On the inadequacy of environment impact assessments for projects in Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park of Goa, India : a peer review

The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) is a regulatory framework adopted since 1994 in India to evaluate the impact and mitigation measures of projects, however, even after 25 years of adoption, EIAs continue to be of inferior quality with respect to biodiversity documentation and assessment of impacts and their mitigation measures. This questions the credibility of the exercise, as deficient EIAs are habitually used as a basis for project clearances in ecologically sensitive and irreplaceable regions. The authors reiterate this point by analysing impact assessment documents for three projects: the doubling of the National Highway-4A, doubling of the railway-line from Castlerock to Kulem, and laying of a 400-kV transmission line through the Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park in the state of Goa. Two of these projects were recently granted ‘Wildlife Clearance’ during a virtual meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) without a thorough assessment of the project impacts. Assessment reports for the road and railway expansion were found to be deficient on multiple fronts regarding biodiversity assessment and projected impacts, whereas no impact assessment report was available in the public domain for the 400-kV transmission line project. This paper highlights the biodiversity significance of this protected area complex in the Western Ghats, and highlights the lacunae in biodiversity documentation and inadequacy of mitigation measures in assessment documents for all three diversion projects. The EIA process needs to improve substantially if India is to protect its natural resources and adhere to environmental protection policies and regulations nationally and globally

Terrestrial Species in Protected Areas and Community-Managed Lands in Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India

Protected areas (including areas that are nominally fully protected and those managed for multiple uses) encompass about a quarter of the total tropical forest estate. Despite growing interest in the relative value of community-managed lands and protected areas, knowledge about the biodiversity value that each sustains remains scarce in the biodiversity-rich tropics. We investigated the species occurrence of a suite of mammal and pheasant species across four protected areas and nearby community-managed lands in a biodiversity hotspot in northeast India. Over 2.5 years we walked 98 transects (half of which were resampled on a second occasion) across the four paired sites. In addition, we interviewed 84 key informants to understand their perceptions of species trends in these two management regimes. We found that protected areas had higher overall species richness and were important for species that were apparently declining in occurrence. On a site-specific basis, community-managed lands had species richness and occurrences comparable to those of a protected area, and in one case their relative abundances of mammals were higher. Interviewees indicated declines in the abundances of larger-bodied species in community-managed lands. Their observations agreed with our field surveys for certain key, large-bodied species, such as gaur and sambar, which generally occurred less in community-managed lands. Hence, the degree to which protected areas and community-managed lands protect wildlife species depends upon the species in question, with larger-bodied species usually faring better within protected areas

