Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 2165–2182, 2004. # 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Integrated approach towards conservation of Gir National Park: the last refuge of Asiatic Lions, India AESHITA MUKHERJEE* and C.K. BORAD Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Nr. Gota Chokdi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380 060, India; *Author for correspondence (e-mail:
[email protected]) Received 21 January 2002; accepted in revised form 23 July 2003
Key words: Antagonism, Attitude, Locality, Protection Abstract. The Gir National Park and sanctuary is one of the seven protected areas selected for biodiversity conservation through the Eco-Development Project funded by the Global Environmental Facility and implemented by the World Bank. Together with forest conservation by the forest officials, simultaneously global efforts started towards conservation of the last refuge of Asiatic Lions. The prohibition of resource use and resettlement of people from the protected area were done to meet the need of national policy (Wildlife Protection Act). However, the perception of the locality was that one of the major steps taken was restricting the inhabitants of the forest from entering the National Park and thus restricting them to the fringes of the protected areas. This has brought about a restriction in using the forest resources and thus has created an unspoken conflict between the forest and its dwellers. Over the years, however, it has been realized that effective management of the protected area is not possible without addressing the legitimate needs of the local people. The present study is an attempt to examine and understand the people’s perception towards the forest conservation, and benefits realized by the people from the forest. Surveys carried out in a few sample villages were selected from three categories, that is, revenue, forest settlement, and nesses, from both the west and east division of the protected areas. The study revealed that the concept of conservation is well supported. However, the sense of insecurity due to resettlement and limitation in using the forest is a major hindrance towards proper protection of forest. Except for the low-income group, the actual dependence on the forest is not significant. To some extent humans/animals/crops conflict and the apathetic attitude of the Forest Department is also responsible for the antagonism of the people.
Introduction The Gir Wildlife Sanctuary/National Park complex is one of the seven protected areas (PA) selected for biodiversity conservation through the Eco-Development Project, because of its uniqueness in having the only population of the Asiatic lion and the impact of Maldharies (the Gingers), and other villagers in and around the PA. The conservation of the fragile ecosystem with rich flora and fauna was the objective behind declaring Gir as a protected area. Our challenge is that India is a very densely populated country, having 2% of the world’s land area and supporting 16% of the world’s population, and above all it harbors about 60% rural population including 500 million head of cattle. The survival of a group depends upon the country’s biodiversity and as a result the depletion of natural resources continues. The effort of conservation started in 1972 with the enactment of the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) and subsequently the enforcement of the Forest Conservation
2166 Act in 1981. Global effort also had a positive impact on conservation and a global talk was held in the year 1992. However, through the WPA, it was also enforced that no person shall have any rights within the fringes of PA and therefore relocation of a large number of the local people was proposed. This has also led to a limitation in usage of the PA’s resources, creating discontentment in the affected population, especially regarding social concerns (Baviskar 1998). It is a widely accepted fact that in order to reduce biotic pressure it is important to identify, establish, and develop alternatives to biomass resources (Panwar 1992; Hobley 1996). This proposition can be achieved by widening people’s means of income generation and thus reducing the exploit of the forest (Leach 1994) or by providing substitutable alternatives (Badola 1995). Over the years it has also been realized that effective management of PA is only possible by addressing the legitimate needs of the population. According to a survey carried out in the mid-1980s, over 65% of the PAs were characterized by human settlements and resource use (Kothari et al. 1989, 1996, 1998). In some cases, excluding human activities from ecosystems can actually reduce biodiversity and lead to habitat deterioration (e.g., Hussain 1996), while certain habitats have improved following human use/habitation (e.g., Western 1989; Ramakrishnan 1992). Thus, understanding the basic principles, the Eco-Development Project was initiated. Local people have very little incentive to support conservation until they gain from it and are not deprived of benefits they previously enjoyed (Renard and Hudson 1993; Tindsell 1995; Boonzaier 1996; Badola 1997, 1998). It is known that conservation is possible by knowing the attitude of the local communities, their needs, and taking into account their aspirations (Infield 1988; Fiallo and Jacobson 1995). The present study is an attempt to understand the impact of Gir National Park on people and their attitude towards the conservation of the protected area. The study was based on the hypothesis that dependence of local people on the forest is due to lack of alternative livelihoods and a social and economical structure that is a determinant in acceptance of alternative suggestions. The paper examines the level of acceptance of alternative resources and in order to validate the proposed alternatives, identifies constraints in accepting them.
