JPAM Update 11, September 1996


Dear Friends, here is the next edition of the JPAM Update. I hope people out there still find it useful; some mail to that effect would be helpful; even more useful would be contributions, criticisms...

There may be some problems with transmission wof tables in this , hope some sense can be made of them!



News on Action Towards Joint Protected Area Management

No. 11 September



Regular readers will notice that JPAM Update has been going through changes in format, and has also started providing information on protected areas in general, not just strictly restricted to what can narrowly be defined as joint management issues. Shri Kishore Rao of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has rightly asked: why this dilution in focus? We have increasingly been feeling that it is difficult to define a clear boundary between people-wildlife issues and other issues facing protected areas, including commercial threats, management problems, and research activities. Hence the expansion of scope, though we are continuing to keep out certain items like purely biological research. Other readers may like to react to this: should we restrict ourselves to people-wildlife issues or also cover other matters related to protected areas?

Our senior-most bureaucrat on wildlife, Shri S.C. Dey, Addl. Inspector General of Forests (Wildlife) in the MoEF, has recently come down heavily on NGOs who are critical of the government's track record vis-a-vis wildlife (see National News, in this issue). Since the precise text of his oral statement, made to senior forest officials, is not available, one cannot respond in detail. But one comment may be in place: rather than policing the activities of NGOs in and around protected areas, our government may be much better off ensuring the accountability of its own officers, offering to work with local communities and NGOs, and ensuring open public access to all information and programmes relating to wildlife. In this way, much greater support from the non-governmental sector can be obtained, and criticism of government may then be more informed and constructive.

Last, a comment on the major controversy of the month: criticism of India's (and in particular WWF's) efforts to save the tiger, by Tiger Trust, a UK-based group. A substantial part of what the Trust has said (faults within the governmental and NGO set-up; wastage of funds in pomp and show, etc.) is true. However, the Trust sounds amazingly fascist when it contends that funds used in meeting the needs of people near PAs, and in issues like "equity and sustainability", are a "drain". Certainly field conditions of the wildlife staff need tremendous improvement, but no amount of guns and guards will save the tiger if local communities are hostile because their needs and rights continue to be disrespected by conservation agencies. Tiger Trust would have done the tiger a greater favour by focusing on such structural problems relating to conservation, rather than training its guns on one NGO.



Workshop on Dalma Sanctuary

A two day workshop on Dalma Sanctuary: Prospects for Conservation, was held in Jamshedpur on 12-13 August, 1996, jointly organised by Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), New Delhi, and the=20 Rural and Community Services Division, TISCO, Jamshedpur. Around sixty persons attended, including local villagers, NGO representatives and Forest Department staff. Several critical issues facing Dalma Sanctuary were discussed: perspectives of the importance of Dalma Sanctuary among those associated with the area; the relationship of local communities with the Forest Department; livelihood issues of the local villagers; impact of the Sendra (traditional annual hunt of the local tribes) on wildlife; elephant-human conflict; local self-initiated forest protection groups; and external pressures on the Sanctuary. An attempt was made to analyse existing problems and possibilities of an alternative strategy of management.

A joint resolution was adopted, with participants agreeing to work together to conserve Dalma Sanctuary, and recommending the following:

i) Equal protection needs to be provided to Dalma Sanctuary as well as the rights of local villagers to forest resources.

ii) The forest protection groups established by local villagers must be recognised and, to the extent possible, supported by the Forest Department.

iii) Local people must be assured a decisive role in planning and management of the Sanctuary.

iv) The practice of Sendra needs to be suitably reformed to mitigate its impact on wildlife, without unduly affecting the cultural and religious importance of the activity for local tribes.

v) Crop damage compensation needs to be increased and procedures simplified.

vi) Where necessary, relevant government orders and notifications should be passed, or existing ones suitably amended, to facilitate the above steps.

As part of follow-up to this workshop, a second, village level, workshop is being organised on 14-15 October at Gobarghusi village in the adjacent area of Dalma Sanctuary. This workshop will be organised by a local NGO, Shramjivi Unnayan. Contact: Pramod Kumar, Shramjivi Unnayan, PO Gobarghusi 832 105, via Patamda, East Singhbhum, Bihar.

For the full report on the workshop (in Hindi), pl. contact K. Christopher, c/o Ashish Kothari, at the editorial address.


