Annexures (Final).pdf - PEACE Institute Charitable Trust

Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project 

Final Report 

Agasthiyarmalai Landscape -Annexures 

ANNEXURE – 1: CONSULTATIONS 

PART - A: THE VILLAGE CONSULTATIONS 

The section comprises the minutes of the consultation sessions held at select 

settlements short-listed on the basis of the specific indicators identified through 

situational assessment, the methodology of which has been delineated earlier. The 

data generated through the techniques and interpreted through the framework under 

the same methodology constitute the basis for understanding the socio-economic 

and ecological conditions of existence of the consulted villagers. The selection of the 

villages for consultation is based on the same methodological criteria of stratified 

sampling, of which the degree of dependence on forest both for natural resources 

and land-use ranks the foremost. Naturally, the samples used for consultation are 

representative of the most forest dependent people who deserve to be considered as 

the principal target group for livelihood improvement. They consist of categories of 

households (Hhs): 

a) The Very Poor (Hhs totally bereft of any landed resource or competitive 

labour skill) and, 

b) The Poor (Hhs with the landed asset, legal/illegal [mostly in exploitative 

tenurial traps] and labour skill [mostly under utilised due to lack of 

employment opportunities], yet depending heavily on the forest for grazing 

the livestock and exchanging the biomass in order to supplement their 

income). 

In a scheme of colour classification the Very Poor Hhs can be indicated with Red 

and the Poor with Yellow. 

Categories of Villages/Settlements Consulted (TN Side) 

S.No Name of 

Panchayath Division Category 

Village/Settlements 

1 Thummakkundu Thummakkundu Theni Yellow 

2 Balasubrahmaniapuram -do- -do- -do- 

3 Seethamuthialpuram -do- -do- -do- 

4 Arasarati Kompathulu -do- Red 

5 Indiranagar -do- -do- Red 

6 Mettuppatti 

Rajapalayam Srivilliputhur WLS Yellow 

(Matuvalappor EDC) 

7 Servalar Kani Mundanthurai KMTR Red 

8 Mutavan Potta Kulasekharam Kanyakumari WLS Yellow 

210 

PEACE – ELDF – Samrakshan – NR International September, 2007




Sl. 

No 

Categories of Villages/Settlements Consulted (Kerala Side) 

Name of Village Panchayath Division Category 

1 Ariyankavu Ariyankavu Shenduruni WLS Yellow 

2 Rosemala Kulathuppuzha -do- -do- 

3 Palode VSSs Palode Thiruvananthapuram -do- 

4 Neyyar/Peppara EDCs Neyyar -do- -do- 

RECORD OF CONSULTATIONS 

THENI DIVISION 

1. Thummakkundu- 06-07-2006 

Settlement Panchayath Range Division Hhs & Pop & Lit. 

Thummakkundu Thummakkundu Varshanad Theni 348Hhs. 1100acr. Pop. 

835 (412M+423F+179C); 

Lit. 12% 

Location and Social Composition 

Thummakkundu settlement is located near Sithamuthialpuram in the 

Thummakkundu Grama Panchayath, of the Varshanad Range of the Theni Division. It 

consists of 348 Hhs out of which 150 Hhs have patta on the holdings and the rest 

have no documents for they have encroached on lands of the RF/RL. The settlement 

has a mixed social composition consisting of the Thevar community and some of the 

scheduled castes with the predominance of the former. The settlement began in 

1971 according to the aged. 

Livelihood 

The principal livelihood is goat farming and wage labour supplemented by the annual 

crop of silk cotton. Each Hh has 50 to 150 goats. The total goat strength of the 

settlement comes to about 4500 to 5000. The entire people of the settlement depend 

on the forest but in varying degrees, the dependence of the majority being for 

grazing and firewood. About 45% of the people directly depend on the forest 

biomass to supplement their income, which ranges between NWFP collection to wood 

cutting and poaching. About 25 Hhs are engaged in cutting wood, sizing it into small 

enough to be carried as shoulder-load to the market. Each load is sold for Rs.300 to 

400. About 19 Hhs are traditionally engaged in manufacturing a kind of louse-comb 

called iruvali (iru means the larva of louse and vali, pulling or removal) out of a tree 

called akil (Dysoxylum maoabaricum). They cut the tree and use its heartwood as 

their raw material. Now there is great scarcity of the wood in the nearby forest. 1 

1 Being a typical wild wood commonly found neither in the home garden nor in the degraded forest, the 

scarcity is a human ecological consequence. The planting of the tree is not a worthwhile option under the 

Project since the people use the 15 to 20 years mature heartwood and the use is destructive. 

211 





These Hhs have formed into a formal group called iruvali sangham to stake a claim 

on the wood. 2 The distance to the forest is about 2 km. The woman wage rate is 60 

and men 80. The annual average per capita income is Rs. 15000. About 60% of the 

people have been indebted to money lenders and about 45% to banks. Exploitative 

middlemen take away whatever little crops they have. Kuthaka and Pattam are the 

two kinds of exploitative tenurial systems common among the people (See 

discussion under Social situation assessment. By and large the youth, literate around 

matriculation, do not approve of the illegal dependence on the forest. But educated 

only to be deskilled and left with no craft to inherit they are unemployable and hence 

vulnerably placed without alternatives to questionable means. 

Accessibility to Development Institutions 

The settlement has drinking water facility and solar power system provided by the 

Panchayath, which are more or less sufficient and functional to the current 

requirements. There is a primary health centre within the Panchayath itself, at about 

a km distance. A full fledged hospital is at Theni that is at a distance of 52 km. The 

nearest local town is Varshanad, 17 km away from the settlement. The primary 

school is 3 km away, high school, higher secondary school and college is at 

Kanavilakku, at a distance of 46 km. The District headquarters is Theni. 

The institutional development is very poor in the sense that the people in the 

settlement are yet to be able to come together for any collective endeavours. There 

is the SHG in function, which is indeed a potential body addressing livelihood issues 

through small scale IGAs possible under micro credit. VFC has been formed under 

the Government Order relating to TAP and it has created some positive impact just 

by its existence. For instance, there is a wider social recognition of various modes of 

unsustainable dependence on the forest as illegal. 3 Recently the anti poaching 

campaign has been strengthened by the Forest Department with good result. The 

people serve as informants and help the Forest Department check the illegal 

activities in the forest. 

Minutes of Consultation with the People 

Time: 6.p.m. Date: 6-7-2006 

Venue: Thimmakkunda Village Temple Courtyard 

Total No of People Present : 58 (42 men and 16 women) 

The meeting was scheduled for 5.30.pm as suggested by the people. But the 

meeting could begin only at 6pm with the Panchayath President in the Chair 

accompanied by Mr. Namakoti, the headman of the settlement, Mr. Selva Raj, the 

RO, Varshanad Range. Ms. Nayana (Researcher, SSS) and Ms. Jalaja (woman 

observer) of the consultation team sat with the audience. Rajan Gurukkal opened the 

meeting with a brief introduction of the BCRLIP and the purpose of the meeting. The 

RO elaborated the points in the local dialect. The people were putting up demands 

for financial assistance for buying sheep and h.y.v cattle. It took half an hour to 

2 This is a potential SHG that can be used for identifying and developing appropriate livelihood options. 

Certain suggestions emerged in the process of consultation. See the responses and suggestions. 

3 This is a potential precondition that the Project should use for institutional development. 

212 





bring the gathering to the agenda of the meeting, for they spoke all at a time 

allowing none to make out anything. Their main demand was for patta and loans. 

Once the meeting came to order for the agenda of consultation some of them 

withdrew while a few of them responded. The male youth and women were a bit 

reserved. They responded only when approached separately. The woman interpreter 

encouraged the women to speak out. The youth want employment and women 

financial assistance for raising sheep. 

Response from the Villagers 

1. Responding to the questions of encroachments, deforestation and destructive 

dependence on the forest, they in one voice said about the considerable 

decrease of such illegal practices. 

2. Responding to the question of livelihood improvement the Thevar male mainly 

pleaded for loans to buy cattle and sheep. Some of them admitted as ex 

wood-cutters and wanted other livelihood. The few SC members who do goat 

culture wanted assistance for buying sheep. Five men representing the iruvali 

sangham wanted some such alternative livelihoods. 

3. Responding to the query as to whether they would agree to come together as 

groups for collective endeavours, they expressed readiness. They agreed to 

the suggestion for starting a dairy farm of stall fed h.y.c cattle with some land 

attached for growing fodder. They seemed to be not enthusiastic about the 

idea of growing medicinal plants. 

Suggestions/Remarks 

1. There is feasibility about starting a dairy farm of stall fed h.y.v cattle with 

some land attached for growing fodder. It is possible to buy land and organise 

the enterprise by strengthening the VFC and SHG. There should be efforts to 

organise the youth who seem to be desirous of and amenable to evolving 

some kind of group identity. Murra buffalo or Jersey cow can be reared as an 

SHG activity. It is to be insisted that that people raise fodder in farm in an 

SHG mode for distribution. The cattle itself shall have to be kept in a shed in 

home yard by each member Hhs. One Hh cannot rear more than two h.y.v. 

animals, and in that case three SHGs each with 7-8 Hhs may be a viable 

enterprise. 4 

2. As it has come as an idea from the people themselves, it seems to be viable 

to organise the destructive dependents on the forest as ex-wood cutters and 

ex-iruvali groups to run collective enterprises such as dairy farm. The latter 

are already formed into a group (iruvali sangham). This is a potential 

institutional base that the Project should use for implementing the livelihood 

4 

This points to a potential activity to be led by the animal husbandry department and supported by 

the Project with conditionalities as above. It is an example of inter departmental convergence at 

the level of activities of the Project. 

213 





improvement measures. Being traditional comb makers they are amenable to 

training in handicrafts. 

3. Some eight boys and three girls with higher secondary education who want 

employment can be trained in Electronics Repair Works and run a group 

enterprise repairing Radios and TVs. However, keeping in view of the number 

of electronic equipments in the locality, it does not seem to be a sustainable 

IGA. 

4. Raising h.y.v. cattle would require considerable capacity building in raising 

green fodder, in health-care of these animals and also marketing milk etc. If 

the location is interior this may prove difficult. This is a point of discussion 

and interaction with other line agencies, especially the Department of Animal 

Husbandry, as it issue of convergence 

5. It may be advisable to have a mixed cattle holding of one h.y.v. and 2-3 local 

healthy animals to start with. The hyv numbers can be added gradually as 

capacity builds up from profits and micro-credits facilitated through SHG. For 

say an eight member SHG, 8-hyv and 24 local cattle may meet the LH need 

as well as remain within limits of skills and capacity to start with. For 8 hyv 

cattle an irrigated fodder farm of 2-3 acres with a dedicated ‘developed 

pasture’ of 8 acres for 25 local cattle may be enough. The 50% cost of both 

types of cattle can be subsidised and the rest can be met from disposing off 

their scrub cattle and micro-credit. This is a viable model. 

6. Purchasing land for fodder-farm may raise costs too high and may not be a 

very good idea either as it would involve group ownership. Land for farm 

may have to be found within the village common land and that for pasture 

development either from ‘commons’ or from fringe forest land. The SHG 

could also take land for farm on lease from within the group or from other 

villagers. 

7. The activity would call for veterinary care and this should be available within 

practicable limit. The Department of Animal Husbandry should be involved at 

the detailed planning stage in year-1 of the project implementation. 

8. Some cattle feed (concentrates from market) and crop residues (from own 

fields with supplementing from other Hhs or nearby villages) may need to be 

procured in order to maintain productivity of hyv cattle. Even the yield from 

local cattle can be enhanced with a small amount of green fodder to milking 

cows. Crop residue if bought after main crops and stored can help in tiding 

over the lean period for forage. 

214 





2. Balasubrahmanyapuram – 07-07-2006 

Location : Village Temple 

N 09 0 , 40’, 36, 9”; E 077 0 .28, 28, 9”; Elevation, 217 

Settlement Panchayath Range Division Hhs; Area; Pop& 

Lit 

Balasubrahmaniapuram Thummakkundu Varshanad Theni 50Hhs. 130acre. 

Pop. 220 – 

100M=120F & 

36C; Lit. 14% 


The Balasubrahmanyapuram settlement is located in the Thimmakundu Grama 

Panchayath, in the Varshanad Range of the Theni Division. The old name of the 

settlement is Kotikkulamkutisai. It consists of 40 Hhs with an average holding of 2 

acres each but without patta, for the land belongs to the RF. So the holding is illegal. 

The settlers are almost entirely of the Thevar community. 

Livelihood 

The principal livelihood is agriculture, supplemented by the collection of the forest 

biomass and wage labour. Only four Hhs subsist on livestock, the total holding comes 

to around 300 goats and 15 cattle, nurtured by grazing in the forest. The main 

income is from cow milk and goat meat. The main agricultural income is from silk 

cotton. Some of them have cashew trees as well but without much yield. A few Hhs 

cultivate cereals and pulses during monsoon. Majority of the men and women do manual 

labour for wage, the rate of which for women is 60 and that of men 80. The entire 

people of the settlement depend on the forest but in varying degrees, but mostly for 

grazing and firewood. About 60% of the people directly depend on the forest 

biomass and the dependence varies between NWFP collection and wood 

cutting/poaching. The distance to the forest is about 2 km. The annual average per 

capita income is Rs. 14,000. Majority of them are indebted to money lenders who as 

middlemen take the lion share of their crops through the tenurial traps of Kuthaka, 

Otri and Pattam. The major debts are old ones that the people accumulated at the 

time of planting silk cotton, a situation of perpetual alienation of the crop. The 

situation worsens when unforeseen contingencies like illness compel them borrow 

money. 



Panchayath, sufficient to meet the current requirements. There is a primary health 

centre within the Panchayath itself, at about 2 km distance. A full fledged hospital is 

at Theni at a distance of 54 km. The nearest local town is Varshanad, 18 km away 

from the settlement. The primary school is 3 km away, high school, higher secondary 

215 





school and college is at Kanavilakku, at a distance of 48 km. The District 

headquarters is Theni. The settlement has no road communication to access the 

market and the people have to walk about four km to reach transport. The only sign 

of institutional development in the settlement is the six months old SHG that is yet 

to be functional. The absence of VFC adds on to the intensity of their dependence on 

the forest. There is no other institution of participatory functioning in the settlement. 


Time: 4.00 p.m; Date: 7-7-2006 Venue: Balasubrahmanya Temple 


The meeting began at 4.00 pm with the head of the settlement in the Chair 

accompanied by the head of the SHG. Rajan Gurukkal made the opening remarks 

about the BCRLIP and the context of consultation with the people. Ms. Nayana 

(Researcher, SSS) and Ms. Jalaja (woman observer) of the consultation team sat 

with the audience. The RO elaborated the points in the local dialect. The people put 

up demands for patta and financial assistance for buying cattle and sheep. 


1. Responding to the questions of encroachments, deforestation and 

destructive dependence on the forest, they said that most of them were 

not indulging in such illegal practices. 

2. Responding to the question of livelihood improvement both men and 

women expressed their desire to have financial assistance for buying 

cattle and sheep. Some of them expressed their willingness to withdraw 

from the forest provided they get enough water to cultivate cereals and 

pulses. 

3. Responding to the query as to whether they would agree to come together 

as groups for collective endeavours, they expressed readiness. SHG is 

indeed a possibility. They agreed to the suggestion for starting a dairy 

farm of stall fed h.y.c cattle with some land attached for growing fodder. 


1. There is economic feasibility about starting a dairy farm of stall fed h.y.v 

cattle with some land attached for growing fodder, for the Varshanad 

Milk Society can provide the market. But the people are in the mind-set 

of individualised wage earners with little or no susceptibility to 

institutionalisation. 

2. It is possible to transform Hhs depending on scrub cattle and goat farming 

into rearing of h.y.v and sheep farming. However, co-operativisation 

requires a lot of efforts by way of social preparation. Poultry farming as an 

enterprise of individual Hhs is feasible too. 

3. It is important that some institutional arrangements are made for 

checking the exploitative intermediaries and ensuring the fair-market 

216 





price. The best way would be VFC and SHG level institutionalisation 

that can help monitor the running of new enterprises. 

3. Seethamuthialpuram – 06-07-2007 

Location: Kali Amman Koil; Coordinates: N79 0 40” 37-1; E 77 0 , 28, 23-8 

Settlement Panchayath Range Division Hhs. Acr. Pop & Lit 

Seelamuthialpuram Thummakkundu Varshanad Theni 36Hhs. 140acr. 

88Pop. 

(36M+45F+27C) 

Lit. 16% 


Seethamuthialpuram settlement is located in the Thummakkundu Grama 

Panchayath, of the Varshanad Range of the Theni Division. It consists of 36 Hhs out 

of which 20 Hhs have patta on the holdings and the rest have no documents for they 

have encroached on lands of the RF. The settlement has a mixed social composition 

consisting of the Thevar community and some of the scheduled castes with the 

predominance of the former. The settlement was founded in 1972 with the name 

Thiruvachiyodai according to the headman. 

Livelihood 

The economy is based on livestock, agriculture and wage labour. There are around 

40-45 cattle and about 1400 goats in all. The cattle and goats are grazed in the 

forest. The main income is from cow milk and goat meat. Almost all the people are 

small-scale farmers, and wage labourers. Agriculture is possible only during the 

monsoon, say for about 6 months. Main crops are Mango, silk cotton, and cashew. They 

go out for wage labour including girls. The rate of wage for women is 60 and that of 

men 80. The entire people of the settlement depend on the forest but in varying 

degrees, the dependence of the majority being for grazing and firewood. About 55% 

of the people directly depend on the forest biomass to supplement their income, 

which ranges between NWFP collection to wood cutting and poaching. The distance 

to the forest is about 2 km. The annual average per capita income is Rs. 15,000. 

Most of them are indebted to moneylenders or banks. Exploitative middlemen take 

away the major chunk of their crops through the advance payment made through 

the tenurial traps of Kuthaka Otri and Pattam (See the features of the tenurial 

systems defined under the Social Situation Assessment) 



Panchayath. There is a primary health centre within the Panchayath itself, at about a 

km distance. A full fledged hospital is available only at Theni situated at a distance of 

52 km. The nearest local town is Varshanad, 17 km away from the settlement. The 

217 





primary school is 3 km away, high school, higher secondary school and college is at 

Kanavilakku, at a distance of 46 km. The District headquarters is Theni. The 

institutional development of the SHG called Vasantham Pennurimai active in the 

welfare activities of local women for the past 14 years is quite encouraging. They 

have been successfully running micro-credit system and the current cash strength 

amounts to Rs. 1,40,000. However, they are not aware of the importance of the 

forest and hence the need for its conservation. Naturally, they have not been active 

so far in any conservation initiatives. VFC has been formed but the women are not 

made a part of it. Only 10 Hhs are made the members of the VFC and hence they 

constitute the beneficiaries of the programme. However, VFC is a recognised body of 

status commanding some social respect. Under the influence of the VFC, the 

instances of poaching have come down. 


Time : 4.30p.m. Date : 6-7-2006 

Venue : Kali Amman Koil Courtyard, Seethamuthialpuram 


The meeting began at 4.35pm with the head of the settlement in the Chair 

accompanied by the Mr. Mokkaraj, the headman of the settlement, and Smt. 

Thankamma, the head of the SHG. Rajan Gurukkal made the opening remarks about 

the BCRLIP and the context of consultation with the people. Ms. Nayana (Researcher, 

SSS) and Ms. Jalaja (woman observer) of the consultation team sat with the 

audience. The RO elaborated the points in the local dialect. The people put up 

demands for patta and financial assistance for making a living. After repeated 

clarifications about the purpose of the meeting they began to express their opinions. 

The women are relatively more active in the settlement. 



destructive dependence on the forest, they said that most of them were 

not indulging in such illegal practices. 

2. Responding to the question of livelihood improvement the women first 

expressed their desire to have financial assistance to give up goat rearing 

and start sheep farming. The male counterparts also agreed to the idea of 

developing a sheep farm. Some of them expressed their willingness to 

withdraw from the forest and do poultry farming. 


as groups for collective endeavours, they expressed readiness. They 

agreed to the suggestion for starting a dairy farm of stall fed h.y.c cattle 

with some land attached for growing fodder. 

4. Most of the women expressed their feelings against the exploitation by the 

middlemen and wanted some institutional arrangement to be made for the 

direct sale of their crops ensuring fair-market price. 

218 





5. Women complained against the practice of not enrolling them as members 

in the VFC and not allowing to participate in the VFC activities 

6. Some of the youngsters (matriculated) pointed out the need for 

strengthening and maintaining the watershed. They also showed concern 

about the ongoing deforestation and soil erosion. 



some land attached for growing fodder. It is possible to buy land and organise 

the enterprise by strengthening the VFC and SHG. 

2. It is possible to transform Hhs depending on goat farming into sheep farmers, 

as it has come up as an idea from some of the people themselves. Poultry 

farming as a collective enterprise is feasible too, for there is good market for 

both egg and meat. 

3. It is important that some institutional arrangements are made for checking 

the exploitative intermediaries and ensuring the fair-market price. 

4. It is very important that the youngsters with some interest in strengthening 

and maintaining the watershed and checking deforestation and soil erosion, 

are organised with an institutional base for collective local action. 

4. Arasarati – 21-07-06 

Settlement Panchayath Range Division Hhs. Acr. Pop & 

Lit 

Arasarati Kompathulu Meghamalai Theni 220 Hhs. 

500acr. Pop. 

(36M+45F+27C) 

Lit. 16% 


Arasarati, situated right inside the RF of the Meghamalai Range, is a mixed 

settlement divided into two colonies consisting of SCs, Naiks and a few Thevar 

households. There are 220 households, mostly small huts, strung out along the 

banks of the Arasarati stream, sustaining water round the year. The settlement was 

originally a little more interior, underneath an arasu tree, as the place name and 

ethnography vouch for, and it had been formed by the kumri labourers drawn from 

various villages near Andippatti, and deployed about four and a half decades ago by 

the Forest Department. Subsequently, when the Forest Department stopped forestry 

works involving wood-cutting, the people became totally dependent on the forest for 

219 





their subsistence. The Forest Department relocated them to the present locality a 

couple of decades ago. 

Livelihood 

The main livelihood of the people is wage labour, livestock and agriculture. They 

constitute the unskilled cheap workforce, the male labour of which gets Rs.60 and 

the female, Rs.45. Most of them keep cattle and goats. There is a goat population of 

1200 and a cattle population of 300 in the settlement. The cattle and goats are 

grazed in the forest. The main income is from cow milk and goat meat. They sell the 

milk in the nearest market that is 18 km away by travelling in a bus. Most of them 

collect NWFP such as honey, various roots and tubers, gooseberry, katukka, 

elevarungam etc. Agriculture is possible only during the monsoon, say for about 6 

months. Main crops are Mango, silk cotton, and cashew. The entire people of the 

settlement depend on the forest but in varying degrees, the dependence of the 

majority being for grazing and firewood. The distance to the forest is about 2 km. 

The annual average per capita income is Rs. 12,000. Most of them are indebted to 

money lenders or banks. Exploitative middlemen take away the major chunk of their 

crops through the advance payment made through the tenurial traps of Kuthaka Otri 

and Pattam. 


