The concept of protecting areas (PAs) for the conservation of wild species of fauna and flora is not a new one for India. Literature written in India thousands of years ago, mentions ‘sacred groves’ where all life forms were protected. Emperor Ashoka who ruled in the 3rd century B.C. set up sanctuaries for wild animals. This was perhaps the first governmental decree that concerned protection of animals (Israel and Sinclair 1987). Indian royalty and then the Moghuls also reserved areas although mainly for hunting purposes. Game reserves were established during the British colonial period too. Interestingly, many a British Officer who started as avid sportsmen turned conservationists and encouraged the establishment of ‘protected areas’. In 1936 India’s first national park, named after Sir Malcolm Hailey, then Governor of the United Provinces was established. In 1957 it was renamed Corbett National Park in memory of the legendary hunter - naturalist Jim Corbett (Singh 1987).

Each time areas were protected, they were for different reasons. Certain areas have been revered and protected over centuries - for religious and cultural reasons. Rulers have in the past protected large tracts of land to provide refuge to species useful to them e.g. elephants because they were important for warfare. Royalty also protected areas to serve as hunting grounds or sometimes even for the sheer aesthetic value of the areas. At the turn of the century the `scientific’ aspect of conservation was emphasized. This may have resulted from scientific surveys/ studies that indicated that there was a fear of losing certain species like the tiger if protection was not provided to prey species and the habitat.

Despite this wildlife in India suffered due to a tremendous loss of habitat, first by the British who with the growing industrialization in Britain and the needs of colonial expansion in India, had to meet an increasing demand for timber and related products, then immediately after independence to abate the great hunger for land.

After independence, wildlife conservation did become a concern of the newly formed government. A Central Board for Wildlife (later renamed the Indian Board for Wildlife) was set up in 1952, followed by the state wildlife boards in many states of the country (Seshadri 1969). The Wildlife (Protection) Act (WLPA) was passed in 1972. It was also felt that more national parks and sanctuaries be created to cover atleast 4 per cent of the total land area (IBWL 1970). In October 1969, an expert committee was constituted to draw up a National Wildlife Policy for India and suggest improvements in the administration of existing national parks and sanctuaries. Additional land was set aside to preserve India’s fast diminishing wildlife.

The world’s first national park was Yellowstone in the United States of America and was established in 1872 (Kemf 1993). This park was the home for native Americans for many years. A sub-tribe of the Shoshone Indians lived year round within the present bounds of the park and other tribes used the area for hunting and fishing at various times of the year. In the summer of 1877, 300 people were killed when clashes between native groups and civilian superintendents took place. In 1886 the administration of the park was turned over to the U.S. Army (Kemf 1993). National parks, the world over, developed in conformity to the ‘Yellowstone model’ with ‘wilderness areas’ for the enjoyment of people, but without permanent human habitation and extractive use.

In India, the 10th General Assembly of the IUCN meeting in New Delhi in November, 1969, recommended that all governments agree to a generalized definition of the term ‘National Park’. It stated that areas with that title should have the following characteristics:

It was planned that each park will be zoned. The zoning concept at that time was primarily based on two major zones - wilderness zone and transition zone. The wilderness zone consisted of large areas where no development was to take place other than trails and primitive shelters. The transition zone contained roads, the visitors’ centre, accommodation for tourists and other visitors facilities (IBWL 1970).

The definition and the zoning system were both formulated with the idea that there is or will be no human habitation (with the exception of tourists) within national parks. The "Yellowstone model" was being followed, where the park was only meant to be for recreational and/ or scientific purppose with no permanent human habitation or use permitted.

A landmark in nature conservation in India was the establishment in 1972 of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act (WLPA). This unified National Act enabled protected areas (PAs) to be constituted. Before the enactment of this Act, some states had their own legislation (eg the Hailey National Park Act of U.P., 1936, under which the present Corbett National Park was set up as the Hailey National Park). Officially and theoretically under the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (until 1991), four categories of PAs were declared. These categories were inspired by the IUCN categorization of protected areas. The four categories were:

National Park: These areas are given the highest degree of protection, with virtually no human activity barring passage, management work, and tourism being allowed by law. According to the WLPA:

Sanctuary: A category with a somewhat lesser degree of legal protection than national parks. While points (i) and (ii) of the WLPA applicable to national parks are also applicable to sanctuaries, the difference is that in sanctuaries certain types of rights and activities might be permitted. Livestock grazing and collection of forest produce, for instance, may be permitted.

