cost of conservation is mostly borne by the local communities with limited access to
use of resources from within PAs. This often leads to conflict between local/tribal
communities and the PA managers. In some areas, the consequences of conflict
between PA managers and the local communities lead to degradation of habitat and
little or no support for conservation at the local level thus impacting opportunity,
vulnerability, and the voice of the poor. Therefore, need is being felt at local as well
as at global level for more inclusive approaches/models for effective governance of
appropriate scale by strengthening institutions for the development and management of PAs and for generating benefits for the rural poor/communities located on
the fringe of natural resources areas in recognition of their stewardship role for
conservation actions (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996; Sanjayan et al. 1997; Larson et al.
1998; Bruner et al. 2004; UNEP 2004; McShane 2010; Treves et al. 2010) and for
ecosystem services.
In order to demonstrate that local communities and PAs can exist in a progressive society while ensuring mutual benefits, there is a need to learn from
ongoing initiatives, promote new ideas and scale-up the impacts of existing programmes so as to influence both policy and practice across the country. Various
schemes aimed at balancing the costs and the accrual of benefits of PAs to the local
communities have been initiated by the government. Such schemes include
development of sustainable livelihoods, sharing of tourism revenues, employment
generation, as well as enhanced compensation. These initiatives are being implemented by the forest department as well as NGOs with varying degrees of success.
Globally, it is also being felt to design and deliver workable models for greater
inclusion for protected area management with consideration for local socioeconomic development in view of mixed experiences with other models like
community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and integrated conservation and development project (ICDP) etc. In this context, strong need is now
emerging for effective and sustainable resource management based on traditional
knowledge systems/practices and integrating Science and Technology involving
local community as major stakeholders (Hyes 2006; Failing et al. 2007; Kothari
et al. 2015) for better livelihood options. In this endeavor to benefit the communities living around PAs the Science for Equity, Empowerment and Development
(SEED) Division of Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of
India (GOI) and WWF-India designed and implemented a network programme
“People and Protected Areas (PPA): Conservation and Sustainable livelihoods in
Partnership with Local Communities” at pilot scale for reconciling conservation and
enhancing livelihood benefits. This multi-sites network programme of three years
duration was implemented involving 12 conservation groups (NGOs) across 13
PAs spread over various eco-geographical regions of India (Table 1).
Emerging Model of Ecosystem Services and Effective Governance …
583
use of resources from within PAs. This often leads to conflict between local/tribal
communities and the PA managers. In some areas, the consequences of conflict
between PA managers and the local communities lead to degradation of habitat and
little or no support for conservation at the local level thus impacting opportunity,
vulnerability, and the voice of the poor. Therefore, need is being felt at local as well
as at global level for more inclusive approaches/models for effective governance of
appropriate scale by strengthening institutions for the development and management of PAs and for generating benefits for the rural poor/communities located on
the fringe of natural resources areas in recognition of their stewardship role for
conservation actions (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996; Sanjayan et al. 1997; Larson et al.
1998; Bruner et al. 2004; UNEP 2004; McShane 2010; Treves et al. 2010) and for
ecosystem services.
In order to demonstrate that local communities and PAs can exist in a progressive society while ensuring mutual benefits, there is a need to learn from
ongoing initiatives, promote new ideas and scale-up the impacts of existing programmes so as to influence both policy and practice across the country. Various
schemes aimed at balancing the costs and the accrual of benefits of PAs to the local
communities have been initiated by the government. Such schemes include
development of sustainable livelihoods, sharing of tourism revenues, employment
generation, as well as enhanced compensation. These initiatives are being implemented by the forest department as well as NGOs with varying degrees of success.
Globally, it is also being felt to design and deliver workable models for greater
inclusion for protected area management with consideration for local socioeconomic development in view of mixed experiences with other models like
community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and integrated conservation and development project (ICDP) etc. In this context, strong need is now
emerging for effective and sustainable resource management based on traditional
knowledge systems/practices and integrating Science and Technology involving
local community as major stakeholders (Hyes 2006; Failing et al. 2007; Kothari
et al. 2015) for better livelihood options. In this endeavor to benefit the communities living around PAs the Science for Equity, Empowerment and Development
(SEED) Division of Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of
India (GOI) and WWF-India designed and implemented a network programme
“People and Protected Areas (PPA): Conservation and Sustainable livelihoods in
Partnership with Local Communities” at pilot scale for reconciling conservation and
enhancing livelihood benefits. This multi-sites network programme of three years
duration was implemented involving 12 conservation groups (NGOs) across 13
PAs spread over various eco-geographical regions of India (Table 1).
Emerging Model of Ecosystem Services and Effective Governance …
583