M-23 Uttar Pradesh - Kalpavrikshkalpavriksh.org/images/CCA/Directory/M-23 Uttar Pradesh.pdf ·...

Uttar Pradesh

681

state

chap

ter - u

ttar p

rad

esh

Uttar Pradesh - community conservation in the Gangetic plains

Afifullah Khan and Faiza Abbasi

1. BackgroundUttar Pradesh has a total geographical area of about 243,291 sq km (7 per cent of the total

area of the country), supporting a total population of 166 million (about 16 per cent of India’s population).1 A little over 80 per cent of the population is Hindu, about 18 per cent Muslim, while other religions (Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism) account for very small minorities.2

Some 21 per cent of the total population belongs to scheduled castes. In 1996–97, 42.3 per cent of the rural population was estimated to be below poverty line (BPL), and in 1993- 94, 35.4 per cent of the urban population was BPL.3 A vast majority of the population depends on biomass based subsistence economy.4

The state’s geography is dominated by two of India’s mightiest rivers. From the Himalayan foothills, the Ganga and Yamuna flow parallel to each other for about 500 km, at a distance of about 80-120 km from each other. This region is called Doab and narrows beyond Etawah till these rivers join in Allahabad. There are two distinct areas in the Doab: the khader or the river basin and the bangar or inter-fluvial lowlands plateau that lies 5-10 km above khader and is bordered by bhur (the sandy embankment). Between the bangar and the bhur is the clearance or the bankati area, which was first used in the 19th century for cultivation. A 20-30 km-wide protracted basin extends along the Doab from Muzaffarnagar beyond Etah and Mainpuri. In the course of thousands of years of agricultural activity in the Doab, highly refined farming and irrigation methods have developed that are appropriate to this region.5

2. A history of community and conventional conservation The roots of civilization in Uttar Pradesh, known as the United Province in the British era, are as old as the Indian subcontinent. The tradition of nature conservation, an ancient practice in India, has also been observed in this most highly populated state in the North Indian plains.

Historically, Uttar Pradesh may be said to have passed through four major stages of the relationship of communities to nature: the hunter-gatherer stage, the agricultural stage, conservation under the monarchies, and the colonial stage.

Until the early decades of the 20th century, many communities depended on hunting and gathering for livelihood. The abundant rainfall and rich vegetation of their habitats facilitated the reproduction

of subsistence almost exclusively through the collection of roots and fruits and the hunting of small game. From about 1200 to 600 BC the Gangetic plains were

colonised by the dominant agricultural pastoral people of the so-called Aryan culture. With the introduction of iron tools in the 6th century BC, agriculture reached a level of development not to be significantly exceeded until the 19th century,6 when irrigation works began to be constructed on a large scale.

Government intervention in the management of natural resources was the most significant event in the history of conservation in India. By 1900 over 20 percent of India’s land area had been taken over by the forest department (FD). State reservation of forests by the colonial government in the mid-19th century sharply affected the subsistence activities of hunter-gatherer communities. As a result, these groups were forced to abandon their traditional occupations and to eke out a precarious living by accepting a subordinate role in the dominant system of agricultural production. The study of colonial forest policies has brought to the fore two contradictory notions of resource use: on the one hand, communal control

over forests is paired with subsistence use, and on the other, state control is paired with commercial exploitation.

682 Community Conserved Areas in India - a directory

2.1. Traditional practices of resource managementCommunities involved in conservation of natural resources possessed a variety of practices

apparently leading to sustainable use of a wide range of biological resources and conservation of biological diversity as a whole. These practices include total protection of certain biological communities or species; protection of certain life-history stages or during certain seasons; restrictions on methods and amounts of harvest and on certain social, age or sex groups from harvesting certain species; and restriction of access to certain localities to certain groups or individuals. Whenever these decisions appear to be taken and enforced by the group as a whole, it suggests that what is being ensured is long-term group interest in resource conservation, which may be against the short-term interest of individual users. The reasons for such decisions may be the influence of a variety of factors in UP; some of these are religious associations, social structure by the caste system, regulations by a ruling monarchy and colonial efforts.7

2.1.1. Religious associations

The first traces of community conservation of resources are found in the religious, philosophical and artistic involvement of flora and fauna. The Vedas, Puranas and epics acknowledge the sacredness of forests and various animals. Generations of communities grew up taking lessons from the Hitopadeshas, Jatakas, Panchatantra and many other fables that assert the great qualities of animals.8 Religious associations of certain species of plants and animals or compassion for another living being also contribute in the formulation of conventional methods of ecosystem management in the area. There were no individual property rights that existed in UP before the British invasion. Religion was law, and various protective mechanisms such as gauchar (pasture), abhyaranya (sanctuary) and aranya (dense forest) were revered due to their religious association in scriptures, epics and folklore. For example, the peepal tree is worshiped; sarus cranes are not killed because they signify prosperity; killing of Gangetic river dolphins is considered as a bad omen by some fisherfolk; leaves of wood apple are a part of every puja; leaves of ashoka are used in religious ceremonies; monkeys and elephants are never killed because they are incarnations of gods; the house swift has a sacred mention in the holy Koran and hence Muslims protect its nest and never shoot one.

The Vamana Purana has established the connection of plants to various Hindu gods—e.g., the lotus is a symbol of Vishnu, wood apple symbolises Goddess Laxmi, khair is a sign for Lord Brahma and dhatura is the fruit of Mahesh. Various plants have also been attributed divine powers in mythology.9 Ber and mahua are considered harbingers of fertility, kush is supposed to be the abode of all gods, and turmeric is supposed to be the favorite of all gods.

In Padma Puranam the Srishti Kand had mentioned rgw gains of sowing and planting some species: peepal for acquiring wealth and getting rid of illness, ashoka for removal of misery, and pomegranate for getting a life-partner of choice. Neem has a lot of significance, besides being a measure for appeasing the Sun God. Ayurveda, which is the oldest system of curative medicine, depends on the extraction of medicines solely from plant parts. A herb of sweet basil is considered incomparable for the volume of goodness it brings to the household, as it is the abode of all dieties. Trees are also related to the various fasts that exist in the Hindu religion. They hold relevance in the fields of astronomy and astrology too.

2.1.2. Caste system

The age-old caste system, which was an unofficial rule for every village society, held innate rules for the effective management of resources. Some resources were commonly used and controlled by small multi-caste village communities, in which different caste groups are linked to each other in a web of reciprocity. This type of communal management favours sustainable use of common property resources, and it lasted till the colonial invasion when communally managed resource

were converted into open access resources.

Caste society, which emerged at the conclusion of the wave of agricultural colonisation around 500 AD, was made up of tens of thousands of endogamous groups, each with its own, often highly specialized, hereditary mode of subsistence. Caste society differs from other hierarchical societies

in being segmented and made up of discrete sub-groups. Each sub-group that belongs to this type of caste society is relatively homogenous, with all its members traditionally pursuing a well-defined, similar mode of subsistence and having very similar level of access to resources.

Uttar Pradesh 683 sta

te ch

ap

ter - u

ttar p

rad

esh

From an ecological perspective, social organization may be viewed in terms of distribution of access to resources. Caste society’s sympatric endogamous groups had so partitioned the use of specialized biological resources that a particular resource tended to be monopolised by a particular endogamous group in a given region. This diversified the ecological niches of the different coexisting endogamous groups. For example, the Chamars draw their livelihood from dead animal carcasses and hides; the Karmis are artisans involved in woodcraft but they do not collect wood from the forest—instead, they buy it from the Lakadhara or woodcutter community, who derive it from the forest with sufficient concern for the regeneration capacity of the tree and other rules such as not cutting trees with nesting birds; clean drinking water is controlled by the Bhishtis; the Quereishi caste is responsible for lawfully slaughtering meat and selling it amongst Muslims; and so on.

The diversification of resource use promoted sustainability in two ways — by restricting access to many specialized resources of any given locality to members of just one endogamous group and by linking together members of different endogamous group in a network of reciprocal exchanges and mutual obligations. Since each group adheres to a particular mode of subsistence, competition between them is little. Rather they are linked together and become interdependent. This system presents interesting parallels with the way resource partitioning takes place in ecological (plant and animal) communities.10

2.1.3. Regulations by monarchs

Emperor Ashoka had promulgated game laws in the 3rd century BC, which accorded protection to various species of animals. Under the Buddhist faith, some animals were considered as incarnations of the Bodhisattvas and were never killed.