Study area The Gir National Park and sanctuary lies between latitude 208400 N 218500 N and longitude 708500 E 718500 E in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat state, western India. The entire area of the PA is about 1265.01 km2. The whole area drains to the south with seven rivers. However, the area is drought-prone but the reservoirs on these rivers, being perennial in nature, maintain the habitat. In some of the worst situations artificial water holes are maintained for the wild animals. The dry deciduous forest is an outcome of deccan trap formation and thus is capable of regeneration and recovering very quickly. The temperature of the area varies from 10 to 45 8C and rainfall from 199 to 1866 mm. The entire area is divided into two subdivisions called Gir East and Gir West (Figure 1). Amongst the other inhabitants the
2167
Figure 1. Gir National Park and village locations.
Maldharies (the Grazers) have been an integral part of Gir for the last 175 years. The main occupation/source of economy of the locality is based on livestock keeping. Part of the local diet is Bajra Rotla (chapatti made of Pennisetum typhoides), which is baked on a fire with vegetables and buttermilk. In order to make this bread the people need firewood, which is mostly collected from the forest. They live in small huts made of wooden logs and the roofs are thatched with long grasses. All of these are taken from the forest. However, with the help of the Forest Department, they were provided with aluminum sheets for roofing.
Methods There are a total of 97 villages within the periphery of the 6 km surrounding Gir National Park and sanctuary. All the settlements are categorized into three different types, namely the revenue villages, forest settlement villages (the villages which were primarily within the PA and later moved outside), and nesses (a small number of households which still reside in the PA but on the fringes). The whole area is arbitrarily divided into two main divisions by the Forest Department as Gir West and Gir East, to enhance efficiency of management and protection of the Park. From each category of settlements belonging to both divisions a total of 12 villages were selected for the present study during 2000–2001. The Stratified Random Sampling (Clarke 1986) technique was employed to collect relevant information for the study. The selection of the village was done according to the recommendation from the forest officials (CF and DCF of both divisions). Fixed response
2168 Table 1. Total number of households and percent sampled in each village. Villages
Total households
Dhanej (RV) Itali (RV) Nagadia (RV) Sukhpur (RV) Sirvan (FSV) Jasadhar (FSV) Kotharia (FSV) Popatadi (N) Babaria (N) Jahankia (N) Hadala (N) Dodhi (N)
224 354 250 349 25 16 15 12 12 18 10 12
RV: revenue villages; FSV: forest settlement villages; N: nesses.
questionnaires were used to collect information pertaining to local’s attitudes towards conservation and the causes for their dependence on the forest. Care was taken to undertake the interview in an informal way, and when most of the family members were present. The sample size is the total number of households in the respective villages (numbers of households interviewed are shown in Table 1). Apart from the dependence on the forest, an extensive survey was also undertaken to examine the degree of conflict between wildlife and humans. Results Attitude of locality towards forest conservation For easy and accurate information to be collected which ultimately allows convenient interpretation, a statement-based questionnaire was used (Infield 1988). Dependence on the forest for fuel, fodder, and timber was acknowledged by almost all the respondents, irrespective of their settlements (Table 2). However, compared to the revenue and forest settlements, the nesses rely heavily on the forest for all the above needs. The respondents in the east division (mostly from the forest settlement villages (55%)) regard the forest as a source for obtaining water, while the west division (35%), except for the nesses, showed less need for water from the forest. NTFP availability and obtaining cash is the main feature in the west division. The locals are well aware of the concept of general forest conservation; however, there is some ambiguity amongst people in clearly stating the need for conservation, which is most significant amongst the FSV (60 and 30%) in both the divisions, respectively. Full agreement towards protection of the forest was given by most of the respondents, whereas 25% believed that the Forest Department was unnecessarily involved, as the forest will regenerate by itself.
Note. All values are expressed in percentages.
2. Is conservation of forest needed? Yes No Don’t know Is protection of forest needed? Yes No, unnecessary, the Forest Department is doing it Don’t know
1. What benefits do you derive from the forest? Fuel Fodder Timber Water Cash/selling NTFP Recreation Religious
Questions
Table 2. Attitude of locals towards forest conservation.