Conservation challenges of wet-tropical nature reserves in north-east India

[Extract from Introduction] Protected areas in the tropics account for a quarter of the world's nature reserves and collectively support over half of Earth's terrestrial biodiversity (Nelson and Chomitz, 2011). As such, they are enormously important for the future of native flora and fauna. Despite the large extent of tropical protected areas, there is substantial overlap between human-use areas (for instance, for extractive and agricultural purposes) and landscapes vital to the conservation of globally significant biodiversity (Araujo and Rahbek, 2007). Human activities in such areas of overlap have more often than not resulted in deleterious impacts on populations of wild flora and fauna. Importantly, massive deforestation in and around the buffers of protected areas (DeFries et al., 2005), coupled with the overhunting of wildlife across the tropics, have been major causes for drastic population declines of numerous species. In some cases, over-hunting has even led to outright local extirpations (Milner- Gulland and Bennett, 2003; Bennett et al., 2006). In such situations, protected areas are often considered the cornerstone of conservation strategies (Hockings, 2003) and the first line of defense to contain poaching and other forms of encroachment (Bruner et al., 2001; Nelson and Chomitz, 2011). Protected areas are also known to reduce deforestation rates in the surrounding and wider landscape (Gaveau et al., 2009), improve biodiversity conservation and community well-being (Levrington et al., 2010). However, one of the greatest challenges protected areas face, and one that undermines their potential for effective wildlife conservation, is continuing anthropogenic pressure arising from habitat loss, fragmentation (DeFries et al., 2005), and hunting (Wright, 2005; Laurance et al., 2012). Yet one of the broad themes when evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas is to understand whether the conservation values of protected areas are safeguarded (Hockings et al., 2006). But as protected areas continue to suffer degradation, and adjacent unprotected areas are converted to agriculture and other human uses (Kramer et al., 1997), a crucial knowledge gap is to understand how the existing habitats that remain within and outside of protected areas impact and sustain biodiversity. The decisions related to protected areas and their adjacent lands (which are often managed by resident communities) suffer from a lack of data-driven evidence. For instance, 60% of conservation-management decisions related to protected areas have had to rely on experience-based information given the absence of evidence (Cook et al., 2010), but it is equally important to note that managers value empirical evidence as the most valuable source to implement management actions (Cook et al., 2012). Further, the paucity of data and rigorous studies (in terms of the biodiversity value) in community-managed land is a similar shortcoming (Bowler et al., 2011). An understanding of the relative merits of protected areas versus communitymanaged lands is especially important in the context of tropical developing countries that harbour many threatened wildlife species (Schipper et al., 2008) and experience socio-economic and cultural pressures that can imperil wildlife populations. More importantly, such research provides an opportunity to identify strategies that might allow facilitate human well-being while achieving big gains for wildlife conservation (DeFries et al., 2007). In this context, deliberations about Indian nature conservation must be embedded in the existing biological and sociological contexts. It would almost be proverbial (and a subject of many essays, a few of which are included in the Appendices of this thesis) to say that conservation in India is complex. Most striking is the sheer size of India's population, which is set to overtake China as the world's most populous country by 2028, and is expected to continue growing at least until the 2060s (United Nations report, 2013). Meeting the needs of a growing economy and improving the standard of living for the estimated 363 million Indians currently living in poverty is an inescapable imperative (estimate of poverty derived in 2011- 2012 by C. Rangarajan). At the same time, India is biodiversity rich — one whose environmental demise would be a global tragedy. India harbours four global biodiversity hotspots, and its forests sustain half of the world's tigers, 60% of all Asian elephants, and 70% of all one-horned rhinoceros (Madhusudan, 2003; Amin et al., 2006). Approximately 270 million people use forest resources as primary and supplementary income sources (Fisher et al., 1997). The tolerance for wildlife that many residents display is remarkable, to say the least. A study of three national parks in India indicates that 89% of the surveyed households reportedly received no compensation for crop-raiding and livestock predation. Such losses were non-trivial with modeled estimates of crop loss being as high as 82% and livestock losses up to 27% (Karanth et al., 2013). Despite this, substantial tolerance for wildlife-induced crop and livestock losses still prevails in many parts of India, although its degree varies by area and the species in question. The sheer cultural diversity that exists by region within India indicates that there might be varying degrees of anthropogenic pressure, and thus differing outcomes for protected areas and their surrounding forests. Although the influences that jeopardise biodiversity within India vary widely by species and region, habitat loss and degradation and hunting are clearly the most predominant threats (Pandit et al., 2007; Datta et al., 2008; Karanth et al., 2010). This doctoral thesis is relatively eclectic and wide-ranging in nature. It is, however, unified by a clear focus on the relative fate of wildlife in protected and community-managed lands in the biologically rich lands of Arunachal Pradesh in north-east India, and on the factors that influence conservation outcomes in these contexts. In Chapter 1, I review the literature examining hunting across India, seeking to highlight vital knowledge gaps, which can be the basis for future investigation. Specifically, I provide a synthesis of all hunting-related studies within India and examine the importance of various influences on hunting across multiple species and geographical locations. Arunachal Pradesh has suffered local extinctions of several important mammal and bird species from hunting and habitat loss (Datta et al., 2008; Karanth et al., 2010). The complex backdrop of socio-economic change and institutional inadequacies impinge on the effectiveness of habitat protection and wildlife conservation efforts there. In Chapter 2, I attempt to understand how disease in forest staff and residents living around a protected area can compromise wildlife conservation—a very real phenomenon that is typically overlooked by higher-level park managers and administrators. Specifically, I try to assess the burden of human malaria on front-line anti-poaching staff in the Pakke Tiger Reserve in Arunachal Pradesh, and how this could impact on wildlife management outcomes. The north-east region of India has a socio-cultural landscape that is distinct from the rest of the country. Amongst the cultures of most tribal groups in Arunachal Pradesh, the hunting of wildlife has deep roots, and wild game is often preferred to domestic meat (Aiyadurai et al., 2010). Here, gun ownership is common and cultural norms and prevailing beliefs are strongly associated with the practice of hunting, even in Buddhist communities. In Chapter 3, I seek to obtain a refined understanding of how community-managed lands abutting Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary in Arunachal Pradesh compare with the sanctuary itself, in terms of the species richness and abundance of larger native mammals and of prevailing community practices and meat preferences. I also seek to understand the nature of hunting practices and taboos, and cultural and social forms of residential governance in the lands surrounding Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary. In addition to studying a single reserve and its adjoining community-managed lands in detail, there are also important lessons to be learnt from examining multiple protected areas and their adjacent community-managed lands in this region. In Chapter 4, I discuss the results of lower-intensity but larger-scale transect-based surveys and comparisons between protected areas and communitymanaged lands across four sites in the Kameng Protected Area Complex in western Arunachal Pradesh. This landscape, of which Eaglenest is the centerpiece, is the largest contiguous forest tract in the Eastern Himalayan biodiversity hotspot, with an area of 3,500 km2, and is a globally vital conservation region. This complex is especially important in Arunachal Pradesh, which accounts for two-thirds of all the remaining primary forest in India, with almost 62% of these forests under decentralised community management rather than state administration (Menon et al., 2001). Finally, in Chapter 5, I attempt to provide an integrated understanding of the social, cultural, economic and biological factors affecting hunting and the obstacles preventing the implementation of data-driven conservation on multiple levels, broadly including centralised forest management and community-based conservation initiatives