There is a bore well providing drinking water for the settlement and the Arasarati 

stream providing for other needs of water. The settlement has a primary school with 

no structure. Some children are being cared and educated by the Ram Co at their 

school. Solar light system has been introduced in the settlement recently. One part 

of the settlement is close to the road communication system leading to the Vellimalai 

estate and Theni. There is a primary health centre within the Panchayath at about a 

distance of 2 km. A full fledged hospital is available only at Theni situated at a 

distance of 52 km. The nearest local town is Katamalakkundu, 30 km away from the 

settlement. The primary school is 3 km away, high school, higher secondary school 

and college is at Kanavilakku, at a distance of 30 km. The District headquarters is 

Theni. The institutional development is very low though the SHG and VFC exist in the 

settlement. 


Time : 4.30p.m. 

Date : 21-7-2006 

Venue : Old Arasarati School building 


The meeting began at 4.30pm with the head of the settlement in the Chair 

accompanied by the Smt. Vasuki, the president of the Panchayath, the head of the 

SHG, Range Officer Selvaraj and Rajan Gurukkal in the dais. Rajan Gurukkal made 

the opening remarks about the BCRLIP and the context of consultation with the 

people. Ms. Jalaja (woman observer) of the consultation team sat with the audience. 

The RO elaborated the points in the local dialect. The people came forward with 

220 





requests for financial help to buy sheep and cow. The women were found more 

active in the settlement. Another meeting was held at the New Arasarati at 6 pm. 

The venue was Forest Outpost Courtyard. 


1. Responding to the question of livelihood improvement the women 

expressed their desire to have financial assistance to buy sheep. They 

appealed for 2 acres of land with patta and some money to buy sheep and 

cattle. If they get these they are ready to withdraw completely from the 

forest. 





3. Responding to the question of moving out to a place with road and 

market, some of the elders expressed their desire to stay in the same 

place, while the youth expressed willingness to migrate to a place of 

better facilities. After a prolonged discussion the elders also agreed to the 

idea of clustering on condition that they get a house and 3 acres of silk 

cotton planted land each per family. They said that they would vacate only 

after the land thus granted to them start to give yield. They unanimously 

showed preference to get land just after the Manjanoothu check post. 



some land attached for growing fodder. It is possible to buy land and 

organise the enterprise by strengthening the VFC and SHG. 

2. It is possible to transform Hhs depending on goat farming into sheep 

farmers, as it has come up as an idea from some of the people 

themselves. Poultry farming as a collective enterprise is feasible too, for 

there is good market for both egg and meat. 

5. Indiranagar – 22-07-06 


Indiranagar Kompathulu Meghamalai Theni 120 Hhs. 300acr. 

Pop.405 (M+190 

F215+42C) 

Lit. 12% 

221 






Indiranagar, situated right inside the RF of the Meghamalai Range, is a mixed 

settlement consisting mainly of the SC (Pallar) co-existing with some 6 families of 

Naiks, 10 families of Thevar, 2 families of Chettiyar, and 1 family of Asari. There are 

120 households, mostly small huts, strung out along the road going to the estate. 

The settlement was originally a stop over of the workforce going to the estates. The 

workers came from far off places like Andippatti and the estates gave no place for 

them to settle down. With the result they were constrained to make temporary 

camps in the RF and stay there overnight. Gradually they converted the camps into a 

regular settlement and encroached lands. It is a very interior settlement. Though 

there is a jeep-road going to the estate, the people have to walk up the distance of 

about 4 km from the Vellimala – Theni road. 

Livelihood 

The main livelihood of the people is wage labour, livestock and lemon grass. They 

constitute the estate workforce, of which the male gets Rs.70 and the female, Rs.60. 

Most of them keep cattle and goats. There is a goat population of 900 and a cattle 

population of 250 in the settlement. The cattle and goats are grazed in the forest. 

The main income is from wage labour. They walk up about 4 to 6 km to the various 

estates such as Kuruvila, Sammal, and Slam for doing wage labour. Some of them 

even walk up the distance to Kulikkad estate that is 8km away. The next main 

source of income is lemon grass. The cow milk and goat meat supplement their 

income. The absence of transport affects the possibility of selling the milk easily. 

Agriculture is confined to lemon grass that adds on to their income at the rate of 

Rs.200 per month. They depend on forest for firewood. The annual average per capita 

income is Rs. 12,000. Most of them are indebted to money lenders or banks. 

Exploitative middlemen take away the major chunk of their crops through the 

advance payment made through the tenurial traps of Kuthaka Otri and Pattam. 


The Kompathulu Panchayath has provided drinking water facility and solar power 

lamps for the settlement. The nearest primary school is 12 km away. So the children 

are in the schools with hostel facility. About 20 children are undergoing schooling by 

staying in the hostel. The Panchayath office is at a distance of 12 km. A full fledged 

hospital is available only at Theni situated at a distance of 60 km. The nearest local 

town is Katamalakkundu, 30 km away from the settlement. For high school, higher 

secondary school and college they have to go to Kanavilakku, at a distance of 47 km. 

The District headquarters is Theni. The institutional development is very low though 

the SHG and VFC exist in the settlement. The women in the settlement are largely 

illiterate. 


Time: 4 pm. Date: 22-7-2006 Venue : The Indiranagar Settlement 

Total No of People present: 58 (46 men and 22 women) 

222 





The meeting began at 4 pm with the head of the settlement in the Chair 

accompanied by the head of the settlement, the head of the SHG, Range Officer 

Selvaraj and Rajan Gurukkal in the dais. Rajan Gurukkal made the opening remarks 

about the BCRLIP and the context of consultation with the people. Ms. Jalaja (woman 

observer) of the consultation team sat with the audience. The RO elaborated the 

points in the local dialect. The people as usual started making appeals for patta for 

the encroached lands and requests for financial help to buy sheep and cow. They 

also made requests for the improvement of the estate road and compensation for 

animal raids. But being encroachers and hence not entitled for compensation, they 

got no compensation for the case of a bear attack leading to the loss of a child’s eye. 


1. Responding to the question of moving out of the RF to a place with road 

communication and market, most of them expressed their willingness to 

leave the RF if they get a place with some land and housing. 

2. Responding to the question of livelihood improvement they expressed 

their desire to have financial assistance to buy sheep and cattle. 






1. The people feel that they are insecure in the RF. They are prepared to go 

out of the RF if they are given compensation and some land with housing 

at a convenient site. 

2. Starting a dairy farm of stall fed hyv cattle with some land attached for 

growing fodder is not a feasible idea for the people are not instituionalised 

and trained to run co-operative enterprises. It may be possible to 

strengthen the VFC and SHG after the relocation of the people. 

SRIVILLIPUTHUR WLS 

6. Mettuppati Matuvalappor (Cattle Keepers) EDC – 07-07-06 

N09 0 24’ 25’ 5”; E 0 77 0 29’ 03’ 4”; Elevation 179.9 


Mettuppatti Rajapalayam Rajapalayam Srivilliputhur 

WLS 

690 Hhs. 1400acr. 3000 

Pop. (1540M-1560F; 

300C); Lit. 18% 

223 






Mettuppatti settlement is located in the Rajapalayam Panchayath, of the 

Rajapalayam Range of the Srivilliputhur WLS. It consists of about 3000 Hhs out of 

which 125 Hhs have patta on the holdings and the rest have no documents for they 

are encroached lands of the RF. The average landholding per household is 2 acres. 

The settlement has a mixed social composition consisting mainly of the Thevar 

community. 

Livelihood 

The economy is based on livestock, agriculture and wage labour. There are around 

400-500 cattle, 200 buffaloes and about 1700 goats in all. The cattle, buffaloes and 

goats are grazed in the forest. The main income is from cow, buffaloes and goat 

meat. Almost all the people are scrub-cattle keepers and goat farmers with some 

depending on wage labour. Very few of them own the cattle. They rear cattle for its 

absentee owners. They are mostly the paid keepers. Agriculture is not important. A 

few of them supplement their income with dairy based on stall-fed hyv cows. Some 

people grow silk cotton and cashew. The rate of wage for women is 60 and that of 

men 80. The entire people of the settlement depend on the forest but in varying 

degrees, the dependence of the majority being for grazing and firewood. The 

distance to the forest is about 3 km. The annual average per capita income is Rs. 

16,000. Most of them are indebted to money lenders and involved in tenurial traps of 

Kuthaka and Pattam. 



Panchayath. They can easily access hospital facilities and educational institutions of 

Rajapalayam, 18 km away from the settlement. The primary school is very close, 

high school, higher secondary school and college is at Rajapalayam. The District 

headquarters is at Madurai. The EDC with member strength of 125 has been 

functioning but more or less subsumed by the macro organisation of the hill-cattle 

keepers (Malaimatu Valapor Sangham or MMVC) function under the initiatives of the 

NGO called SEVA. Almost all Hhs are enrolled in the MMVC. They have strong partypolitical 

clout too. The women are organised into six SHGs, quite active in the 

settlement. The micro-credit activities of local women are being run well. However, 

they have not developed any ecological awareness about the importance of the 

forest. The need for conservation is not felt by them. Naturally, they have not been 

active so far in forest conservation. but the women are not made a part of it. 


Time: 10.30a.m. Date: 7-7-2006 Venue: Mettuppatti Primary School 

Total No of People present : 77 (52 men and 25 women) 

The meeting began at 10.30am with the RO of the Rajapalayam Range in the Chair 

accompanied by the headman of the settlement, the leaders of the EDC, local leader 

of the Malaimatu Valapor Sangham, and two heads of the SHG. Rajan Gurukkal 

made the opening remarks about the BCRLIP and the context of consultation with 

224 





the people. Dr. Christopher (Ecology expert) elaborated the points in the mother 

tongue of the local people. Ms. Nayana (Researcher, SSS) and Ms. Jalaja (woman 

observer) of the consultation team sat with the audience. The people both men and 

women actively participated in the consultation. 



destructive dependence on the forest, they said that they were only 

protecting the forest through their presence there as grazers. They argued 

that they were acting as informants of the Forest Department about 

poachers. The activists of the Malaimatu Valappor Sangham defended 

grazing as their age old livelihood. They went on demanding pass for the 

entry into the forest for grazing and penning. 

2. Responding to the need for the reduction of the number of their cattle and 

its nurturing in enclaves most of the people showed agreement. However, 

the activists stuck to the demand for grazing pass. 

3. The people, particularly the two SHG leaders, disagreed to the idea of 

starting a dairy farm of stall-fed h.y.v cattle with some land attached for 

growing fodder. According to them h.y.v cows are of high maintenance 

cost since they contract diseases quickly and hence uneconomic. Majority 

of them suggested that they would prefer to rear their scrub cattle but in 

a reduced number by confining the grazing activity to an enclave with 

provision for growing fodder. 

4. Goat farmers expressed their desire to shift to sheep farming. However, 

they would like to do it as an individual household enterprise rather than a 

collective endeavour. 

5. The educated youngsters, largely unemployed are not interested in 

continuing the livestock economy. They are looking for other avenues. 


1. There is no feasibility about starting a dairy farm of stall fed h.y.v cattle 

with some land attached for growing fodder. It is necessary to reduce the 

number of scrub cattle to at least one tenth of the present strength. This 

will be feasible only if the institution of paid cattle keeping is stopped. The 

BCRLIP can allow scrub-cattle rearing in a sustainable number as the 

monopoly of the local people. 

2. It is possible to transform Hhs depending on goat farming into sheep 

farmers, as it has come up as an idea from some of the people 

themselves. In this case also the paid system by absentee owners has to 

be stopped by making sheep farming local people’s monopoly. 

3. It is important that the EDC is strengthened with the concept of local 

people’s common property rights to check the organised lobby of non-local 

owners of cattle and goat. 

225 





4. It is very important that the youngsters are encouraged and given 

incentives to come together as institutionalised with ecological awareness 

for collective local action for checking the hazards of cattle grazing. 

KMTR Mundanthurai WLS 

7. Servalar – 08-07-06 

N: 08 0 ’ .41’ 16.4”; E 07 0 18’ 51.6”; Elevation 226.1” 


Servalar Kani Mundanthurai Mundanthurai KMTR 21Hhs. 80acr. Pop: 97 

(36M+44F+17C); Lit.28% 


The Servalar settlement is located in the Mundanthurai Panchayath, of the 

Mundanthurai Range of the KMTR. It consists of 21 Hhs with an average holding of 2 

acres each but without patta. The settlement consists of Servalar and Kani-s. 

Livelihood 

The economy is based on small scale farming, livestock, and wage labour. There are 

around 30-35 cattle and about 40 goats in all. The cattle and goats are grazed in the 

forest. The main income is from wage labour. Agriculture is possible only during the 

monsoon; say for about 6 months and most of the crops suffer from animal raids. 

Main crops are Mango, jackfruit, silk cotton, and cashew. The rate of wage for women is 

60 and that of men 80. Many of them are provided some work by the Forest 

Department. Some are benefited by a few research projects that employ them as 

guides and data collectors. A few people go to the estates as workforce. On the 

whole they are very poor. 



Panchayath. There is a health centre and a primary school nearby. The Panchayath 

itself is about 20 km away. For high school education, hospital and market they have 

to depend on Mundanthurai, the nearest town. The District headquarters is at 

Thirunelveli. However, being linked with road communication, they do not feel much 

isolation. During the period of the World Bank Project of Eco Development, the 

people were organised into the EDC. The institutional development is marked by 

their SHG called Puthumai Penkal. They have been successful in running micro-credit 

system. They are some what aware of the importance of the forest and the need for 

its conservation. 

226 






Time: 9.30a.m. Date: 8-7-2006 Venue: Sevalar Settlement 


The meeting was an informal gathering organised instantaneously by the Range 

Officer. The muttukani or the head of the settlement, Smt. Savithri, the leader of the 

EDC and Smt. Roselin, the leader of the SHG were present. Rajan Gurukkal made the 

opening remarks about the BCRLIP and the context of consultation with the people. 

Dr. Christopher translated them in Tamil. Ms. Nayana (Researcher, SSS) and Ms. 

Jalaja (woman observer) of the consultation team held close interaction with women. 

The women are relatively silent and opened up only in close conversation, though 

they lead the EDC and the SHG. Both the EDC and SHG are functioning well. 


1. Responding to the question of livelihood improvement the men expressed 

their desire to have financial assistance to buy h.y.v cattle. They agree to the 

suggestion for starting through their EDC a dairy farm of stall fed h.y.v cattle 

with some land attached for growing fodder. They also showed interest in 

replacing goats with sheep. They showed interest in poultry farming 

2. However, they are not willing to use the land held by them for the purpose. 

They expressed their desire to have patta for the land under cultivation now. 

3. They complained against animal raids of their crops. 


It may be possible for the EDC and the SHG to run a small dairy farm of stall fed 

h.y.v cattle provided they can find land for growing fodder. Likewise it is possible to 

transform those depending on goat farming into sheep farmers. Cattle though not 

in large number is a problem as they are let loose in the sanctuary. There are a few 

youngsters, with educational qualification in nursing, computer but unemployed. 

They show some interest in conservation. They are being supported now KMTR. It is 

important that this is further strengthened and sustained through an institutional 

base for enhancing biodiversity conservation. 

KANYAKUMARI DIVISION 

8. Mutavanpotta -26-07-06 


Mutavanpotta Katayal Kulasekharam Kanyakumari 60 Hhs. 240 acr. pop. 

175 (78M+97+16C) 

Lit.72% 

227 






The settlement is near the Pechippara Reservoir. It about 3 km away from Kuttiyar. 

It is a Kani settlement located right inside the RF falling under the Kulasekharam 

range of the Kanyakumari WLS. 

Livelihood 

The main livelihood of the settlers is agriculture supplemented by wage labour. They 

are farmers with landholding mostly varying between 1 and 5 acres. Since the 

holdings generally fall below 5 acres in most cases, the Rubber Board’s scheme of 

free planting and maintenance of tribal plots till they start yielding, does not cover 

them. Most of the families of the settlement are poor who are marginal farmers 

supplementing their income with wage labour. The wage rate, Rs.100 for men and 

Rs.80 for women, is better compared to that of settlements in other forest Divisions 

in Tamil Nadu. The main source of agricultural income is rubber. They cultivate 

various other crops like tapioca, ginger, pepper wine, coconut etc. June – July is the 

period of acute unemployment and poverty. It is a settlement not exploited too 

much by the intermediaries through advance payments and money lending. 

Instances of exploitative tenurial systems are also not common. 


The settlement is linked to the main road communication with a jeep road and has 

drinking water facility either in the form of the household well or the pipe system 

arranged by the Panchayath. The bus goes only up to Kuttiyar, 3 km away from the 

settlement. The settlement has electric connection and others have solar power 

system. Kuttiyar and Pechippara (3km) are the nearest small markets and 

Kulasekharam (10km) the nearest main market. Nagerkovil, the district 

headquarters is 75 km away. 


Time: 11.30am. Date: 26-7-2006 Venue: The Courtyard of Headman’s House 


The meeting was a formal gathering organised with the prior notice by the DFO. The 

participants were the householders of the settlement. The DFO, Kanyakumari, the 

ACF, The Range Officer of the Kulasekharam Range, the head of the settlement, and 

the woman chairpersons of two SHGs, besides, the Consultant team headed by Rajan 

Gurukkal were on the dais. The RO welcomed the gathering and introduced the 

guests of the meeting. The DFO made an introductory remark about the meeting and 

Rajan Gurukkal explained the context and objectives of the consultation with the 

people. The focus of the consultation was problems of the settlement and the 

possible ways of resolving them by enhancing biodiversity conservation. 


1. Responding to the question of problems, the people pointed out animal raid of 

crops as the main one. On clarification of the fact that power fencing is not 

possible in the case of small individual holdings, the people expressed their 

228 





desire to get it done for relatively large areas. The people are willing to 

strengthen their institutional involvement and volunteer to shoulder the 

responsibilities collectively. 

2. They wanted the bus service to be extended to the settlement, which is not a 

difficult proposal since the road is fit for the bus to ply up to the point they 

desire. 


As in the case of the other Kani settlements of the Kanyakumari WLS, the settlement 

is not quite cut off from the mainstream. They have health care facilities in the 

nearest town itself. Likewise high schools, higher secondary schools and colleges are 

easily accessible. Naturally the level of literacy is high. They are able to access other 

development institutions too. So the idea of clustering does not have much relevance 

to the settlement. Their dependence on forest resources is quite moderate. What the 

people need is institutional strengthening and training for running collective 

enterprises. It is necessary to develop them as active members of the VFC by 

helping the educated unemployed, especially girls, to start some group enterprises 

like bee-keeping, ready-made cloth-making unit, candle manufacturing unit, garden 

of medicinal plants etc.. 

KERALA SIDE 

SHENDURUNI WLS 

1. Rosemala – 23-05-06 


Rosemala Kulathuppuzha Kulathuppuzha Thenmala/Achencoil 332 Hhs. 542 acr. 

Pop: 

849(395M+454F+1 

12C) Lit. 62% 


The Rosemala is a dispersed settlement located right inside the RF on the fringe of 

the Shenduruni WLS. It is an isolated patch of the Kulathupuzha revenue village and 

the Kulathuppuzha Panchayath. Several castes and different religious groups coexist 

in the settlement. The Rosemala was originally a tea estate owned by a British 

trader who subsequently sold it to one M.Muhammad Kunji (MMK Co.). In the wake 

of land reforms, the owner surrendered the estate to the government that declared it 

surplus land in 1971. Subsequently in 1874 the government set apart the land for 

redistribution among the landless poor. Thus the first generation settlers of 

Rosemala were those landless poor who were chosen for a grant of land. The 

grantees were of different castes and religions. The present social composition shows 

that there are 89 scheduled caste adults, three scheduled tribe adults, 73 other 

backward adults, and 92 adults belonging to the forward castes/religious 

communities. 

229 





Livelihood 

The main livelihood of the settlers is agriculture supplemented by wage labour. Some 

of them do NWFP collection. Cattle and goats add to the income of some 93 Hhs that 

keep 1 to 3 cows and 2 to 7 goats. There is dependence on the forest for firewood 

and fodder. A few are employed in the white collar sector. Most of the households 

grow coconut palm, rubber, pepper wine, coco, tapioca, plantain, ginger etc. The 

landholding varies between 2 cents to 3 acres. The first generation settlers had got 

one acre each, which in a couple of decades got fragmented among the next 

generation heirs. Now the average holding per household is 30 cents, which means 

that only small scale farming is in vogue. People go out to the nearby estates for 

wage labour. The total number of persons depending solely on wage labour is 265 

and some 20 persons are white collar employees. Average per capita monthly 

income is Rs.1000. Moneylenders from Tamil Nadu do good business there and about 

70% of the Hhs are indebted to them. Crop advance and borrowing at interest are 

quite common. The moneylender gives Rs. 950 against the loan of Rs. 1000 to be 

cleared in ten weeks at the instalment rate of Rs. 125. To repay the debt the people 

resort to borrowing again letting the debt to continue as a cycle. Due to crop 

advance about 70% of the Hhs lose half of the market price on their crops. The 

people are constrained to depend upon exploitative intermediaries, for the market is 

far away and the income for everyday life is below the subsistence requirement. 

Unforeseen contingencies like illness and the evil institution of dowry make them 

indebted. Consumerism is another cause. Illicit brewing is not uncommon. It was 

was rampant earlier, but it stopped, thanks to a 5 year World Vision Project that 

organised people as janakiya samitis and fought successfully the consumption of 

liquor. With the termination of the Project, liquor trade is back again for the last two 

years. A slow but steady process of land alienation is in progress. The moneyed from 

Kulathupuzha, Anchal, and Nedumangad have purchased land there and kept paid 

workers/tapers. 


The settlement has drinking water facility in the form of the household well. It has 

solar power connection, which is insufficient. It is not well connected to the market, 

in the absence of good road communication. The only road that links the settlement 

to the outer world is the one that passes through the WLS and hence not well 

maintained and traffic not frequent. There is a primary health centre, an Anganvadi 

and a primary school in the settlement. There is a Health Centre, Post Office and 

Ration Shop besides institutions of worship for all the major religious followers. For 

all other institutions of development the people of the settlement have to go out 

crossing the WLS. The village and the Panchayath offices are 37 km away while the 

Taluk office and the District headquarters are 57 km far. Kulathuppuzha situating 37 

km is the nearest market and Punalur the main town 57 km. The institutional 

development of the settlement is marked by the SHG that has been successfully 

running the micro-credit system. The EDC formed three years back has been 

dormant until very recently. The people are not aware of the importance of the forest 

and the need for its conservation. Being literate, the people involve in party politics 

that has a substantial influence on them. 

230 






Time: 2.30 p.m. Date: 23-5-2006 

Venue: Anganvadi (Former Primary School building), Rosemala 


The meeting was a formal gathering organised with the prior notice by the DFO. The 

participants were mainly the members of the three EDCs of the settlement. The 

President of the Panchayath, the head of the SHG and the Range Officer, besides, 

Ms. Ranu Bhogal (BCRLIP, SMS), Rajan Gurukkal and Joseph Nedumpuram were on 

the dais. The RO welcomed the gathering and introduced the guests of the meeting. 

Rajan Gurukkal explained the context and objectives of the consultation with the 

people, which Joseph Nedumpuram elaborated in a mode of conversation with the 

people. The focus of the consultation was problems of the settlement and the 



1. Responding to the question of problems the people identified isolation as the 

most crucial one and demanded good road communication as the solution. On 

clarification of the fact that better road and frequent transport are unlikely 

across the WLS, the people by and large expressed their willingness to quit 

the place of isolation provided appropriate landed assets are provided. 