40 60 0 55 15 30
100 0 0
65 10 20 55 0 10 0
85 17.5 20
40 52.5 27.5 15.0 7.5 0 27.5
53.3 10 1.6
48.3 1.6 15
98.6 95.8 26.6 25 48.3 6.6 35
40 32.5 27.5
70 15 15
7.5 12.5 15 0 7.5 0 0
Revenue
Nesses
Revenue
Forest settlement
West (villages)
East (villages)
65 42.5 7.5
47.5 30 25
82.5 40 7.5 0 7.5 0 5
Forest settlement
42.5 25 22.5
40 5 35
100 97.5 90 35 32.5 0 5
Nesses
2169
2170 Mind-set towards fuel wood consumption Inability of the people to afford another form of fuel (LPG) is not the main reason for finding wood a free-of-cost commodity (Table 3). Another important feature increasing the use of wood is improper supply of kerosene, and no supply when the people are members of the Eco-Development Project. Through the Eco-Development Project, LPG was provided as an alternative fuel to reduce the use of wood. The Municipal Corporation ruled that those who have the LPG facility are not eligible to receive kerosene at a subsidized rate through a ration card. At the same time, because of this Project especially in the revenue and forest settlement villages, wood is used to supplement cooking along with LPG. The adoption of other sources of fuel is more acceptable amongst the villages in the west division compared to the east division. Use of dung cake is more relevant in nesses (80 and 74%) in both the divisions. By putting a restriction on forest wood or due to unavailability, about 35% of the locality also bring wood from the market. At the same time, more than 71% of the people are opportunistic in collecting wood from the forest. Those who are agriculturally well-off, especially in the revenue villages, also use agricultural byproducts (waste) to supplement fuel; 47.5% and 42.5%, respectively in the east and west divisions. Approximately 20% of the people also grow fuel wood on the edge of the agricultural fields. Of the people in the revenue villages, 35% also showed a positive response towards accepting fuel sources other than wood. Respondents, especially those who are economically backwards, such as agricultural laborers and construction workers, intend to oppose any law that prevents them from procuring wood from the forest.
Livestock keeping and views for fodder utilization Livestock keeping is commonplace amongst the villages. However, it is the only source of income for the communities called Maldharis (owners of livestock). They are primarily settled in nesses and the main reason for keeping livestock is for milk (100% for nesses in both the east and west divisions). Compared to the east division, the proportion of milking is common in the west division (57.5 and 47.5%; Table 4). Apart from milk, dung as fuel and agriculture manure is another source of income for livestock keepers. Ness people also use livestock as a source of security/ liquidity during an emergency. Except for the people in the revenue and forest settlement villages, the west division grows fodder. Lack of land (especially for ness people), land water and labor resources are major constraints in growing fodder. Ness people in both divisions also responded that the need for growing fodder was never felt. During the scarcity of fodder or a limit on easy access to cut grass, it was observed that about 25–30% of people intended agitation against the Forest Department. The Maldharies believe that the Forest Department has enough fodder in storage and that it is provided to those people who have good relations with the
20 10 7.5 75 20
37.5 22.5 47.5 20 2.5 35
2. Have you adopted any of the following? Biogas Fuel stove Solar cooker LPG Dung cakes
3. Reaction to use wood from forest Buy from market Steal from forest Agricultural waste Grow fuel wood Don’t know Switch over to other fuel
Note. All values are expressed in percentages.
32.5 17.5 57.5 25
5 65 10 0 30 15
10 0 0 5 0
30 20 20 60
5 71.6 0 0 60 20
8.3 13.3 0 31.6 80
21.6 70 100 78.3
7. 25 42.5 20 7.5 20
15 42.5 0 62.5 42.5
17.5 25 70 10
Revenue
Nesses
Revenue
Forest settlement
West (villages)
East (villages)
Mind-set towards fuel wood consumption.
1. Why wood as fuel? Can’t afford anything else Improper supply of LPG/kerosene Wood is available free of cost Other sources are not sufficient
Questions
Table 3.
7.5 77.5 12.5 0 0 7.5
47.5 10 0 85 17.5
22.5 10 42.5 10
Forest settlement
0 92.5 0 0 0 20
0 30 0 32.5 40
5 60 85 72.5
Nesses
2171
2172 forest officials. However, only 10% of the people are interested in opting for alternative resources.
Justification stated by the respondents for not using alternative fuel Lack of awareness about fuel-efficient devices, such as biogas and stoves is one of the reasons for not using alternative fuel (Table 5), but another reason which is very important is the traditional way of cooking and the type of food the village people cook. On the other hand, unavailability and insufficient fuel for adopting alternative methods are also restricting use. Biogas in particular needs a lot of water and a continuous supply of dung. Dung is usually used as manure and thus sold off to the farmers at higher rates. The unavailability of kerosene and the rules or not receiving kerosene for those who have an LPG connection, restricts the use of kerosene as an alternative fuel. During the process of the Eco-Development Project LPG connection was given purposefully as the alternative source of fuel for reducing pressure on the forest. However, 80% of the villagers cannot afford to refill the cylinders. As a result, they have a connection but cannot bear the refilling cost in addition to not receiving kerosene at a subsidized rate.