Closed Area: The state government may, by notification, declare any area closed to hunting for such period as may be specified in the notification. No hunting of any wild animal shall be permitted in a closed area during the period specified in the notification. Other activities, however, are permitted to continue.

Game Reserve: The state government may, by notification declare any area to be a game reserve. No hunting of any wild animal shall be permitted in such a reserve except under and in accordance with a license issued under this section by the Chief Wildlife Warden or the authorised officer.

The category of Game Reserve has been omitted in the amendment of the Act in 1991, and that of Closed Area has hardly been used in India. Today India has 80 national parks and 441 sanctuaries, covering over 4.5% of its landmass.

In addition to these, three other categories which were not included in the WLPA, but have administrative significance, are present in India:

Tiger Reserves: In 1973 was launched "Project Tiger" perhaps one of the largest and most ambitious single species conservation projects ever undertaken (Kothari et al 1989). Project Tiger was planned based on the philosophy that: "The Tiger cannot be preserved in isolation. It is the apex of a large and complex biotype. Its habitat, threatened by human intrusion, commercial forestry and cattle grazing, must first be made inviolate".

Nine tiger reserves were established in various parts of the country in 1973-74. The reserves were planned so as to have a `core’ area free of almost all human activities, and a `buffer’ where restricted human land use is allowed. By 1996, the number of tiger reserves had gone up to 23. These reserves in themselves are not a legal entity, but they all contain national parks or sanctuaries as their core and in some cases their buffer zones.

The management of the reserves concentrated on three aspects:

1. Elimination of human disturbance in the core and restriction of human activities in the buffer to those which are harmonious with conservation objectives.
2. Habitat management only to the extent of restoring areas disturbed earlier by human activity.
3. Intensive research and monitoring of wildlife.

Biosphere Reserves:UNESCO, in 1972, through its Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB) proposed the creation of Biosphere Reserves. The concept of these areas was introduced to deal with the issue of conservation of biodiversity and its sustainable use, with the emphasis on human beings as an integral part of the ecosystem and the need to involve them in conservation activities of the area. It was visualized that the programme would involve natural and social scientists, conservation and development groups, management authorities and local communities to look at how best biodiversity would be conserved, taking into consideration local communities (UNESCO 1995).

Biosphere reserves were planned to have a relatively undisturbed core zone, a well defined buffer zone and a flexible transition area which may contain a variety of activities such as agriculture, and where local communities, management agencies, scientists, non-governmental organisations, and cultural groups could work together to manage and sustainably develop the area’s resources (UNESCO 1995). Most often national parks and other types of protected areas have been a starting point in establishing these areas. Presently, there are 338 biosphere reserves in 82 countries (Miller 1996).

India has established seven biosphere reserves, although none have been registered with UNESCO. Also this category has not been designated under the WLPA, hence has no legal protection.

Special Areas for Eco-development (SAED): The Indian Board for Wildlife and its Standing Committee at their meetings held in 1981 and 1982 respectively recommended that a task force be set up in 1983 to look at practical strategies to elicit public support for wildlife conservation. The task force acknowledged that communities living in and around PAs depend on the areas for their livelihood needs and that enforcement of restrictions would trigger antagonism.

The task force recommended that each reserve `adopt’ a core - buffer - multiple use area zonation (IBWL 1983). The multiple use area would comprise of forests and villages where land use practices are compatible with wildlife conservation. It was envisioned that while the protection would be enforced in the core-buffer area, the multiple use area would promote activities enhancing the agricultural, pastoral and forest productivity of the area, and provide alternative resources (IBWL 1983). Most national parks and many sanctuaries in India have core and buffer zones, at least on paper. However, the concept of multiple use surrounds was never officially or legally implemented.

As mentioned earlier, the General Assembly of IUCN defined the term `National Parks’ in 1969. In 1978, IUCN’s Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA) published its report on `Categories, Objectives and Criteria for Protected Areas’ in which it proposed ten categories.

These categories have been used widely the world over. India also basically adapted category II and IV. However, later IUCN reviewed these categories and found they needed updating, reflecting new understanding of the natural environment and human interactions with it.

