Community initiatives, and not govt efforts, help protect Fauna and flora

India's Biological Diversity (BD) Act came into existence in 2002 after the Parliament ratified it. Amongst other things, it put forth a framework under which access to biological resources and related knowledge could henceforth be regulated. It also brought with it some broad provisions that mandated central and state governments to take measures towards the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity (biodiversity, in short). Any access would also need to go hand in hand with determining equitable sharing of benefits.

One important conservation measure proposed in Section 37 of the Act gives powers to state governments to declare areas of biodiversity importance as Biodiversity Heritage Sites (BHS). These areas can be where there exist important species of seeds, livestock or wildlife. It could also be larger areas of mixed use land which reflect biodiverse ecosystems. The declaration of any BHS has to be in consultation with local bodies, which can include panchayats, district councils, urban wards or even the Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) as proposed to be set up under the BD Act.

The apex institution set up under the BD Act, namely the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) has come up with a set of guidelines for the declaration of BHSs across the country. The guidelines were prepared by a NBA committee comprising government officials, scientists and NGOs. Since Section 37 gives final powers for identifying and declaring BHSs to state governments, these NBA guidelines are not binding but can present a suggestive process to state level authorities.

The guidelines try and peek out through the limitations of the BD Act and prod the state government (in this case State Biodiversity Boards, or SBBs) to rise above the limitations of the institutional power hierarchies. For instance, the guidelines allow for proposal for BHSs to emerge from community organisations and BMCs, allow for the possibilities of existing community conservation practices to be recognized as BHS and also propose that local bodies be consulted at every given step of planning and declaration.

However, since these guidelines seek their mandate from a parent legislation which gives minimalist powers to the village level institutions, i.e. BMCs, it is only able to create a limited space for participation of local communities. As per the BD Act, the BMCs are to be set up at the level of villages or urban wards. Very broadly the Act says that the BMCs have a role in conservation, but the 2004 Rules elaborate it differently. Once set up, it is mandatory for the BMCs to work as data providers for the preparation of People's Biodiversity Registers (PBRs). In the process envisaged by the NBA and its expert committee, the preparation of the PBRs will be “supported” and validated by scientific experts and the SBB. Where village communities are self empowered, they might be able to rise above the four walls defined by the law. Elsewhere, they would continue to churn out register after register and hand it over to whoever the Government of India would define as the custodians.

So it is not a surprise that declaration of BHSs, even in the NBA guidelines, does not have a provision for conservation to be community led. There is active and informed participation, but that does not mean the community will gain control. This is because:

1. The final power to decide whether an area can be declared a BHS lies with the SBB. This also includes determining the suitability of a study on the BHS.
2. Even if the BHS management plans are prepared by one or more BMCs, it is the SBBs that will recognise and facilitate its implementation. The power dynamics and hierarchies will continue to play a role in the determination of the management plans.
3. A state level monitoring committee with the Chairman of the SBB as the head will monitor the implementation of the BHSs. The guidelines don't clarify the course of action in case local communities already have strong local monitoring institutions. Does this silence mean that these local structures will be “supervised” once BHSs are declared?
4. Ironically the declaration of the BHSs will also ensure that these areas get Rs.20 lakh as seed money from NBA, governed through the SBBs. This will also be the case where original motivations of conservation might not have been financial.

What the BHS guidelines suggest suitably is setting into place a process, by which the declaration of a heritage site will involve widespread debate and discussion before the final stamp of the state government. This is of course if a state government chooses to follow it. But integral to this process is setting up of a team to carry out a full study of the proposed BHS prior to its declaration. This team is to include a maximum of 12 members, with one member preferably from the local community/ies selected to head the team. Details of the team's composition are mentioned in the guidelines.

The guidelines also seek to address the concern with Section 37 (3) where after the declaration of a BHS, the State Governments shall frame schemes for compensating or rehabilitating any person or section of people economically affected by such notification. The BHS guidelines opine that creation of BHS shall not put any restriction on the prevailing practices and usages of the local communities, other than those voluntarily decided by them.

Even as these guidelines were being prepared, some state governments like Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh had already started declaring BHSs at local levels. Now the Karnataka SBB has adapted the NBA guidelines to include another element of a “Technical Support Group” which will help the local communities with documentation, conservation preparation of management plans. The SBB here will also have the power to set up monitoring committee(s) that will periodically review the BHS's existence.