Thursday, September 16, 2010

Protected Area Update - New Issue - October 2010

Dear Friends,
Below is the list of contents of new issue of the Protected Area Update (Vol. XVI, No. 5), October 2010 (No. 87). Please do forward this to other elists where you think this will be relevant. The entire issue can also be downloaded from the Kalpavriksh website at
If you want to receive the Update in the Word format write to me at the email below
We are, in fact, very happy to announce that all back issues of the PA Update are now available in their pdf forms from

I would also likely to again point out that the PA Update continues to need funds and support. Any contribution, big or small, is welcome and if you would like more details on how you can help or if you any ideas, please do write to me at

Many thanks
Pankaj Sekhsaria
Editor, Protected Area Update
C/o Kalpavriksh

News and Information from protected areas in India and South Asia
Vol. XVI No. 5
October 2010 (No. 87)


Many reasons to oppose a PA

Demands for removal of speed breakers inside Nagarjunsagar Srisailam TR
Culling of wild boars to be allowed in state

Tiger density goes up in Pakke TR

River islands of Assam are new corridors for wildlife
FD officials to be allowed use of firearms
Poachers killed, apprehended in two different incidents in Orang NP
Elephant killed in road accident on NH-37 in Kaziranga NP
Investigation demanded into forest official involvement in Kaziranga NP rhino poaching
Road widening threat to wildlife in Sonitpur Elephant Reserve and buffer of Nameri Tiger Reserve
Women take up frontline jobs of protection in PAs, other forest areas

Details of wildlife cases filed by Amit Jethva
Tourism department requests for more permits in Gir; FD refuses
Committee to recommend critical wildlife habitats met only once in three years

An estimated 1000 pangolins hunted in two months in Bellary region

Special measures proposed for newly declared Malabar WLS
Five Biodiversity Heritage Sites for state

MoEF asks MP to scrap the proposed Patrolling the Tiger Land plan

Students renew demand for plastic ban in Bhimashankar WLS
NHAI proposes eight underpasses on NH-6 through forests between Navegaon-Nagzira and the Tadoba-Andhari TR
State cautioned against curtailing area of proposed Mansinghdeo WLS

Wildlife awards instituted for conservation in the Garo Hills

Call for more protected areas in Orissa
Three member MoEF team to look into elephant deaths in Simlipal TR

Buoys to mark boundary of the Gulf of Mannar National Park

Threat to wildlife in Rajaji NP from traffic and industries
Gomukh to Uttarkashi stretch of River Bhagirathi to be declared eco-sensitive
Uttarakhand government against expansion of Askot WLS

Deer die during transportation from Bibhuti Bhushan WLS to the Sunderbans
Elephant attacks train in Mahananda WLS

Cheetah re-introduction proposed in Kuno-Palpur WLS, Nauradehi WLS and Shahgarh region in Jaisalmer district
2nd bench set up to hear Godavarman (Forest) Case in the SC
National Environmental Sciences Fellows Programme
No move to split the Indian Forest Service
Newsletter of the Nilgiri Natural History Society

Tiger population increases in Chitwan NP
Meeting of Indo-Nepal border forest officials to discuss conservation issues

