Download Conservation approaches and development of local communities in

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Volume 1, No 5, 2011 © Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing Association Research article ISSN 0976 – 4402 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives Maria Costanza Torri Department of Social Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto [email protected] ABSTRACT Protected areas (PA) are a cornerstone of conservation approaches in many developing countries. The concept of wilderness is often considered central to protected area designation and management. This article discusses the key issues around contested knowledge and ideologies that have framed the politics of conservation and resource use in India, exploring the social consequences on local communities of the wilderness conservation culture. It also describes recent efforts to reconcile conflicting conservation and development priorities through eco­development programmes, highlighting their constraints and gaps. Lastly, it analyses the emerging community­livelihood centred approaches, which appear to offer a way forward in reducing endemic park­people conflict resulting from a restrictive and singular approach to conservation that views nature and indigenous resource use practices as mutually incompatible. Some suggestions to conciliate conservation and local development objectives are finally drawn. Keywords: Biodiversity, protected areas, conservation, India 1. Introduction Biodiversity conservation in India, as in most parts of the world, is complex and often contentious. What on the surface appears to be a simple issue of protecting wild animals and plants from forces beyond their control, on closer inspection quickly dissolves into a complex tangle of conflicting issues: human rights versus the protection of animals and forests, the exclusion of all humans from protected areas versus the possibility of human coexistence with wildlife and the exclusive state control over protected areas versus increased local participation in protected area management. Indeed, beyond the broad objective of preserving nature, there is often little in common among the various positions adopted by conservationists as to the specifics of what is to be protected, for, by and from whom. In India, as in many other developing and developed countries, the conservation policies have been centred upon the creation of protected areas (PA). The world­wide network of protected areas (PA) has emanated from the American concept of natural areas treated as untouched and pristine wilderness. It is symbolised in the move to set aside Yellowstone National Park in the last century as an untouched area in the United States. Protected areas, especially those that involve very restricted use, are more than a government strategy of conservation: they are emblematic of a particular relation between humans and nature. The expansion of the U.S. mid­19th­century idea of uninhabited national parks is based, first, on the myth of an untouched natural paradise. This reactive
Received on December, 2010 Published on January, 2011 871 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives conservationism of the 19th century, according to the definition of Moscovici, in which the natural world is attributed all the virtues and society all the vices, was a reaction to “culturalism”, which sees in nature the infirmity of man, a threat of return to savagery to which culture must be opposed (Moscovici, 1974). This myth of an untouched and untouchable nature not only reshapes old creeds, but also incorporates elements of modern science­ such as the notion of biodiversity and ecosystem function­in a symbiosis expressed by the alliance between particular currents of natural science and preservationist ecology. The persistence of the idea of a wild and untouched natural world has considerable force, especially with urban élite that has largely lost the daily contact with the rural environment. In the developing countries, the number and total surface of protected areas has grown enormously in the postcolonial period, being more than 105,000 listed PAs covering approximately 20 million km² 1 . Of these, terrestrial protected areas cover 15.3 million km², or over 10% of the land surface of the planet. (Ravenel and Redford 2005). The growth rate of protected areas has been steady over the past five decades, with faster growth in the 1990s (Naughton­Treves et al. 2005). The modern environmental movements that become popular in the United States and in Europe during the 1960’s, create in India a strong international pressure for the adoption of the North American conservation model. In the international context, India attracts attention for its species threatened by extinction, such as the Asiatic lion, the elephant and the tiger. Constituted around the 1960’s, the WWF represents the most important catalyst of government action in India. During the last decade, the total surface of the Indian protected zones and sanctuaries doubled until it reached the current 4% of the territory: 1/5 of the 75 millions hectares under the jurisdiction of the Forest Department have currently the denomination of “protected zone”. Most protected areas fall under six different IUCN categories corresponding to specific management objectives that permit increasing human use – from Category Ia and Ib (strict reserve) to Category V (managed resource use). The actual presence and influence of human beings in a given protected area location depends on the extent to which management objectives and laws assigned to that category are put into effect (Ravenel and Redford 2005). The definition of the zoning system has been formulated according to the idea that no permanent human presence should be considered in PA. The national parks constitute zones strictly protected by law, where all human activity is forbidden, exceptions made for the necessary measures to protect the wildlife. On the contrary, the exercise of some activities is permitted in the sanctuaries where the discretion to determine them is left to the competent authorities. 1 For details, see http://sea.unep­wcmc.org/wdbpa/. The official classification and information in the World Conservation Monitoring Center (WCMC) database does not include areas covered by private and informal arrangements for wildlife protection that are common in many parts of the world.