The freshwater turtle (indeterminate species) and the wild pig were respectively called kacchap avatar and waraha avatar. The Gangetic river dolphin was also revered and protected under the game laws of Ashoka. Under the influence of those laws, some fishermen on the banks of the river Ganga still believe that for killing a dolphin their family will have to pay by the death of a family member.

The Gangetic river dolphin also finds a mention in the Baburnama (the autobiography of Babur, the first Mughal emperor in India). Modern Indian scientists consider the section of the Baburnama which deals with India to be the first illustrated natural history account of the country. Babur also describes the presence of the lesser florican and Himalayan monal near Agra.11

Babur’s greatest contribution was his introduction of terraced gardens. Bagh-gul-I-afshan, later known as Arambagh and now called Rambagh in Agra, is one of the many gardens he laid out. Many East India Company gardens were in fact founded on the sites of old Mughal gardens. The garden at Saharanpur, revivified by the Marquis of Hastings and J. Forbes–Royal was an early example.12 These gardens provided a reserve where plant biodiversity and various avian species were maintained.

Wild flora and fauna were considered as natural resources and although hunting for game was in fashion, it was quite regulated and probably rarely exercised to the extent of bringing the population of any wild species to the brink of extinction.13 During the reign of Jehangir, who ruled his empire from his capital Agra in Western UP, forests were maintained as game conservancies. Sporadic and unauthorized hunting was strictly prohibited. He maintained a hunting department, which made a list of all the animals killed by hunting. This list was produced in front of him whenever he left the city and re-entered. It was so detailed that it also mentioned the number of heads of wild cats, quadrupeds, wild fowl and other birds. While the emperor himself was on a hunting expedition, only his personal servants and the experts genuinely required by him were involved. No one else was allowed to remain in order that trampling horses should not trample the grain in the fields. Delimited by natural boundaries, hunting grounds called shikargah (game conservancy) were specified by the king. Any type of hunting was allowed only within these grounds.

Jehangir also announced a period of hunting, which lasted for several months. During this period, records of all animals killed were made, and beyond this duration no hunting was allowed all over the Mughal empire.

2.1.4. Community conservation of wild species

Keystone species such as ficus trees may receive total protection over a wide area and may serve to support a whole range of insects, birds, primates and other organisms. Similarly, there are many incidents of a single species accorded special protection by a community. For example, the ahir community near the village Etawah in western UP has a sentimental association with the sarus


crane population in the area. Under this they conserve the bird and take offence if any attempt is made to harm them. This protection lies deep in the traditions respected by this community.14

In the Mughal capital town of Agra, the most commonly seen animal was once India’s largest antelope, the nilgai or blue bull. It is neither blue nor bovine, as its name erroneously suggests, but it is an antelope of larger size. In the 17th century AD, the Mughal emperor Jehangir, who had a keen interest in natural history, changed its name from nilghod (blue horse) to nilgai (blue bull) on account of its declining population, since it was the favourite target of game hunters. Since then, the Hindus, who worship the cow as a mother, began giving protection to the blue bull. Shrinking habitat made this antelope ransack the crop fields and gazetteers reported a century later, ‘The blue bull has hitherto enjoyed immunity on account of its name but the villagers have now realized its capacity for destruction and they do not object to its being killed by shikaris.’15 However, despite having licences many farmers would still not kill the blue bull themselves.

Other traditional restrictions included a restriction of seasons during which certain forms of harvests could be made as well as the quantities to be harvested. The trade in edible fish undergoes a period of rest every year for a duration of about four months. During this period people neither eat fish nor is fish caught or sold. This is because the duration between the months of May and August is supposed to be the breeding season of the ichthyofauna (species of fish) in fresh water. While harvesting the fruits of sacred groves such as bagichas and akharas belonging to temple trusts, it is customary to leave some fruits for the monkeys and birds. The Bahelia caste, which is involved in trapping and netting of birds and their trade, do not practice their occupation during the breeding season of the species they catch.

2.1.5. Land use practices by pastoralists

Many traditional land use systems include not only those areas inhabited by them at all times but also other sites that are used intermittently. For example, the Gujjars, an indigenous pastoral community, are seasonal migrants and use certain areas periodically at different times of the year. The systematic non-damaging land use practiced by intermittent users such as pastoralists16 following traditional practices have their innate advantages to the upkeep of natural wealth.

2.2. Past and current trends The breakdown of traditional systems of conservation was the result of various trends with

colonial state intervention being the most severe influence. The Gangetic plains were subject to systematic destruction of biological communities and subjugation of indigenous populations by the agricultural Aryans, whose activities led to a periodic alteration of forest cover and gradual denudation. However, irreversible ecological decline came only with the industrial revolution even in the Ganga Yamuna Doab.17 Technological innovations enabled certain human groups to break down territorial barriers and to usurp the resources of other groups. Colonial interests lay mainly in taking control of as much of the country’s resources as possible.

The industrial revolution demanded a quantity of fuel and timber for the commercial sector in Europe, and this inspired the colonial government to put a moratorium on communities managing their own resource base. Artisanal industry declined under the twin pressures of diminishing sources of raw materials and competition from machine-made goods. This further affected the symbiotic relationship between communities and their forests, as they turned to other sources of livelihood. The redefinition of property rights by the colonial state imposed a system of management on the forest whose priorities sharply conflicted with earlier systems of local use and control. The new

laws restricted small-scale hunting by tribal peoples but facilitated more organised shikar expeditions by the British. From the mid-19th century there began a large-scale slaughter of animals by British shikaris of all

levels.

There is a characteristic difference between the hunting laws made by the Mughals and the British. The Mughals themselves also abided by the laws of

shikargah and hunting periods, whereas the British rulers made laws only for other citizens while themselves continuing with uncontrolled poaching and reckless

exploitation of natural resources. As far as the tribals are concerned, the Mughals never considered their subsistence killing of wild animals as hunting and never imposed

such regulations as for game hunting. This is why there are no historical records of retaliation from the people against Mughal game laws. The people understood that they

are for regulating game and not subsistence activities. On the other hand it is evident that the colonial rule introduced large-scale exploitation of natural resources and evoked antagonism in the people at being alienated.


te ch

ap

ter - u

ttar p

rad

esh

Thus the new laws inspired a reactionary force which could be distinctly seen in the change in hunting practices. Since hunting expeditions by the British were not banned, villagers too hunted indiscriminately, trying to be one step ahead of them. In order to generate revenue for the state, high taxes were levied on the communities for deriving a living from their very own resources. One such example was found in gazetteers of Azamgarh district. It has been stated that in some parganas (present-day talukas) of Azamgarh, tar or toddy palm was abundant and a large income was annually drawn from the lease of the right to collect and sell tari (the sap obtained from sapping). Similarly, wildfowl in Azamgarh were netted and the dues levied on those who practiced this occupation often brought in considerable income.18

After the establishment of British rules in 1801, agricultural practices changed drastically due to the move from food crops to soil-intensive cash crop production. This resulted in desertification due to erosion, salinisation and ravaged agriculture. This led to serious ecological degradation in parts of south Delhi and as far as Kanpur. The British then built canals to irrigate these crops. However, this severely damaged the river ecosystem, disturbing the water tables in various areas and resulting in flooding, swamping and sloughing of crop fields. The significance of British intervention lies in the novel and often inappropriate modes of resource extraction made possible by the dominance of the Raj and the availability of technologies previously foreign to India.

3. Current status of community conservation3.1. Continuing, revived or modified traditions of community conservation3.1.1. Protection to a single species

Partly in continuation of ancient traditions (see Section 2.1), banyan, peepal and other fig species of the genus ficus continue to be widely protected and even today are rarely cut down. Figs are now recognized by ecologists as keystone resources—dry-season staples for many species of birds and mammals, especially monkeys—that play a pre-eminent role in the ecosystem. It is a common sight in almost every village or locality to see a peepal tree with signs of daily worship. Also species such as blue bull and sarus crane continue to be protected by local communities.

3.1.2. Protection of a particular habitat type

There are instances of entire biological communities being associated with a deity and receiving protection, in the form of sacred groves or sacred ponds or any other habitat or its part. The sacred groves serve the preservation of biological diversity and genotype—which may be useful in breeding, and includes common as well as rare species, which are equally important. Being a climax form of vegetation, sacred groves are richer in diversity than all other successive vegetation. With the clearing of forests all around them, they are now the last refuges for many plants and other life forms dependent upon them in many areas.