2. The next important problem that the people identified was unemployment and 

poverty. To the question as to what better livelihoods can be identified, the 

people sought the right to take the sand sediment in the reservoir. Clarifying 

the fact that individuals cannot take the WLS property, the consultation team 

emphasised the need for strengthening the EDC to enable people to stake a 

claim on the sustainable utilisation of the sand in the reservoir. 

3. Responding to the query as to whether they agree to come together as 


the suggestion for starting a dairy farm of stall fed h.y.c cattle with some land 

attached for growing fodder. 

4. In a separate consultation meeting with some 32 youth (21 boys and 11 girls 

mostly matriculate and higher secondary) of the settlement, the idea of 

biodiversity conservation got a lot of appreciation. They expressed a strong 

desire to form a body for sustainable village development with the primacy of 

biodiversity conservation. Incidentally, a body was constituted with temporary 

office bearers. They expressed desire to get financial support for their 

institutionalisation and some collective enterprises. 


The settlement being surrounded by RF/WLS it is a potential settlement deserving 

clustering. The settlement remaining one of the most isolated and the affected 

people willing to move out, the idea of clustering is quite feasible. The EDCs have to 

231 





be strengthened. The potential youth need institutional harnessing to enhance 

biodiversity conservation. 

THENMALA/ACHENCOIL DIVISION 

2. Ariyankavu – 15-06-06 


Ariyankavu Ariyankavu Ariyankavu Thenmala/Achencoil 52Hhs. 180acr. 

250Pop. 

(116M+134F+27C) 


The Ariyankavu settlement is located on the banks of Suvarnagiriyar and 

Thirthakkarayar, in the Ariyankavu village and Ariyankavu Panchayath. It is a 

complex of three small clusters of houses along Theerthakara, Murugappanchal and 

Chinagiri (lower part of the Suvarnagiri Estate). It is a settlement of mixed social 

composition with different caste and religious groups co-exist. None of the 

households has patta, but the Panchayath has numbered the houses and granted 

occupancy right. 

Livelihood 

The main livelihood of the settlers is agriculture supplemented by wage labour. Most 

of the households grow rubber, pepper wine, coco, tapioca, plantain etc. The 

landholding varies between 10 cents to 2 acres, which means that only small scale 

farming is possible there. People go out to the nearby estates for wage labour. There 

are around 30-35 


The settlement has drinking water facility and power connection. It is well connected 

to the Ariyankavu market. There is a hospital and a primary school nearby. The 

people can access development institutions easily. The institutional development of 

the settlement is marked by the SHG that has been successfully running the microcredit 

system. The people are not aware of the importance of the forest and the need 

for its conservation. Naturally, the VSS is not quite active. As literate people, local 

institutions and party politics have a substantial influence on the people. 


Time: 3.30p.m. Date: 15-6-2006 Venue: Primary School, Ariyankavu Range 


The meeting was a formal gathering organised with prior notice by the Range Officer. 

The CF, the DFO, the Panchayath President, the Ward Member and the head of the 

SHG besides, Mr. H.S. Panwar and Rajan Gurukkal were on the dais. The CF 

232 

Lit. 78% 





welcomed the gathering and introduced the purport of the meeting. Mr. H.S. Panwar 

explained in English the context and objectives of the consultation with the people, 

which Rajan Gurukkal summarised in the mother tongue of the people. The focus of 

the consultation was the possibility of the restoration of the corridor that has been in 

a disrupted condition for the last few decades. The head of the Panchayath initiated 

the discussion. The Ward Member, followed with his remarks. Then the discussion 

moved on to the floor. 


1. Responding to the question of the corridor the gathering by and large 

expressed consensus. Likewise, to the question as to which could be the ideal 

and feasible spot for the restoration of the corridor, the people expressed 

consensus about the proposed site, the Murugappanchal – Chunagiri tracts. 

The head of the Panchayath welcomed the proposal as ideal as well as 

feasible since it involves eviction of only nine households. The Ward Member 

expressed his anxiety about the possible increase of animal raids of crops if 

the corridor is restored and animal movements across made easy. Some 

people from the floor also shared the anxiety about the possible increased 

wildlife activity in and around settlements in the interior places like Rajakkad, 

which are now free of wildlife. This led to the discussion of the possibility of 

clustering the interior settlements to the road side. The people present in the 

meeting expressed their willingness to the idea of clustering as well. 

2. Responding to the question as to whether the affected would be willing to 

exchange their land and other assets if enough land with patta is given at the 

plantations of Urukunnu or Anchal. The people preferred Urukunnu to Anchal. 

However, the spokesmen of the party politics expressed their disapproval of 

relocating the people from their Ward and village Panchayath. The affected 

people expressed their desire to move out from the dead-end landscape to 

some place where they can have enough land of their own with patta. 


The most affected people being very few and entirely willing to move out, the idea of 

the restoration of the Ariyankavu corridor at the proposed site is feasible socially. 

That the people in the interior are also willing to move to the road side is a positive 

factor that shows clustering also feasible. 

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION 

3. Joint Meeting of the VSS of the Palode Range – 16-07-06 


Eighty-nine 

settlements 

Palode Palode Thiruvananthapuram 1530 Hhs. 542 acr. 

2983 pop. 

(756M+774F+312C) 

Lit. 26% 

233 






There are 1530 Hhs in 89 settlements across the Palode Range of the RF. All of them 

are of the Kani tribe. Even the forest fringes are covered by the Kani settlements. 

Some of them are far in the interior cut off from the mainstream. 

Livelihood 

The main livelihood of the settlers is agriculture supplemented by wage labour and 

NWFP. They are farmers with landholding mostly varying between 5 and 10 acres. A 

few have holdings ranging between even 5 to 8 ha. Since the holdings generally 

exceed 5 acres in most cases, the Rubber Board has planted rubber for their holders. 

There are poor families also among the Kanis. But most of them are better off in 

terms of assets and income. 


The settlements, close by the road communication, have drinking water facility either 

in the form of the household well or the pipe system arranged by the Panchayath. 

Such settlements have electric connection and others have solar power system. Most 

of the interior settlements are connected to the main transport system through jeeproads. 

However, some three settlements in the Kallar section, Perumparati, 

Attumanpuram and Kumparakkallu are quite out of the way. The people there have 

to trek about 3 to 4 km through the hill terrain to reach the jeep-road. Many 

settlements are not well connected to the market, in the absence of good road 

communication. 


Time: 3.30p.m. Date: 16-7-2006 Venue: Range Office Hall, Palode 


The meeting was a formal gathering organised with the prior notice by the CF. The 

participants were mainly the members of the VSS. The CF (Quilon), The DFO, 

Thiruvananthapuram Division, the President of the Panchayath, the woman 

chairperson of the VSS and the Range Officer, besides, the Consultant team headed 

by Mr. H.S. Panwar, Rajan Gurukkal, Dr. S. Raju and Dr. Christopher were on the 

dais. The RO welcomed the gathering and introduced the guests of the meeting. The 

CF explained the explained general the context and objectives of the consultation 

with the people, which Mr. Panwar specified in terms of locally relevant issues of 

biodiversity conservation, livelihood improvement and isolation of people in the 

interior. Rajan Gurukkal summarised it in the mother tongue of the people. The focus 

of the consultation was problems of the settlement and the possible ways of 

resolving them by enhancing biodiversity conservation. 


1. Responding to the question of problems, the people demanded good road 

communication as the solution. On clarification of the fact that better road 

and frequent transport are unlikely across the RF, the people by and large 

expressed their willingness to quit the place of isolation provided appropriate 

234 





landed assets are provided on the road side. But the most remote places were 

not represented in the meeting. So the gathering suggested that the VSS 

would discuss the issue and take the decision at the grassroots. 

2. The next important problem that the people identified was animal raids of the 

crop. Clarifying the fact that power-fencing cannot be introduced to individual 

holdings, the consultants mooted the relevance of clustering. The consultant 

team emphasised the need for strengthening the VSS to enable people to 

stake a claim on the sustainable utilisation of the sand in the reservoir. 

3. Responding to the query as to whether they agree to come together as 


the suggestion for starting a nursery and a garden of medicinal plants that 

can reduce the heavy dependence on NWFP. The people also agreed to reduce 

dependence on the forest for firewood if some collective enterprises by way of 

IGAs can be initiated under the BCRLIP. The CF pointed out the great 

potential of forest biomass, particularly bamboo and cane based village 

industries of handicrafts. 


The settlements being mostly within the forests, and some of them really isolated 

the concept of clustering of settlements is quite relevant. The people in the meeting, 

mostly drawn from the fringes and road side, though agreed to the idea of the 

clustering of settlements, by and large the people in the interior, except their 

younger generation, are not quite willing to go out into the boarders. May be if the 

people in the interior are consulted specifically on the issues of being away from the 

main stream civilisation and development institutions. 

NEYYAR/PEPPARA WLS & AGASTHYAVANAM BR 

4. Collective Meeting of the VSS and EDC of Interior Settlements of 

Neyyar/Peppara – 28-07-06 


Neyyar/Peppara 

Agasthyavanam 

BR 

Neyyar, 

Ampoori, 

Kallikkad, 

Kuttichal 

Neyyar 

Thiruvananthapuram 532 Hhs. 742 acr. 

1249 pop. 

(595M+654F+112C) 

Lit. 28% 


The Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary situating on the boarders of Tamil Nadu, has a total 

extent of 128 km 2 drained by the Neyyar and Karamanayar rivers. The dam, the 

reservoir and the human settlements constitute the human ecological regime of the 

sanctuary that was notified in 1958. The Neyyar Reservoir spreads over 9.06 sq. km. 

235 





The sanctuary is a part of South –Western Ghats, one of the 25 biological hotspots of 

the world, forming a part of the core area of Agastyamala Biosphere Reserve, unique 

with a number of endemic and endangered species of flora and fauna. The Neyyar 

wildlife sanctuary is geographically located at 8 0 .29’ and 8 0 .37’N latitude and 77.8 0 

and 77.17 0 E longitude. The sanctuary is contiguous with the Kalakkad – 

Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve of Tamil Nadu. The climate is moderately hot and 

humid. The temperature varies from 16 0 C to 35 0 C. the mean annual rainfall is 280 

cm and the tract receives both Southwest and Northeast monsoons. Changes in 

annual rainfall influence the forest types. The topography is generally undulating 

with gentle to steep slopes. The altitude ranges from 90m to 1868m. 

There are 532 Hhs in 44 settlements across the Neyyar/Peppara Range of the 

Neyyar/Peppara WLS and Agasthyavanam BR.All of them belong to the Kani tribe. 

Some of them are far in the interior, totally cut off from the mainstream. 

Livelihood 

The main livelihood of the settlers is agriculture supplemented by wage labour and 

NWFP. They are farmers with landholding mostly varying between 5 and 10 acres. A 

few have holdings extending even to 15 acres. Since the holdings generally exceed 

5 acres in most cases, the Rubber Board has planted rubber in their holders with free 

maintenance till the plantation starts yielding latex. There are poor families also 

among the Kanis. Who subsist primarily on NWFP and wage labour. But most of them 

are better off in terms of assets and income. 


The settlements in the Neyyar/Peppara WLS are quite out of the way. The most 

interior settlements are not properly connected to the main transport system. They 

have to cross the reservoir to access the public transport facility. Many settlements 

in the interiors of Neyyar/Peppara/Agasthyavanam BR are not well connected to the 

market, in the absence of good road communication. The settlements like 

Puravimala, Kaippanplavila, Karikkuzhy and Vlavatty are relatively close by the road 

communication, have drinking water facility either in the form of the household well 

or the pipe system arranged by the Panchayath. Such settlements have electric 

connection and others have solar power system. Even these settlements are 2 to 3 

km away from the market. All the other settlements are at a distance of 4 to 14 km. 

The people have to trek this distance through the hill terrain to reach the jeep-road. 

Settlements such as Anakal (14km), Plath (13km), Amala (11km), Ayiramkal 

(10km), Pathayamvacha Appu (9km), Kombai (8km), Kannammoodu (8km) and 

Kallukadu (7km) are the most interior settlements. The average distance to the 

Panchayath is 7km, to the Taluk 45 km and to the District headquarters 75km. 


Time: 2.30p.m. Date: 28-7-2006 Venue: Range Office Hall, Neyyar 


The meeting was a formal gathering organised on the prior notice by the CF. The 

participants were mainly the members of the EDC. The CF (Agasthyavanam BR), the 

236 





RO, Neyyar Range, the office bearers of the EDC, the woman chairperson of the EDC 

and the Consultant team headed by Rajan Gurukkal conducted the meeting. Dr. P.J. 

Cheriyan, Director, KCHR was also present. The RO welcomed the gathering and 

introduced the guests of the meeting. The CF invited Rajan Gurukkal to open the 

consultation. He explained in detail the context and objectives of the consultation. 

The focus of the consultation was problems of the interior settlements and the 



1. Responding to the question of problems, the people identified lack of road 

communication as the main problem. On clarification of the fact that better 

road and frequent transport are unlikely across the WLS, the people blamed 

the Forest Department for denying the facilities of road ways and transport 

facility. 

2. The people are unwilling to move on to the sites of facilities. Even the 

youngsters share the unwillingness. They do not trust the Forest Department. 

The people have bitter memories of betrayal and cheat under the Kerala 

Forestry Project. So they refuse to believe the promises under the 

Government Projects. Some of them cited the sad story of the 

Agasthyavanam BR from where under a special scheme evicted the people by 

giving inappropriate houses. Those evicted are in a miserable state now. They 

recalled that the promises given under the Kerala Forestry Project were also 

not kept. 

3. The people complained about animal raids of their crops. Clarifying the fact 

that power-fencing cannot be introduced to individual holdings, the 

consultants mooted the relevance of clustering. The consultant team 

emphasised the need for strengthening the EDC to enable people to stake a 

claim on the sustainable utilisation of the natural resources including fish in 

the reservoir. Responding to that, they expressed readiness to come 

together, saying that it was not their lack of interest but the unfavourable 

attitude of the Forest Department that caused the poor plight of the EDC. 

4. They wanted to put on record that none of the Projects was of any help to 

them. So they do not trust the Government Projects. They disapproved the 

idea of clustering and pressed for the facilities of road communication and 

transport for the settlements. They said that they would draw a petition of 

prioritised demands for development needs and submit to the RO in a week. 


The settlements being mostly in the interior forests, and most of them really 

isolated, the concept of clustering of settlements is quite relevant. However, the 

people having no faith in the Forest Department do not buy the promises of landed 

assets at places of development infrastructures. May be, if the people in the interior 

are consulted instilling credibility through concrete and feasible proposals, specifically 

focusing on the issues of being away from the main stream and development 

institutions, they might come to terms. If the people are institutionalised and 

237 





empowered, they may be able to run the nursery and garden of medicinal plants, 

which can reduce the heavy dependence on NWFP. 

Summary Record of Initial Village Consultations and their Findings 

20-03-2006 - Mamanna and Kuttayur village in Theni Division (Meghamalai Range) 

1500 families are living in and around this area and all belong to Thevar caste. 50 

families are landless whereas others have 4-5 acres agricultural land. They earn 

money through agriculture and by doing labour work like road repair, construction 

work etc. VFC was started in 2004. The members of VFC help the Forest 

Department to protect the forest by fire watching and passing the message of any 

illegal activities to the forest officials, etc. 20 Self Help Groups for men and women 

are functioning but they are not very active. There is no hospital around these 

areas. Most of the people face unemployment, even those who are literate. The 

rate of interest for loan through SHG is 2% and through private finance is 4 to 6%. 

Quite a few, because of their long term involvement in this habit, are still going to 

forest to cut trees and poaching animals for their livelihood. Women are going to 

Tiruppur and Coimbatore (hosiery factories) to work on daily wage to avoid 

starvation. They stay there for about 15-20 days in a month and come back to their 

home. 

Requirement of the villagers: Land for agriculture, loan to buy cattle, Hospital, 

employment for literate (like one person has finished his M. Ed and is still 

unemployed) and education 

Consultations in Arasuradi Village 

Predominantly Scheduled Cast households, though some Thevar also are living in 

this village. This village is located right inside the forest. 250-300 families are living 

in this village. They mainly belong to taungya families and 30 years earlier were 

raising forest plantations and cultivating interspaces for year round subsistence. 

They have occupied forest land and in the forest settlement process of the erstwhile 

zamindari forest their claims have been rejected. Yet on humanitarian grounds the 

State agencies have provided solar devices for lighting to each household. Some 

private estates (coffee, cardamom, black pepper) are there nearby in the forest, 

where men and women go to supplement livelihood. They are under paid for the 

work they are doing. There is no school nearby. 

238 





21.3.2006 Grizzled Giant Squirrel Sanctuary, Srivilliputtur 

Consultations in Shagavathi Nagar (Shenbaga Thoppu) 

FDA is working in this village with 28 families, all belonging to Paliar tribe. Their 

main resource for livelihood is to collect honey, amla and other medicinal plants from 

the forest, but they do not cut the trees. They use the medicinal plants for 

themselves but do not sell to outsiders. No livelihood skill enhancement training has 

been given to the villagers by any government department. Some of them are 

educated up to 9 th standard but they are doing the same job as others in the village. 

RAMCO (Cement Company) is running a school with hostel for these tribal families in 

Srivilliputtur and the education and accommodation with food are free for the tribal 

children. All the children from this village are studying in RAMCO school and these 

children are good in studies and sports. RAMCO is has started training villagers in 

skills like driving for men and wire basket spinning for women. People are more than 

willing to take other skills training, which may improve their livelihoods. People 

recognise the merit of protecting the forest. VFC is also working here. They want 

complete help in cattle raising and skill enhancement training. 

Consultations in Kilavan Koil Village 

All households belong to Paliar tribe. People from Vinoba Bhave Nagar (13 

households) and Athikovil (16 households) also assembled at Kilavan Kovil. Seven 

families in Vinoba Bhave Nagar do not have houses. They live on the road and 

during the rainy season, those who have houses allow them to sleep under their 

roof. 

No household has any piece of land after they were recently relocated from inside 

the forest. They depend on collecting honey, amla etc. from the forest. RAMCO is 

working very actively here and giving training to women and men. But they need 

hand holding in the initial stages as they still do not the confidence and wherewithal 

to use the skills they have acquired for earning money out of it. VFC has been set 

up here but is hardly active. 

They require skills and proper guidance as well as and funds for raising cattle and 

other livelihood avenues. They want jobs for their children as they get educated and 

trained. They also want a dispensary and public transport to their settlement. 

Consultations in Thaniparai Adivaram 

52 families of Paliyar Tribe live in this village. They belong to Paliar tribe and subsist 

on collecting honey, medicinal plants, amla etc. from the forest. They do have 

houses but have no agricultural land. They do not want to be involved in any other 

work. They do not want to come out of that village but want cattle for raising. 

There is no literate person in this village. 

239 





22.3.2006 Consultations in Madatharapparai Village 

55 Pallar families are there in this village. VFC was formed three years back and is 

working very actively. A plantation was raised in the common land three years 

before. Western Ghat Development Programme is working here verywell. Panchayat 

has provided houses with patta to 40 families. All the families do have a few acres of 

land where they practise agriculture. They do not visit the forest to cut trees or 

collect for any other forest produce like honey. They are protecting forests through 

the VFC. Panchayat is also functioning very well. SHGs under the VFC for men and 

women are also very active here. No interest is charged for the loan through VFC. 

They are ready to take any kind of training to improve their livelihood. Literacy is 

good in this village. 

They require assured source of water and want a road to connect their village with 

public transport. Skill enhancement through training is their other demand to 

improve livelihoods. They would also like to have milch cattle for better incomes. 

Consultations in Rahmaniapuram (Kadayanallur Range) 

Most of the population in this village is of Muslims. Over 50 families were 

represented at the meeting. VFC is functioning in this village for the last three 

years, under which 60 SHGs are functioning for women in and around this village. 

However, they are not very active as women roll beedis and get more money. Men 

do labour work like house construction, road repairing, agriculture etc. 

Their demands include flushed toilets and water connection to all the houses as they 

have to come to the street to collect the water from the hand pumps. Proper access 

road and public transport is the other demand. An NGO called ‘Mata 

Amritanandamayi Trust’ is working here. They maintain the accounts of the SHGs. 

Ther are a few defaulters of the loan taken from VFC by the villagers. 

Consultations in Kalaiman Nagar (Tribals settled recently) 

All households belong to Paliar caste, recently relocated from the forest to this village 

and the District Collector Office has provided a house to each family. 22 families are 

there (population is 98). A well is there in the village. Their main occupation is to 

collect honey, amla etc. from the forest and sell it in the local market. The price is 

being fixed by the purchaser and not by the villagers. But they do not cut the trees 

from the forest. They still have their old houses in the forest and they use it when 

they go the forest to collect things. TAP (Tamil Nadu Afforestation Programme) 

under the ITDP has started functioning in this village. Arumbugal Trust is an active 

NGO in this village. An NGO called ‘Sarva Siksha Abyan Trust’ is running an 

elementary school in this village. VFC is functioning here through which some 

households have got loan to purchase the cattle for raising which some skill 

enhancement training has been given to them. People in this village are very poor 

and clearly show impact of a sudden change in livelihood from a forest-gathering 

240 





lifestyle to one that yet has to take roots in other skilled livelihoods (e.g. farm 

labour) available in the tract around. The elder generation does not wish to come 

out of the forest life. But the younger generation seems to prefer the life they are 

leading right now. They are now constructing a community hall in their village. 

Consultations in Athuvazhi Village 

There are 700 households here and observe different religions but all are Scheduled 

Caste. VFC is functioning very actively. 13 SHGs are functioning here very well and 

having received the Tamil Nadu Government Award for their achievements. 300 

members are there in the VFC and 12 members are there in the Executive 

Committee of the VFC. Women Development Programme has been giving training to 

the women in stitching, candle making, spinning wire baskets, bakery etc. The SHGs 

bought sewing machines and are stitching readymade garments in bulk. The raw 

materials are being provided by the private parties who take the finished products 

from them. They also make candles and earn good incomes. Literacy rate is high in 

this village and reflect awareness of the need to conserve the forest. They 

participate with the forest department by preventing cutting of trees and also 

provide information to about any criminal activities involving forests. There are no 

defaulters in this village for the VFC loan. Women from this village are capable of 

training others also. Panchayath is taking care of road, community and the water 

problems. 

PART - B: LANDSCAPE LEVEL & STATE LEVEL CONSULTATIONS 

1. Minutes of Landscape Level Workshop for Kerala held on 18 th August, 

2006 at the Forest Headquarters, Thiruvananthpuram, 10 am - 4 pm 

The Workshop began with the Introduction of the Project by Mr. H.S. Panwar in the 

form of a brief power point presentation. This was followed by a formal inauguration 

by the M.P. Mr. Panniyan Raveendran and felicitated by Smt. Arundhathi, the MLA 

Vamanapuram, Smt. Sugathkumari, Mr. L. Radhakrishnan, IAS the secretary, 

Ministry of Forest, Mr. Sharma, IFS, the Principal Chief Conservator, and Prof. M.K. 

Prasad. 