Conservation challenges of wet-tropical nature reserves in north-east India

[Extract from Introduction] Protected areas in the tropics account for a quarter of the world's nature reserves and collectively support over half of Earth's terrestrial biodiversity (Nelson and Chomitz, 2011). As such, they are enormously important for the future of native flora and fauna.\ud \ud Despite the large extent of tropical protected areas, there is substantial overlap between human-use areas (for instance, for extractive and agricultural purposes) and landscapes vital to the conservation of globally significant biodiversity (Araujo and Rahbek, 2007). Human activities in such areas of overlap have more often than not resulted in deleterious impacts on populations of wild flora and fauna. Importantly, massive deforestation in and around the buffers of protected areas (DeFries et al., 2005), coupled with the overhunting of wildlife across the tropics, have been major causes for drastic population declines of numerous species. In some cases, over-hunting has even led to outright local extirpations (Milner- Gulland and Bennett, 2003; Bennett et al., 2006).\ud \ud In such situations, protected areas are often considered the cornerstone of conservation strategies (Hockings, 2003) and the first line of defense to contain poaching and other forms of encroachment (Bruner et al., 2001; Nelson and Chomitz, 2011). Protected areas are also known to reduce deforestation rates in the surrounding and wider landscape (Gaveau et al., 2009), improve biodiversity conservation and community well-being (Levrington et al., 2010). However, one of the greatest challenges protected areas face, and one that undermines their potential for effective wildlife conservation, is continuing anthropogenic pressure arising from habitat loss, fragmentation (DeFries et al., 2005), and hunting (Wright, 2005; Laurance et al., 2012). Yet one of the broad themes when evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas is to understand whether the conservation values of protected areas are safeguarded (Hockings et al., 2006). But as protected areas continue to suffer degradation, and adjacent unprotected areas are converted to agriculture and other human uses (Kramer et al., 1997), a crucial knowledge gap is to understand how the existing habitats that remain within and outside of protected areas impact and sustain biodiversity.\ud \ud The decisions related to protected areas and their adjacent lands (which are often managed by resident communities) suffer from a lack of data-driven evidence. For instance, 60% of conservation-management decisions related to protected areas have had to rely on experience-based information given the absence of evidence (Cook et al., 2010), but it is equally important to note that managers value empirical evidence as the most valuable source to implement management actions (Cook et al., 2012). Further, the paucity of data and rigorous studies (in terms of the biodiversity value) in community-managed land is a similar shortcoming (Bowler et al., 2011).\ud \ud An understanding of the relative merits of protected areas versus communitymanaged lands is especially important in the context of tropical developing countries that harbour many threatened wildlife species (Schipper et al., 2008) and experience socio-economic and cultural pressures that can imperil wildlife populations. More importantly, such research provides an opportunity to identify strategies that might allow facilitate human well-being while achieving big gains for wildlife conservation (DeFries et al., 2007).\ud \ud In this context, deliberations about Indian nature conservation must be embedded in the existing biological and sociological contexts. It would almost be proverbial (and a subject of many essays, a few of which are included in the Appendices of this thesis) to say that conservation in India is complex. Most striking is the sheer size of India's population, which is set to overtake China as the world's most populous country by 2028, and is expected to continue growing at least until the 2060s (United Nations report, 2013). Meeting the needs of a growing economy and improving the standard of living for the estimated 363 million Indians currently living in poverty is an inescapable imperative (estimate of poverty derived in 2011- 2012 by C. Rangarajan). At the same time, India is biodiversity rich — one whose environmental demise would be a global tragedy.\ud \ud India harbours four global biodiversity hotspots, and its forests sustain half of the world's tigers, 60% of all Asian elephants, and 70% of all one-horned rhinoceros (Madhusudan, 2003; Amin et al., 2006). Approximately 270 million people use forest resources as primary and supplementary income sources (Fisher et al., 1997).\ud \ud The tolerance for wildlife that many residents display is remarkable, to say the least. A study of three national parks in India indicates that 89% of the surveyed households reportedly received no compensation for crop-raiding and livestock predation. Such losses were non-trivial with modeled estimates of crop loss being as high as 82% and livestock losses up to 27% (Karanth et al., 2013). Despite this, substantial tolerance for wildlife-induced crop and livestock losses still prevails in many parts of India, although its degree varies by area and the species in question.