Summary
This map shows the community protected areas of Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) in different States. It provides the details on the protection, tenure type, village institution, extent of area being protected, agency supporting the protection etc.
Description
An attempt has been made by FES to map these community protected areas using GPS and GIS to begin with its own project locations. The larger agenda is to campaign for documenting these community efforts systematically partnering with other agencies, individuals, academia etc. in this effort. IBP is a good platform to participate and contribute towards this and document the rich protection and conservation efforts of the communities.
Methods
The commons or forests which are being protected with explicit governance mechanisms by the communities have been mapped using GPS surveys. The data on the institution type, area of protection, supporting agency, tenure type, year of protection etc. have been recorded along with the spatial data.
Map Info
This is a participatory map where in the users are requested to contribute by providing information or mapping on line the areas being protected by the community with definite rules and regulations and with proof of protection.In India, there are thousands of village communities across the country protecting and improving the vegetation and biodiversity on forest lands and other common lands thereby contributing significantly to improving and maintaining the forests in the country. However, lack of information on such efforts has meant that their importance in the conservation of the ecological base of our country has not received adequate mention. The other fall out of this lack of official sanction to these important efforts is that data related to it is not being gathered in a consistent manner across the country. Thus, we do not clearly know the extent of such efforts or the changes in them over a period of time.
External Links
Status of Forest cover-India
Credit: FSI, 2003
The protected area (PA)
The protected area (PA) network in India has helped to conserve a significant part of the country's biodiversity. The network of PAs currently covers an area of 8.1 million ha, encompassing about 14 percent of the country's forest area and 4.61 percent of its land mass. From six national parks and 59 wildlife sanctuaries in 1970, the numbers increased to 85 and 462 in 1998, respectively (Wildlife Institute of India, 1998). According to a survey carried out in the mid-1980s, over 65 percent of the PAs were characterized by human settlements and resource use (Kothari et al., 1989). Most PAs in India have a core zone with national park status and a peripheral buffer zone, which can be either a wildlife sanctuary or a reserve forest. Resource use has been restricted to the buffer zones, where it has been regulated, while core areas are completely closed. A 1991 amendment to the Wildlife Protection Act specifies that, in wildlife sanctuaries, the chief wildlife warden must certify that any manipulation does not harm wildlife, and that the manipulation be approved by the state government. The basic approach to management of PAs has been isolationist, based on the questionable assumption that certain areas are pristine or primary and that management must protect the park from people living in surrounding areas and shield wildlife and other natural resources from exploitation. This is achieved through the strict enforcement of legislation, patrols to prevent illegal activities and infrastructure maintenance. In this scenario, attempts to protect PAs from human intervention by coercion have often led to hostile attitudes of local people towards wildlife management and forestry staff, and sometimes to open conflict. The need to exclude people from protected areas is in itself debatable. Numerous ecological studies have shown that not all human use is detrimental to wildlife conservation interests. Througout the world, present-day forest quality and biodiversity patterns reflect the influence of past land use practices (e.g. Gomez-Pompa and Kaus, 1992). In fact, 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).