Conservation: pride or prejudice? An analysis of the Protected Areas of India

142

Poverty, wealth and conservation

tives to be raised that would be much more diffi cult to state in an analytical report. We believe that these tran-scribed “voices” are a powerful means of conveying the challenges for PA co-management not only to the Nishorgo Program here, but to those working at addressing poverty and conservation issues around the world.

Philip J. DeCosse ([email protected] ) has been a member of IRG in Washington DC for 12 years (www.irgltd.com ) and is currently Team Leader of the Nishorgo Support Project (www.irgbd.com ) in Dhaka, Bangladesh. He is a member of the CEESP Theme on Governance, Equity and Rights and the CEESP/WCPA Theme on Indigenous and Local Communities, Equity and Protected Areas. Khawja Shamsul Huda ([email protected] and [email protected] ) is currently Local Governance & Capacity Building Specialist on the Nishorgo Support Project in Bangladesh.

Rupesh K. Bhomia and Daniel BrockingtonRupesh K. Bhomia and Daniel Brockington

Conservation: pride or prejudice? An analysis of the Conservation: pride or prejudice? An analysis of the Protected Areas of IndiaProtected Areas of India

As the protected area network ex-pands it becomes ever more important to examine the social ramifi cations of

its growth. Here we look at the social and political patterns visible in the distribution of protected areas in In-dia. Presently, more than 4.7% of the

Abstract. ‘Biodiversity Conservation’ is replete with confl icts and controversies, fl ooded with questions and questioned belief systems, and punctuated with prejudice and pain. This paper presents a study of the values behind the biodiversity conservation in India, which manifests itself widely through the national network of Protected Areas (PAs). We asked whether there was a bias towards setting up protected areas in particular regions such as hilly and tribal areas both for the current, and proposed protected area network. The results point towards a specifi c tendency in the establishment of PAs in tribal and hilly districts of India. This propen-sity will be more prominent if current the proposals are implemented and the complete net-work of PAs assumes full shape. Investigation of the infl uence of the state’s wealth in these decisions reveals a higher propensity of protection in the tribal and hill districts in wealthy states than in poorer states. It cannot be deduced statistically whether more protection is results from states’ wealth or vice versa as the detailed fi gures for each district’s wealth are unavailable. Nevertheless, this stresses the need to understand the intricate relationship between the social, political and ecological dimensions of the conservation practice in this densely populated country. If the IUCN target of 10% of the nation in protected areas is to be achieved with attention to justice, the implications of protected areas on marginalized people must be understood.

143

Policy that matters!Livelihoods and conservationLivelihoods and conservation— arguments shaping the debate arguments shaping the debateThe intertwined roots of poverty, wealth and environmental degradation

total Geographical Area of India is pro-tected for biodiversity conservation.1 It is guided by the National Wildlife Action Plan (1983) put forward by Rodgers and Panwar (1988, p23), which sought to —

[Establish] a network of scientifi cally managed protected areas … to cover representative and viable samples of all signifi cant biogeographic sub-divi-sions within the country.

However, it could not be convincingly explained that PAs have followed these criteria. As forests became National Parks, Sanctuaries and the celebrated Tiger-reserves, traditional tribal peoples and other residents who resided there lost the usufruct rights they had had for

centuries. Our prin-cipal concern here is to examine if there is any national bias towards establish-ing PAs in particular regions such as hilly and tribal areas. We do this in order to see if there is a tendency to establish protected areas in places where affected groups are more likely to be marginal

politically. Our broader purpose is to examine the extent to which conserva-tion policies may contribute to, or in-deed exacerbate inequalities and social injustice. Some background information on the origins of conservation practices is required fi rst.

The strategic, social and commercial importance of the Indian forests en-couraged the British to control these natural resources. The need to declare the assets of former Maharajas (rulers) as state property resulted into elabo-rate administrative mechanisms and the creation of the Indian Forest De-

partment (1864 AD), with over a fi fth of India’s land area under its control2 certainly formed an important part of this policy. The Forest Department pro-vided a unifi ed focus at national level for a major revolution in styles of land management,3 which marked a water-shed in the colonial history of India.

