Indigenous Knowledge for Biodiversity Conservation

Indigenous peoples with a historical continuity of resource-use practices often possess a broad knowledge base of the behavior of complex ecological systems in their own localities. This knowledge has accumulated through a long series of observations transmitted from generation to generation. Such ''diachronic'' observations can be of great value and complement the ''synchronic''observations on which western science is based. Where indigenous peoples have depended, for long periods of time, on local environments for the provision of a variety of resources, they have developed a stake in conserving, and in some cases, enhancing, biodiversity. They are aware that biological diversity is a crucial factor in generating the ecological services and natural resources on which they depend. Some indigenous groups manipulate the local landscape to augment its heterogeneity, and some have been found to be motivated to restore biodiversity in degraded landscapes. Their practices for the conservation of biodiversity were grounded in a series of rules of thumb which are apparently arrived at through a trial and error process over a long historical time period. This implies that their knowledge base is indefinite and their implementation involves an intimate relationship with the belief system. Such knowledge is difficult for western science to understand. It is vital, however, that the value of the knowledge-practice-belief complex of indigenous peoples relating to conservation of biodiversity is fully recognized if ecosystems and biodiversity are to be managed sustainably. Conserving this knowledge would be most appropriately accomplished through promoting the community-based resource-management systems of indigenous peoples.

Community-based Natural Resource Management: Issues and Cases from South Asia

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) is the joint management of natural resources by a community based on a community strategy, through a participatory mechanism involving all legitimate stakeholders. The approach is community-based in that the communities managing the resources have the legal rights, the local institutions and the economic incentives to take substantial responsibility for sustained use of these resources. This implies that the community plays an active role in the management of natural resources, not because it asserts sole ownership over them, but because it can claim participation in their management and benefits for practical and technical reasons1–4. This approach emerged as the dominant conservation concept in the late 1970s and early 1980s, of the disillusionment with the developmental state. Governments across South and South East Asia, Africa and Latin America have adopted and implemented CBNRM in various ways, viz. through sectoral programmes such as forestry, irrigation or wildlife management, multisectoral programmes such as watershed development and efforts towards political devolution. In India, the principle of decentralization through ‘gram swaraj’ was introduced by Mahatma Gandhi. The 73rd and 74th constitution amendments in 1992 gave impetus to the decentralized planning at panchayat levels through the creation of a statutory three-level local self-government structure5,6. The strength of this book is that it includes chapters by CBNRM advocates based on six seemingly innovative initiatives being implemented by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in ecologically vulnerable regions of South Asia: two in the Himalayas (watershed development programme in Lingmutechhu, Bhuthan and Thalisain tehsil, Paudi Grahwal District, Uttarakhand), three in semi-arid parts of western India (watershed development in Hivre Bazar, Maharashtra and Nathugadh village, Gujarat and water-harvesting structures in Gopalapura, Rajasthan) and one in the flood-plains of the Brahmaputra–Jamuna (Char land, Galibanda and Jamalpur districts, Bangladesh). Watersheds in semi-arid regions fall in the low-rainfall region (500–700 mm) and suffer the vagaries of drought 2–3 years in every five-year cycle. In all these locations, the major occupation is agriculture, most of which is rainfed or dry. The other two cases (in Uttarakhand) fall in the Himalayan region (temperate/sub-temperate climate), which has witnessed extensive deforestation in the last century and is now considered as one of the most vulnerable locations in South Asia. Terraced agriculture is being practised in these locations for a long time. The last case (Gono Chetona) falls in the Brahmaputra–Jamuna charlands which are the most ecologically vulnerable regions in the sub-continent with constantly changing landscape. Agriculture and livestock rearing are the main occupations, and there is substantial seasonal emigration for wage labour by the adult males. River erosion and floods force the people to adopt a semi-migratory lifestyle. The book attempts to analyse the potential as well as limitations of NGOdriven CBNRM endeavours across agroclimatic regions of South Asia with emphasis on four intrinsically linked normative concerns, namely sustainability, livelihood enhancement, equity and demographic decentralization in chapters 2–7. Comparative analysis of these case studies done in chapter 8, highlights the issues that require further research while portraying the strengths and limits of NGO-driven CBNRM. In Hivre Bazar, the post-watershed intervention scenario is such that farmers often grow three crops in a year – kharif bajra, rabi jowar and summer vegetable crops. Productivity has increased in the dry lands due to improvement in soil moisture levels. The revival of johads in Gopalpura has led to the proliferation of wheat and increased productivity. In Lingmuteychhu, productivity gains have also arisen, but more due to the introduction of both local and high-yielding, new varieties as opposed to increased water availability. In the case of Gono Chetona, improvements have come due to diversification of agriculture; for example, the promotion of vegetable gardens. CBNRM interventions in most cases have also led to new avenues of employment and income generation. The synthesis shows that CBNRM efforts have made significant contributions to livelihood enhancement and only limited gains in terms of collective action for sustainable and equitable access to benefits and continuing resource use, and in terms of democratic decentralization, contrary to the objectives of the programme. Livelihood benefits include improvements in availability of livelihood support resources (fuelwood, fodder, drinking water), increased productivity (including diversification of cropping pattern) in agriculture and allied activities, and new sources of livelihood. However, NGO-driven CBNRM has not met its goal of providing ‘alternative’ forms of ‘development’ due to impediments of state policy, short-sighted vision of implementers and confrontation with the socio-ecological reality of the region, which almost always are that of fragmented communities (or communities in flux) with unequal dependence and access to land and other natural resources along with great gender imbalances. Appalling, however, is the general absence of recognition of the importance of and the will to explore practical ways to bring about equitable resource transfer or benefit-sharing and the consequent innovations in this respect that are evident in the pioneering community initiatives such as pani panchayat, etc. Pertaining to the gains on the ecological sustainability front, Hivre Bazar and Thalisain initiatives through active participation of villagers have made significant regeneration of the water table within the village, and mechanisms such as ban on number of bore wells, the regulation of cropping pattern, restrictions on felling of trees and free grazing to ensure that in the future, the groundwater is neither over-exploited nor its recharge capability impaired. Nevertheless, the longterm sustainability of the interventions in the case of Ghoga and Gopalpura initiatives as the focus has been mostly on regeneration of resources, and less on regulating the use of regenerated resources. Further, in Lingmuteychhu and Gono Chetona, the interventions are mainly household-based and the focus has been less explicit on ecological components. The studies demonstrate the livelihood benefits to all of the interventions and significant variation in achievements with reference to sustainability, equity and democratic decentralization depending on the level and extent of community participation apart from the vision of implementers, strategy (or nature of intervention shaped by the question of community formation), the centrality of community formation and also the State policy. Case studies show that the influence of State policy is multi-faceted and often contradictory in nature. This necessitates NGOs to engage with the State in a much more purposeful way than in an ‘autonomous space’. Thus the role of NGOs in CBNRM is complementary, wherein they provide innovative experiments that the State can learn. This helps in achieving the goals of CBNRM through democratic decentralization. The book addresses the vital issues related to natural resource management and interests of the community. Key topics discussed throughout the book are still at the centre of the current debate. This compilation consists of well-written chapters based on rigorous synthesis of CBNRM case studies, which will serve as good references for students, researchers and practitioners in the years to come.

