---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----

CONSERVATION & LIVELIHOOD TEAM VASUNDHARA 15, SAHID NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR – 751007 ORISSA, INDIA PHONE/FAX – (91674) 2542011, 2542012, 2542028 E-mail: vasundharanr@satyam.net.in Website: www.vasundharaorissa.org

2

Contents 1. Introduction 3 1.1. History of Conservation 5 1.2 Protected Areas: Importance & Assessment 9 1.3 Establishment of Protected Areas in India 15 2. Protected Area Network in India 19

2.1 Tiger Reserves in India 26 2.2 Biosphere Reserves in India 28 3. Protected Area Network in Orissa 29

3.1 Badrama 31 3.2 Baisipalli 36 3.3 Balukhand-Konark 38 3.4 Bhitarkanika 40 3.5 Chandaka 46 3.6 Chilika-Nalaban 52 3.7 Debrigarh 54 3.8 Gahirmatha 56 3.9 Hadgarh 58 3.10 Karlapat 60 3.11 Khalasuni 65 3.12 Kotgarh 67 3.13 Kuldiha 72 3.14 Lakhari 77 3.15 Nandankanan 79 3.16 Satkosia 81 3.17 Sunabeda 95 3.18 Similipal 103 4. Tiger Reserves in Orissa 112 5. Elephant Reserves in Orissa 118 6. Broad Issues in Protected Areas in Orissa 129 7. Annexes 144 8. References 150

3

IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN The word Conservation is one, which we often hear, but what does it actually mean? Conservation does not mean just preserving the flora or fauna as it is, at the cost of man. Conservation involves sustainable or wise utilization of the resources. Conservation stands on four pillars. The first pillar is ethical or moral concern. It is our moral responsibility not to impoverish our natural heritage to be passed on to future generations. The second pillar is aesthetic consideration. Nature is beautiful and care and love for the nature not only provides us with aesthetic pleasure but also helps in its protection. The third pillar is our need for sustenance – food and raw material for producing essential goods and products of daily use. If do not conserve and use the resources widely they will soon get depleted. The fourth is the scientific pillar. All our technological and scientific breakthrough would not have been possible without the natural resources. If any of the pillars of conservation falls then the whole ethic of conservation fails. Debates over the rationale for conservation are now fast being consigned to history. More people and governments than ever before recognize the need to conserve biological diversity, with over 180 countries now having become signatories to the International Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP 1992). With the dawn of such a broad consensus, conservation debates have now focused more narrowly on the means of attaining the goal of conserving biological diversity. The conservation community in India, as in other regions in the tropics, stands polarised between two forceful conservation paradigms: preservationism and sustainable use. Preservationism—hitherto the most common approach to conservation—entails the earmarking of state-administered ‘wildlife reserves’ within which extractive human activity is either greatly restricted, or completely halted using coercive means. It holds that, given India’s socio-economic and demographic milieu and the biology of wild species and ecosystems, strict and exclusive wildlife reserves represent the most important and realistic means of conserving biological diversity. Lately, however, there is growing popularity of an alternate paradigm—the sustainable use paradigm—which urges that authority over natural landscapes, including wildlife reserves, be devolved to the local communities using them. This approach builds on

4

the premise that subsistence users of biological diversity value it the most, are worst affected by its depletion and are therefore motivated to use it in a sustainable fashion. While these divergent conservation paradigms might well apply to all landscapes in the country, the debate assumes its most strident tone in respect of the country’s network of Protected Areas (wildlife sanctuaries and national parks). The approach to biodiversity conservation Orissa, as elsewhere in the country, has been through exclusionary reserves for wildlife conservation through creation of Protected Areas. In the past few months the State Government has taken steps in proposing an increase in the area under Protected Area network but on the other hand there has hardly been any effort to deal with the people living within the protected areas. The present conservation paradigm based on exclusion principle directly hampers the livelihood of the local people living within the Protected Areas by snatching away their ‘Right to Live’. Simultaneously threats to Protected Areas and local communities from activities like mining are rapidly increasing in Orissa. This is creating a conflicting as well as confusing situation as the people within the Protected Areas are not sure about their lives and livelihood. At this juncture it was felt that balancing conservation and livelihoods in the context of Protected Areas and tackling the key threats to conservation becomes very important. These dwindling situations prompted us to take up the issue and carry out intensive studies to know the exact situation of both the people and the wildlife (flora and fauna) within the Protected Areas and possibly come out with alternatives best suitable for both. To start with we needed to have a database of the Protected Area network in Orissa. In our effort to compile the existing information (both secondary and primary) from various sources we came out with this Status Report of the Protected Areas in Orissa. This report gives a comprehensive picture of the status of Protected Areas in Orissa. We have tried to put forth the conservation measures taken and the issues prevailing in the Protected Areas in Orissa. This is just a preliminary work undertaken by us and we invite all sorts of comments and suggestions to further strengthen our work.

5

HHIISSTTOORRYY OOFF CCOONNSSEERRVVAATTIIOONN

Early efforts of Conservation

The first wildlife conservation probably occurred among prehistoric peoples. These peoples may have limited their hunting to preserve the supply of wild animals they needed for food. Rulers of ancient civilizations set up the first game reserves--as their personal hunting grounds--and medieval European kings continued this practice. These kings also forbade hunting by anyone other than a member of the ruling class. But such action resulted from a ruler's love of hunting as a sport, rather than any awareness of the need for conservation. Certain forests were protected for religious reasons, and others were preserved for their value in providing timber to build ships.

During the 1600's and 1700's, the British colonies in America passed laws to protect wildlife. But most colonists ignored these laws. Effective wildlife conservation in the United States began in the late 1800's. Congress established Yellowstone National Park, the world's first national park, in 1872. In Italy, for example, what is now Gran Paradiso National Park has been a wildlife sanctuary since 1856. Australia set up its first national park in 1879. Canada created its first national park, Hot Springs Reservation (now called Banff National Park), in 1885. In 1898, the Sabi Game Reserve (now Kruger National Park) was established in what is now South Africa. This reserve was the beginning of the extensive network of national parks and game reserves in Africa. The first Asian and South American national parks were created during the early 1900's.

International cooperation in wildlife conservation began on a worldwide scale after the birth of the United Nations (UN) in 1945. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) set up wildlife conservation programs. In 1948, UNESCO helped establish the International Union for the Protection of Nature. In 1956, the name of this organization was changed to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). The IUCN then started to gather information on the world's endangered species. It publishes this data in its Red

6

Data Book. In 1961, the IUCN helped set up the World Wildlife Fund (now also called World Wide Fund for Nature). This fund raises money for conservation

Wildlife conservation today

As on today more than 37,000 protected areas exist worldwide. The majority of them are less than 4 square miles (10 square kilometers) in size. Most countries also have laws that protect wildlife. The U.S. National Park System has about 200 protected areas with significant wildlife habitats. Many universities have programs to educate ecologists, conservation biologists, and wildlife and fishery biologists. These specialists manage natural environments for the benefit of plants and animals. But in spite of the many conservation efforts, the future remains uncertain for the world's wildlife. The continued growth of the human population, the destruction and disruption of wildlife habitats, changes in natural processes, and the spread of environmental pollution present an increasing threat to the survival of wild species.

In Rio de Janeiro in 1992 an "Earth Summit" was held where 150 countries signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (or 'Biodiversity Convention'). The signatories recognized that action must be taken to halt the global loss of plant and animal species and genetic resources. Each nation has a responsibility to the rest of the world to conserve and enhance biodiversity within its own jurisdiction. At the same time the signatories agreed "to develop national strategies, plans and programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity," and to share resources to help implement such programmes.

Indian Context

The history of forests and wildlife in India can be divided into four major period categories:

1. The conservation and protection period (from Vedic to pre Muslim period) 2. The period of moderate – decline : (the Muslim period) 3. The rapid – decline period : (the British period) 4. The fastest decline with conservation period : (the post- independence period)

7

From the Vedic to the Pre-Mughal period in our country may be categorized under the conservation and protection period as far as the forest and Wildlife are concerned. The Rig Veda – the oldest document on Earth mentions the reference of nature, forest, trees, leaves, fruits, rivers, mountains, aushadhi (medicinal plants) etc. Madhu mano Vanaspati (sweet as honey are our plants) was popularly sung in praise of trees. The trees have been the best friend of man even in the pre-historic period, and the tree worship is the earliest and the most prevalent form of religion.

During the Mughal period (in the 16th and 17th century A.D), although there was some unification and integration of states, no attention to the preservation of forests seems to have been paid. Due to large-scale migrations, people seeking refuge in the forests, much emphasis was on the agriculture and so, more forest areas were cleared for this purpose. Mughals used to be good hunters and lovers of nature and game sports too, and so many game reserves were established for this purpose, which played a vital role in the conservation of forest and wildlife. Most of the rulers were interested in conservation of the forests mainly for hunting and recreational purposes. This was the period when the decline of wildlife and forest started slowly but gradually.

Much damage were done to the forests and wildlife during the British period, although scientific forestry is said to be started during this period and many new steps were also taken up for the systemic development, conservation, preservation and management of forests. But the central theme of course was the maximum extraction of timber and non timber forest produce from the forests for revenue and other purposes. The decline of wildlife gained further momentum with the increase in the variety of sporting weapons.

After the independence, the new Forest Policy, 1952 was formulated which was revised in 1988 and intensive measures were taken up for the protection and management of our flora and fauna. The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 which is a unified national act and supersedes previous State legislations and Indian Forest Act 1927, enables the constitution and management of areas as National Parks, sanctuaries, game reserves and closed areas. It also specifies the procedures for establishing Protected Areas and management parameters for them.

8

The Protected Area [PA] was used first time in India in the National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) document launched in 1983 (Kushwah and Kumar, 1994) which was actually a prospectus of action to be taken in the field of wildlife conservation in India. This NWAP has provided a vital network for conservation and management of India’s wildlife resources and a yardstick by which progress can be measured (Panwar,1991).

ORISSA CONTEXT

The State Wildlife Organization came into being in 1974 as a sequel to adoption of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 on 14th August 1974; and promulgation of the Wildlife (Orissa) Rules, 1974. The Conservator of Forests, Development Circle was designated as the Ex-Officio Chief Wildlife Warden, Orissa. In the year 1976, a distinct, Wildlife Organisation was constituted with the Chief wildlife Warden being posted in the rank of Conservator of Forest

Nandankanan Zoological Park, one of the premier zoos in the country was established in 1960 over an area of 3.62 sq kms in natural settings. The zoo houses more than 1000 animals of about 151 species.

‘Similipal’ was chosen as one of the nine prime locations for tiger conservation under ‘Project Tiger’ launched in 1973 by the Govt. of India. The notification of Similipal proposed National Park was issued in two phases in 1980 and in 1986.

‘Bhitarkanika’ was constituted as the first sanctuary in the state under the provisions of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and was notified in April 1975. The Bhitarkanika National Park was finally notified in the year 1998.

Today the Protected Area network of Orissa constitutes 18 Sanctuaries, 1 National Park and 1 Proposed National Park covering an area of 6611.12 sq km

9

PPrrootteecctteedd AArreeaass:: IImmppoorrttaannccee && AAsssseessssmmeenntt

The establishment and management of comprehensive network of PAs are one of the most important ways of ensuring that the world’s natural resources are conserved so that they can meet the material and cultural needs of mankind now and in the future. The combined destructive impacts of a poor majority struggling to survive and an affluent minority consuming a disproportionately large shares of world’s resources in undermining the very means by which all people can survive and flourish. Humanity’s relationship with the biosphere will continue to deteriorate until a new environmental ethic is adopted and sustainable modes of development become the rule rather than the exception. The conservation of living resources is essential for sustainining development by (Mayota 1991); • Maintaining the essential ecological processes and life support systems on which

human survival and development depend; • Preserving genetic diversity on which depend the breeding programmes necessary

for the protection and improvement of cultivated plants and domesticated animals, as well as scientific advance, technical innovation, and the security of the many industries that use living resources.

• Ensuring that man’s utilization of species and ecosystems, which support millions of rural people as well as major industries, is sustainable.

PAs were established worldwide, primarily as wildlife heavens, following emotional as well as national outcries from conservationists

10

Definition – What a PA is? The first section of the National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) says – the establishment of network of PAs such as National Parks [NPs] and Sanctuaries [WLS] and the Biosphere Reserves [BRs] to cover representative samples of all major life ecosystems and with adequate geographic distribution. It is clear therefore that the Protected Area may be legally established National Park or Wild life Sanctuary under the provisions of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 or Biosphere Reserves under the provisions of World Conservation Strategy formulated by the IUCN or any other PA with the objectives. A Protected Area is essentially an area to play the roles in: i) the conservation of biodiversity ii) ii) the contribution to the mitigation of global warming and iii) iii) adaptation to new global initiatives (IUCN 1990)

Definitions

• A Protected Area is defined by the convention on biodiversity as a geographically

defined area, which is designated, or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives.

• At the fourth World Congress and National Parks and Protected Areas, held in Caracas, Venezuela, in 1992 (IUCN 1994b). Such Protected Areas were defined as ‘an area of land and’ or sea especially dedicated to the protection and management of biodiversity and of national and cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.’

• The Global Biodiversity Strategy (WRI/IUCN/UNEP 1992) defines a PA as ‘legally established land or water area under either public or private ownership that is regulated or managed to achieve specific conservation goals.’

11

Categorization Of PAs

In the year 1959, IUCN was given the task of maintaining a list of the World’s National Park and equivalent reserves. It had defined ten categories earlier of conservation areas representing different levels of protection (from strict nature reserves to multiple use areas) and varying degrees of local, regional and global importance; each category is designated to meet different objectives (IUCN 1990). In the year 1994, IUCN revised PA categories. At present PA are classified by IUCN (1994) under six broad management categories. These range from strict nature reserves managed primarily for research and or environmental monitoring to managed resource PAs, established for long term protection and maintenance of biodiversity. As well as providing for the sustainable use of the natural products and services to meet the community needs. In additions there are three International Conventions, namely world Heritage Convention (WHC), UNESCO man and biosphere programme(MBP) and Ramsar convention and regional agreements such as ASCEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) and the African Convention on the Convention of nature and Natural Resources by which natural sites can be assigned as of global and regional importance. The Biosphere Reserves (BRs) are sites of exceptional richness concerning the diversity and integrity of biotic communities of flora and fauna of natural ecosystems. The primary use of the BR is for research, education and training. WHC are unique natural and cultural sites considered to be of outstanding universal significance. IUCN Revised Categories Of Protected Areas Group-A (Areas of particular interest to CNPPA) Category-I: Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area Objectives: To protect nature and maintain natural resources in an undisturbed area in order to have ecologically representative examples of natural environment for

12

scientific study, environmental monitoring education and maintenance of genetic resources in a dynamic and evolutionary state. There are two sub categories

1. PAs managed for scientific research and monitoring 2. PAs managed mainly for wilderness protection, subsistenance and recreation

Category II: National Park Objectives: To protect outstanding natural and scenic areas of national or international significance for scientific, educational and recreational use. These are relatively large areas not materially altered by the human activity and where extractive resource uses are not allowed. Category III: Natural Monuments/Natural Landmarks Objectives: To protect and preserve nationally significant natural features because of their special interest or unique characteristics. These are relatively small areas focused on the protection of specific features Category IV: Habitat/Species Management Area Objectives: To assure the natural conditions necessary to protect nationally significant species, groups of species biotic communities or physical features of the environment where these may require specific human manipulation for their perpetuation. Controlled harvesting of some resources may be permitted. It is new category so these PAs is to be established. Category V: Protected landscapes and seascapes Objectives: To maintain nationally significant natural landscapes that are characteristics of harmonious interaction of man and land while providing

13

opportunities for public enjoyment through recreation and tourism. These are mixed cultural/natural landscape of high scenic value where traditional land uses are maintained. GROUP- B (Areas of particular interest to IUCN in general) Category VI: Managed resource Protected Area Objectives: This a new category designed to include areas that ensure long term protection and maintenance of biodiversity while providing a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs. They are intended to be relatively large and predominantly unmodified natural systems where traditional and sustainable resources are encouraged. GROUP- C (Internationally recognized/affiliated designations (These categories are international levels, which overlay PAs in the above categories.) Category VII: Biosphere Reserves Objectives: To conserve for present and future use the diversity and integrity of representative biotic communities of plants and animals within natural ecosystems and to safeguard the genetic diversity of species on which their continuing evolution depends. Category VIII: World Heritage Sites Objectives: To protect the natural features for which the area was considered to be of world heritage quality and to provide information for the public Worldwide. The importance and relevance of PA system that encompass a representative habitat types, conserve key biological resources, and allow for sustainable development

14

initiatives has been reinforced in the countries planning for implementation of Convention on biodiversity. What should be included in PA? A Protected Area should provide year round protection for (IUCN, 1990)

i) Nature and modified ecosystems that are essential to maintain life support system, to conserve wildlife and research

ii) Culturally important landscapes of modified and cultivated ecosystems and historic monuments in built systems

iii) Sustainable production of wild resources in modified ecosystems and iv) Traditional sustainable uses of natural and modified ecosystems, such as

sacred places and traditional sites. How PAs contribute to human activities?

1. Conserve soil and water in zones that are potentially highly erosive if the original vegetation is removed, notably the steep slopes of the upper catchment;

2. Regulate and purify water flow, notably by protecting wetlands and forests; 3. Protect people from natural disasters, such as flood and storm surges, notable

by protecting watershed forests, riverain wetlands, coral reefs and other coastal wetlands;

4. Support important natural vegetation on soils and inherently low productivity that would yield of human communities if transformed;

5. Provide for the maintenance of wild genetic resources or of species important in medicine;

6. Protect species and population that are highly sensitive to human disturbance; 7. Maintain species that enhance the attractiveness of the landscape or the vitality

of the PAs; and 8. Provide habitat that is critical to harvested, migratory or threatened species for

breeding, feeding or nesting (IUCN, 1990)

15

EEssttaabblliisshhmmeenntt ooff PPrrootteecctteedd AArreeaass iinn IInnddiiaa

The present Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 not only specifies the procedures to be followed in setting up National Parks [NPs], Wild life sanctuaries [WLS] but also specifies the management parameters by indicating the sort of activities that are allowed or forbidden in the PAs. NPs are given higher level of protection; no grazing is permitted under Section 3.5.6 of the Act. Moreover no private landholding or right is allowed within a NP. WLS are accorded a lesser level of protection e.g. grazing is allowed in these types of PAs and certain activities might be permitted under Section 29 (i) and Section 33 of the Act. The provision of Section 29 has been made for a wildlife sanctuary to prohibit any type of exploitation, destruction or removal of wildlife similar to the provisions of the Section 3.5.6 for a NP. The procedure specified in the Act for the setting up of NPs and WLSs have the following broad objectives:

i) To identify the extent and boundary of the PA [NP or WLS] ii) To determine rights, if any, that exists within such an area [Section 19] iii) In case of existing right, to either compensate the owner of such right if the

owner is cooperative; or to acquire the land or right, if the owner is not willing voluntarily to accept compensation [Section 24]

iv) To allow the continuation of those activities which are considered acceptable [Section 24.2 (c)]

v) To provide alternatives to public way, or a common pasture, as far as may be practicable or convenient [Section 25.1 (f)]

16

Legal Steps for the Establishment of Protected Areas in India

Step One- The intension declared to constitute a WLS or NP by notification Section18 for WLS and Section 35.1 for NP Step Two- Proclamation issued by the Collector [Section 21] Step Three- Commencement of enquiry by the Collector in the claims preferred [Section 24.1] Step IV- Completion of such enquiry Step V- Passing of order, by Collector, admitting or rejecting the claims [Section 24.2] Step VI- Ordering the exclusion, for WLS/NP, of any of the portion for which claims have been admitted [Section 24.28] Step VII- Setting up appeals against settlement orders Step VIII- Execution of agreements between the Government and the owner(s) of such land or rights which are to included in the NP or WLS and for which claims have been admitted [Section 24.2 b] Step IX- Initiation of acquisition procedures for land or right which are to be included in the NP or WLS and for which claims have been admitted [Section 25] Step X- Completion of acquisition proceedings Step XI- Issuing of final notification for WLS [Section 26] and for NP [Section 35.4]

17

Support guidelines for the establishment of PAs (GBA, 1995) There are 10 steps as given for establishment of PA in general with biodiversity conservation as central objectives (Miller, et all, 1995).

1. No. of areas: A large number of sites will provide better coverage of the diversity of habitat and transition areas in the country. The larger number also cover the larger cover and need for resilience of the system which ensure protection from vulnerability to diseases, catastrophes, anthropomorphic disturbances, etc.

2. Size: Ideally each area should be as large as needed to embrace the biota of concern, together with the related habits, habitat, behavioural aspects and ecosystem factors and interactions. Naturally both number and size will be co-determined by socioeconomic factors in terms of habitation density, occupancy of local human residents, availability of agricultural soils, and internal demand

3. Interconnectedness: The intervening landscape or water bodies should permit the flow of biota from site to site in response to daily and seasonal changes, climate changes and other large and small spatial and temporal-scale factors. Thus corridors are needed between different Protected Areas to ensure genetic viability and survival of the species.

4. Zoning: Classification of different regions according to zones will segregate management objectives and uses for comprehensive management of resources. E.g. areas of key significance for concerned biota and maintenance of ecological balance should be kept out of human disturbances (Core Zone), while certain areas can be used for sustainable use of resources with conservation of wildlife (Buffer Zone), special zone for tourism, sites for scientific research, etc. by this we can maximize other goals of conservation.

5. Location of facilities and infrastructure: The design of trails and roads, buildings and infrastructure (fuel, sewage water, power, etc.) can affect biodiversity. Physical development, even those limited facilities required by most protected areas, should be designed and located as part of overall ecological assessment, mapping and analysis.

18

6. Research and Monitoring Programmes: A research and monitoring programme is an essential component of PA management. Trend in plant succession, migratory patterns of birds and ungulates, and stream flow are few indicators of positive or negative responses wildlife to management practices.

7. Biological-resource management programmes: A biological resource management plan can clarify possible needs for interventions (fire management, restoration, captive breeding, eradication of exotic species, etc.) and their geological placements, seasonal timings, etc. the plan should also includes prescription for protection of genetic resources, for fostering and maintaining path dynamics, and for other detailed measures. An array of methods is available for conserving biodiversity at genetic, species and ecosystem level. The findings of research and monitoring can be applied in the context of PAs as per the requirement.

8. Educational programmes: PAs are excellent places for educating people about nature and the relationship between nature and people. Various countries view PAs as a appropriate place for environmental education and intellectual development.

9. Use management programmes: All IUCN management categories feature one or more types of human use ranging from direct uses (Tourism, recreation, extraction of NTFPs, etc.) to indirect uses (environmental services such as watershed protection, soil conservation, geo-chemical cycles, etc.). The degree to which biodiversity is conserved at genetic, species and ecosystem levels will depend on how these use regimes are managed.