British forest policy regarding tribal land use and hilly areas furthered this hegemony.4 Tribal areas were curbed to enforce plough agriculture and control shifting cultivation. Hills were acquired to clear the forest for timber as well as to deny refuge to tribes and rebels.5 Hilly areas were also rich in good quali-ty timber, required for building sleepers for the railways that helped to expand internal markets, and to transport raw materials and troops. Thus the declara-tion and further categorisation into re-served or protected forests of the tribal and hilly areas such as ‘Central Prov-inces’ and the foothills of the Himalayas in Kumaun, Garhwal, Jaunsar could well be considered as an exemplar of a larger policy instrument at work6 that seems to have grown over time. This process of annexation of forests resulted into growth of the total area under the forest department while local people lost usufruct rights for resource utilization.

The accelerated harvesting of timber and the growth in population resulted in additional pressure on land, which caused clearing of vast tracts of hinter-land for cultivation. Very soon the reali-sation of the limits of nature’s ability to meet human needs gave birth to what Adams (2003) refers to as the ‘colo-nial conservationism’ and the terms ‘conservancy’ and ‘conservation’ began to be used for all practices that would increase tree cover.7

Wildlife preservation drew both on ancient practices by Indian princes

Our principal concern Our principal concern is to examine if there is to examine if there is any national bias is any national bias

towards establish-towards establish-ing PAs in particular ing PAs in particular regions such as hilly regions such as hilly and tribal areas …[a and tribal areas …[a fact that] may con-fact that] may con-

tribute to, or indeed ex-tribute to, or indeed ex-acerbate, inequalities acerbate, inequalities

and social injusticeand social injustice

144


(hunting, princely hunting reserves and species introductions - of African lions)8 and on policies developing in Africa, where the philosophy of ‘Conserving Eden’ had taken shape in the form of Game reserves governed by game laws enforced via specifi c game depart-ments.9 The Indian Forest Act of 1927 included provisions for hunting restric-tions in ‘Reserved’ or ‘Protected’ forests and authorised the establishment of sanctuaries.10 Subsequently India saw her fi rst National Parks Act in 193411 and the designation of the Hailey (now Corbett) National Park in 1936. By

1950s wildlife man-agement became a part of fi ve year planning of the In-dian state and the central government created the Indian Board for Wildlife (IBWL) in 1952, largely with mem-bers of that ancien regime of hunting, who were searching

for a new role in public life.12

The Forest Department in the post-in-dependent era assumed even greater importance. The obligation on the government to sustain these forests to maintain revenue for the state and preserve the diverse fl ora-fauna and many tribes that inhabits these for-ests has always been immense, which escalated with increasing population and as new international commitments for Biodiversity conservation came to force. Ironic though it may sound for the world’s largest democracy, which had a long history of colonial domina-tion, but the present scenario as Ran-garajan (2000: xiv) describes, is far from satisfactory and points towards the skewed power relations that domi-nates resource sharing:

…[the] legacy of the control system did not vanish, and despite major changes in attitudes, it remain with us, often in glaring contrast with the values of democracy.

There is much potential for conserva-tion to cause problems to the liveli-hoods of marginalized rural peoples in India. Out of 300 million people living below the poverty line in India, ap-proximately 200 million have some de-pendence on forest resources for their livelihoods and among these are the 70 million tribal people.13 A study con-ducted by the Indian Institute of Public Administration way long in 1989 found that 69% of the surveyed PAs had hu-man population residing inside them. While, however, we have individual case studies of the impact of conserva-tion on marginal peoples,14 we do not yet have systematic studies. This paper offers a preliminary step to meeting that gap.

Methodology The building blocks of our analysis are administrative and bio-geographic land divisions, and demographic classifi ca-tions. Each requires some explanation.

Administratively, India is divided into 30 states and 6 union territories, which are further divided into 593 districts. Another classifi cation based on topog-raphy, climate, latitude, altitude, and soil properties divides India into seven physiographic zones, which forms the basis of the forest survey in India. Biogeographically India is classifi ed into 10 bio-geographic zones and 26 biotic provinces, on the basis of the distinc-tive physical and historical conditions. This classifi cation being suffi ciently ro-bust within the ‘distinctive hierarchy’ of units forms the basis of the conserva-tion planning at national and intra state levels in India.15

A study conducted A study conducted by the Indian In-by the Indian In-

stitute of Public stitute of Public Administration in Administration in

1989 found that 1989 found that 69% of the surveyed 69% of the surveyed

PAs had human PAs had human population residing population residing

inside them.inside them.