Approach towards reducing pressure on the forest The purchase of fodder to alleviate pressure on the forest was agreed upon by 35% of the revenue villages and forest settlement villages. However, only 5% of the population in nesses thought of buying fodder. Except for the revenue village in the west division (32.5%) none of the villages showed interest in growing fodder or reducing livestock (Table 6). Of the respondents in the villages of the west division, 80% were willing to exchange their cattle for better breeds of high yielding and preferably stall-feeding cattle. None of the villages ever used artificial insemination – 80% of the population who are livestock owners are either not aware of artificial insemination or they believe it to be not a good practice and socially not acceptable. It was also observed that the A.I. Center was some distance from the villages.
Acceptance or reasons for not taking up a subsidiary occupation Diamond cutting (20%), nursery (40%), and agricultural field work (60%) are the alternate sources of income in both the west and east divisions (Table 7). Almost 15% of the villagers in the revenue villages are engaged in Gujarat fiber craft called ‘Bharat Guntha’. Occupations related to apiculture and sericulture appeared infeasible to the local community and thus no-one responded to the same. The reason stated for not taking up a subsidiary occupation is basically lack of finance (50%), lack of technical expertise (40%), and insufficient labor (42.5%). Above all about
10 7.5 5
3. Reaction to limit fodder from forest Steal Agitate Going for alternative
Note. All values are expressed in percentages.
20 30 0 0
15 25 50 20
80 35 10
0 30
10 10 0 0 0
32.5 35
22.5 10 0 0 0
85 30 6.6
83.3 95 0 100
0 100
100 85 0 100 0
47.5 2.5 0
0 0 0 100
20 80
57.5 60 0 15 0
Revenue
Nesses
Revenue
Forest settlement
West (villages)
East (villages)
2. Do you grow fodder? Yes No If No, reasons Lack of land Lack of water Lack of labor Need not felt
1. Reasons for livestock keeping? Milk Dung Meat Security=liquidity Drought farming
Questions
Table 4. Livestock keeping and views for fodder utilization.
32.5 0 7.5
10 0 10 7.5
32.5 25
47.5 20 0 2.5 0
Forest settlement
85 5 5
95 50 45 70
0 100
100 42.5 0 80 0
Nesses
2173
2174 Table 5. Justification stated by the respondents for not using alternative fuel. Questions
East (villages) Revenue
Biogas Unavailability Insufficient Unaffordable Unaware Others
Forest settlement
West (villages) Nesses
Revenue
Forest settlement
Nesses
55 20 5 0 0
15 0 10 0 0
53.3 73.3 16.6 0 0
42 5 20 0 0
15 5 2.5 0 0
50 5 0 0 0
7.5 35 0 30
15 30 85 22
50 38.3 0 15
17.5 60 10 10
7.5 55 5 0
77.5 32.5 0 40
LPG Unavailability Insufficient Unaffordable Unaware Others
17.5 32.5 72.5 0 0
100 55 80 0 0
58.3 80 23.3 35 0
67.5 75 15 0 0
60 50 77.5 0 0
52.5 55 0 0 0
Dung cakes Unavailability Insufficient Unaffordable Unaware Others
12.5 40 0 0 0
60 45 30 0 0
11.6 23.3 23.3 33.3 0
10 45 0 0 0
10 10 0 0 2.5
0 42.5 0 0 0
Stove Unavailability Insufficient Unaffordable Unaware Others
Note. All values are expressed in percentages.
80% of respondents said that lack of marketing was a major constraint. A similar situation was felt for mango grafting and other alternative occupations (Table 8).
Silent conflict The villages, which are situated around the forest corridor, especially the FSV and the nesses, face the problem of livestock loss due to wild animals. There are cases of humans being killed, but these are very few. Some situations arise where villagers poison the wild animals. The Gujarat State Forest Department does not have a compensation scheme for crop loss; however, some money is paid on loss of livestock. This process is, however, very lengthy and forbidding to the illiterate villagers. While raising the question of losses during the survey, it was revealed that compared to the east division, losses are greater in the west division. The nesses face the maximum loss (40%). It is also clear that crop loss is a problem only for
Note. All values are expressed in percentages.