10. Bioregional management programme: PAs be a component of larger landscape or seascape. For biological, social, cultural and economical reasons PAs should not be considered as islands of conservation with conflicts arising pertaining to resource governance. PA management where overall objective is biodiversity conservation will succeed only if co-operative arrangements people made between public agencies, local people and industries. These agreements must ensure that the management of biological resources and ecosystems in adjacent areas are consistent with the management objectives of PAs.

19

PPrrootteecctteedd AArreeaa NNeettwwoorrkk iinn IInnddiiaa India has a large network of Protected Areas (PAs) including national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. These protected areas are vital to the conservation of the biological diversity of the country. Not only are they valuable heritage assets, but they also play an important role in protecting watersheds and coastlines, providing livelihoods and encouraging conservation. In the 1980’s, the Wildlife Institute of India provided a unique framework of conservation planning which analysed the existing protected area network scientifically, and identified the inadequacies and gaps in the coverage. The framework divided the country into ten zones: trans-Himalaya, Himalaya, desert, semi-arid, Western Ghats, Deccan peninsula, Gangetic plain, coasts, northeast, and the islands, with 26 identified biotic provinces within them. From 3.34 per cent of the country’s total geographical area, the Protected Area network has grown to attain the present status of 4.73 per cent in 25 years. WILD LIFE SANCTUARIES There area 492 existing wildlife sanctuaries in India covering an area of 117,077.41 km2, which is 3.56% of the geographical area of the country. Another 217 sanctuaries are proposed in the Protected Area Network covering an area of 16,669.44 km2. Maximum number of sanctuaries exists in size class less than 10 km2 and there are only 2 sanctuaries, having more than 5,000 km2. State wise break up of Wildlife Sanctuaries in India

State & Union Territory Area (km²) No. of WLS Area (km²) % of state

Andhra Pradesh 275045 21 12530.09 4.56

Arunachal Pradesh 83743 11 7606.73 9.08

Assam 78438 15 883.16 1.13

Bihar 94163 11 2949.17 3.13

Chhattisgarh 135194 10 3419.46 2.53

Goa 3702 6 647.96 17.50

Gujarat 196024 21 16422.71 8.38

20

Haryana 44212 7 162.73 0.37

Himachal Pradesh 55673 32 5770.85 10.37

Jammu & Kashmir 222236 15 10219.65 4.60

Jharkhand 79714 10 1863.23 2.34

Karnataka 191791 21 3888.22 2.03

Kerala 38863 12 2143.36 5.52

Madhya Pradesh 308252 25 7198.19 2.34

Maharashtra 307713 35 14376.56 4.67

Manipur 22327 3 393.30 1.76

Meghalaya 22429 3 34.20 0.15

Mizoram 21081 4 771.00 3.66

Nagaland 16579 3 20.34 0.12

Orissa 155707 18 6971.15 4.48

Punjab 50362 10 316.73 0.63

Rajasthan 342239 24 5712.83 1.67

Sikkim 7096 5 265.10 3.74

Tamil Nadu 130058 19 2539.82 1.95

Tripura 10486 4 603.62 5.76

Uttaranchal 53484 6 2395.52 4.48

Uttar Pradesh 241335 23 5333.47 2.21

West Bengal 88752 15 1203.34 1.36

Andaman & Nicobar 8249 94 372.13 4.51

Chandigarh 114 1 25.42 22.30

Dadra & Nagar Haveli 491 1 92.16 18.77

Lakshadweep 32 0 0.00 0.00

Pondicherry 492 0 0.00 0.00

Daman & Diu 112 1 2.18 1.95

Delhi 1483 1 13.20 0.89

India 3287263 489 117042.04 3.56

Source: www.wii.gov.in

21

NATIONAL PARKS There are 92 existing national parks in India covering an area of 38,569.66 km2, which is 1.17% of the geographical area of the country (National Wildlife Database, July 2004). In addition to the above 74 national parks covering an area of 16,630.08 km2 are proposed in the Protected Area Network. Maximum numbers of parks exist in size class less 100-500 km2 and there are 7 parks, having more than 5,000 km2. State wise break up of National Parks

Gujarat 196024 4 480.11 0.24

Haryana 44212 2 117.13 0.26

Himachal Pradesh 55673 2 1429.40 2.57

Jammu & Kashmir 222235 4 4680.25 2.11

Jharkhand 79714 1 231.67 0.29

Karnataka 191791 5 2435.14 1.27

Kerala 38863 4 549.34 1.41

Madhya Pradesh 308252 9 3656.36 1.19

Maharashtra 307690 5 955.93 0.31

Manipur 22327 1 40.00 0.18

Meghalaya 22429 2 267.48 1.19

Mizoram 21081 2 250.00 1.19

State/UTs Area (km2) NP Area (km2) %of Area

Andhra Pradesh 275068 4 373.23 0.14

Arunachal Pradesh 83743 2 2290.82 2.74

Assam 78438 5 1968.60 2.51

Bihar 94163 1 335.65 0.36

Chhattisgarh 135194 3 2929.50 2.17

Goa 3702 1 107.00 2.89

22

Source: www.wii.gov.in

Nagaland 16579 1 202.02 1.22

Orissa 155707 2 990.70 0.64

Punjab 50362 0 0.00 0.00

Rajasthan 342239 5 4122.33 1.20

Sikkim 7096 1 1784.00 25.14

Tamil Nadu 130058 5 307.84 0.24

Tripura 10486 0 0.00 0.00

Uttar Pradesh 240926 1 490.00 0.20

Uttaranchal 53485 6 4725.00 7.62

West Bengal 88752 5 1693.25 1.91

Andaman & Nicobar8249 9 1156.91 14.02

Chandigarh 114 0 0.00 0.00

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

491 0 0.00 0.00

Daman & Diu 112 0 0.00 0.00

Delhi 1483 0 0.00 0.00

Lakshadweep 32 0 0.00 0.00

Pondicherry 493 0 0.00 0.00

India 3287263 92 38,569.66 1.17

23

Current PA Summary of India (as on July 2004)

Geographical Area of India (FSI, 1997) = 32,87,263 Forest Area of India (FSI, 1997) = 768,436 km2 Percentage Forest Area of Geographical Area of India = 23.38 %

Current Protected Area Status

National Parks = 92 Area Covered = 38,569.66 kWildlife Sanctuaries = 492 Area Covered =117,077.41Protected Areas = 584 Area Covered = 155,647.07 km2 NationalParks% ofG.A. = 1.17 WildlifeSanctuaries%ofG.A. = 3.56 Protected Areas % of G.A. = 4.73 %

Source: IUCN Report

Summary of Existing Protected Area Network in India

No Area

% of Geographical Aof India

National Parks (NPs) 94 37,706.43 km2 1.15 %

Wildlife Sanctuaries (WLSs) 501 118,222.42 km23.60 %

Conservation Reserves (CRs) 2 40.50 km2 0.0012 %

Protected Areas (PAs) 597 155,969.35 km24.74 %

Geographical Area of India (FSI, 1999) = 32,87,263 km2

Recorded Forest Area of India (FSI, 2001) =

Forest Area = of Geographical Area of India Source: www.wii.gov.in

24

EXISTING PROTECTED AREAS IN INDIA

25

Wetland Protected Areas and Waterbird Sanctuaries in India

26

TTiiggeerr RReesseerrvveess iinn IInnddiiaa

Project Tiger was launched by the Government of India in the year 1973 to save the endangered species of tiger in the country. Starting from nine (9) reserves in 1973-74 the number is grown up to twenty seven (27) in 1999-2000. A total area of 37,761 km2 is covered by these project tiger areas, which is 1.15% of the total geographical area of the country. The estimated tiger population in these reserves was approximately 1,500 and the total population within the country was nearly 4,000 in 1992. List of Tiger Reserves in India

Sl. NTiger Reserve Year Establishment

Total A(Km2)

State

1. Bandhavgarh 1993-94 1162 Madhya Pradesh

2. Bandipur Nagarhole (extension)

1973-74 1999-2000

866 643

Karnataka

3. Bhadra 1998-99 492 Karnataka

4. Bori-Satpura 1999-2000 1486 Madhya Pradesh

5. Buxa 1982-83 759 West Bengal

6. Corbett 1973-74 1316 Uttaranchal

7. Dampa 1994-95 500 Mizoram

8. Dudhwa Katerniaghat (extension)

1987-88 1999-2000

811 551

Uttar Pradesh

9. Indravati 1982-83 2799 Chhattishgarh

10. Kalakad-Mundanthurai 1988-89 800 Tamil Nadu

11. Kanha 1973-74 1945 Madhya Pradesh

12. Manas 1973-74 2840 Assam

13. Melghat 1973-74 1677 Maharashtra

27

14. Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam 1982-83 3568 Andhra Pradesh

15. Namdapha 1982-83 1985 Arunachal Pradesh

16. Pakhui-Nameri 1999-2000 1206 Arunachal-Assam

17. Palamau 1973-74 1026 Jharkhand

18. Panna 1994-95 542 Madhya Pradesh

19. Pench (M.P.) 1992-93 758 Madhya Pradesh

20. Pench 1992-93 257 Maharashtra

21. Periyar 1978-79 777 Kerala

22. Ranthambhore 1973-74 1334 Rajasthan

23. Sariska 1978-79 866 Rajasthan

24. Simlipal 1973-74 2750 Orissa

25. Sunderbans 1973-74 2585 West Bengal

26. Tadoba-Andhari 1993-94 620 Maharashtra

27. Valmiki 1989-90 840 Bihar

28

BBiioosspphheerree RReesseerrvveess iinn IInnddiiaa The programme of Biosphere Reserve was initiated under the 'Man & Biosphere' (MAB) programme by UNESCO in 1971. The purpose of the formation of the biosphere reserve is to conserve in situ all forms of life, along with its support system, in its totality, so that it could serve as a referral system for monitoring and evaluating changes in natural ecosystems. The first biosphere reserve of the world was established in 1979, since then the network of biosphere reserves has increased to 425 in 95 countries across the world (MAB, 2003). Presently, there are 13 existing biosphere reserves in India. List of Biosphere Reserves in India

S.No. Name of Reserve Date Establishment

Area (sq.km.)

State Location

1. Nilgiri 01-09-1986 5,520.00 Karnataka, Kerala & TNadu

2. Nanda Devi 18-01-1988 5,860.69 Uttaranchal

3. Nokrek 01-01-1988 80.00 Meghalaya

4. Great Nicobar Islan06-01-1989 885.00 Andaman & Nicobar Isla

5. Gulf of Mannar 18.02.1989 10,500.00 Tamil Nadu

6. Manas 14-03-1989 2,837.00 Assam

7. Sunderbans 29-03-1989 9,630.00 West Bengal

8. Simlipal 22-06-1994 4,374.00 Orissa

9. Dibru-Saikhowa 28-07-1997 765.00 Assam

10. Dehang-Debang 02-09-1998 5,111.50 Arunachal Pradesh

11. Pachmarhi 03-03-1999 4,926.00 Madhya Pradesh

12. Khangchendzonga 07-02-2000 2,619.92 Sikkim

13. Agasthyamalai 12-11-2001 1,701.00 Kerala

29

PPrrootteecctteedd AArreeaa NNeettwwoorrkk iinn OOrriissssaa Protected Area (PA) network in Orissa comprises of 18 sanctuaries and 2 National Parks, Bhitarkanika National Park and Similipal proposed National Park.The PAs constitute 4.2%of the geographical area of the State and 11.4% of the forest area Biogeographic Zones / Province / Sub-Division and Location of Sanctuaries in Orissa

Zone Province Sub-Division Sanctuary located in

region

Eastern Ghat

Baisipalli,Chandaka,

Karlapat

Eastern Plateau

Chhattisgarh-

Dandakarnya

Debrigarh, Sunabeda

Deccan Peninsula

Chhotanagpur Garjat Hills Badrama, Hadgarh,

Khalasuni, Kuldiha,

Satkosia, Similipal.

Gangetic Plain Lower gangetic plain

Coasts Eastern coasts Balukhand, Bhitarkanika

Gahirmatha, Nalaban

30

Map showing the PA network in Orissa

31

BBaaddrraammaa SSaannccttuuaarryy Badrama sanctuary, also known as “Ushakothi”, is located in Bamra Wildlife Division in the district of Sambalpur. The place Badrama is 48 kms from Sambalpur town on the NH-6, and about 200 kms from Rourkela. There is an attractive FRH at Badrama and the sanctuary abounds in the luxuriant Sal forest. The sanctuary mostly has a hilly terrain, and is continuous with Khalasuni sanctuary to the south. Because of the tigers and elephants and proximity to Sambalpur and Rourkela cities, this is one sanctuary in western Orissa with a lot of potential. The convenient approach to this WLS is by road from Sambalpur 48 km, from Rourkela 200 km via Bonai-Barkot, 180 km via Bamra-Kuchinda- Jamankira and 217 km via Jharsuguda- Sambalpur. The most suitable period for visit is October- April.

32

Location (District) Located in the District of Sambalpur

Longitudes 84º.10' and 84º.30' (East)

Latitude 21º.20' to 21º.40'(North)

Area 304.03 sq kms including core area 31.28 sq kms.

Legal Status of Land Acquired

for Sanctuary

Ushakothi RF - 200.68 sq kms.

Badrama RF - 57.97 sq kms.

Binjhapalli RF - 16.73 sq kms.

Others - 28.65 sq kms

Declaration of Intention U/S –

18 of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972

17th December 1987 [Notification no. 8F(W)- 90/23393/FFAH]

Final Notification U/S 26 (A) of

Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 Deemed Sanctuary

Right Settlement (U/S 19 to 25) of

WPA, 1972

Proceedings under section 19-25 is in progress in

Non-RF areas

Type of Forest Moist Sal bearing Forest & Moist Mixed

Decidous Forest. Teak, Sal, Piasal, Bamboo etc found

Climate Winter temp is approximately 10ºC. In summer temp rises above 45ºC.

Wild Animals to be seen Tiger, Leopard, Hyena, Wildboar, Spotted Deer,

Elephant etc.

Management Control Bamra Wildlife Division, Bamra

33

No. of Human Habitations inside

the Sanctuary

172 villages (including hamlets)

225 Revenue villages

Population N.A

Scheduled V Area Fully

Issues related to livelihood in Badrama According to the official sources, there exist only 25 revenue villages within the sanctuary. But, according to a local NGO named Sambalpur Integrated Development Institute based at Tiklipada the actual number is 72 which includes some revenue villages and hamlets. Inhabitants of as many as 72 villages and hamlets, residing inside the Badrama sanctuary, face a new threat of losing their livelihood today. The residents who critically depend on collecting various NTFP products for their sustenance are now prevented from doing so by the forest department. As it is the only source of people's livelihood the restriction has caused serious economic dislocation among the locals. With the only source of income at stake people often resent the access committed by the forest department and lock their horns with the officials leading to minor scuffle and pitch battle. The problem is acute in case of collection of Kendu leaf, Bamboo, Sal seeds and Mahua as these are largely available in the sanctuary area.

1 Vasundhara, 2004; information collected from a local NGO, Sambalpur Integrated Development Institute, Tiklipada. 2 Official sources; Wild Orissa, 2004, Forest Department, Government of Orissa.

34

Admitted Rights and Concessions Erstwhile, the entire area, which is falling inside the sanctuary boundary, was under control of Bamra ex-state. According to the Bamra Forest Rule, following rights were given to the people residing adjacent to the forest: People had no rights on 'A' class Reserve forest. Some privileges granted on 'B' class Reserve forest to the nistar paying tenants

in terms of collection of forest products only for domestic consumption purpose but were not allowed to sale or barter the products. The privileges were allowed only in forest coupe areas.

In terms of concession cattle grazing was allowed inside the Reserve Forest (excluding the areas closed for grazing) on payment of certain fees. Also, free collection of minor forest produce like edible roots, leaves, fruits, flowers and grasses for bonafied purpose were permitted to the people residing near the reserve forest. Lac cultivation especially on Kusum trees inside the Reserve Forest was allowed. Permission of bamboo extraction by the tenants for meeting their domestic needs existed.

Special concessions were given to primitive tribe groups like Juang allowing them to collect bamboo free of cost which required no prior permission. Also, for them there was no restriction on processing and selling of the product for seeking livelihood.

One of the worst victims of sanctuary declaration are the residents of Sarada Panchayat. The whole panchayat comprising six villages sits on a hilly tract having no communication the name worth. The area is used to be one of the best KL producers in Orissa. However all the phadis including those which have been operational since the nationalisation of KL trade were closed down in 1999. Two new phadis namely Pathuria and Tileimal were opened conditionally in 1998 after repeated demands from the public. The phadis were opened by the KL department with a condition that it should at least produce 30 quintals of leaves per year. In 1998 the phadis registered a production of 58 quintals and the next year touched an all time high of 72 quintals. Productions have since then dropped very sharply and one unconfirmed report put it at 10/12 quintals. What ever be the quantity of production villagers now face a tough time as there is no phadi nearer to their habitation and they have to walk down 15k.m. for depositing their produce. Again with a ban on plucking inside the sanctuary area in force people now constantly live under the mercy of the forest department to continue any operation. The fear of being hunt down is always lurking in their mind.

35

Bamboo and bamboo related product constitute a key source of income for three communities namely the Turi, Dom and Kondh. Of these the first two belong to the Schedule Caste and the latter one to the Schedule Tribe and are settled in Sarada, Sodo, Badrama, Kulundi Panchayats coming inside the sanctuary area. Close on the hill of bamboo nationalisation and more particularly after 1999 forest department officials intensified their assault on these people thriving on finished product from bamboo. It is alleged that they not only try to nab and stop people from cutting bamboo but also demand bribe for their lifting. Worst still happen when people take the commodity for selling to the local market. The employees of the forest department harass the people on the ground that their produce has been made out of the bamboo of the sanctuary area. In reaction to the official harassment people took to the street protesting their highhandedness in 1994. Sensing people’s mood the then Bamara DFO agreed to allow the people to collect bamboo on humanitarian ground. He however made it cleared that he couldn't issue any official order to that effect and his suggestion to be treated as purely personal and unofficial. This in it self suggests the adhoc nature of the solution and resumption of restriction could take place 'at will'. The situation in mahua collection is equally very distressing and the worst casualty of restriction is Sarada Panchayat. People who were hitherto, collecting mahua from the sanctuary area are now barred from the same since 2003. Collections of Sal seeds have also drastically gone down in the area as a result of the stepped up vigil by the forest department. The year 2003 witnessed a bumper crop of Sal seeds. Primary collector however faced a major problem of selling in 2003. Crisis precipitated when Orissa Forest Development Corporation and Tribal Development Cooperative Corporation both refused to purchase the commodity after a dead line set by them. This was done notwithstanding the fact that huge quantities of the produce were still lying unsold with the primary gatherers. Consequently people resorted to agitation and government finally agreed to procure the harvest after the said dead line. However payments still remain unpaid and OFDC owe a lot of outstanding dues to the primary gatherer. It is alleged that the middlemen involved in the trade have siphoned payments of the people.

36

BBaaiissiippaallllii SSaannccttuuaarryy To the South of Satkosia Gorge Sanctuary and located in Nayagarh district, the Baisipalli Sanctuary is a quality Sal forest with significant number of tigers, leopards and elephants. Because of lack of roads, the interiors of this sanctuary are still relatively unexplored. It is considered as the gateway to the eastern ghats. The Entry points to this sanctuary are at Takera (near Daspalla), Chamundia (60 km from Nayagarh) and Kusanga (60 km from Boudh), Chamundia is 100 km from Bhubaneswar via Kantilo on the bank of river Mahanadi. The suitable period for visit is from October to March.

37

Location Spreads over Nayagarh & Boudh District. It is contiguous with the Satkosia Gorge Sanctuary. Located between latitude 20º 31' 37" to 20º 45' 37" North andlongitude 84º 43' 03" to 85º 05' 17" East.

Area 168.35 sq.kms 1. Boudh Forest Division: 77.63 sq.kms 2. Nayagarh Forest Division: 90.72 sq.kms

Legal Status of Land Acquired for Sanctuary & Year of Declaration

Boudh Forest Division: • ‘A’ Class R.F – 46.74 Sq.kms (1916) • ‘B’ Class R.F – 30.89 Sq.kms (1925)

Nayagarh Forest Division:

Date of Notification U/S 18 of WLP Act 1972

07 Nov. 1981 vide Notification No. 25335

Date of Notification U/S 26(A) of WLP Act 1972

Though Final Notification has not been issued till date, but it is being considered as Deemed Sanctuary as perthe provisions laid down in 1991 amended WLP Act.

Proceedings U/S 19 to 25 of WLP Act 1972

Deemed to be Completed (Proceedings U/S 19 to 25 is not required since the entire area included in the Sanctuary is Reserve Forests as per the provisions of 1991 Amended WLP Act.)

Forest type Sal, Karada, Piasal, Kurum, Asan, Bamboo etc.

Climate Summer upto 45ºC, Winter (night temp 5-6ºC). Average humidity 80%, Rainfall more than 10mm per year.

Wild Animals to be seen Leopard, Tiger, Sambar, Spotted Deer, Boar, elephant etc.

Management Control Mahanadi Wildlife Division, Nayagarh

No. of Human Habitations inside the Sanctuary

335(Source: Satkosiya Praja Surakhya Samiti, alocal people’organisation)

Total Population 5874 (2001 Census) SC: 19%, ST: 32%, Others: 49%

Scheduled V Area No

38

BBaalluukkhhaanndd--KKoonnaarrkk SSaannccttuuaarryy Balukhand-Konark Sanctuary is established on the sandy tract covered by plantation of casurina and cashew trees, along the coast between Puri and Konark. It is well served by the marine drive road. The rivers Khushabhadra and Nuanai cut through the sanctuary. Spotted deer abound in the area but the star attraction is the rare Blackbuck. Puri, the entry point into the sanctuary is only 3 kms away from the sanctuary. The Puri-Konark marine drive road passes through this sanctuary.

39

-------------------------------------- 1 According to RO of Konark as quoted in Issues in Sanctuaries and National Parks in Orissa, report by Samir Stephan Kujur undertaken in association with RCDC, July 2002.

Location (District) Located in the district of Puri between Longitudes 85°-52'-0'' and 86°-14'-0'' (East) Latitude 19°-48'-0'' to 19°-54'-0'' (North)

Area 71.71Sq.kms

Legal Status of Land Acquired Sanctuary

N.A

Declaration of Intention U/S – 18 of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972

23rd April 1984 vide Notification No.9013, Further revised on 1st September 1987 vide Notification No.15216

Final Notification U/S 26 (A) of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972

Though Final Notification has not been issued till date, but it is being considered as Deemed Sanctuary as per the provisions laid down in 1991 amended WLP Act.

Right Settlement (U/S 19 to 25) of WPA, 1972

Proceedings under section 19-25 is in progress in Non-RF areas

Type of Forest Casurina, Polanga, Karanja etc.