145


India is home to 16.7 per cent of the world population packed in 2.4 per cent of the world surface area of 135.79 million km2 at a high density of 324 persons per km2.16 8.91 % of the total Indian population consists of scheduled tribes,17 which in India are generally considered to be ‘Adivasis’, literally meaning ‘indigenous people’ or ‘original inhabitants’. According to the Indian Law, the constitution incorporates the recognition of tribal people through the notion of ‘Scheduled Tribes’. Under article 342 of constitution of India, the President of India, subject to review and modifi cation by Parliament, may designate any tribe or tribal community or group within any tribe or tribal community as Scheduled Tribe.18

The term ‘Scheduled Tribes’ is an ad-ministrative term used for purposes of ‘administering’ certain specifi c con-stitutional privileges, protection and benefi ts for specifi c sections of peoples considered historically disadvantaged and ‘backward’. However, this admin-istrative term does not exactly incor-porate all the ‘Adivasis’. Out of the 5653 distinct communities in India, 635 are considered to be ‘tribes’ or ‘Adivasis’.19 For practical purposes, the United Nations and multilateral agen-cies generally consider the Scheduled Tribes as ‘indigenous peoples’. With ST population making up 8.2% of the total population, India qualifi es as the nation with the highest concentration of ‘in-digenous peoples’ in the world.

The present study looks into those dis-tricts that have been classifi ed as tribal districts under the tribal sub-plan of 1974. There are currently a total of 189 tribal districts all over the country. The total geographical area of these tribal districts is 1,103, 463 km2, which forms 33.56% of total Geographic Area of the country.

The story of hilly areas is also simi-lar. Hill people faced same plights and hardships as most of the tribal commu-nities when the forests were leased to contractors for logging and the age-old source of livelihood was lost. In his monograph, ‘Unquiet Woods’, Guha (1989) presents an illustrative example of the hardships borne by the inhabit-ants of Garhwal Himalayas. Many in-stances of landslides and fl ash fl oods raised havoc in the life of people resid-ing in denuded valleys, which were once clad with trees. These natural disasters acted as an eye opener for the government and in the National For-est Policy (1988) provisions were made to increase the forest cover in hills to at least two third of the area. This seemed necessary to check land degradation and prevent soil erosion to ensure maintenance of ecological bal-ance and stabil-ity. Therefore the Forest Survey of India began assessing forest cover in the hill districts of the country from 1997.

To qualify for a hill district 50 percent of the geographic area of a district should fall in hill talukas (a division of districts). There are a total of 124 hill districts all over the country. The total geographical area of these hill districts is 707,747 km2, which forms 21.52% of total geographic area of the country.

Hill people faced Hill people faced same plights and same plights and hardships as most of hardships as most of the tribal communi-the tribal communi-ties when the forests ties when the forests were leased to con-were leased to con-tractors for logging tractors for logging and the age-old and the age-old source of livelihood source of livelihood was lost. … Many was lost. … Many instances of land-instances of land-slides and flash slides and flash floods raised havoc floods raised havoc in the life of people in the life of people residing in denuded residing in denuded valleys, which were valleys, which were once clad with trees.once clad with trees.

146


To explore patterns in protected area establishment we required information on the number, size, location (district) and the category of all the existing and the proposed PAs in the country was collected and their distribution in differ-ent bio-geographic zones and provinces was sought. Finally, the information on every district’s status was collected to determine whether they fall in the tribal and/or hill district category.20