The Workshop was construed to provide a platform for the people to express their 

opinion in relation to the Project design. The technical session began with the 

presentation of the BCRLI Project Design in terms of its structure, goals and 

proposals by Dr. Rajan Gurukkal. His presentation comprised the concept and scope 

of the Project, the extent of the landscape, the procedures completed as part of the 

Project design, the level of understanding about the peoples, their livelihood 

problems, and the overall worldview. By way of summing up the results of the rapid 

appraisal, he pointed out the exploitative structures that alienate the land and 

revenue of the people and the dominance of the market friendly mind set that urge 

them demand for civic amenities inside the forest. He said the people are not tribal 

but very much like the mainstream, of course with a lot of gullibility and lack of 

241 





competitive power, a actor that makes them poor and marginalised. By way of the 

demonstration of a few examples of the activity that can be proposed by the 

audience, he discussed the idea of clustering and its advantages like better crop 

protection, easy access to market and other developmental institutions and civil 

amenities. The presentation was clear to the people as their responses vouch for. 

1. The first respondent, a Dalit activist began with the critical note on the 

alienation of the adivasi land, which according to his estimation amounted to 

1,13,000 acres. He asked about the fate of 515 acres of land purchased by 

the Government for the adivasi. He reminded his listeners of the 

Constitutional stipulation that a place with an adivasi population exceeding 

2000 could be given the right to rule domain. He alleged that whatever is due 

to the adivasi seldom reaches them. With this general criticism he sought a 

clarification about the actual fate of the BCRLIP’s promise of livelihood 

improvement of the advasi people. He welcomed the Project but with a lot of 

scepticism about the adivasi benefit. 

2. The next respondent, the President of the Agasthyavanam Panchayath, 

appreciated the project purport very much. He asked as to whether the 

Project would help the people of his Panchayath solve the problems like the 

lack of road communication, the burden of walking 24 km to put the children 

to school, the shift system in the school requiring the parents to travel the 

distance twice a day, and the opposition of the Forest Department to the 

development of forest villages. He advised that it is essential to strengthen 

the EDC and its activities for the successful implementation of the Project. 

3. The President of the Ariyankavu Panchayath mentioned that his Panchayth 

whole heartedly welcomed the Project in general and the proposal of corridor 

restoration in particular. Stating that there was no doubt about the urgency of 

forest and bio-diversity protection, he said that the protection of the poor 

people was equally important. He made the following suggestions for 

improving the livelihoods of the people: 1) Include in the Project maximum 

activities for generating employment for wage earners, for unemployment is 

the main cause of their poverty. 2) Make provisions in the Project to persuade 

the Forest Department to carry out all forest related maintenance works in 

time, which helps people secure employment. 3) Provide for in the Project to 

give sufficient training and orientation to the people to strengthen the VSS. 4) 

There should be some specific provision in the Project for fighting ganja 

cultivation and illicit brewing with some participatory methods. The 

Panchayath is doing whatever possible to make it a movement. Without the 

help of the Forest Department the Panchayath cannot do anything to check 

the crimes in the forest. 5) There should be provision for employing people as 

casual labourers, particularly the poor, in checking illegal activities in the 

forest. The Project should enable the Forest Department to pay reward to the 

local poor by using their service in checking the entry of outsiders. 6) The 

Project should insist that the major part of the employment in connection with 

the corridor restoration should be given to the VSS. 7) The Project should 

242 





provide for the relocation of the settlements in the interior, which are willing 

to move on to the fringes provided they are given land, agricultural support 

and housing. 8) Such people should be enabled to get the benefits of the 

corridor restoration that might help the Forest Department develop 

ecotourism. 

4. The next respondent, the President of the Peringamala Panchayath, welcomed 

the Project and stated that he was in perfect agreement with the suggestions 

made by the President of the Ariyankavu Panchayath. He also emphasised the 

need for the poor people’s employment generation through the Project 

activities. However, he disagreed with the idea of the relocation of people. He 

mentioned that the developmental problem that the Project should address 

was lack of road communication to the interior settlements. He thinks that the 

road will not affect biodiversity conservation. He made a critical remark 

against blaming the interior people for helping the illegal activities in the 

forest, saying that the role of some people in the Forest Department was 

more in such crimes. He concluded by suggesting that the Project should 

make some arrangement for the sustainable collection and marketing of the 

NWFP. 

5. A scientist from the TGBRI briefly stated his success story about setting up a 

herbal garden of medicinal plants with the help and participation of the Kani 

people. Convinced of the effectiveness of participatory biodiversity 

conservation the Forest Department is said to have intended him to submit a 

major project of participatory biodiversity conservation, which he said, had 

been submitted. He remarked that he was not sure when the project 

submitted by him would come true. In this context he clarified as to whether 

a part of the project of the participatory initiatives for biodiversity 

conservation could come under the minor BCRLIP. He praised the 

participatory dimension of the Project design under review. 

6. A member of an interior EDC of the Peppara WLS expressed his frustration 

about the failed Projects. He said that the earlier Projects that promised 

village eco development was a failure. According to him the EDC was not 

given the promised corpus fund. The EDC has been inactive for want of funds, 

he said. He remembered the relocation of interior people to Podiyakkala by 

promising good houses, but in actual practice providing only huts of coconut 

leaves. His anxiety is about similar betrayal.T Pointing out that he pilgrims 

and tourists who reach Agasthiyarmalai constitute an important source of 

income for the settlement by way of catering to the formers’ food 

requirements, he suggested that it would be of great help for them if the 

Project could provide for eco-tourism activities. One of the activities that he 

suggested was waste removal by the people. He complained about the 

accumulation of plastic waste that the pilgrims leave around. Concluding his 

suggestions he remarked that his people would like to leave the interior 

provided the appropriate housing and land with farming assistance are given 

at a suitable place. 

243 





7. The DFO, Thenmala clarified as to whether the new Project would affect the 

various activities that are under way. He cited the case of the people at 

Rajakkad asking him as to whether they should go ahead mobilising fund for 

solar fencing now under way since the new Project would is likely to provide 

them a secure place to move on. Similarly, he clarified about the fate of the 

EIA cleared scheme of black-toping the Rosemala road across the Shenduruni 

WLS, in the wake of the BCRLIP. 

8. The KFRI Director welcoming and appreciating the BCRLIP design, he restated 

the great biodiversity value of the Agasthiyarmalai Bioreserve. Assuming that 

the new project involves clustering of the settlers, he remarked that the step 

would not be feasible, for the tribal people seldom leave their original habitat. 

He also recalled an African experience to vouch for his opinion. He suggested 

that the Project should provide for the detailed documentation of biodiversity 

as well as cultural diversity, particularly the ethnic wisdom of the tribal 

people. 

9. Mr. Manoj Misra, the Co-ordinator of the Project, realising the confusion of 

some of the participants clarified that the Project design contained no 

insistence upon the idea of clustering. He confirmed that the Project was only 

in the preliminary stage of designing and that the people could at every stage 

interfere and redesign activities through additions and alterations. He also 

clarified that the Project would operate only under the existing legal 

framework and would imply only status quo in terms of the concerned Acts 

and Statues. He also made the point clear by saying that the Project would 

not interfere in any way with the implementation of other schemes in the LS. 

10. Prof. M.K. Prasad reaffirmed the importance and urgency of the Project. He 

then pointed out that there was a contradiction between what Dr. Gurukkal 

said and what Mr. Manoj Misra clarified. He stated that he had understood 

clustering an important activity of the Project. He suggested that in Kerala the 

proposal of compensation and substitution would lead to fresh encroachments 

on RF by the outsiders with political clout. Likewise, he also advised to 

mention only restoration of the forest rather than restoration of the corridor, 

for the latter term would be misleading to people. 

11. Smt. Sugathakumari expressed anxiety over the mounting pilgrimage to 

Agasthyakootam. She asked whether the Project could envision something to 

control the flow of people. 

12. Dr. Parvathy Menon also shared the feelings about the negative impact of 

Pilgrimage at Kottamala where a cult spot called Karchattimotta attracts a lot 

of people to go for the offering of candle. It is a rock with some endemic 

species. Likewise, the cult spot Vilakkumpara is attracting a lot of women for 

the ritual observance of ponkala. She urged that the Project should include 

244 





some activity to manage the rising pilgrims at places of great biodiversity 

value. 

13. CCF (WL) commenting on the fruitfulness of the Workshop and congratulated 

the PEACE Consortium for organising the very useful programme. 

Written Notes Given by Some of the Participants 

1. Sujit, R informs that the Land Revenue Commissioner has fixed 15 – 20 as 

the deadline for the completion of joint verification work to issue the 

document of right to the tribal people. He thinks it important for the Project 

team to discuss the various aspects and proposed activities with the 

Commissioner. 

2. Mr. G. Gopinathan has given a representation enlisting the following 

suggestions: a) The Project could do something for improving the living 

conditions of the adivasis by granting title to their landholding. b) The Project 

should have provision for the protection of crops of the tribal Hhs from animal 

raids by providing solar fencing. c) The idea of clustering may be given up. d) 

The Project can make the schools in the forest area effective by ensuring the 

appointment of the adequate number of teachers. e) The Project should have 

some way to control the tourism industry that gives rise to resorts and 

pollutes the forest water bodies. f) The Project should do something to check 

the exploitative intermediaries and ensure the fair market price to the NWFP 

collected by tribal people. g) The Project may implement only those schemes 

that do not adversely affect the tribal people as important as biodiversity. h) 

The Project should see that the VSS is protected from the exploiters of the 

forest i) The Project should see that the forest people are made the forest 

protectors and ensure employment to them. j) The Project should have some 

provision for the conservation of medicinal plants. 

List of Participants 

S. No Name and Address with designation 

1. P. K. Rajendran, Forester, Anchal Range Vanchiyodu V.S.S. Secretary 

2. A. Sasidhara Kurup, Forester Wildlife Sanctuary, Pappara Podiyan EDC 

Secretary 

3. Radhakrishnan. E, KET EDC, Kottoor 

4. Prasannakumar. C, Pappara Wildlife Sanctuary, Cherumangal EDC, Secretary 

5. S. Prakash, VSS 

6. B. Sajeev Kumar, Range Officer Mannanappara 

7. T. Suresh Babu, Range Officer, Thenmala 

8. P. G. Chandran Pillai, Range Officer, Pathanapuram 

9. S. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Wildlife Division (Nayyar Sanctuary) 

10. N. Balakrishna Pillai, DFO, Thenmala 

11. G. Rennen Sen, CFSF, Kollam 

245 





12. M. Raghavan Kani, EDA Unit, Podiyam, Pepparadas PO 

13. S. Ayyappan, FDA President, Pappara, Kottora PO 

14. K. Prabhakaran – RO 

15. K. N. Syam Mohan Lala, Forest Range Officer, Kalathupuzha 

16. Dr. J. K. Sharma, Director, KFRI, Peechi 

17. N. Krishnan Kunjirapally, Forest Wild Animals, Reservoir and Lake Protection 

Council Secretary 

18. S. Sathish 

19. Parvathi Menon, Head, Dept. of Botany M.G. College, Thiruvananthapuram 

20. Dr. S. Rajasekharan, Scientist, TBGRI Palode 

21. R. Reghu 

22. G. Vijayakumaran 

23. J. Ramachandran 

24. Ajith. N 

25. Renjith. R. 

26. Joy. N. V. 

27. Radhamani Amma. B Yeroor Panchayat President 

28. N. Manikandan Nair 

29. P. G. Suresh Kumar 

30. M. Gopakumar 

31. K. Babu 

32. Mohanan. K 

33. Sachidev 

34. E. Sakunthala, C.A.o/o CCF 

35. Reney R. Pillai, Wildlife Asst. 

36. B. Mohanakumar, Amal Bhawan Rosemala (Nellikkon EDC) 

37. A. Rajendran Nair ACF (Rtd.) 

38. Momparbathur Sabu, President Ariankavu Panchayath 

39. T. N. Unnikrishnan Nair, President 

40. President nanalar – Kumbhavuruth N.S.S. Achancoil Division 

41. N. Raju, President kallar V.S.S., Kallar 

42. S. Binukumar, president, Kechakadavupara V.S.S. 

43. I. S. Sunil, Forest Guard Neyyar 

44. Vijayakumar 

45. Lenin. V.D., President Net EDC Neyyar 

46. Sreedharan. C. Secretary Neyyar Net EDC 

47. M. S. Sudheerkumar 

48. V. Yohannan 

49. S. Mohanakumar (Forester) 

50. Venugopalan 

51. M. Chandran, EDL Thenmala 

52. R. Parappan EDC 

53. M. Ramankani EDC 

54. Satheesan, Sarat Bhawan Thenmala 

55. Sajina, Kottapara EDC 

246 





56. V. K. Suresh, Addl. PCCF 

57. E. B. Chandra Babu, VSS Secretary Pethalakarikka 

58. M. R. Rajendra Prasad, Secretary VSS Ponmudi 

59. N. Mohanan, Secretary VSS Chekkaram Palode Range 

60. M. Gangadharan, Secretary Pottumavu AVSS Kulathaupuzha 

61. C. Bipinkumar Secretary EDC Komba Kappukadu Neyyar Range 

62. P. Radhakrishna Pillai DEO Achancovil 

63. Ramesh. V. R. AIR 

64. A. Naushad Deputy Ranger, Ariyankavu 

65. Rajendran Piravanthur Panchayath president 

66. K. Murugan Yojana, Govt. of India Thiruvananthapuram – 14 

67. P. Prasannakumar FHO 

68. N. Velukutty Chairman Development Kuttachal Grama Panchayath 

69. Prof. M. A. Prasad 62, Giri Nagar Kochi – 20 

70. S. Ashoka Kumar PRD 

71. K. Krishna Pillai Vice President Kuttichal Grama Panchayath 

72. Madhana Sudhakaran Vice President Peringamala Panchayath 

73. P. Ayyappan Pillai President, Vellamanal Block Panchayath 

74. P. Devarajan Pillai Forester, Anchal Range 

75. P. K. Nazar Forest Guard Anchal 

76. A. Thomas Kudukktharpara VSS President 

77. M. Dasan President VSS Peathalakarikonam 

78. Bhuvanendran Channankary Nettayikonam, Kozhakuttom PO 

79. A. Kunhambuy Deputy Director of Panchayath Kollam 

80. Patric Gomez DFO Thiruvananthapuram 

81. L. Krishna Prasad WCW, Thiruvananthapuram 

82. V. Prasannan, DFO, Punalur 

83. P. Ravindranath ACF (PE) 

84. S. Madhusoodanan Pillai DD (WE) 

85. K. J. Varughese 

86. Remanan O/o (CPCA) 

87. C. V. Biju, Pathanapuram Range 

88. K. A. Nebu Asst. Wild Life Warden 

89. G. Thomaskutty President, SET, EDC Shenduruny 

90. M. Meera Pillao President Pathanapuram Block 

91. E. S. Suresh Forest Guard Pathanapuram Range Secretary 

92. K. Prasannan Pillai President Cherukadavu VSS Pathanapuram 

93. D. Viswanadhan President Olappara VSS, Pathanapuram Range 

94. V. S. Biju Research Officer District Planning Office Thiruvananthapuram 

95. A. Shanavas Dy. Warden ABP 

96. Sunil Babu, A.P. DLW 

97. Pradeepkumar, K. I RO, Anchal 

98. Y. M. Shajikumar RO, Ariyankavu 

99. Gopan. R.L, Neyyar Sanctuary 

100. Vijayamohanan Forest Guard Neyyar 

247 





101. M. Raghavankani, LDC Unit, Podiyam Peppara Dam PO 

102. Ayyappan FDA President Peppara Kottoor PO 

103. Shripal, CF (ABP) Thiruvananathapuram 

104. Dr. B. Shivarajan CCF (INRD) 

105. T.C. Sasidharan Pillai, RO Neduvathumogh 

106. V. A. Mohanan, RO 

107. Sujit R. RO Paruthipally 

108. Dr. T. Sabu LED Thiruvananthapuram 

109. A. S. Ashok, Forester, ABP 

110. Madhusudhanan. M.M., Shendurney Secretary (Dam EDC) 

111. V. Vijaya Kumar, Shendurney 

112. Secretary, Parappar EDC 

113. Lekshmi. P, News Reporter, Surya TV 

114. A. Sreekumar, Forest Guard (Secretary VSS Adipparambu) Kulathupuzha 

Forest Range 

115. Solomon John. J.D, Forest Guard Peppara Sanctuary 

116. R. S. Anish Kumar, Asst. Wildlife Warden Peppara 

117. K. Sathish Kumar, Forester Achenkovil Range, Achenkovil. 

118. K. Balakrishnan, Forester Aachencoil Range 

119. S. Babu, President Chekkonam VSS 

120. Jesu Balan. S 

121. Satheesh (Jorunalist) Thiruvananthapuram 

122. Vijay Kumar, Aadivasi Vanasamrakshana Samithi Achenkovil PO 

123. Murali Dhanapal 

124. Dr. S. Ganeshan, Director TBGRI 

125. Sam. S, Editor-I & PRD Editor PRD News 

126. K. Vipinachandran, Manager, KFCD 

127. C. R. Vinod, Manager, KFDC 

128. Anil Kumar Babu, District Soil Conservator Office Kollam 

129. S. Radhakrishnan, F.G, Neyyar Sanctuary 

130. A. Murali, F/G Neyyar Sanctuary 

131. R. P. Sharma PCCF 

132. C. V. Devi. P.A. 

133. K. P. Rajendran Nair 

134. Sathish Kumar CFHQ 

135. J. Achuthan, MLA Vamanapuram 

136. C. Revi, Secretary Chathancode CDC Pappara Range 

137. B. Mallan President, EDC Chathancode Peppara Range 

138. Y. Martin, Kochadappupara VSS, Palode Range 

139. Radha Rajendran President, Anchal Block Panchayat 

140. Jose. K. C, Aryancode Panchayath 

141. T. Asokan, Forest 

142. Madhu 

143. Mahesh. P.F 

144. V. G. Gopalakrishana 

248 





145. Lali John, President Amboori Grama Panchayath Amboori PO 

146. Marykutty Kuriakose Grama Panchayath Amboori 

147. Baiju. B, D’man, CCF UNLI 

148. N. Radhakrishnan, 8WA, C/o CCF, WL 

149. Suneesh. T. R. 

150. Krishna Kumar, IHRD 

151. R. R. Shukla, CCF 

152. J. K. Tiwari, CCF (MIS) 

153. S. Anil Kumar. S, Forest Guard 

154. Vijayarangan, Forest Shendurney 

155. Thomes George Puthuvalil Ariyankavu PO, Kottavasal VSS 

156. Binu George, Cherulickal House Edapalayam PO Edapalayam VSS 

157. V. S. Somarajan, Valavil Veedu Ariyankavu 

158. P.O. Yohannan, President Kadamanpara 

159. N. Radha Krishna Pillai, Narayanamanagalm Ariyankavu, Palaruvi 

160. Jose Antony, Kanikathippil Rajathottam VSS, Ariyankavu 

161. E. Kunaikrishnan, Dept. of Zoology University College, Thiruvananthapuram 

162. Jyothi Kumar D, FHQ 

163. Sudheer Kumar 

164. Mohanan Nair 

165. K. Vijaya Kumaran Nair 

166. R. Geetha Kumari 

167. Sulochana Murali 

168. Shahinas 

169. K. Ramachandran, Jolinagar PO NSS President, Mankayam 

170. G. Radha Krishnan Nair, RHO 

171. Sruthi. S, FHO 

172. M. Vijaya Kumar 

173. Baiju. T. S 

174. Suresh Kumar. K 

175. P. Vincent 

176. S. Sivadasan 

177. Dr. M. Kamarudeen, Deputy Director (AH) Distt. Animal Husbandary Office 

Kollam 

178. K. C. Prabhulla Chandran Forester, Anchal Secretary, VSS Kallupacha 

179. N. Nissarudeen, Forest Guard Anchal Range, Secretary, Cherukara VSS 

180. N. Devan, Correspondent AIR, Thiruvananthapuram 

181. G. Viswanathan Pillai Ariyankavu 

182. C. Nelson, Secretary, EBC Bonaccord 

183. S. Saseendran, Neyyattinkara 

184. Mohanan Pillai, President Kulathupuzha Grama Panchayath 

185. Joseph Nedumpuram Periyar Foundation Thekkady 

186. N. Pankajakshan Nair, President, Paravoor Panchayath 

187. Prasad Kumar. C. V. 

188. D. Sarojam, AIR, Thiruvananthapuram 

249 





189. S. Lalia 

190. K. V. Sudha 

191. P. M. Kurian 

192. Thomas John 

193. A. Arun, Podiyakala EDC, Secretary 

194. M. Saikumar, Podiyakkala EDC, President 

195. Vijayan 

196. Santhosh 

197. D. Livingston, Project Officer, ITDP, Nedumangad 

198. S. Davasiya, Secretaru, VSS Mathrakavikom 

199. R. Krishnamoorthy, Green. H, VPS 62, Vattavila Road, Thirumala PO 

Thiruvananthapuram 

200. Ramachandran Nair, Nedumangad 

2. Minutes of State Level Worksop on BCRLIP Design of Kerala Component 

of ALS held at Thiruvananthpuram on 21 st August 2006 

10: 20 Welcome 

Background: Experience and lessons from IEDP and other projects as basis of 

planning by H S Panwar, PEACE Consortium 

Expectations: Securing valuable biodiversity of southern Western Ghats using 

provisioning of sustainable and conservation-compatible rural livelihoods of 

key stakeholders within the selected landscape, especially the poor and 

underprivileged with focus on women. 

10:30 Overview presentation by Shri Manoj Misra (PEACE Consortium) on selection 

of landscape by MoEF-GOI, selection of Peace Consortium for Planning of the project, 

the process adopted, the purpose of Landscape Workshop – To elicit reaction on 

findings of assessments on which planning is based as well as on the framework of 

proposals in the Indicative Plan. 

Shri V. Gopinathan, CCF-WL: Query on Project Tenure and quantum of funds. 

Clarifications by HSP and MM about GEF and source of funding: Grant from GEF USD 

14 million, Rest World Bank loan with some contribution from Central and Sate 

Government making a total pool of USD 48 million. Total fund is for seven landscape 

sites across the country and also some provision of Project Headquarters in PTO- 

MoEF. Actual likely outlay only for the LS component in Kerala would be known only 

when the total allocation is apportioned upon finalisation of the overall project and 

the state LS wise Indicative Plans. 

10:50: Presentation of Indicative Plan 

Biological Assessment by Dr Karunakaran of PEACE Consortium with supplementing 

by HSP. 

250 





Clarifications was provided by HSP on the LS boundaries as confirmed. Shri 

Gopinathan added that allocation of funds was also a factor for formulation of LS 

boundaries 

Shri JP Mishra, Joint Director, PT, commented on need of primary data collection for 

biological assessment on a sample basis. HSP clarified that while remote sensing of 

vegetative cover for the basis of vegetation mapping, standard requirements of 

detailed ground truth establishment was observed in arriving at the findings. The 

French Institute of Pondicherry, a reputed national level institution and which has 

nearly four decade long experience with maximum earlier in the Western Ghats had 

carried out this mapping. 

JPM highlighted the need to include agro-biodiversity. HSP clarified that it has been 

done and gave example of malaimad cattle. He also informed about organic farming 

of native crop cultivars as a potential activity being proposed. 

1130: Presentation on Socioeconomic Assessments by Dr. Rajan Gurukkal of PEACE 

Consortium (FAO: MG University School of Social Sciences, Kottayam). 