Climate Winter temp is approximately 10ºC in Summer temp rises above 40ºC

Wild Animals to be seen Spotted deer, Blackbuck, Stripped Hyena, Jungle Cat etc

Management Control Puri Wildlife Division, Bhubaneswar

No. of Human Habitations inside the Sanctuary

36 Villages1 • 5 Villages inside the Sanctuary • 31 Villages adjoining to Boundary line

Population N.A

No. of Villages involved in protection & management of Sanctuary Area

22 • VSS: 21 • EDC: 01

Scheduled V Area No

40

BBhhiittaarrkkaanniikkaa SSaannccttuuaarryy Located in the district of Kendrapada, Bhitarkanika sanctuary, is rich mangrove area on the estuary of the rivers Brahmani and Baitarini and is criss-crossed by the creeks and creeklets. It is the ideal habitat for the reptiles like the estuarine crocodile, the largest Indian lizard (water monitor), King cobra and python. Kingfisher, hornbills, bar headed geese, Brahminy ducks, Pintails, White bellies sea eagles and a variety of resident and migratory birds make it a paradise for the avid bird watchers. Vultures disappearing in most part of the country have a special niche in Bhitarkanika in parts of the forest called ‘Saguna –chera’. The sanctuary covers 672 sq km out of which only about 150 sq km is forest area. The core area of 145 sq km is notified as National Park. The entire area other than the core is thickly populated. The sanctuary is contiguous with the Gahirmatha marine sanctuary. The headquarters of the Division administering the sanctuary is located at Rajnagar approximately 130 kms from the State Capital, Bhubaneswar. Winters and early summers are the suitable period to visit Bhitarkanika.

41

Location Located in the District of Kendrapara between Longitudes 86°. 30’ to 87°. 06’ (East) and latitude 20°. 30’ to 20°. 50’ (North).

Area Sanctuary Area: 672.00sq.km. It includes National Park area: 145.00sq.km

Date of Notification Sanctuary – notified on 22 April 1975 vide Notification No. 6958/ National Park notified on 30 October 1988 vide Notification No. 22904/

Date of Final Notification

Sanctuary - Though Final Notification has not been issued till date, but it is being considered as Deemed Sanctuary as per the provisions laid down in 1991 amended WLP Act. National Park – Final Notification issued on 16th September 1998 vide Notification No. 19686 U/S 35 of WLP Act 1972.

Proceedings U/S 19 to 25 of WLP Act 1972

U/S 19 – 25 is in progress in Non-RF areas as mentioned in the page no. 32 of Wildlife Conservation in Orissa, a report published by the Orissa ForeDepartment in 2003.

Type of Forest Mangroves

Climate Minimum winter temperature is around 10ºC, summer temp goes upto 43ºC

Wild Animals to be seen

Leopard Cat, Fishing cat, Jungle cat, Hyena, Wild boar, Spotted deer, Sambar, Porcupine, Pythons, Dolphins, King Cobra, Saltwater crocodiles including partial white (sankhua) crocodile, Water monitor lizard, Terrapins, Marine turtles, Kingfishers, Woodpeckers, Hornbills, Bar headed goose, Brahminy ducks, Pintails, Whote bellied sea eagles, and a variety of resident and migratory birds.

Management Control

Mangrove Forest Division (WL), Rajnagar

No. of Human Habitations inside the Sanctuary

410 villages

Population More than 2 lakhs

Scheduled V Area No

42

Issues in Bhitarkanika Sanctuary & National Park Process of declaration and Status In 1975, the government declared the Bhitarkanika forests as a Sanctuary for the protection of wild life under section 18 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The total area of this sanctuary is 672 sq.km.. In 1988, the Govt published its intention for creating a National Park over an area of 367 sq. km. in the Bhitarkanika area, but the final notification in 1998 recognised a much-reduced area. The Bhitarkanika National Park actually comprises the 145 sq. km. core area of the sanctuary and is essentially a no harvest zone by principle. Meanwhile, in 1997, the marine waters off the Kanika coast were also declared as the Gahiramatha Marine Sanctuary for the protection of Olive-Ridley turtles. This marine sanctuary shares its boundary with the Bhitarkanika Sanctuary/National Park. It constitutes 1408 sq. km. of water body and 27 sq.km. of land mass (including Reserved Mangrove Forests, mud flats and accreted sand bars). The core area of GMS is 725.50 sq. km. and the buffer area, 709.50 sq. km. There are 410 villages in the Sanctuary area with a population of around two lakhs and record of rights of these villagers were not documented by the Forest Department for long. However, there was a petition filed in 1998 in the Orissa High Court relating to various such issues following which the High Court asked for documentation of the record of rights. The District Collector of Kendrapara was in charge of this documentation and his report, which has reportedly been submitted to the govt, is expected to bring about a substantial change in the sanctuary boundary by excluding a large number of villages that do not seem to be ecologically important, from the sanctuary area. This proposed measure is expected to reduce the conflict between the people and the sanctuary authorities. Impact of the restrictions on livelihood of the local population People of the area managed to collect forest products what they wanted for their livelihood till the area was declared as Sanctuary in 1975. After this notification, some of the existing rights still continued; but the inhabitants were no more allowed to make any change in the land use pattern and also, all the creeks/nallas and riverbeds

43

were now closed to hunting though fishing was allowed to some extent despite legal prohibition. The real problem started after the notification of the National Park in 1998 because as per the rules & regulations of the National Park, no rights whatsoever exist inside the NP territory. Honey collection by the tribal Daleis (average annual household income from honey was around Rs. 5000-6000) have been stopped and they are facing problems to secure their livelihood. Since they are accustomed to this profession it is difficult for them to adopt other alternatives. On the other hand, they have little land and money to afford other viable alternatives like agriculture. Some of them had reclaimed some forest land in the Mahisamada area which the Forest Department seized later and used for plantation. Hence, they are compelled to resort to illegal collection of the same since they have been extremely dependent on these raw materials. On the other hand, the department tried to provide some of them an alternative by supplying bee-keeping boxes. Now, the department itself is discouraging apiculture giving the reason that it poses some threat to the fragile eco-system. Similarly, the professional 4nalia weavers belonging to scheduled caste earned Rs.2000-3000 in a year by producing different products from nalia. But now this source of income is at stake since the FD has banned harvesting inside the NP area. The Nalia weavers are thus forced for illegal collection of the raw materials. Due to restrictions imposed on harvesting timber and pinchha for the local people house-building has now become quite difficult. Even, catching crabs from the creeks has been restricted by the departmental staff on the plea that the crabs are for the crocodiles. In early 1970s few SC households in Gupti were allotted 2 acres land each by the then Minister Kanhu Charan Lenka and were given patta for such lands. The revenue department collected land rent/cess from them against the same. However, in 2001-02 the Forest Department seized these allotted lands claiming that the area actually belonged to it. Accordingly, the Department has asked the people to stop cultivating these lands though they still pay land cess for the same as the Revenue Department is yet to cancel their pattas. With their agricultural fields seized by the Forest

44

Department and scarce of wage labour in the locality, about 32 persons have migrated temporarily to Gujurat and Delhi in search of employment. Other problems faced by the local residents: The crocodile conservation programme has created a panic among the local people, particularly in the rainy seasons when the crocodiles cross over to the water-logged cultivated lands from the rivers & creeks and the farmers are in great trouble to do their agricultural work. They are even unable to protect their crops from the wild boars simply because access to the fields is difficult due to the presence of crocodiles. There has been a number of human causalities due to crocodile attack The loss of livestock is much more. Besides, many people have been injured by crocodile attack. However, in these cases people do not get compensation properly which again is not a significant amount. Inter-departmental conflict – implications on bio-diversity: Since long(1969-70), 10 forest blocks inside the sanctuary are proposed to be declared as Reserve Forests but the final declaration is pending due to lack of coordination of the Revenue Department or district administration which is responsible for enquiry into forest settlement cases. The next problem was created by the Irrigation Department. To check tidal inundation in agricultural lands, this department facilitated the construction of large embankments as a result of which many virgin mangrove patches were destroyed. Moreover, it has been noticed that reports of crocodile attacks are more in areas where creeks have been blocked for irrigation. Then came the Fisheries Department, which facilitated the extensive commercial fishing in the creeks as well as the sea by promoting advanced mechanised systems like trawlers. Further, its non-recognition of gill-net boats in the category of mechanised boats helped the gill-net boats evade the imposition on mechanised boats to use TEDs, thereby causing heavy mortality of the turtles.

45

The CRZ regulation is to be enforced not by the Sanctuary authority but by the District Collector as a result of which the former is often helpless to control unauthorised activities in the area restricted under the same regulation. The latest difficulty comes from the Defence Department which has a military base in the Wheeler island close to the breeding site of Olive Ridleys. The concerned authorities promised that no test firing of missiles from this island would be carried out during the breeding season of the turtles and accordingly, the test firing of Agni missile was postponed in 1999 for the necessary period. But in January 2001and 2002 this assurance was violated and test firing of Agni took place causing severe disturbance in the ecosystem as a result of which the number of Ridleys arrived for mass-nesting was significantly reduced. The Bhitarkanika ecosystem has suffered dearly due to the impact of these inter-departmental conflicts. Due to plantation of casuarina trees near the Gahiramatha coast following the cyclone of 1971 in order to create a natural barrier, which turned to be an anti-turtle measure because research has shown that this plantation has been an impediment for the turtles. Further, these trees prevent the formation of sand dunes. The turtles therefore avoid nesting on such beaches and their rookery is limited to a very small area now where no such plantation has been carried out. (The Times of India, 1-1-04). Development activities causing threat to mangrove ecosystem One of the earliest and most important factors causing the destruction of coastal mangrove forests was the creation of Paradeep port which is nearer to the Bhirarkanika sanctuary. Paradeep, as the name itself suggests, was a small island and vast areas(approx. 3000 hectares) of mangrove forests were destroyed in 1960s to establish a major port there. The process was repeated during the construction of Dhamra fishing harbour and military bases(Chadha & Kar, op.cit. p.270). It has been alleged that the movement of large vessels and ships around Paradeep has also contributed to the change in the local ecosystem which has caused the death of the turtles(The Sambad, 28-3-03).It may be recalled here that even if the boats and vessels do not cause any direct harm to the turtles, their movement disturbs the local ecosystem which affects the turtles during the breeding season when they are in a more delicate and sensitive state.

46

CChhaannddaakkaa SSaannccttuuaarryy Chandaka sanctuary, a strip of forest hardly 25 kms in length and 8 nkms in width, within a few minutes drive from Bhubaneswar city houses an isolated population of around 60+ elephants. The forest is struggling to recuperate against pressure of grazing, fire and wood collection but still holds great attraction for city dwellers for the thrill of chance encounter with wild elephant. The convinient way to approach this sanctuary is by road. The main gate at Godibari is 20 km from the State Capital.

47

Location Located in the district of Khurda and Cuttack

Area 175.79 Sq. kms.

Legal Status of Land Acquired for Sanctuary

R.F- 78.3041 Sq. kms D.P.F- 86.7622 Sq. kms UDPF – 18.0209 Sq. kms Other – 05.8597 Sq. kms

Date of Notification U/S 18 of WLP Act 1972

21st December 1982 vide Notification No. 35500/

Date of Final Notification U/S 26(A) of WLP Act 1972

Though Final Notification has not been issued till date, but it is being considered as Deemed Sanctuary as per the provisions laid down in 1991 amended WLP A

Right Settlement (U/S 19 to 25) of WPA, 1972

Proceedings under section 19-25 is in progress in Non-RF areas

Type of Forest Sal, Piasal, Asan, Bamboo etc.

Climate Air temp 10ºC - 41ºC, rainfall 1200mm to 1400mm

Wild Animals to be seen Elephant, Spotted deer, Barking deer, Mouse deer, RaSloth bear, Leopard, Crested serpent eagle etc.

Management Control Chandaka Wildlife Division, Bhubaneswar

No. of Habitations inside the Sanctuary Boundary

47

No. of Habitations inside the core area

1 Revenue village (5 hamlets)

Population Not available

Major Tribe Sabara, Santala

Scheduled V Area No.

48

Issues in Chandaka – Dampara Sanctuary

Process of Declaration and Present Status

Prior to 1991, the 1972 WL Act, u/s 18 said that the Government can declare any area as a sanctuary and the word ‘intention’ was inserted in 1991. By implication, ‘all those protected areas (sanctuaries and national parks) declared prior to 1991 is deemed to be finally notified u/s 26A (amended in 1991) of the said Act. By this interpretation, Chandaka-Dompara wildlife sanctuary, which was created in 1982, is considered as ‘Deemed Sanctuary’.

Issues related to lives and livelihood of people

Process of relocation and rehabilitation

The core area of the sanctuary consists of one revenue village with a total strength of 483 households. The rehabilitation process was initiated in the year 1994 with Behentasahi and Dholakath hamlets. In the first phase the wildlife department had planned to rehabilitate only 250 households from Behentasahi, Nuakuo and Pithakhai hamlets. Since the other two hamlets, Dholakatha and Dahanigadia are situated in the periphery so they were left out in the first phase. The idea behind this was that people from these hamlets would get motivated by others from the rehabilitated villages and would of their own move out from the forest area. However, on the intervention of the Collector of Cuttack District, since all the hamlets belong to a single revenue village, shifting in parts is not practicable, hence the idea has to be dropped out and the wildlife department included all the hamlets in their rehabilitation plan. On the other hand the site for resettlement was identified only for 250 households and finding out new areas for resettlement of all the households in five hamlets and agricultural lands nearby have emerged as a big problem before the wildlife department.

Amidst these problems till now only 85 households have been resettled outside the sanctuary in Krushnanagar and Tulasideipur rehabilitation colonies. Though several attempts were made by the department to rehabilitate the remaining

49

households of Behentasahi and Dholakath as per the initial plan, but their earlier attempts in rehabilitation has back fired after seeing the visible impacts of rehabilitation on the people of Behentasahi. Since most of the promises of government failed in providing livelihood security to people of Krushnanagar and people have turned more vulnerable after the relocation of 1994, people from the core area have become more skeptic of the rehabilitation promise.

The promises that failed to materialize: The promises made to the tribals of Behentasahi by the Government nine years back have failed in many occasions. Prior to their rehabilitation the tribals of Behentasahi had been promised equally good land for their fertile lands apart from providing educational, health facilities, Drinking water and monetary compensation of around 12000 rupees per acre of agricultural land and 18000 rupees per acre of homestead land. The proposed agricultural land which has been demarcated for distribution is hard to cultivate and no legal records have yet been provided for such land. As for the promise by the department regarding land against land, people were first promised to be given 2.5 acre all and then the limit was lowered to 2 acre. Again, people have not received the entire amount of monetary compensation as promised earlier against their constructed house in the old village, and had to keep fighting to get their dues which they are denied on the ground that the department has no fund for these activities.

Social conflict emanating from relocation: While planning for the rehabilitation of the tribal people of Behentasahi, perhaps it never occurred to the forest department that some day people of Krushnanagar might face the competition of the neighboring village for gaining control over scarce resources. The irony was that land demarcated for distribution among the Tribal of Krushnanagar was also being claimed by locals of Daruthenga.

Loss of agriculture income

Paddy was the principal crop that ensured food for nearly 8-9 months in a year to the people in the old habitation i.e., Behenta Sahi. Most of the families appeared to have good quality of land and all of them had land records even prior to

50

independence. Wage labour formed the secondary income source. Besides, brinjal cultivation provided them a lucrative income of around Five to Six thousand rupees every year and they had access to the neighbouring market of Jatani. On contrary, tribal people of Behentasahi after being relocated to Krushnanagar are now lamenting about the fertility of their past agricultural land when they are comparing them with the proposed barren lands to be distributed to them by Government. The unfortunate thing is that people of Krushnanagar still haven’t received records of their proposed agricultural lands. The perennial sources of water that irrigated their lands in Behenta Sahi and helped them to ensure their food for nearly one year was no where to be seen in Krushnanagar. Though they had tried to grow brinjal in some surrounding forestland in Krushnanagar, these lands in the later period were occupied by the Forest department for plantation.

As most of their livelihood options have been snatched away through the ongoing rehabilitation process, the women of Krushnanagar have been forced to collect firewood conspicuously and sell it in nearby markets. Thus, the rehabilitation process resulted in loss of access to productive assets like agricultural land and under such situation of limited livelihood options wage labour and fuelwood selling formed the primary means of income earning for the people.

Restrictions on mobility

Restrictions on mobility inside the sanctuary area has been limited significantly particularly after the declaration of sanctuary. The relatives & friends of the people in the core area no more can freely visit them and had to pay an entry fee for coming to the core villages. The entry of vehicles inside the sanctuary area is allowed after the permission of the authorities on payment of entry fee, however movement of vehicles after evening is restricted. For this it have been quite difficult for the people in the core area to carry the ill members of their family for treatment during emergency.

51

The tribal people are prevented from beating drums during their marriage which is an essential part of their ceremony. The residents of core villages are deprived of government welfare schemes. Recently some households from Behentasahi received Indira Awas but the release of money was abruptly stopped by the government after first installment.

Increasing Man-Animal conflicts

Crop depredation by wild elephants is growing and has emerged as a serious problem not only in core villages but even in the villages located in the periphery of the Sanctuary. The frequency of intrusion of elephants into the paddy fields of people increases during harvesting season when the herds destroy lot of standing crops falling on the way. Besides, attack on human lives have also increased and every year a case of human casualty is reported from the surrounding villages.

52

NNaallaabbaann ((CChhiilliikkaa)) SSaannccttuuaarryy The Nalaban sanctuary is a part of the Chilika lake, the vast picturesque watery expanse over the districts of Puri, Ganjam and Khurda. The lagoon where it is easy to observe the Irrawady dolphin is famous for attracting 94 species of migratory birds. It was a Ramsar site but now has been removed from it. It is studded with small fascinating islands and sandy beaches interspersed with Casurina groves along Bay of Bengal. Can be approached via Puri Satapada. The nearest airport is Bhubaneswar which is 100 km from Balugaon. The sanctuary can be negotiated by the boat. The suitable months to visit this sanctuary is between October to February.

53

Location Khurda, Puri and ganjam district

Area 15.53 sq kms

Date of Notification 17 Dec. 1987

Vegetation Type Nala (Phragmmites karka), Algal forms, weeds and other aquatic vegetation

Climate Ait temp: 160 C to 420 C

Wild Animals to be seen 95 species of migratory birds from far off countries. Varities of reptiles (sankes, lizards, aquatic mammals Irrawady dolphin, olive ridley turtles in sea coast near Chilika lake.

Villages None

54

DDeebbrriiggaarrhh SSaannccttuuaarryy Debrigarh sanctuary has miscellaneous forest fringing the Hirakud reservoir and is an abode of tiger, leopard, gaur, spoteed deer, sambar and chowsingha. The entry point into the sanctuary is at Dhodrokusum adjoinin g Hirakud reservoir, which is 40 km from Sambalpur and 60 km from Baragarh.

55

Location Located in the District of Baragarh between

Longitudes 83°.30’ and 83°.46’ (East) latitude 21°.28’

To 21°.43’ (North)

Area 346.91sq.kms

Date of Notification U/S

18 of WLP Act 1972

8th February 1985 vide Notification No. 2409/

Date of Notification U/S 26 of WLP Act 1972

Though Final Notification has not been issued till

date, but it is being considered as Deemed

Sanctuary as per the provisions laid down in

1991 amended WLP Act.

Proceedings U/S 19 to 25WLP Act 1972

Deemed to be Completed:

(Proceedings U/S 19 to 25 is not required since the

entire area included in the Sanctuary is Reserve

Forests as per the provisions of 1991 Amended WLP

Act.)

Forest type Bija, Sal, Asan, Dhaura and other associates of Sal.

Climate Winter temp is approximately 10ºC and the

summer temperature rises above 45ºC

Wild Animals to be seen Tiger, Leopard, Hyena, Gaur, Sambar, Spotted

deer, chowsingha, resident and migratory birds,

monitor lizards, Chameleon etc

Management Badrama Wildlife Division, Sambalpur

No. of Human Habita -

tion inside the Sanctuary

Nil

Scheduled V Area No

56

GGaahhiirrmmaatthhaa MMaarriinnee SSaannccttuuaarryy Gahirmatha marine sanctuary extends along the coast from Nasi islands in the north east to the Telanga mMuhan (Mahanadi mouth) in the south west. The sanctuary extends 20 kms into the sea. It has been created to protect the endangered olive ridley sea turtles, dolphins and other marine flora and fauna. Gahirmatha coast, which is a part of the sanctuary, is used by lakhs of olive ridleys for mass nesting. From Paradip port it takes around 21/2 hrs to reach Gahirmatha by sea and from Dhamra port it takes around 2 hrs. The suitable period to visit this place is from October to March.

57

Location Located in Kendrapara revenue district between Longitude 86°. 57”and 87°.17’.36”(East) and latitude 20°.17’.32” and 20°.46’(North) extending by a width of 20kms into the territorial waters.

Area 1435 Sq. kms including 27km km of land area.

Date of Notification U/S

18 of WLP Act, 1972

27th September, 1997 vide Notification No. 18805/

Date of Notification U/S

26 (A) of WLP Act, 1972

Finally Notified

Proceedings U/S 19 to

25 of WLP Act 1972

Not required

Forest Type Mangroves

Climate Winter temp is approximately 10ºC and in summer the

temp rises above 40ºC

Wild Animals to be seen Sea turtles, dolphins, jackals, hyena, fishing cat, crocodile,

water monitor lizards, terns, vultures, winter migrants such as gulls etc.

Management Mangrove Forest Division (WL), Rajnagar.

No. of Human Habita -

tion inside the Sanctuary

Nil

Scheduled V Area No

58

HHaaddggaarrhh SSaannccttuuaarryy The main feature of Hadgarh sanctuary is the Hadgrah resrvoir adjoining the Baula hill range. The reservoir is built on river Salandi that takes its origin in the Sothern Similipal. The forest of Hadgarh constitute an important link for elephants between Similipal and Kuldiha sanctuaries, within Mayurbhanj elephant reserve. The entry into this sanctuary can be made through Kathakata in Hatadihi block (22km from Anandpur). Hadgrah village is 35 kms from Anandpur and 15 kms from Hatadihi. Anandpur is 35 kms from Jajpur road, the nearest railway station. Hatadihi is 30 km from Bhadrak railway station. The suitable period to visit the sanctuary is between October to May.

59

Location Located in the District of Keonjhar between Longitudes

86°-20’ (East) and latitude 21°. 16’ to 20°. 45’ (North).

Area 191.06sq.km

Date of Notification U/S

18 of WLP Act 1972

6th December 1978 vide Notification No. 34113/

Date of Notification

U/S 26 (A) of WLP Act 1972

Though Final Notification has not been issued till date, but being considered as Deemed Sanctuary as per the

provisions laid down in 1991 amended WLP Act.

Right Settlement Proceedings 19 to 25 of WLLP Act 1972

U/S 19 – 25 is in progress in Non-RF areas as mentioned

in the page no. 32 of Wildlife Conservation in Orissa, a

report published by the Orissa Forest Department in 2003.