The Wildlife Institute of India (WII) provided the data on the distribution of the existing and proposed PAs in differ-ent administrative districts as well as the bio-geographic provinces.21 In case of proposed PAs, only the assigned bio-geographic province was provided whereas the district location was not available. The status of districts as tribal or non-tribal was collected from the state of the forestry report pub-lished in 2001 by the Forest Survey of India. The forest survey, executed at district level, provides information on the forest cover of the country detailing tribal and hill districts. The geographi-

cal area of each district was provided by the census of India website.22

The data thus gleaned had to be woven into a single fabric. We fi rst calculated the proportion of districts under pro-tection. Where a PA was found in more than one district we divided it equally between its districts. The allotment of districts to specifi c bio-geographic provinces was trickier. Since both sys-tem of classifi cation runs independ-ently, it was diffi cult to combine them. This problem was solved with the help of the information and maps provided by WII and the Census of India web-sites. The state level bio-geographic maps and the state administrative maps with district boundaries were compared manually. Where more that 50% of the district area appeared to be falling in one bio-geographic prov-ince then it was assigned that province. Thus in the example below, Naguar was allocated to bio-geographic region 3A and Jhunjhunu to 4B.

Figure 1. Maps showing two types of classifi cation. The map on the left shows bio-geo-graphic classifi cation while the one on the right shows administrative setup.

The proportion of area protected in each district varies immensely, mak-ing parametric statistics inappropriate.

Therefore all the districts were ranked into four categories as shown in the Table 1 given below:

147


Proportion of Protection Category Graph Label

Denotifi cation of Area -1 Series 4

0% 0 Series 1

Less than equal to 5% 1 Series 2

More than 5% 2 Series 3

Table 1. The categories used for the analysis of districts data.

To explore the relationship between the conservation and the economic status of various states we adopted a simple binary wealth classifi cation. States, which have less Per Capita Net State Domestic Product than Per Capita Net National product, are categorised as Poor, otherwise Rich. This data was furnished by Central Statistical Organi-sation (see their website)23. The Direc-torate of Economics and Statistics of respective states provided data for Per Capita Net State Domestic Product.

Results: existing Protected Area networkAt a national level there are more tribal

and hilly districts with greater levels of protection than non-tribal and non-hilly districts respectively (Fig 2 and 3). These differences are statistically signifi cant (tables 2 and 3). The aver-age size of protected areas is greater in tribal and hilly districts (Figure 4 and 5), although only the latter difference is statistically signifi cant (t = 2.61, df = 591, p = 0.009). We could not however identify any pattern in the distribution of protected areas at the state level, or within bio-geographic zones. The gen-eral national trend is not replicated at smaller scales.

Table 2. Cross-tabulation and Chi-Square Tests for Tribal districts.

Category Total

0 (No change) 1 (Less than 5%) 2 (More than 5%)

Tribal 70 56 63 189

Non Tribal 207 107 90 404

Total 277 163 153 593

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 12.122(a) 2 .002

Table 3. Cross-tabulation and Chi-Square Tests for Hill districts.

Category Total

0 (No change) 1 (Less than 5%) 2 (More than 5%)

Hill 45 29 50 124

Non-Hill 232 134 103 469

Total 277 163 153 593



148


Results: rich and poor districtsCross-tabulation with tribal and non- tribal districts with three categories and the economic status of states showed some interesting results and differing patterns between rich and poor dis-tricts (Table 4). The crucial difference

is this. There are divergent trends in tribal and non-tribal districts from the wealthy states. Higher number of tribal districts from wealthy provinces have proportionally more PAs but non-tribal districts from the same states has fewer PAs.

Figure 2. Number of Tribal & Non-Tribal districts in different categories.

Figure 3. Number of Hill and Non-Hill districts in different categories.

Figure 4. Average size of existing Protected Ar-eas in Tribal and non-tribal districts.

Figure 5. Average size of existing Protected Areas in Hill and non-hill districts.

Econ. Status of statesCategory total Total

0 (No change) 1 (< 5%) 2 (> 5%)

Poor

Tribal 58 42 42 142

Non Tribal 128 62 60 250

Total 186 104 102 392

Rich

Tribal 12 14 21 47

Non Tribal 79 45 30 154

Total 91 59 51 201

Value Df Asymp. Sig.

Poor Pearson Chi-Square 3.908(a) 2 .142

Rich Pearson Chi-Square 14.298(b) 2 .001

Table 4. Cross tabulations & Chi-Square tests for Rich & Poor Tribal districts.