Of late, people have also started recognising the importance of these groves on the grounds of ecological benefits and compassion for animal dwellers. As a result, in two major pilgrimage sites of the Hindu religion alone—Mathura and Benares—184 sacred groves have been listed.19 There may even be more because by tradition every village or a cluster of villages has planted some sacred trees near a place of worship.

In Mathura there are numerous temples and ghats (riverside platforms) with a stand of trees sacred to the people. They range in size from just one tree to as many as a few thousand. In the Mathura district alone there are 108 sacred groves and ponds held as sacred and revered by the community. Varanasi is full of ghats and temples where natural resources are given protection due to their association with a holy site. In this district there are 76 small and large sacred groves and ponds. Old gurukuls (places of learning) and hermitages of ancient gurus are maintained as sacred groves. For example, the Sarnath temple, which is known as the Mrigdava in Buddhist literature, draws its name from a legend. The Bodhisatva was born as a Nyagrodhmriga (deer) and granted herds of deer the freedom of moving without fear in the forest. Deer are still not hunted in this place.

Most of the sacred groves are situated either near a temple, ghat, pond or tomb. In Benares it has been found that the orchards near burial grounds are also considered sacred. Muslim and Christian communities also give protection to stands of trees with the belief that they bring peace to the dead in the graves.20


3.2. New self-initiated efforts by the local communitiesConforming to their old traditions, some village institutions of western UP have taken steps to

rekindle conservation of their own natural resources.

Patna Lake in Etah district was conserved as a sacred site due to religious associations, but was later notified as a sanctuary in 1991. The local community has been alienated from managing the resources and making sustainable use except for having access to a temple in the sanctuary premises. However they still oppose illegal poaching in the area and regard biodiversity conservation as their duty (See Case Studies).

The case of Sheikha Lake in the Dhanipur block of Aligarh District is one where there is not much intervention from the state in the management and protection of the natural ecosystem. Despite the fact that public powers are limited, the people take care in protecting the ecosystem by checking poaching and regulating the subsistence use of the natural habitat (See Case Studies).

Last, but not the least, the case of Gursikaran village in Aligarh District is a living example of how a tortuous maze of laws and slow judicial processes obstruct community-based conservation. The community was making sustainable use of an old patch of forest until it was declared a reserved forest by the British and then given to the state-owned Central Dairy Farm (CDF). All was well until the CDF decided to clear the forest and sell the land to industrial units. The community fiercely rose to oppose the move through a village-level NGO and is still struggling to save the forest in the courts. The financial cost of this battle is being borne by the peasants (See Case Studies).

3.3. New externally aided efforts3.3.1. Private forests

Under the Indian Forest Act of 1927 (Section 3, 28, 29, 38 and 80 of IFA 1927), joint management agreements could be signed between private landowners and the state. In the old district gazetteers are mentions of groves of jhau and Tamarix spp., which were before Independence maintained as private forests owned by the Jats and Pathans in Aligarh district.21 Later these gave way to agricultural reclamation when the owners sensed an intention of the state to declare them reserved forests. Even today in Jaalpur and Saahanpur villages of Najibabad District in western UP there are some existing patches of khair forests.22

3.3.2. Social Forestry

The second attempt to bring people into forestry and ecosystem management was in the mid-1970s. During this time the National Commission on Agriculture sought massive involvement of rural people in the Social Forestry Scheme, a programme of fuel and fodder plantations in order to check deforestation. Under social forestry, some village common lands or private lands are used for plantation of fuel and fodder species and looked after by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) for three years. Later, planted village commons are handed over to the gram samaj (Village Council). Sadly, this attempt gave way to socio-economic problems. The failure of social forestry was probably due to inter- and intra-village conflicts over use of resources. As a result, today social forestry areas do thrive—not as biodiversity refuge but merely as timber, fuel and fodder reserves.23

3.3.3. Joint Forest Management

The third attempt to seek people’s participation in forest management (in pursuance of the National Forest Policy 1988), is the Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme in government-owned forests. Various state governments took the necessary steps following the Government of India circular on JFM.24

The objective of the JFM approach is to develop resource users into resource managers by complementing the scientific management practices for realising the twin objectives of ecological security and fulfilment of resource needs of the population.

Some fine examples of JFM in UP can be seen in the districts of Pilibheet, Jhansi, Lalitpur and Sheikhapur and in the Faridpur tehsil in Bareilly. Aligarh district has also received a World Bank-sponsored project for introducing JFM in ten villages of the district. This was sanctioned based on the satisfactory performance of the JFM programme in two villages, namely, Gazipur in Attrauli tehsil and Umrikala in Gabhana tehsil. The gram samaj of these villages had been sanctioned Rs


te ch

ap

ter - u

ttar p

rad

esh

150,000 for applying for JFM in the years 1999 and 2000. Despite the success of a few examples mentioned above, JFM is not very successful in UP according to the FD, partly because of inadequate studies of the ground situation before implementing the scheme. We do believe that JFM would be an effective means to facilitate and promote community conservation in UP but only after adequate studies have been made on its current status and prospects. Also it is important to take people into absolute confidence as our interactions revealed that there was little information or knowledge about JFM among the villagers, even where JFM was being implemented.

3.4. Constraints and opportunities3.4.1. Shortcomings of laws and policies

The edifice of colonial forestry has been taken over by the Government of India. It is by now well established that the imperatives of colonial forestry were essentially commercial. Community-based conservation faced serious threats in the form of state intervention and the scenario has not changed much. After the formation of an elected government in 1950, the colour and face of those that implemented state control changed but the laws remained the same. Needless to say, all these laws had done nothing but debar the community from taking charge of its habitat. So neglected was the idea of community-based conservation that the UP Forest Act that was implemented in 1927 has yet to be amended to involve a community element.25 The IFA should give proper recognition to community conserved areas based on the ecological status of the area and the level of the people’s interest in conserving it. The IFA also needs to empower the community to take action against vandalism and give them a stake in management.

Various laws and policies have been formulated to preserve biodiversity but none comprehend the spirit of community conservation and accord it due attention. Laws such as the Forest Conservation Act. 1980, have provisions within them that alienate the local people further by denying rights over minor subsistence operations in the forests. The UP Tree Protection Act, 1973, pronounces that even for cutting a tree from private lands, the owners need permission from the forest department. Under the UP Sawmill Act, 1972, the licenses for sawmills will be given by the forest department.

The UP Tree Protection Act is seen by people as an instrument to take over the control of natural resources from the community, and thus acts as a discouragement to conserve. On the other hand the UP Sawmill Act might be detrimental to community conservation if it provides licenses for logging areas being conserved by the local community, as in the case of Gursikaran village (see case study for details).

3.4.2. Impossibility of centralised protection and law enforcement

The forest department alone is incapable of protecting 61 million hectares of forest land in the country and the same holds true for Uttar Pradesh as well. In the face of growing demands on forest produce, this problem needs to be addressed from a different angle, which must have a community element in it. Limited funds and staff available to enforce resource-preserving rules is a limitation typical to developing countries like India, which have many pressing priorities that may appear more important than the long-term conservation of natural resources. Community involvement could help resolve trans-boundary problems, which are otherwise long-drawn and difficult to control. This problem gains extra magnitude in UP due to its near-1000 km-long porous border with Nepal that runs through tough terrain. Locals, who know their regions intimately, have a greater chance of being able to protect them.

3.4.3. Demographic constraints and opportunities: Population and poverty

UP is a predominantly agrarian state and topsoil losses in the productive agricultural land render the soil infertile. The only way to restore soil fertility and check soil erosion is to make vegetative bunds. Eco-friendly agricultural practices would produce a larger subsistence base for this densely populated state. It is clear that bringing more and more of the rural population into integrated management (that also provides emoluments to the customary right-holders) increases the subsistence base. By taking up the admittedly difficult challenge of motivating and organising the people to look after their own resource base, we can hope to bring our country on a path of development that would be at once environmentally and socially sustainable.26


3.4.4. Ecological constraints: Inappropriateness of monoculture plantations

Centralised efforts of nature conservation in the name of forestry largely result in the plantation of timber tree species such as teak. Teak and eucalyptus are being planted in the name of forestry in the state for fast gains of wood and timber. The forest department also shows these plantations in the light of conservation imperatives when they have to show measures taken to combat soil erosion, siltation and deforestation. This is in spite of the fact that community forests’ contributions to rural employment, agriculture, water conservation and other sectors far outweigh the revenue from timber. Exotic, fast-growing trees tend to expose the soil surface to erosive and desiccative forces like laterization more than does the native vegetation cover. Similarly other fast-growing trees of timber revenue such as safeda and poplar, that are preferred in forestry operations27 also cause reduced soil productivity and low water tables in adjoining areas.