Query was made on the study made on the people in the abandoned estates. Dr 

Gurukkal clarified that it has been done and the economy is on a subsistence basis 

(day to day living). It is also evident that there is a low level of social capital leading 

to low collective appropriation. 

Study on VSS as it will be a critical inputs for delivery of the project? 

Query & Comment: Have similar projects been studied about their impacts and 

lessons, particularly the MAB which was operational in Kerala? MAB faded out 

without any capital assets and did not generate any enthusiasm for conservation 

oriented approaches. 

Shri Manoj Misra clarified that MAB was a program between MoEF and UNESCO. 

Areas were identified as Biosphere Reserves. These declaration as BR was expected 

to promote these identified areas and were supported in a program mode. The 

activities are not well defined and the funding and delivery are limited. The BCRLIP 

planning primarily used lessons from IEDP, FREEP and other JFM projects 

countrywide in developing the strategy and approaches. 

Mr. Gopinathan supported the clarifications highlighting the PTR and how it benefited 

from IEDP. 

1200: Institutional aspects: Presentation by Mr. Manoj Misra 

Including Planning department representative in the proposed Society was endorsed. 

Suggestion was made to include FDA representative as a member. 

251 





Dr. Joshi CF: Why the CEO needs to be CF/CCF only? Can’t we think outside the box 

for appointment of a professional outside the department? 

What is the role and structure of implementing agency/PRIs? Also what’s the district 

level facilitating arrangements? Local body elected representatives of local bodies 

should be considered to be included in the steering committee. MM clarified that we 

have taken all these concerns in view and our proposals would provide a broad 

institutional framework from SHG/ USG, VFC/ EDC to Range, Division/ PA, District, 

Landscape and State levels and these will not be very prescriptive, allowing need 

based adaptation at each site. For ALS there would also be an Intestate 

Coordination Committee chaired in alternate year by the PCCF/ CWLW Kerala and TN 

respectively with the BCRLIP-CEO of the concerned Sate as the Member Secretary. 

Shri Gopinathan’s comment: Inter state coordination committee should be chaired 

alternatively in successive meetings but the secretary should be for a year. 

HSP clarified about the federation structure proposed from village to state levels. 

RR Shukla CF raised the issue about duplicating project specific institutional structure 

vis-a-vis FDA. MM clarified that the proposed institutional structure can be 

developed and integrated to cover both but the financial shall have to be separate. 

Would the project be expected to create new VCCs/EDCs? MM and HSP clarified that 

the existing institutional spaces can and should be utilised but with enhanced 

capacity. Unni Krishnan clarified that the area allocation to VSS/EDC is need specific 

and that the idea was propounded under Kerala Forestry Project, and has since been 

revised. 

JPM sought clarification on empowered committees as proposed. MM clarified that 

Empowered Committee as proposed are administrative bodies. EC would facilitate 

vetting of GOs. It should also have procurement and financial authority. 

1300: Presentation by HSP on Issues, Strategies and Activities 

Do we have any plans on watershed basis. HSP clarified that Neyyar watershed in 

Kerala was coming under pressure because of the sub-canopy extension of 

cultivation into the high forest by the tribal people 

Application of space technology should be given due support in 

a. Development of watershed plans 

b. Remote sensing for fire detection 

c. Monitoring 

Comment came on ensuring post-project sustainability of gains made and 

augmenting further on the project initiatives. It was clarified that the proposed 

Society structure and the stress on convergence of sector inputs and activities of the 

different line agencies was basically proposed for this purpose. Society structure 

would enable eliciting external donor funds as well as receipt from activities like 

252 





ecotourism. Internal mechanism should be evolved at the initial stages on fund 

generation and mobilisation-particularly on biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. 

Institutional mechanisms, legal provisions and vigilance on the part of facilitators and 

implementers with due support from scientific bodies can ensure benefits to 

communities from IPR issues and related bio-prospecting including medicinal plants. 

Comment on Indicative Plan suggestion for reviving habitat links between main WG 

forest blocks and peripheral monoculture of teak, eucalyptus and acacias: Shri Unni 

Krishnan CF clarified that natural areas were left as part of the plantation measures. 

HSP welcomed the information but stressed that this precaution has been mostly 

done away in the plantations in the last decade or two. He stressed that the system 

needs to be revitalised. The natural tracts thus left should be seen as biodiversity 

corridors so as to establish contiguity with outlying and peripheral forests. The best 

way to do it is to spare the riparian strips along major streams and to leave out (if 

needed revive) transverse natural forest strips by design within the overall plantation 

prescriptions in the management plan. 

Shri RR Shukla talked about mikenia as a weed. HSP responded that the forestry 

operations would have to be envisioned such that the weeds are be shaded out by 

planting shrubs and closing the canopy. 

MM gave a brief introduction to Small Grant Mechanisms and how this would provide 

resources for action research and innovations for each of the LS. 

A vote of thanks by MM at the conclusion 


S. 

Name & Designation and Address 

No. 

1. N. Radha Krishnan, Sr. Wildlife Assistant, Forest H Q. 

2. L. Krishna Prasad, Wildlife Warden 

3. P. N. Bhanu Vikraman Nair, Divisional Manager, Forest Dept. 

4. K. G. Sundharan Pillai, Divisional Manager, K.F.D.C., Punalur 

5. S. Janardhanrn., Assistant Director of Agriculture 

6. A. K. Madhava Chandran, Asst. Director of Agriculture 

7. L. K. Varshney, GM, KFDC Kottayam 

8. Dr. P. Rajasekharan. Chief, Agriculture Division, State Planning Board. 

9. Shripal, Conservator of Forets, Trivandrum 

10. J. P. Misra, Joint Director (PT), MOEF, New Delhi 

11. C. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Director, Social Welfare 

12. P. Radhakrishna Pilla, DFO, Achencoil 

13. A.P. Sunil Babu, Wildlife Warden 

14. C. Rajendran, Sr. Supt. Panchayat Directorate 

15. N. Balakrishan Pilki, DFO Thenmala 

253 





16. Mr. W. S. Suiting CCF (BD), FD 

17. S. Unnikrishnan Nair, Asst. Development Conservation Commissionarate 

of Rural Development, Govt. of Kerala 

18. N. K. Sasidharan, DFO, Konni, Kerala 

19. R. R. Shukla, CCF (V) 

20. Jayesh Bhatia, NR International, New Delhi 

21. Patric Gomuz, DFO, Trivandrum 

22. Reney R Pillai, Wildlife Asst. O/o CCF WL 

23. Y. N. Unaikrishana. CCF 

24. G. Reunen Sen, CFSC 

25. Mehar Singh, CCF 

26. K. V. Ramanujan, Assistant Director of Soil Conservation 

27. S. C. Joshi, CCF (RS), Kollam 

28. V. M. Mohanan, Scheduled Tribe Development Dept., Joint Director 

29. R. Rajaiya Varma , Forest Dep. CCF (SA) 

30. V. Prabsy, Jothi Estates, Kottayam 

31. A. G. Balaram Raja, Doctor and Lallinathan Estate (Sandanakavu Area) 

32. A. P. Elangovan, Vora Kumar Estate, 

3. Minutes of the Landscape Level Workshop on BCRLIP Design held on 23 rd 

August 2006 at the DRDA Saaral Hall, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, from 10 

am to 5 pm. 

Sri Rampati CF-Tirunelveli welcomed all including Dr. G. Prakash, District Collector, 

Tirunelveli and all the participants on behalf of the Forest Department and PEACE 

Consortium. 

The Workshop began with a formal inauguration by Dr. G. Prakash, District Collector, 

Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. Dr. G. Prakash in his brief address offered all the support 

and help to this project for the designing and also during the implementation period. 

Sri H.S. Panwar briefly introduced the project and explained its strategic approach by 

attempting to establish a viable and mutually complimenting link between 

conservation of biodiversity and improvement in rural livelihoods, especially of the 

poor and marginalised and by giving primacy to women in livelihood activities and a 

assertive say in the functioning of project institutional structure from grassroots 

higher up. His address was translated by Sri Pasupati Raj EDO-KMTR in Tamil. 

Forest officials asked why there is a mention of only two watersheds in the Executive 

Summary as there are four watershed in the landscape. HSP replied that these are 

the two which require urgent attention but all the four watersheds are important and 

it has been mentioned in the Indicative Plan. 

The Workshop was construed to provide a platform for the people to express their 

opinion in relation to the Project design. The technical session began with the 

254 





following presentations of the BCRLI Project Design, which was duly translated by Sri 

Pasupati Raj in Tamil.: 

1. An introduction of the Project by Sri Manoj Misra 

2. Biological assessments by Dr. P.V. Karunakaran 

3. Social Assessment by Dr. Rajan Gurukkal 

4. Issues and Strategies by Sri H.S. Panwar 

Suggestions from the participants in the afternoon session: 

1. VFC President from Kariur, Tirunelveli told that his village had 165 households but 

there was no electricity and asked if the project could provide the following village: 

a) Proper house for all families with electricity and toilet. b) School for children with 

a focused awareness programme for children on conservation of biodiversity. c) 

Control of soil theft from the river bank and d) Solar fencing to their agricultural 

land. 

HSP responded saying that while basic amenities will be provided by line 

departments, crop protection by solar fencing is one of the proposed activities in 

critically affected sections of the forest/ PA boundary. He also observed that while 

solar fencing can be done through the project but the maintenance of the fencing has 

to be a responsibility of the villagers. He said that Forest Department would provide 

initial training and know how for maintenance and also technical help when needed 

but basic maintenance and care has to be rendered by the villagers, especially those 

farmers whose fields lie next to the boundary and who bear the maximum brunt of 

crop raiding by wild animals. 

2. VFC President from Ambai: He said that VFC has been started in his village in 

1995 and since it is running very smoothly. The forest officials handled the project 

like a child and the people are very proud to work with the department. We have 

started trusting the department by seeing their activities like hand pumps, etc for 

the villages. 36 VFCs are there and 192 SHGs have been formed. 9000 members 

are there in the VFC and there is no defaulter. He requested if more funds are 

provided to their VFCs to organise training programmes for motor-driving, tuition 

and computer centres etc., it will be of very useful. If the project could train the 

youngsters through a good awareness programme, it will be help us to protect the 

environment and forests. 

3. Mr. G. Balan, Kanyakumari: There are 48 Kani households in my village and there 

is no electricity. No education and the environment is not good. Of course the Kanis 

are cooperating with the Forest Department to conserve forest. They have helped to 

stop the elephant poaching and illegal sandalwood trade. Awareness for the public 

255 





to be increased asking them not to enter the forest. The Kani families should be 

provided all the basic amenities and employment in the forest department. 

He said that because of the rubber plantation, the wastage water come to the water 

reservoir and lot of diseases spread through this water in the village. He also 

suggested that the Kanis should be brought outside the forest. 

4. Forest Ranger, Payalankottai: RF area is sometimes very small and there are 

more dependent villages. Conflict between the villagers and there are problems in 

implementing the existing law. 

5. Dr. Santhana Kumar, (Retd. Prof.): Tribal people inside the forest should not be 

relocated because they are the one who protect the forests. 

HSP replied that this project does not want to relocate the tribals but we want to 

help tribal people who have been brought to the fringe area some times ago. 

6. Shoban Raj, Kanyakumari: The area allotted for rubber plantation to Arasu Rubber 

Corporation was not utilised fully. Scientifically 1/3 rd area is ok. Degradation of 

water is there. He requested that ARC lease should be cancelled. Weeds like Vicuna 

and Pucarea spp. are disturbing in the area. Raising agricultural crops while the new 

rubber plantation establishes is hazardous as it is causing widespread erosion in the 

hilly and highrainfall area. In forest areas, estates are increasing like cancer of 

forest. The employees of the estates are exploiting the forest. 

RAMCO: The RAMCO Industry representative explained that his Company was 

supporting education of tribal children. 150 children were studying in the RAMCO 

boarding school. But each and every child of the village should get education and all 

the youngsters in the village to get the training in computers, driving etc. He 

requested for project support to enhance this activity. 

HSP agreed to that and said that there ought to be more agencies to support this 

kind of activities. 

7. Ms. Pechiammal, VFC Member, KMTR: VFC is running very smoothly here. Meets 

once in a year and they try to solve the problem, if any. SHG and VFC are not 

getting adequate fund from government and she asked for more fund through this 

project. She wanted their VFC to be recognised and asked for the money to be given 

directly from World Bank to VFC. 

8. Mr. Velayutham, Azhappapuram: Agriculture is the main livelihood and that 

agriculture land to be protected from animals so it is necessary to build stone wall 

fencing and not electric fencing. There are 245 households in this village and they 

all need a proper house with toilets. 

9. Paliar Caste – Puliangudi Village (Sivagiri Taluk) : He appreciated that this project 

is not relocating the tribals by force from the forests. He said that the tribals cannot 

live outside the forests as they are not used to live in the world outside forests. He 

requested that all the facilities to be provided to the tribals inside the forest. 

256 





10. Mr. C. Raju, Forest Guard, Srivilliputtur: He requested that if some 

arrangements are made through this project to handle the cattle inside the forest. 

He also requested that proper institutional arrangement to be done through this 

project. No importance to be given to the politicians. He also suggested to solicit 

advice from Dr. Melkani and Mr. Venkatesh (DFO) for this project. 

11. Mr. Madhavraj, VFC President, Tirunelveli Dist: After the VFCs have formed, 

people stopped taking liquor, felling trees etc. Now the forest is in a good condition. 

But the villagers do not own any land and also there is no employment. People go 

outside the village for employment. Even if you provide training to women, they 

cannot do anything. Villagers to be trained in fishing. 

MM asked the view points of estate owners. 

12. Estate Manager: He said soil erosion happens during heavy rainfall and it is to 

be prevented. 

HSP replied that there cannot be any provision under this project and that the estate 

owners are directly responsible to take measures for controlling erosion, which arises 

from cardamom cultivation without soil conservation safeguards. 

13. Employee of Kallakadai Estate, Sivagiri: There is no proper road to the estate, 

so it has to be done and solar fencing is also necessary. 

HSP replied that there is no provision under this project for assisting private estates, 

as the basic mandate is to facilitate livelihoods to the poor forest dependents for 

better conservation of biodiversity. Estate have appropriated prime biodiversity 

areas and they cannot be rightful claimants for assistance under the project. 

14. Ms. Savithri, VFC Member, KMTR: Initially it was so difficult to run the VFC but 

the NGOs have done a very good job and they should be recognized now and their 

life to be improved through this project. 

HSP replied that by increasing the EDC corpus through operation of micro-credits 

and revolving fund the remuneration to the NGO individuals can be increased 

provided the borrowing SHGs individuals pay back on time with interest. BCRLIP can 

initially create/ augment the corpus but sustainability will depend on how efficiently 

the SHGs and EDCs function. 

15. Ms. Jhansi Rani, Thirukunkudi, VFC 

More fund to be provided to VFC and SHG for organizing trainings etc. 

MM praised the VFCs in KMTR and requested Dr. Melkani to share his experience with 

the team to produce a good project design report. 

Dr. Melkani said that it is a joint effort done by the Forest Dept., the people and the 

NGOs. Tamiraparani River is God’s gift to KMTR. I was motivated by people, my 

257 





colleagues, NGOS and there was no political interference. What we have decided 

was to not to give anything free to people. We wanted the people to stand on their 

own. He said that he will send all the relevant material of the Trust (institutional 

arrangement) to the BCRLIP team to prepare the project design. 

He endorsed the suggestion for implementing this project implemented through a 

society and he also requested planning team to suggest entry point activities. 

People will test the implementing agency. The Society should be there even if the 

project is over. The Committees should be contributed by Govt. of Tamil Nadu. 

He desired that a meaningful business plan be suggested, which is workable. Role of 

NGOs involved during this project period should be described properly. Range level, 

division level, district level meetings between the states and field visits should be 

suggested. He complemented the team for the preparation of good ‘project design’, 

which can be further improved from the feedback of this and other workshops. 

Workshop ended with a vote of thanks to all by HSP 


S. No. Name & Designation and Address 

1. V. Suresh Menon, CM-BBTC Manjokal 

1. M. Parthiban, Grizzled Squirrel Sanctuary 

2. S. Rajagopal, Forest Ranger, Grizzled Squirrel Sanctuary 

3. S. Gurumeni, Forest Ranger, Grizzled Squirrel Sanctuary 

4. S. Ganesan, Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Tirunelveli 

5. K. Ponnusamy, V. F. C. Presidant. Ilanthaikulam Village, Grizzled Squirrel 

Sanctuary 

6. Muniammal, V.F.C. President, Krishnapuram Village, Grizzled Squirrel 

Sanctuary 

7. Menraj, V.F.C. President. S.Kodikulam Village Grizzled Squirrel Sanctuary 

8. Chinnamuthu., EC Member, S.kodikulam Village Grizzled Squirrel Sanctuary 

9. R. Murali, V.F.C. President. Odaipatti Village Grizzled Squirrel Sanctuary 

10. I. Rajkani, District Co-ordinator Seeniopuram, FDA, Srivilliputhur 

11. V. Kanageswari, SHG. Member, Annai Satya Nagar, Grizzled Squirrel Sanctuary 

12. T. Raju, Forest Ranger, Grizzled WL Squirrel Sanctuary, Srivilliputhur. 

13. M. Doorvasar, Wildlife Warden, Grizzled Squirrel Sanctuary, Srivilliputhur. 

14. Mr. A. Venkatesh, Wildlife Warden, Nagapattinam. 

15. Mr. D. Raveendran, Divisional Forest Officer, Tirunelveli 

16. V. Pasupathiraj, Eco Development Officer, KMTR 

17. A. Ramkumar, CCF &FD, KMTR 

18. Syed Muzammil Abbas, C.F., Madurai 

19. K. G. Anand Naik., CF, Virudhunagar 

20. K. A. S. Ramaswamy, President 

21. Gunasekar, VFC President, Cheekodi Theru, Sivagiri Range 

22. P. Manonmani, VFC President. Sivaramalingapuram, Sivagiri Range 

258 





23. M. K. Ahamed Meeran, A.E.E., Agricultural Engineering Dept. 

24. V. Sundaraju, District Forest Officer, Kenyakumari 

25. Dr. G. Santhanakumar, Hon. Wildlife Warden 

26. Dr. A. D. Sobhana Raj, Consultant on Education Energy of Environment, 

“Joyec Villa” 12-A, Sahaya Streat, Nagercoil – 629001 

27. Dr. R. Annamalai, CCF, P&D, O/o PCCF, Chennai 

28. Dr. V. N. Singh, IFS, CCF (WL) O/o PCCF, Office Chennai 

29. Abdul Kadar, President, VFC, Nadumathiarpuram 

30. S. Samuel Rajan, Forest Ranger, Courtalam 

31. M. Alagirisamy, Forest Ranger, Kadayanallur 

32. P. Thiruppathi, Project Officer, Arumbugal Trust, C-91, IInd Cross forest, 

Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli-627011. 

33. S. Jayapal, Deputy Director, K.M.T.R, Ambasamuthiram 

34. R. Chellam, Forest Ranger, K.M.T.R, Kadayam Range 

35. R. Kuppuswamy, President, VFC 

36. S. Velayudam, Chairman, VFC, Azhappapuram, Sivasailam 

37. G. Kathiresan, Chairman, VFC, Sivasailam 

38. P. Padmini, Keela Chetti Kulam, V.F.C., Kodayam Range 

39. M. Marudiah, President, VFC, Chinthamaniperiputhur, Puliangudi Village 

40. H. Ganesan, Vadakkupachaiyar, Kalakadu 

41. T. Rajendran, President, VFC 

42. T. Padmamadhan, Forest Ranger, Theni Division 

43. D. C. Selvaraj, Forest Ranger. Theni Division 

44. P. Loganathan, Forest Ranger, Thirunelveli Division 

45. V. Jeyachandran, Forest Ranger, Thirunelveli Division 

46. Murugesan, Ramco Group,Tribal Welfare, Rajapalayam 

47. I. Stephen Immanvel, PRO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli 

48. S. Mayir Rancer, Shenkottai, Tirunelveli 

49. T. Ganesh, Lifarefos Welfare Association, Kadamalai Kundu, Theni Division 

50. V. chelladurai, Research Herbal Botany, Survey of Medicinal Plant Unit 

Palayamkottai 

51. Dr. Albert Rajendran, Reader in Zoology, st. John’s College, Tiruvelveli – 

627002 

52. R. Srinivas Reddy, Distinct Forest Officer, Their. 

53. M. Senthil Kumar, Project Officer, GOD Trust, Trichy-21 

54. G. Palani, Asst. Conservation of Forest, Kanyakumari Division, NGO 

55. S. Natarajan, Asst. Executive Engineer WRO/PWD, Kadayar Basin Division 

Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari 

56. S. P. Murali Raja, Kattalaimadi Estate East 

57. M Vasanthi Murugadasan, Proprietor, Kattalamalai Estate 

58. S. Gearge, Forest Ranger, Vellimalai, Kanyakumari Division 

59. C. Nagappan, Forest Ranger Officer, Kanyakumari Division 

60. S. Bhoothalingam, Kulasekaram Range, Kulasekaram 

61. C. Arulraj, CABD, North street, Marthandam 

62. P. Ganapathy, Forest Ranger, Palay. 

259 





63. U. Kumar VFC, Villusaimalai 

64. A. Abdul Kadar, Forester, KMTR 

65. P. Ramachandran, VFC President 

66. G. Balan, VFC President, Vellimalai, Kanya Kumari Dist. 

67. V. Jayakumar 

68. M. Jansi Kumari 

69. P. Eswar muthu VFC Accountant 

70. P. Divakumar R. Scholar, MS University SPKCES. 

71. N. T. Sundaran B.E. Junior O/o The DFO, TNV. 

72. A. Manimaran, Forestry Sivagiri Range 

73. A. Murugesan, Krishna Puram Village 

74. S. Jeuaraman, Papanagar, ECO Range. 

75. S. Lakshman Kumar AWLW Tirukunodavdi ECO Range 

76. Jai Nagar, Pechipparai, K.K. Dist. 

77. E-Thasian, Forest Range Technical Range K.K. Division 

78. K. Chandra Sehelen, Nain Range, Nagererl 

79. G. Path, BB/E/Con,TVEB, TIN 

80. F. Bellramin John Raj, Asst. 

81. P. Malarajan, Forest Range 

82. K. Balakrishnan, Forest grand, Forest 

83. Rahul B. Singh, 

84. Shnilaja , IRNe Nagar 

85. Dr. T. Ganesh & Ganesan, Scientist, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology & 

Environment (ATREE) 659, 5 th A main, HEBBA C, Bangalore 

86. S. Swaminathan, Forest Range Officer, Sankaran Kovil 

87. B. Jalez, Forest Officer 

88. K. Krishan, O/o Conservator of forest 

89. S. S. Krishna Menon, Staff Car Driver, O/o Conservation of Forest, 

90. M. Sulthan, Driver, Uthama palayam Range, Their Division 

91. S. Kuttakipilli, D.F.D, Nagerenl K.K.D 

92. K. Murugan , CF Officer, TNU 

93. Raja Gopal, Driver, SF Division, Tirunel Village 

94. I. Seha Singh , DFO 

95. B. Sharma Driver, o/O FOMBRT, Range 

96. P. J. Thomes, Ponrai Cardon Estate , Sivagiri Forest Range, Sivagiri, P.O. Tamil 

Nadu. 

