Introduction There are a large number of conservation initiatives in India, in which local communities are playing a central part. These range from continuing traditional practices such as sacred groves, to revived protection of areas which serve as natural resource catchments for the communities, to saving natural habitats from destructive commercial/industrial forces. These could be self-initiated efforts of the communities or supported/facilitated by government or non-government external agencies. It is believed that a very large amount of biodiversity, both 'wild' and 'domesticated', is being conserved by such initiatives.

 
Project summary

Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) some examples:
CCAs here are defined as areas with significant biodiversity, which are being conserved by or with the substantial involvement of communities. Some such examples in India include:

* Protection of 1800 hectares of forest by Mendha (Lekha) village in Gadchiroli district, Maharashtra, by Gond tribal community;
* Regeneration and protection of 600-700 hectares of forest, and revival of several hundred varieties of agricultural crops, by Jardhargaon village in Uttaranchal state;
* Protection of sea turtle eggs, hatchlings, and the nesting sites by a fisherfolk community NGO in Kolavipalam, Kerala;
* Traditional conservation of Painted Stork and globally threatened Spot-billed Pelican nesting sites by residents of Kokkare Bellur village, Karnataka;
* Community-based monitoring and enterprise by the Soliga tribals at the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Sanctuary, Karnataka;
* Community forestry initiatives in several thousand villages of Orissa;
* 600 ha. of regenerated village forest in the Loktak Lake catchment by Ronmei tribe in Tokpa Kabui village, Churachandpur district, Manipur;
* Continued protection of sacred forests (Orans) in the desert region of Rajasthan including Barmer district, by the local community.



Major issues:
Some of the major issues emerging from the analysis of such examples in India include:

* Centralised, uniform models of development and conservation adapted by successive governments, have undermined the diverse, site-specific traditions and initiatives by communities;
* There is inadequate understanding and recognition of CCA initiatives, and of their beneficial impacts to biodiversity, livelihoods, and social security;
* Absence of decision-making powers with communities, legal backing to CCAs, and insecurity of tenure and control over natural resources, on which communities depend have hampered the initiatives;
* Outside agencies have a role to play in CCAs, but very often they bring in inappropriate (including financial) interventions that undermine the sustainability of these initiatives;
* Many donor-driven or official initiatives towards community participation in conservation have failed due to lack of transparency and accountability, inadequate transfer of powers and capacity, and lack of involvement of communities from the planning stage;
* There are often serious inequities within communities, including between men and women, and different classes and castes, which undermine CCA initiatives and sustainability, or deny the benefits of such initiatives to disadvantaged sections;
* CCAs face serious threats from the larger context within which they are placed, such as, party politics, centralised control over natural resources, national and global markets, privatisation of common property resources, mass tourism, insensitivity of decision makers, inappropriate education, consumerist lifestyles, population dynamics and perceived security threats.


National Workshop (November 2001):
A National Workshop was organised on Community Conserved Biodiverse Areas, at Bhopal (in the central state of Madhya Pradesh in India) on 21-23rd November 2001. Organised by Kalpavriksh, Indian Institute of Forest Management, and Indian Social Institute, the workshop concluded that local communities have been a strong force in the conservation of biodiversity in several areas. However, enabling conditions and support are required in many such areas to support and promote CCAs. Some of the major recommendations included:

* CCAs need to be better understood and documented, clearly demarcated, and highlighted at all levels including the mass media (but keeping in mind the need for communities to have the capacity to deal with issues such as tourists and researchers descending on them);
* Ecological, social and economic impacts of CCAs need to be assessed at local, regional and national levels. Simple monitoring and assessment techniques need to be developed which will include community perspectives and parameters;
* Existing community institutions, practices and knowledge systems, and the great diversity therein should be recognised and built on, and where necessary modified based on lessons being learnt, rather than displaced by, new institutions as part of development and conservation programmes;
* Conservation and development initiatives should be seen as long term, dynamic processes rather than short term, target oriented projects;
* Such initiatives must provide special opportunities to disprivileged sections (women, landless, tribals, children, aged, disabled), including separate forums where appropriate;
* National and state level laws and policies need to recognise the diversity of CCAs and take into account local and/or customary laws and regulations.
* The capacity of communities and facilitating institutions needs to be built to handle the complex issues facing CCAs;
* There should be a special focus on CCAs within official protected areas.



Conclusion
Community-based conservation (CBC) initiatives including CCAs could become a strong complement to the official network of protected areas for wildlife, and other official biodiversity conservation measures. It is hoped that the result of the above mentioned study would help to implement biodiversity and wildlife conservation measures in India, including those envisaged under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Though the examples and analysis presented above are from India there are a number of examples of a similar kind in other countries. The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) and Commission on Economic, Ecological and Social Policy (CEESP), joint Theme Group on Indigenous/Local Communities, Equity, and Protected Areas (TILCEPA) is attempting to consolidate information available on local and indigenous communities’ efforts at biodiversity conservation across the globe. This would be done with the help of a network of individuals and organisations involved with CCAs. An effort will be made to draw out lessons for more democratic and equitable policies towards biodiversity conservation, including for official PAs. Experiences from such documentation would feed into a set of guidelines for declaration and management of PAs, currently being prepared by TILCEPA. Lessons drawn from such efforts fed into the World Parks Congress in September 2003 at Durban. CCAs got considerable attention during the Congress as several sessions and sub-sessions focused on their various issues issues.


The CCA directory
The CCA directory is a documentation of the community efforts at conservation all over the country. The Directory is organized in two parts with the first part containing overviews of history and current status of community conserved areas in different states while the second part has detailed case studies. It also contains a map showing the location of CCAs. This work was accomplished with the help of a number of individuals and organisations in different states. More...