Forest Type Sal forest and its associates

Climate Moderate

Wild Animals to be seen Leopard, Wild dog, Spotted deer, Wild boar, Elephant,

Nilgai, migratory duck, Mugger

Management Control Bhadrak Wildlife Division, Bhadrak

No. of Human Habitation

inside the Sanctuary

16 Revenue Villages

Total Population 6538

Major Tribes Santala, Kulha

Scheduled V Area Partly

60

KKaarrllaappaatt SSaannccttuuaarryy Encompassing a dense Sal and Bamboo forest and the beautiful Phulijharan waterfall on its outskirts, Karlapat sanctuary in Karlapat district is about 12 kms from the district town of Bhawanipatna. It is within the South Orissa Elephant reserve. The sanctuary is just 12 kms away from Bhawanipatna. The suitable period to visit this sanctuary is between October to April.

61

Location Located in the district of Kalahandi between Longitude 82°-45'-0'' and 83°-15'-0'' (East) latitude 19°-30'-0'' to 19°-50'-0'' (North)

Area 5147.66 sq. kms.

Legal Status of Land Acquired for Sanctuary

Karlapat R.F. : 70.77sq. kms. Nehala R.F. : 39.56 sq. kms.

Jugsaipatna R.F. : 20.84 sq. kms. Jerka R.F. : 27.54 sq. kms. Sagada P.R.F. : 10.69 sq. kms. Jugsaipatna Extn. P.R.F. (Part) 6.10 sq. kms.

Declaration of Intention U/S - 18 of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972

15th October 1992 vide Notification No.24448/

Final Notification U/S 26 (A) of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972

Though Final Notification has not been issued till date, but it is being considered as Deemed Sanctuary as per the provisions laid down in 1991 amended WLP Act.

Right Settlement (U/S 19 to 25) of WPA, 1972

Section 19-25 proceedings are in progress in respect of the non-RF areas

Type of Forest Dry Mixed Deciduous Forest

Climate Moderate

Wild Animals to be seen Tiger, Leopard, Elephant, Wild Pig, Gaur, Sambar, Nilgai, Barking deer, Mouse deer, variety of birds

Management Control Kalahandi Forest Division (S), Bhawanipatna

No. of Human Habitations inside the Sanctuary

52 • Including 3 un-surveyed villages

Population 1455

Major Tribe Kandha, Jharia

Scheduled V Area Fully

62

Issues in Karlapat Sanctuary Confusion over the area of Sanctuary

According to the official sources (Wildlife Orissa 2004, Forest Department, GoO) the total area of the sanctuary is 147.66 sq.km. But, as mentioned in the Working Plan of Kalahandi Forest Division the actual area of the sanctuary is 175.50 sq kms which has been wrongly notified as 147.66 sq. kms in the official records. The state government has however, not depicted the correct area of the sanctuary so far in any official record though the recommendation in the Working Plan was passed many years ago.

Land issue and ban on Podu cultivation: Except three villages: Simelpadar and Tentulipadar of Karlapat GP and Sorisbandel of Gunupur GP, all other 49 villages coming under the Sanctuary have been issued with pattas for the people's homestead lands. Hence, these three villages are being treated as encroached settlements and rest as revenue villages. The people of these settlements are deprived of availing benefits of various welfare schemes such as Indira Awas Yojana, Antodaya and Annapurna Yojana, PDS, ICDS, primary health, basic education and even drinking water facilities etc. Since Simelpadar village has not been provided with pattas, unlike other patta holding villages, the authorities didn’t feel the necessity of issuing notice to the villagers regarding declaration of the sanctuary. At any point of time the villagers could be evicted from their homeland without any former notice, because in the eyes of the FD the villagers are forestland encroachers. Last year they came to know about declaration of the sanctuary from the local Soil Conservation officer. This year when the FD debarred them from practicing the traditional podu (shifting) cultivation they got confirmed about this. Not only this but restriction in collection of fuel wood and NTFPs has also been imposed on them.

Livelihood issue and ban on NTFP

Ban has been imposed on collection and transportation of NTFPs in the entire sanctuary area. Forest products are not allowed to be transported in or out of the demarcated area, which has certainly restricted the sustenance sources of the

63

people. Without having access to the forest and forest produces the forest dwellers are getting increasingly dependent on wage labour for livelihood eraning.

The most alarming thing is the imposition of ban on fuelwood collection. The villagers are restricted to pluck a piece of dried leaf and twig from the forest area and violation of this has reportedly led to the most inhuman consequences in the hands of the FD. Sri Pulu Majhi, aged 14 of Simelpadar village was arrested by the Forester red handed on 10 December 2004 while he was collecting a piece of fuel wood in the forest. After a collective request of the villagers and with a bribe of Rs. 500/- he was freed.(This incidence was narrated in a meeting held in Simelpadar on 25th December 2004).

Mining project threatening the wildlife existence Karlapat an important habitation for the wild species like the rare black panther, leopards, elephants, Sambhar etc. The recent decision of the state government to hand over Khandualmali mountain located adjacent to the sanctuary to a private company for bauxite mining is likely to put severe negative impacts on the forest ecosystem alongwith wildlife therein. Even more important, the headwaters of the major streams flowing through the sanctuary area i.e. Jakam Nala and Mulia Nadi arise from Khandualmali moundatin is proposed to be mined.

Admitted rights and concessions

Items 'A' Class R.F Khesra/ Unreserves/ UDPF

Timber Firewood

No rights but certain concessiexisted. Following the ban imposed by GoO on tree felling in 1988, Nistar paying tenants and otvillagers were restricted from feltrees and granted permissioncollect only dead wood and fa

Timber of unreserved species but reserved species allowedconcessional rate Firewood of all species allowed of cost.

64

trees subjected to the permits issby the department.

Bamboo Collection allowed at full rate if available in Khesra forest

Collection of 50 bamboos annum allowed to the nistar paytenants on first cum first serve bat scheduled rate

MFP Free collection allowed for sconsumption purpose

Free collection allowed for sconsumption purpose

Grazing Allowed at scheduled rate Free grazing

65

KKhhaallaassuunnii SSaannccttuuaarryy Khalasuni sanctuary with its undulating topography offers an altitudinal range 223mts to 750 mts at scenic beauty, covered with wild virgin forests. Tiger, leopard, elephant and gaur are among the wild fauna seen in the sanctuary. The convenient way to the sanctuary is by road, 50 kms from Sambalpur via Padiabahal-Meghpal, 50 kms from Rairakhol via Naktideol-Girishchandrapur-Kichinda; 55 kms from Deogarh via Riamal- Naktideol-Girishchandrapur-Kichinda. The suitable period to visit the sanctuary is between October to April.

66

Location Located in Rairakhol Sub-division of Sambalpur District

Area 116sq.km

Date of Notification U/S

18 of WLP Act 1972

7th January 1982 vide Notification No. 584/

Date of Notification U/S 26 of WLP Act 1972

Though Final Notification has not been issued till date,

but it is being considered as Deemed Sanctuary as per provisions laid down in 1991 amended WLP Act.

Right Settlement ProceediU/S 19 to 25 of WLLP Act

1972

U/S 19 – 25 is in progress in Non-RF areas as mentioned in the

page no. 32 of Wildlife Conservation in Orissa, a report

published by the Orissa Forest Department in 2003.

Forest Type Sal, Piasal, Asan, Bamboo

Climate Elevation varies from 744’ to 2497’ above MSL, Moderate climate

Wild Animals to be seen Tiger, Leopard, Elephant, Wild Pig, Gaur, Sambar, Spotted

deer, Barking deer, Mouse deer, Wild dog, variety of birds (fowl, Red jungle fowl, Hornbill etc.)

Management Control Rairakhol Forest Division (T), Rairakhol

No. of Human Habitation

inside the Sanctuary

10

Total Population Not Available

Scheduled V Area Yes

67

KKoottggaarrhh SSaannccttuuaarryy Kotgarh sanctuary, 250 kms from Berhampur and 60 kms from Baliguda is the heartland of the proposed South Orissa Elephant Reserve. It holds great attraction for naturalists and ecotourists because of leopard, tiger, elephant, gaur, sambar, spotted deer and wolf. The sanctuary is 250 km from Berhampur and only 60 km from Baliguda. The suitable months to visit this sanctuary is between October to April.

68

Location Located in the District of Kandhamal between Longitudes 83-12’ to 84.0’(east) and latitude 19.0’’ to 19.56’’(north)

Area 399.05 Sq. km. Declaration of Intention U/S - 18 of Wild(Protection) Act 1972

3rd December 1981 Notification No.: 30253

Final Notification U/S 26 of the Wildlife (ProtectiAct 1972

Not yet issued

Right Settlement (U/S 19 toof WPA, 1972

District Collector of Kandhamal district has forwarded the revised proposal to the Wildlife division for declaration of final notification on 20th August 1998 vide letter no. 1092.

Legal Status of Forestland R.F- 5

1. Madagoda- 3601.60 Ha. 2. Haripur- 4266 Ha 3. Lassery- 7296 Ha 4. Bonduru- 367 Ha 5. Supamaha- 754.8 Ha

P.R.F- 3 1. Killlangi- 607.280 Ha 2. Subarnagiri- 3004.208 Ha 3. Guma (S)- 1404.210 Ha.

D.P.F- 2 1. Sri Rampur (B)- 4585.442 2. Guma (N)- 1064.420

Type of Forest Tropical Moist Deciduous. Sal, Bija, Asan, Sidha, Bamboo are

found in the forest area Climate Moderate Wild Animals to be seen Tiger, Leopard, Gaur, Elephant, Sambar, Spotted Deer,

varieties of birds (Peacock, Red Jungle Fowl etc.) & reptiles. No. of Villages inside Sanctuary

65 1. Belghar PS- 15 villages with 1644.377 ha. 2. Kotgarh PS- 44 villages with 8871.976 Ha. 3. Daringibadi PS- 06 villages with 2482.687 Ha.

Population 9178 (1991 Census for 62 villages)

69

Issues in Kotgarh Sanctuary Process of Declaration and Present Status

Kotgarh Wildlife Sanctuary was declared under section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, in 1981 (dated 3rd December 1981, notification no. 30253). However, proceedings under section 19-25 with regard to enquiry of claims and settlement of rights of local residents necessary for final notification was carried out only after 1988 in response to the Supreme Court’s order. In 1995 a writ petition was filed by the Centre for Environmental Law and WWF-I Vrs Union of India and other. In accordance with the petition, Supreme Court has asked all the state governments to take necessary and immediate steps for completion of all procedures for the final notification by the year 1988. As of now, procedure under section 19-25 has been completed in 1999 but the final notification for wildlife sanctuary is not published yet.

Controversy over existence of un-surveyed villages

According to official sources there exists 65 villages under 12 Gram Panchayats inside the Kotagarh Wildlife Sanctuary. In reality however, apart from the revenue villages, there are few more habitations inside the sanctuary area without any claims in the revenue record of rights otherwise are being termed as encroachments. Over the existence of these settlements, there exist different views within the two departments, Revenue Department and Forest Department. In 1995 a verification was undertaken by Revenue Department according to which against 23 unsurveyed hamlets(termed as encroached) located inside reserve forests, cases of revenue offences has been recorded much before the commencement of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.The Revenue Department though wanted to confer these 23 hamlets the status of revenue village but since the same were within the limits of the sanctuary the forest department didn’t agree with the proposal of Revenue department and called for a joint verification which was carried out on 16th May 1995. According to the Forest Department only those hamlets will be given the status of a revenue village against whom there are evidences of revenue

70

as well as forest offence before 1980. From the joint verification five habitations namely, Bandeka, Bandepipili, Jakeshi, Srambi and Bindupadar were identified for conversion into revenue villages. Out of these five Bindupadar was found to be outside the sanctuary area. These four villages consisted of 113 families with a population of around 342. Again, differences cropped up between the two concerned departments on the total area of these villages. According to the Revenue Department the total area including homestead and agricultural land was 1050 acres while the forest department said the area was only 339 acres. The differences seem to be continuing till the date. Only one hamlet i.e. Srambi has been regularized. However, even in this case final disposal of rights has not taken place. (Issues in Sanctuaries and National Parks in Orissa, report by Samir Stephan Kujur undertaken in association with RCDC, July 2002).

Controversy over issuance of patta inside the sanctuary During the period 1998-99 permanent pattas were provided inside the sanctuary area, which raised a lot of controversy between the two departments, Revenue Department and Forest department. Since this came within the limits of the sanctuary the forest department was of the opinion that pattas cannot be given to the people. On the other hand, the concerned Tahasildar was of the views that the revenue department has not received any information on the situation and limits of the sanctuary from the Collector. Besides, pattas were provided only in the cultivable wasteland category, a revenue land and not a jungle kisam. According to him, there was a pressure from the Government to provide homestead patta as the Hon’ble Chief Minister desired that all the homesteadless persons were to be provided with 4 decimals of land between 15th August, 1998 to 26th January, 1999.

Settlement of villager’s right

One of the major concern is with regard to uncertainties with which people are residing within the sanctuary area. According to the district authorities only the revenue villages will be allowed to continue inside the sanctuary. This raises question on what is going to happen to the people of 23 hamlets situated within

71

the limits of the sanctuary, which have not been accorded the status of revenue village. On the other hand villages threatened by the fear of eviction are continuing to receive developmental extension facilities. In Ora Panchayat inside the sanctuary, huge support has been given for infrastructure building like school, anganbadi, rest house etc to the villages which has not been recorded as revenue villages.

Issues related to livelihood

Tribals residing inside the sanctuary practiced shifting cultivation for years. However, the state de-legitimizing shifting cultivation designated all these areas as government land. Under this situation declaration of sanctuary meant eviction of the shifting cultivators resulting into loss of a major income. In addition, the villagers face restriction on collection of NTFPs for livelihood purpose creating major conflicts and misery.

72

KKuullddiihhaa SSaannccttuuaarryy Encompassed in the Nilgiri range of Balasore Wildlife division, Kuldiha sanctuary, 14 kms from Nilgiri, 22 km from Balasore and 30 km from Udala (in Mayurbhanj district), is situated close to a sting of tourist spots in the districts of Balasore, namely Chandipur sea beach, Remun’s Gopinath temple, Jagannath temple in the Nilgiri township and the cave shrine of Panchalingeswar and Kuldiha. Jharanaghati, the serpentine hilly road, the Sal forests, the streams and the wintering ducks in the Rissia reservoir provide unforgettable experience to eco-tourists. Known for its leopard, elephant, gaur, sambar and giant squirrel, occasionally Kuldiha also reveals the pug marks of tiger that may have come out of Similipal. The sanctuary is linked with Similipal through Sukhupada hills and Nato hill ranges and has an elephant population which is a satellite to the main population in Similipal. The suitable months to visit the sanctuary are between October to May. The sanctuary faces challenges from advancing township and mining in the periphery.

73

Location Between 21 degree –45’ to 21 degree – 30’ latitude and 80 degree – 30’ to 80 degree- 45’ longitude.

Area 272.75 sq. km. Notification No. & Date 4th Jan 1984

243/FFAH/dated 04.01.84

Final declaration and notification date

Not yet

Boundary demarcation (core zone and buffer zone)

The Survey and demarcation of boundary is in progress. During 2001-02, 20 kms. length of boundary line has been maintained and 200 numbers of pillars have been posted. During 2002-03, 30 kms. length of boundary line has been maintained and 300 pillars have been posted.

Forest type 1. Tropical semi evergreen forest 2. Northern tropical semi evergreen 3. Semi evergreen 4. Peninsular coastal Sal forests 5. Moist mixed deciduous forest

Sal(Sdhorea robusta). Bamboo (Dendrocalmus Strictus), Asan (Terminalia tomantosa), Mahua (Madhuca latifolia), Mango (Mangifera indica), Cashew (Anacardium occidentale), Neem (Melia indica), Gambhari, etc,.are found.

Climate This sanctuary is linked with Simlipal National park through Sukhuapata hills and Nato hill ranges. The climatic conditions is therefore same as the Simlipal Sanctuary i.e,. minimum 2 degree C (Dec. last week-Jan 1st week) Max. 48 ºC (May). Relative humidity: Morning 70-100 % mid-day in summer: 30% Rainfall:Rainy days 100-130 days with 220 cms (88 inches)

Wild Animals to be seen Wild animals: Royal Bengal Tiger, Leopards, Elephants, Spotted Deer, Sambhar, Bison, Penguline, Wild Bear, Gaur, Giant squirrel, Birds: Peacock, Horn bill, Hill Myna, Jungle Fowls, Spur Fowl, Petridges, Quills etc.

Revenue villages and their areas There are 46 revenue villages around the sanctuary.

74

Issues in Kuldhia Sanctuary

Lack of community awareness on the process of Sanctuary declaration: Kuldiha, though has no core village, but has 46 revenue villages surrounding its periphery. Most of these villages are situated within a distance of 4-15 kms. from the sanctuary. The nearest revenue village is Tenda, which is 4 kms away from the sanctuary. Although, the notification for the declaration of Kuldiha as a Wildlife sanctuary dates back to 04.01.84, almost 21 years, the people as of now has still no clear picture of the meaning of Sanctuary, its area, its boundary and its relevance. The people of Tenda village however are aware of the fact that Kuldiha is no longer their forest. The Sarpanch has informed them, that Kuldiha is now “Abhayarna”. And the main objective of this sanctuary is to protect wild animals from poaching, rehabilitating the degraded forests in and around the sanctuary by Gap planting, reduce man-animal conflict, in a nutshell the main objective is to reduce human pressure in the sanctuary and all round development of the wildlife. However, the villagers especially women, still enter the forest early in the morning to collect Siali leaves, dry twigs and other minor forest products.

According to Baina Singh, 54, of Balianal village, the boundary and the gate of “Abhayarna” means nothing to me. It must be of some relevance to the Govt. but we’ve not been informed. We still go the forest almost everyday to collect dry twigs, siadi leaves, and other fruits and berries. No one restricts us from doing so.

According to Mangulu Singh, Gate keeper, Tenda, “I have been asked to watch the gate and restrict people entering the “Abhayarna”. I allow only if they have the permission letter having a seal on it from the department. I have been appointed by the Bada babu in Balasore office (DFO), who also pay me for this work. Along with salary, I’ve got this house near the gate. The local women however, enter the sanctuary. The ranger is aware of the fact. But we let them since, their livelihood depend on these forest products.

75

According to the ranger, U.N.Mahanta, " We are now in the process of making plans to orient the locals through announcement, and meetings, with the help of the village Sarpanch and make them aware of the rule and regulations and the penalties and punishments for violating the same. We plan to implement this as soon as possible, in the mean time we are in the process of making structural changes as in roads, watch towers, check gates, etc., Livelihood issues: Since the community awareness towards sanctuary declaration is not clear effect of restriction on collection of NTFP collection is not much and the same applies to the restrictions on mobility as well. Locals have easy access to the collection of Minor forest products and entry into the sanctuary. Infact, 2 kms. into the Sanctuary through the Tenda sanctuary check gate, one can see a huge patch of cultivated land. This land is nearer to a water source making it a fertile patch, where the local tribes cultivate paddy along with various types of vegetables. However, their are revenue villages like Kadumsul, where the Forester has started implementing restrictions on collection of forest products. The locals from these villages have started joining hands with the timber merchants in cutting down of huge trees in these areas. Moreover, the char coal business which is rampant in places like Daldali, can be taken as a case of restriction of NTFP. In places like Daldali, the locals burn trees like Sal and Mahula, especially trees more than 30 years of age, and make char coals out of it, these char coals are then marketed to the the coastal areas, where the supply of firewood is less. For each gunny bags carrying 20 kgs. of charcoal, the amount they get is Rs.120/- . And almost 20 villages are involved in this business.

Parbati Singh, 24, states that’s within the last few months, there are many instances where the Forester has bullied and threatened them demanding fines of Rs. 300- 400/-. At times they snatch away their axes etc., when they are in the sanctuary area collecting firewood and other forest products. However, they don’t trouble the women folk.

76

Stone query When one look at the Bisnupur hill, the only thing one can see is naked mountain and huge rocks. Adjoining Kuldiha is Bisnupur hill near village Baulagadia. According to the locals, the District Mining Department has demarcated this hill, and the stone query activity has been going on since ages. Infact, Baulagadia is known for its stone carving, and these stones come from this Bisnupur hill. Slowly other near by hills are also being demarcated. Rampant felling of trees and poaching are also carried out. NTFP collection: Traders carrying truck load of people from Mayurbhanj into Kuldiha sanctuary to collect NTFP, especially Siadi leaves. Rissa dam boon or curse Over the years it is observed that many casualties/death of baby elephants has taken place in the sanctuary. The reasons can be attributed to the fact that these young once out of their curiosity climb the Rissia Dam and at times slip and fall from the height, resulting in death. Over a period of five years, eight casualties have been recorded. The wildlife authority needs to take drastic steps to prevent it.

77

LLaakkhhaarrii SSaannccttuuaarryy The lack of roads has kept Lakhari valley sanctuary in the district of Gajapati away from the hustle of tourists, but it offers a rare feast of rich tropical miscellaneous forest, hills, valleys, perennial water sources and wild life like tiger, elephant, spotted deer, sambar and a variety of birds and reptiles. The approach is from Berhampur which is 60 kms away. Taptapani the famous hot water spring and Chandragiri is only 15 kms away from this sanctuary. October to May is the suitable period to visit this sanctuary.

78

Location Located in the District of Gajapati between Longitudes 840-15’and 840.25’(east) latitude 190.15’ to 190.25’ (north)

Area 185.87sq.kms. • Core Area: 64.14 Sq. km. • Buffer Area: 121.72 Sq. km.

Declaration of Intention U/S - 18 of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972

8th February 1985 Notification No.: 2333

Final Notification U/S 26 of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972

Not yet been issued

Right Settlement (U/S 19 to 25 of WPA, 1972

No Information

Type of Forest Teak, Sal, Piasal, Bamboo etc. Legal Status of Forestland

R.F -1

1. Chandragiri R.F - 11,177.46 Ha.

P.R.F - 2

1. Alara Ramaguda - 5945.26 Ha. 2. Dhobabhobani - 1464 Ha.

Wild Animals to be seen Tiger, Leopard, Bear, Hyena, Wildboar, Spotted Deer, Elephant, etc.

No. of Villages inside Sanctuary

23 villages (www.wildorissa.org.in) 15 Revenue Villages and 35 Encroached villages (Study Report: Issues in Sanctuaries and National Parks in Orissa, De. Yogesh Dubey, IIFM) 9 Revenue Villages with 29 encroached villages (DFO, Paralakhemundi)

Population 2145

79

NNaannddaannkkaannaann SSaannccttuuaarryy Right outside the fringe of Bhubaneswar city, Nandankanan sanctuary of 467 ha area has a natural lake in the middle and a Zoo and a botanical garden on the two sides of the lake. Spotted deer, wild boar, langurs, rhesus macaques, porcupine, jungle cats, mongoose, monitor, nesting birds and a variety of reptiles outside the zoo enclosures constitute the main wildlife species of the sanctuary. By road it is 15 kms from the State Capital.