Statement against mining near Balphakram National Park

Balphakram National Park, one of north-east India's critical wildlife habitats, is threatened with the proposal to start mining and set up of a cement factory near it (pl. see, for details, Update 9). A statement has been issued by several prominent conservationists against this proposal. They have argued that it would disrupt the important corridor between Balphakram and other elephant habitats, and increase elephant-human conflicts. They have urged the government to drop the proposal, and instead acquire the corridor area for declaration into a protected area. Signatories include scientists from the Indian Institute of Science, Wildlife Institute of India, AMU Centre for Wildlife, Indian Statistical Institute, Zoological Survey of India, Bombay Natural History Society, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, and Ranthambhor Foundation.

For a copy, pl. contact Ranthambhor
Foundation, 19 Kautilya Marg,
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110 021.

Tel:(011) 301 6261; Fax: (011) 391 6261;



Eco-development project in Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP)

In 1993 the Ministry of Environment and Forests initiated proceedings to undertake an ambitious eco-development project in two PAs, Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Tamil Nadu and Great Himalayan National Park, Himachal Pradesh. Preliminary work towards detailed eco-development planning for GHNP began in 1994. In 1995 the Wildlife Institute of India began a long-term research project in the Park, on resource use activities and the potential for eco-development activities in the=20 villages adjacent to GHNP.

While World Bank project documents state that NGOs and local communities are to be involved right from the conceptual stage of the project, reports from the area seem to indicate that this has not happened.

Representatives of two local NGOs working in the area, Kisan Mazdoor Hak Sangathan and Society for the Advancement of Village Economy (SAVE), held meetings in Delhi on 29 & 31 July 1996, to discuss problems of local communities in and around GHNP and the likely inability of the proposed eco-development project to deal with them. The groups have reported a limited understanding of the project among major stakeholders in the Park, primarily due the lack of availability of accurate information. There is also absence of data on the extent and ecological impact of human use of the Park, especially herb collection and seasonal grazing. They have also claimed that the Forest Department, which could be a source of reasonably accurate information on the proposed project, has not made much effort to communicate the same among local communities or NGOs.

The meetings explored the possibility of establishing a GHNP support group in Delhi, and facilitating informal research and analysis of local issues that could be undertaken by the organisations based there. It was also decided to make a list of questions on eco-development drawn up by the=20 local groups for wider circulation; initiate a study focusing on local conservation methods; and later organise a meeting on various issues facing GHNP.

Contact: Hukam Ram, Kisan Mazdoor Hak
Sangathan, vill. Upper Railah, via Sainj, Dist.
Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Iqbal, SAVE,
Sainj 175 134, District Kullu, Himachal
Pradesh. Savyasachi, Delhi Support Group,
C-24 Press Enclave, New Delhi 110 117.M
Tel: (011) 6967674.

Rajaji National Park in the news again!

In May 1995 the Chief Wildlife Warden, UP had issued a government order (GO) (no. 719/12-1) regarding the controlled removal of grass and fallen trees from selected PAs and other forest areas of the State (see JPAM Update 9). The GO states: "In Jan.-Feb.1996, grass may be removed from national parks and sanctuaries in the interest of wildlife conservation, by local communities who have had customary rights to do so in the past."

This step could have played a major role in reducing the conflicts between Park officials and local villagers. However, according to reports received from the Ghad Kshetra Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti (GKMSS), a people's organisation working in the area for the last six years, there has been a distorted interpretation of the GO by the Park authorities. Instead of giving the responsibility of the extraction to local communities, the authorities allegedly gave it to contractors, who then sold the grass to villagers! There has been considerable public resentment due to this.

On 1 Sept., 1996, GKMSS organised a public meeting at village Buggawalla, in which about 50 people from seven villages adjacent to the Park participated. Apart from discussing the above issue, there was also a detailed discussion on the establishment of forest protection committees at the village level, which could legitimately avail of the opportunity offered by the provisions of the GO. This is also in keeping with the recommendations of the interim report on Rajaji National Park prepared by Justice P.S. Poti for the Indian People's Tribunal on Human Rights and the Environment (See JPAM Update 4).

The forest protection committees will be set up at the village level with 20-50 people as members, depending on the size of the village. 50% of committee members will be women. GKMSS has subsequently written to the U.P. Forest Department to ensure that bhabbar grass extraction is given to the local communities in the coming season (winter 1996-97).