3.4.5. Failures of social forestry models and reserved forests

The demotivation to follow rules or non-cooperation on the part of the resource users is almost always increased by the antagonistic relations between them and the government.28 This is attested by the utterly negative reaction of UP forest dwellers to India’s National Forest Policy. It is to a large extent because of the dogged determination of villagers and activists that the forest management policies of the government were changed.29

One of the major reasons for the failure of the social forestry programme was the top-down approach of the government agencies. In addition, one of the reasons that community woodlots or village woodlots failed was on account of the lack of interest shown by community members, which was mainly because of their basic distrust of the FD. In many instances, the administration had to enrol local inhabitants almost by force to have them participate in its social forestry programmes.30

The model of village woodlots was modified as a consequence of its failure, to give considerable management authority to the village panchayats (local elected councils). When the panchayats are oversized there is always a possibility of internal politics stoked by corruption in the government officials. Such panchayats could not involve the local people on whom the success of the programme depended. Another reason is that these panchayats largely perceived the woodlots as sources of communal income and not as a perpetual source of fuelwood, fodder and grazing land for meeting the needs of the common peasants. In a large-sized panchayat comprising f councillors with varied interests it is difficult to arrive at a consensus over invoking the discipline needed for managing plantations, and most of them were thus doomed to ultimate felling after a minimum of three years. With these panchayats it was also not possible to develop the coordination of all village-level governing bodies needed for continuity in management and control of thousands of scattered pieces of planted village lands creating enormous problems of protection.

In Uttar Pradesh, villagers sometimes deforested woodlands because they were apprehensive that the demarcation of reserve forest would be followed by the government taking away other wooded areas from their control. More specifically, forest reservation evoked the fear that if the villagers looked after the forests as of yore, a passing forest official would say, ‘Here is a promising bit of forest—the government ought to reserve it.’ If on the other hand they ruin their civil forest, they feel free from such reservation.31

It is also powerful local bosses or patrons who may force the government to retrace its steps or to abstain from implementing management schemes. Thus in some areas of U.P., the administration does not dare to mete out legal punishments or impose legal fines for contravening regulations (e.g. to cut off electricity for well owners who ignored spacing regulations) for fear of violent reactions by the people concerned and their determined leaders or for fear that they may shift parties in the next elections.

3.4.6. Lack of information

A major difficulty with any centralised approach to resource management is a problem of information. Given the great diversity of resource types, it is difficult to establish straightforward management prescriptions that can be widely followed. No government agency can know local realities in sufficient details to conceive of valid solutions to the highly differentiated

ecological problems that arise at village levels.32 The government is clearly at a disadvantage compared to the historic users who can be expected to

possess extensive local knowledge of local resources and constraints.33


te ch

ap

ter - u

ttar p

rad

esh

On the other hand, the rapid socio-economic changes in the village environments result in a lack of information of ongoing processes of resource depletion to the local inhabitants themselves. Thus, the information gap between specialised government agencies has probably narrowed down and the villagers may actually need external assistance to help them better assess their resource problems and to conceive and put into effect viable solutions to them.

3.4.7. Problems in Joint Forest Management efforts

It is understood that JFM can work in three circumstances:34 first, in the villages which are small, single caste-dominated, inaccessible from the markets and whose populations are highly dependent on the forest resources; second, where survival gains from JFM organisations are high, both for the village elite as well as the commons; and third, when there is a political will for non-monetary gains. With these conditions in mind, UP does not emerge as promising and a potential area for JFM because of what has happened in the past centuries to the natural wealth of the state.

The conversion to agriculture and then the commercial exploitation by the British have left the state with only a few patches of natural forest in the Terai. The remaining are chunks of plantations, raised by the government.

About half a decade after JFM was introduced in the state it has been realized that the laws in the state are often contradictory to each other. For example, on the one hand JFM is made to promote joint benefit sharing, and on the other the Forest Conservation Act 1980 (FCA) bans assignment or lease of forest land to the people and prohibits plantation of horticulture crops without the prior permission of the government. The NFP of 1988, which brought in JFM-like arrangements, also actually helped to curtail the rights and concessions of forest dwellers by relating them to the carrying capacity of the forest.

A result of this is being borne by the Tharu tribe in the eastern Terai districts of UP (from Lakhimpur and Pilibheet up to Gorakhpur). Here the FD had settled a large number of poor villagers on forest land to do taungia35 plantation. For the last one hundred years they were cultivating forest lands in the first few years of raising plantations as well as looking after the new plants. However despite the fact that recorded rights exist showing their claims over forest lands for cultivation, the FCA has now denied them any rights to those lands. Coupled with the fact that the practice of Taungia has been given up, these poor people are now without work or assets. Moreover they are not even in a position to receive any alternative benefits from NGOs or Government development schemes because they are not even considered as ‘locals’.

Suggested changes in Government Orders pertaining to JFM and community management:36

• Use rights of communities should be revised and user groups recognized. Protecting communities should have clearly defined property rights over their forest in comparison to distant villages.

• FPC should be made an independent and spontaneous entity.

• Only the FPC should manage and control all natural resources within its domain.

• In the current age of globalisation and disinvestments, the markets for NTFPs should also be free of controls and they should be denationalised.

• The focus of JFM should shift from increasing the forest cover towards a plethora of other biomass-based products and conserving biodiversity. It should aim at empowering people and providing them sustained benefits. This can happen only if the FD does proper research for studying the needs and interests of people and then gearing up to shift to silvo-pastoral sytems.

• The policies and programmes should be sensitive to gender and poverty issues too and not just to the wider national interest.

• Instead of prescribing norms for the community the government orders should leave more possibilities for flexibility and decentralization, so that many of the decisions are left to the judgment of the people.

• JFM requires a paradigm shift that cuts across sectors of other departments. Unless these radical changes are brought in defining people’s rights and silvicultural practices, true participation will not be achieved.

3.4.8. The misuse of powers by the state judiciary

Local communities invariably lack legal powers to apprehend and fine offenders. Even in a community conserved area they have to inform the forest department, which has the powers to


book an offence. Often communities are disheartened and discouraged when, after taking the offenders to the officials, villagers find that the offenders are not convicted because of corruption. If magisterial powers are handed over to the community it might be helpful in preventing intruders from ransacking a community conserved area.

An example is Sheikha Lake, where, angry at the rampant poaching of migratory waterfowl in the lake, the community united to give a memorandum to the district magistrate with signatures of all individuals demanding immediate action to check the illegal shooting of birds. With the help of local NGOs they also decided to file a PIL against the violation of laws (Wild Life Protection Act 1972, amended 1991).

3.4.9. Cultural changes

With rapid urbanisation and the invasion of a consumerist culture, the structure of the community and its component unit, the joint family, have also been eroded. JFM policies and other participatory programmes depend heavily on the community work culture. In the absence of this culture, community forestry cannot achieve a success as big as that of agroforestry. A restructuring of social values to strengthen the community structure is needed to revive community conservation.

3.4.10. Inter and intra-village conflicts compounded by state control

The establishment of state control also severely affected another aspect, namely, the management of inter and intra-village conflicts over access to natural resources. Indigenous wisdom had managed and resolved these problems in the past.

Once the community systems were broken and controls went into the hands of FD, it was impossible to enforce the discipline required in the people to manage natural resources on an equitable sharing basis. After having liquefied the rural controls, the FD and the panchayats failed to establish, define and publicise the rights to the resources and the procedures for marketing and allocating benefits. The shares which would go to the individuals, village panchayats and the FD were not clearly laid down. Insecurity about benefits led to differences in the people. In addition the conflicts arising due to encroachment, competition from other departments, competition from grazing and other existing local uses could also not be solved by the FD in an effective manner because the government does not possess an integrated approach towards solving conflicts that cuts across the sectoral powers of departments. For example, in the case study of Gursikaran it can be seen how FD is rendered powerless in establishing clear controls over the forest because other state departments such as Central Dairy Farm, Revenue Board and the Sugarcane Department are all taking independent decisions to manage the area. Meanwhile the people are struggling to win back their rights to use the resource base.