80

Location Located in the District of Khurda between Longitudes 850 49’ 3” to 850 59’ 5” (east) and latitude 200 17’ to 200 23’ (north)

Area 14.16 sq.km

Date of notification 03 August, 1979.

Forest type Kasi, Kurum, Arjuna and number of common and rare plant species in the Bortanical garden.

Climate Moderate

Wild animals to be seen Sambar, Spotted Deer, Civet, Rhesus monkey, Hanuman langur, etc. living free outside the enclosures / enclosures of the zoo.

Villages None

81

SSaattkkoossiiaa SSaannccttuuaarryy

Satkosia Gorge Sanctuary spreads over four districts viz. Angul, Cuttack, Nayagarh and Boudh, of the State. The total area of the Sanctuary is 795.52 Sq. kms, of which Angul, Cuttack, Nayagarh and Boudh district consists of 453.25, 76.76, 147.67 and 117.84 Sq. kms respectively. It was notified vide Notification No. 12727/FFAH dated 19th May 1976 and finally it was notified on 4th September 1984 as Satkosiya Gorge Sanctuary. Satkosia and part of Baisipalli Sanctuary has already been included in Mahanadi Elephant Reserve in June 2002. The State Wildlife Wings is taking initiative to declare the Satkosia Gorge Sanctuary as Tiger Reserves. Mahanadi River runs through the Satkosia Wildlife Sanctuary. Satkosiya Wildlife Division, whose headquarters is at Angul, is managing the Northern portion of the sanctuary including the Mahanadi River. It covers an area of 530.01 Sq. kms, while the southern portion of sanctuary is managed by Mahanadi Wildlife Division whose headquarters is at Nayagarh covering 265.51 Sq. kms

82

Location Spreads over four Districts Angul, Cuttack,

Nayagarh and Boudh. Area 795.52 Sq. kms.

Angul: 453.25 Sq. kms. Cuttack: 76.76 Sq. kms. Nayagarh: 147.67 Sq. kms. Boudh: 117.84 Sq. kms

Date of Notification U/S 18 of WLP Act, 1972

19th May 1976 Vide Notification No. 22727.

Date of Notification U/S 26 of WLP Act, 1972

Though Final Notification has not been issued till date, but it is being considered as Deemed Sanctuary as per the provisions laid down in 1991 amended WLP Act.

Right Settlement (U/S 19 to 25) of WLP Act, 1972

U/S 19 – 25 is in progress in Non-RF areas as mentioned in the page no. 32 of Wildlife Conservation in Orissa (report published by the Orissa Forest Department in 2003)

Type of Forest 1. Dry Deciduous Forest 2. Moist Peninsular Sal Forest 3. Moist Deciduous Forest

Management Control Under Management Control of Two Wildlife Divisions

1. Northern Part: Angul Wildlife Division 2. Southern Part: Mahanadi Wildlife Division

No. of Human Habitations inside the Sanctuary

94 (One of these is a cluster of 5 villages because of which the actual number of villages is 99)

No. of Recognized Forest Villages

03

No. of Villages inside the Core area

07 (including Forest Villages)

Total Population 37,825 (2001 Census)

SC: 32%

ST: 19%

Others: 49% Major Tribes Munda, Kandha Scheduled V Area Partly

83

Issues in Satkosia Wildlife Sanctuary: Following are the some of the issues identified during the interaction with the villagers of Tuluka, Bada Kheta, Asan Bahal and Tarava, members of Satkosiya Avayaranya 'O' Praja Surakhya Samiti, Association of Bamboo Cutters, Tikarpada, Range Officer - Kendu leaf and Wildlife, ACF Wildlife and FES, Angul. Forest Village:

There are a total of 97 villages inside the sanctuary area of which 3 are forest villages namely Tarava, Bhurkundi and Asan Bahal. The then Conservator of Forests Bihar and Orissa established these villages in the year 1910, 1914 and 1933 respectively. The main objective behind establishing these villages was to ensure availability of labour for carrying out various forestry works such as forest line demarcation, extinguishing forest fires, construction of forest roads etc. During that time the forest department had allotted a total of 667 acres of forestland in two reserve forests namely Tainsi R.F & Raiguda R.F both for homestead and agriculture to these villages for meeting their subsistence needs.

Profile of Forest Villages

Tarava Bhurkundi Asan Bahal

Location Inside the Tainery R.F, Compartment No 21(b) and 10 (b)

Inside the Raigada Reserve Forest compartment no. 16(b)

Inside the Tainery R.F, Compartment No 4(b)

Year of Possession

1910 vide sanction order no. 145/comp dated 23.1.1909 of Conservator of Forests Bihar and

1914 vide sanction order no. 2717-308 dated 7.1.1914 of Conservator of Forests Bihar and

1933 vide sanction order no. 9073 dated 3.2.1933 of Conservator of Forests Bihar and

84

Orissa Orissa Orissa.

Allotted Area

124.80 hectares but the villagers are in possession of land over 72.84 hectares.

110 hectares but the villagers are in possession of land over 141.05 hectares.

32 hectares but the villagers are in possession of land over 55 hectares.

The forest villages consist of 107 households and a total of 547 populations as per the 2001 census. The scheduled caste & scheduled tribe constituted 13.89 and 63.61 percent of the total population respectively. The major caste groups of these villages are Kandha, Pana, Chasa and Khetriya.

Name of the Forest Village

Total HHs

Total Population Area allotted

SC ST Others Total

Tarava 50 23 213 14 250 312 acres

Asan Bahal 23 24 33 57 114 80 acres

Bhurkundi 34 29 102 52 183 275 acres

TOTAL 107 76 348 123 547 667 acres

Specific Issues related to Forest Villages: • Non Conversion of Forest Villages

into Revenue Villages Deprived the Inhabitants from the Govt. Programmes & Schemes: “Our situation is more disastrous then the inhabitants of revenue villages. They are taking benefits of the government programmes and schemes. They are getting Indira Awases, old age pensions,

Conversion of Forest Villages into Revenue Villages

The Angul Wildlife Division has submitted proposal of 2 villages (out of 3) near the State government for regularization of the villages. Further State Government has sent the proposal to the GoI. Unfortunately, in 13.11.2000 and 9.2.2004 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed interim orders (in I.A. No. 2 in WP No. 337/1995 and I.A. No. 16) that “…….Pending further orders, no dereservation of forest/Sanctuaries/ National Parks shall be effected”. So the proposal is lying with the GoI.

85

widow pensions etc. Why not we? Are we not part of Indian Territory? +++ I am attending in all most all the meetings conducted by Gram Panchayat and also raising our problems, but nobody is listening or addressing our problems. What can I do,” says Mr. Dasu Pradhan, the ward member of Tarava forest village. This type of situation prevails in most of the forest villages as these villages are not being converted into Revenue Village, by which the inhabitants are deprived of the benefits of various government programmes and schemes like old age pension, widow pension, Anthodaya Yojana and Annapurna Yojana. During discussion with the Sarapancha of Jaganathpur Gram Panchayat he expressed his incapability. He says,“Though all the households in these villages are coming under BPL category I can not do anything for them as they are not the inhabitant of revenue village. I am totally handicapped.”

In 2000 state government had submitted proposals to MoEF for conversion of two forest villages namely Tarava & Bhurkundi, into revenue village. The other forest village namely Asan Bahal requested DFO & District Collector for relocation of their village as it falls under the elephant corridor. According to the ACF of Satkosiya Wildlife Division though they have submitted the proposal in the year 2000 due to Hon'ble Supreme Courts order (in I.A. No. 2 in WP No. 337/1995 and I.A. No. 16) it is lying with the GoI.

• No Legal Entitlement over the Allotted Land:

Though forest department allotted 667 acres of forestland at different periods for their survival, but they didn't issue any patta to any of the households residing in the village till the date of visit. As they do not have record of rights over the land cultivated & resided by them they are not able to access any loan from the nationalized banks. During the emergency situations, they have been taking loans from the local people at a higher rate of interest. Present rate of interest is around 20% per month. Even for obtaining bail, they have been depending upon others for which the ‘Jamindars’ (the person who takes bail) demands huge money in lieu of bail. Even these families are also being deprived from getting of the caste certificates6. As these villages are

86

coming under the category of forest villages, the R.I is not issuing residential proof, which is a prerequisite condition for obtaining caste certificate.

Issues related to Live & livelihood of Local People: The live & livelihood of the local inhabitants especially the scheduled tribes, scheduled castes and landless families from other castes critically depend on forests and forest products for their sustenance. Around 70 to 80 percent of their total income comes from forests through selling of forest products like Kendu leaf, Sal Seed, Sal Leaf, Mushroom etc. and also from forest based works like forest road repairing and bamboo harvesting. The reasons for such dependency on forests are as follows:

• More than 70% of the Sanctuary area is covered with continuous hill ranges and dense forests.

• There is very little land available for the agricultural purposes inside the sanctuary. For example, in Bada Kheta and Tuluka village per capita land availability is around 0.45 acre.

• The production from the agriculture land provides only three to four months of food in year.

• Every year more than 40% of the total agriculture land has been lying vacant or unused due to the elephants. In some villages those are situated inside the dense forests the percentage goes upto 80%. For example, in Tuluka village, the total agriculture land is 206.530 acres. This year only 25 families out of 95 have cultivated an area of 30 acres (approximately) of land, which is 14% of the total agriculture land. Similarly in Tarava & Asan Bahal village, this year they have cultivated in around 25 acres of land, which is 20% of the total agriculture land.

• Most of the agriculture lands are under the possession of the non-tribal communities.

87

The importance of forest-based livelihood can be ascertained in the following paragraph, which was written in the Dhenkanal District Gazetteer (Page no. 170). "Large quantities of edible fruits, shoots and roots are available in forests. These constitute the main food of poor people in times of scarcity. Bamboo shoots provide food for the tribal people for several months. +++ Large number of people get daily employment in forests in felling of trees and bamboos, transport of forest produce, plucking of Kendu leaves, and in various other forest exploitation work. Forests, therefore, wield considerable influence on the economic life of the people."

• Restriction over Collection of Forest

Products: However, after 1990's at different period of time the wildlife authorities have put restriction over collection of forest products, which has not only denied the natural rights of the local people but also turned thousands of the families socially insure inside the sanctuary.

According to the Mr. Prasana Mishra, Conveynor of Satakosiya Avayaranya 'O' Praja Surakhya Samiti, though the area was declared as sanctuary in 1976, there was no restriction over collection of forest products like Kendu Leaf, Sal Leaf, Sal Seed, Siali leaf, edible tubers, fuel wood etc., from the forests till 1992. For the first time in 1992, bamboo operation was stopped. After rally and demonstration by the local people, the wildlife division allowed bamboo-harvesting upto 1996. Finally from 1997, bamboo-harvesting operation was stopped as a result of which 5000 families who used to get at least 8 months (October to May) of work were rendered jobless. According

Bamboo Production (1988 to 1996) inside the Sanctuary Area

Year Industrial

Bamboo (in bundles)

Commercial Bamboo (in pieces)

Salia Dhaba 1988 738150 270227 40591989 542300 315651 139191990 598400 319953 7881991 543000 235725 8251992 537750 313272 11601993 443500 246000 8391994 566100 239861 33051995 297700 172000 15401996 460250 170000 3292

(Source: OFDC, Angul)

88

to the GM of OFDC (Orissa Forest Development Corporation) Bamboo collection and trading has been nationalized in 1988. Prior to that Titagarh Paper Mill (locally known as TPM) was harvesting bamboo from the area. From 1988 to 1996 they harvested a total of 4727150 bundles of industrial bamboo (Each bundle carries 21 pieces of salia bamboo) in an average of 525238 bundles per year. Similarly during this period (1988 to 1996) they had created more than 5 lakh mandays and paid an amount of Rs. 15,452,575 towards wages excluding the cost of rice, oil, and cereals only in case of harvesting of the industrial bamboos. Apart from the industrial bamboo every year they used to harvest commercial bamboos to cater the domestic need. Further he said that in an average a family used to earn Rs. 4000 to 5000 in a harvest season, which was a crucial income for a poor family. In a harvesting year (October to May) they used to create more than 200 employment days and in a day around 2000 to 2500 laborers were engaged in cutting of bamboos.

Kendu Leaves:

After stopping of bamboo operation in 1996, in the year 2000 the authorities of Satkosiya wildlife division closed all the kendu leaf phadis inside the sanctuary area. There were about 11 phadis where 1053 families from 23 villages used to depend for selling of the collected kendu leaves. According to a woman of Tarava village in a Kendu leaf season, she could easily earn around 500 to 600 rupees within a period of 25 days. Further, she added that during the lean summer season, when there was no source of employment, this much of income was very much important for them.

According to the Range officer, Purunagarh Kendu leaf Range, kendu leaf was a major source of income for the poor families, especially for the women residing inside the sanctuary. He said that on an average one family used to earn more than 500 rupees. During the

Production of Kendu Leaf in Different

Years inside the Sanctuary

Year Total

Kerry Cost per

Kerry Total Cost

2000 3605850 0.16 576,936 1999 4049080 0.15 607,362 1997 3883250 0.12 465,990

89

discussion, he cited one example of a village (Salar) where each family earned more than 1000 rupees in 1999 KL year. He further added that, in the year 2000, they procured a total of 3605850 Kerries (each kerry consists of 21 leaves) of kendu leaves from the 11 phadis and created more than 20000 mandays within a period 25 days. After closing down of bamboo operation in 1996, the dependency on KL increased substantially. Unfortunately, in the year 2000 state government decided not to procure kendu leaves from any Sanctuary or National Parks (Order No. F (L) 12/2000, 12732 F&E, dated 19th August 2000) which severely affected the live & livelihood of local people.

Following the Supreme court order dated 14.2.2000, in WP No. 202/95, in the year 2001 the wildlife authorities banned collection of all other forest products including fuelwood, mushroom, edible tubers, creepers and leaves from the sanctuary area which use to provide substantial income to the poor people. According to the ACF of Angul Wildlife Division, the MoEF issued an order No. 11-9/98-FC dated on 4.5.2001 which stated “…… in the order dt. 14.2.2000, in WP No. 202/95, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has restrained all the states from ordering even the removal of dead, diseased, dying or wind-fallen trees and grasses etc. from any National Park and Game Sanctuary. How could we violate the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court he asked? Even though we know that Satkosia forests provide livelihood as well as food security to thousands of poor families.” Further he said that last year MoEF had once again issued another order (No. 2-1/2003-FC) which says that rights & concessions cannot be enjoyed in the Protected Areas (PAs) in view of the orders of the Supreme Court dated 14.2.2000.

“In one stroke the inhabitants lost their source of income and their customary rights which they used to enjoy since long also got squeezed. Now hundreds of Pana families (the traditional bamboo weavers), those used to earn a substantial income from selling of bamboo baskets, have lost their source of income. Sal Leaf, which used to provide employment to thousands of women, was also banned in 2001. How these people will

90

survive, if they closed all means of livelihood,” questions Mr. Janadarn Sahu, the assistant secretary of Praja Surakhya Samiti.

The following 7table gives a picture on the deteriorated economic condition of people living inside the Sanctuary:

Pre-Restriction (1996) Post-Restriction (2003)

Source of Income Amount Source of Income Amount

Bamboo operation 4000.00 Contractual labor (her son)

1000.00

Kendu Leaf 385.00

Sal Leaf 800.00 Sal Leaf (Illegal transaction)

50.00

Mushroom 200.00 Mushroom (illegal transaction)

200.00

Wage labor 500.00 Wage labor 1000.00

Paddy (own consumption: 3 to 4 bags, each bag is around 60Kg.)

Paddy (own consumption: 3 to 4 bags, each bag is around 60Kg.)

Total 5885.00 Total 2250.00

Restriction over mobility:

In 1984 the wildlife division has set up a gate near Pampasar. The gate opens at 6 am and closes at 7 pm. During this time there is no restriction on mobility. They charge Rs. 3/-per person as entry fee. Initially they use to charge even for the people those are

Distress Sell

Susanta Bhoi, a tribal youth residing in Tarava village. Every year he & his younger brother purchase mushroom from the local villages and sell at Angul & Bontala Market. This year (in the month of July) they purchased 10 kilo of mushroom from Bada Kheta, Tarava & Asan Bahal village at a price of Rs. 5/- per kilo. When he was taking it for selling in Angul in a bus, the forester forced him to get down at the gate and detained him for 3 hours. After long hours of argument, he allowed him to take the mushroom. When he reached at Angul it was around 8 pm and that day he could not sell it. Next day he sold it at Rs. 7.50 per kilo instead of Rs. 15/-, due to deterioration

91

residing inside the sanctuary. But after protest they abolished the system of taking entry fee from the local people. During discussion following problems were identified:

The wildlife division is harassing the local people especially while they are carrying out any forest produce like sal leaf, sal leaf plate, siali leaf, siali leaf plate and mushroom for selling in the market. Some time they take bribe to allow the things. (See box)

Brinjal business is a lawful business as it doesn't take away the restricted items like NTFP, Timber, wild animal products etc . Even the WLP Act allows for lawful business inside the sanctuary, still the staffs those who are in charge of gate, they are demanding bribe. If anybody denies giving the bribe then they asks for the permission letter. “Show your permission letter, otherwise we will not allow you.” One businessman, who is brinjal trader in Angul, he quotated this sentence while he was describing his bitter experience before us. Mr. Janadarn Sahu, the assistant secretary and resident of Jaganathpur village he also described same experience before us.

He also cited another example how the department staff took bribe from a tribal who carried dead body of his elder brother with him. When the person denied giving bribe they detained him 4 hours (from 1 am to 5 am) at the gate. Finally he gave 50 rupees and came to the village.

92

Hearing Meetings Total No. of Villages

Venue of hearing

Date

9 villages Jamudoli 8th May 1998 9 villages Tikarpada 15th May 1998 9 villages Purunakot 22nd May 1998 8 villages Jaganathpur 29th May 1998

Issue of Right Settlement: After declaration of intention for constituting an area as sanctuary u/s 18 of WLP Act, 1972, the sections from 19 to 26A describes various the procedures for settling the rights of local inhabitants. In case of Satkosiya Wildlife Santuary, the collector of Angul district issued Form No. 8 on 12th September 1997 u/s of 26 of the ‘The wildlife (Protection) (Orissa) Rules, 1974’ due to the Hon’ble Supreme Courts’ direction in a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337/95. Further in 23rd April 1998, the concern district collector issued notice to each village headman u/s of 27 of the ‘The Wildlife (Protection) (Orissa) Rules, 1974’ to attend public hearing. The District Collector, Angul organized four public hearings in the month of May 1998 at different places (see the box) and finally submitted the report to the state government on 24th July 1998 and recommended for issuance of final notification u/s 26 of WLP Act 1972. The recommendations of the district collector are as follows:

1. Total deletion of 9 (nine) villages of Athmallick Sub –Division, measuring Ac. 2458.82 from the Sanctuary area.

2. Exclusion of Ac. 12701.19 from the sanctuary i.e. total area of 20 villages of Angul sub-Division.

3. Exclusion of Ac. 534.69 from the sanctuary, being the area of three forest villages that are to be declared as revenue villages.

4. Acquisition of Ac.162.28 of land in village Raigoda, through Land Acquisition proceedings for shifting of the village to a new site with rehabilitation benefits as per norms of Water Resources Rehabilitation & Resettlement Plan.

5. Since I am recommending for exclusion of Ac. 15694.70 area from the sanctuary equal or more extent of reserve forest area adjacent to the

93

sanctuary having no human habitation may be included in the sanctuary.

During discussion with the local people and representatives of Praja Surakhya Samiti in regards to the right settlement the following things they put forth before us:

“Land settlement was not carried out after 1962. During these period the status and ownership of land already changed. Without fresh survey & settlement district collector hold hearing meetings. We have put the issue before the district collector even we gave in written but nothing happened.”

According to the section 21 of WLP Act 1972, the collector has to publish notice in the local language and serve to the each family. Instead of publishing it in Oriya language, they served the Form No. 8 in English. The villagers stated that we put forth the issue before the collector prior to the hearing meeting but nothing happened and instead of giving the notice to the families he issued notice in the name of the village headman.

There is no detailed procedure laid down either in the provisions of WLP Act, 1972 or in ‘The Wildlife (Protection) (Orissa) Rules, 1974’ in regards to the settlement of rights. As it empowers the collector to decide so the collector of Angul district decided to hold hearing meetings at four places taking into 8 villages per hearing. Is it possible to hear all families’ claims within 3 to 4 hours? It seems the whole procedure was carried out to legitimize the wrong processes carried out earlier for settlement of rights in the name of public hearing.

District collector did not talk about the customary rights or natural rights i.e. right to collect, process & sell of NTFPs, even in the Form No. 8, nothing was mentioned in this regard. The form 8 only talks about

94

the property right or rights having records. Then what about the customary rights? Who will settle it?

Impacts: Migration and Bonded Labor

Due to the above reasons, many people have had to start migrating to other places in search of work. The fact-finding team found in Tarava village that some families have even been compelled to give their 12 to 15 years old children as bonded labour to people in Bontala.

For example, for the funeral of Mr. Rabi Deuri, a resident of Tarava village, who died of malaria last year, his wife borrowed Rs.3000 from a resident of Bontala. In lieu of the money she sent Nalu Deuri, her 9 years old son, as ‘Halua’ for four years.

Uma Pradhan, s/o Mr. Upendra Pradhan had left the village 6 years ago when he was only 14 years old. Two years back he took his younger brother Kalia Pradhan to Bontala to work as a ‘Halua’.

Surendra Pradhan s/o of Late Chimtu Deuri, was sent as a Halua when he was only 9 years old by his mother who had borrowed Rs.2000 for his father’s treatment. Due to his father dying, his mother borrowed another Rs.3000 for his funeral. Surendra Pradhan is now 15 years old but still is working as Halua in Bontala. Every year, he gets only one month’s leave from his master during the month of Chita (November).

95

SSuunnaabbeeddaa SSaannccttuuaarryy Sunabeda Sanctuary is located on the western side of the Nuapara District bordering Chattisgarh State within 82 20’ to 82 34’ 42” longitude and 2024’ to 24 44’ latitude. It is at height of 2150 feet from mean sea level. The Sanctuary seem to be holding a unique appearance as the Sunabeda plateau is placed on the hill top and contains flat land with plenty of edible grass. There are series of hill ranges running through Gatibeda and Patadhra forest blocks amidst which the sunabeda Plateau is located. Geographical area of the sanctuary embraces forests range of Nuapada and Komna blocks and comprises of around 600 Square Kilometer. The wildlife sanctuary harbors a great diversity of floral and faunal habitats with vast plateau and canyon like valleys. Dry deciduous forests along with eleven waterfalls adorn the length and breadth of the Sanctuary. The demarcated core and buffer Zone of the sanctuary contain 243.60 Square Kilometer and 356.40 Square Kilometer respectively. Plans are afoot to increase the core area by 100 Square Kilometer and buffer zone by around 200 Square Kilometer for the proposed Tiger Reserve.