149


This is clearly visible in the table which shows, in rich states, that increasing numbers (12-21) of tribal districts in rich states protecting greater propor-tions of land, but decreasing numbers (79-30) of non tribal districts as pro-portions of protected land increases. This pattern is not found in poor dis-tricts.

The same pattern is found in hill dis-tricts Table 5. As earlier, hill districts from wealthy provinces have propor-tionally more PAs but this is not the case for non-hill districts form the same states, which have fewer PAs.

Hill and Non-Hill * Category total * Economic Status* Poor & Rich States

Economic Status of StatesCategory total Total

0 (No change) 1 (< 5%) 2 (> 5%)

Poor

Hill 36 18 30 84

Non-Hill 150 86 72 308

Total 186 104 102 392

Rich

Hill 9 11 20 40

Non-Hill 82 48 31 161

Total 91 59 51 201

Value df Asymp. Sig.



Table 5. Cross tabulations & Chi-Square tests for Rich & Poor Hill districts.

Proposed modifi cations to the Protected Area networkThere are currently proposals to modify the protected area network which would see some expansion, as well as some denotifi cation.24 We repeated this analysis incorporat-ing these modifi cations to explore what would happen to the current biases we have found in the existing network. Briefl y, the results suggest the pattern will be continued, if not intensifi ed.

The bias towards gazetting protected areas in tribal and hilly districts re-mains (Figures 6 and 7; Tables 6 and 7). The mean size of protected areas

is greater in tribal and hilly districts, as before, except that the difference is now statistically signifi cant in both cases (Figures 8 and 9; Table 8).

Similarly the divergent trend of tribal and hilly districts in wealthy states from their non-tribal and non-hilly counterparts continues. The continue more frequently to contain higher proportions of protected area terri-tory than non-tribal and non-hilly dis-tricts continues However under the proposed changes this pattern is now also apparent in poor states as well. (Table 9 and 10).

150


Figure 6. Number of Tribal and Non-Tribal districts in different categories after proposed changes.

Figure 7. Number of Hill and Non-Hill districts in different categories as proposed.

Category Total

-1 (Denotifi ca-tion)

0 (No change)

1(Less than 5%)

2(More than5%)

Tribal 2 95 63 29 189

Non Tribal

3 319 62 20 404

Total 5 414 125 49 593



Table 6. Cross tabulation and Chi-Square Tests for tribal districts after proposed changes.

Category Total

-1 (Denotifi cation)

0 (No change)

1 (Less than 5%)

2 (More than 5%)

Hill 3 57 39 25 124

Non-Hill 2 357 86 24 469

Total 5 414 125 49 593



Table 7. Cross tabulation and Chi-Square Tests for hill districts after proposed changes.

151


Figure 8. Average size of proposed Protected Areas in Tribal and non-tribal districts.

Figure 9. Average size of proposed Protected Areas in Hill and non-hill districts.

District N Mean Df Students T Signifi cance

Tribal 189 121.534591 2.926 0.004

Non-Tribal 404 18.950

Hilly 124 146.317

591 2.980 0.003Non-hilly 469 26.615

Table 8. Statistical tests on mean size of protected areas.

Table 9. Cross tabulations and Chi-Square tests for Rich and Poor Tribal districts.

Economic Status of States

Category total Total

-1(Denotifi cation)

0 (No change)

1 (Less than 5 %)

2(More than 5%)

Poor

Tribal 1 70 50 21 142

Non Tribal 0 202 38 10 250

Total 1 272 88 31 392

Rich

Tribal 1 25 13 8 47

Non Tribal 3 117 24 10 154

Total 4 142 37 18 201


Value dfAsymp.

Sig. (2-sided)



152


DiscussionThe analysis of the present and pro-posed network of protected areas in India brings to light some interesting results. There is a clear national level trend to gazetting more protected areas in tribal and hilly districts, and gazetting larger protected areas here. Yet, this pattern cannot be identifi ed at the sub-national scale, in any individual state of bio-geographic province. It is therefore diffi cult, on the basis of this fi nding to suggest any ways forward to examine the politics of protected area establishment. These are dominated by state level machinations, but if no state level effect is visible, nothing can be recommended.