Contact: Jaiprakash/Roma, GKMSS, vill.
Buggawala, via Biharigarh, Dist. Haridwar,
Uttar Pradesh. Ashok Choudhary, Vikalp,
11 Mangal Nagar, Saharanpur 247 001,
Uttar Pradesh. Tel: (0132) 724 507.


Addl. Inspector General (Wildlife) reacts to adverse publicity

The Addl. IG (WL), Ministry of Environment and Forests, Shri S.C. Dey, has reacted strongly to recent accusations by NGOs over the deteriorating state of wildlife conservation in the country. According to newspaper reports (The Pioneer 16/08/96) the Addl. IG has accused un-named, foreign funded organisations of carrying out research in PAs "without obtaining proper permission of the concerned State or the Union Government."

The Chief Wildlife Wardens of all states have been asked to keep a check on wildlife research activities currently in progress, besides highlighting the achievements of the state Forest Departments themselves. They have also been asked to provide accurate and up-to-date information on various aspects including current levels of human use of PAs. On the issue of availability of resources, the Addl. IG pointed out that there was little return investment by state governments in forests and wildlife when compared to the revenue generated by the sector, which is about Rs.40,000 crores.

More eco-development news

On 5 Sept. 1996, the India eco-development project, covering seven PAs across India (Periyar, Gir, Ranthambhor, Rajiv Gandhi/Nagarahole, Pench, Buxa, Palamau) received formal approval for funding from the World Bank.

This project has been at the centre of controversy for the last couple of years; JPAM Update has been carrying occasional news (see, for instance, No. 9, on Nagarahole). The latest salvo was fired by a group of eminent people on 12 July 1996, who issued a statement drafted by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi. They stated that eco-development, in its present framework, could not relieve pressures on PAs, which was in fact the main objective of the project. The fundamental premise of the project, that poverty forces people to depend on PAs and other forests, is wrong. It is in fact the disempowerment, brought about by the implementation of wildlife laws that do not consider the needs of local people, that is the major problem facing local communities, and not poverty. The project does not address this issue in any significant way. In addition, the project does not consider reducing the commercial pressures on PAs, as part of its strategy.

The statement was also critical of the substantial loan component of the project, and the absence of space to provide any meaningful role in management to communities. It demanded an immediate withdrawal of the project and urged that alternate community based conservation initiatives be encouraged and supported.

Signatories included: Medha Patkar (Narmada Bachao Andolan activist), Rajni Kothari (political analyst), Madhav Gadgil (Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore), Anil Agarwal (CSE, New Delhi), Walter Fernandes (Indian Social Institute, New Delhi), George Fernandes (Samata Party leader), Avdhash Kaushal (Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun).

There appears to have been no public response from the Ministry of Environment and Forests so far.

Contact: Ravi Sharma/Neena Singh,
Center for Science and Environment,
41 Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi
110 062. Tel: (011) 698 3394; Fax: (011) 698 5879;
Further contributions by NGOs to the Wildlife Act amendments committee

The Committee set up by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, to recommend amendments to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, continued its deliberations and started actual redrafting of the Act (see the last three JPAM Updates for information). Some more NGO submissions that have come in:

Sharad Kulkarni and Ajay Dolke of the Van Vidheyak Samiksha Samanvay, Maharashtra, put together the comments and ideas of several NGOs and individuals and completely redrafted the Act itself. Their (draft) version has several thrusts:

1. Constitution of new bodies at the central and state level, including a Central Wildlife Act Monitoring and Implementing Commission (to replace the existing Indian Board for Wildlife), a State Wildlife Act Monitoring and Implementing Board (to replace the existing Wildlife Advisory Boards), a Sanctuary Settlement Board (to replace the Collector in the inquiry regarding people's rights), a Commissioner of Wildlife Conservation, and local management committees.

2. All major decisions regarding protected areas and wildlife to be taken by governments only in consultation with, or by permission of, the above bodies

3. In addition to National Parks, Sanctuaries, and Closed Areas (already in the Act), two other categories to be established: Conservation Areas and Biosphere Reserves.

4. National and State Biodiversity Conservation Funds to be constituted, with tourism revenues, national and international donations, etc.