10 5 30 0 0 30 10 20 0
0 0 25 10 55
7 30
22 10 15
10 22.5 30 0
15 40
2. Exchange livestock with high yielding? Yes No
3. If No, reasons? Lack of fodder Lack of manpower Not very keen Other Ever done artificial insemination Yes No If No, reasons? Unaware No A.I. center Not good
37.5 15 12.5
84.3 5 70
0 100
11.6 30 10 0
80 20
5 NP 2
20 2.5 15
0 100
7.5 7.5 72.5 0
20 80
37.5 32.5 22.5
Revenue
Nesses
Revenue
Forest settlement
West (villages)
East (villages)
1. Do you accept? (yes) Purchase fodder Grow fodder Reduce livestock
Questions
Table 6. Approach towards reducing pressure on forest.
47.5 5 40
0 97.5
15 15 70 0
15 60
25 5 7.5
Forest settlement
75 30 70
0 100
2.5 15 40
10 80
5 NP 10
Nesses
2175
2176 Table 7. Acceptance towards subsidiary occupation. Questions
Ever taken subsidiary occupation? Diamond labor Apiculture Mango cultivation Mango graft nursery Fiber handicrafts Sericulture Agriculture labor Others
East (villages)
West (villages)
Revenue
Forest settlement
Nesses
Revenue
Forest settlement
Nesses
15 0 15 15 5 0 77.5 0
0 0 0 50 0 0 75 0
3.3 0 0 10 0 0 46.6 0
27.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 32.5 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0
Note. All values are expressed in percentages.
Table 8. Reasons for not taking up subsidiary occupation. Questions
East (villages)
West (villages)
Revenue Forest settlement Nesses Revenue Forest settlement Nesses Sericulture Lack of finance Lack of raw materials Lack of technical expertise Lack of labor Lack of marketing
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Apiculture Lack of finance 0 Lack of raw materials 25 Lack of technical expertise 0 Lack of labor 35 Lack of marketing 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
50 7.5 42.5 0 82.5
15 50 15 0 40
0 0 0 0 0
15 0 57.5 35 10
45 10 0 45 10
0 0 0 0 0
75 0 7.5 20
52.5 0 5 7.5 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
20 30 32.5 7.5 32.5
0 15 70 0 27.5
0 0 0 0 0
Mango grafting Lack of finance Lack of raw materials Lack of technical expertise Lack of labor Lack of marketing Others Lack of Lack of Lack of Lack of Lack of
finance raw materials technical expertise labor marketing
Note. All values are expressed in percentages. Communities of ness are engaged only in livestock keeping.
2177 the revenue villages and the FSV. In the past five years crop loss was recorded about 18–20 times and about 70% of the villagers showed silent agitation against the Forest Department.
Discussion The integrated planning of Gir National Park and the sanctuary has been on-going since 1996, and a comprehensive management plan was also prepared (1996– 2000). This has helped in directing the management initiatives for the conservation of the park, as well as providing an alternative livelihood for the locality. This process became stronger through the GEF–India Eco-Development Project. The steps taken for the conservation of the National Park have been well documented by Khan (1995) and Singh and Kamboj (1996). There is no doubt that the efforts of the Gir Forest Department contributed to one of the best-managed protected areas in India. It is also important to note that these Protected Areas have long been recognized as an area for conservation of wildlife, but it becomes high-risk when hardships are imposed upon the local communities (Wells and Brandon 1992). Thus, it is important to understand the socio-cultural acceptability and viability of the suggested alternatives for the locality (Leach and Mearns 1991; Wells and Brandon 1992; Fairhead and Leach 1994; Leach 1994; Pimbert and Pretty 1995). The task of attitude measurement is not easy – the concept of attitude, like many other abstract concepts, is a creation, a construct (Henerson et al. 1987). At the same time, narrative technique is also important in understanding attitudes by words and action during response (Harcourt et al. 1986; Shanahan and Mc Comas 1999). The need for eco-development and local participation is well discussed by Harrison (1980), who indicated the basic needs. There are also many studies that indicate the protection of the PA by traditional ways and harvest of renewable resources on a sustainable basis (Mc Neely 1989). Raval (1991) stated very well the relationship between the forest and its dwellers. Most of the protected areas are created to protect the endangered flora and fauna, but with no regard given to the people residing in that area, this has raised conflict and severe damage to the park resources, and jeopardized the accomplishment of park objectives and management (Neuman and Machlis 1989; Dang 1991; Singh et al. 2000). Imposing laws of protected areas on rural communities has many negative consequences, such as disruption of local culture and economy (Callimanopulos 1982), increased depredations on crop and livestock by wild animals (Mishra 1994) leading to conflicts (Saberwal et al. 1994), and enforced movement of the locality leading to poverty, which is a source of hopelessness and distress (Calhoun 1972; Lusigi 1984). The adverse effect of resentment and hostility leading to vandalism and extreme behavior towards the park authorities is also possible (Hough 1988). To understand attitudes is one of the social concerns in social life studies. The state of mind which predisposes an individual to react in a way which is related to his surroundings (Kreech et al. 1962) indicates the social action and attitudes developed towards a system. Thus, an attitude survey can offer guidelines for management
2178 decisions and also provide baseline data for assessing the efficiency of new policies (Fiallo and Jacobson 1995).