More productive conclusions are pos-sible from the analysis based on wealth differences. We had not expected the pattern described above. Currently in wealthy states tribal and hilly districts behave in opposite ways from their non-tribal and non-hilly counterparts, gazetting a greater proportion of their land in protected areas. That pattern intensifi es under the proposed changes with similar patterns becoming visible

in poor states.

Given the somewhat rough and ready categorisations that have underpinned this analysis we would not want to venture too much interpretation. Much more sophisticated analyses could be possible based on ordinal or interval data on wealth, or different indices of the same. The fi rst step of any subse-quent research would be to attempt to duplicate this pattern using more sensi-tive measures.

But we can also speculate as to the processes involved. Protected Area establishment here could be a con-sequence of the wealth of the states involved, refl ecting their ability to act, else they could be a cause of that same wealth, providing revenue generation.25 Alternatively the pattern may be fortui-tous. What is needed here, if the pat-tern is robust, are careful analyses of the state-level politics of protected area establishment to determine whether it is the cause or consequence, or neither, of state level wealth. Whatever causal relationships are established within hilly and tribal districts, we must also


Category total Total

-1(Denotifi cation)

0 (No change)

1 (Less than 5 %)

2 (More than 5%)

Poor

Hill 1 40 26 17 84

Non-Hill 0 232 62 14 308

Total 1 272 88 31 392

Rich

Hill 2 17 13 8 40

Non-Hill 2 125 24 10 161

Total 4 142 37 18 201





Table 10. Cross tabulations and Chi-Square tests for Rich and Poor Hill districts.

153


explain why they seem so clearly not to work in non-tribal and non-hilly dis-tricts

It is important to recall here that these districts are a part of a generally wealthy state but may not be wealthy themselves. It cannot be said with certainty that these patterns refl ect the consequence of wealth within each dis-trict. Indeed they may be the result of relative poverty within a wealthy state.

ConclusionsThis research is preliminary and some-what theoretical but does suggest three clear conclusions with evident policy implications. The fi rst, substantively, is the importance of understanding the politics of protected area gazettement in tribal and hilly areas. The last For-est Survey of India report (2001, p17) recorded that 59.8 percent of the total forest-cover of the country lies in the 187 tribal districts26 whereas the geo-graphic area of these tribal districts forms only 33.6 percent of the total geographic area of the country. The survey argued that this was important for two reasons:

“Firstly, it refutes the common pro-development argument that tribal people are primarily responsible for forest degradation through its exploitation in a non-scientifi c and unplanned manner.

Secondly, it provides strength to the idea that since two thirds of the remaining forests lie in tribal areas there might be some vested inter-ests from different quarters of the society vying to control the access of these areas in the name of biological conservation.”

A shift towards the involvement of local communities in the wildlife conserva-

tion is underway in India. Inclusion of two new categories of protected areas, Community Reserve and Conservation Reserve, in the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, (2002) confi rms the growing signifi cance of local people in the issues of conservation and natural resources management. Interestingly, a draft bill, The Scheduled Tribes (Rec-ognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2005, has been prepared and ready to be debated in the parliament. This bill reaches out to the tribal communities and seeks to make them active protec-tors of the forest, while strengthen-ing their livelihood possibilities. This qualifi es for an unforeseen bold step in the recog-nition of the rights of tribal people in India.

In the light of present analysis one could eas-ily imagine the enhanced role of tribal and hill peo-ple in near future. This could reduce confl ict in the long run. Rajaji National Park is the most recent example of a violent struggle when it was upgraded to NP status.

The second conclusion is a corollary of the fi rst. Why is protected area es-tablishment outside tribal districts so hard? Given that all bio-geographic zones need to be well represented perhaps the real challenge to conserva-tion in India is how to conserve nature beyond the tribal and hilly areas.

Finally, perhaps the main value of this paper is in its methodological contribu-tion. We believe that this work shows

…perhaps the main …perhaps the main value of this paper value of this paper is in its methodo-is in its methodo-logical contribution. logical contribution. We believe that this We believe that this work shows that work shows that systematic analy-systematic analy-ses of protected area ses of protected area networks can gen-networks can gen-erate interesting erate interesting hypotheses and in-hypotheses and in-sights into protected sights into protected area politicsarea politics

154


that systematic analyses of protected area networks can generate interesting hypotheses and insights into protected area politics (Upton and Adams, 2004, lead the way here). In addition to ana-lysing the fi t of protected areas with biodiversity and centres of endemism it is important to be alert to potential inequalities arising from their politi-cal allocation to land which is home to marginal groups. The availability of increasingly powerful databases of pro-tected areas makes new forms of anal-ysis possible that offer generalisable conclusions about the relationships of protected area establishment to pover-ty alleviation. Our ability to understand the relationships between conservation and poverty could well be enhanced by this approach.