872 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives 2. Conservation Policies in India versus local communities: some critical issues The conflict between the views of the so­called traditional populations and the preservationist and state conservationist institutions cannot be analysed simply in terms of the oppositions between different mythologies and symbolisms. The conflict also revolves around a political ecology, to the extent that the State imposes new spaces that are “modern and public” upon territories where traditional populations live—the parks and reserves. In examining the foundations of the conflicts between conservation authorities and local communities, it is important to look at issues of knowledge and identity construction, which have featured prominently in the politics of conservation in India. Protected areas have been designed on the basis of a particular set of scientific principles that focus on standard criteria such as the requisite size and shape of the area; landscape fragmentation; the creation of ‘breeding nuclei’ within ‘inviolate’ core zones; and the assigning of ecological values to large mammals, described as ‘umbrella’ species, against which human actions are to be judged. This is clearly illustrated in Sariska Tiger Reserve, which has been constituted and managed as a ‘natural ecosystem’, despite the presence of eleven villages within its core zone. Within this conceptual and spatial configuration, the tiger placed at the apex of a hierarchical ecological pyramid is viewed as a potent symbol and index of ecological health and ‘wild nature’. The resulting dualism between people and nature is evident in Sariska’s management principles, which explicitly identify human habitation and livelihood practices within the Reserve as the main factors responsible for the degradation of forests and the disturbance of wildlife. Such simplifications, produced largely in the absence of detailed studies and long­term monitoring, have sometimes had adverse ecological consequences. An example is Keoladeo National Park in Rajasthan where a bitterly contested ban on buffalo grazing inside the park has led to an overgrowth of weeds, choking the shallow water bodies and rendering them inhospitable for wintering geese, ducks for which the park is famous. A second, far reaching implication of these abstracted ‘eco­knowledge’ has been the framing of identities and places in particular ways that separate nature and culture as discrete and incompatible domains. The result is often a devaluation of indigenous knowledge and resource use practices, and the ascription of derogatory and criminalized identities such as environmental ‘degraders’, poachers, as in the case of Sariska. Such identities, rooted in colonial perceptions of indigenous forest dwellers, have guided state conservation managers in their concerted efforts to extinguish land and resource use rights within national parks, where no form of human habitation or resource use is permitted according to the Wild Life Protection Act. Contrary to the idea according to which the habitats must be "wild", that is to say pristine, in India a great number of communities live around or inside the protected zones and their survival depends on the present resources in the forests. Grazing activities are present in 2/3 of the protected zones and in the majority of cases, the gathering of forest products is a widespread phenomenon (Kothari, 1999). Little attention is given to the question of the compensations for the attacks of the wild animals against human beings and livestock. The compensations for the loss of livestock granted by the State are almost symbolic (Krishna and Uphoff, 1999).