96

Location Located in the district of Nuapada between Longitudes 82°-20'-0'' and 84°-34'-48'' (East) latitude 20°-06'-0'' to 19°-44'-0'' (North)

Area 591.75 Sq.kms.

Legal Status of Land Acquired for Sanctuary

Reserve Forest: 509.55 Sq.kms.

Other: 82.19 Sq.kms.

Declaration of Intention U/S - 18 of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972

10th May 1988 (vide Notification No.10772)

Final Notification U/S 26 (A) of

Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972

Deemed Sanctuary as per the Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act, 1991

Right Settlement (U/S 19 to 25) of WPA, 1972

U/S 19 – 25 is in progress in Non-RF areas as mentioned in the page no. 32 of Wildlife Conservation in Orissa, a report published by the Orissa Forest Department in 2003.

Type of Forest Dry Mixed Deciduous Forest

Management Control Satkosiya Wildlife Division, Khariar

No. of Human Habitations inside the Sanctuary

• 75 (Source: Wild Orissa 2004, Forest Department, GoO)

• 62 (Source: District Collectorate Office)

Population 22000 (approx.)

Major Tribes Gond, Bhunjia Chakutia, Paharia

Scheduled V Area Partly

97

Issues in Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary

Confusion Over Legal Status of Sunabeda Wildife Sanctuary:

The process of final notification of Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary and inclusion of Revenue villages within the boundary of the sanctuary is fraught with inherent contradictions. First declaration for constitution of the Sanctuary as per official notification dates back to 26th July 1983 (vide letter no.16045/FFAH) and the final notification was issued on 10th May 1988 (vide letter no. 10772/FFAH) as per the note prepared by the then DFO Mr. H.K. Bist.

The prevailing law for governance of protected areas says that the collector should proceed to determine, proclaim the boundaries of sanctuary and settle rights of people (within the purview of u/s19-25 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972) before acquisition of revenue land or their inclusion within the boundary of Sanctuary. But in Sunabeda, the demarcated boundary of the wild life sanctuary area was first declared vide office order no. 5023 dated 15.11.97 by the Collector of Nuapada, around nine years after the final notification. If the area had been falling completely within reserve forest then only the wild life authorities could have skipped the legal procedure of settling rights of people living within. As in case of reserve forests determination of rights u/s19-25 is not required as no private right is expected to exist there and can be automatically declared as sanctuary u/s 26 A. But in case of Sunabeda wild life sanctuary, the initiation of settlement of rights should not have been delayed, as the area doesn’t come under any reserve forest or territorial water (Letter of the Collector dated17th December, 2000, bearing letter no. 5440). Presently there are four Gram Panchayats namely Sunabeda, Soseng, Bharuamunda and Kermeli consisting of 30 Revenue villages, which are coming under sanctuary area. Apart from these procedural contradictions with respect to settlement of rights of people staying within the boundary of the sanctuary, there are many differences

98

between the Revenue Department and the Wildlife Department regarding the demarcated boundary of the sanctuary and the revenue villages contained within it.

The letter from the District Collector of Nuapada to the Chief Wildlife Warden on 17th December 2000(Letter no. 5440, Courtesy: Viswas) clearly states that the procedures adopted for declaration of wild life sanctuary were not in accordance with certain provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act.

Controversy Over Existence of Un-Surveyed Villages and Continuance of Right of Inhabitants:

There are 64 habitations inside the sanctuary boundary of which 34 habitations falls under un-surveyed category. In 1988 the revenue department initiated the process of settling the un-surveyed villages but due to the pressure from Sanctuary authorities the process of settlement was abandoned. Further in 1997-98 the then Collector once again invited applications from the inhabitants of un-surveyed villages and landless families of revenue villages, which raised a number of questions in regards to the status of Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary. According to the DFO, state government has instituted Sunabeda Plateau as Sunabeda Widlife Sanctuary under section 18 of WLP Act, 1972 on 26th July 1983 (vide Notification No. 16045-FFAH) and finally notified as Sanctuary under section 26(A) of WLP Act 1972 on 10th May 1988 (vide Notification No. 10772-FFAH). Under this situation pattas cannot be issued inside the sanctuary area.

But the opinion of revenue department authorities completely differs from that of the forest officials. According to Revenue department, since there are 64 villages existing within the sanctuary, it automatically comes under the jurisdiction of the revenue department and the revenue department is the only competent authority to settle Govt. land in favor of applicants from revenue and un-surveyed as the process of right settlement as required under section 19 to 25 of WLP of 1972 has not completed. The revenue department had

99

asked for a copy of final notification of the sanctuary to the forest department but failed to get the same. The revenue department had received around 197 applications for homestead land and 63 applications for settlement of agricultural land from four villages namely Rupiam, Katingpani, Gatibeda and Deosil”. As said by the Collector, Mr Bishnupad Sethi the villages, which are being recognized as encroached villages by the Wildlife authority, has been in existence since centuries and proposals for settlement is pending before the Board of Revenue. Most of these villages have substantial human population and almost 90% of them (more than age of 18) are included in the voters list. “How can their rights be denied and the settlements be considered as illegal encroachments?”

Till date, the issue has not been resolved but recently in a local daily there was news about the area saying that eviction notice has been served to these villages as per the Supreme courts’ order.

Restrictions Over Collection and Selling of Forest Products Severely Affecting the Lives & Livelihood of around 6000 Families:

There are 62 villages inside the sanctuary. The total population is around 22000 as per the 1991 census. Majority of population belongs to Scheduled Tribe (around 87%) and comprises of Gond, Bhunjia and Paharia tribes. Though the Paharias are not officially considered as Scheduled Tribe in Orissa but, they have been included in the list of Scheduled Tribe in the neighboring Chattisgarh state.For these people NTFPs like Mahul, Kendu leaves, Char, Amala, Harida, Bahada, Sal leaves etc. provided significant income. On an average NTFPs ensured 6-7 months of livelihood security to these families. Abundance of varieties of NTFP and their proper processing at the household level had helped to grow a traditionally well developed market over the years in some of the important villages like Kermeli, Bharuamunda, etc. Traders from far off places frequented the place to collect NTFPs from the doorsteps of people and bartered them with paddy and other food grains. The volume of trading can be gauged from the fact that traders

100

visited the place with truckloads of grain to collect invaluable NTFPs. This kind of traditional informal network also provided ample opportunity for Pharia Tribes to sell their bamboo products to the outside traders during their visit. It is estimated that NTFPs (Like Mahul, Char, Harada, Kendu leave etc) worth 35 Lakhs rupees used to be traded before the imposition of restriction in 2000 (Oriya Daily, Prajatantra, Dated17th July 2002). Apart from other items of NTFP, availability of large quantity of Kendu leaves had prompted the Government to set up 22 Phadis for collection of Kendu leaf within the sanctuary area. As revealed by a Phadi Munsi Dhaniram Majhi previously working in a Phadi at Katingpani, an individual KL plucker earned around Rs. 1000 - 1500 within a span of 15days in each year.

The first jolt came when restriction was imposed by the forest officials on collection and selling of NTFPs from the sanctuary area in March 2000. Few months after in August in the same year the state government issued an official order to the wildlife division to close down all the kendu leaf phadis inside the sanctuary. These restrictions stifled the major source of livelihood of the people staying within the sanctuary area and disrupted the customary trading practices in the village market. Traders were prevented to move inside the sanctuary. Even the people were harassed by the wildlife department staff while carrying NTFPs to different local weekly haats. Again, the restrictions and harassment have brought down the rates of forest produce.

The following table gives a glimpse of the rate of few NTFPs before and after the regulation on Trading:

Name of the NTFP Item

Rate per Kg (in Rs.)

1999-2000 NTFP Year 2000-2001 NTFP Year

Harida 2.50 -3.00 1.00 - 1.50

Bahada 1.00 -1.5 0.50

101

Amala 10.00 6.00 – 7.00

Chhar 20.00 – 25.00 10.00 –12.00

Mahul 7.00 3.00-3.50

(Source: Interaction with the community members from Bhuasil Village)

Similarly, closure of Kendu leaf phadis has severely affected the lives and livelihood of the people residing inside the sanctuary. There were 22 Kendu leaf phadis where the inhabitants of 62 villages used to depend for selling of kendu leaves. The decision of closure of phadis was protested hard and strong by the people from the protected areas in response to which an informal arrangement was worked out that allowed the pluckers to deposit their collections in the Phadies located outside the sanctuary boundary. On one hand this though gave some advantage to the villagers but the problem was that the pluckers now had to traverse long distance i.e., minimum 15 kms and in some cases even longer distances to sell leaves to the Phadies.

In the year 2003, 134 households from Kermili, Pethiapalli, Tileimal, Golabndha undertook KL plucking activity and a total of 3,05,750 Kerries of leaves (1 Kerry consists of 20 leaves) worth of Rs. 64,203 (calculated at the existing price @ 21 paisa per 20 leaves) were collected however, the pluckers are yet to receive their payment since all the leaves from these villages were seized by DFO. This has resulted in loss of average Rs. 500 to a tribal household, which forms one of the most important cash incomes particularly during the lean season when other livelihood earning avenues are scarce and the block where 87% of the total population is below poverty line.

Similarly, the Pharias whose traditional occupation is bamboo weaving, also lost their source of income due to the restriction over collection of bamboo.

Restrictions on Implementation of Developmental Work:

These contradictions have also affected the people and development of the area adversely. Many development programmes executed through the Gram

102

Panchayat have been obstructed by the sanctuary authorities. Even some of the earthwork, panchayat roads, land development works have been prevented. During the construction of Water Harvesting Structure undertaken by Chakutia Bhunjia Development Authority through the Western Orissa Rural Livelihood Project at Soseng Panchayat, the Sanctuary authorities delayed the process by not allowing the stones to be picked up from within the Sanctuary. Some of the minor construction works undertaken by the Panchayat are obstructed by not allowing the building materials to pass through the check gates deliberately.

Restrictions on Mobility and Grazing:

There are a number of instances where the local people were severely beaten up and harassed by the local staff of wildlife division. For instance, On 25th July 2002, two forest guards and fourteen hired goons beat up eight Tribal grazers severely in Sunabeda Panchayat and destroyed large quantity of milk products. This incident came to limelight, when a local daily published the news on 7th August 2002 (Oriya Daily, Samay, Dated 7th August, 2002). Similarly, an old women from Kermeli village had gone to forest and collected some harida and medicinal roots for her terribly sick son. On the way of return to her village the local forest guard snatched the collected fruits and roots and destroyed it. In the same village another women Marin Majhi aged around 60 years was beaten up severely by Wildlife officials while trying to take some NTFPs outside the checkgate. These incidents of extreme harassment by wild life officials had set the stage for a major conflict, which later broke out in the form of destruction of check gates by the local residents in April 2001.

The restriction on mobility of people through the check gates has also witnessed many conflicts. Nal Singh Majhi of Bhaumunda had a major scuffle with the guards on 1st March 2004, while bringing the emergency feeding material for one Anganwadi center located inside the Sanctuary.

103

SSiimmiilliippaall SSaannccttuuaarryy Similipal is a Reserve Forest located in the northern district of Mayurbhanj in Orissa. In view of its rich floral and faunal diversity, it has been declared as a Bio-sphere Reserve in 1994 and has been the attraction of researchers on wildlife and botany. At the same time, it serves as an interesting site for social & anthropological research by sheltering since millennia some nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes who depend on this forest for their life & livelihood. The geomorphology of Similipal is very interesting. Topographical features vary from plains to mountains and from undulatory valleys to gorges. Many perennial rivers (viz., the East Deo, the West Deo, the Khair, the Bandhan, the Budhabalanga, etc.) originate in the high hills of Similipal and the average rainfall is 2000 mm. It is under such favourable conditions that luxuriant vegetation grows from top to bottom favoring a great diversity in flora & fauna

104

Location Located in the district of Mayurbhanj between Longitudes 84°-15' and 84°-25' (East) latitude 19°.15' to 19°.25' (North)

Total Area 2750 Sq.km

• Wildlife Sanctuary: 1905 Sq.kms

• Proposed National Park: 845.70 Sq.kms.

Legal Status of Land inside the Sanctuary

RF: 2091 sq. km

Other : 659 sq. km

(including Protected Forests, Revenue Lands, Village sites, cultivated lands etc.)

Date of Notification U/S 18 of WLP Act 1972

Declaration of Similipal Sanctuary over 2200 sq. km. on 3rd December, 1979 vide Notification No. 30467/

Declaration of intention to constitute 303 sq. km. area of Sanctuary area as National Park on 6th August, 1980 vide Notification No. 18703/

Extension of Proposed National Park Area by adding 515 Sq.kms. land area from Sanctuary on 11th June, 1986 vide Notification No. 19525/

Date of Final Notification U/S of 26 of WLP Act 1972

Sanctuary: Though Final Notification has not been issued till date, but it is being considered as Deemed Sanctuary as per the provisions laid down in 1991 amended WLP Act.

National Park: Not yet issued

Right Settlement (U/S 19 to 25) of WPA, 1972

U/S 19 – 25 proceedings is in progress in Non-RF areas as mentioned in the page no. 32 of Wildlife Conservation in Orissa, a report published by the Orissa Forest Department in 2003.

Type of Forest Combination of tropical mixed deciduous hill forest, semi-evergreen forests, high level and plain sal forests, grassland and savannah.

105

Management Control Under the management control of

• Field Director, Simlipal Tiger Reserve

• Baripada & Karanjia Forest Division (Territorial)

No. of Human Habitations inside the Sanctuary Boundary

65 Revenue villages

• 61 villages in buffer zone

• 4 villages in core zone

No. of Habitations in 8transitional zone

1209 villages

Population within the Sanctuary 12000 (2001 Census)

Population within transitional zone 45000

Major Primitive Tribes Khadia, Mankedia, Kolha, Santal, Batudi

Scheduled V Area Yes

106

Issues in Simlipal Sanctuary & National Park

Process of Declaration and Present Status

Similipal protected area is the conglomeration of the Similipal Tiger Reserve(STR), Similipal Wildlife Sanctuary and the Proposed National Park areas that spread over an area of 2750 sq.km. within the Similipal Reserve Forest. The STR was constituted in 1973 consisting of a core area and buffer area. In 1979(dated 3rd December) under section 18 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 the area was declared as Similipal Wildlife Sanctuary covering 2200 sq. km. and in 1980(dated 6th August) under the same section, the Government of Orissa published its intention to notify 303 sq. km. coming within the core area of the Sanctuary as National Park. In 1986(dated 11th June) GoO came out with another declaration of intention to extend the limits of the proposed national park to 845.70 sq.km. Meanwhile, Similipal was declared as Biosphere Reserve covering 4374 sq. km. in 1994(dated 22nd June).

According to the Forest Department sources, since Similipal Sanctuary was declared under section 18 of WLP Act, 1972 in 1979 much prior to the enactment of WLP (Amendment) Act 1991, which says that all those protected areas (sanctuaries and national parks) declared prior to 1991 is deemed to be finally notified u/s 26A (amended in 1991) of the said Act; so Similipal Wildlife Sanctuary is considered to be a ‘Deemed Sanctuary’ and the section 19-25 are in progress in respect of the non-RF areas. The final notification of the Similipal National Park is yet to be done. According to the views of wildlife department officials the core area consists of human habitations and complete evictions from core area has not taken place for which final notification for national park couldn’t be carried out and still exists as a proposed National Park.

Settlement of Villagers rights

107

As per the forest department sources (Wildlife Conservation in Orissa, Forest Department Orissa, 2003) proceedings under section 19-25 with regard to settlement of claims and rights of local people residing within the sanctuary in respect of non-RF areas is under progress. The law provides for only settlement of immovable rights or land rights(and that too which are formalized through survey and settlement), but non-formalised land rights (i.e. shifting cultivation) and traditional rights over forests are not recognised. This means that the communities may be allowed to stay within the limits of the sanctuary (excluding core area) but they will not have any rights over the nearby forests.

Relocation and resettlement of core villages

On the other hand, the government is trying to relocate all 4 villages (namely, Kabatghai, Jamunagarh, Jenabil and Bakua) inside the core area and 7 buffer villages (namely, Lambujharan, Budhabalang, Sarada, Nikhirda, Kukurbhuka, Badamakabadi and Gopinathpur) which are situated very close to the core area boundary outside the sanctuary. These habitations are tribal dominated constituting primarily the Kolha, Bathudi, Khadia and Santhal tribal groups and smaller percentage of non-tribal castes like Mohantas and Goudas. The process of eviction and resettlement started during the later half of 1980s; but it has been partially successful and till now 72 families have been shifted from the 4 core villages (Vasundhara, 2004) leaving behind 77 familes. The rehabilitation colonies are situated in the periphery zone of Similipal and the important agencies involved in rehabilitation of the evicted people ans also, of the migratory Makdias (a tribe) are the Hill Khadia & Makdia Development Agency and Integrated Tribal Development Agency. As reported by the House Committee on Environment set up in June 1994 nearly 419 acres of reserve forestland has been dereserved for resettlement of people from core villages( Issues and Challenges in Protected Area Management, A case study of Similipal National Park in Orissa, India, RCDC and PIPAR, June 2004).

108

The current situation is that a number of resettled tribal families have deserted the rehabilitation colonies and left for Similipal almost permanently. A major reason behind this is that these forest dependent people found difficulties in having access to the forest products which they used for their livelihood in their new habitations. Secondly, the government failed to fulfill the assurances given to the people as can be seen in case of the Khadias resettled in Kapand rehabilitation colony near Jashipur. The Khadias were assured that they would be allotted two acres of cultivable land per family. However, without any such allotment they were rehabilitated and the authorities could not succeeded in fulfilling their assurances because the area where cultivable lands were to be allotted was under encroachment of other people. Similarly, the Khadias in Podagarh were provided with only the homestead land and not given any landholding for cultivation.

Issues related to Lives and Livelihood

The tribals living within the protected area have a significant dependence on forest products for sustenance. For example, the Khadia tribesmen are skilled honey collectors. They also collect and process Paluo(arrowroot) which other tribes do not practice. Besides, the tribals collect a variety of NTFPs like, sal leaf, siali fibre, various resins, gums, mahua flower, mushrooms etc. for survival. Generally, the contribution of NTFPs in their total annual household income ranges between 50-60%.. In case of nomadic tribe (for e.g. Makdia community), their livelihood is 100% based on NTFP. The following table gives a description about the extent of dependence of different tribal communities on NTFPs.

Caste Groups NTFPs % to total HH annual income

Khadia (ST) Honey, Sal resin, Arrowroot, malika chera(root)

60-70

109

Makdia (ST) Siali fibre 100

Khadia, (ST) Bathudi(ST)

Sal and Siali leafplate stitching

More than 50

The villagers residing inside the STR experience restrictions on carrying Karanj (seeds of Pongamia pinnata), Tentuli (seeds of tamarind) etc even though these products are collected from their own private lands with the suspicion that these products might have been collected by entering the forests. Similarly, there had been greater restriction on collection of Kusum seeds, Pala (wild variety Phonoex spp) and its finished products such as mats, Phulajhadu (Hill brooms), Badhuni (thorn brooms), Jhuna (Sal resin), Siali fibres (climbers of the climber Bauhinia vahlii) honey, arrowroot. As a result of these restrictions most of the NTFPs are consumed locally and rarely these produces are sold now which once added some livelihood opportunities to the local tribal inhabitants. Other agricultural produces such as Sorisha (mustard), Rashi (sesamum) and Sakarkanda (sweet tubers) are also restricted with the view that these are cultivated in the high lands of the protected area

Interior villages face the problem of transport as the surplus agricultural

produces are not being carried to out of the STR boundaries. Carrying of surplus agricultural produces are restricted to cycle loads only which limits their income opportunities.

The Makdias rehabilitated in Durdura village still retain the collection of Siali

climbers clandestinely into the STR. Adequate movement is however not allowed restricting their livelihood options. On the other hand, the STR authorities have not justified with the amount of landholdings being provided to the Makdias for alternative sources of livelihood opportunities could have been taken up by these nomadics otherwise. Each household has been assigned with only 4 decimal of landholdings which is not adequately fertile. The Khadia and Makdia development authorities has supplied jutes as

110

the substitute but these tribes say that they are not the proper substitute for the Siali climbers to get the same processed product. Curiously, pair of bullocks were provided to the colony to take care of their agricultural needs but hardly it could meet the need of alternative income generating sources as these nomadics are not acquainted with agricultural practices and the land provided them was quite inadequate. Absence of proper livelihood options compelled some households to migrate to other industrial sites and nearby towns and cities in search of labour work.

The tribals shifted from Jenabil and Kabatghai villages and settled in

Ambadiha rehabilitation colony face the similar kind of sufferings. The Bathudis who were shifted from Jenabil village were practicing multi-crop system within the STR but evacuating them from the STR has rendered them from this facility. They used to cultivate a variety of crops like paddy, mustard, Sesamum, Ragi, sweet tubers, Gudulu (grains collected from native grass - it is eaten as the substitute of paddy during scarcity) and maize etc. The land provided to them in the new habitation is not good for these crops and they are only able to cultivate a single crop which meet their food for a few months hardly

Amongst other restrictions exercised by the authorities include prevention of carrying traditional weapons inside the sanctuary area which has serious implications on the forest dwelling tribes. However, these instruments like axe, bow and arrow are in no way weapons for them rather are cultural artifacts. Also, purchase of chemical fertiliser and normal edible salt has been completely restricted with the view that the chemical fertilisers may be used to toxicate the running water used by the wild animals. Similarly, the salt may be used by the inhabitants to create and use the salt in the salt pit to hunt the wild animals.

Villages like Makabadi, Kukurbhuka and Nigirda (a village inside the core area) in Astakumar GP could not have an irrigation project because the stream is inside the forest area that does not come under the revenue lands and the Forest Department has not allowed diversion of water from the same.

111

Admitted Rights and Concessions

Items 'A' Class R.F Khesra/ Unreserves/ UDPF

Timber and Firewood

No concession existed on Hill Reserves. Timber of all species allowed from Plain Reserves at concessional rates to the tenants.

Timber of unreserved species are free but reserved species allowed at concessional rate Firewood of all species allowed free of cost to the tenants excluding the professionals like blacksmiths, potters, iron-smithers etc. who paid annual fee for taking their requirements.

Bamboo Bamboo at concessional rates permitted from Hill Reserves and Plain Reserves

Bamboo at concessional rates permitted

MFP No restrictions on collection No restrictions on collection

Cultivation of Tassar

Free rearing of Tassar silkworm on Asan trees

Free rearing of Tassar silkworm on Asan trees

Grazing Allowed at scheduled rate Free grazing

Use of Footpath & Water course

No restriction on use of footpath & water course in any type of forests

Special privileges given to landless and widow. Landless allowed to collect timber from Hill reserves at concessional rate. No price charged for collection of firewood and bamboo. For widows, collection of timber, firewood, bamboo and grazing allowed completely free of cost.