97. S. J. Thomes, Ponrai Cardon Estate, Sivagiri Forest Range, Sivagiri, P.O. Tamil 

Nadu. 

98. P. Ponnu Kumari 3/116 Main Road, Vallam, Sham Cottali. 

99. A. Gopaladhay 

100. K. Paltiylanem, 39, Golden Street, Pananpuller, Nagar Coil – 4. 

101. M. Maniamal 

102. S. Muthu Lakshmi 

103. P. Sudhan 

104. K. Muthukrishnan, Reporter, Dinakaran 

260 





105. D. Johni Rani 

106. P. Ponu Durai, Vallam 

107. A. Ganesh, Manager 

4. Minutes and Gist of Discussions of the State Level Workshop for BCRLIP 

Design for Tamil Nadu Sub-Landscape held on 25 th August 2006 in Forest 

Headquarters at Chennai 

1030: Welcome by Dr. Annamalai 

10:40 Opening remarks by H S Panwar, Team Leader, PEACE Consortium 

Nearly eight months of detailed field work in both biological and social domains, 

including extensive consultations with grassroots stakeholders, village institutions, 

NGOS and importantly Forest Department functionaries, by PEACE Consortium along 

with MG University School of Social Studies (MGUSS) and French Institute of 

Pondicherry (FIP) as associates has yielded the findings and proposals for the 

formulation of the BCRLIP, which are presented in the summary of the Indicative 

Plan (as circulated) for the Tamil Nadu and Kerala sub-landscapes of the 

Agasthiyarmalai Landscape (ALS). 

ALS is indeed a diverse landscape spanning the TN and Kerala tracts in the globally 

important biodiversity hotspot in the southern Western Ghats. On par with the 

biological, the diversity of land use, institutional and management regimes in the two 

states, throws up the challenge for a project that seeks to link up improvement in 

rural livelihoods as a means of strengthening the conservation of biodiversity. 

PEACE Consortium represents wide range of long standing countrywide experience 

and expertise in all the disciplines needed for such project planning. It has been 

eminently assisted by MGUSS and FIP both having extensive experience in the twin 

BD and SE domains in the southern Western Ghats. 

The two states of TN and Kerala have both implemented PA centric ecodevelopment 

initiatives respectively in KMTR (FREEP) and Periyar TR (IEDP) with unmatched 

countrywide successes. The lessons learnt study carried out also by the PEACE 

Consortium has enabled us to harness the critical lessons in the planning of BCRLIP. 

Findings and proposals will be presented at this workshop for a feedback to be used 

to improve the Indicative Plan. These were presented at the LS level workshop, 

participated by village institution leaders, NGOs, Scientific institutions and last but 

not the least different levels of forest department personnel. The feedback we have 

from here is sure to be very useful and we hope the same from this workshop. 

1045: Opening remarks by Shri C. K. Sreedharan, PCCF, Tamil Nadu 

Sri Sreedharan observed that this project was seeking to break new ground by 

addressing wildlife and biodiversity conservation at a larger regional level by 

employing the landscape approach. A LS level initiative is bound raise challenges 

261 





involving conservation, compatible livelihoods and the different management regimes 

and the attendant legal aspects. 

Complexities are bound to be substantial and the project focus on inter sectoral 

coordination and inter state coordination would require very thoughtfully designed 

institutional mechanisms. He observed that the TNFD has had extensive and 

valuable experience by way of successfully implementing the FREEP ecodevelopment 

interventions in KMTR and participatory forest management under TAP I & II as well 

as NAP. This gives us the confidence to handle the BCRLIP implementation in an 

appropriate manner. 

10:50: Address by PPCF & CWLW. Dr. Sukhdev 

Dr Sukhdev shared the States experience in implementing conservation initiatives in 

KMTR, Gulf of Mannar and, the Nilgiris. He observed that the adoption of 

ecodevelopment approach earlier in KMTR and then using it also in Gulf of Mannar 

has yielded outstanding results and provided valuable experience. However, nonadoption 

of ecodevelopment strategy in the Nilgiris had undermined the quality of 

results there. Gulf of Mannar has important inter-departmental coordination issues, 

which have been addressed with emerging success and this experience also in 

BCRLIP implementation. 

He further stated that it is important to identify Biodiversity Significant Areas and for 

doing this the use of an effective vegetation classification system is necessary. He 

hoped that the employment of both Champion & Seth as well as FIP classification 

systems would have helped the PEACE Consortium to come up with well identified 

BSAs in this important landscape. 

1100: Address by Dr. RPS Katwal, Additional DG Wildlife, MoEF-GOI 

Dr RPS Katwal who belongs to the TN cadre of IFS expressed his happiness to be 

again with his long lost colleagues. He recalled that TN had excelled in the 

implementation of ecodevelopment initiative in KMTR under FREEP and this 

experience would be crucial for the BCRLIP. He appreciated that PEACE Consortium 

has used this experience in planning BCRLIP. He also appreciated the sharing of this 

experience and data by the TNFD with PEACE and hoped that this is reflected in the 

proposed Indicative Plan for ALS. 

1105: Overview Presentation on BCRLIP planning by Sri Manoj Misra -PEACE 

Shri Mishra explained how the GOI in association with the states had selected the six 

sites where the BCRLIP would be implemented and where the PEACE Consortium has 

undertaken the project planning work. He also explained the planning approach and 

how countrywide experience in ecodevelopment and PFM has been used in this work. 

He particularly recognised the high value of the KMTR and PTR experience of 

ecodevelopment implementation in PEACE Consortium’s planning work. 

262 





A query was made on the selection process for LS sites, questioning particularly the 

selection of Dampa as it was not representative of the highly rich biodiversity of the 

NE. Shri Katwal answered this query by clarifying that all states of the country were 

asked by MoEF to send proposals for the candidate sites. Later these proposals were 

examined and vetted by experts from WII, BSI and ZSI. MoEF selected those that 

were short listed by the experts and if no better site was selected, it could only be 

because lack of other competent proposals from other NE states. 

Another observation made was by Dr A. Annamalai, CCF-BD-TN, who mentioned that 

Kanyakumari (KK) division was duly notified under Section 18A (1) and because it 

was comprised of only RF blocks, it was not necessary to notify it as WLS under 

Section 26 of the WPA. HSP remarked that the KK division had a number of privately 

owned estates (of erstwhile Travancore princely state grants), besides a large area 

having been leased to Arasu Rubber Corporation for rubber plantations. These had 

to be looked into in the rights settlement process and settled one way or the other. 

Having done that it was still necessary to notify the area as WLS under Section 26A- 

Sub Section (1b) of the WPA as amended in 2003. 

1120: Presentation of Biological Assessment by Dr. Karunakaran of FIP 

Dr A. Annamalai observed after the presentation that forest classification should 

have been done only in conformity to Champion and Seth Classification system. HSP 

and Dr Karunakaran clarified that the FIP Classification system was fully compatible 

with the C&S system and in fact the FIP system only further sub-classified the 

broader classes of the C&S. In the version of the Indicative Plan to be upgraded, 

this clarification would be succinctly brought out by description and a comparative 

Table. The depiction of Dry Evergreen forest would also be further looked into and 

incorporated in order to meet the concerns of the Forest Department. HSP also 

observed that the FIP further sub-classification by the FIP system helps better 

conservation planning including identification of the BSAs. Sri Sridharan PCCF also 

stated that while that the forest department has been following the C&S 

classification, it has as yet to look into the efficacy of the FIP classification system. 

It would therefore be would be useful to see details of the actual classification under 

the two system in the report. 

Inventory and distribution of species elicited a discussion. HSP requested Mr. Pramod 

Kanth and the other participants to help with reference for papers and institutions 

that have worked on the inventory of species/ communities in the ALS and their 

distribution therein. 

It was desired that more information on endemism of species as well as on the 

vertebrates and invertebrates should be incorporated. HSP clarified that this was 

already there and that this would be further upgraded at the DFR stage. 

Some issues about management zoning were raised. It was suggested that in KMTR 

the zoning should be in accordance with the Management Plan and similarly zoning 

should be done by taking core to be coterminous with the proposed Kanyakumari 

263 





and contemplated Tirunelveli WLS. HSP clarified that such rigid zoning may not be 

viable considering that a number of private and leased estates TNEB enclaves 

(having residential segments) of significant extent exist as well as there are some 

tribal settlements. Some SHG based activities e.g. pasture development may have 

to be taken up in the fringe forest areas in order to mitigate pressures in several 

interior areas, particularly the Kanyakumari and Theni Divisions. In view of this, 

such rigid view in zoning may not go with the project aims to bring in BD 

conservation in non PA, non forest areas. 

1230: Presentation on Socioeconomic Assessment by Dr Rajan Gurukkal 

A query was raised on the detailed micro-planning. MM clarified on the mandate of 

the PEACE Consortium as consultants stating that it was limited to preparing an 

Indicative Plan. While adequate investigations and wide ranging consultations were 

made in the project villages, it was beyond the scope of this indicative project 

planning exercise to cover the detailed micro-planning work in all villages. Also a 

wide based experience is that if model micro-plans are provided now often their 

format is are used more as Tables to just fill in information without much going into 

the concerns and needs of individual villages. In stead as a part of the report we 

would provide detailed guidelines for micro-planning to be taken up as an activity 

under the project in its first of the 6-year term. 

1300: Presentation on Law and Policy aspects by Shri Sanjay Upadhyay 

No comments came forth on this presentation. 

Discussions 

CWLW suggested that a basket of development package should be indicated so that 

FD should be in a position to discuss and offer to EDCs. HSP clarified that the basket 

of options as already suggested in the strategy-activities part of the summary 

circulated already contained this aspect. It was emphasised by him that such 

options have to be cross-cutting as can be gleaned from the Summary. We would 

attempt flesh these out further at the DFR stage. 

Another observation made out that ALS is rich in medicinal plants. Local hakims and 

vaidyas are allowed to collect medicinal plants. If a legal provision can be thought 

out this activity could be regulated. Sri Sanjay Upadhyay suggested in the interest 

of conservation and sustainable availability of such plants this can be ensured by 

framing suitable rules under the BD Act. 

Shri Sanjay Srivastava made a general observation that a lack of land use policy in 

the country is responsible for most of the administrative and legal issues and 

problems confronting forest, wildlife and biodiversity conservation. 

264 





1415: Presentation by H S Panwar on Issues, Strategy and Activities 

Dr Sukhdeo briefed on anti poaching camps manned by the tribal youth under 

supervision of the guard for every 20-25 sq. km. HS Panwar observed that it is 

proposed to strengthen this activity by providing free rations and rotating Guards 

and tribal youth on biweekly basis. HSP cited the PTR example to ensure 

sustainability of this activity through linking it collection of fees from ecotourism. 

It was commented that post-project sustainability of NGOs is difficult. HSP observed 

that if the enhanced revolving fund corpus and accretions from activities like pilgrim 

and ecotourism, the EDCS can themselves foot the cost on continuing NGO 

individuals, though it is better to aim for capacity enhancement of the Executive 

Committee members in accounting and communication skills. It is hence necessary 

to impart training to EDC-EC and NGOs. 

1530: Presentation by Manoj Misra on Institutional Arrangements 

Manoj Misra made a presentation to the group on the proposed institutional structure 

suggested under the project. He outlined the strengths of an autonomous Society 

model of implementation arrangement as against the implementation by the 

department especially in the light of the landscape wide nature of the project 

coverage. 

Other Observations 

TNFD runs 19 schools for tribal people and hence it can help the education delivery 

in remote areas. HSP observed that local individuals and companies e.g. RAMCO in 

Rajapalayam should be involved in taking this activity further. 

EDC and SHG model is working well within KMTR. HSP added that the project design 

aims at using this experience for strengthening various project activities in the ALS. 

TN is the only state where grazing is regulated. Grazing is not a right but the large 

herd owners pose a big issue. HSP observed that the large herd owners raise these 

cattle for commercial purpose using poor villagers as cowherds on meagre wages. 

They get fat return from the sale of dung-manure to tea estates in the area and by 

of and on selling of heads of breeding surplus, which mostly goes for slaughter. He 

said that this was a major problem in Theni, Srivilliputtur and Kanyakumari. In 

Theni it is the most serious cause for accelerated erosion of the Vaigai watershed. 

He also mentioned that an association of these large herd owners filed a petition in 

the Madurai branch of TN High Court saying that restrictions placed by Forest 

Department in Srivilliputtur WLS would lead to extermination on this rare breed of 

Malaimad cattle, which can survive only on forest grazing. The High Court however 

rejected their plea on the ground that WLS was a special conservation area and that 

grazing there was not permitted. In order to counter this plea in other ALS-TN 

areas, our innovative proposals include setting up SHGs to rear malaimad cattle in 

small herds. These SHGs can be facilitated by pasture development and 

265 





supplementing fodder from SHG run small fodder farms and even from crop residues 

used as forage. Such SHGs could also gainfully take up organic farming of local 

cereals, pulses and vegetables using the dung-manure of their cattle. They can also 

profit from sale of organic manure to farmers and estate owners. 

CONVERGENCE 

There is hardly any working inter departmental coordination now at the state and 

district levels and a practical only way to speed it up is make the stakeholders aware 

who in turn ask for due inputs from the various line agencies. 

Dr Jayashree mentioned that BD and LH are not two distinct entities. They can be 

made complementary through: 

1. Interventions at social level 

2. LH-economic dimension using multiple options 

3. Cultural interventions. This recognition would lead to effective integration. 

4. Ecological attributes as part of heritage and central to local economy 

5. Polity. At level of SHGs. Small time thrift societies. For inclusiveness their 

capacities need to be enhanced. 

Dr Katwal observed that the institutional structure would need to be contextualised. 

The CS headed committee has been able to facilitate convergence. CWLW observed 

that ALS is considered an extension of KMTR. Gulf of Mannar has a similar 

arrangement. He would like a similar approach from ALS. 

Workshop concluded with a vote of thanks. 


S. 

Name 

Designation 

No. 

1. R.P.S. Katwal, IFS ADGF (Wild Life), MoEF, New Delhi 011-26887449 

2. C.K. Sreedharan, IFS Principal Chief Conservation of Forests, Tamil Nadu 

3. Dr. Sukh Dev, IFS PCCF and Chief Wild Life Warden 

4. R. Sundararaju, IFS Addl. Principal Chief Conservation of Forest (Forest 

Administrator) 

5. Pramode Kant. IFS Addl. Principal Chief Conservation of Forest 

(Afforestation) 

6. Rakesh Vasisht, IFS Addl. Principal Chief Conservation of Forest 

(Planning & Budget) 

7. Dr. G. S. Rawat, IFS Chief Conservation of Forests (Working Plan) 

8. K.P.M. Perumal, IFS Chief Conservation of Forests (Tamil Nadu 

Afforestation Project) 

9. Dr. R. Annamalai, 

IFS 

Chief Conservator of Forests (Planning and 

Development) 

266 





10. Inder Dhamija, IFS Conservator of Forests (TAP-II) 

11. S. K. Srivastava, IFS Conservator of Forests (GIS) 

12. R. Kannan, IFS Conservator of Forests (HRD) 

13. Ms. R.R. Senthamani D.D, Director of social welfare 

14. Dr. P. Deiwudran, VAS, D. of A.H 

15. Dr. V. R. Baskar, BVCC 

16. Dr. R. Ramesh, BVCC, J.R.S 

17. Dr. Jayeshree 

18. A. J. Anusuya 

5. Minutes of BCRLIP-ALS 2 nd LS Workshop, Kerala Component held at 

Mascot Hotel, Thiruvananthapuram on 9 th March 2007, 10.30 am -5.00 

pm 

Participants: 

Besides those listed in S. No. 1 to 12 below, about 150 participants registered for the 

workshop. Main individuals and categories are listed below: 

Time: 

1) Hon. Binoy Viswom. Minister of Environment and Forestry 

2) Mr. Sivan Kutty, Thiruvanathapuram East MLA 

3) Ms. Shanthakumari, Pathanamthitta District Panchayat President 

4) Mr. Srivastava, Additional PCCF, Forest Deparment, Government of Kerala 

5) Mr. Suting, CCF, Thiruvanathapuram 

6) Mr.Siva Raju, CCF, Thiruvanthapuram 

7) Mr. Shankara Narayanan. World Bank Representative 

8) Mr. Ganga Singh, Representative, Government of India 

9) Mr. H.S. Panwar, Peace Consortium Team Leader 

10) Dr. Rajan Gurukkal, Professor & Director, School of Social Sciences 

11) Dr. S.Raju, School of Social Sciences 

12) Dr.P.Madhu, MES College of Engineering, Kuttippuram 

13) Line Department officials 

14) Elected representatives of Local Governments (panchayats) 

15) VSS presidents of project locations 

16) Representatives of NGOs in the project location 

The Meeting was presided by Mr. Srivastava, Additional PCCF, inaugurated by Hon. 

Minister for forest and environment Mr. Binoy Viswom, Chaired by Mr. Sivan Kutty, 

MLA, and Ms. Shantha Kumari was the chief guest. Serial Numbers 13 to 15 in the 

above list of participants account for some additional 150 individuals, mostly CBO 

representatives, both men and women. 

267 





As the minister was busy with budget session in the Legislative Assembly, he could 

come only delayed. Mr. Sivan Kuty MLA also joined later. 

The workshop began with the address by Kollam CCF Mr. K. J. Varghese 

explaining the salient features of the project in Malayalam language. 

Mr. Vargese traced the evolution of forestry in India as it had evolved from being 

‘hunting’ grounds of royal hunters to wild life sanctuary and then its evolution into 

tiger reserves, forest greenery protection and then presently growing its focus on 

‘bio-diversity’. He also emphasized that gradually we have learnt that forest 

resources can be protected only with people’s participation and later we have learnt 

that mere participation is not sufficient, rather we need to intervene into the social 

relations and its power dynamics to develop constructive dependency of the people 

living within and near by the forests. After explaining the evolution of insights he 

explained what the ‘Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement 

Project’ has to offer in the ‘Agasthiyarmalai landscape’. The project he claimed 

developed out of the lessons learnt from the successes and failures of India ecodevelopment 

project. He explained that unlike other projects, those with biodiversity 

focus cannot limit itself to smaller ‘islands’ of operations. Projects of 

biodiversity to succeed has to take ‘landscape’ approach, by which it is meant that 

one large sect of landscape or combination of landscapes including forest, non-forest, 

private estates, small village habitats and neighbouring agricultural lands would be 

taken as the project location. Thus Agasthiyarmalai landscape would spread about 

8023 sq km area beginning from ‘Agasthiyar koodam - Achencoil’ land spread in 

Kerala to ‘Kanyakumari –Theni’ land spread in Tamil nadu. He also said this land 

spread one of the other five large biodiversity land spreads in the country. He also 

said in this project livelihood of people especially that of the poor is given equal 

prominence as that of the biodiversity. The Project, he explained would take ‘process 

approach’ rather than ‘project approach’ with due importance given to tackling the 

ongoing ‘socio-anthropological’ crisis, without which effective constructive 

participation may not be possible. 

The project, to succeed in its ambitious mission has to tackle the problems emerging 

from the operations of: lands given as tenancy to Plantation Corporation, public 

corporations, granted estates, sand mining, problems related to ‘Thenmala dam’ and 

the illegal occupancy in 90 hectares of crucial landscape in Kerala. 

The project is envisaged to be coordinated by the National Tiger Protection Authority. 

At the state level there will be ‘societies’ meant for coordination. The ‘societies’ will 

not be comprised of persons from forest department alone, but it would have 

representatives from other line departments. The chairperson of the societies will be 

the chief ministers of respective state governments. There will be executive 

committees to execute project plans. The project will also have district level sanities. 

These sanities would be comprised of representatives from district level functionaries 

of line departments, panchayats and other collectives other kinds like neighbourhood 

groups, self-help groups, NGO organizations, kudumbashree units etc. The first year 

of the project would be spent for building up local collectives and bringing in co- 

268 





operation from line department and panchayats. The district level samities would be 

having sub village level groups. A major portion of the project funds will be directly 

given to the sub-village groups to conceptualize, implement, monitor and evaluate 

the project. 

By the time Mr. Varghese could finish his presentation the minister arrived. 

The following is the abstract of the Ministers’ speech: 

The minister began with his aspiration to make this a successful venture. He shared 

his opinion that conservation today may not be successful if we alienate people in its 

practice, for, primarily forest belongs to people. If people understand the importance 

of the forests and biodiversity they will be part of such a project. The emphasis on 

local people’s involvement in conservation effort should not be let to be either 

participation in paper alone or only as a insincere ritual. The Government of Kerala is 

committed to the involvement of people at grassroots level in all its decisions. 

‘Agastiyar vanam’ landscape can hardly be over estimated in its place as a biodiversity 

hot-spot. It is no wonder that this landscape draws world attention. 

Diversity is not a human creation, though it can be brought to nil by unaware human 

action. Nature took millions of years to bring the diversity into existence. Forests 

play crucial role in bringing up and maintaining biodiversity by having every 

resources like water, clean air, well conditioned soil, conductive climate etc. 

I am always under pressure as I was told that the development should be given 

priority over maintenance of natural resources. I always resist such tendencies. Of 

course one cannot be fanatic about it. For example, in Thiruvananthapuram City, for 

road expansion they may have to cut some trees. There I cannot be fanatic and 

resist cutting trees for this purpose, instead I instruct at least 20 trees has to be 

planted and maintained till they mature in the place of one being fell. 

Development has become inevitable. But, the development should be redirected to 

be environment friendly, otherwise it would be destroying our future for over 

consumption in the present. 

‘Woman’ is proverbially related to patience; like woman, earth is also proverbially 

linked to patience. For both women and earth there is a tolerance limit. 

Let us not destroy the rhythm of natural life. Disturbing nature’s rhythm would leave 

us without the security from nature. This would let our next generation to pay the 

cost of our destructive activities. 

This project proposal should be appreciated as it is emphasizing the rural livelihood 

betterment and biodiversity on equal footing. But, there must be sufficient care that 

money not just wasted as administrative expense or as means to satisfy the greed of 

the exploiters. 

After the Minister completed his speech Mr. Sivankutty MLA gave a small speech in 

which he emphasized development should be the top priority. He applaused people o 

269 





Kerala by a blanket statement ‘nobody in Kerala is ‘anti-nature’’. He also said it is 

not ecological action if we prevent poor from taking some fuel wood from forest. 

After the address by Mr. Sivan Kutty, Ms.Shanthakumari gave her speech. She 

applauded the Indian culture promoting sacred grooves. She claimed that ancients 

in Kerala were aware of the natural resources as they could predict that 

disappearance of sacred grooves would negatively affect water availability. 

Followed by Ms. Shanthakumari, Mr. KK.Srivasthava (additional PCC), Mr. 

Sankara Narayanan (World bank Representative) and Mr. Ganga Singh (Govt. of 

India rep.) presented their views on the project. 

After the speech by Ms. Shanthakumari, Mr.Panwar, the team leader explained the 

project using powerpoint software. Mr. Panwar elaborated what Mr. Varghese 

presented at the beginning of the programme. 

Mr. H.S.Panwar began his presentation by reminding of his 30 years of association 

with the state and people of Kerala. 

He made the following observations: 

1. Biodiversity conservation can be successful only if we give up ‘island 

syndrome’ and work at the landscape scale. 