873 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives Currently, in numerous rural zones of India, the precarious economic situation of the local communities, aggravated even more by the current depletion of the ecosystems, has not often left them any choice but to deforest in order to survive. The poor themselves are often the reason of the deterioration and the depletion of biodiversity, notably if the absence of alternative income pushes them to overexploit the natural resources. With no security of livelihoods, local people maximised their short­term gains from the forest in whatever way they could. For instance, practices like ecologically damaging goat­rearing evolved as a direct response to banning of agriculture in the villages. They somehow survived on a precarious debt­based economy supported by minimal developmental infrastructure (Shahabuddin et al. 2005). The Chenchus, a tribal community in the Pradesh Andhra, were confronted by numerous problems after the area where they lived was declared part of a protected area. Living in the Nallamalai hills close to the shores of the Krishna river, they led a semi­nomadic existence of hunters and gatherers of forest products such as honey and medicinal plants. In the 1940’s, almost 40.000 hectares in the Nallamalai hills were reserved for the Chenchus to allow them to maintain a relatively unaltered way of life. However in 1979, in the frame of the conservation program "Save the tigers", the whole region was declared a natural sanctuary and the access of the central zone had been abolished. This measure worsened considerably the living conditions of these tribal communities. Gadgil and al. (1998) state that the establishment of a strict control from the government on the natural resources in India drove to" hard conflicts with the local populations who attempted to fight to defend their traditional rights on forest resources". According to Kothari (1997), more than 20% of the protected zones in India have lately been the setting of fights between the villagers and the authorities. An example of the conflicts arising in the Indian protected areas is represented by Keoladeo Ghana Park, known in India and worldwide to be the natural habitat of more then 350 different species of birds. In 1980, its statute has been upgraded from sanctuary to national park, which involved the total banning of grazing activities in this area. In November 1982, seven villagers were killed when police opened fire on the shepherds who had organized a demonstration of protest against this measure of the government (Kothari, 1999). All over India, the resentment of the population for the constraints imposed by government conservation programs has also led to several mass protests. A conflict took place between the police and the villages of Bhyndar Valley, best­known as the valley of Flowers in Himalayas. The constitution of the National Park and the change in the life style imposed by the authorities have not been accepted by the villagers who showed an increasing hostility towards the Department of Forest (Agrawal and Gibson, 2001). In some cases, the villagers reacted by setting fire to vast national park areas, as in the Kanha Park in Madhya Pradesh. Some episodes happened also in the Ho regions of Bihar State and in the national park of Nagarhole, in the South of India, where the tribes of Bette Kurumbas and Jen Kurumbases burned 20 km² of forest. Displacement is another consequence of conservation projects based on the idea of wilderness. Conservation of species and ecosystems requires restrictions on human influences – local, state, and corporate – in areas where species or ecosystems are to be conserved.
874 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives Following the creation of the national parks, the eviction of the local communities out of the forest became one of the first objectives of the Forest Service Biologists and forest managers see displacement of ecosystem­dependent people as unavoidable to secure large ‘inviolate’ areas of wilderness where the needs of biodiversity conservation can be prioritised (Terborgh et al. 2002; Johnsingh 2005; Karanth 2006). Their premise is that activities of villagers inside PAs, either agricultural activities or forest biomass extraction, are detrimental to biodiversity conservation values. This has had, as a consequence, an increase of conflicts between the communities residing in the reserves and the Forest Department. According to Indian social militants in India 600.000 people belonging to indigenous communities, had been displaced by force, for the creation of parks and reserves. Recent field studies are just beginning to reveal the contours of deprivation and social injustice that have resulted from displacements from PAs (Brockington 2002). Social scientists and anthropologists point to the extreme marginalisation and impoverishment that often results from village displacement, particularly in developing countries where governance systems tend to be ineffective and enforcement mechanisms are weak (Neumann 1998). In an extensive review of the impact of protected areas on people, Brechin et al. (2003) suggests that somewhere around 50 to 60 studies provide some careful information about the impact of some protected areas upon the livelihoods of people living within them, and displaced since their establishment. Many of these studies are geographically clustered, with better information being available for some protected areas in India, Nepal, southern and East Africa, and the United States than for most other protected areas, and most other parts of the world (Rangarajan and Shahabuddin, 2006). What these studies do tell us about the economic and social impacts of eviction from protected areas is limited but in consonance with the far larger literature on the social, economic, political, and cultural effects of development induced displacements. Because the provisions relating to particular categories of protected areas are applied unevenly even within a country, residents of protected areas (or those who utilize the protected areas’ resources) face uncertainty as to whether, when, and how they will be displaced, and with what effects. The use of force is typically critical to displacement from protected areas and that displacement has caused impoverishment, social disarticulation and political disempowerment. (Hulme and Murphree 2001). Few of the displacees have been compensated (Schmidt­Soltau 2003) and, in many cases, displacements are not legally recognized despite being pursued both under the authority of law and through the use of extra­legal force 2 . That oustees most often belong to marginalised ethnic groups further exacerbates the social impacts. A pioneering long­term study of relocation from Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in India, for example, shows that relocation has had a highly adverse impact on the livelihoods and lives of the displaced people (Kabra 2003). The exercise was unsatisfactory with respect to several aspects such as identification of suitable land for resettlement, assistance to tide over 2 Much of the case work on this aspect of conservation­induced displacements is only available in the gray literature rather than as published materials. See, for example, the report on coercive conservation practices prepared by Hebert and Healey (n.d.) for the International Human Rights Advocacy Center, and reports published by the Legal and Human Rights Center on the Serengetti killings (http://www.humanrightstz.org/humanrights/serengeti_reports, accessed on April 20, 2006).