In 1984 CNPPA set up a task force to review the categories and presented a report in 1990 where it proposed that the first five categories of the 1978 system be a basis for an updated system. It proposed that categories VI - X be abandoned (IUCN 1994).

This proposal was further revised in 1992 at the Fourth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas at Caracas, Venezuela, February 1992, The Congress Workshop which was assigned this topic, started with revising the definition of a protected area as follows:

This definition was certainly a long way from the one proposed in 1969, which urged the elimination of human beings (except visitors) from with the PA. The recent definition also acknowledges the importance of cultural resources and accepts that protection can be accorded by means other than legal ones also.

Six distinct categories of protected areas emerged as a result of this meeting (IUCN 1994):

Category I

Category II National Park

Category III Natural Monument

Category IV Habitat/ Species Management Area

Category V Protected Landscape/ Seascape

Category VI Managed Resource Protected Area

Details regarding the categories are in the Annexure.

As stated above, India today has an extensive network of 521 national parks and sanctuaries covering approximately 4.5% of its territory. This network of protected areas (PAs) certainly protects a substantial part of what is left of the country’s natural ecosystems and wildlife. However, these PAs are facing a variety of problems, despite the legal protection given to them. These problems stem from the fact that:

• these PAs are repositories of valuable resources (timber, minerals, water, etc.) which our rapidly expanding industrial-commercial base requires, and which it is trying to acquire through every means possible, including denotification (removal of the protected status itself); and

• contrary to the concept wildlife habitats being pristine, in India there is a sizeable population of human beings which lives in and around these areas and is dependent on the areas resources for sustenance and livelihood. A national survey carried out in the mid 80’s revealed that 69% of the PAs surveyed had human population living inside, and 64% had community rights, leases or concessions inside them (Kothari et al 1989). Grazing was present in 69% of the surveyed PAs, while in 57%, collection of non-timber forest produce was prevalent.

The ‘Yellowstone model’ in retrospect has done inordinate harm to PAs in several countries where wildlife has been protected against people. "Non-interference, non exploitation and public access to enjoy nature" was central to this concept (Nicholson 1972). In a country like India where almost no PA can ever be a completely insular, isolated piece of habitat, this concept fails. Considering people only as visitors/ tourists who visit these areas at the cost of the people who eke out a living from the area, is a major failing of this concept. This human dimension of park planning has been severely neglected by PA planners.

In the last few years PAs have faced variety of problems arising from conflicts between park authorities and local people, between the local people and commercial forces, and between park authorities and commercial forces. Some issues are listed below:

• The curtailment or extinguishing of local community land and forest rights, or restrictions on access to natural resources inside PAs, has led to conflict and even violence. Perhaps the best known example is of Keoladeo Ghana National Park, popular for harbouring over 350 species of birds. In 1980 its status was upgraded from a wildlife sanctuary to a national park. This led to a ban on grazing soon after. Seven villagers were killed when police opened fire on graziers who were demonstrating against this ban. Ironically, the Bombay Natural History Society who had been conducting biological research at the site, showed later that buffalo grazing was actually beneficial in maintaining the wetland (CSE 1985).

• The protection offered within the PAs and the implementation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 has resulted in an increase in animal populations, particularly species such as wild boar, nilgai, leopard, bear, and even tigers and lions. Growing populations inevitably spill over to adjoining areas in search of food and even space, resulting in damage, injury and even death of of people living in and around these areas. The IIPA PA survey carried out in the mid-80s estimated that 63 (30%) of the 206 PAs sampled, had had incidents of human injury or death. There is also substantial damage to livestock and crops. Not enough protection or compensation is provided to the people incurring such losses; in most states, no compensation for crop damage is paid (Kothari et. al 1995)

• PAs in some states are also facing tremendous commercial pressures. In several instances state governments have been known to bow down to these at the cost of conservation. Darlaghat sanctuary in Himachal Pradesh in 1991, was denotified for a cement factory. The Gujarat state government denotified Narayan Sarovar for cement production, and interestingly many villagers welcomed the denotification since the cement factory promised to provide them more prospects of employment. The sanctuary had offered them very little (Kothari et. al 1995).