The authors are still looking for comments on this draft. Contact: Sharad Kulkarni/Ajay Dolke, Van Vidheyak Samiksha Samanvay, c/o Anubhav Shiksha Kendra, 1B Kaul Building, Gurunanak Nagar, Shankarshet Road, Pune 411 042, Maharashtra. Tel: (0212) 416 283.

Ashish Kothari, on behalf of the Indian Institute of Public Administration JPAM team, submitted a completely revised version of the Act's chapter on protected areas, with the following thrusts:

i) Expansion of the categories of protected (renamed "conservation") areas to include four new ones: Strict Nature Reserves (with no human use, managed by government), Resource Reserves (for sustainable extraction of resources, managed jointly by communities and government), Community Reserves (sacred groves, etc., managed entirely by communities), and Biosphere Reserves (conservation and traditional resource uses over a large landscape, managed by regional boards consisting of all stakeholders). Criteria and management strategies for each category have been briefly laid out.

ii) Detailed procedures for establishing the rights and activities of local communities, and determining the termination/continuation of these with full involvement of the communities.

iii) Constitution of Conservation Area Management Committees for each conservation area of the following categories: National Parks, Sanctuaries, Resource Reserves, and Biosphere Reserves.

iv) Stringent procedures for screening new activities proposed within and around conservation areas, especially to safeguard against destructive developmental/industrial projects.

v) A one-time national review of existing protected areas, to recategorise them, and to constitute appropriate Committees for their management.

vi) Periodic reviews of the state and national wildlife plans.

vii) Creation of a Conservation Fund for each area, to be fed by tourism and other revenues, and to be used for conservation work, staff welfare, and livelihood generation for communities.

A copy of the revised chapter can be requested from us at the editorial address.

Suggestions for changes in the Wildlife Protection Act have also been sent in by individuals. Sanjay Upadhyay, a Delhi-based lawyer has suggested the following:

i) The term "right" or "rights" must be clearly and unambiguously defined by the Act itself, and should include traditional usufruct and easement rights.

ii) Provision must be made to ensure public consultation before any area is declared a sanctuary or national park. Central government approval, or that of a committee appointed by it, prior to the declaration of an area as sanctuary or national park, or to boundary alteration, must also be mandatory.

iii) The Wildlife Advisory Board must be a statutory body, with rules governing its functioning incorporated in the Act.

iv) Penal provisions should be made more stringent and all wildlife related offences made non-bailable. In addition, the maximum sum payable for compounding an offence (currently Rs.2000), should be raised.

v) The Schedules in the Act listing endangered flora and fauna should be simplified, and in the case of plants substantially expanded.

List of NGOs who have made submissions to the Wildlife Act amendments=20 Committee

                     Summary in JPAM Update

1        National Committee for Protection of Common Land
               Resources, Ootacamund, Tamil Nadu
               VIKSAT, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
                             8 & 9

     Karnataka Rajya Moolnivasi Budakattu Janara Vedike and
       Tribal Joint Action Committee Karnataka, Karnataka

4.             Wildlife First!, Bangalore, Karnataka
5.            Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi
                             9 & 11
                   Econet, Pune, Maharashtra
               Rhino Foundation, Guwahati, Assam
8.    Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science,
                      Bangalore, Karnataka
         Nature Lovers Movement, Thiruvamkulam, Kerala.

               Ranthambhor Foundation, New Delhi.

       Van Vidheyak Samiksha Samanvay, Pune, Maharashtra

For more information on the progress of the Committee's work, pl.=20 contact: Kishore Rao, Addl. Inspector General of Forests (Wildlife), Ministry of Environment and=20 Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003. Ph: (011) 436 0957; Fax:=20 (011) 436 0678.

Mining projects threaten Indian PAs

The MoEF has recently granted clearance to several large-scale mining projects across the country, according to a press report (Hindustan Times 21/08/96). While the Environment Impact Division of the MoEF has been rapidly clearing projects on the assurance that their environmental impact will be adequately managed, the wildlife section of the Ministry has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court endorsing the claim that PAs be treated as no development zones.' Conservationists have strongly objected to the spate of ongoing and proposed mining projects in and around PAs. The table on the next page gives information, from various sources, on mining in/around PAs across the country.