875 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives uncertain agricultural output and incomes during the transition period and provision of alternatives to resources previously available from forests. On the whole, there was little attention to ensuring livelihood security of people moved to an alien socio­technological environment, which led to severe impoverishment and destitution. The adverse effects were especially severe as the people concerned belonged to an economically marginal community, the Sahariyas that depended heavily on forest produce for both nutrition and incomes. In 2004, many displaced villagers attempted to move back to the Kuno Sanctuary facing risk of starvation in their resettlement sites (Kabra 2003). Nor is the case quite so exceptional. In Tadoba­Andhari Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra in western India, too, the study of the proposed relocation site indicates that the evacuees will lose many of the forest resources they have traditionally been dependent on without obtaining adequate substitutes (Mehra et al. 2004). It does not help that the relocation plan does not specify how such biomass and livelihood needs are proposed to be substituted in the new site. Similarly, in Sariska Tiger Reserve in India, studies of the relocation plan and package that has recently been finalised, suggest that village displacement is likely to cause further impoverishment of an already marginalised semi­pastoral community (Shahabuddin et al 2005). In Kuno in central India as was the case with the Gir Forest, Gujarat, the displaced persons were mainly or entirely from marginal social groups. The Sahariya Scheduled Tribes in the former or the Maldhari pastoralists in the latter were historically at the bottom of the pyramid of power. Their displacement and impoverishment are only one aspect of a continuing assertion of power, in this case by the Forest Department over their land and lives (Rangarajan 2001). Whereas the villagers often support the costs of the conservation, the profits are, on the contrary, often assigned to the national or international groups (tourists, enterprises, urban consumers, etc.). This can constitute in the eyes of the communities a way to further deprive them of their basic sources of survival. An example is represented by the national park of Keoladeo (Rajasthan). Here almost all the total income produced by tourism (roughly 6.000 $ US per year) is destined to go to the private agencies of tourism or the government, whereas the local communities undergo agricultural losses of about $ 50.000 per year caused by the flooding due to the absence of soil management measures (Kothari, 1999). In many cases, the profits drifting of the conservation (improvement of the water availability, of the micro­climatic regulations etc..) are not immediately comprehensible to the local communities. Therefore, and because of the fact that the access to resources has been denied to them (for example in the protected zones), it is difficult to convince these communities that wildlife conservation is necessary and useful.
876 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives 3. Addressing the Social Impacts of Conservation: Strategies, Experience, and Future Directions This wilderness assumption that the presence of communities represents an element of perturbation for the environment has had two major consequences for the practice of conservation. First, much conservation planning has mandated the exclusion of humans from biologically diverse landscapes, or the restriction of livelihoods of local people in such areas. Second, anthropogenic landscape processes have been viewed almost exclusively as threats to biodiversity. Conservation research has focused overwhelmingly on elements or patterns of biodiversity, while largely ignoring histories of land use in areas of conservation interest. As a result, the ways that previous generations of local peoples have shaped current patterns of biodiversity composition have been overlooked. As several researchers have demonstrated, actions taken in the past without thorough knowledge of historical patterns of land use have resulted in the exclusion of people from areas where human activity has shaped species composition and density over millennia. In short, the identification and creation of protected areas has not been much informed by an historical perspective. In recent years, this assumption has been challenged on several fronts. First, a substantial body of critical scholarship has emerged challenging the idea of pristine wilderness on conceptual grounds. Second, archaeologists, geographers and ecologists have produced empirical studies demonstrating the anthropogenic nature of much of what had been deemed “pristine” natural areas. Third, against the assumption that anthropogenic landscape modifications are inherently destructive, researchers have demonstrated that human modification of landscapes can actually enhance soil and water quality and maintain or increase levels of biodiversity, and that agro­ecological biodiversity as a result of landscape management by local communities may be an important