112

TTiiggeerr RReesseerrvveess iinn OOrriissssaa

Similipal Tiger Reserve Similipal Tiger Reserve, in Mayurbhanj district holds about 50% of tiger population in the state. Less than thirty tigers were surviving here of the year 1975. Sustained protection measures and management initiatives have resurrected the dwindling population of tigers to around 95 in the 1990s and therefore the population has remained stable around 100. Yet, most of the tigers from north Similipal are moving to south Similipal that remains a better habitat, and the leopards, more adaptable than the tiger, are appearing in most of the habitats vacated by tiger. These observations suggest that Similipal habitat may be reaching the maximum of its carrying capacity in tiger. The future seems depend on adjoining forests of Hadgarh and Kuldiha that are better known as elephant habitats.

Tiger is only an indicator species but the project in Similipal has provided incidental conservation to the entire biota contained in these forests. The giant squirrel (Ratufa indica) of the upper tree canopy, the mugger crocodile (Crocodylus palustris) in the rivers of Similipal, and the 94-species of orchid flora are only a few that 'indicate' the positive impact of Project Tiger on the health of the ecosystem, and the prevailing microclimate of Similipal.

Major threats to Similipal centre round four lakh people living in the periphery and ten thousand people living inside it. Most of them 'use' Similipal to make a living, and the population continues to rise at a rate of 20% for each decennial period. Similipal presents an accurate reflection of the declining status of a habitat in the face of growth of human population.

113

Sunabeda (Proposed) Tiger Reserve Sunabeda (Proposed) Tiger Reserve, extending over 956.17sq.km area (Longitude - 82o20'0" to 82o34'48" East and Latitude 20o06'0" to 20o44'0" North), in Nawapara district bordering the state of Chhatisgarh to the west of Orissa, encompasses the Sunabeda Sanctuary (591.75Sq.kms) and the Patdhara forest block to its south (364.42Sq.kms). The reserve holds 36 tigers as per population estimate of January 2004. The Udanti and Sitanadi sanctuaries of Chhatisgarh on the west are almost contiguous with Sunabeda.

The faunal characteristics of the proposed Sunabeda Tiger Reserve include a population of wild buffalo migrating between Orissa and Chhatisgarh. The status of the 'hard-ground Barasingha' endemic to the Sunabeda plateau is uncertain at present. The four major carnivores in the plateau are tiger, leopard, wolf and wild dog. The prey base of herbivores has sustained the rising trend of carnivore population.

Sunabeda is approachable from Nuapada by road (Barkote 44 kms, Bharuamunda 27 kms. and Tanwat 9 kms from Nuapada). The Nearest Railway Station is Khariar Road (10 kms. from Nuapada) on Raipur-Vizayanagaram route (S. E. Railway).

The Satkoshia-Baisipalli (Proposed) Tiger Reserve

The Satkoshia-Baisipalli (Proposed) Tiger Reserve, encompassing the Satkoshia Gorge Sanctuary constituted in May 1976 and the Baisipalli Sanctuary constituted in November 1981, owes its conceptualization and status to the wetland fauna (Gharial, Mugger, freshwater turtles, freshwater shark etc.) in the Mahanadi and biodiversity in the terrestrial ecosystem. Pugmark tracking conducted in January 2004 revealed the presence of 18 tigers and 36 leopards in the twin-sanctuaries constituting the proposed Tiger Reserve. The TR is located in the Central Zone of Orissa and spreads over Angul, Cuttack, Nayagarh and Boudh districts covering an area of 963.87sq.kms and comprises of Moist Deciduous Forests, Dry Mixed Deciduous Forest, Bamboo Brakes, Dry Tropical Riparian Forest and Teak Plantations.

114

Satkoshia Gorge is the home of the most endangered Gharial (Gavialis gangeticus), the Mugger crocodiles (Crocodylus palustris) and a variety of freshwater turtles. Other faunal elements include Leopard, Wild dog, Gaur, Nilgai, Sambar, Spotted Deer, Barking Deer, Bear, Ratel, Jackal, Porcupine, Indian Hare, and Giant Squirrel etc. A viable but stabilized population of about 155 elephants thrives in this region which forms a part of the Mahanadi Elephant Reserve.

Both the resident as well as migratory birds are found in this sanctuary. The resident birds include the Hornbills, Peafowl, Kingfishers, Egrets, Cormorants, River Tern, Owls, Pigeons, Myna, Parakeets, Drongo, Doves, Woodpecker, Gulls, Golden Oriole, Vultures, Babblers, Barbets, Minivets, Sun Bird, Eagle, Crow Pheasants etc. The migratory birds include Brahminy Ducks, Bar Headed Geese etc.

115

TIGER POPULATION IN DIFFERENT FOREST DIVISIONS OF ORISSA: JANUARY 2004

All Orissa Tiger/Leopard Census 2004

date: 08 March 2004 TIGER LEOPARD

Male Female Cub Total Male Female Cub Total

Bhawanipatna Circle:

Sunabeda 11 10 11 32 14 17 5 36

Khariar 1 2 1 4 1 2 0 3

Kalahandi(N) 0 0 0 0 2 5 1 8

Kalahandi (S) 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 5

Balangir (E) 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3

Balangir(W) 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 6

Sub-Total 12 13 12 37 19 34 8 61

Koraput Circle

Jeypore(incl tigersof Malkangiri) 1 1 0 2 9 7 1 17

Rayagada 2 1 0 3 5 5 1 11

Malkanagiri (Tigers with Jeypore) 0 0 0 0 5 4 1 10

Nawarangpur 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3

Koraput 1 1 0 2 4 6 1 11

Sub-Total 4 3 0 7 24 24 4 52

Angul Circle

Satkosia(WL) 4 6 1 11 9 9 1 19

Angul 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4

Dhenkanal 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Athagarh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Athmalik 0 0 0 0 6 8 2 16

Cuttack 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Sub-Total 4 6 1 11 19 20 3 42

Sambalpur Circle

116

Sambalpur(S) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2

Sambalpur(N) 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

Rairakhole 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Bamra WL 1 1 0 2 7 8 1 16

Hirakud WL 2 3 0 5 10 11 0 21

Bargarh 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Sub-Total 3 4 0 7 21 21 2 44

Bhubaneswar Circle

Nayagarh 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Mahanadi WL 3 2 2 7 7 8 0 15

Chandka 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 8

Khurda 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 8

Sub-Total 3 2 2 7 17 16 0 33

Berhampur Circle

Berhampur 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Ghumsur(S) 0 1 1 2 4 4 0 8

Ghumsur(N) 0 2 6 8 25 21 3 49

Phulbani 0 0 2 2 4 11 2 17

Boudh 0 1 2 3 6 6 0 12

Parlakhemundi 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Balliguda 3 1 2 6 4 5 0 9

Sub-Total 3 5 13 21 46 47 5 98

All Orissa Tiger/Leopard Census 2004

Rourkela Circle

Anandpur(WL) 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3

Sundargarh 0 0 0 0 3 6 1 10

Bonai 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 8

Raurkela 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deogarh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Keonjhar 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4

117

Sub-Total 0 0 0 0 5 18 2 25

STR Circle

Similipal 27 39 28 94 32 50 18 100

Baripada 0 0 2 2 4 9 0 13

Karanjia 1 1 0 2 4 3 1 8

Rairangpur 0 1 2 3 4 2 0 6

Bhadrak WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Balasore WL 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 5

Sub-Total 28 42 32 102 45 68 19 132

Summary

Bhawanipatna Circle: 12 13 12 37 19 34 8 61

Koraput Circle 4 3 0 7 24 24 4 52

Angul Circle 4 6 1 11 19 20 3 42

Sambalpur Circle 3 4 0 7 21 21 2 44

Berhampur Circle 3 5 13 21 46 47 5 98

Rourkela Circle 0 0 0 0 5 18 2 25

Bhubaneswar Circle 3 2 2 7 17 16 0 33

STR Circle 28 42 32 102 45 68 19 132

Orissa Total 57 75 60 192 196 248 43 487

118

EElleepphhaanntt RReesseerrvveess iinn OOrriissssaa Elephant is an animal included in Schedule-I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. A complete ban on ivory trade was imposed in 1991. Project Elephant was launched in February 1992 by Govt. of India to consolidate the programmes for conservation of elephant and its habitat. The Project seeks to address (a) the threats to the survival of elephant in our country on account of loss of its habitat, migration path and poaching for tusks; and (b) issues arising out of elephant depredation in villages. Project Elephant also seeks (i) to maintain an appropriate size of the population in any habitat to safeguard it against extinction; and (ii) to maintain genetic continuity of isolated populations, which are otherwise susceptible to inbreeding.

Three Elephant Reserves (ERs) --- the Mayurbhanj ER, Mahanadi ER and Sambalpur ER were notified in the State in the years 2001 and 2002 to define the prime elephant habitats and to launch various management interventions for conservation of elephant. The extent of notified and proposed forest blocks in these three reserves is 4129 sq. km, and the geographical area covered by these three reserves is 8509 sq. km. In order to (a) include most of the remaining important elephant habitats within ERs, (b) redress the problem of rising number of cases of elephant depredation and (c) reverse the trend of habitat fragmentation and degradation, it is proposed (i) to expand the area of Mahanadi and Sambalpur ERs, and (ii) to constitute new ERs called the Brahmani-Baitarani ER and South Orissa ER. After final constitution of the ER-network the maximum number of elephants will remain within the Reserves.

119

ELEPHANT RESERVES IN ORISSA

120

Mayurbhanj ER: SIMILIPAL-KULDIHA-HADGARH ELEPHANT RESERVE (Constituted: September 2001) Location: 21º10' to 22 o35' North, 85 o45' to 87o05' East Districts: portions of Mayurbhanj, Balasore, Bhadrak and Keonjhar Area of the Reserve: The Mayurbhanj ER comprises of the following areas. Similipal Tiger Reserve: … 2750.00sq.km Kuldiha Sanctuary: … 272.75sq.km Hadgarh Sanctuary … 191.06sq.km

3213.81sq km Balance area including RF, PF, VF, DPF and Revenue lands: 3829.93sq.km Total: 7043.74sq.km.

121

Sambalpur ER: BADRAMA-KHALASUNI ER (Constituted: March 2002; Revision Proposed March 2004) Location: 20° 5'N to 22° 12'N,83° 13'to 84° 58'E Districts of: Sambalpur, Sundargarh, , Jharsuguda, Sonepur Forest Divisions: (Parts) of : Bamra (Wildlife), Bonai, Sambalpur (N), Sambalpur (S), Rairakhol. Area of Sambalpur ER:

Name of DivisionArea Elephant Habitat in km

Area of ZonInfluence Sq.km.

Total Area Sq.km.

Bamra WL 573.27 1576.0197 2149.2897 Sambalpur (S) 402.45 828.06 1230.51 Sambalpur (N) 76.55 151.4200 227.97 Bonai 693.56 295.54 989.10 Rairakhol 813.54 436.4600 1250.00 Total 2559.37 3287.4997 5846.8697

122

Mahanadi ER Location: 20º. 10´ to 21º.5´N, 84º. 15´ to 85º.58´E Districts: Angul, Cuttack, Nayagarh, Kondhmal, Dhenkanal

Forest Divisions: Portions of Angul , Athagarh, Cuttack, Nayagarh, Boudh and Dhenkanal, and entire Satkosia Wildlife Division, Mahanadi Wildlife Division and Athamallik Forest Division.

Area of Mahanadi ER:

Name of the Division Elephant Habitat (PRF)

Zone Influence

Total

Satkosia Wildlife Division 447.79 207.2 654.99 Mahanadi Wildlife Division 300.50 136.79 437.29 Angul Division 252.28 355.72 608.00 Dhenkanal Division 513.51 1333.16 1846.67 Athagarh Division 400.48 680.93 1081.41 Athamallik Division 538.39 1302.61 1841.00 Boudh Division 335.01 110.00 445.01 Nayagarh Division 299.00 708.35 1007.35 Cuttack Division 52.20 62.40 114.60 Total 3139.16 4897.16 8036.32

123

Brahmani-Baitarani (Proposed) ER Location: 20° 44' to 22° 9' N, 84°58' to 86°6'E

Districts: Portions of Keonjhar, Sundargarh, Angul, and Dhenkanal Dist.

Area of Brahmani-Baitarani ER:

Name of FoDivision

Area of ElephHabitat (RF and P(Sq. km.)

Area of Zone Influence (Other tyof land) (Sq.km.)

Total Area Elephant Reserve(Sq.k

Keonjhar 744.94 5803.06 6548 Dhenkanal 400.78 1842.90 2243.68 Angul 44.43 394.63 439.06 Bonai 564.56 764.88 1329.44 Total 1754.71 8805.47 10560.18

124

South Orissa (Proposed) ER Location: 19°5' to 19°57'N, 82° 55' to 84°27'E Districts: Ganjam, Gajapati, Kandhamal, Rayagada, Kalahandi. Forest Divisions: Balliguda, Paralakhemundi, Kalahandi North, Kalahandi South and Rayagada.

Area of South Orissa ER: Elephant Habitat (Sq. km) Name of Division Sanctuary RF+PRF Total

Zone Influence (Sq.km)

Total area Elephant Reserve (Sq.km)

Balliguda 399.50(Kotagarh) 1516.50 1916.00 2344.00 4260.00 Parlakhemundi 174.95(Lakhari

Valley)

1255.05 1430.00 594.00 2024.00

Kalahandi (S) 175.5(Karlapat) 174.50 350.00 160.00 510.00 Kalahandi (N) 0 270.45 270.45 248.55 519.00 Rayagada 0 250.00 250.00 150.00 400.00 Total 749.95 3466.5 4216.45 3496.55 7713

125

Elephant Distribution in Orissa

In Orissa elephants are not seen in ten districts, namely Puri, Jagatsinghpur, Kendrapada, Bhadrakh, Koraput, Nabarangpur, Malakangiri, Bargarh, Sonepur and Bolangir. Estimation of elephant population is carried out periodically throughout Orissa. The estimation was carried out during 5th to 7th May 2002.

Table: Elephant Population in Orissa (May 2002)

Sl No Division Male Female Calf / Unknown

Sex

Total

1 Angul 10 7 7 24

2 Athamalik 10 14 13 37

3 Athagad 19 98 39 158

4 Dhenkanal 14 45 22 81

5 Keonjhar 40 49 23 112

6 Satkosia Wl 17 43 95 155

7 Balliguda 9 14 9 32

8 Boudh 0 0 0 0

9 Ghumsur(N) 2 4 3 9

10 Ghumsur(S) 2 2 2 6

11 Nayagarh 0 0 0 0

12 Mahanadi Wl 4 10 11 25

13 Paralakhemundi 6 19 17 42

14 Puri 0 0 0 0

15 Phulbani 1 3 2 6

16 Bolangir 0 0 0 0

17 Jaypore 0 0 0 0

18 Kalahandi 19 34 8 61

19 Khariar 0 0 0 0

20 Raygada 0 0 0 0

126

21 Sunabeda Wl 0 0 0 0

22 Bamra 45 123 33 201

23 Bonai 15 40 27 82

24 Badrama Wl 0 0 0 0

25 Deogarh 2 7 0 9

26 Rairakhole 25 93 47 165

27 Sundargarh 0 0 0 0

28 Sambalpur 20 22 22 64

29 Chandaka Wl 13 30 19 62

30 Similipal 97 283 132 512

(Figures of Karanjia and BaripDivision included)

State Total 370 940 531 1841

Captive elephants The History of Orissa provides evidences about a rich tradition of maintaining elephants in captivity. There are innumerable elephant sculptures in temples and caves, and the Maharaja of Puri is known as the "Gajapati". Maintaining captive elephants was not possible in princely states after Indian-independence and particularly after the introduction of 'privy purse' where the princely states handed over most of their properties to the Government and maintaining personal collection of elephants was no longer necessary.

The changed scenario reflected on the families of 'Mahouts' who mastered the skill of elephant-maintenance. The mahouts have gradually vanished along with the disappearance of the tradition of keeping elephants.

Captive elephants are now maintained only in some of the 'camps' under State Wildlife Organisation. In Nandankanan the elephants are used for joy rides by visitors. In Similipal, however, the elephants are used by staff moving for habitat or

127

wildlife protection, when the roads get cut off in the rains or where 'elephant power' is required to be deployed.

Table: Captive Elephants in Orissa during 2003

Sl. No. Place Male Female Total

1 Nandankanan Biological 2 8 10

2 Similipal Sanctuary 3 2 5

3 Debrigarh Sanctuary 1 0 1

Total 6 10 16

Table: Death of Elephant (1990-91 to 2002-03)

Sl. NoYear Nature of death

Poaching AccidenNatural Disease Reason not knoTotal

1 1990-91 11 6 12 29

2 1991-92 11 2 6 19

3 1992-93 15 5 16 36

4 1993-94 13 7 18 38

5 1994-95 23 5 15 43

6 1995-96 19 7 17 43

7 1996-97 14 10 10 34

8 1997-98 13 5 19 37

9 1998-99 13 11 4 1 1 30

10 99-2000 10 6 5 2 1 24

11 2000-01 11 3 3 1 2 20

12 2001-02 10 7 2 4 1 24

13 2002-03 16 11 0 10 3 40

14 2003-04 9 15 1 18 4 47

TOTAL 188 100 128 36 12 464

128

Table: Elephant Depredation Number of cases of elephant depredation (1995-1996 to 2002-2003) in Orissa along with amount of compassionate payment made in different years:

Sl.NYear Humanin Nos.

Human inin Nos.

Crop damagAcre

House damagNos.

Compassionate ampaid in Rupees

1 1995-96 30 1 1091.01 115 1019575

2 1996-97 6 1 0 0 70000

3 1997-98 15 1 1028.35 12 664464

4 1998-99 21 12 467.696 8 608139

5 99-2000 23 5 1999.624 262 1500000

6 2000-01 22 1 3187.69 5 1800000

7 2001-02 64 6 2823.824 1021 3006730

8 2002-03 66 7 4240.188 890 4103600

9 2003-04 12 1 3314.288 242 2451869

TOTAL 259 35 18152.67 2555 15224377

129

BBrrooaadd IIssssuueess iinn PPrrootteecctteedd AArreeaass iinn OOrriissssaa

1. Management deficiencies in biodiversity conservation

Management system is the crucial part of wildlife conservation, which decides effectiveness of conservation efforts. But various lacunas in the management system are causing threat to the wild life conservation. It is very important to consider each and every facet of the system with interactions between these factors, viz. ecological, economical, legal and socio-cultural. The present system is based on exclusionary principal, which exclude local people from conservation and imposing cost of conservation on weakest section of society which cant afford it. Further more it is also neglecting the potential of local people in conservation, local people are good source of traditional knowledge, developed through human nature interfaces over thousands of years. Therefore consideration of human-face of wildlife management is very important. From various researches it is reflecting that protected areas are becoming islands of conservation, questioning survival of species as well as balance in life supporting system. Therefore holistic approach is required for wildlife management.

A review of India’s PAs demonstrated that (as stated in the Global Biodiversity Assessment report, UNEP 1995):

• The process of selecting Protected Areas and determining which protection category to put then it was arbitrary in-systematic and inconsistent. Protected Areas were also not placed in any rational system of regional land-use planning. As result highly degraded or densely settled areas were designated as national parks and important biodiversity areas were not included in the network.

• As many as 60% of the national parks and 92% of the sanctuaries had not completed the required legal procedures for their establishment as Protected Areas. Lack of coordination between the Forest Department

130

wildlife authorities and the civil administration responsible for land acquisition.

• Management planning was widely classified as seriously deficient only 43% of the national parks and 28% of the sanctuaries reported the existence of management plans. No detailed guidelines for preparing plans exist, and available plans were often assessed inadequate.

• Research was reported in only 42% of national parks and 2% of sanctuaries with even fewer reporting the existence of basic research facilities. Regular monitoring was about virtually everywhere with the exception of a periodic census of large mammals and birds in some areas.

• Funds for staff and equipments were highly deficient compromising effort to protect and manage these areas (only 1.5% of forest department budget went to protected area management in 1984 and there are few indications that this has increased during the past decade.)

The Global Biodiversity Assessment report (UNEP 1995) opined that management deficiencies weaken the ability of India’s PAs network to conserve a representative range of country’s biodiversity (Miller et al 1995). The IIPA report (Gadgil et al 1989) also made a number of recommendations to improve the situation, some of which are under consideration by the central and state Governments. 2. Legal Issues

Conflicts between laws: There are contradictory provisions regarding rights amongst the various laws. The stringency of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 for instance is countermanded by the Panchayati Raj Act, 1998 and Panchayat (Extension of Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 which grants the local communities ‘ownership’ rights as opposed to the usual usufructory rights, which is access and the right to use natural resources in notified areas. The Panchayati Raj Act, 1998 and the Panchayat (Extension of Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 read together with the 73rd Amendment and the JFM order, have special significance for the natural resources rights of tribal

131

communities and particularly for states like Madhya Pradesh. This poses a conflicting picture vis-a-vis forest and wildlife laws.

Mainly legal issues are emerging from rights, control and access over resources. Our wildlife laws and policies limit the access of local people over resources, which create major conflict. Around 60% of India’s PAs are inhabited by humans. Almost 4 million people inside India’s protected areas most of them belonging to families that have lived in these areas before the protected areas were notified. All these people are dependent on local resources for fulfillment of basic needs. All the people living inside protected areas and in regions adjacent to the protected areas are dependent on local resources for fuel, fodder, medicines, non-timber forest produce, fish and other aquatic produce, livelihoods, water, cultural sustenance, and myriad other critical resources. In many cases collection of non-timber forest produce contributes to more than 50% of each household’s earnings; more importantly, up-to 100% of the daily requirements of such families comes from forest or aquatic produce. Thus these people are primary stakeholders of Protected Area Management. But they are neither considered Protected Area Management nor their basic needs are dealt. Local people are closely linked with resources so they have great potential in wildlife conservation. But in our conservation approach local people are always considered as threat to conservation therefore restricts access of local people over resources, it is completely ignoring the social aspect of natural resource management, and excluding human from nature. Thus converts potential allies into poachers causing depletion of resources, which are not only affecting humans but also our conservation goal.

Many times due to improper survey and settlement processes these villagers are considered as encroachers. Many times conflict between forest official and local people arises due to restriction on accesses to the resources, which were enjoyed from hundreds of years. But situations differs from location to location, it depends upon various factors. Various tribes are becoming accustomed with modern forces of globalization. But Various PTGs are still maintaining their relations with nature, as these were century before.

