Ecodevelopment planning at India‘sGreat Himalayan National Parkfor biodiversity conservationand participatory rural development

Pandey, Sanjeeva; Wells, Michael P.

doi:10.1023/b:bioc.0000034013.15097.23

Cited by 26 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some now exist in PA core areas. For example, India's Great Himalayan National Park recognizes existing villages in the ICDP's core area (Pandey and Wells, 1997). To its credit, IUCN decided that industrial activity has no place in PAs.…”

Section: Summationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI

Shafer

2015

Global Ecology and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t s• Although IUCN protected area management categories V-VI were adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in 2003, the fears of some skeptics have not been resolved.• Although promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people may be linked, tradeoffs are inevitable.• The expected win-win success stories for categories V-VI have not been abundant although evaluation methods are still unrefined. • Categories V-VI will be more effective for biological diversity conservation if the buffer zones have land use restrictions and adequate governance.• Local participation in buffer zone management is a wise strategy but enforcement by protected area authorities, and some coercion, may be essential to insure that land use practices are biologically optimal for the core area and its buffer zone. a b s t r a c tThe debate about the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) protected area management categories V-VI has been ongoing since the mid-1990s. Even though these two categories were officially adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003, and approved at the Fourth IUCN World Parks Conference in Barcelona, in 2008, this has not completely alleviated the fears of some debate participants. The question persists, can the perceived dual role of these two categories in promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people actually work in synergy? One aspect of categories V-VI needs careful scrutiny: buffer zone land use restrictions and adequate governance. Although local participation in buffer zone management marks a wise cooperative policy, some coercion and enforcement by protected area (PA) authorities seems essential to assure that land use practices in the buffer zone are optimal for core area biota. Buffer zone policy and governance is key to PA biological diversity conservation success.

show abstract

Section: Summationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cautionary thoughts on IUCN protected area management categories V–VI

Shafer

2015

Global Ecology and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, alternative incentives were needed to secure the interests of villagers in JFM. The experiences of eco-development projects in India (Pandey and Wells 1997) and elsewhere (Brown et al 2002;Safa 2004) suggest that provision of development incentives to local people to ensure their interest in forestry, while the forest is regenerating, is a viable option.…”

Section: Forest Degradation and Poverty Nexusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poverty alleviation as a pathway to sustainable forest management

Sreedharan

Matta

2010

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a major deviation from conventional joint forest management approaches where the emphasis of management is on provision of forest products to the participating villagers, the Tamil Nadu Afforestation Project (TAP) focused on poverty alleviation as the principal means to achieve sustainable forest management. This study assesses the effectiveness of TAP's strategy in improving the ecology and socio-economic conditions of forest fringe villages using a diverse set of research methods. Results indicate that in a span of four to seven years, there was significant increase in forest cover, biodiversity, and agricultural productivity. The project villages have also shown considerable progress in various indicators of socio-economic development. The authors, however, suggest continued poverty alleviation and promotion of alternative livelihood opportunities to place the programme on a stable ground. Meeting the development needs of local villagers through strong and durable institutional linkages is also suggested for the programme to sustain and succeed.

show abstract

“…In the 1990s, it was recognized that greater integration between ecological and social dimensions was required to achieve conservation goals (Pandey andWells 1997, Rozzi and. Also, ecological societies and ecologists called for greater involvement of scientists with environmental decision makers and educators (e.g., Lubchenco et al 1991, Vitousek 1994.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%