What means ”exclusionary approach to conservation”?

P.S. Some concrete examples would (probably) be of help...

Dear Denise Marie,

Knowing first-hand what conservation in India is like, I feel I can comment on your question. The first thing Europeans have to understand is that the world is big. The Eurocentric view clashes with the perceptions (and prejudices, yes) of ex-colonies. Do you really think conservatrion in India is any more bureaucratic than in Europe? I don't. What happens is that foreigners are not free to fool around as they wish, and that of course is a nuisance for genuine researchers. Unfortunately, there have been too many gentle-looking fellows plundering India's biodiversity. I know at least a mycologist who travelled around collecting stuff, just to grow it in his lab; he then got paid by a multinational pharmaceutical company, who of course would patent anything useable. How do you feel this falls on the spirit of those responsible for protecting rhinos and tigers in a country with many people in need? Now about what you mention about human rights violations. These are not related to conservation itself, much less to India. Criminals exist everywhere. At least some of the problems in India are due to an insatiable thirst for absurd commodities such as sandal on the side of moon-dreaming Europeans. At least in India, judges are not affraid of curbing on wildlife crime. I don't see this attitude in Europe, where it is so painstakingly difficult to enforce existing laws that are supposed to protect nature. I live in the Balearics, where there is a lot (I mean a hell of a lot) of tourism. I don't see anything wrong in India making some money from ecotourism. The problem, of course, is where to find the delicate equilibrium between conservation and recreation. Yet, I am confident India is doing overall quite well in this respect. I am involved as a government expert in a number of trials, and quite frankly find too much to envy in India's conservation, both among grassroots movements and in the official system.

Best,

Cristian

It is true that after Independence, some vested interests realized that by divorcing the public from forests, they could reap vast benefits unquestioned. The harassment went on until recently, when the Supreme Court of India had to remind the Forest Department that bamboo was not a tree and, since it formed the basis of the economy of certain tribal belts, the tribal people need not apply for permission to the Forest Department to cut a bamboo.

Having said that, the misdemeanors of the few are far out weighed by the exemplary duty of the majority. Figures speak for themselves: we have not lost a single species of bird, butterfly, reptile, amphibian or fish in the post-Independence period. The only mammal lost is the cheetah, the last were shot in 1948.

Concerning bureaucratization, it is true, but do not forget that the MoEF and the state Forest Departments are demons for industry and the officers and men of these organizations are constantly waging war against BIG money. Forest Department personnel get killed protecting rhinos, tigers, wood, sand, whatever. So they are more a security force than a scientific force that is normal in developed countries. And, like any active security force, they will always be distrustful of outsiders.

That is not to say that they are not doing their job. It is just that they are up against big odds, and they tend to be suspicious, for which I don't blame them.

So far as tribal rights are concerned, there is legislation, albeit recent, to protect them. As far as wildlife tourism and stuff is concerned, it is unlikely that there will be much concert in the foreseeable future. This because wildlife tourism of the sort that is exemplary is a small proportion of the tourist flow to national parks and other wild areas. At one time, Corbett National park became a venue for politicians, so that the chief minister's son or brother decided who could get a booking there or not. Still later, it became a fashionable venue for big, fat, Indian weddings, complete with loudspeakers blaring music the whole night. For the resorts catering to 'wildlife tourism', it meant money, and it didn't matter much to them if 'wildlife' became two words, as long as the money flowed.

Couple this with the fact that every politician has a host of relatives and friends out to grab what they can, bully who they can, exploit what they can and then you will better understand why the Forest Department is so chary about wildlife tourism and the operators.There are a trusted few operators who are given due respect, but there are also crooked politicians, criminals, hustlers and what not that own 'resorts' around the fringe of national parks (Corbett has more than 200), out to grab what money they can by whatever means. So.....

To add to the above perspectives by Cristian and Peter, do remember that, by and large the principle of excluding human settlements from forests was initiated during British colonial times when Indian forests were "nationalized" to provide vast resources for the Royal Navy and other British needs (including railtrack sleepers for the vast railway network). This policy carried on after independance. In some cases maharajahs has their own hunting reserves. However, humans have lived in India's forests for many millenia. Hence, the "historical period of exclusion that you speak of is at most a couple centuries. In the 80s and 90s it was widely realized that exclusion of forest dwellers was not working. The only solution is an empowered community in the buffer areas of protected areas, whose socioeconomic needs are met. Achieving that is the difficult task, requiring a sustained effort in community organization, availing government employment schemes, fighting vested interests from moneylenders to poachers and corruption to land fragmentation and the lure of migration to cities...it is remarkable that despite millenia of human invasions and presence and forest clearance, a fair bit of wildlife still exists. However, newer pressures arise with greater mobility (tourism), resource demand and climate change...