3.5. Emerging lessonsHaving related the views of intellectuals, historians and scientists about community-based

conservation, its history, present status and future prospects, it is time to put forward what we personally experienced while going through available literature and doing the case studies. We must start with the honest confession that the scenario of community-based conservation in UP is not picture-perfect. Rapid modernization and the lure of a high-class consumerist life have made the ethics and cultural values change

in the village communities of our state. In turn this modernization has also affected the age-old tradition of communities managing their resources in a sustainable fashion and imbibing it from the basic structure of their deep-rooted civilizations.

We do not have to go far back to trace the roots of this kind of disastrous ecological and ethnic alteration. The advent of colonial rule a couple of centuries ago was accompanied by the ransacking of the natural wealth and the cultural ethos of the native communities to cater to the needs of the industrial revolution in Europe. Sadly Independence also brought nothing new in this respect, and reckless exploitation of natural resources and alienation of communities from their natural resource base continued at the same pace.

By now it is well established that as the government imposes all its decisions on the public, native communities are losing the


te ch

ap

ter - u

ttar p

rad

esh

wisdom accumulated by ages of experiencing their natural surroundings. The knowledge that has survived and thrived over years of passing from one generation to another is gradually being dissipated in a show where the government is the player and the communities have been reduced to mute spectators. As a result today community conservation is confronting the most alarming threat, which is the drifting away of younger generation from its values. This is where the chain of traditional systems has broken. In all our case studies we found that people have started relying on the government or some authorized urban person to come and take charge of the habitat so that poaching is checked and the habitat is saved. In ecosystems that were conserved as a sacred grove, such as the Patna Jheel religious association, remain the same but due to notification of a protected area communities are happy to give the charge to the government. Hence for the younger generation, conservation of biological resources has lost importance.

In other cases, where there is not much intervention from the state about management and protection of a natural ecosystem (like in the case of the Sheikha Jheel), and communities are well informed of the benefits and codes of conservation, they leave problems like poaching and urban invasion to the forest department. This is because public powers are limited only up to the marking of the ballot paper. After this the community’s will and commands are so badly paralyzed that they feel handicapped in executing their own orders of resource use. This is why time and again the people of the conserving community in Sheikha have expressed the desire to have a status provided to them by the government that would authorize them to check poachers.

Last, but not the least, we feel that the tortuous maze of laws and the slow judicial processes are to be blamed for obstructing community-based conservation. Community conservation in UP is suffering in the potholes in the law, as is evident in the case of Guriskaran. The forest is pristine, the community is aware, and conservation goes hand in hand with development; but because our laws are framed the way they are, the community is having a tough time enforcing its conservation measures in its forest. To put the poor peasant through such an ordeal for a cause that is after all only a moral value for the community makes the peasant succumb more easily to the pressures of the timber mafia.

We conclude that this is just the right time to put community-based ecosystem maintenance in a legal framework and mobilize communities towards the scientific management of resources coupled with traditional wisdom. Problems of poverty, resource crunch and biodiversity depletion are inextricably intertwined, and hence participatory management seems to be the only answer. It has been accepted by hardcore scientists too that endangered species cannot be saved without the will of the people who are co-existing with them, drawing their livelihoods from the same resource base.

To sum up, in the wake of the undeniable realization that societies are incessantly being allured by an urbanized life style, it is an imperative to finely integrate conservation with the progress of a community towards prosperity. Notwithstanding the cultural ethos the younger generations are drawing impetus only from monetary and social gains. With such downfall of cultural values even sacred groves may lose their reverence. Thus, not excluding ecosystems with a religious association, it is time to give due recognition to community conservation and put material rewards at the other end. There is no barrier that can stop the ill effects of the cash economy from infiltrating into the systems of the forest dwellers or other ecosystem people living in perfect harmony with nature.

While working on the case studies we found that the trends shown by the generation in the making are evidence enough. They are struck by the stigma of the new lines of classification that cleave the society into backward and forward sections in modern terms. Where the conceptual meaning of backward equals living in a village, being uneducated and not having access to the latest consumerist goods or a chair in a high office, and forward denotes a public-school education, brand-savvy lifestyle and a job that can get things done. Needless to say all the strata of society nurture the dream to join the latter group. A youth in the village Sheikha told us that now he has reason enough to protect the heronries and the communal roosts in the village because we will keep showing up in the village since conservation is what draws a group of urban people to a remote village. He liked our company because he wanted to b e like us one day. We found such trends to be detrimental for the tradition of conservation and now the only way is to club conservation with benefits that may be due to tourism, JFM or multiple-use protection. Having seen the failures of blanket protection to declared protected areas due to the non-cooperation and antagonism of the locals, we can only hope to use these obstacles as stepping-stones.


4. Conclusions The years since 1980 have seen the emergence of many contradictions between the development

process and the need for long-term sustainable use of resource base. There has been a slowing-down of the rate of diversion of forestlands to other purposes due to an official policy embodied in the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. It can be thought of in terms of a gradual transformation of the mode of resource use from foraging for subsistence to processing of commodities. However, with the state government taking charge of natural ecosystems came the misinterpretation that forests and other ecosystems such as the grasslands, wetlands and rivers are the property of the government and it is not the responsibility of the people to conserve them. As the mission to introduce participation of local communities in ecosystem management moves forward, the foremost requirement is to make people believe that communities are the born owners of the forests and other ecosystems. It is in the interest of their long-term benefits to preserve the ecosystem. In other words, a drive to make history repeat itself is needed because, and so that, nature conservation is integrated with the very cultural ethics of societies in UP.

The authors are associated with the Wildlife Society of India, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.

Endnotes1 http://www.censusindia.net/t_00_003.html

2 http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/Religiondata_2001.xls

3 A.K. Singh, Uttar Pradesh Development Report 2000 (Lucknow, New Royal Book Company, 2000).

4 A. Agarwal and S. Narain, Towards Green Villages (New Delhi, Centre for Science and Environment, 1989).

5 M. Mann, 1992. ‘Britische Herschaft auf Indischem Boden: Landwirtschafttiche transformation and Oekologische Desturbtion des “Central Doab” 1801-1854’ (Stuttgart, 1992), pp. 107-14.

6 S. Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World (Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal, 1981).

7 E. Whitcombe, ‘Agrarian conditions in Northern India’ in The United Provinces under British Rule 1866-1869 (Berkeley, California, 1972).

8 S. Swarup, Flora and Fauna in Mughal Art (Bombay, Taraporewala, 1983).

9 R.K. Dube, Vanaspati Adhyatma (Lucknow, Shubham Prakashan, 1995.

10 Editorial note: Unfortunately, the social and political underpinnings of the caste system also made it an extremely powerful regime of human exploitation and oppression.

11 S. Haywoods, S. Crowe and S. Haywoods, The Garden of Mughal India: A History and a Guide (Delhi, Vikas 1974).

12 R.H. Grove, Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origin of Environmentalism, 1600-1860 (Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1995).

13 A. Rogers, Tuzuk-e-Jahangiri or Memoirs of Jahangir, Edited by Henry Beveridge (New Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal (1978).

14 Rajiv Chauhan, ’Gangetic Plains EWG’, National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process, 1st meeting, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, March 2001.

15 N.V. Joshi, Uttar Pradesh District Gazetteers: Agra (Lucknow, 1965)

16 J. McKinnon, K. Mackinnon, G. Child and J. Thorsell, Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics (IUCN and Global Environment Monitoring System, 1986.

17 R.H. Grove, V. Damodaran and S. Sangwan, Nature and the Orient (New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1998).

18 D.L. Drake-Brockman, Azamgarh: A Gazetteer (District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, 1911).

19 Anon. 1997. A Study of Sacred Groves of Mathura and Varanasi Districts of U.P. A publicaton of the Regional Center for National Afforestation and Ecodevelopment Board.

20 (As above).

21 E.T. Atkinson, Statistical Description and Historical Account of the North-Western Provinces of India (North-western Provinces and Oudh Government Press, 1875).

22 Personal communication with A.A. Khan, Lecturer, Department of Botany, AMU, Aligarh, 2002.

23 Personal communication with Rajiv Kumar, DFO, Aligarh Division, Dept. of Social Forestry, Aligarh, 2000.

24 Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, D.O. No. 6.21/89-FP dated 1st June, 1990.


te ch

ap

ter - u

ttar p

rad

esh

25 Under the provisions of the 1878 Act, each family of ‘rightholders’ was alloted a specific quantum of timber and fuel, while sale or barter of forest produce was strictly prohibited.