In comparison with other nations, wildlife laws in India are considered among the ‘progressive’ in the world, but they have failed to stop the drain of nature. The

132

assumption at the governmental level and among many urban wildlife conservationists is that the presence of humans and their usufructory relation with the forest is contributing to the degradation of the environment. Some concede reluctantly that though historically ‘eco-system’ people had a ‘symbiotic’ relationship with nature but presently their population has increased, as have their cattle and goats that graze the downy undergrowth in competition with the herbivorous ungulates of the wilds. Political and financial reasons, inertia and ground realities have so far prevented the government from taking any action towards permanently disassociating these people from their natural surrounds. Additionally, there is mounting pressure from the affected people themselves with the support of select community based social organisations.

The role of the state as landlord or estate owner created a dual problem. On the one hand, it imposed the British legal system on an ethnocentric legal order based on customary usage and norms and guided by ecological parameters. On the other, it paved the way for a western model of conservation inherently established on the duality of man and nature.

The areas of conflict are wide and they range from the alienation of forest dwelling and dependant communities from the state and urban conservationists/wildlifers, the abrogation of the customary rights of these communities, including the spectre of displacement to the alleged harassment of the local people by officials of the forest department. There are rumours of forced evictions, loss of livelihood, lack of effective rehabilitation and compensation.

3. Issues pertaining to Right Settlement in Protected Areas

As per the Act, once the Government decides to create a sanctuary in an area, it issues a notification of intention of the same (section 18), appoints a Collector to determine rights and carry out inquiry with the power to exclude rights bearing land from sanctuary boundary/ acquire the land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894/ allow continuation of rights in consultation with Chief Wildlife Warden (section 24). A process of time bound serving of notice, submission of claim by affected persons,

133

inquiry into the submissions and acquisition of rights has been laid out in the Act. Same provisions (section 19-26A) apply for declaration of National Parks.

Thus the law provides power for acquisition or commutation of rights within the area intended to be declared as sanctuary or National parks. The argument put forward for such appropriation of land and resources was the extension of eminent domain, the authority or power of the state to acquire the property belonging to individuals for reasons of public interest, provided due compensation was paid to the former proprietors and rights holders. It is clearly proved that a change in sovereignty does not imply the extinguishing of the right to domicile or other existing customary rights enjoyed by the local communities concerning access and use of forest resources. Certain assumptions lie beneath the process of acquisition of rights. One of the important one is that the rights in the area to be declared are already formally recognized i.e. legal instruments and records exist of the rights of people in the area, both over land and other natural resources. These formal rights include ownership over land (provided by Survey and Settlements), Nistar Rights over forest products, right of way etc. It is assumed that the state of formal rights represents justly the up to date situation of rights over natural resources in the area.

However, given the ground level situation in tribal areas of Orissa, this assumption turns out be deficient and problematic in many ways. These deficiencies lead to a perversion of the principles of natural justice and equity, drastically affect the weakest sections of society i.e. Tribal communities including PTGs having constitutional protection, and in many case contravention of the rights to life. Some of these deficiencies are as follows:

4. Lack of up to Date and Proper Settlements of Land Rights: Most of the sanctuaries are in the remote tribal areas. In most of these areas, only one round of Settlements have taken place. The current situation in terms of land tenure in these areas is highly confused, with a major discrepancy between formal tenure and informal land use. This includes extension of cultivation in pre 1980s periods, which haven’t been regularized and are therefore treated as encroachments, existence of unsurveyed areas etc. For example, in the Sunabeda Sanctuary area, there are 30

134

Revenue Villages but there are 34 villages, which are shown as unsurveyed village. Forest Department treats these villages as encroachers, whereas records exist which show that most of these tribal settlements are very old and were never surveyed. As per WPA, 1972, these villagers are not entitled to any compensation, and neither are those people who have been cultivating land not regularized in their names (and which should have been recorded in their name as per existing law). 5. Non-recognition of Rights over Land in Survey and Settlement: This applies mainly to the practice of shifting cultivation, traditionally practiced by large number of tribal communities in Orissa. Even though many princely states condoned and even legalized shifting cultivation, the post independence statutes on land totally delegitimised it, and therefore in all shifting cultivation areas, the land on hill slopes was designated as Government land, even though these areas were being used for shifting cultivation. The estimates of shifting cultivation in Orissa range from 5000 sq. km. to 37,000 sq. km, a substantial part of the forested parts of Orissa. As the shifting cultivation land have been settled as Government land, declaration of sanctuaries means that the large number of tribals who depend on shifting cultivation in sanctuary areas are summarily evicted, creating major conflicts and misery. (Kotgarh, Karlapat, Sunabeda, Lakhari sanctuaries) 6. Non-recognition of Customary Use: Most of the customary uses of the local inhabitants on forests (including other natural resources like water) have not been codified or recorded in any record of rights. Nistar rights are a legacy of colonial period wherein limited rights were given over forest produce, mainly to landowning families. Post independence there has been no effort to redefine or formalize customary uses as per actual practice. Thus the existing rights systems don’t even start to cover the customary or actual use of natural resources in any area. However, these uses or dependence are a major source of livelihood and subsistence for a large number of poorest people, including Primitive Tribal groups. Declaration of protected areas with restrictions on entry and forest produce collection, means that the livelihoods are taken away without compensation or alternatives.

135

In wildlife policies and laws concessions are given to residents to enjoy bonafide uses of forest products. But not mentioned any difference between bonafide and commercial use. 7. Lack of Final Settlement of Claims: In most PAs in Orissa, the settlement of claims and rights as laid down in Sections 19-26A of WL Act, 1972 hasn’t taken place. Only one PA has been finally notified. All the other PAs are at different stages of notifications. However, the Wildlife Administration, taking the plea of the provision on intention of declaration of protected area leading to suspension of rights even in case of non-completion of proceedings of determination and acquisition of rights [Section 25 A of Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2002], has clamped down on the people living inside the boundaries of the PAs. This perversion of natural justice is against the spirit of law as well as constitution, as many of these processes of settlement have been pending for more than a decade. These deficiencies need to be investigated and used to challenge the State’s promotion of an exclusionary conservation model. One of the most serious livelihood issues have emerged from the ban on NTFP collection in PAs as per the Supreme Court order dated 14th February 2000(WP No. 202/95). 8. Issues of Forest Villages:

In many protected areas forest department itself established forest villages. The main objective behind establishing these villages was to ensure availability of labour for carrying out various forestry works such as forest line demarcation, extinguishing forest fires, construction of forest roads etc. forest department allotted land to these villagers at that time for homestead and agriculture for meeting their subsistence needs. But till now these villages are not converted in to revenue villages.

9. Non-Conversion of Forest Villages into Revenue Villages Deprived the Inhabitants from the Govt. Programmes & Schemes:

136

The proposals of conversion of forest villages into revenue villages are still lying with GOI. But in 13.11.2000 and 9.2.2004 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed interim orders no dereservation of forest/Sanctuaries/ National Parks shall be effected, therefore it is very difficult to convert these villages in to revenue villages.

As these villages are not being converted into Revenue Village, which deprives the inhabitants of the benefits of various government programmes and schemes like old age pension, widow pension, Anthodaya Yojana and Annapurna Yojana, though all the households in these villages are coming under BPL category.

10. No Legal Entitlement over the Allotted Land: Though forest department allotted land from forestland at different periods for their survival, but in most of the cases, forest department didn't issued any patta to any of the households residing in the village. As villagers do not have record of rights over the land cultivated & resided by them they are not able to access any loan from the nationalized banks. During the emergency situations, they have been taking loans from the local people at a higher rate of interest. Even for obtaining bail, they have been depending upon others for which the ‘Jamindars’ (the person who takes bail) demands huge money in lieu of bail. Even these families are also being deprived from getting of the caste certificates9. As these villages are coming under the category of forest villages, the R.I is not issuing residential proof, which is a prerequisite condition for obtaining caste certificate. 11. IMPACT OF SUPREME COURT ORDER ON NTFP ON LIVELIHOODS OF PEOPLE: The protected areas are located in the regions, which constitute large population of tribal communities. Data collected through multifarious studies in many parts of Orissa show that a major part of livelihood and subsistence of forest dwellers and tribal people comes from NTFP economy. The NTFPs collection has immense significance in the livelihood of forest dwelling communities. The contribution of

137

NTFPs in the total annual household income ranges between 50-60%. In case of nomadic tribe, their livelihood is 100% based on NTFP. (See Annexure-).

The order of Supreme Court restricting NTFP collection in protected areas followed by the enactment of Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2002 has extremely serious implications for the natives in and round 18 proposed protected areas. As a result of legal restrictions on collections of forest products, people are getting increasingly dependent on wage labour for eking out their sustenance. In many cases these restrictions have compelled the forest dwellers to revert to illegal collection of such forest products, which makes them easy victims to rent seeking by petty officials.

The Order of Supreme Court (dated 14th February 2000) restricting NTFP collection in Protected areas followed by the enactment of Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2002 (see section 29) has extremely serious implications for the tribal and forest dwellers living in and around the 18 Protected areas. More communities are likely to face the adverse consequences once the 18 proposed protected areas (which are in the pipelines) in the state get finally approved. As reported in a local Daily (Prajatantra, dated 17th July 2002) NTFPs worth Rupees 35 lakh used to be traded annually from Sunabeda Sanctuary which has come to a halt with the imposition of restriction. Considering that income from sale of NTFPs can contribute more than 50% in case of the poorest tribals, these policy decisions contravene the fundamental rights to life and livelihood.

For example, in the Simlipal Tiger Reserve area, the villagers residing inside the sanctuary are restricted from collecting and carrying NTFPs such as seeds of Karanj, Tamarind, Kusum, leaves of Date Palm, Sal resin, Siali fibre, Honey, Arrowroot etc. through the gate of the Simlipal Tiger Reserve despite the fact that some of these NTFP items are collected by the people from their private lands. Similarly, collection of NTFPs like Nalia grass, Honey, Bahumruga creeper etc. has been banned in Bhitarkanika National Park creating immense difficulties for the ST and SC people of Dangamal, Khamarasahi, Hariharpur, Okilapal and several other villages. Closure of Kendu leaf Phadis in the Sunabeda and Satakosia Sanctuary has deprived thousands of poor pluckers from their one of the most significant income source. In certain areas,

138

it is alleged that people are also restricted from carrying agricultural produces for marketing outside the sanctuary area thus, reducing their livelihood options.

The distress caused by loss of income from both stoppage of collection of NTFPs and loss of land has compelled the nomadic tribe of protected areas to resort to wage labour, migrate to industrial places and at times mortgaged their scarce assets to avail emergency loans.

The most alarming thing is the imposition of ban on fuel-wood collection. Fuel-wood is very basic need of villagers. The villagers are restricted to pluck a piece of dried leaf and twig from the forest area and violation of this has reportedly led to the most inhuman consequences in the hands of the FD.

12. Restrictions on mobility and access to basic services

Another major implication of wildlife policy is the increasing restriction on the mobility of people residing in the protected areas. The control of the authorities is further strengthened through the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2002, according to which restrictions on the entry will immediately come into effect with the declaration of intention to create a protected area(Section 27). People living inside the Sanctuary have to face lot of difficulties due to poor access to health facilities because of the distant location of Primary Health Centers. There has been hardly any effort from the government side to provide alternative health services in these areas. We have got reports from different protected areas that people carrying patients are stopped at the gate leading to medical complications, and the reason cited is that going outside the sanctuary in night is not permissible. Effectively all access to services from outside world is restricted, and the people are cut off from basic human needs of health, education etc.

Further, restrictions over the mobility of outside traders and local people (especially while carrying commodities to sell outside), on implementation of social security programmes like Indira Awas Yojana, Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana, ICDS etc. deprive the people from basic services which is a violation of fundamental rights of

139

people within the protected areas. Such incidents are being reported from almost all protected areas in the State.

13. Increasing Man-Animal conflicts

Crop depredation by wild elephants is growing and has emerged as a serious problem not only in core villages but even in the villages located in the periphery of the Sanctuary. The frequency of intrusion of elephants into the paddy fields of people increases during harvesting season when the herds destroy lot of standing crops falling on the way. Besides, attack on human lives has also increased and every year a case of human casualty is reported from the surrounding villages.

14. Increasing Developmental Activities

Various developmental projects like mining; big dams, etc. are immerging around Protected Areas. Various protected areas are denotified for these developmental projects. Protected Areas possesses rich stocks of mineral resources, which are viewed as very critical for industrial growth. But mining projects are seriously impacting overall conservation scenario by negatively affecting ecosystem, it is not only adversely affecting ecosystem but also creating Protected areas as island of conservation by destroying important under natural habitats of considered species out side the protected areas. (e.g. mining in Keonjhar region is seriously impacting elephant corridor thereby, brought out behavioral changes in elephants causing increased cases of man-elephant conflict, elephant poaching, etc.) Furthermore big dams are also threatening wildlife conservation by submerging large patches of biodiversity rich forests (e.g. Rengali, Hirakud, Indravati, etc. had submerged large patches of biodiversity rich forests). Other projects like national highways, pipelines are also impacting biodiversity adversely, thereby disturbing ecological balance.

140

Summary of the major issues

• Management deficiencies in conservation approach. The sanctuaries and National Park do not have separate management plans and there is no detailed guideline available for the preparation of the plans. Every Protected Area has its own situation specific problems which have to be tackled independently and hence independent management plans are required.

• Lack of holistic approach in Wildlife Management. The present conservation paradigm is borrowed from the Western Concept which ignores the involvement of the local people, the primary stakeholders, in the management process. Exclusionary principle of conservation sidelines the local people from the conservation scenario, further imposing the cost of conservation on the weakest section of the society who cannot afford it.

• The Management system also neglects the potential of the local people in conservation. Local people are good source of traditional knowledge, developed through human nature interfaces over thousand of years. Therefore consideration of human face of wildlife management is very important.

• Related laws and policies are conflicting and contradictory to each other, effectively exiling people within the Protected Areas from civilization and debarring them from their basic and fundamental rights.

• Mainly legal issues are emerging from rights, control and access over the resources. Our wildlife laws and policies limit the access of the local people over the resources which create major conflict. The local people living within the PAs critically depend on the natural resources for their sustenance. But our conservation policy considers the local people as threat therefore restricts the access of the local people over the resources. It completely ignores the social aspect of natural resource management thus converting the potential allies into poachers causing depletion of the resources, which are not only affecting humans but also our conservation goals.

• The Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 1991 allowed for continuance of rights inside the sanctuaries. But WLP (Amendment) Act, 2002 made such rights less possible by prohibiting all activities that are not ‘beneficial’ to wild life

141

(including those that may be neutral in their impact), by committing state governments to provide alternatives for all rights as soon as intention was declared to notify a sanctuary, and by prohibiting any commercial activity.

• The order of Supreme Court dated 14.02.2000 in I.A 548 in W.P 202 of 1995 further restricted the access over the resources by imposing a ban even on the collection of NTFP. Such a blanket order of the Supreme Court has led to the loss of traditional livelihood and large scale hardship is being faced by the forest dwelling communities including tribals residing within the Protected Areas. The order has led to the closure of KL phadis inside many Protected Areas, which has adversely affected the livelihoods of the local people. Bamboo harvesting has also been stopped. Stopping of bamboo cutting will not only adversely affect the growth of the new culms due to over congestion ultimately leading to the death of the forest but it has also snatched away means of livelihood for thousands of people. Without carrying out any research on the impact of the NTFP collection within the Pas, on what basis can such laws and orders be implemented?

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kishen vs State of Madhya Pradesh case has emphasized the need to protect the forest as well as the livelihood of the communities dependent on such forests. In the instant case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of issued by the state of Madhya Pradesh permitting collection of Tendu leaves from the sanctuaries and National Parks by the villagers living in and around the sanctuaries and the national parks, in view of the fact that since final notification under Section 26 A and 35 is yet to be issued as rights are yet to be settled. The Hon’ble Court held that the State Govt. (M.P) was not in the position to bar the entry of the villagers living in and around the sanctuaries and national parks so long as their rights were not acquired and final notification is issued. If the state of Madhya Pradesh can move to the court with its plea and succeed in getting a positive response from the Hon’ble Court, then why has such an action not been initiated by the Orissa State Govt. till now?

• Non- recognition of the customary uses. Most of the customary uses of the local inhabitants on forests (including other natural resources like water) have not

142

been codified or recorded in any record of rights. Declaration of the Protected Areas with restrictions on the entry and forest produce collection means that livelihoods of the poor and resource dependent are taken away without compensation or alternatives.

• The Wildlife laws and policies provide that the people living in and around the Protected Area can collect and remove the forest produces, but only to meet their ‘bonafide needs’. The problem is that the law does not define what bonafide needs means. The matter would have been simple to interpret if the definition of ‘commercial collection’ and ‘personal bonafide use’ would have been defined in the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

• Issues pertaining to Right settlement in the Protected Areas. In context of Orissa, most of the sanctuaries are located in the remote tribal areas where only one round of settlement has taken place. There are no. of villages inside the PAs which have not been surveyed and hence not regularized. The Forest Department treats these villages as encroachers, whereas records exist that these tribal settlements are very old and never been surveyed. As per the WPA, 1972, these villagers are not entitled to any sort of compensation and neither are people who have been cultivating land not regularized in their names (and which should have been recorded in their names as per the existing law). People have not yet got patta for the land which they have been cultivating since ages. Since proper survey and settlement process has not been done before the declaration of the sanctuary hence many people are deprived of the compensatory package and benefits of the Govt. schemes.

• Non recognition of rights over land in the Survey and Settlement. This applies mainly to the practice of shifting cultivation. As the shifting cultivation land has been settled as Govt. land, declaration of sanctuaries means that a large no. of tribals who depend upon shifting cultivation in sanctuary areas are summarily evicted, creating major conflicts and misery. ( Kotgarh, Karlapat, Sunabeda and Lakhari sanctuaries.)

• Lack of final settlement of claims. In most Protected Areas in Orissa the settlement of claims and rights as laid down in Section 19- 26 A of Wildlife Act of 1972 has not taken place. Only one PA has been finally notified. How can the

143

Wildlife Administration curtail the rights of the people living within the PAs even without the completion of the proceedings of determination and acquisition of rights [Section 25A of Wildlife Amendment Act, 2002]

• Non conversion of Forest villages within the PAs into Revenue villages has deprived the inhabitants from the Govt. programmes and schemes. The proposals of conversion of forest villages into revenue villages are still lying with the GOI. But on 13.11.2000 and 9.2.2004 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed interim orders regarding no dereservation of forest/Sanctuaries/National Parks shall be effected, therefore it is very difficult to convert these villages into revenue villages. In the present scenario the Govt. and the administration has to take up seriously the issue of the forest villages because the people staying here have already lost their livelihood because of the Supreme Court order, further they are also debarred from any Govt. schemes and facilities. How is life possible under such circumstances?

• Restriction on mobility and access to basic services. Restriction on the entry into the Protected Areas immediately comes into effect with the declaration of intention to create a PA [Section 27 of the Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act 2002]. This further strengthens the control of the authorities over the local residents. Such stringent policy deprives the people from their basic rights which a violation of the fundamental right and is a grave concern.

• Increasing Man Animal conflict is also one of the major issues. The man-animal interface has grown in recent years in Orissa particularly in respect of wild elephants and bear. The loss of corridors and migratory routes of long ranging animals like elephant is the major cause of increasing man elephant conflicts in Orissa.

• Increasing developmental projects like mining, big dams etc are emerging around the Protected Areas. These destructive developmental projects, like mining, are not only seriously impacting the conservation scenario by negatively affecting the ecosystem but also shrinking the Protected Areas into islands of conservation by destroying the rich biodiversity and natural habitat of important species outside the PAs.

144

ANNEXURE -1

PPrrootteecctteedd AArreeaa aanndd BBiiooddiivveerrssiittyy iinn IInnddiiaa ((IIUUCCNN ccaatteeggoorryy,, 22000033))

India Asia (excl. MidEast)

World

Total Land Area (000 ha) 328759 2494475 13328979

Protected Areas

Extent of Protected Areas by IUCN Category (000 ha), 2003:

Nature Reserves, Wilderness Areas, and

National Parks (categories I and II)

3578 89140 438448

Natural Monuments, Species Management

Seascapes (categories III, IV, and V

11730 57211 326503

Areas Managed for Sustainable Use and

Unclassified Areas (category VI & "other")

336 57878 692723

Total Area Protected (all categories) 15644 204229 1457674

Marine and Littoral Protected Areas {a} 1593 21995 417970

Protected Areas as a Percent of Total Land

Area, 2003 {b} 5.2 % 8.3 % 10.8 %

Number of Protected Areas, 2003 545 5761 98400

Number of Areas >1 00,000 ha, 2003 23 295 2091

Number of Areas > 1 million ha, 2003 X X 243

Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites), 2002:

Number of Sites 8 98 1179

Total Area (000 ha) 195 5641 102283

Biosphere Reserves, 2002:

145

Note: See Protected Area Statistics (above) for a description of IUCN categories

Number of Sites 3 55 408

Total Area (000 ha) 1515 X 439000

146

Number and Status of Species Higher Plants

Total known species (number), 1992-2002

18664 X X

Number of threatened species, 2002

244 X 5714

Mammals

Total known species (number), 1992-2002

390 X X

Number of threatened species, 2002

88 X 1137

Breeding Birds

Total known species (number), 1992-2002

458 X X

Number of threatened species, 2002

72 X 1192

Reptiles

Total known species (number), 1992-2003

521 X X

Number of threatened species, 2002 25 X 293

Amphibians

Total known species (number), 1992-2003

231 X X

Number of threatened species, 2002 3 X 157

Fish

Total known species (number), 1992-2003

5749 X X

Number of threatened species, 1992-2002

9 X 742

147

148

Legal Trade in Selected Wildlife and CITES {c} Status

Year CITES Ratified X

Net International Legal Trade Reported by CITES, 2000 (number) {d}

Live Lizards X 40679

Live Snakes X -42773

Live Primates X -19366

Live Parrots 4 -136381

Lizard Skins X -435164

Snake Skins 0 -1074698

Crocodile Skins X 147615

Wild Cat Skins X -44221

Footnotes:

a Marine and littoral protected areas are not included in the "Total Area Protectabove.

b. Includes IUCN categories I-V. Marine and littoral protected areas are exclufrom these totals.

c. CITES is an acronym for the Convention on International Trade in EndangeSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora.

d. Postive numbers represent net imports; negative numbers represent net expoRegional figures are the sum of country-level trade statistics, therefore,

Source: http://earthtrends.wri.org

149

150

RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS

1. Economics of Protected Areas and its effects in Biodiversity by R.B Singh Khusawah and Viyay Kumar

2. Endangered Animals of India and their Conservation by S. Nair 3. Rights of Passage: Elephant Corridors of India by Vivek Menon, Sandeep

Tiwari, P.S.Easa and R. Sukumar 4. Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 5. Issues and Challenges in Protected Area Management: A case study of Similpal

National Park in Orissa, India by RCDC and PIPAR 6. Wild Orissa 2004 by Forest Department, Govt. of Orissa 7. www.earthtrends.wri.org 8. www.wii.gov.in 9. www.orissagov.nic.in 10. Papers prepared on different Sanctuaries by Vasundhara