Dear Saxena ji,
Thank you for inquiry.
West facing windows can be a big source of heat, first measure which you...
Why all these are not applicable to Tuticorin port or the one planned in AP or WB ?
What an eye opener! As an environmental engineer,disposal of sanitary napkins has always been a concern during waste...
THE Indian tiger has once again grabbed international attention - for all the wrong reasons. The last two months have
seen a massive hype being bat up with the release of two controversial reports, both by Britain-based conservation organisations - the Tiger Trust and the Environment Investigation
Agency (EIA). Both reports have one message: the Indian tiger
is on the verge of extinction. Claiming evidence to show that
one tiger is being killed in India every day, and with approximately only 2,500 tigers left in the country, these organisations
hold that it is only a matter of five years before the last tiger
roams wild in this land. Initiating sustained international
campaigning on the issue, these British organisations hope to
push for some radical changes in wildlife protection and management in India.
Though no one disagrees on the gravity of the situation, it
is imperative to ponder on the possible ramifications of what
these reports are propagating. They seek to bring in some sort
of immediate crisis management of tiger reserves - stricter
enforcement, increased patrolling and sustained anti-poaching drives. While Tiger Trust recommends creation of rapid
response teams, static, combat and hunter
patrols, and introduction of state-of-art
technology, EIA emphasises; the need to generate political will on the issue. However,
once again the fundamental issues are being
pushed under the carpet. And, if concerned
people do not, at this crisis point, push for
some radical rethinking on wildlife management strategies, the same flawed methods of
management will be sold by the conservationist lobby. The approach of these organisations is essentially an eco-fascist one.
It might be recalled that a similar hype
was created in the early '70s when an
international alarm was raised about drastic
reduction in wild tiger populations. Thus
emerged Project Tiger in 1972, with massive inflow of funds,
and the passing of the first ever wildlife legislation in the country - the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The then Prime
Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi took a personal interest in this.
However, some environmentalists even then were questioning
the sustainability of such reserves. They felt that wildlife conservation in India was based on fundamentally flawed models
borrowed from the West. Forests in this country are not
wilderness areas as in the West, but habitats of millions of forest dwellers. Any management strategy that takes people out of
their homes, alienates them from their resource base, erodes
their basic rights and sees wildlife and forest in isolation of all
this, is doomed from the start.
And that is exactly what has happened. Local communities, having lost most of their rights, looked at protected areas
and its laws with utmost suspicion and resentment. The result
- the present crisis facing not only tigers, but also rhinos, elephants and several other species which are falling prey to outside commercial forces on one side, and grappling with their rapidly degrading habitats on the other.
Instead of looking at these basic issues, wildlife management strategies have stuck to the old principle of "keep people
out to let wildlife survive". So you have ecodevelopment
strategies of the forest department, which pushes for relocation of people, and a quick settling of rights in all protected
areas, while paying lip service to people's participation. They
are, ironically, hoping that people will actually participate in
the destruction of their own future. And the World Bank is
entering the fray with its own version of ecodevelopment - a
whopping us $67 million in seven protected areas, to be spent
on giving some sops to local people affected because of conservation strategies, with hardly any attempt to give people a
fair share in management and benefit sharing from these
parks. Unfortunately, none of them are really looking at alternative models of management, which see
local people as a part of the ecosystem, quite
as much as the wildlife and the forests.
Ahd that'seems to be the only logical
way to understand and deal with the present
crisis in wildlife. Let us now think of ways
wherp wildlife protection is not based on
guns and guards, but where every forest and
village community living in and around
protected areas joins hands to protect their
resources. Without local support and strict
vigilance being kept by thousands of villagers, poachers and timber merchants -
the real threat - will lose their loot. But
local people will only come forward to do
this if they are made equal partners in management of these reserves, when they become the largest beneficiaries from the revenue coming into these protected areas.
We have to go beyond seeing participation of people just as an
appeasement strategy. True participation would build and
strengthen local institutions, empower communities to make
rational decisions based on their own knowledge and
traditional practices of conservation, and most importantly,
give them rights. It would strive to create positive incentives
for people by funneling in resources from tourism and
other activities directly to these local institutions. Only
then would we have truly protected areas - protected
not from local communities who depend on it, but from the
real threats of poachers and traders who are wiping out our