Looking beyond parks: the conservation value of unprotected areas for hornbills in Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern Himalaya

The loss of tropical forests and associated biodiversity is a global concern. Conservation efforts in tropical countries such as India have mostly focused on state-administered protected areas despite the existence of vast tracts of forest outside these areas. We studied hornbills (Bucerotidae), an ecologically important vertebrate group and a flagship for tropical forest conservation, to assess the importance of forests outside protected areas in Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India. We conducted a state-wide survey to record encounters with hornbills in seven protected areas, six state-managed reserved forests and six community-managed unclassed forests. We estimated the density of hornbills in one protected area, four reserved forests and two unclassed forests in eastern Arunachal Pradesh. The state-wide survey showed that the mean rate of encounter of rufous-necked hornbills Aceros nipalensis was four times higher in protected areas than in reserved forests and 22 times higher in protected areas than in unclassed forests. The mean rate of encounter of wreathed hornbills Rhyticeros undulatus was twice as high in protected areas as in reserved forests and eight times higher in protected areas than in unclassed forests. The densities of rufous-necked hornbill were higher inside protected areas, whereas the densities of great hornbill Buceros bicornis and wreathed hornbill were similar inside and outside protected areas. Key informant surveys revealed possible extirpation of some hornbill species at sites in two protected areas and three unclassed forests. These results highlight a paradoxical situation where individual populations of hornbills are being lost even in some legally protected habitat, whereas they continue to persist over most of the landscape. Better protection within protected areas and creative community-based conservation efforts elsewhere are necessary to maintain hornbill populations in this biodiversity-rich region.

SUB1 Plays a Negative Role during Starvation Induced Sporulation Program in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Saccharomyces cerevisiae Sub1 is involved in several cellular processes such as, transcription initiation, elongation, mRNA processing and DNA repair. It has also been reported to provide cellular resistance during conditions of oxidative DNA damage and osmotic stress. Here, we report a novel role of SUB1 during starvation stress-induced sporulation, which leads to meiosis and spore formation in diploid yeast cells. Deletion of SUB1 gene significantly increased sporulation efficiency as compared to the wild-type cells in S288c genetic background. Whereas, the sporulation functions of the sub1(Y66A) missense mutant were similar to Sub1. SUB1 transcript and protein levels are downregulated during sporulation, in highly synchronized and sporulation proficient wild-type SK1 cells. The changes in Sub1 levels during sporulation cascade correlate with the induction of middle sporulation gene expression. Deletion of SUB1 increased middle sporulation gene transcript levels with no effect on their induction kinetics. In wild-type cells, Sub1 associates with chromatin at these loci in a temporal pattern that correlates with their enhanced gene expression seen in sub1. cells. We show that SUB1 genetically interacts with HOS2, which led us to speculate that Sub1 might function with Set3 repressor complex during sporulation. Positive Cofactor 4, human homolog of Sub1, complemented the sub1. sporulation phenotype, suggesting conservation of function. Taken together, our results suggest that SUB1 acts as a negative regulator of sporulation.