Dear Zsolt, an example would be the MoEF's rezoning of India's coastal zone, allowing increased exploitation rather than increased protection. The non-transparency of the government's process didn't allow for stakeholder involvement, instead it excluded the local people from coastal decision-making, and drew suspicion and criticism from conservation NGOs and the media at the time.

See URL: http://envfor.nic.in:80/mef/crz_report.pdf

Thank you all for your valuable input. Cristian, I am posting these papers which will perhaps shed some light on the conservation situation in India. You speak of 'India' making some money on tourism. Well, that is exactly what the situation is. The government and large tourist developers are the ones who benefit most from tourism and there are no building codes or environmental parameters for tourism development (Hannam, 2004; Bijoy, 2011; Narain, 2005). (links below).

Most unfortunately, as Peter Semecek mentions, the IFS is under lots of pressure, especially regarding wildlife tourism, which is growing exponentially in India, especially at Corbett tiger reserve due its proximitiy to Delhi. There is currently no body which manages or sets parameters for tourism. The Ministry of Tourism occupies itself with only promotion (Bijoy, 2011).

Hannam, 2004: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1461668042000269647#.UvoJ0WI7um4

Bijoy, 2011: http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/great_indian_tiger.pdf

Narain, 2005 : http://projecttiger.nic.in/ttf2005/index.html

Also, if you are interested, see also Banerjee, 2012: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13683500.2011.599367

and Rastogi, 2012

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23127964

Thanks, Lindy Thomson for your contribution. That is one of many incidences where the MoEF has exercised its bureaucratic power. To give further insight:

As Amartya Saha said, Indian forests were indeed 'nationalized' during the colonial period. The colonial bureaucracy has remained within the governing bodies, however (Hannam, 2004; Banerjee, 2012).

See URLs for references.

For Zsolt Torok: See Rasogi, 2012 (link above ) for a good explanation of what the exclusionary approach to conservation is.

Thanks again, all for a stimulating discussion and for taking the time to write.

Thanks Denise Marie and others, for sharing literature and ideas. I know well Corbett National Park, and some of the surrounding areas. In fact, I am working together with a few Indians to promote a kind of tourism that will benefit both people and wildlife. Not that I have any magical solution, it's only a matter of helping local initiatives that already exist. And that are far better in many respects than what we find in Europe.

In my opinion, the problem boils down to a rather simple fact: India inherited a calamitous colonial structure. Once independent, the country has strived to protect its wildlife and nature. And to a large degree it has succeeded. At a breathtaking cost, but with admirable determination. Whatever glimpses of conservation happened during British rule were only that, small specks amidst overt, abusive exploitation. Including mass deforestation. It takes time to build a decent country from the state it was left by Europeans. Jim Corbett understood what was going on --no wonder India remembers him so well. What is radically new is that India is getting rid of the ignominious legacy of British occupation. Slowly, but firmly.

Of course there is place to improve things in India, including conservation. But we must beware of preaching what we don't do. How many Iberian lynx are left in Europe? Why is it that Europe is unable to meet its conservation goals? Why are so many aquatic species in Europe at the brink of extinction or already extinct? Isn't recreation a source of conflict in all European parks? I do think there is place for mutual teaching. It would be so much easier and helpful to send European park rangers to India, and viceversa.

By the way, one additional point. The definition of "forest" is quite open. In Catalan, that word means any kind of wild vegetation, although it is usually reserved for woody formations. In Spain, the same root is used to refer to uncultivated land. A thorny thicket may be a forest. A bamboo grove may also be a forest. I think it is useful indeed to have an open view of what a forest may be. Not necessarily what northern European think it ought to be. For that matter, there is virtually nothing left of primary forests in Europe...

All the best,

Cristian

Dear Denise, yes it made me smile to read the State of the Forests reports, where some stretches of New Delhi's highways were classed as 'forests', because they had a row of trees in between the lanes.

Christian is right in saying foreigners can't fool around as they wish. The MoEF has worked to protect India's biological resources for its people, such that permits must be applied for, for any genetic material, that might be used in research and potentially in industry. I am not sure whether any of these funds gathered from applicants have trickled down to the people or to conservation efforts though, or whether the money still sits in MoEF coffers?

However, I know the director of the MoEF worked closely with (and had a good relationship with) staff from the IUCN's New Delhi office when I was there. I think nothing's completely black and white.

So true, Lindy and Cristian! Thank you for taking the time to write. I learned one important thing from my experience/studies: there is never a simple answer. Lindy, I am glad that you had a positive experience in India. The IFS officers at Corbett were very nice; the director rudely shooed me out of his office when one of them brought me to meet him. After my research, however, I realised the pressure under which the IFS is to manage the huge influx of tourists, so his gesture wasn't so rude after all,

That is an interesting question regarding genetic material. Offhand and unreferenced, I would doubt if anything has trickled down.