Notes1 NWD, WII, 2004.

2 Guha, 2000.

3 Rangarajan, 1996.

4 Plumwood, 2003.

5 Rangarajan, 1996.

6 Rangarajan, 1996.

7 Rangarajan, 2001.

8 Rangarajan 2001.

9 MacKenzie, 1988.

10 MacKenzie, 1988.

11 SPFE, 1934.

12 Saberwal, Rangarajan and Kothari, 2000.

13 Sawheny and Engel, 2002.

14 E.g. Ganguly 2004.

15 Rodgers and Panwar, 1988.

16 Census of India, 2001.

17 Census of India, 2001.

18 Divan and Rosencranz, 2001.

19 Bijoy, 2002.

20 as per the FSI, 2001 report.

21 Rodgers, Panwar and Mathur, 2000.

22 http://www.censusindia.net

23 http://indiaimage.nic.in/

24 Rodgers, Panwar and Mathur, 2000.

25 Upton and Adams, 2004.

26 Districts identifi ed as tribal districts under Tribal Sub-Plan, 1974-75 (Government of India). Total Number of Districts in India: 593.

ReferencesAdams, W.M., “Nature and the colonial mind” in Ad-

ams and Mulligan, 2003 op cit.

Adams, W.M., and M. Mulligan, Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-colonial Era, Earthscan, London, 2003.

Bijoy, C.R. The Adivasis of India: A History of Discrimi-nation, Confl ict, and Resistance People’s Union for Civil Liberties Bulletin. New Delhi, http://www.pucl.org/index.htm, 2002.

Census of India, Provisional Population Totals, Chapter 5, Series 1, Paper 1 India, 2001.

Divan, S. and A. Rosencranz, Environment Law and Policy in India: Cases, Materials and Statutes, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2001.

Ganguly, V., Conservation, Displacement and Depriva-tion. Maldhari of Gir Forest of Gujarat, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi, 2004.

Guha, R., Environmentalism: A global history, Long-man, London, 2000.

Plumwood, V., “Decolonizing relationships with na-ture.” in Adams and Mullligan, 2003 op cit.

Rangarajan, M., Fencing the Forest. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), 1996.

Rangarajan, M. India’s Wildlife History, Permanent Black, New Delhi, 2001.

Rodgers, W.A. and H. Panwar, Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in India, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun 1988.

Rodgers, W.A., Panwar, H., and V.B. Mathur, Wildlife protected area network in India: A review, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun (Uttaranchal), 2000.

Saberwal, V., Rangarajan, M., and A., Kothari, People, Parks and Wildlife: Towards Coexistence, Orient Longman Limited, New Delhi, 2000

Sawhney, P and S. Engel, Forest resource use by people in Protected Areas and its implications for biodiversity conservation: The case of Banhavgarh National Park in India. Stability of Rain Forest Mar-gins (STROMA) Conference, Bogor, Indonesia, 2002.

SPFE National Parks Act of India, Journal of the So-ciety for Preservation of Fauna in the Empire, 21, 55-59, 1934.

Upton, C. and W.M., Adams, Conservation and Poverty at National and International Scales, Report to the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, IDPM, Manchester, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, 2004.

Rupesh K. Bhomia (rbhomia@wwfi ndia.net) is Project Offi cer, Protected Areas Program at WWF-India Secretariat, New Delhi. Daniel Brockington ([email protected]) is a Lecturer at the Institute for Develop-ment Policy and Management at the University of Manches-ter, (UK) and member of the CEESP Theme on Governance, Equity and Rights (TGER).

Conservation: pride or prejudice? An analysis of the Protected Areas of India

Documents

Transcript of Conservation: pride or prejudice? An analysis of the Protected Areas of India