Palamau Tiger Reserve, Bihar and Tadoba Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra are also threatened by mining but details are not known. Readers who have more information are urged to send it to us, to include in future issues of JPAM Update. In addition, information on this issue is being put together by Bikram Grewal, who can be contacted at: 101/4 Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016. Tel: (011) 696 1520. Fax: (011) 686 4614; Email:

Mining in and around some protected areas (information from various sources)

Lease area
PA likely to be
905 ha
5 km from Gir
National Park
Iron ore
not known
6 km from Bhadra
Kudremukh Iron
Ore Corp. Ltd.
Iron ore
Over 4000 ha
Kudremukh National
Not known
West Bengal
not known
Buxa Tiger Reserve
Private operators
930 ha
Proposed extension of
Madhav National
Private operators
White sandstone
not known
Panna Tiger Reserve
Private operators
Red sandstone &
630 ha
Kailadevi Sanctuary
(part of Ranthambhor
Tiger Reserve)
not known
Near Balphakram
National Park
not known
In and near
Radhanagri Sanctuary


Session on People and Parks' at World Rainforest Movement (WRM) meeting The WRM is a loose coalition of NGOs, both from the North and South, working on a wide range of issues related to forests. A major concern of WRM is the impact of international treaties, multilateral and bilateral aid, and other processes, especially on indigenous people and other poor and marginalised communities. The group is also involved in tracking private investment in logging, plantations, paper mills, etc.

At its meeting in Oxford, UK, on 29 August-2 September, 1996, one session was devoted to the issue of protected areas and their impact on local communities. Concern was expressed at the subtle move in some countries to turn common lands to protected areas, and then protected areas to private property, usually under the control of large trans-national corporations. An interesting example of involving local communities in protected area management was reported from northern Thailand. The Indian experience with protected areas was also presented by a member of the IIPA JPAM team, including details of the JPAM initiative being considered for some areas.

The Forest People's Programme (FPP), a WRM project, will act as a focal point for networking on this issue. It will also organise a meeting in South America in February next year on the issue of people and protected areas.

Contact: Marcus Colchester/Saskia
Onzinga, Forest People's Programme,
World Rainforest Movement, 8 Chapel Row,
Chadlington, Oxfordshire OX7 3NA,
England, UK. Tel: (44 1608) 676 691; Fax:
(44 1608) 676 743; Email:


Diamond Jubilee celebrations at Corbett Tiger Reserve

Wildlife Week events: Various events have been proposed for Wildlife Week (1-7 October, 1996) at Corbett Tiger Reserve particularly for educational institutions. These include: essay writing; painting and quiz competitions; debate; marathon run; and bird watching camp.

Fifth bird-watching camp at Gairal: The Corbett Foundation is sponsoring a bird watching camp for raptor identification and behaviour at Gairal. A total of 20 participants can be accommodated of which 10 places are reserved for Corbett Tiger Reserve staff. The camp is expected to cost Rs.300/per participant. Dates: 11-15 December 1996

Contact: Rajiv Bhartari, Dy Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve, Ramnagar 244 715, District Nainital, Uttar Pradesh. Tel: (05945) 85 489, 85 332; Fax: (05945) 85 376.

Orissa State level seminar on Wildlife Protection Act

The Council of Professional Social Workers (CPSW) and Media Analysis & Service System (MASS) are collaborating to organise a two-day seminar/workshop of Orissa based NGOs on 2-3 October 1996. The twin themes will be: a) proposed amendments to the Wildlife Protection Act (on 2nd), and b) conservation strategies for the Satkosia Gorge Sanctuary and Baisipalli area (on 3rd). The meeting on 2nd will be for groups working with local communities in and around PAs of Orissa, while on the 3rd a larger audience comprising Forest Department officials, other government functionaries, scientists, academics, etc. are also expected to participate.

The organisers have offered to bear all expenses except travel costs, for selected participants. Accommodation has been arranged at Angul, while the venue for the meeting is Tikarapara. Local transport to Tikarapara will be made available.

Contact: M. Pradhan, Secretary, CPSW, N 1/188 IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar 751015, Orissa. Tel: (0674) 417 715; Fax: (0674) 409 156. B. Mishra, MASS, Sikhyapada, Angul 759 112, Orissa. Tel: (06764) 302 33.

Meeting on PAs and People in Maharashtra

The third state-level meeting on protected areas and people is being organised in October (dates not fixed), at Malvan, Sindhudurg District, Maharashtra. The meeting will attempt to bring together conservationists, local community representatives, NGOs and activists, forest and other government officials, and journalists, to discuss the various conflicts facing PAs, in particular related to local communities.