26 M. Gadgil, ‘Ecological organisation of the Indian society’, Vikram Sarabhai Memorial Lecture, ICSSR Newsletter, XXI (4) (1991).

27 BISR, Social Forestry in India: Problems and Prospects (Birla Institute of Scientific Research: Economic Research Division, Radiant Publishers, 1986).

28 D.W. Bromley and M.M. Cernea, ‘The Management of Commom Property Natural Resources: Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies’, World Bank Discussion Papers (57) (Washington DC, World Bank, 1989).

29 M. Colchester, ‘Sustaining the Forests: The Community based Approach in South and South-East Asia’, Development and Change, 25 (1) (1994), pp. 69-100.

30 W. Fernandes and S. Kulkarni (eds), Towards a New Forest Policy: Peoples Rights and Environmental Needs (New Delhi, Indian Social Institute, 1983); W. Fernandes, G. Menon and P. Viegas, Forests, Environment and Tribal Economy (New Delhi, Indian Social Institute, 1988).

31 R. Guha, ‘Scientific Forestry and Social Change in Uttarakhand’, Economic and Political Weekly, 20/45-7, (1985), pp. 1932-52.

32 J.E.M. Arnold and J.G. Campbell, ‘Collective Management of Hill Forests in Nepal: The Community Forestry Development Project’, in Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource Management (Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1986); P. Dasgupta and K.G. Maler, ‘The Environment and Emerging Development Issues’, STICERD, working paper No. 28, London School of Economics (1990).

33 F.S. Zuffery, ‘The Nature and Utilization of Grazing Resources in India’, in L.S. Leshnik and G. Sontheimer (eds), Pastoralists and Nomads in South Asia (Weisbaden, 1986).

34 R. Wade, ‘Common Property Resources: Collective Actions as an Alternative to Privatisation or State Regulation’, Cambridge Journall of Economics, 11 (1987); D.W. Attawood, Social and Political Preconditions for Successful Co-opration and Rural Development (Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1988).

35 Taungia is a system of forestry labour in use in colonial times. Taungia villages were villages where the labour was settled.

36 N.C. Saxena, Forests, People and Profit (Dehradun, Natraj, 1997).

case

stud

ies - u

ttar p

rad

esh

695

CCA/UP/CS1/Aligarh/Amakhera/Species protection

Amakhera village, Aligarh

BackgroundAmakhera village falls in Gopi taluka of Aligarh district in Uttar Pradesh. Situated 40 km away

from Aligarh city, it is accessible by jeep/taxi. This wetland habitat is typical of the Gangetic plains. The CCA is 0.5 sq km and each year attracts about 7000 birds belonging to 70 species like Indian skimmer and the threatened bar-headed geese. The legal status of the protected land is village commons.

The entire village, mostly comprising of the Hindu Jat community, is involved in the protection of these birds. The village has a population of around 3,000 and mainly sustains itself on agriculture and could be considered average economically.

Towards community conservationThis wetland lies very close to the village and has been traditionally used by the villagers for

irrigation as well as fishing purposes. It is not known whether there is any active community participation of the community in the protection of the birds, although all inhabitants see to it that no one kills or disturbs birds. The village panchayat is believed to be involved in the process.

Constraints and opportunities facedThe wetland is now facing siltation as well as pollution due to chemical run-off from the adjoining

agricultural fields, which use chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Students from the Aligarh Muslim University regularly visit the area for studies on waterfowl and their habitat. This is a good opportunity for the university to make some positive interventions based on their research and for the villagers to benefit from the results of these studies. True to this, the fishing practice has been discontinued by the people on request from the Centre for Wildlife Studies, Aligarh Muslim University, as it was causing disturbance to the birds.

This case study has been contributed by Afiffullah Khan of Wildlife Society of India in 2001, based on information provided by H.S. Yahya, Dept. of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University.

For more details contact: Pradhan, Amakhera village, Aligarh, U.P.

Afiffullah Khan Wildlife Society of IndiaDepartment of Wildlife Sciences,Aligarh Muslim UniversityAligarh - 202002Ph&fax: 09411862686 / 9897180092Email: [email protected], [email protected]

case

stu

die

s -

utt

ar

pra

desh

696

CCA/UP/CS2/Aligarh/Daupur/Species protection

Daupur village, Aligarh

BackgroundThe wetland in this village with an area of 1.5 sq km attracts several aquatic birds including

migratory species. Falling in Javan Taluka of Aligarh District in UP, the village has an population of approximately 4,000. The main source of income of the people is agriculture. The people depend moderately on this wetland for irrigation, drinking water and fishing purposes. The legal status of the land is village commons.

Towards community conservationThe main community residing in the village is Hindu jat. This entire community has been

traditionally protecting these visiting birds and sees to it that no one kills or disturbs them. The gram sabha is believed to be involved in the conservation. This wetland is also regularly visited by the students of Aligarh Muslim University for conducting studies on bird identification, behavioural studies and for habitat assessment/ evaluation practices. On their request, the villagers have discontinued fishing in the wetland.

Constraints and opportunities facedThough the birds do not face direct threats from the villagers, other factors such as the continuing

expansion of agricultural fields, settlements as well as a road under construction pose a serious threat to the future of the birds visiting the wetland. The villagers have so far not received any support from the government for this initiative.

This information is provided by H.S. Yahya, Dept. of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, in 2001.

For more details contact:Pradhan, Daupur, P.O. Daupur, via Javan, Aligarh District

H.S. Yahya Wildlife Society of IndiaDepartment of Wildlife Sciences,Aligarh Muslim UniversityAligarh - 202002Ph/fax: 0571701052

case

stud

ies - u

ttar p

rad

esh

697

CCA/UP/CS3/Aligarh/Gursikaran/Forest and grassland protection

Gursikaran forest, Aligarh

BackgroundThe Gursikaran Forest is a fine example of

how 20 villages have sustainably managed their forests. The conserved area covers 440 acres of the scrub forest and Usar1 grasslands in a saline alkaline soil belt.

The forest falls in Koil Tehsil in Aligarh District of the Indo-Gangetic plains of UP. The villages in the area are Talaspur Kalan, Darapur, Mahuwakhera, Ibrahimabad and Gursikaran. All these villages share their boundaries with the forest, but officially it has been under the ownership of the gram samaj of Gursikaran village.

A sweeping view of the forest gives the impression of a Prosopis spp.-based scrub forest. A road cuts through the core area as does the river Sengar. This region is a part of the well-integrated drainage system of the Ganges, and small tributaries and nallahs also traverse through the area. Gursikaran is a combination of several habitat types. The major part of the area is occupied by scrub forest of which ironwood or mesquite, pudding-pipe or shami, khejri, babul, white acacia and ber are the main constituents. These forests have stretches of dry thorny bushes interspersed with woody vegetation. The most frequently seen shrub species is karel. Next comes the usar grasslands, which provide open space for wild as well as domestic animals to forage. The common grasses are sarkanda, doob, cogon grass, garara, etc. The Sengar river that divides the area into two parts also supports a small tract of riverine forest on its banks. Many species of birds and mammals are found here, including six mammalian species and a rich avifauna with both land and water birds.

There are 20 more villages that use the forest resources but only in a sustainable manner. The eight villages that have been selected for this case study have a total human population of 55000. The population of Gurisikaran village itself is about 8000. Societies in all villages are broadly divided into two classes: upper-caste groups, which includes brahmins and thakurs, and the lower caste that consist of dhobis, nais, mehtars, kumbars, baghelas, telis, julahes, fakirs, aherias, khatiks and jatavs. Several nomadic tribes also visit the forest from time to time for various resource benefits. The main source of income for the people is agriculture and livestock breeding. Some of the major crops grown here are wheat, corn, gram, mustard, oat, sugarcane, millet and masoor. The total livestock population in these eight villages is about 50000. Some villagers have also made their way to the city, working either as labourers at construction sites or taking up office jobs.

The only livelihood purpose that the forest serves is providing pastureland. The lower classes of the village also rely on the forest for fuelwood. Apart from this, babul timber is used to make small furniture and for poles. There is no commercial dependence on the forest. There are two temples within the forest and the forests are used as grounds for congregations. Although this is not a sacred grove the locals wish to protect the forest for religious reasons too.