In many areas, local communities themselves are putting a lot of pressure on the limited natural resources of these PAs. With growing populations and changing lifestyles, what was once sustainable is becoming unsustainable and subsequently destructive. There is also a lot of encroachment, most often by people who are left with no alternatives, and also by commercial interests.

Antagonism has also resulted because religious sanctions or people’s traditional conservation practices have been ignored. A confrontation took place in 1983 between the police and the villages of the Bhyundar Valley which leads to the famous Valley of Flowers in the Himalayas. The villages wanted to establish an image of a certain God on the road leading to the valley which along with surrounding areas has been declared a national park. Discord between the villages and park authorities had already been growing. Traditionally, the local people had always been keepers of the valley and showed extreme respect to the wild plants growing here. The conservation instinct of the people was reinforced by religion. The declaration of the national park suggested that local people change their way of life, something not acceptable to the villagers, and growing hostility was the result of this (Agarwal and Narain 1985).

Growing conflicts and the variety of issues that face PAs in India seem to reflect that the existing PA categories as declared by the WLPA are perhaps inadequate to protect what is left of India’s biodiversity. The categories i.e. national parks and sanctuaries, as suggested by IUCN and accepted by the Indian Government, seem to limit the options for conservation and attempt to give standardised prescriptions for a diverse reality. Some reasons for this are given below:

• The existing PA categories fail to acknowledge that local communities have traditional conservation practices which if encouraged may lead to higher degree of conservation. This is not say that conservation without legal endorsement will not take place. However, sometimes, it may be more effective to combine traditional practices with the legal endorsement. Take the example of sacred groves in India. Some have been conserved because of religious sanctions, however there are many that are falling victim to commercial pressure because of the need and greed of people. In such cases the law can provide protection. The management of such areas could still continue to be in the hands of the local community.

• The categories also seem to go with the assumption that all human activities are necessarily detrimental to conservation objectives. This certainly needs to be examined since now there is evidence from the world over to show that some amount of human intervention may not adversely affect, and indeed on occasions even sustain or enhance, the biodiversity of the region. The Keoladeo Ghana National Park is a case in point. This also goes to suggest that certain levels of sustainable harvest of selected forest products may not necessarily harm the ecosystem.

• The existing PA categories and the WLPA, also seem to reject the idea that there could be more than one management body to meet conservation objectives of a certain area. Protected areas (declared under the WLPA) have always been owned and managed by the state. It has been a`top down’ approach where the Forest Department has managed these areas. In the past there has been very little interaction or dialogue between forest officials and local communities, leading to a great deal of mistrust, ill feeling and alienation. Providing the community a greater stake in the area, in terms of management and activities inside the PA may lead to greater conservation.

• What the existing PA categories do not include is a mosaic of landscapes (which includes human influenced systems, e.g. agriculture) for greater biodiversity. Perhaps, the only IUCN category that recognizes this is the biosphere reserve, which accepts local people as an inherent part of the ecosystem. Unfortunately, even though India has declared seven biosphere reserves, the category is not recognised by the WLPA. Also, the concept itself has been modified to became more of an ecosystem and protectionist approach, rather than one which integrates human and natural landscapes. To quote:

• The management objectives of different areas may be different. For instance, a forest in a catchment would need to be managed differently for its watershed/catchment function, than one which harbours a critically endangered species in a rainforest. Flexibility in the categorisation of PAs could help evolve diverse solutions to site-specific situations.

• Beyond the existing PA categories and beyond the jurisdiction of the WLPA, there are biodiverse areas of land and water which are afforded protection under other statutes, or only administratively or by local people, such as Joint Forest Management areas. If the WLPA and PA categories are made more flexible then these too could be included.

The problems with PAs in India are both structual and managerial. There is a need for the existing PA system in India to be more flexible. This system has to take into account the fact that as long as the primary goal is conservation, PA could have different management systems, different types of habitats and even different objectives. Given below is a table of suggested categories; given that the concept has expanded to one encompassing a range of strategies (from strict protection to sustainable use), we prefer to call these as ‘Conservation Areas’ rather than the conventional term ‘Protected Areas’. A detailed description of each category follows the table. Although India is free to have its own classification/ categorization of PAs, the suggested categories by and large do fit into the new classification suggested by IUCN (IUCN 1994). The one proposed category that has no direct IUCN equivalent is our category VI (Community Reserve), though it may possible to stretch IUCN Category VI to include it. By suggesting this category it is hoped that India will be a pioneer in accepting a unique kind of PA category.