Contact: Kusum Karnik, At & P.O. Manchar, Dist. Pune 410 503, Maharashtra.

World Conservation Congress, Canada

The 20th General Assembly of the IUCN-World Conservation Union (13-23 October, 1996), is the occasion for the World Conservation Congress, to be held in Montreal, Canada. October 17 to 21st will be reserved for a series of exhibits, workshops, and panel discussions on major themes, including Conserving Diversity, Protecting and Managing Land for Conservation, Strategies for Sustainabilty, Involving People, Economics as a Tool for Conservation, and Acting on Global Issues.

A three-day workshop on Collaborative Management for Conservation will be held on 17-20 October. Participation is from several countries, with experience sharing of joint management programmes, and discussion on a resolution to be adapted by the General Assembly.

Contact: Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Social Policy Unit, IUCN - The World Conservation Union, 28 Rue Mauverney, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland. Tel: (41-22) 999 0001; Fax: (41-22) 999 0025; Email:

JPAM workshop in Kailadevi Sanctuary

The IIPA JPAM team is proposing to hold a workshop in Kailadevi Sanctuary, tentatively towards the end of October. The objective of the workshop is to initiate interaction between the local communities and the Forest Department. Specific agenda points will include: rights of local communities; traditional knowledge and practices; impact of the local communities on the Sanctuary and vice versa; community-initiated Forest Protection Committees; and potential for joint management.

Contact: Priya Das, c/o Ashish Kothari, at the editorial address.

16th Maharashtra State Friends of Birds Meet, January 1997

The Vihang Mandal, a Solapur-based NGO in Maharashtra is organising its 16th Friends of Birds Meet on 11-12 January 1997. Solapur is an arid drought prone district, forming ideal habitat for the endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB). There is a GIB Sanctuary at Nanaj comprising mostly of cultivation. There is an urgent need to evolve innovative management strategies for the region which will ensure the continued survival of the GIB as well give local farmers a stake in its conservation. Participants at the meet will include ornithologists, administrators, Forest Department officials, NGO representatives and other individuals interested in birds.

Contact: Pravinsinh Pardeshi/Dr. Ninad V. Shah, 94 Siddeshwar Peth, Umbarje Building, Solapur 413 001, Maharashtra. Tel. (N. Shah): (0217) 651 863 (Office).

                       WHAT'S AVAILABLE?
Singh and S. Suri. 1996.
People & Protected Areas : Towards Participatory Conservation in India. Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Pp.276. Rs. 200 (PB); Rs. 350 (HB).

A compilation of papers first presented at a workshop in 1994, this is the first book-length review of the subject in India.

Contains 17 papers by social activists, conservationists, foresters and scientists. Also contains several case studies of specific PAs and a detailed bibliography.

Contact: Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.,
PO Box 4215, New Delhi 110 048. Tel: (011) 648 58854, 644 4958; Fax: (011) 647 2426.

conservation in Zimbabwe : the lessons for Indian conservationists. Unpubl. Mimeo. Pp.8.

This paper compares the experiences of state-sponsored wildlife conservation in India and Zimbabwe. It highlights the successful (though somewhat controversial) CAMPFIRE initiative in Zimbabwe and outlines lessons from it for India. The author advocates re-introduction of species in former habitats; meaningful involvement of local communities in PA management; sport hunting; and flexibility in the Wildlife Protection Act.

Contact: K.D. Ghorpade, Dattawad House, 334E Shahupuri, Kolhapur 416 001, Maharashtra. Tel/fax: (0231) 654 443.

C0dia. 1996. Tiger Conservation Strategy and Action Plan.. World Wide Fund for Nature - India, New Delhi. Pp.35.

The document gives brief information on the status of the tiger including numbers, distribution, threats, and conservation efforts both by government and non-government agencies. The main activities proposed to be undertaken by WWF-I, over an initial period of two years, include: influence policy and decision making; mobilize grassroots support in tiger range areas; assist and strengthen enforcement measures; generate greater awareness and mobilize public support; and facilitate international cooperation. Contact: WWF - India, 172B Lodhi Estate, New Delhi 110 003. Tel: (011) 461 6532, 469 3744. Fax: (011) 462 6837. Email:

Foundation & WPSI. 1996.