means of in situ conservation. Taken together, these studies and critiques have questioned the strict separation between pristine nature and humans, and argued for recognition of the role of human history in the creation of landscapes. Conservation practitioners have experience addressing the social costs of conservation, through at least two main clusters of strategies – identified here by ICDPs (Integrated conservation and development projects) and CBNRM (Community­based natural resource management). Integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) developed in the 1980s in India from the work of conservation agencies in protected areas, and – while taking a range of forms – have generally linked support for protected area management with community development initiatives in surrounding areas. Non­governmental and international organizations, in particular the WWF and the IUCN, offered the Indian government their collaboration for the implementation of conservation projects, giving their financial and technical support. While one aim of community development activities has been to reduce human impacts on biodiversity, another important aim has been to provide a form of compensation for reduced access to resources inside relatively strict protected areas (Larson et al. 2003; Brown and
877 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives Wyckoff­Baird 1992). The term ICDP is no longer widely used and project approaches are changing; however, the experience of these projects remains relevant for ongoing efforts to link alternative livelihoods with protected areas management. As a means to address social costs, analysis of ICDPs indicates several limitations. One is that, in their association with relatively strict forms of protected area management, ICDPs have tended to pursue a strategy of compensating for social costs, rather than a strategy of preventing them. At the same time, a growing body of research has questioned the rationale, even in ecological terms, for displacements and restrictions on resource use (and the social costs they generate) in many places where they have been applied. Some critiques trace persistent images of “wilderness” through the history of conservation, and argue that resulting assumptions of a fundamental incompatibility of people and wildlife have driven actions to separate people from nature in particular places (Colchester 2004; Adams et al., 2004). Other critiques, deriving from practice, highlight problems of flawed or insufficient social analysis in project design (Seymour 2004). This includes the tendency within ICDPs to focus on local problems and solutions (Larson et al. 2003), as a local focus risks exaggerating impacts of local use activities on biodiversity, and obscuring broader drivers and external factors. An overall implication of these critiques is that, even where the intention of ICDPs has been to address negative social impacts, the approach does not necessarily challenge assumptions about the incompatibility of people and nature that give rise to them. Analysis of alternative livelihoods activities as a form of compensation reveals an additional set of limitations. One is that the link between benefits and costs has generally been vague; without concrete assessments of the nature and distribution of impacts of protected areas, compensation is less likely to be appropriate or directed to the most affected people. The sequencing of protection and development activities within ICDPs has also tended to be de­ linked. Because increased restrictions on access and use of natural resources can be put in place much more quickly than benefits from enterprise­based development activities, benefits often have not started to flow until long after costs have been incurred. Of course, where flows of benefits have been limited or not realized, the compensation aim has also not been achieved. Finally, while the intention of ICDPs has been to generate social benefits, the accountability of implementing organizations to communities for these benefits – linked to defined and articulated costs – has tended to be limited. Other critical issues of these approaches have been their tendency to simplify and homogenise local populations, resulting in an inability to address the livelihood needs of the poorest groups within communities; its failure to develop long­term income generation activities linked to conservation objectives; and an absence of linkages to rural development agencies and local governance structures. In India, a remarkable number of NGO begins in the 1990’s to enter into the process of “participative” conservation. The militants concerned with the defence of human rights that have entered into the conservation debate and its implications on local populations are numerous. The process of engagement of the these new actors has also been possible thanks to action groups, NGOs as Kalpavriksh, Ekta Parishad, Tharun Bharat Sangh and research centres such as CSE (Centre for Science and Environment), IIPA (Indian Institute of Public Administration) that contributed to widen the debate and the dialogue between the actors of civil society.