The suggested changes cannot take place overnight. Two points need particular emphasis:

• There may be a fear that by looking at other categories of PAs, the present areas will be denotified. In fact quite the reverse, because by accepting new categories such as sacred groves and other areas being conserved by local communities, as also extending WLPA protection to Reserve Forests etc., there would be an expansion in the PA network; we estimate that the coverage would go up to more than 10% of India’s landmass.
• The reverse, feared by community organisations, is that by ‘legalizing’ traditional conservation areas, the areas would be taken over by the government. As emphasized earlier, the management of these areas should remain with the local communities. All that should change is the presence of legal protection, against commercial and other pressures, to add to the people’s power already in place.

Thus, two steps are essential now:

• The WLPA needs to be amended to accommodate more categories of protected areas.
• Simultaneously, it is time to ‘revisit’ the existing PAs in India and examine them from a different perspective.

If PAs are to be categorized again then the process has to be highly scientific and participatory. Research will be required keeping in mind the management objectives of a particular area. For example, if the area is being conserved for a particular species then the home range for the species, etc. should be researched. If the area has to be designated for sustainable use, then sustainable harvest records for some of the key species should be known. Even in areas such as sacred groves, from the biological point of view, it may be important to know if the area contains some keystone species, and if so, what is their range etc. At the same time, it is important to take into account local community values for the areas, especially their cultural and livelihood associations.

Objectives: To provide absolute protection to land and/ or sea areas possessing representative fragile/ endangered habitats and/ or species, primarily for protection, scientific research and/ or biological monitoring.

Features: These areas must be totally or almost totally natural with no human habitation in or adjacent to them. There should also be no human intervention and be reasonably capable of remaining so. Substantial active management or habitat manipulation should not be necessary to conserve the areas.

Size: Given the extent of human habitation and resource use in India, these would have to be relatively small, except in some regions such as the higher Himalaya of the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

Management Structure: The ownership and control should be by the central or state agency, with advisory committees of independent experts.

Stake of local community: Not relevant

Management activities: There would be only protection in the area with no human intervention including tourism. Restricted research and monitoring would be permitted.

Examples: Most existing sanctuaries of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Silent Valley National Park of Kerala, and the core areas of several current national parks, would fall under this category. The Sundarbans National Park which comprises the core zone of the Sundarbans Tiger Reserve could also comes under this category. The park protects a large area of unmodified mangrove representative of the Sundarbans ecosystem, and is completely closed to all forms of human activity including tourism, which should also stop.

Justification: There is no doubt that in a biodiverse country like India, some areas of biodiversity significance within which may be found fragile or highly endangered species be afforded complete protection. However, given the fact that there are few such places without human habitation or use, these areas would have to be relatively small (with some exceptions) and very carefully sought. The size of the area would depend on the species being protected therein.

Objectives: To conserve species or habitats as land and/ or sea with minimal or very low intensity human activity. The needs of indigenous people (including transients) which includes subsistence resource use should continue as a customary right as long as this does not affect the other objectives of management. The area should also provide for spiritual, scientific, educational and recreational opportunities for visitors, so long as these are environmentally and culturally compatible.

Features: The areas should be largely natural, with no human habitation or a small population of indigenous people inside. The area may be used by transient humans at particular times of the year.

Size: The areas would be small to medium size. They could be large if uninhabited areas are available, which would be rare in India.

Management Structure: Conservation Area Management Committees should be formulated to manage this area. The Committees should consist of government officials, independent experts and local community representatives.

Stake of Local Community: The community (adequately trained) should be entitled to employment in park activities. The bonafide subsistence rights of resident populations should also be respected. A percentage of the tourism revenue should also be channeled back to the resident community.

Management Activities: The area would allow intervention for effective protection and regeneration. There would also be an effort to reverse negative influences, and allow minimum and least destructive resource use activities. Appropriate education and awareness programmes should be planned, including mutual learning exercises among local communities, Park staff, and outside experts/NGOs.