Cristian, bravo that you are working on a grassroots project. That seems to be the only way. I am very untrusting of top down approaches. I will send you a private message as maybe we can collaborate on the biofuel initiative. It is difficult doing everything long distance as people have a tendency to 'disappear'. I don't have time/funds right now to go back to Corbett and organise it, so I rely on some local people who are savvy with internet.It is nothing elaborate, very basic, but it works!

Cheers, guys, and thanks again!

denise

One needs to remember that a sizeable fraction of MoEF and IFS staff is in these posts not because they particularly like wildlife or are motivated for watershed conservation and sustainable development, but because its a job. Unlike western countries where people can often choose their line of work, in India, being a land of too many qualified people and too few jobs, people go in for whatever job they can get. Government jobs are much sought after on account of their permanence. There's the annual Indian Civil Services exam where the top scorers go in for the Administrative Service, then the Foreign Service and so on. Similar deal with the IFS and MoEF. On top of this, there is tremendous pressure upon these ministries (to grant clearances & contracts ) from other powerful vested interests seeking to utilize natural resources in an unsustainable manner (like anywhere else, really). Hence it is vital for local communities around PAs to be united and made aware of the laws and their rights. and this is where genuinely motivated NGOs play a valuable role. Local communities along with the Forest Dept are the only way to resist poachers as well.

Well said, Amartya. I found this information through my research. Civil service jobs are sought after and many report that often applicants to the IFS have little or not interest in conservation; this is understandable where jobs are few. We are experiencing a similar trend in Europe now. It seems that the IFS is unfairly pressured as the MInistry of Tourism does not take an active role in tourism management, only its promotion (except for some programs that they manage in a couple of tiger reserves). Then, as you say, there is pressure from the large tourism developers and that can only cause antagonism among local populations if they do not benefit from tourism. Please tell him if the situation is otherwise! I agree with you wholeheartedly about local communities, bottom up approaches seem to be the most effective solution. Thanks so much for your insight.

Lindy Thomson: ”Dear Zsolt, an example would be the MoEF's rezoning of India's coastal zone, allowing increased exploitation rather than increased protection. The non-transparency of the government's process didn't allow for stakeholder involvement, instead it excluded the local people from coastal decision-making, and drew suspicion and criticism from conservation NGOs and the media at the time.”

Aha, OK...

Well, actually, this kind of issue is a quite frequent one in (not only India, but many other) developing countries. There are lots of current examples (wind-energy, fracturing, nuclear plants etc. - and generally, industrial investments), especially if the profit-makers are international companies. In these case the local/regional/national authorities are usually just the ”means” in the process known as ”the end justifies the means”.

Hi 

Wild life conservation is became 'wicked problem' not only India, but also many developing countries. According to my research experience in Sri Lanka ,  at the movement wild life conservation has became wicked problem because of regional politics and capitalism social-economic  structure. my argument is until political and economic structure not ready to honestly involve for the wild life conservation, it will be fantasy dream. I am sending some research papers herewith as an attachments  that may be useful for you  

Garcia, C. A., Bhagwat, S. A., Ghazoul, J., Nath, C. D., Nanaya, K. M., Kushalappa, C. G., ... & Vaast, P. (2010). Biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes: challenges and opportunities of coffee agroforests in the Western Ghats, India. Conservation Biology, 24(2), 479-488.

Ervin, J. (2003). Rapid assessment of protected area management effectiveness in four countries. BioScience, 53(9), 833-841.

Balint, P. J., Stewart, R. E., & Desai, A. (2011). Wicked environmental problems: managing uncertainty and conflict. Island Press.

Bal, P., Nath, C. D., Nanaya, K. M., Kushalappa, C. G., & Garcia, C. (2011). Erratum to: Elephants Also Like Coffee: Trends and Drivers of Human–Elephant Conflicts in Coffee Agroforestry Landscapes of Kodagu, Western Ghats, India. Environmental management, 48(2), 263-275.

Madden, F., & McQuinn, B. (2014). Conservation’s blind spot: the case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biological Conservation, 178, 97-106.

Rastogi, A., Hickey, G. M., Badola, R., & Hussain, S. A. (2012). Saving the superstar: a review of the social factors affecting tiger conservation in India. Journal of environmental management, 113, 328-340.

Bruggemann, J., Rodier, M., Guillaume, M., Andréfouët, S., Arfi, R., Cinner, J., ... & McClanahan, T. (2012). Wicked social-ecological problems forcing unprecedented change on the latitudinal margins of coral reefs: the case of southwest Madagascar. Ecology and Society, 17(4).

 One of the other issue is 'Challenges of Biopiracy' and it has became great barrier when implementing many wild life conservation programs  in the southern peripheral context . I have written research paper about that based on Sri Lankan context [Challenges of Biopiracy: Implementing Community Based Eco-tourism (CBET) in the Sri Lankan context]  and I am sending it herewith as an attachment