2. Biodiversity conservation is not for itself, but also for the economic wellbeing 

of the day and also of the days to come. 

3. Biodiversity, and maintenance of balanced environment is inevitable to secure 

‘ecological services’. 

4. Where ever people are dependent on the forest that dependency has to be 

made productive and positive. 

5. One of the chief reason for poorer people destructively depend on forest 

resources is because an exploitative social structure and power relations 

drives them towards a helpless exploitative relationship. For this purpose one 

has to emphasize on interventions focused towards liberating the poor from 

their bondages. 

6. One has to synergize biodiversity with life improvement. 

7. The project area would consist of protected area, non-protected area, estates, 

lands of Govt. corporations, etc. 

8. The key stake holder of the project should be the poor and women. 

9. Where people stay isolated in the forest they do not receive the deliberately 

created public services. Hence, to make access to development possible the 

scattered population should be ‘clustered’ 

10. The project should be implemented using ‘process approach’. 

11. People’s involvement should be at all levels of the project from 

conceptualizing to evaluating and monitoring. 

After Mr.Panwar’s presentation the meeting was dispersed for lunch at 1.40 PM. 

270 





The post-lunch session was interaction session with a brief introduction to the 

session by Dr.Rajan Gurukkal. Dr.Gurukkal began his address appreciating Mr. 

Varghese for his crisp and solid presentation. 

He invited the audience not to be too much concerned about individualistic demands 

and think in terms of the regional bio-diversity enrichment for a better tomorrow for 

all. Dr.Gurukkal spoke on behalf of the poor and bio-diversity both having one 

common feature that they do not deliberate on the ‘future’ and their future depends 

on those who design the future. The focus thus should be reserving a future for poor 

as well as the biological diversity. It is ethical and important as well for sustainable 

livelihood. Not just natural ‘gullies’ to be plugged to prevent soil erosion, but the 

‘social gullies’ too has to be plugged along with for the sustained social wellbeing. 

After the brief introduction by Dr.Gurukkal the floor was open to discussion. The 

following were the major comments: 

Mr. Rasheedkuty, Rosemala: 

He expressed his anger that the forest department disallows ‘development’ in his 

locality. He expressed his anguish over himself and the people around him still living 

in the 18 th century where as the mainland gets developed faster. However he 

thanked the forest department for being friendlier than before. 

Mr. K.Sivadasan, Panchayat President, Thenmala: 

He addressed on the wild bore ‘nuisance’ that disallows the farming community 

surrounding forest unable to cultivate anything. He suggested there should be solar 

fencing to prevent animals entering farm land. He agreed with the previous speaker 

on living in the 18 th century. He expressed his anger that the forest department does 

not allow laying roads despite the panchayat has funds and provision to lay them. He 

requested that this project should take care of the necessity to have vehicle friendly 

forest roads facilitating their development. 

Mr. P.S. Soman, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kollam: 

He begun with his appreciation of the integrated nature of the project proposed. He 

had three appeals: 

1. Presently there are centrally sponsored and state sponsored projects. There 

should be efforts to integrate them through this project. 

2. There should be projects for growing medicinal plants. 

3. Line departments field officials should be trained to work in co-ordination with 

the project. 

271 





Mr. Salim, Panchayat President, Mampazhathuruthu 

His opinions are: 

1. The project should include the ‘Priya Estate’ 

2. He asked whether there would be displacement of people as a part of the 

project. 

3. The forest department should not interfere in fund transfer and fund 

utilization. Panchayats should be let free to utilize the funds as they plan 

ahead. 

4. The project should have ‘tourism’ element in it. 

5. The project should have provisions to protect the agricultural lands from 

animal intrusion. 

For the queries Mr. Varghese responded as follows: 

1. There is a micro-planning component in the project. Projects like medicinal 

plants growing can be taken as part of micro-plans. 

2. The funds already available with the line departments can be integrated in the 

micro-plan 

3. Funds from other projects can be integrated into that of the societies formed 

at the state level. 

4. Training of the line department staff would certainly be part of the project. 

Fifteen line departments would be integrated into the project implementation. 

5. The Ariyankavu-Rosemala forest road project is submitted to NABARD for 

funds. If there is no constraint from NABARD the road project could be begun. 

6. There are always restrictions in building forest roads. There are projects to 

make concrete roads without expanding the traditional roads. Forests cannot 

accommodate big roads and busy transportation. Instead small road projects 

can be undertaken without felling trees. 

7. We use funds from other projects for our purpose. For example we have no 

funds for building corridor for animal passage; but we may be working with 

railways to make it a reality. 

8. There will be no displacement of people in the project; but efforts would be 

put in voluntary trans-location to another place where they would get 

comfortable legal land with better civic amenities in lieu of the lands they 

have encroached into. 

9. Eco-tourism is already proposed in the project document. 

10. Fencing can be part of the micro plans. It would be suggested that instead of 

expecting better facilities and protection from animals, one may have to 

voluntarily shift to places all these facilities available taking into consideration 

of the crucial importance of animal mobility for biodiversity. 

11. Forest department may not withdraw from fund management as one may 

suspect even panchayats in managing funds properly taking into 

consideration of the history of fund management by the panchayats. It is 

necessary not to loose the sight of the objectives for which the project is 

proposed. 

272 





President, Kuttichal Panchayat 

Once again there was request for managing animal intrusion into farm lands. 

As debris of the failures of earlier projects there are unused 54 buildings at 

Kappakadu built for adivasis. They remain unused. Can they be put in some use? 

When adivasis become ill, presently there is no means of transportation to bring 

them to hospital. There should be roads laid for this purpose; instead either hospitals 

can be started in the forest area. 

Ms. K.R Ajitha, President, Arulikkad Panchayat 

She suggested that Panchayat members and officials should be trained about the 

project. 

Mr. R.Dileepkumar, Ponmala Vana Vikas agency 

There are people staying at forest and railway poramboke (government) lands. They 

plant trees there; but they are disallowed to cut the trees they have planted. 

Disallowing to clear fell does not let people to even maintain subsistence agriculture. 

Can people be allowed to make a livelihood by farming after clear felling some trees? 

It would be helpful if people are given documentary rights to the lands they have 

occupied. Can the forest officials think of planting fruit trees so that animals need not 

come to the farm lands to destroy crops? 

Mr. Rajendran, President, VSS Konni 

Mr. Rajendran suggested that water from the forest ponds can be brought using 

gravitation to the forest fringe rural people. 

George Joseph, Konni 

George Joseph complained that the forest department is the biggest hurdle for their 

development. He complained that even when one manages a fund from panchayat 

for building a house the forest department disallows them to build one on the pretext 

of preventing us from felling trees. The irony is that most of the trees were planted 

by the residents themselves. The forest department puts hurdles to road projects 

even when they are sanctioned by other departments concerned. It should be 

considered of constructing Achankoil – Sabarimala road. 

For the queries Mr. Varghese responded as follows: 

1. The medicinal plant project can be part of micro-plans of respective localities. 

2. Animals are part of the forest. One has to live with them. However, we would 

be putting our best efforts to minimize the problems caused by the animals. 

In case we are located in the animal mobility location we may have to shift 

ourselves to places of our comfort. There are inherent limitations in restricting 

273 





animal mobility. Similarly, it may not be possible to construct bigger roads or 

even new tar roads within the forests. The priority within the forest will be to 

the biodiversity and its enhancement. 

3. Provisions for health centers are already there in the project. We can consider 

the possibility of modern medical doctor visiting these centres on regular 

basis. 

4. The project envisages local employment generation through productive 

relation with the forests. 

5. Letting people to clear fell or even cut a single tree may not be possible as 

per the present policy. 

6. The suggestion that water can be transported to forest fringe areas using 

gravitation is already made in the project document. 

Patrik Thomas, DFO 

Mr. Patrik Thomas observed: 

1. Electricity can be provided In the forest fringe areas provided we fulfil a 

certain formalities. 

Wildlife Chief Conservator 

The WCF pointed out: 

1. Kappakadavu buildings are incomplete and hardly compatible to any purpose 

including converting them as classrooms or as hostel for students. 

2. The demand for employment opportunity would be communicated to the 

concerned officials of the government of India while finally giving shape to the 

project. 

3. Medicinal plants projects can very well included in the micro plans of the 

respective localities. 

After the reply from the Wildlife chief conservator, the discussion came to an end. 

The workshop formally came to an end after Mr. Sivaraju, CCF concluded with a 

vote of thanks. 

6. Minutes of the BCRLIP 2 nd Landscape Level Workshop for TN Component 

of ALS held at SARAL hall, Thirunelveli on 11 th March 2007 

Participants 

1. Mr. Sridharan IFS, PCCF 

2. Mr. H.S. Panwar IFS, Team leader, Peace Consortium 

3. Mr. Ganga Singh IFS, Representative, Govt. of India 

4. Mr. Ramkumar IFS, CCF 

5. Dr. Annamalai IFS, CCF 

6. Mr. KPF Perumal IFS, CCF 

274 





7. Dr. VN Singh IFS, CCF 

8. Mr. Pasupathi Raj IFS, CCF 

9. Mr. Suting IFS, CCF 

10. Mr. Srinivasa Reddy IFS, DFO 

11. Mr. Sundar Raj IFS, DFO 

12. Mr. Venuprasad IFS DFO 

13. Mr.Srinivasa Reddy IFS DFO 

14. Mr. Durvasan, Wildlife Warden 

15. Dr. Christopher, Biodiversity expert 

16. Dr. P. Madhu, Social Scientist 

17. Representatives of VSS 

18. Representatives of local NGOs 

The meeting began at 10.30 AM with the welcome address of Mr. Ramkumar IFS. 

Followed by the welcome address the PCCF Mr. Sridharan addressed the audience. 

Mr. Sridharan begun with the failures of conservation prior to 1991in the Kalakkad- 

Mundanthurai areas but later due to the 'people's participation' element the project 

namely 'project tiger' that had begun in 1996 with world bank assistance was 

assessed to be successful in 2007. We have seen people coming forward and they 

were constructively contributing to the forest conservation. The result was, there was 

an improvement in biodiversity conservation and improvement in the lives of people 

living in and surrounding the forests. Now the project has become a 'model' for 

others to emulate. The proposed project is a great leap in sophistication. Emphasis is 

given to biodiversity conservation with local people's involvement and improvement 

of the quality of life of the forest fringe settlements. The project is to be 

implemented in the biodiversity hotspot in the Western Ghats from Theni forests to 

Kanyakumari forests. We expect your co-operation in further improving this project 

by giving useful suggestions and changes. 

Followed by Mr. Sridharan, Mr.Ganga Singh addressed the gathering explaining the 

purpose of the workshop. 

Following the address a document on Kalakkad and Mundanthurai is released by Mr. 

Sridharan and Mr.H.S Panwar. 

After that the PCCF Mr. Sridharan once again occupied the podium to deliver his 

presidential address. In his presidential address he remained that the day chosen for 

the workshop is auspicious as the Tamilnadu Forest department came into existence 

150 years before on this day. The slogan of development as we here today is, “Either 

get developed or be eliminated”; and equally important concept oft forgotten is, 

“Either conserve natural resources or perish”. The challenge before us is striking the 

275 





balance between the possibility of getting eliminated because of underdevelopment 

or perishing out of natural disaster. He praised the project for being even at the level 

higher than his comprehension. 

After Mr.Sridharan's presentation, Mr.Panwar came forward with his PowerPoint 

presentation. He expressed his concern over population pressure on ecology as 

population increased 3 ½ times after independence. 

He compared Tamiraparani with Vaigai to contrast how a poor management of 

catchments area of Vaigai which made it already a dead river unable to exist without 

water imported from Mullai Periyar. The comparison can help us to know how 

conservation helps. 

Conserving nature is not an isolated activity. It requires the constructive involvement 

of the forest dependent people. Forest dependent people may have positive and 

constructive relation with the forest only if the social forces pushing them to be 

destructively dependent on forest are tackled. The social forces that let poor to be 

destructively dependent on the natural resources is the high level of exploitation and 

debt trap springing out from the highly in-egalitarian social relationships. Thus 

conservation of natural resources is intricately related to management of better 

social relationship, developing alternate employment opportunities, releasing the 

poor from debt traps, and involving women in conservation activities. 

Referring to PCCF's comment on development necessity and the inevitability of 

conservation, Mr.H.S. Panwar observed that if natural resources are degraded, there 

can be no further development. 

Later he discussed on the uniqueness of the 'Agasthiyarmalai' landscape that spread 

into two neighbouring states: Tamil Nadu and Kerala. He noted that this land spread 

is one of the richest biodiversity sites. After explaining the importance of this 

'landscape' in maintaining the earth's biodiversity he went on explaining 1. Project 

Vision 2. Biodiversity profile of the region 3.Demographic profile of the region 4. The 

method by which the 'socio-anthropological crisis' and 'exploitative social 

relationships' can be managed 5. The need for clustering human settlements inside 

and on the fringe areas of the forest 6. The importance of pro-poor, pro-woman 

strategy 7. The relevance of 'process approach' 8. The possibility of integrating line 

departments and Panchayat administrations in the project implementation 9. 

Integrating participatory pilgrimage and eco-tourism components with the project. 

He also explained what he meant by 'landscape': a large scale operation having a 

different segments of land-use within and outside protected and forest areas. 

Metaphorically it also means convergence of various line departments and local 

political-will to better biodiversity conservation. 

The meeting resumed post-lunch with invitation of Mr.Sridharan for opinions and 

suggestions from the participating officials and the representatives of people living in 

and nearby the forest region. 

276 





The queries/opinions from the participating forest officials are: 

1. Buffer zone should be included 

2. The Kuntha Kulam bird-sanctuary area should be included in the project 

3. The Pallian community's dependency on forest should rather rated to be 

'high' where as in the project document it is written 'medium'. 

4. Does this project sanctify encroachments by giving the encroachers 

compensatory land offer? 

5. Presently forest boundary is not very clearly known even to forest officials. 

6. Is the 5 Km area of forest fringes a strict rule- there should be flexibility in 

this rule as mechanical application of this rule may be inappropriate in 

some areas. 

7. The field level officials should be trained properly to share the spirit of the 

project to the local people. 

8. Most of the foresters are old people. Can we get fresh young recruitment? 

9. There is shortfall of field staff and foresters. More staff required for better 

implementation of the project. 

10. What is meant as process approach? Can there be a logical frame work for 

the process approach. 

11. Is this project compatible with the new tribal/forest rights bill? From the 

forest bill perspective it may not be possible to cluster forest/ fringe living 

'tribals'. 

The queries from local residents/ VSS presidents/ NGOs are: 

1. There exists lack of co-ordination between forest and other departments 

2. Number of 'boatmen' increase in the water bodies nearby forest. Visitors 

should not be allowed to stay there after 6.00 PM (I could not register the 

location they are discussing about- It should be some water body inside 

the forest in the Kalakkad/Mundanthurai location). 

3. Not Just the forest fringe dwellers, but adivasis should also be treated as 

project beneficiaries. Can the opportunity to be boatman be reserved for 

Kani communities? 

4. The 'Ezhilampalai' species of tree during its flowering season repels 

elephants. Can there be some research done on this aspect, which may 

help us to prevent elephants destroying farmlands. 

5. There are 23 private estates in Theni area. They grow coffee, cardamom 

and other spices. It is found that they could not run their estates 

profitably. Can these estates bought and integrated into the project area? 

6. The local people out of their trials and errors have lots of practical 

knowledge can they be documented through this project? Can we find 

funds for that? 

7. Can education, health and nutrition management components be part of 

this project. 

8. The project should focus on providing alternate labour opportunities. 

Providing vocational education may take care of youth seeking alternative 

jobs. 

9. There exists no basic amenities in the forest dwellings, presently it is very 

difficult to take pregnant girls to hospital as we do not have good roads. 

277 





We physically carry them to near by roads and from there to hospitals. We 

have to walk about 4 ½ kms to get our ration. Our children have to walk 

Kilometres to reach schools. Can anything be done to ameliorate our 

condition? 

10. We cannot move from our present location as we already have invested 

our resources, labour and time in growing Coconut trees, coffee, 

cardamom etc. We cannot move out from here when our efforts already 

started yielding. 

11. We have made some clay materials and utensils as part of self 

employment scheme. But we have no buyers. Can forest department 

purchase the products from us? Or can they make arrangements for 

selling them? Can there be a permanent solution for selling the products 

we make through self-employment schemes. 

12. Not just credit facilities, we require institutions that can provide us regular 

employment. 

13. Some of the participants narrated how they have restrained themselves 

from being wood cutters. One gave the statistics that out of 150 woodcutters 

145 has come out of that profession and got adopted to some 

other labour. 

14. Wild bore population should be controlled as they are not very much 

forest friendly. They consume every seed that is about to grow into plants. 

15. New breeds of cows compatible to the forest fringe areas should be 

provided to help sustenance of people living there. 

16. We put best of our efforts to prevent forest fire. Sometimes it demands us 

as a group go to the forest and stay there to put end to fire. It would be 

appreciated if any support provided for us when we do this. Some funds 

should be allocated for such a collective protection activities. 

Response to the queries/suggestions 

The queries and suggestions were responded to by Mr. C. K. Sridharan and 

Mr.H.S.Panwar as follows: 

1. Rs. 2 crore grant fund is allocated in the project. The fund can be used to 

tackle the buffer zone, bird sanctuary related issues. 

2. Forest officials cannot afford being ignorant of the forest boundaries. 

Steps should be taken to make forest officials being completely aware of 

the forest territory. The territories should be marked and documented. 

3. Appointing new recruits is not in our hand. We can only make such a 

representation to the government. If the government agrees then we can 

have new foresters. 

4. Process approach is being sensitive to the local contexts and people’s 

requirements as the project proceeds. It is different from ‘project’ 

approach where we do not make any changes in the project after initiating 

it. The logical framework in the process approach will be flexible and 

changeable as the living condition and participating people’s mindsets 

change. It is possible to have systematically carried out projects with 

‘process approach’. 

5. There may be compatibility problem with the new forest/tribal bill and the 

278 





landscape project, but the difference is not non-resolvable. The new forest 

bill unfortunately not very much context specific. According to its 

perspective all over the country a single law would be applied. As we too 

not interested in relocating people, the bill may not be hurdle our project. 

If at all we cluster or trans-locate people, we plan to do it with complete 

consent of the people concerned. We would be promoting a voluntary 

clustering or voluntary replacement. 

6. We should try to acquire land by some means as we could do with the 

help of Jintal. More such efforts to purchase lands in the ecologically 

sensitive locations can be done. 

7. The present project is only an 'indicative' one. One can be flexible in 

implementing them. There is no rigidity to keep the 5 Kilometre from the 

forest area as project area. The norm should not be mechanically applied 

everywhere. 

8. We can no longer be hostile toward encroaches. We have to accept that as 

a reality. They have to be positively mobilized to voluntarily accept 

moving out from the encroached land to an alternative site. The 

encroachers cannot be thrown away. We have to work with them to find a 

better alternative place of living. 

9. The project is pro poor and pro-adivasis (tribal). The project is aware of 

the 'socio-anthropological crisis' and committed to better the well-being of 

the Adivasis. We also have to reserve many of the eco-tourism related to 

job opportunities to the local adivasis and women. 

10. The new project need not spend time in 'entry point' activity as already we 

have 'entered'. Once declared the project should be implemented within 

the given time frame. 

11. Where ever possible private estate lands can be acquired. Of course we 

have to find funding resources. 

12. There is already provision in the project to document local knowledge and 

practices. 

13. Forest has limitations to provide basic amenities. If one finds life there 

difficult due to increasing animal population then one should make use of 

the help provided by the project to voluntarily relocate outside 

forest/fringe areas. In case one desires to live in the forest/fringe areas 

then one has to come in terms with the reality prevailing there from biodiversity 

perspective. 

14. As the part of micro-plans we should find means to market our products. 

The producers should take care in producing marketable products. 

15. The project already has funds allocated for documenting local knowledge. 

The 'ezilampalai' plants capability to repel elephants during its flowering 

season should be studied. If proven true it would be great finding. 

16. Everything possible to find alternate employment and increasing labour 

opportunities would be planned and implemented. The possibility of 

providing vocational education can be recommended. 

17. One cannot conclusively say that wild bores are destructive to the forest 

ecosystem. Of course it can be studied what is the right proportion of the 

wild bores in the forest eco-system. In case its growing number is not 

279 





good from eco-diversity approach then we can consider limiting their 

population by some scientific means. 

After the open discussion there were presentations about the problems and 

prospects of Kalakkad Mundanthurai, kanyakumari, Thirunelveli, Srivalliputhur and 

Theni divisions by the respective officials of those regions. They have presented 

about the problems of encroachment, species diversity, level of people's 

participation, independent non-coordinated functioning of various line departments 

and panchayats, and the demands of the local people. An NGO namely “nature war 

group” presented a paper with lots of details relevant for biodiversity studies. They 

also noted that there is no male elephant in their region (Theni division I suppose) 

and hence there is a threat of elephant population ceasing to exist there. 

There were also presentations from presidents of forest preservation committees 

where they have explained how they could stop destructive dependence on forest by 

finding alternative fuels, self employment schemes and reduction of dependence on 

money lenders by initiating saving and credit schemes that could emerge into 

people's bank. They also presented that they could prevent forest fires these days. 

Not just they stop from destroying forest resources, they also claimed helping 

animals that got trapped into fences or fallen into wells. The presentation could show 

the growing ecological sensibility of local people. 

After the presentations the workshop came to an end followed by vote of thanks by 

Mr. Sundar Raj, IFS. 

