Indian Board
for Wildlife meets after a five-year gap
The advent of the present
year brought along with it one heartening bit of news. After a long gap
of five years, the reconstituted Indian Board for Wildlife (IBWL), the
highest body in the country established for laying down policy and
issuing directives for proper management of Protected Areas, finally
held its 21st meeting in January.
To say the least, it was
indeed ironic that during these past five years, while wildlife and
forests located across the entire country were being subjected to
innumerable threats ranging from the small-time poacher to globally
funded development projects, the people who really matter for the good
of wildlife, were unable to put their heads together under this august
forum.
But, without going into
the reasons that were responsible for this long gap, it should now be
optimistically hoped that the IBWL has delved deeply into the issues
that it was faced with, and will would now further ensure that each
priority area that it identified in the resolutions it passed, gets a
balanced priority, without one impinging upon another. This attains
great importance when the process of actual implementation of a number
of policy decisions, tends to come up against some inherent
contradictions.
The 18 resolutions passed
at the IBWL meeting encompass the entire range of issues facing wildlife
in the country. These include the important decision that wildlife and
forests shall be declared a priority sector at the national level, for
which adequate funds should be earmarked. It has also been resolved that
law enforcement agencies must ensure that poachers and traders in
illicit wildlife products are given quick and deterrent punishment.
The revenue earning
potential of wildlife tourism has been acknowledged, but its development
should be done in a way that does not have adverse impact on wildlife or
protected areas. This revenue component should be used entirely to
augment available resources for conservation.
Since there is an inbuilt
contradiction in managing PA’s, while at the same time protecting the
interests of the villagers and tribals living around these areas, the
IBWL resolution has urged that this issue be handled with sensitivity
and with maximum possible participation of the affected people. It has
been suggested that they should have access to the minor forest produce
from forests outside of national parks and sanctuaries, and also be
provided with opportunities that help them maintain a symbiotic
relationship with the forests and wildlife.
The positive role of
NGO’s involved in conservation has been stressed upon and it has been
resolved that these be given greater governmental as well as societal
recognition and support, while mainstream media has been asked to
highlight both the activities of the NGO’s, as well as the successes of
governmental initiatives that have worked.
A resolution that may
have far-reaching benefits is the one which outlines that there would be
no diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes, from critical and
ecologically fragile wildlife habitats. This is aimed at countering the
increasing threats wild habitats face from mega projects in the power or
irrigation sectors. As a corollary it has also been resolved that land
falling within 10 km of the boundaries of national parks and sanctuaries
should be notified as eco-fragile zones under provisions contained in
the Environment (Protection) Act and Rules.
Other resolutions cover
such important administrative issues as removal of encroachments and
illegal activities from within forest lands and PA’s, a ban on
plantations of commercial mono-culture to replace natural forests, and
ensuring that the settlement of rights in national parks and sanctuaries
should not be used to exclude or reduce the areas that are crucial to,
and an integral part of the wildlife habitat.
Perhaps the most important indicator for
the need for the IBWL to pull up its socks came when its Chairman, the
Prime Minister summed up his address with, "Lastly, I would like all of
us to resolve that we shall end the relative
neglect of wildlife conservation in recent years. To begin with, this
Board should meet more often. All of us have many other tasks and
concerns to attend to. And they too are important. However, wildlife
conservation is too
important a task to be treated lightly or ritualistically".
For the sake of Indian wildlife, one hopes that his message is loud and
clear.