Examples: About 50% of the current national parks in India belong to this category. However, in terms of management, no protected area has a management committee which includes local residents.

Justification: Some conservation areas which afford protection but allow subsistence use by resident communities as well as promote tourism are required. However, to create a stake in conservation of the area, it is important that resident communities are consulted in the management of such areas and a part of revenues from tourism come back to them.

Objectives: To conserve area of land and/ or sea with active intervention for management purposes to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/ or meet requirements of identified species.

Features: The areas should be largely natural habitats with moderate to no human settlements. Families still living in the area with traditional lifestyles will continue to do so. These areas would, to a limited extent, also be open to the outside public for recreational and educational purposes.

Size: The areas could range from medium to large.

Management Structure: Conservation Area Management Committees, consisting of government officials, independent experts and local community members, should be set up.

Stake of Local Community: Bona fide and essential livelihood rights for the resident local community must be included within the area’s conservation objectives. With adequate training the local communities should be able to get employment within the sanctuary. Also, there should be a mechanism whereby at least a percentage of revenues generated from tourism go back to the resident communities.

Management Activities: There would be intervention for the effective protection and regeneration, as also reversal of negative influences in these areas. Species reintroduction could be one such intervention. Research and monitoring activities would facilitate this process. Education and awareness activities would have to go on simultaneously focusing on the local communities, visitors to the area, and local staff.

Examples: Over 50% of protected areas in India, including some existing national parks and many existing sanctuaries, belong to this category. This however, excludes most of the Andaman and Nicobar Island sanctuaries.

Justification: This is perhaps the most acceptable and practicable category of protected area and even under the current system is the most prevalent in India. However, for conservation to be more effective in these areas, the local community must have a stake in it and a share in decision making.

IUCN Category: IV

Objectives: To manage human influenced and/or partially degraded areas (land and/or sea) for sustainable resource use, regeneration and conservation.

Features: The areas would be human-influenced or regenerated. These areas would consequently have substantial human settlement within and around them.

Size: The areas could range from medium to large size.

Management Structure: The management of such areas should be largely carried out by the local community body, with the involvement of and assistance from government agencies, and academic institutions. Academic and research institutions would be required to help establish some guidelines for sustainable harvest regimes.

Stake of local community: The resident/local communities’ bonafide and livelihood needs would have to be met. If tourism is promoted in the area then a substantial percentage of the revenues would have to be shared with the community. The sustainable harvest of biodiversity resources could also provide additional employment opportunities for the local people, particularly if value addition of raw products (e.g. made from medicinal plants or bamboo) is thought of. Incentives to continue biologically diverse land/water use practices, including agriculture/fisheries/pastoralism, could also be provided.

Management Activities: The reserve should allow sustainable resource activities. However, to ensure that the harvesting is being out carried sustainably, there should be ongoing monitoring and applied research. There must be checks on commercial exploitation. Training programmes would be needed, focusing on simple monitoring techniques to ascertain sustainable harvest levels, which could be carried out by local people themselves. Awareness programmes must also go on simultaneously.

Examples: Many Reserve Forest and Joint Forest Management areas could come under this category. Several wetland and grassland areas where the utilization of resources and management of the same is carried out by local communities could also be put under this categories. Areas specifically focusing on the conservation and sustainable utilization of medicinal plants need to be designated and would very well fit in this category.

Justification: There is a need for some conservation areas which allow for sustainable harvest of forest/grassland/wetland products. This could help avoid conflicts, at present common in India, which result when people are denied the right to harvest such products. These areas, if well managed,could also present an opportunity for the people to market products, thus giving them an economic incentive to conserve them for long-term use.

Objectives: To conserve a mosaic of natural and human ecosystems with complementary land/water use to encourage traditional practices, including agriculture. To safeguard the integrity of the traditional interaction vital to protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area.

Features: The area would be a mix of natural and human-influenced ecosystems. There would also be substantial rural human settlements.

Size: These areas would be very large in size.

Stake of local community: The community must be responsible for sustaining livelihood and cultural security by continuing sustainable and ecologically sensitive livelihood activities. Incentives for such activities, e.g. subsidies for biologically diverse farming and pastoralism, should be provided.