Attitude towards conservation It is believed that the third world rural population are almost antagonistic towards conservation and are ignorant (Infield 1988), but this was found not be true with the locality in the study area, rather the opposite. This could be attributed to some extent to the influence of the Eco-Development Project and the continuous efforts of the Forest Department. Whatever negative response was obtained might be a result of extensively limiting the use of forest resources and the extent of crop loss and livestock killed by wild animals. This is also aggravated by the blind response from the Forest Authority. A high level of ‘Don’t know’s was elicited due to fear of the Forest Authority, or it could be due to unawareness or simple lack of interest in responding to the surveyor. It is also likely that people did not know how to respond to what they know is obviously true and accordingly opted for ambiguous ‘don’t know’ responses.
Attitude towards alternative to forest resources The traditional food of the people in the study area is Bajra Rotla (chapatti made of Pennisetum typhoides), which is baked on a fire with vegetables. So for them to adopt Biogas or LPG would be a very difficult task. Therefore, it was strongly felt that before advocating the use of gas, thorough research should be conducted. Even though the solar cooker was provided at a subsidized cost, it did not become popular, as the people are not accustomed to it. People are interested in growing fodder but cannot do it as they do not have land, and this is especially a problem for people in the nesses. Although people want to have a high yield of milk, they are not interested in exchanging their cattle. They strongly feel that the indigenous breeds are best suited to the area. Some people have better breeds, but at the same time their expense is very high. They are aware of artificial insemination but they feel it is not socially acceptable. However, the younger generation appreciated the idea but the centers are very far off, which restricts them from adopting this process.
Benefits from forest During the survey some respondents showed an interest in forest having a recreational value. However, people from outside visit the forest frequently. This could be a question of income and priority (Mkanda and Munthali 1994). The local people visit the forest only when they have some work there. Similar observations were also supported elsewhere (Infield 1988; Mkanda and Munthali 1994). As in
2179 many of the developing countries wood is easily available and free from the forest (Leach and Mearns 1988; Munslow et al. 1988; Soussan et al. 1991; Osei 1993; Shackleton 1993). The most important factor is traditional and habitual dependency, as this influences the type of fuel wood. Collection of fodder and fuel wood is part of the daily routine for the hill women (Badola 1997). In most of the villages the need for growing fodder was not felt as the villagers either get it free from the forest or as a by-product of agriculture. Respondents who complain about not getting the fodder are actually landless and do not have any other alternatives. Sometimes the situation is so bad that cattle die in appreciable numbers due to scarcity of water and fodder.
Conclusions The Gir Forest and its lions are managed by the Gujarat Forest Department (GFD), which employs some 300 rangers and guards in the protection of the Gir preserve area (Chellam and Johnsingh 1994). Since 1986, management has been directed toward relocating Maldharis, creating water holes, introducing native plant species, conducting a wildlife census every five years and returning lions that have strayed out of the park back to the interior. The Gujarat Forest Department (GFD) also does some processing of compensation reimbursements for Maldharis who have suffered losses due to livestock depredation. New directions in management and conservation have been undertaken and are well documented (Saberwal et al. 1994; Srivastav 1997). Maldharis have generally resisted human relocation attempts, though Khan (1995) has suggested that this should eventually result in ‘‘better living conditions and earnings from livestock’’. Human relocation would address a number of lion and habitat issues. Inhabitants of the Gir Forest have ranged further a field in collecting ever greater amounts of topsoil, fruit, and firewood. This depletes nutrients from the ecosystem and brings people into increasing contact with lions and their natural prey. Relocation efforts to date seem to have been unsuccessful at this point (Chellam and Johnsingh 1994; Saberwal et al. 1994), but the GFD still plans to move all settlements outside the Gir area eventually. Relocation has been attempted gradually over about 5 years, largely due to the fact that livestock still plays a significant role in sustaining the endangered lions. The impact of ecodevelopment and the issues that are important for the management of Gir have been presented by the forest officials (Singh 2000; Singh and Pathak 2000). Overall perception of the people residing along and within the Forest about conservation is very clear, and their attitude towards protection of the forest was very positive. However, due to their dependence and lack of suitable alternatives, villagers find the situation difficult in accepting the present resources use pattern. The development and planning for this area should place more emphasis on the issue of local people’s dependence and thus should take more care in recognizing and fostering the built-in positive attitude. This will certainly help in maintaining a better people–park relationship. As evident from the World Congress on National
2180 Parks, Bali, there is a need to incorporate local community in the management of protected areas (Strudsrod and Wegge 1995). A forest protection committee should be formed, involving active people from the villages from different castes, and representatives from the Forest Department. The committee should also be held responsible and share their views while a management plan is laid out. We strongly feel that the compensation scheme should be stronger and more efficient both for crop and livestock loss. This will help in maintaining the confidence between local people and park people. Environment awareness programs are needed to reinforce the idea of forest conservation, especially in those areas where people are, traditionally or by habit, extremely dependent on the forest. In finding amicable solutions to the above-discussed issues, since 1996, the State Forest Department has undertaken Eco-Development Projects, funded by the World Bank. Microplans for each village have been prepared which include the basic demands of the villagers, which support the reduction of pressure on the forest.
Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to the State Forest Department for allowing a survey in the Protected Area. We are also grateful to the villagers for their patient and kind cooperation. We are thankful to Dr B.Wilske and Prof. Lubin for commenting on the manuscript. References Badola R. 1995. Critique of people-oriented conservation approaches in India: an entitlement approach. Study report. Institute of Development Studies, Sussex and Wildlife Institute of India. Badola R. 1997. Economic assessment of human–forest interrelationship in the forest corridor connecting the Rajaji and Corbet National Parks. Ph.D. Thesis, Jiwaji University, Gwalior, India. Badola R. 1998. Attitudes of local people towards conservation and alternatives to forest resources: a case study from the lower Himalayas. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1245–1259. Baviskar A. 1998. Social concerns in ecodevelopment. Paper presented at the National Workshop on Ecodocumentation, Dehradun, India, 24–26 November. Boonzaier E. 1996. Local response to conservation in the Richtersveld National Park, South Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 207–314. Calhoun J.B. 1972. Plight of the elk and Kaiadlit is seen as a chilling possible end for Man. Smithsonian 3: 26–33. Callimanopulos D. 1982. The tourist trap: Who’s getting caught? Cultural Survival Quarterly 6: 3–35. Chellam R. and Johnsingh A.J.T. 1994. Management of Asiatic lions in the Gir Forest, India. Symposia of The Zoological Society of London 65: 409–424. Clarke R. 1986. The Handbook of Ecological Monitoring. AGEMS=UNEP Publication, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. Dang H. 1991. Human Conflict in Conservation: Natural Resources Management in South and Central Asia. Sage Publications, New Delhi, India. Fairhead J. and Leach M. 1994. Whose forest? Modern conservation and historical land use in Guinea’s Ziama Reserve. Network Paper 18c. Rural Development Forestry Network, ODI. Fiallo E.A. and Jacobson S.K. 1995. Local communities and protected areas: Attitudes of rural residents towards conservation of Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 22: 241–249.
2181 Harcourt A.M., Pennington H. and Weber A.W. 1986. Public attitude to wildlife conservation in the Third World. Oryx 20: 152–154. Harrison P. 1980. The Third World Tommorrow. Penguins Books, New York 380 pp. Henerson M.E., Morris L.L., Layalor C. and Gibbon F. 1987. How to Measure Attitudes. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, California. Hobley M. 1996. Participatory Forestry: The Process of Change in India and Nepal. Rural Development Forestry Study Guide No. 3. Overseas Development Institute, London. Hough J.L. 1988. Obstacles to effective management of conflicts between National Parks and surrounding human communities in developing countries. Environmental Conservation 15: 129–136. Hussain S.A. 1996. A case study on effective wetland management. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India (unpublished mimeo). Infield M. 1988. Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation and a local conservation area in Natal, S. Africa. Biological Conservation 45: 21–46. Khan J.A. 1995. Conservation and management of Gir Lion Sanctuary and National Park. Biological Conservation 73: 183–188. Kothari A., Pandey P., Singh S. and Variava D. 1989. Management of national parks and sanctuaries in India. Status Report. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, India. Kothari A., Singh N. and Suri S. (eds) 1996. People and Protected Areas – Towards Participatory Conservation in India. Sage Publications, New Delhi, India. Kothari A., Pathak N., Anuradha R.V. and Taneja B. (eds) 1998. Communities and Conservation – Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. Sage Publications, New Delhi, India. Kreech D., Crutchfield R.S. and Ballachey E.L. 1962. Individual in Society. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Singapore. Leach M. 1994. Rainforest relations: Gender and Resource Use Among the Mede of Sierra Leone. University Press, Edinburgh, UK. Leach M. and Mearns R. 1988. Beyond the Wood Fuel Crisis: People, Land and Trees in Africa. Earthscan Publications, London. Leach M. and Mearns R. 1991. Poverty and environment in developing countries – an overview study. Final Report to Economic and Social Research Council and Overseas Development Administration. IDS, University of Sussex, UK. Lusigi W.J. 1984. Future directions for the Agrotropical Realm. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 37–146. McNeely J.A. 1989. Protected areas and human ecology: How national parks can contribute to sustaining societies of twenty-first century. In: Western D. and Pearl M.C. (eds) Conservation in the Twenty First Century. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 150–157. Mishra H.R. 1994. A Delicate Balance. Tigers, Rhinoceros, Tourists and Park Management vs. the Needs of the Local People in Royal Chitwan National Park. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 197–205. Mkanda F.X. and Munthali S.M. 1994. Public attitude and needs around Karungu National Park, Malawi. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 29–44. Munslow B., Katerere Y., Ferf A. and O’keefe P. 1988. The fuelwood trap: A study of the SADCC region. Earthscan Publications, London, in association with the ETC Foundation, 181 pp. Neuman R.P. and Machlis G.E. 1989. Land use and threats to park in the neotropics. Ambio 16: 13–18. Osei W.Y. 1993. Wood fuel and deforestation – answer for a sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Management 37: 51–62. Panwar H.S. 1992. Ecodevelopment: an integrated approach to sustainable development for people in PAs in India. Paper presented at the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela. Pimbert M.P. and Pretty J.N. 1995. Parks People and Professionals: Putting ‘Participation’ into Protected Area Management. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, International Institute for Environment and Development and World Wide Fund for Nature. Ramakrishnan P.S. 1992. Shifting Agriculture and Sustainable Development. Man and the Biosphere Series No. 10. UNESCO=Parthenon Publishing Group, Paris, France.
2182 Renard Y. and Hudson L. 1993. Community-based management of protected areas. In: Proceedings of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela. Raval S.R. 1991. The Gir national park and the maldharis: beyond setting aside. In: P.C.West and Brechin S.R. (eds) Resident People and National Parks – Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. Saberwal V.K., Gibbs J.P., Chellam R. and Johnsingh A.J.T. 1994. Lion–human conflict in the Gir Forest, India. Conservation Biology 8: 501–507. Shackleton C.M. 1993. Fuelwood harvesting and sustainable utilisation in a communal grazing ground and protected areas of the eastern Transvaal Lowveld. Biological Conservation 63: 247–254. Shanahan J. and McComas K. 1999. Nature Stories. Hampton Press, Cresskill, New Jersey Singh M. 2000. Issues for integrated management plan for Gir. Paper presented at the National Workshop on Regional Planning for Conservation and Development, Gir Conservation area, (7–9 November 2000). Wildlife Institute of India, and GFD, Ahmedabad, India. Singh H.S. and Kamboj R.D. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation Plan for Gir: A Management Plan for Gir Sanctuary and National Park. Vols. I and II. H.S. Forest Department, Gujarat, India, 157 pp. Singh M. and Pathak B.J. 2000. Ecodevelopment in Gir PA – Initiatives and future perspective. Paper presented at the national workshop on regional planning for conservation and development, Gir Conservation area (7–9 November 2000). Wildlife Institute of India, and GFD, Ahmendabad, India. Singh S., Sankaran V., Mander H. and Worah S. 2000. Strengthening Conservation Cultures – Local communities and Biodiversity Conservation. UNESCO, Paris, France, 211 pp. Srivastav A. 1997. Livestock predation by Gir lions and ecodevelopment. Tigerpaper (Bangkok) 24: 1–5. Soussan J., Gevers E., Ghimire K. and O’Keefe P. 1991. Planning for sustainability: Access to fuelwood in Dhanusha district, Nepal. World Development 20: 1299–1314. Strudsrod J.E. and Wegge P. 1995. Park–people relationship: The case of damage caused by park animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 22: 133–142. Tindsell C.A. 1995. Issues in biodiversity conservation including the role of local communities. Environmental Conservation 22: 216–222. Wells M. and Brandon K. 1992. People and Parks. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Western D. 1989. Conservation without parks: wildlife in the rural landscape. In: Western D. and Pearl M.C. (eds) Conservation for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press, New York.