878 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives Forming a contrast to ICDPs is an alternative cluster of strategies – various forms of community­based natural resource management (CBNRM) ­ that take as a starting point the connectedness of people, especially indigenous and traditional peoples, with their lands and resources. Seen in relation to social impacts, these “place­based” conservation strategies tend to take an approach of preventing or avoiding negative impacts. While support for CBNRM strategies among conservationists also has a considerable history, interest and attention is increasing due to growing recognition of indigenous and traditional peoples as owners and managers of high­biodiversity areas, increased understanding of the role of humans in shaping ecologies and landscapes, shifts in conservation focus to larger scales and across broader landscapes, and lessons learned regarding the need to build local constituencies for conservation. CBNRM strategies recognize that not all human uses are ecologically sustainable, but seek to address sustainability through capacity building, support for protection against negative, external impacts, and support for key enabling conditions – such as secure tenure – for sound management. Nevertheless, community­based resources conservation is not always easy to achieve at local level: given differences based on gender, caste, class, and age within communities, critical and nuanced studies are clearly needed in order to address key questions of sustainability and equity: who participates in and benefits from these programmes and who does not. Detailed biological assessments are also required in order to determine the extent to which these alternative income generating activities have reduced local dependence on the park’s resources, and thus supported its management objectives. Inherent in the premise that local communities should be given a central role in reaching conservation objectives is the dilemma of defining and understanding "local community", "indigenous knowledge" and "traditional culture". The idea of a unified community is a social construction that is perhaps comforting to policy­makers and foreign donors, who base on it assumptions about local management of resources (Berkes et al., 2003). Advocacy for stronger legal rights and government recognition for community­based systems sometimes presents an idealized description of local communities (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005). They may be portrayed as custodial and non­materialistic in their attitudes to land and natural resources, when in fact local communities in the forests and at the forest margins are often anxious for development and increasingly affected by rapid marketization and modernization processes (Rigg, 1997). The idealized image is not only misleading, but defeats the purpose of constructive consensus building and frustrates those who view the empowerment of local communities as a precondition for successful biodiversity conservation. 3.1 Some suggestions and final considerations To date, social research in the context of conservation planning has focused overwhelmingly on analysing human impacts on biodiversity, especially those seen as having negative impacts. While efforts are underway, more work remains to ensure that strategies are grounded in concrete understandings of how human activities relate to specific conservation objectives (Agrawal and Redford 2006; Brockington et al. 2006), including with greater attention to the influence of broader policy and institutional factors. A much larger gap is integration of analysis to understand how conservation interventions impact local people (Geisler 2003). Within specific projects, lack of social impact analysis limits the ability of practitioners and affected people to define and develop appropriate
879 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives responses – such as alternative strategies or compensation measures – to ensure against negative impacts or promote positive ones. Consistent integration of social impact analysis as part of conservation planning is therefore a critical need. Impact analysis should be part of and, in turn, can strengthen and inform collaborative planning and decision­making processes with indigenous peoples and local communities. As conservation organizations develop more rigorous systems to measure the conservation impacts of projects over time, social impacts need also to be integrated in these. A second need is for clear institutional policies and positions regarding the social impacts of conservation. Institutional policies establish standards and provide guidance to field managers in ensuring social safeguards and contributing to positive social benefits from conservation. Relevant standards have been developed through a growing set of international instruments and in operational guidelines of development agencies. While principles and standards related to indigenous peoples have been a focus of attention in conservation policy, social impact issues also need to be addressed in relation to non­indigenous communities and require relevant policy and guidance. In addition, there is a need to periodically evaluate policy implementation and ensure that policies are effectively integrated in practice through awareness and capacity building, guidance on implementation in different local situations, monitoring and adequate financial support. Along with providing guidance for staff, policy communicates institutional values and commitments to others. This provides a basis for collaboration with others who share concerns for socially­equitable approaches to conservation and development. Policy also provides a clear statement to other potential partners regarding the terms on which the organization can engage in a partnership or activity, and the kinds of activities it cannot support. The issue of conservation partnerships is especially important because conservation interventions often take place in contexts where basic conditions to guard against negative impacts – such as protection of human and civil rights, channels to participate meaningfully in decision­making, and rights to land and resources – are not secured. Collaboration with indigenous and local communities and their organizations is essential in order to hear their concerns, understand their issues in relation to the potential negative and positive impacts of a conservation activity, identify common interests, and resolve conflicts or differences as they arise. In the context of specific partnerships with governments and other powerful actors, conservation organizations share responsibilities for ensuring that social costs and benefits are equitably addressed. At the same time, it is much more difficult to undertake socially­sound conservation work in the context of constraining policy and institutions. Expanded alliances with peoples’ organizations along with engagement with governments offer important opportunities to address broader policy issues that affect the linkages between biodiversity and social values. 4. References 1. Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliot, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B. & Woolmer W.: 2004: "Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty". Science, 3(6), pp1146­1149.