Management Activities: These will include interventions to protect and regenerate ecosystems and species, and very importantly safeguard corridors used by migratory animals. Encouragement must be provided to traditional resource use, provided it is not contrary to the objective of conservation. There should however be a ban on large-scale developmental/commercial activities.

Examples: Most existing biosphere reserves in India would fall into this category; this would give them the necessary legal status which they currently lack. Certain areas specific for the conservation and/or utilization of medicinal plants may also need to be designated with the biosphere reserves.

Justification: Large contiguous areas without human habitation are almost impossible to find in India. On the other hand large areas, particularly those that house free-ranging animal species with large territories/home ranges, are required to be conserved. Such areas do exist, but are interspersed with human habitation, and contiguity in the area is maintained by corridors. In addition, traditional land/water use practices often help to maintain substantial wildlife populations and corridors, but are increasingly threatened with modernisation/commercialisation. In such situations it is best to conserve a mosaic of natural and human ecosystems. Biosphere reserves provide the opportunity to conserve endangered species and/or habitats, while protecting the interests of the communities living in the area. Biosphere reserves have been recognized and enlisted but still lack a legal status in India.

IUCN Category: Does not exist, though Category VI could arguably stretched to include such reserves.

Objectives: To protect landscapes, ecosystems, and species, traditionally or culturally conserved by local communities.

Features: Largely natural with minimal or low intensity human intervention; traditionally or newly conserved by local communities.

Size: May vary from small to large, but unlikely to ever be bigger than a few thousand hectares.

Management Structure: The management of such areas has traditionally been done by the local community body, and should continue to be so. There may also be circumstances where the local community has recently started/revived conservation of the area/species, including over government-owned land, which should be open for declaration under this category.

Stake of local community: This has been and will remain protection of cultural/religious values as also ecosystem and subsistence functions. In cases where such stakes are weakening and have little chance of being revived, and therefore mostly as a last resort, economic/social stakes could be provided by larger society (e.g. rewards, recognition, and subsidies).

Management Activities: The major activity will be mostly protection with controls on limited resource use. There will also be safeguards against outside commercial forces.

Examples: This will include areas such as sacred groves in various parts of India, tanks like Kokrebellur in Karnataka, areas protected by the Chipko Movement in the Himalayas of Uttar Pradesh, and some Bishnoi areas in Rajasthan.

Justification: Areas such as those described above do exist even today and are zealously protected by the local community. Although many such areas may be protected for religious and cultural reasons, they have advertently or inadvertently conserved considerable biodiversity in the region. The sacred groves, for example, besides containing several important species also perform important ecological functions such as water retention, soil binding, etc. The areas protected by the Bishnois in Rajasthan are akin to oasis in the desert and harbour species such the Blackbuck which are rare to see elsewhere in the state. It is important that such areas, and the associated community management institutions, are recognized legally. This would empower them against violators (especially from outside), and also provide incentives to other communities to revive local ecological traditions.

Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area : protected area managed mainly for science or wilderness protection. Two sub-categories:

Category Ia: Strict Nature reserve : Protected area managed mainly for science

Definition: Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring.

Equivalent Category in 1978: Scientific Reserve/Strict Nature Reserve.

Category Ib: Wilderness Area : protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection

Definition : Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land and/or sea, retaining its nataural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition.

Equivalent Category in 1978: Did not exist. Was adopted in 1984.

National Park : protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation

Definition : Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.

Equivalent Category in 1978: National Park.

Natural monument : protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features

Definition : Area containing one, or more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding or unique value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance.

Equivalent Category in 1978: Natural Monument/Natural Landmark.

Habitat/Species Management Area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention

Definition: Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species.

Equivalent Category in 1978: Nature Conservation Reserve/Managed Nature Reserve / Wildlife Sanctuary.

Protected Landscape / Seascape : protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation.

Definition : Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate. Where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area.

Equivalent Category in 1978: Protected Landscape.

Managed Resource Protected Area : protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems.

Definition : Area containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs.

Equivalent Category in 1978: This category does not correspond directly with any of those in the 1978 system, although it is likely to include some areas previously classified as ‘Resource Reserves’, ‘Natural Biotic Areas/Anthropological Reserves’ and ‘Multiple Use Management Areas/Managed Resource Areas’.

In India a majority of the protected areas belong to Category II and IV ie. National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.