly incorporate these concerns. 1.3 Viable institutional structures at various levels are the most critical aspect of Ecodevelopment/participatory PA management. The success of the earlier Ecodevelopment initiatives wherever achieved could be largely attributed to the up-coming institutions which provide for inter-stakeholder's participation in a meaningful way and on regular basis. Appropriate institutional structures (using/coordinating with existing institutions where available and building new ones where not available) need to be empowered to take up the planning/implementation/monitoring processes. Such institutions will be at village/hamlet (Ecodevelopment Committees or prevailing village institutions), PA (Protected Area level coordination/management committees), landscape, state (State Wildlife Advisory Boards), regional/inter-state, and at the centre level. 1.4 A supportive policy and appropriate legal provisions capable of facilitating zonation of Protected Areas and the surrounding tracts are required. Constitution of zones and the implementation of zonally appropriate management packages should lead to compatible integration of the PA into the larger landscape level development strategy. Appropriate legal and policy changes will need to be made to facilitate the above (1.2, 1.3 & 1.4), pending which enabling resolutions from central and state governments could be issued (like June 1, 1990 circular of MOEF on Participatory Forest Management). Zoning in the context of the Protected Area as the management practice taken up in collaborative fashion should be mandated by law. Provisions of Environmental Protection Act should be used to influence developmental activities on the PA. 1.5 There should be full transparency in function, with full public access to information/documents, including public circulation of proposed laws, action plans, etc. well before finalization, and in relevant regional/local languages. 1.6 Lack of adequate fiscal and manpower resources has remained a major constraint in the proper management of PAs and in the effective planning and implementation of Ecodevelopment programme. Adequate and timely funding for the PAs is clearly called for with an emphasis that vacant staff positions in the PAs that have started planning and implementation of Ecodevelopment, are filled up at the earliest. Innovative ways of overcoming staff shortage for Ecodevelopment (such as taking community organizers/representatives and NGOs as partners) should be considered. 1.7 Ecodevelopment should learn from initiatives outside PAs, including Joint Forest Management, community initiated forest protection, traditional sustainable resource use practices, etc. 1.8 Strategies to introduce the necessary institutional, legal, and policy mechanisms could include : * Making a strong case with the Deshmukh Committee particularly with reference to landscape level planning and the recognition of the critical space of PA in the regional context. The Deshmukh Committee is presently reviewing the National WL Action Plan 1983. * An early finalization of the proposed amendment to the Wildlife Protection Act following national level consultations. * National level consultation on WII guidelines on PA management including Ecodevelopment and their formal approval by the MOEF. * A national workshop targeting the policy makers of the centre and state levels in order to elicit greater support for conservation and for the recognition of PAs in the regional framework for planning and implementation. 2.0 PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION : 2.1 Planning and implementation of Ecodevelopment in various PAs has both site level specificity as well as certain commonalties. In order to evolve solutions for the problems that are likely to hinder the smooth planning and implementation, an appropriate central level set up is required. A planning, implementation and monitoring cell be set up at the national level. The cell should be comprised by a team that includes the implementers, specialists, policy makers etc. The cell can address the issues which are common to various PAs. The role of the cell essentially would be to support the field planning and implementation through guidelines, training, model plans, database etc. 2.2 There is often a time lag for the release of funds between planning and implementation. Participatory planning kindles interests and expectations of the stakeholders. Delay in release of funds after the plans have been completed dampens the interest and healthy participatory spirit. Such a situation requires institutional mechanism to overcome the delays. The detailed planning process should indeed follow only after there is an assurance about allocations. Even after such a precaution, the almost inevitable delays have to be taken care of by provisioning small funds as a measure of building the trust and confidence with the stakeholders. This should be preparatory to implementation. These funds to come from Government of India or State Governments and can even be assigned as an addendum to the planning costs. 2.3 The existing guidelines on Ecodevelopment were brought out by WII in 1995. Much experience has accrued since then. The existing guidelines for Ecodevelopment microplanning should be reviewed by analyzing the experience of microplanning process in the recent past and a revised document should be developed urgently. Wildlife Institute of India can undertake this task in association with the implementers of some states where meaningful experience has been gained from Ecodevelopment already in place. The guidelines should be made available within next three months. 2.4 The boundaries of the Ecodevelopment zone should be based upon the Mutual Impact Assessment (people on PA and vice versa) and this has to be done on a site specific basis. Livelihood Strategies : 2.5 Livelihood strategies based on off-farm income generation options have shown lesser success than the ones that are based on land and water resources. It is also felt that a majority of the livelihood strategies tried so far have been too preoccupied with alternative to the forest based resources use rather than bringing such resource under participatory management based on well defined regulations and principles of sustainability. This is supported by the fact that NTFP based enterprises developed under collaborative partnership have shown encouraging results. The livelihood strategies should also reinforce the positive interaction of PA and people. For alleviating pressure from the Protected Areas the productivity of land and water resources needs to be enhanced, whether these are forests, private land, Panchayat lands or wastelands. Mutually beneficial linkages between economic and ecological concerns need to be built in. Provision of consumptive uses particularly NTFPs to local people on a sustainable basis and value addition to these products has shown promising results. However, such decisions need to be taken on case to case basis including identification of zones from where such regulated use could be allowed without undermining the interest of the wildlife. In case of non-consumptive benefits eco-tourism holds the best potential but needs to be backed up with supportive policy allowing benefits to the local communities. In case of off farm income generation activities, due regards should be given to indigenous knowledge. Additional inputs should focus on building upon the already existing traditional systems. 