Horton Plains slender loris, a primate considered extinct, but now photographed

Call for applications for the Whitley Award

International Workshop on amphibians in the Western Ghats


Tourism in and around PAs - A Paradigm shift needed



There have been many reasons and arguments against the creation of new protected areas (PAs) or the expansion of existing ones. The general impression is that governments and forest departments are always keen on expanding the PA network and communities or those who speak on their behalf are the ones opposing these moves.
The picture on the ground is actually more complex and this issue of the PA Update has two interesting examples – one from Uttarakhand and another from Maharashtra. In both these cases it is the state machinery that is against the expansion (or creation) of protected areas for reasons that have nothing to do with interests of wildlife or of the local communities. An interesting parallel was seen more than a decade ago when the Himachal Pradesh Government denotified about 10 sq km of the Great Himalayan National Park on the pretext that local communities were being negatively impacted by the national park. The real reason was that the Parbati Hydel Project had been held up and the only way to get it through was to have the river valley excluded from the PA.
Now, in Uttarakhand the state government is opposing the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) recommendation for expansion of the Askot Wildlife Sanctuary on the grounds that this will restrict their capacity to tap the high hydro-electric potential of the area. Already there are 14 such projects proposed within the existing sanctuary area (PA Update Vol. XVI, No. 2) and many others in the entire region. Local communities here have also been opposing the protected area, but then, they (at least some of them here) have also vehemently opposed the spree of dam building that the region is likely to see. The cancellation of the Loharinag Pala Hydel Project and the decision to declare the Gomukh – Uttarakashi stretch of the River Bhagirathi as an eco-sensitive zone is perhaps one outcome of this.
In Maharashtra, similarly, the long pending notification of the Mansinghdeo Wildlife Sanctuary is being held up because part of the land belongs to the Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra. The Corporation which has logged these forests for timber has in the past opposed handing over the land for inclusion in the sanctuary and the decade old proposal continues to languish. In 2004 (PA Update 50) it had even moved an application before the High Court, arguing that it would lose nearly Rs. 1400 crores if the ban on timber logging was implemented in the 10 km radius of PAs as had been suggested.
This is a situation we have seen happening repeatedly with only minor variations in the script. In the present scheme of protected areas and wildlife conservation, local communities are clearly the most dispensable entities. And in the present dominant paradigm of ‘development’ and primacy to commercial interests it is protected areas, wildlife and local people that are all together in being at the bottom of the list of priorities, if they find a place in that list at all.
There are different sets of people opposing wildlife conservation and protected areas for different reasons. It is important to realize that it is generally one set that manages to have its way.


Protected Area Update
Vol. XVI, No. 5, October 2010 (No. 87)

Editor: Pankaj Sekhsaria
Editorial Assistance: Reshma Jathar
Illustrations: Madhuvanti Anantharajan

Produced by
The Documentation and Outreach Centre, Kalpavriksh

Ideas, comments, news and information may please be sent to the editorial address:

Apartment 5, Shri Dutta Krupa, 908 Deccan Gymkhana, Pune 411004, Maharashtra, India.
Tel/Fax: 020 - 25654239.

Publication of the PA Update has been supported by
- Foundation for Ecological Security (FES)
- Duleep Matthai Nature Conservation Trust
- Greenpeace India
- Association for India's Development
- Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
- Indian Bird Conservation Network
Information has been sourced from different newspapers and the following websites


Aniruddha H D said...

Thank you for this intriguing article. I wonder if the government has any regulations on how many dams/ hydel projects can be built on a single river? It is not surprising to see developers pushing the government for such projects. And what about the EIA's for such projects? I'm pretty sure the local communities have no idea about such studies.

Rajan Alexander said...

How silly can Greenpeace get? Imagine appealing to Dr. ManMohan Singh to save our Monsoons?

The year 2009-10, India suffered its worst drought in almost four decades, with monsoon rains 22% below average. Greenpeace activists then hung an 80-foot banner from the Mumbai-Thane Bridge addressed to the Indian prime minister on June 4, 2009.It requested him to save our monsoons given the drought situation.

How mischievous this tactic is illustrated by their article 29th June 2009, warning that the IPCC model predicted 20% increasing rainfal for India.

So what's Greenpeace's actual position any way? Does global warming cause increased or decreased rainfall? They say both. This is not strange, as global warming according to its proponents can do almost everything and anything like simultaneously making sea water salty and less salty at the same time! But it does not matter really as global warming or CO2 has nothing to do with monsoon intensity. But it finds a perfect 1:1 correlation with ENSO - El Nino (La Nina) Southern Oscillation.

Read more:

A Greenpeace Membership could land you in the US Terror Database!

You may think it innocuous but in future, with a membership with organizations like Greenpeace you may have to say practically goodbye to studying, immigrating or visiting the US simply because you could be in their terror database. With the US in the lead can other countries not but follow suit? Why? There are indications that the world might be finally losing its patience with the increasing trend of eco-terrorism that flows from the Greenpeace type model of protests. The tipping point apparently had been the twin events of the Discovery Channel hostage crisis in the US and Greenpeace’s unconstitutional assault on an oil rig in Greenland that had their respective governments fuming.

A new report by terrorism researchers at the University of Maryland concludes that the deadly hostage-taking incident at the Discovery Communications headquarters in suburban Washington, D.C. meets the criteria of a terrorist act. And why this report is significant is that they happen to be the wing of Homeland Security Department of the US government.

Read more: Defeated & Frustrated: Climate Activists Turn to Terror, Go Berserk