At present, the legal status of the entire forest is under dispute. The case between the gram sabha and the official owners, the Central Dairy Farm (CDF), is lying with the Revenue Board. In future, if the case is decided in favour of the gram sabha, they plan to protect it as a multiple-use protected area.

Historically, the Gursikaran forest has changed hands several times during and since the British Regime. As per the records, in 1933 it was declared a reserved forest. In less than 15 years it was handed over to the Animal Husbandry Department. Once again, in less than 10 years a portion of it was given to the Agriculture Department. By 1950, the entire forest was given on a 30-year lease to United Project Dairy. After the commencement of the lease, the forest was given to the

Fields in front of Gursikaran forest Photo: Afiffullah Khan

case

stud

ies - u

ttar p

rad

esh


gram sabha but by 1984 AFPRO (Action for Food Production)2 projects were made operational and activities like dairy farming, land reclamation and plantation were initiated with the purpose of enhancing foodgrain and milk production and to provide employment opportunities to the villagers. This project, despite being limited to seven years, extended illegally till 1998. After the removal of AFPRO, the forest went back to Central Dairy Farm. The locals who were given jobs under it were now jobless and the infrastructure is now degraded. The CDF decided to clear the forest and give the land to the ganna vibhag (sugarcane department) for agriculture. In 2000 it struck a deal with the contractors to take the timber away for a mere Rs 16.5 lakh.

Towards community conservationDuring all these changes of hands, the rights of the local people were not disturbed and they

continued to extract fuelwood and NTFPs from the woods on a small scale. The locals do not recall any such date when they started to conserve the wildlife. They have lived with the belief that the wildlife is an integral part of the ecosystem and deserves protection. As a tradition they have inherited from their ancestors, they just leave the forest alone be and see to it that no external harm is inflicted on the ecosystem.

The course of action is oriented by the thumb rule of not harvesting more than the forest can regenerate. Lately, the influx of city poachers has instigated the community to keep a watch-and-ward system alive that would immediately call for action against poachers. On one alarm call for the presence of a hunter, the entire community gathers with lathis in hands to prevent damage to wildlife. The increasing nilgai or blue bull population sometimes damages standing crops but the villagers do not attempt to kill them as the cow is sacred amongst the Hindus. Tufts of high grasses, which are used as cover by ground-nesting birds, are carefully kept cleared off to protect them from the practice of burning grasses to obtain a fresh flush of grasses with high protein content. These grasses are used to feed their cattle for a better milk yield.

Minor conflicts over resource sharing between individuals have been solved amicably by the gram panchayat. The initiative demanded a tough battle only when the forest was returned to the CDF, which decided to sell it off to contractors. The fear of losing their age-old heritage alarmed the community in Gurisikaran village and they rose to oppose the cutting of the forest.

The villagers learnt that the cutting was legalized and had commenced under police protection and the gram panchayat decided that they had no option but to turn to the district administration and the forest department for help. Unfortunately, they too could not provide help since the paper work for this destruction was firmly in place. It was then that the villagers filed a case with the Revenue Board and constituted an NGO named Bhu Mukti Jan Sangharsh Samiti. Meanwhile, the DFO found a way to stop the forest from being cut down. He exercised his power to stop a forest from being altered if it holds the status of the forest according to the dictionary meanings. Several meetings were called for at the district magistrate’s office to discuss the issue. The CDF representative failed to appear at these meetings and the forest continued to be cut. The people of Gursikaran decided to stage a dharna outside the District Magistrate’s office which turned into a hunger strike. At this, actions were expedited and orders were given that unless the pending case is resolved, any cutting at the site will be considered illegal.

All expenses to fight the case are being totally borne by the villagers themselves. Each villager has contributed a certain amount to the gram pradhan who has constituted the Bhu Mukti Jan Sangharsh Samiti and all steps taken to fight the legal owner are taken under his supervision.

Impacts of community effortThe people of Gursikaran believe that they have better agricultural produce because of the rich

biodiversity in the forest. The presence of birds like grey francolin and black francolin in the open scrub forest reduces with use of pesticides. Within the forest they have a good pastureland to maintain livestock free of any input, and this gives them an employment opportunity as well as a better economic status. The model resource use in Gursikaran is an excellent example of a village making an attempt to come out of ecological poverty to fight back rural poverty, and impacts are showing on the improved economic status of the village.

Sengar river, Gursikaran Photo: Afifullah Khan

Uttar Pradesh 699 ca

se stu

die

s - utta

r pra

desh

Due to the conservation provided by the villagers to the habitat and individual species, it has been possible for wildlife, otherwise extinct from other areas, to thrive in the forest. Clearing land for agriculture and felling trees for timber has not yet lured the community for short-term gains and the forest still remains in a very good state.

Constraints Within the communities there have been no differences and all stand united to save their forest.

However, when the orders for stopping the cutting of trees was given, an upper caste from the neighboring village withdrew its support. This may be because the contractor is related to some people in that caste group.

Another huge hurdle is that those genuinely interested in the conservation are largely uneducated and lack the expertise of baffling lengthy paperwork. The political pressure is being felt by the people who believe that that some MLAs have a nexus with the timber mafia with the aim of gaining monetarily from it. When political support was offered after the demonstration made local news, it was turned down by the community as they did not want political colour added to their struggle.

Written by Afiffullah Khan, Wildlife Society of India, Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, with inputs from Pravendra Singh Sisodia, a resident of Gursikaran village, in 2001.

For more details contact:Mr. Gopal Singh, Gram Pradhan (Village Head), Gursikaran, Dhaniapur, Aligarh 202 002

Gramanchal Vikas Santha, Ramghat Rd.Quarsi, Aligarh 202 002.

Pravendra Singh Sisodia Utsahi Swayanm Sahayata Santha,PO Gursikaran, Aligarh 202 002

Afiffullah Khan Wildlife Society of IndiaDepartment of wildlife Sciences,Aligarh Muslim, UniversityAligarh - 202002Phone & fax: 09411862686 / 9897180092Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Endnotes1 Usar is a type of soil that exists in the Gursikaran forest. These tracts are slippery and consist of white glistening soil called reh in the local language.

2 See http://afpro.org/

case

stu

die

s -

utt

ar

pra

desh

700

CCA/UP/CS 4/Aligarh/Sheikha/Conservation of wetland

Sheikha Jheel, Aligarh

BackgroundSheikha Jheel is a lake situated 17 km from Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh) on Aligarh Jalali road near

village Sheikha. It falls in the Koil tehsil of Aligarh district. The Upper Ganga canal flows adjacent to the lake. The lake and the village are less than a kilometer away from the Sheikha village bus-stop. The total area of the lake is 25 ha.

This Jheel came into existence after the formation of the Upper Ganga Canal in 1852. It is a fresh water perennial water body surrounded by agricultural fields on two sides. The Upper Ganga Canal divides the lake into two parts. The area receives moderate rainfall up to a maximum of 644 mm. The lake and its surrounding areas support a diversity of habitats, viz. wetland, grassland, forest etc. The wetland forms an ideal habitat for the waterfowl and other water birds especially during the winter months. Among the flora the dominant tree species that surround the lake are Terminalia arjuna and Syzigium cumunii. The other components of the vegetation include acacias, Dalbergia sissoo, neem, among others. The major weeds include Lantana camara, Sida, Parthenium hysterophorus and Cassia tora. The shrub species include Ipomea aquatica and, Muraya koenigi. Only a few mammalian species are found in the area like the blue bull, blackbuck, five stripped squirrel, Indian mongoose, black-napped hare, rhesus monkey and jackal. About 166 water bird species have been reported in and around Sheikha. Some of these include, the great crested grebe, painted stork, barheaded goose, purple heron, and so on.

Bhavavankhera and Sheikha are two villages that fall in the vicinity of the lake. The other villages are Edalpur, Changeri, Jalali, Gangary and Panaithi. The total population of Sheikha village is more than a 1000 comprising mainly of Rajputs and Jatavas. Agriculture is the sole source of income of the people with a mixed population of rich farmers who own tractors and other agricultural equipments and poorer peasants who either work in other people’s fields or own small pieces of land. The major crops grown in the vicinity of the lake are paddy and wheat. Some farmers also grow sugarcane, maize and mustard. The lake is used by the people for cultivation of water chestnut and small scale fishing. The area around the lake is also used for grazing of domestic cattle.

