For whose benefit?

THREAT TO WILDLIFE

The State government has proposed a set of draft rules, called the Karnataka Private Conservancies Rules 2018, to allow private conservation lands adjoining the protected areas. While the stated objective is to enable linking of fragmented wildlife corridors in the State, many conservationists fear that the proposal would enable big players to take up tourism activities.

According to the draft rules, any private forest land can be declared as a private wildlife conservancy on request of the owner, under certain conditions. Though it is not mentioned in the draft rules, sources in the Forest Department confirm that a minimum of 100-hectare area is a prerequisite for the land to be considered as a private conservancy. In return of the land thus ‘given’ for conservation, the owners will be allowed to promote eco-tourism and wildlife research by setting up infrastructure and other facilities on less than five per cent of the total land.

Devastating effects

On paper, the proposal sounds like a win-win situation for both wildlife and the landowners. On one hand, it might help increase forest cover and connect animal corridors, while on the other hand, the landowners get benefited financially. However, experts, including many forest officials, fear that this would have a devastating impact on the forest ecosystem, particularly wildlife, that is already strained by the increased flow of tourists. Many also feel that this will pave way for the rich and influential to get a back-door entry to set up resorts and homestays in the vicinity of protected areas.

Rajkumar D, an honorary wildlife warden, questions the Forest Department’s logic behind setting the minimum requirement of 100-hectare land for declaring the forest area as a private conservancy. “One of the stated reasons for proposing this private conservancy is to mitigate human-animal conflict. And the worst affected by this conflict are farmers. Which farmer in the forest periphery has 100 hectares? Contrary to its objective, the private conservancy may result in human-animal conflict spreading to new areas,” he said, and added that the proposal has been designed to help the rich to set up tourism infrastructure. “Wildlife tourism has become a money-making sector,” he says.

At present, setting up of any infrastructure is prohibited in the eco-sensitive zones of five tiger reserves and 36 protected areas and wildlife sanctuaries of the State, without the permission of the chief wildlife warden. However, allowing landowners to construct on even less than five per cent of land would result in blocks of forest being converted into a concrete jungle, argue environmentalists. Forest officials are aware that huge tracks of private land belonging to the rich are inside the core areas of the forest and private conservancy will lead to the economic exploitation of the forest.

Belagavi wildlife warden Sachin Patil argues that most parts of the thick
evergreen forests of Uttara Kannada and Belagavi districts have remained pristine because they are out of bounds. If resorts are set up in the deep forest, the next logical step would be to provide better roads, power and water supply. And for these facilities, trees have to be cut. “So where is forest conservation in this?” he questions.

Another clause that is a cause for concern is even after getting permission from the chief wildlife warden (CWLW) for setting up the conservancy, the land would remain in the name of the owner. The State government shall constitute a three-member committee comprising the owner of the conservancy, a CWLW-nominated expert and a jurisdictional forest officer not below the rank of range forest officer to manage the conservancy. The committee will then appoint a chief executive, who will be responsible for the protection of wildlife and habitat in the conservancy. And, the owner has the provision to take back the conservancy land for private use anytime he wants. “What action can the Forest Department take if the owner withdraws his land from conservancy after constructing huge structures,” asks Rajkumar.

Won’t work here

The idea of the private conservancy, mooted in Karnataka in 2015, is believed to be inspired by the African model. However, according to Ravi Ralph, a former principal chief conservator of forests, Karnataka Forest Department, private conservancy cannot work in Karnataka for two main reasons: in African countries, private conservancies hold nearly 56% of total wildlife population, while the remaining animals are in the government-controlled forest areas whereas, in Karnataka, 90% of wildlife is in core areas and only 10% is in the buffer zones and/or outside the protected area. Secondly, unlike in Karnataka, private conservancies have spread over vast swathes of connected forests in countries like Kenya. In Karnataka, private conservancy can work only in areas that separate two patches of forest, hindering the movement of animals.

Ravi is not convinced with the idea of allowing buildings to come up in forest areas. “The draft says that the private conservancy owner can allow a guest to stay at his facility for 15 days. For research and safaris, these guests do venture into the protected area. With the current workforce, monitoring the activities of these tourists is impossible for the Forest Department,” he says. Majority of the crimes against wildlife like hunting and poaching are happening in the private conservancies of Kenya and the same can happen here.

Another former PCCF Dipak Sarmah, during a workshop on private conservancy held in Bengaluru recently, raised questions on the legality of invoking the provisions of the WildLife (Protection) Act, 1972, as the terminology ‘private conservancy’ has not been defined in the act. He also opined that the government should obtain the opinion of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) before finalising the draft rules, as the proposed rules will have a tremendous impact on the tiger reserves. He further added that the private conservancy rules must spell out that all activities permitted within the private conservancies will be in conformity with the guidelines of the Union government and other directives of the Supreme Court regarding eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around protected areas.

Some environmentalists say that the ideal solution for mitigating human-animal conflict is the Forest Department purchasing private lands located in the middle of protected areas. Call it lack of will on part of the government or insufficient funds, the Forest Department is not in a position to buy these lands. Even the corporate houses are not coming forward to give away such lands to the department.

However, former chairman of Karnataka Eco-tourism Development Board, Vinay Luthra, says that the main intention of the new initiative is to ensure that the animal corridor that now runs in private lands of Kodagu, Hassan, Chamarajpet, Shivamogga, Uttara Kannada and Belagavi districts are connected. According to him, all the rules that are applicable to protected areas will be enforced here. A committee of forest officials will be formed to monitor the activities of these conservancies. Three-levels of checks and balances will be put in to select or reject any application for a private conservancy.

Experts have also been demanding the State government to instead consider the Maharashtra model, where natural conservancy, ‘run’ by villagers of the peripheral areas, has helped not only wildlife but also local people to earn a livelihood. Environmentalist Debi Goenka says that the concept has helped Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve flourish in terms of tiger population. However, Maharashtra model has one negative aspect — night safari, which activists say should never be allowed.

Officially, PCCF (head of forest force), Forest Department, Punati Sridhar, has said that the department is open for suggestions. Based on the opinion generated and taking into consideration the pros and cons of the private conservancy, the department will take a decision. “For us, wildlife comes first,” he said.