Impact assessment of proposed ACC cement plant near Balphakram National Park. The Rhino Foundation for Nature in North East India, and Wildlife Protection Society of India, New Delhi. Pp.16.

Dealing with the proposed ACC operations near Balphakram, the report is a description of the area and the problems it faces. Though not a full impact assessment, the report does identify some of the potential impacts the ACC cement plant will have on habitat and wildlife, and provides some baseline information.

Contact: Wildlife Protection Society of India, Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi 110 001. Tel: (011) 332 0573; Fax: (011) 332 7729.=20

on. 1996. The World Bank in Nagarahole (with assistance from the state): A story of human rights violations, lies and deceit. Pp.58.

A compilation of letters, statements, portions of official documents, newsclippings, etc. on the GEF funded eco-development project in Nagarahole (now Rajiv Gandhi) National Park, Karnataka. Includes a critique of the official eco-development plan that was presented at the last GEF consultations in Washington and a useful list of names and addresses of GEF, World Bank and UNDP officials associated with GEF projects around the world.

Contact: Anita & Edwin, 658, 45 Cross, 11 A Main, Jayanagar Block 5, Bangalore 560 041. Tel: (080) 663 5622; Fax: (080) 6633538; Email:


Clarification on JPAM Update 10 news items on Gir and Narayan Sarovar Shri Kishore Rao, Deputy Inspector General (Wildlife) at the MoEF has sent in clarifications on the news items on Gir National Park and Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary that were carried in JPAM Update 10. Relevant parts of his letter are reproduced here in full:

"I would also like to point out that the news item relating to the lions of Gir N.P. has been very casually written and has factual inaccuracies. We have had a detailed report on the census operations carried out by the State Forest Dept. in Gir in May, 1995 and this document is freely available from them. Involvement of local and national NGOs and other experts in the census operation has been clearly mentioned therein. Moreover, the exact number of lions inhabiting the coastal forests, Girnar Hills and Mityala area has been recorded and the reasons clearly identified. In fact, the reasons for the lions straying out of Gir is extensively studied and documented by the WII as well. I may add that straying of lions outside Gir is a historical fact as mentioned in the book on the Asiatic Lions written by Mr. Rashid and Dr. R. David. Besides, there is no question of any forcible relocation of Maldharis from Gir, particularly because of the fact that Gir is now a project site under the India Eco-development Project, and the World Bank's Operational Directive No. 420 clearly guards against this eventuality. No relocation can take place without a detailed study and their prior approval. You will recall that Simlipal in Orissa was dropped as one of the project sites from the India Eco-development Project because the assurances on voluntary relocation were not found to be satisfactory by the World Bank.

As regards the news item on Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary, I may add that four NGOs of Gujarat, namely Lok Adhikar Sangh, Ahmedabad, Centre for Social Knowledge and Action, Ahmedabad, Gujarat Jan Jagaran Sangh, Banaskantha and Kutch Lok Samiti, Kutch have filed a Special Civil Application (No. 8799 of 1995) in the High Court of Gujarat seeking a stay on the resolution passed by the Gujarat Legislative Assembly denotifying a part of the Sanctuary, and stopping the grant of any permission or licence for setting up industries, and for establishing a high powered committee to go into all aspects of the matter."

Change of email number

JPAM Update 10 had carried an item on WWF-International's proposals for tiger conservation world-wide. The contact person, Tom Mathews, now has a new email number. Contact: Tom Mathews, Director (East and South Asia), WWF-US, 1250, 24th St. NW, Washington, DC 20037-1175, USA. Tel: (1-202) 293 4800; Fax: (1-202) 293 9211/9345; Email:

JPAM Update is produced bimonthly as a follow up to the workshop on Exploring the Possibilities of Joint Protected Area Management (JPAM), organised at IIPA, New Delhi, in September 1994.

JPAM Update 11 was prepared by Priya Das, K. Christopher, Suniti K. Jha, Ashish Kothari & Farhad Vania. Secretarial support: Vishal Thakre & Sangeeta Kaintura.

Ideas, comments, news and information may please be sent to: Ashish Kothari, Indian Institute of Public Administration, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi 110 002. Tel: (011) 331 7309; Fax: (011) 331 9954; Email:

BACK TO *********************************************************************