\ud \ud The sheer cultural diversity that exists by region within India indicates that there might be varying degrees of anthropogenic pressure, and thus differing outcomes for protected areas and their surrounding forests. Although the influences that jeopardise biodiversity within India vary widely by species and region, habitat loss and degradation and hunting are clearly the most predominant threats (Pandit et al., 2007; Datta et al., 2008; Karanth et al., 2010). This doctoral thesis is relatively eclectic and wide-ranging in nature. It is, however, unified by a clear focus on the relative fate of wildlife in protected and community-managed lands in the biologically rich lands of Arunachal Pradesh in north-east India, and on the factors that influence conservation outcomes in these contexts.\ud \ud In Chapter 1, I review the literature examining hunting across India, seeking to highlight vital knowledge gaps, which can be the basis for future investigation. Specifically, I provide a synthesis of all hunting-related studies within India and examine the importance of various influences on hunting across multiple species and geographical locations.\ud \ud Arunachal Pradesh has suffered local extinctions of several important mammal and bird species from hunting and habitat loss (Datta et al., 2008; Karanth et al., 2010). The complex backdrop of socio-economic change and institutional inadequacies impinge on the effectiveness of habitat protection and wildlife conservation efforts there. In Chapter 2, I attempt to understand how disease in forest staff and residents living around a protected area can compromise wildlife conservation—a very real phenomenon that is typically overlooked by higher-level park managers and administrators. Specifically, I try to assess the burden of human malaria on front-line anti-poaching staff in the Pakke Tiger Reserve in Arunachal Pradesh, and how this could impact on wildlife management outcomes.\ud \ud The north-east region of India has a socio-cultural landscape that is distinct from the rest of the country. Amongst the cultures of most tribal groups in Arunachal Pradesh, the hunting of wildlife has deep roots, and wild game is often preferred to domestic meat (Aiyadurai et al., 2010). Here, gun ownership is common and cultural norms and prevailing beliefs are strongly associated with the practice of hunting, even in Buddhist communities. In Chapter 3, I seek to obtain a refined understanding of how community-managed lands abutting Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary in Arunachal Pradesh compare with the sanctuary itself, in terms of the species richness and abundance of larger native mammals and of prevailing community practices and meat preferences. I also seek to understand the nature of hunting practices and taboos, and cultural and social forms of residential governance in the lands surrounding Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary.\ud \ud In addition to studying a single reserve and its adjoining community-managed lands in detail, there are also important lessons to be learnt from examining multiple protected areas and their adjacent community-managed lands in this region. In Chapter 4, I discuss the results of lower-intensity but larger-scale transect-based surveys and comparisons between protected areas and communitymanaged lands across four sites in the Kameng Protected Area Complex in western Arunachal Pradesh. This landscape, of which Eaglenest is the centerpiece, is the largest contiguous forest tract in the Eastern Himalayan biodiversity hotspot, with an area of 3,500 km2, and is a globally vital conservation region. This complex is especially important in Arunachal Pradesh, which accounts for two-thirds of all the remaining primary forest in India, with almost 62% of these forests under decentralised community management rather than state administration (Menon et al., 2001).\ud \ud Finally, in Chapter 5, I attempt to provide an integrated understanding of the social, cultural, economic and biological factors affecting hunting and the obstacles preventing the implementation of data-driven conservation on multiple levels, broadly including centralised forest management and community-based conservation initiatives

Post-logging recovery of animal-dispersed trees in a tropical forest site in north-east India

Selective logging is known to alter the structural and community composition of tropical forests and may disrupt plant-frugivore interactions. We hypothesized that even after a sufficient period of recovery, logged areas will not possess as complete a suite of species as an unlogged forest, the differences being more marked for biotically-dispersed species. Species of this functional group are expected to occur at lower densities, have lower species richness and diversity, and be smaller in logged forests. To quantify structural and functional differences in tree communities, we sampled 120 randomly placed plots, 60 each in logged and unlogged forest sites. We found significant differences in species richness and diversity between logged and intact forest. Within biotically-dispersed species, bird dispersed species showed a significant reduction in species richness. Consistent with previous studies, trees in logged forests were smaller, although overall density was not different between the two treatments. We posit that selective logging might have pervasive effects on functional aspects of tropical tree communities, which appear to persist even after two decades of logging cessation