2.6 Working out a sound livelihood package requires time, patience and a careful feasibility analysis of the proposed package. Finding acceptable and sustainable livelihoods for local communities is a complex phenomenon and requires more time during microplanning . A careful analysis of the social, cultural, economic, ecological and technical feasibility of proposed livelihood options should be mandatory and must be carried out in a participatory manner. The backward and forward linkages must be explicitly built in. 2.7 Lack of expected results from many a field case earlier on could be attributed to the faulty planning that allowed a very thin spread of activities across villages rather than saturating and consolidating the areas for qualitative demonstration. Programme areas should be defined on the basis of social units (hamlets/villages) at the primary level and integrated with Watershed unit at higher level. 3.0 Research and Monitoring: 3.1 Lack of adequate base line data on social and ecological parameters has been the biggest stumbling block to judge the effectiveness of Ecodevelopment interventions. The past experience in Ecodevelopment strongly underlines the need to generate such information against which monitoring of project can take place. Every PA where Ecodevelopment scheme has to be implemented, should have baseline data on biological, sociological and institutional parameters before the scheme is in place. Such base line information should be created during the planning process and must precede before the actual project implementation takes place. Regular monitoring of the impact of the livelihood strategies on the local communities as well as biological monitoring for their impact on the PA needs to be taken up against the base line data. 3.2 The research in support of Ecodevelopment and PA management has by and large remained a strong hold with the scientific community and the selected institutions. This has bearing on the ownership of research and its application. Useful lessons are emerging from the integrated research programme of WII from FREEP projects in GHNP & KMTR. The research and monitoring should be participatory in nature involving all stakeholder groups and covering new paradigms of research. Systems of knowledge, research and learning of local communities should be used complementarily with the formal systems of knowledge, research and training in Ecodevelopment and PA management programmes. The linkages of local research and academic institutions with the park management should be strengthened. The monitoring and research data should be integrated into planning and implementation. 3.3 The Process Documentation Research (PDR) chronicles the processes as they unfold during project implementation which could be used by the management for initiating corrective actions. PDR therefore, could be seen complementing the Project Monitoring on Process Issues. It guarantees flexibility i.e. scope for change while learning from implementation. Process documentation could be made an integral part of the Ecodevelopment projects. It should learn from use of PDR in other Natural Resource Management sectors like JFM and Tank Irrigation. 3.4 Monitoring the impacts of the project interventions call for setting up the long term research/monitoring systems much beyond the project life. The PAs should have long term monitoring system for assessing the conservation impacts of Project intervention. 3.5 Given the fact that the Ecodevelopment is based on a learning approach to the programme, documentation and dissemination of research/monitoring findings could hardly be over emphasized. This has remained a weak link so far. The research information should be aggressively disseminated to all stakeholders. Possibility of `Newsletter' and `Journal' on PA management should be explored. 3.6 The Institute's experience from FREEP and other projects in designing and conducting comprehensive research and monitoring programmes could be made use of by other PAs – ofcourse after giving due allowances for site specific requirements. The Research and Monitoring manual for Ecodevelopment Projects should be prepared and disseminated within the next six months. WII in association with other stakeholders should undertake this work. 3.7 More often than not, the management is hard pressed to find required funds and the research personnel for field research. There should be a mechanism of better access to existing funding sources of research, both within the states and outside. Innovative collaboration with agencies/organization that help the management to overcome the constraints are required to be put in place. 4.0 Capacity Building including Conservation Awareness : 4.1 Training to build new capacity for planning, implementation and monitoring of Ecodevelopment is critical to the success of the programme. Lack of adequate focus on comprehensive training needs for Ecodevelopment has been one of the major draw back. Training programmes should be designed after proper training needs assessment (analyzing status gaps and needs) and they should meet specific needs of each target groups. Training should cover all the target groups at all levels and all sectors (policy makers, implementers, communities and other stakeholders including ministerial staff). The training design should be flexible enough to maintain site specific relevance. 4.2 Covering a majority of the PAs for Ecodevelopment would involve a massive efforts on capacity building which would require a good number of institutions within the states providing effective training. 2-3 nodal institutions to do training of trainers with state institutions could go a long way in helping the states to internalize new capacities. Capacity building programmes should be decentralized and for this potential and appropriate institutions should be identified. These institutes should be oriented for Ecodevelopment assessing their existing strengths and building their capacity to deliver training. Nodal institutions for Training of Trainers should be identified. The capacity of existing forestry training institutes including those in the states should be enhanced so that they can cater to the needs of frontline staff. Alongwith the capacity of the training institutes, their training programme should also be updated. 4.3 Allowing the projects to proceed on the course of implementation without adequate capacities could be counter productive. Some capacity building should be in place before the Ecodevelopment Planning & Implementation process begins and this should be made a conditionally for release of funds. However some of the capacity building can be concurrent. 4.4 The target and locale specific conservation awareness programme have been very few so far which limits the programme effectiveness. Appropriately designed conservation awareness programme need to target different stakeholders at different level like local communities, politicians, Govt. officials, NGOs, forest department personnel etc.