During summers, there is less water in the lake and some ground vegetation grows. The villagers graze their cattle continuously during this time so as to prevent it from turning into a terrestrial ecosystem. Till 1952, the villagers used to depend on the lake for agriculture. Since the construction of the Ganga Canal, their dependency on the lake has become negligible.

Impacts of past and current land uses:

1. De facto cultivation of water chestnut in one part of the lake covers most of the water surface. This has resulted in less surface area for the birds to forage. However all care has been taken to leave a considerable part of the wetland for use by wild waterfowl.

2. The FD planted some trees of Tamarix sp. and Prosopis sp. on the canal banks under various social forestry programs which produced a good forest. Later, when this land was distributed amongst the Scheduled caste and other backward classes (dispreviledged sections), under a government scheme, the gram samaj (village council) ordered the felling of these trees which led to the vanishing of the wildlife that had developed here. The conserving community holds a grudge against the government for this.

3. A tar road constructed along one side of the lake has rendered it an easy access for outside poachers.

4. In 1991, the District administration built mounds in the middle of the lake and a trail in the lake leading to the mound. This restricted the flow of water. Subsequently, these mounds and the mud road were left unattended, causing siltation and making the wetland shallower.

5. Water hyacinth grows here profusely causing eutrophication and hence fewer surfaces for the birds to use.


se stu

die

s - utta

r pra

desh

Legally, the jheel comes under the village common land and gram samaj has the ownership rights. The forest department’s social forestry wing had carried out some plantations on the canal banks about ten years ago. These plantations come under reserved forests of the region and have been closed for hunting under the Wild Life Protection Act (1972). Also, plantations were carried out on the area on Ganga canal banks by Ganga Canal Department. Presently this area is also cultivated under the social forestry program and comes under protected forests.

Towards community conservationThe villagers are dependent on the lake and the surrounding area for their livelihood. The

community uses the lake area for grazing, for fuel wood and fodder collection. During summers when water in the lake recedes, the grass and other vegetation grows on the exposed area. This is a very important source of green fodder for the villagers. The water chestnut grown also acts as an important means of subsistence.

Although the local people do not attach any religious association with the jheel, the lake is a precious matter of pride for the natives. Another important motive behind conserving the lake is to maintain the water table of the area for agriculture. Local people have also understood importance of the lake as wildlife habitat and refuge for migratory birds. They believe that their own future will be threatened if the natural resources around them perish. In 1986, Aligarh Muslim University’s Wildlife Sciences Department, while conducting research and carrying out ecological monitoring of the area, also fostered scientific awareness about the importance of the lake among the villagers. This was further nurtured by a couple of local NGOs.

Due to the nature of the initiative (villagers’ and FD’s combined efforts) both village and forest department have decision making powers as far as conserved area is concerned. Gram samaj along with the two local NGOs takes the major decision and is also responsible for the protection of the wetland and the forests surrounding the wetland.

The area comes under the ownership of the gram samaj of Sheikha and Bhavan Khera villages. The gram samaj designs all the management strategies. All the sections of the local community are involved in the conservation initiative. Apart from Sheikha, the villagers of Bhavan Khera and Changeri are actively participating in the conservation efforts for preservation of the wetland.

The traditional rules for agriculture and wildlife that are observed by the community in the Sheikha are governed by the motive of preserving the habitat. Some of the rules that are observed by the community are as follows

• Only small portion of the lake is used for the cultivation of the water chestnut

• The villagers have avoided plantations on the bank of the lake, as it may prove harmful to wetland habitat.

• The villagers do not cultivate on land that gets submerged as such practice may alter the ecological succession.

• No draining of the lake water, for any purpose.

• No hunting of waterfowls or any of the birds and animals is permitted. The villagers have been known to draw swords against a particular nomadic tribe, Kanjar because these tribals visit the lake in the night and poach important wildlife such as otters, porcupine and turtles in the lake area.

Small conflicts are handled at the village level but larger conflicts are handled by the government bodies like the division of social forestry and the revenue department.

All castes within the community are involved in the conservation of the lake and its biodiversity. A few exceptions to total protection are when the youngsters help poachers for the sake of money. When the poacher is related either to some elderly or influential member of the community no action is taken on account of pressure by community members.

In 1997 when wrong restoration policies were implemented in the lake the Sheikha community stood up and united against them. A memorandum was submitted with the ‘Haritima Environmental Group’ to the District Magistrate to stop construction of the road around the lake because it delimits the wetland and gives easy access to poachers.

In 2001, when poaching took a massive toll of birds, a signature campaign in the village conducted by Department of Wildlife Sciences appealed to the District Magistrate to take action for putting practical moratorium on waterfowl shooting. The community has also decided to file a PIL against


those interventions of the government. that are conducive to vandalism.

Financially, the initiative is totally self sustained and does not receive any financial support from any agency. In case the lake is developed as a picnic spot there will be enhanced employment opportunities and consequently an improved economic status.

Impacts of community conservationThe local community is benefited by this conservation in many ways.

1. Assured regular supply of fodder, grass and fuel wood.

2. A portion of the wetland which is used for the cultivation of water chestnuts, is one of the sources of livelihood for some of the communities around the village earns their revenue from it.

3. Assured availability of natural resources for all villages surrounding the lake.

The habitat has balanced ecological elements like soil moisture, ground water table etc. Certain species of the ecosystem have regenerated and an increase in the biological diversity of the lake, and surrounding areas has been reported. The protection and conservation efforts by the local community have immensely benefited the wetland ecosystem and surrounding habitats such as grassy patches and forests. Hence it has become ideal wildlife refuge and supports highest diversity and numbers of waterfowls.

Costs incurred by the community for conservation

1. Plantation of trees on the banks gives a lot of revenue but the villagers have decided against such plantations since it is harmful for the health of the wetland.

2. The increasing population of blue bulls around the fields is causing damage to the crops. The community does not kill the bulls themselves due to the sense of respect that they have for these creatures but allow other hunters to kill them.

Constraints1. One of the major constraints is relation of the villagers with FD and law enforcement agencies.

At certain times the villagers have caught poachers red-handed while hunting. When the matter was taken to police they were highly disappointed due to apathy shown by them. The community has grudges against the government machinery and the way it functions.

2. Most of the population of Sheikha village is uneducated and suffer from a lack of confidence which hinders them from stopping savvy city dweller from poaching. They also lack awareness regarding the potentials of community conservation and need proper guidance and support from the official machinery.

Recommendations 1

These recommendations are in total accordance with the community and have been formulated into a management plan submitted to the District Magistrate in 1997.

It proposes that:

1. The lake should be declared as ‘Salim Ali Waterfowl Refuge’ where people are allowed to exercise their traditional rights.

2. Grazing should be encouraged on the fringes so that the aquatic ecosystem does not turn into a terrestrial habitat.

3. Eradication of the water hyacinth which is the main culprit in the destruction of the wetland and Ipomea carnea which grows on the banks.

4. If the lake is developed into a picnic spot, the community should be given some kind of revenue for its conservation efforts and also associated employment opportunities.


se stu

die

s - utta

r pra

desh

5. The community should be organized into a committee such as the van suraksha samiti in order to overcome their handicap against city poachers under the guidance and support of the government. This would help bring a sense of self- confidence in them.

All the above recommendations have been lying with the district administration and no action has been taken.

Some of the NGOs involved in the initiative are Haritima Environmental Group, Aligarh, Bombay Natural History Society, Wildlife Society of India and Dept of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.

This case study was contributed by Afiffullah Khan, Wildlife Society of India, Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, with inputs from Layak Singh, a resident of Sheikha village in 2002.

For further information contact:Munni Devi, Gram PradhanVillage Edalpur, Gram Post Tilakhana,Aligarh 202001, U.P.

Secretary,Haritima Environmental Action Group, Aligarh

Mr. Layak Singh, Retd. Rail Guard,Gram Sheikha, Gram Post Jalali,Aligarh 202001 U.P.

Dept. of Wildlife Sciences Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh 202002 U.P.

Afiffullah Khan Wildlife Society of IndiaDepartment of wildlife Sciences,Aligarh Muslim, UniversityAligarh - 202002Phone & fax: 09411862686 / 9897180092Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Endnotes1 Recommendations made by Wildlife Society of India and Haritima Environmental Group.

Date post:	30-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhkiet
View:	220 times
Download:	1 times

M-23 Uttar Pradesh - Kalpavrikshkalpavriksh.org/images/CCA/Directory/M-23 Uttar Pradesh.pdf ·...

Documents