Misconstrued dichotomies

[Extract] WE live in an age of trade-offs. In pursuit of material well-being, human societies are transforming earth's land and water in manifold ways, in the process compromising the very natural systems that are essential for our survival. The vast sprawl of homo sapiens across the planet is causing one of the largest extinction crisis – 1000 times higher than ever in earth's history. To burgeoning human numbers, add the societal imperative for economic progress and we certainly face a quandary. How do we ensure development for all people and yet safeguard vital ecological wealth and biodiversity on this finite planet? Equity being an essential prerequisite for sustainability, what measures can ensure resource use in the most equitable manner? In a populous country like India, seeking to maintain its economic growth potential while also preserving its natural wealth, these are questions of paramount importance

Hunting practices of an Indo-Tibetan Buddhist tribe in Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India

Hunting is a serious threat to Indian wildlife. We used semi-structured interviews to assess hunting practices, cultural contexts and village-level governance within a Buddhist Indo-Tibetan tribe in the biologically rich region of Arunachal Pradesh. A large majority (96%) of the 50 respondents preferred wild meat over domestic meat, and most hunted for recreation. Species such as the Asian elephant Elephas maximus are still considered taboo to hunters but other species that were once taboo (such as gaur Bos gaurus) are now hunted. A month-long ban was previously instituted to prohibit tribal hunting during the wildlife breeding season each year but this has now decreased to 16-days duration. A multi-level governance framework is needed to resolve a mismatch between national policy in India and grass-roots governance for managing wildlife hunting

Rodent seed predation: effects on seed survival, recruitment, abundance, and dispersion of bird-dispersed tropical trees

Tropical tree species vary widely in their pattern of spatial dispersion. We focus on how seed predation may modify seed deposition patterns and affect the abundance and dispersion of adult trees in a tropical forest in India. Using plots across a range of seed densities, we examined whether seed predation levels by terrestrial rodents varied across six large-seeded, bird-dispersed tree species. Since inter-specific variation in density-dependent seed mortality may have downstream effects on recruitment and adult tree stages, we determined recruitment patterns close to and away from parent trees, along with adult tree abundance and dispersion patterns. Four species (Canarium resiniferum, Dysoxylum binectariferum, Horsfieldia kingii, and Prunus ceylanica) showed high predation levels (78.5-98.7%) and increased mortality with increasing seed density, while two species, Chisocheton cumingianus and Polyalthia simiarum, showed significantly lower seed predation levels and weak density-dependent mortality. The latter two species also had the highest recruitment near parent trees, with most abundant and aggregated adults. The four species that had high seed mortality had low recruitment under parent trees, were rare, and had more spaced adult tree dispersion. Biotic dispersal may be vital for species that suffer density-dependent mortality factors under parent trees. In tropical forests where large vertebrate seed dispersers but not seed predators are hunted, differences in seed vulnerability to rodent seed predation and density-dependent mortality can affect forest structure and composition

Terrestrial Species in Protected Areas and Community-Managed Lands in Arunachal Pradesh, Northeast India

Protected areas (including areas that are nominally fully protected and those managed for multiple uses) encompass about a quarter of the total tropical forest estate. Despite growing interest in the relative value of community-managed lands and protected areas, knowledge about the biodiversity value that each sustains remains scarce in the biodiversity-rich tropics. We investigated the species occurrence of a suite of mammal and pheasant species across four protected areas and nearby community-managed lands in a biodiversity hotspot in northeast India. Over 2.5 years we walked 98 transects (half of which were resampled on a second occasion) across the four paired sites. In addition, we interviewed 84 key informants to understand their perceptions of species trends in these two management regimes. We found that protected areas had higher overall species richness and were important for species that were apparently declining in occurrence. On a site-specific basis, community-managed lands had species richness and occurrences comparable to those of a protected area, and in one case their relative abundances of mammals were higher. Interviewees indicated declines in the abundances of larger-bodied species in community-managed lands. Their observations agreed with our field surveys for certain key, large-bodied species, such as gaur and sambar, which generally occurred less in community-managed lands. Hence, the degree to which protected areas and community-managed lands protect wildlife species depends upon the species in question, with larger-bodied species usually faring better within protected areas