880 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives 2. Agrawal, A. and Redford, K. 2006. Poverty, development and biodiversity conservation shooting in the dark? Wildlife Conservation Society Working Paper No. 26, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY, USA. 3. Agrawal, A., Gibson, C., (2001). Introduction: The role of community in natural resource conservation. In Communities and the environment, ed. Agrawal, A. and C. C. Gibson. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. 4. Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. (2003). Navigating social–ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 5. Brockington, D. (2002). Fortress Conservation, The Preservation of Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. James Currey, London. 6. Brechin, S. R., Wilshusen, P. R., Fortwangler, C. L., West, P. C.. (2003). Contested Nature. Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty­first Century. Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press. 7. Brockington, D., Igoe, J.2006: "Eviction for conservation: a global overview". Conservation and Society, 4(3): pp 424­470. 8. Brown, M.; Wyckoff­Baird, B. (1992). Designing integrated conservation and development projects. Biodiversity Support Program, World Wildlife Fund; World Resources Institute; The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC, USA. 9. Carlsson, L., and F. Berkes. 2005: "Co­management: concepts and methodological implications". Journal of Environmental Management, 1(2): pp123­135. 10. Colchester, M., 2004: "Conservation policy and indigenous peoples". Environmental Science and Policy, 7(2): pp145­153. 11. Gadgil, M., Berkes, Folke C., (1998). Indigenous Knowledge for biodiversity conservation, Berkley: California Press. 12. Geisler, C. 2003: "A new kind of trouble: Evictions in Eden". International Social Science Journal, 5(5): pp 69–78. 13. Hulme, D. &Murphree, M. (2001) AfricanWildlife and Livelihoods: the Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. London, UK: James Currey. 14. Johnsingh, A.J.T. 2005: "Lessons from Uttaranchal". Frontline, 1(5):pp 65–71. 15. Kabra, A. 2003: "Displacement and rehabilitation of an Adivasi settlement: Case of Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh". Economic & Political Weekly, 38(29): pp 3073–3087 16. Karanth, K.U. (2006). A View from the Machan: How Science can Save the Fragile Predator. Permanent Black, Delhi.
881 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives 17. Kothari, A., 1999: "To Save the Sanctuaries". Frontline, 3(2): pp 145­157. 18. Kothari, A., (1997). Building Bridges for Conservation : Towards Joint Management of Protected Areas in India, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. 19. Krishna, A., Uphoff, N. (1999). Operationalising social capital: explaining and measuring mutually beneficial collective action in Rajasthan, India. Berkley: Cornell University. 20. Larson, M. A., M. R. Ryan, and R. K. Murphy. 2003: "Assessing recovery feasibility for Piping Plovers using optimization and simulation". Wildlife Society Bulletin, 3(1): pp 1105­1116. 21. Mehra, D., S. Ghate, R. Ghate, A. Chaturvedi, P.K. Garlapati, A. Bose, S. Hate and R. Humaane. 2004. Impact of Relocation on Forest­Dependent Communities: A Case of Protected Area of Vidarbha Region in Maharashtra State, India. SHODH, Nagpur, Working Paper 5–04. 22. Moscovici, S., (1974). Hommes domestiques, hommes sauvages, Unión Généralle d’Editions, Paris. 23. Naughton­Treves, L., Holland, M., Brandon, K. 2005: "The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods". Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 3(1): pp 219–252. 24. Neumann, R.P., (1998). Imposing Wilderness, Struggles Over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. University of California Press Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. 25. Rangarajan, M. Shahabuddin, G., 2006: "Displacement and relocation from protected areas:Towards a biological and historical synthesis". Conservation and Society, 4(2): pp 359–378. 26. Rangarajan, M., (2001). India’s Wildlife History. An Introduction. Permanent Black and Ranthambhore Foundation, Delhi. 27. Ravenel, R.M., Redford, K.H., 2005: "Understanding IUCN Protected Area categories". Natural Areas Journal, 2(5): pp 381­389. 28. Rigg, J., (1997). Southeast Asia ­ the human landscape of modernisation and development. London and New York, Routledge. 29. Schmidt­Soltau, K. 2003: "Conservation­related resettlement in Central Africa: environmental and social risks". Development and Change, 3(4): pp 525­551. 30. Seymour, M., 2004: "Partnerships to Support Sustainable Development and Conservation: the West­East Pipeline Project, China". Conservation Biology, 18 (3): pp 613–615.
882 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011 Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives 31. Shahabuddin, G. and R. Kumar. 2005. Linkages Between Human Use of Forests and Biodiversity Indicators in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Paper presented at seminar on ‘Making Conservation Work: Attempting Solutions to Biodiversity Loss in India. Council for Social Development, March 11–12. 32. Terborgh, J., C. van Schaik, L. Davenport and M. Rao. (2002). Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature. Island Press, USA.
883 Torri M.C. International Journal of Environmental Sciences Volume 1 No.5, 2011