The meeting came to an end at 5.00 P.M 

280 





ANNEXURE – 2: BIOLOGICAL MONITORING DATA 

Table 1: Field Data Myristica Swamp - Myristica fatua var. magnifica* 

Plot No 

(Size 

10m 

x10m) 

1 

2 

3 

GBH of 

Trees 

(>30 cm) 

GBH of 

Saplings 

(1m 

height) 

No. of Seedlings (




4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

6 

14 

8 

6 

6 

12 

8 

9 

47 24 

1 0 0 0 1 

68 10 

50 6 

11 

7 

22 

6 

13 

12 

6 

7 

9 

8 

6 

132 9 1 0 0 0 0 

75 9 

60 28 

56 13 

9 

78 8 

0 1 2 0 1 

56 12 

39 16 

46 18 

128 21 

59 19 

63 25 

11 

86 22 

2 0 0 1 1 

72 18 

102 19 

97 17 

8 

9 

36 22 

1 2 0 2 0 

51 8 

79 21 

282 





9 

128 15 

8 

6 

15 

154 8 

73 6 

59 12 

65 21 

39 15 

8 

9 

6 

1 2 0 1 0 

10 

38 11 

0 0 2 1 0 

121 7 

47 8 

53 9 

36 15 

32 25 

6 

9 

7 

13 

* Data collected in Sangily area of Kulathupuzha range of Thiruvananthapuram 

division 

Plot No 

(Size 

10mx10 

m) 

Table 2: Field Data Myristica Swamp - Gymnacranthera canarica* 

GBH of 

Trees 

(>30 cm) 

GBH of 

Saplings 

(1m 

height) 

283 

No. of Seedlings (




4 

5 

32 6 

40 8 

9 

8 

24 

9 

37 18 

0 1 1 0 0 

78 20 

8 

32 13 0 1 1 1 0 

51 10 

33 16 

30 

49 

6 

56 12 

0 0 0 0 1 

38 28 

41 19 

9 

7 

78 14 

2 0 1 0 1 

16 

9 

8 

36 24 

0 0 0 2 0 

49 16 

72 13 

9 

6 

9 

36 8 

0 1 0 2 0 

73 6 

59 

10 

36 11 

2 0 0 1 0 

32 8 

9 

15 

*Data collected from Sangily area of Kulathupuzha range of Thiruvananthapuram Dn 

284 





Table 3: Data collected on Gluta travancorica from Shendurney WLS 

lot No 

(Size 

10mx1 

0m) 

GBH of 

Trees 

(>30 cm) 

1 187 

GBH of 

Saplings 

(




ANNEXURE – 3: TABLES DEPICTING VILLAGES/ SETTLEMENTS/ 

HOUSEHOLDS 

Table 1: Fringe Villages :Theni Forest Division, Theni 

Sl.No Setlement Range Approximate No 

of 

Area in acres Families 

1 Thummagundu 1160 350 

2 Manalathukudisai 250 60 

3 Vandiyur 390 150 

4 Muthurajapuram 50 15 

5 Valliparai 1150 400 

Veera 

90 

6 

20 

chinnamalpuram 

7 Seelamuthiahpuram Varshanadu 

160 50 

8 Gandhigramam 370 120 

9 Thandian kulam 190 52 

10 Sugunapuram 100 21 

11 Kodaliyoothu 110 30 

12 Anna nagar 90 30 

13 Kamarajapuram 210 70 

14 Indira Nagar 60 20 

15 Chinna nagar 320 10 

16 

Balasubramaniapuram 

(Kodikulamkudisai) 130 

50 

17 Urakundan 190 60 

18 

Gandhipuram 

90 

(Goundarkudisai) 

30 

19 Karunapuram 

140 50 

20 Koraiyoothu 290 110 

21 Kombaithozhu 1170 420 

22 Manjanoothu 80 30 

23 Boomarapuram 250 120 

24 Arasarati 500 220 

25 Ottukal 70 20 

26 Indiranagar Meghamalai 

300 120 

27 Kannikapuram 20 10 

28 Muthalapuram 80 28 

29 Valampuri 50 19 

30 Anna nagar 70 26 

31 Bosandapuram 60 23 

32 Chinna muthulapuram 30 10 

33 Mallingapuram 10 7 

34 Elumbukadai 110 42 

35 Kamankal 250 94 

36 Mannoothu 

560 183 

286 





37 Royappanpatty 40 1950 

38 Annaipatty 30 1100 

39 Kamayagoundanpatty Cumbam & 

50 2150 

40 Narayanathevanpatty Gudalur 

30 1500 

41 Surulipatty 6600 2005 

42 

Karunakka Muthan 

60 

patty 

3000 

43 Kullappa oundan patty 

30 1100 

46 Odaipatty 270 1000 

47 Vellaiammal puram 470 250 

48 Thenpalani 390 150 

49 Appipatty 30 400 

50 Kanniservaipatty Sinnamannur 

30 250 

51 Putham patty 20 200 

52 Erasakkanaickanur 40 1000 

53 Kallapatty 50 250 

54 Moorthinaickan patty 

40 200 

Total 17330 19575 

Source: Division level official statistical accounts 

The table below shows the Paliya settlements of the fringes of the Srivillipputhur 

WLS: 

Table2: Settlements along Fringes of the Srivillipputhur Sanctuary 

Sl.No Settlement No of Families Male Female Total 

1 Ayyanarkoil 28 40 44 84 

2 Chempakathoppu 26 29 29 58 

3 Athilkoil 16 20 24 44 

4 Mukkathurppara 23 32 31 63 

5 Thannipparai 28 32 36 68 

6 Nellikkuttam 16 30 26 56 

7 Vinobanagar 19 33 37 70 

Grand Total 156 216 227 443 

Source: Management Plan 

287 





Table 3: Fringe Settlements Tirunelveli Division 

SL 

No. 

Name of 

Range 

Name of Forest Fringe Village 

Population (2005) 

Ma1e Female Total 

1. Mathalamparai 851 960 1811 

2 Karjudi – Kudieruppu - Nannagara 6356 6541 12897 

4. Thenpothai 3000 212 5120 

5. Comtallam 964 1404 1368 

6. Therkumedu 445 448 893 

7. Ayiraperi 139 699 1438 

8. Pattapathu 1164 1632 2796 

9. Kasimejarpumm 2940 3274 6214 

10 Coutralam 

Elanji 4315 5085 9400 

11. Vallam 6500 6150 13250 

12. Pranoor 1640 3177 6817 

13. Kannupulimettu .255 383 638 

14. Kathiravan Colony 211 215 426 

15. Angan Colony 587 590 1117 

16. Bhagavathipumm 717 915 1632 

17 Vembanallam 284 304 588 

18 

Thatko Nagar 484 300 784 

1 Punniahpuram – Dhamapuram 1500 115 1615 

2 Thirigoodapuram 1733 1550 3285 

3 M.G.R. Nagar 700 120 820 

4 Vavanagaram 725 180 905 

5 Muthusami 600 620 1220 

6. Kasitharmam 320 1105 1425 

7. Panpozhi 375 700 1225 

8. Mekkamig 1100 800 1900 

9. Kadayanallur 

Karisalkudieruppu 850 825 1675 

10. Chokkampatti 4150 2700 6850 

11 Pettai 

970 

880 1850 

12 Valaiyar Kudieruppu 750 400 1150 

13 Thirigoodapuram 1100 1750 2450 

14. Kalaiman Nagar 360 1250 1610 

15. Komandapumm 275 1275 1550 

16. 

Kadayanallur 1160 365 2525 

288 





17. Krishnapuram 2945 3050 5995 

18. Chevalvilai Theru 650 720 1370 

19. Kadayanallur 3150 350 6400 

20. Mel-Kadayanallur 4150 4250 8400 

21. Koddaitheru 112 98 210 

22. Kandasamipuram 800 600 1400 

23. ., 

Vadakarai 2020 3180 5200 

24. Parvathipmam 153 123 276 

25. Achanpudur 800 680 1480 

26. Achanpudur N 400 380 780 

27. Therkumalaikovil & Vandadwn Pottai 121 80 201 

28. Meenakshipmam. 400 280 680 

29. 

Anna Nagar 280 170 450 

1. Clrinthamaniperipudur 480 470 950 

2. T.N.Pudukudi 510 730 1240 

3. Athuvazhi 548 604 1152 

4. Rajivnagar 341 384 725 

5. 1ndira Colony 225 275 500 

6. Inaim Nagar (Puliangudi) 191 203 394 

7. Indira Nagar (Thirnmalapuram) 342 346 688 

8 Puthumanthai Melur 587 430 157 

9. Subrahmani 403 550 953 

10. Sankarankoil Narayanapuram 900 1100 2000 

Range 

11. Chindamani 425 475 900 

12. Pudur 215 285 500 

13. Maruthanachiarpuram 380 434 814 

14. Vellanaikottai 60 65 125 

15. Kottaiyur 565 600 1165 

16. Chelembu Thoppu 24 22 46 

17. Thalayanai - Paliyar Kudieruppu 42 41 83 

18. Pitchandi Street 151 138 289 

19. 

AnmachaIa Vinayagar Koil Steet 300 342 642 

1. Sivammalingapuram 250 260 510 

2. Chekaditheru 165 135 300 

3. Ullar 440 560 1000 

Sivagiri 

4. Koilpatti 160 140 300 

Range 

5. Devipattinam 160 1400 3000 

6. Kuram 1100 900 2000 

7. 

Jeevanagar 130 120 250 

Total 44820 46924 96594 

Source: Division Level Official Data, 2005 

289 





Table 4: Settlements in and along the Fringes of the KMTR 

Sl.No Settlement No of Families Area in 

acrs 

1 Papanasam Upper 48 23.80 190 

2 Papanasam Lower 29 0.90 80 

3 Servalar Dam 22 0.44 60 

4 Injikkuzhi 9 12.00 20 

5 Periyamylar 39 0.91 110 

6 Chinnamylar 14 0.13 40 

7 Agasthyar kanikudiyirippu 34 30.00 90 

8 Servalar Theruvattomparai 26 30.00 70 

Pop 

Grand Total 221 75.18 660 

Source: Official Data, WLS, 2005 

Table 5: Tribal Settlements of the Kanyakumari WLS 

S. 

No of RF 

Settlements Revenue Village Abutting RF 

No. 

Hhs Dependents 

1 Puthunager Arumanallur Veerapuli 85 21 

2 Thadikarankonam Arumanallur Veerapuli 124 15 

3 Retnapuram Ananthapuram Asambu 62 33 

4 Aladi Ananthapuram Asambu 158 12 

5 Kattuputhoor Alagiapandipuram Asambu 186 18 

6 Kattadivilai Alagiapandipuram Asambu 42 22 ' 

7 Perunthalaikadu Alagiapandipuram Asambu 53 25 

8 Thoovachi Alagiapandipuram Asambu 28 21 

9 Devasagayapuram Alagiapandipuram Asambu 37 20 

10 Puthugramam Arumanallur Asambu 79 15 

11 Perunchilambu Perunchilambu Vellimalai 61 15 

12 Pannipothai Perunchilambu Vellimalai 45 15 

13 Nariyanarpothai Chiramadam Vellimalai 64 10 

14 Samathuvapuram Chiramadam Vellimalai 40 0 

15 Kariyankonam Chiramadam Vellimalai 25 00 

290 





16 Rosmiyapuram Panagudy II Mahendragiri 155 21 

17 Veerapandiyan Panagudy II Mahendragiri 120 28 

18 Dharmalingapuram Panagudy II Mahendragiri 60 8 

19 Thalavaipuram Panagudy II Mahendragiri 140 17 

20 Chockalingapuram Panagudy II Mahendragiri 103 20 

21 Dharmapuram Panagudy II Mahendragiri 83 12 

22 Anna Nager Panagudy II Mahendragiri 253 10 

23 Bhaskarampuram Panagudy II Mahendragiri 153 20 

24 Azhagianambipuram Panagudy I Mahendragiri 120 18 

25 S ivagamipuram Panagudy I Mahendragiri 140 20 

26 Oorakonam Arumanallur Veerapuli 92 15 

27 Panniyodu Arumanallur Veerapuli 13 0 

28 Surulode S urulacode Veerapuli 28 0 

29 Siramadam 

Siramadam 

Veerapuli 35 0 

30 

Perunchani 

GhandhiNager 

Ponmanai Veerapuli 45 21 

31 Ponmanai Ponmanai Veerapuli 52 10 

32 Mangalam Ponmalai Veerapuli 28 0 

33 Chellanthuruthi Surulacode Veerapuli 45 0 

34 Peruvalikadavu Ponmani 

Veerapuli 

- 

28 16 

35 Veerapuli Surulacode Veerapuli 52 15 

36 Kadambanmoodu Surulacode Veerapuli 350 300 

37 Kuttiyani Ponmanai Veerapuli 28 20 

38 ' Maniyankuzhi Surulode Veerapuli 100 1 0 

39 Thirunanthikarai Thiruparrappu Veerapuli 180 40 

40 Senamcode Thiruparrappu Veerapuli 65 17 

41 Chekkumoodu Thiruparrappu Veerapuli 53 10 

42 Kakkachal Thiruparrappu Veerapuli 120 30 

43 Thumbacode Thiruparrappu Veerapuli 480 20 

44 Kulasekaram Thiruvattar Veerapuli 2000 500 

45 Siruthikonam Ponmanai Veerapuli 150 10 

46 Mangalam Ponmanai Veerapuli 120 15 

47 Anamugam Kadayalumoodu Kilamalai 250 30 

291 





Table 6: Forest Dependent Fringe Settlements of the Kanyakumari Division 

S.No 

Name of Forest 

Fringe Village 

Name of Revenue 

Village 

Distance 

from Forest 

Boundary 

1 Puthunager l km 

Arumanallur 

2 Thadikarankonam 

1 km 

3 Retnapuram I Km 

Ananthapuram 

4 Aladi 

1 Km 

5 Kattuputhoor 1 Km 

6 Kattadivilai 1/2Km 

Alagiapandipuram 

7 Perunthalaikadu lKm 

8 Thoovachi 1/2Km 

9 Devasagayapuram 

'/2 Km 

10 Puthugramam Arumanallur '/2 Km 

11 Perunchilambu 4km 

Perunchilambu 

12 Pannipothai 

2km 

13 Nariyanatpothai 1km 

Chiramadam 

14 Samathuvapuram 1km 

15 Kariyankonam 

2km 

16 Rosmiyapuram 3Km 

17 Veerapandiyan 3 km 

18 Dharmalingapuram 3 km 

19 Thalavaipuram Panagudy II 3 km 

20 Chockalingapuram 3 km 

21 Dharmapuram 3 km 

22 Anna Nager 3 km 

23 Bhaskarampuram 

3 km 

24 Azhagianambipuram Panagudy I 3 km 

25 Sivagamipuram 

3 km 

26 Oorakonam Arumanallur 1/2 km 

27 Panniyodu 

1km 

28 Surulacode Surulacode 2km 

29 Siramadam Siramadam 1 1/2 km 

30 Perumchani Gandhi Ngr 1 1/2 km 

Ponmanai 

31 Ponmanai 1/2 km 

32 Mangalam 

1 1/2 km 

292 





33 Chellanthuruthi '/2 km 

34 Maniyankuzhi. Surulacode 

'/2 Km 

35 Veerapuli West '/2Km 

. 36 Kadambanmoodu 

'/2Km 

37 Kuttiyani 11/2Km 

38 Siruthikonam Ponmanai 

2km 

39 Mangalam 1 Km 

40 Peruvalikadavu 

1 Km 

41 Thirunanthikarai 1 Km 

42 Senamcode 1 Km 

Thiruparrappu 

43 Chekkumoodu 1 Km 

44 Kakkachal 1 Km 

45 Thumbacode 

1 Km 

46 Kulasekaram Thiruvattar 1 Km 

47 Anamugam Kadayalumoodu 1 Km 

48 Alancholai Kalial 4Km 

49 Oorakonam Arumanallur 1/2 Km 

50 Kurusadi Aralvoimozhi 2km 

51 Ramanathichanputhoo 3 km 

52 Rajavoor 4km 

53 Amaravathivilai Marunkoor 

4km 

54 Nilaparai 2 km 

55 Kumarapuram 3 km 

56 Kesavaneri 

4km 

Source: A Report on Kanniyakumari, Kanyakumari Forest Division Office, 2005 

Table 7: Settlements, Thenmala & Achan kovil Division 

Sl.No Settlement Number of Families 

1 Malappantaram colony 22 

2 SC colony 45 

3 Achencoil Settlement 1966 

Total 2022 

Source: Working Plan, Thenmala Division 

Table 8: Settlements, Shenduruni WLS 


1 Rosemala 334 

2 Kallar (Estate) 18 

3 Kattilappara Estate) 48 

Total 403 

Source: Management Plan, Shenduruni WLS, 2005 

293 





Table 9: Tribal Settlements of the Punalur Division 

No Settlement Population Area in No Range Tribe 

ha hses 

1 Cherukara 363 82.190 76 Anchal Kani 

2 Edathara 83 

20 Anchal Kani 

3 Edappana 85 6.780 19 Anchal Kani 

4 Kadamankodu 209 21.550 45 Anchal Kani 

5 Kallupacha 46 8.100 12 Anchal Kani 

6 Kocharippa 97 7.100 24 Anchal Kani 

7 Kochukarikkam 75 3.240 16 Anchal Kani 

8 Kuzhaviyodu 136 9.530 30 Anchal Kani 

9 Maruthimoodu 31 

3 Anchal Kani 

10 Mokka 15 2.430 7 Anchal Kani 

11 Vanchiyodu 144 14.070 37 Anchal Kani 

12 Mampazhathara 40 6.071 10 Anchal Malapandaram 

13 Vellamthetty 35 4.000 8 Anchal Malapandaram 

Total 1359 165.061 307 

Source: Working Plan 

Table 10: Tribal Settlements of Konni Division 

No Settlement Popul Area No Range 

Tribe 

ation ha hhs 

1 Kattathi 69 3.55 16 Naduvathumuz 

hy/Kokkathodu 

Malampantar 

am 

2 Kottampara 127 9.19 38 Naduvathukuzh 

y/Karippanthod 

Malampantar 

am 

u 

3 Mullumala 31 0.44 6 Mannarappara Malampantar 

am 

4 Avanippara 87 2.66 20 Mannarappara/ 

Chrmbala 

Malampantar 

am 

Total 314 15.84 80 

Table 11: List of Tribal Settlements - Thiruvanamthapuram Division 

Range No of Tribal settlements Area in acres 

Palode 87 2883 

Paruthippally 43 1235 

Kulathupuzha 4 308 

Total 134 4426 

Source: Working Plan, Thiruvananthapuram Division 

294 





Table 12: List of Range-wise Tribal Settlements - Thiruvanamthapuram 

Division, Palode Range 

No Settlement Population Area No Range Tribe 

acs hhs 

1 Alumoodu 210 40 30 Palode Kani 

2 Allathara 43 20 9 Palode Kani 

3 Alankuzhikani 19 7 3 Palode Kani 

4 Anjanakkuzhippara 126 25 24 Palode Kani 

5 Attumanpuram 74 30 14 Palode Kani 

6 Buthamvachapara 138 41 21 Palode Kani 

7 Bhagavathikonam 5 3 1 Palode Kani 

8 Charupara 12 6 2 Palode Kani 

9 Chathenvettiyapara 18 11 3 Palode Kani 

10 Chathikarikkam 20 10 4 Palode Kani 

11 Chathanveetti 36 13 7 Palode Kani 

12 Chembikkinaru 33 10 5 Palode Kani 

13 Chembikkunnu 127 61 25 Palode Kani 

14 Chennallikkadu 96 33 14 Palode Kani 

15 Chettiyakonnakkayam 165 51 33 Palode Kani 

16 Chettappadu 27 19 4 Palode Kani 

17 Chakkaravila 32 6 5 Palode Kani 

18 Chudal 53 31 8 Palode Kani 

19 Chudikani 46 16 7 Palode Kani 

20 Chudalmanpuram 54 19 9 Palode Kani 

21 Edayakode 391 113 54 Palode Kani 

22 Edimadangu 13 4 2 Palode Kani 

23 Ettimoode 61 24 11 Palode Kani 

24 Elangayam 556 209 111 Palode Kani 

25 Eruvapura 34 12 5 Palode Kani 

26 Jnarameeli 337 113 61 Palode Kani 

27 Kakkottukunnu 173 122 25 Palode Kani 

28 Kulamoottuppu 32 11 5 Palode Kani 

29 Kalamkavu 376 37 61 Palode Kani 

30 Kallankuti 88 21 13 Palode Kani 

31 Kallana 11 10 3 Palode Kani 

32 Kanyarkuzhi 6 9 1 Palode Kani 

33 Kurikunni 116 37 20 Palode Kani 

34 Karimbinkala 79 22 13 Palode Kani 

35 Kattilakkuzhi 138 66 23 Palode Kani 

36 Karadikkuzhi 159 71 26 Palode Kani 

37 Kochadappupara 231 75 39 Palode Kani 

38 Kodimeedu 26 23 4 Palode Kani 

39 Kolachool 43 12 7 Palode Kani 

40 Kombrankallu 39 10 6 Palode Kani 

295 





41 Konnamaruthumoodu 56 18 9 Palode Kani 

42 Konnamoodu 92 37 15 Palode Kani 

43 Koprimoodu 33 11 5 Palode Kani 

44 Kunnukuzhi 86 25 14 Palode Kani 

45 Kurulineko 103 43 17 Palode Kani 

46 Kuttapponkala 88 29 14 Palode Kani 

47 Kuzhiyankani 57 11 9 Palode Kani 

48 Malamoodu 51 16 8 Palode Kani 

49 Muthumanpuram 158 67 26 Palode Kani 

50 Mankuzhi 139 35 23 Palode Kani 

51 Mamoodu 141 41 23 Palode Kani 

52 Manali 564 21 94 Palode Kani 

53 Mankuzhi 137 41 23 Palode Kani 

54 Maniyampuramkani 13 5 2 Palode Kani 

55 Maruthumoodu 161 60 26 Palode Kani 

56 Mottamoodu 164 60 27 Palode Kani 

57 Motottukala 48 24 8 Palode Kani 

58 Murikkumkala 19 12 3 Palode Kani 

59 Muthippara 39 18 6 Palode Kani 

60 Muthukkani 13 6 4 Palode Kani 

61 Muthukadu 67 23 11 Palode Kani 

62 Nagara 83 20 14 Palode Kani 

63 Neerparakani 144 59 24 Palode Kani 

64 Nettikkunnu 17 8 3 Palode Kani 

65 Nettayam 106 37 16 Palode Kani 

66 Odachampara 18 4 3 Palode Kani 

67 Orupara 197 41 33 Palode Kani 

68 Ozhukkuppara 20 8 3 Palode Kani 

69 Pethakarikkam 79 13 12 Palode Kani 

70 Pachamala 185 54 27 Palode Kani 

71 Pamiyodukadavu 275 60 45 Palode Kani 

72 Pennangappara 18 10 3 Palode Kani 

73 Perumparayati 38 13 6 Palode Kani 

74 Pramala 193 61 32 Palode Kani 

75 Thachankala 79 29 12 Palode Kani 

76 Thalathootha 37 12 6 Palode Kani 

77 Thekkumoodu 114 39 19 Palode Kani 

78 Thottumpuram 63 22 10 Palode Kani 

79 Uthimoodukani 18 8 3 Palode Kani 

80 Uppachankuzhi 32 9 5 Palode Kani 

81 Vasaitinjakuzhi 305 55 51 Palode Kani 

82 Vattakarikkam 46 21 7 Palode Kani 

83 Vattappankudu 85 29 14 Palode Kani 

84 Vazhamalakani 59 11 10 Palode Kani 

85 Vazhottukala 35 2 6 Palode Kani 

296 





86 Vembukani 221 77 37 Palode Kani 

87 Venkittamoodu 119 37 20 Palode Kani 

88 Villikkavu 33 5 5 Palode Kani 

89 Vattakarikkam 58 10 10 Palode Kani 

Total 2983 1530 

Source: Compiled out of the Range Level Official Records and the current fieldwork 

data, 2006 

Table 13: Paruthippally Range 

No Settlement Population Area No Range Tribe 

ha hhs 

1 Mannaram 

90 10 18 Paruthippally Kani 

Chooliyamata 

2 Champottupara 176 15 44 Paruthippally Kani 

3 Anapetty 199 25 42 Paruthippally Kani 

4 Mathottam 360 55 74 Paruthippally Kani 

5 Aruviyode 146 30 29 Paruthippally Kani 

6 Kaniyaramkode 306 35 72 Paruthippally Kani 

7 Karakkanthode 51 7 10 Paruthippally Kani 

8 Chettiyampara 309 60 74 Paruthippally Kani 

9 Vettuvanthode 48 7 10 Paruthippally Kani 

10 Mannathikuzhi 21 14 4 Paruthippally Kani 

11 Malayadi 544 60 100 Paruthippally Kani 

12 Ponpara 296 50 59 Paruthippally Kani 

13 Cheruppani 257 30 51 Paruthippally Kani 

14 Kinaruvetti 64 5 12 Paruthippally Kani 

15 Varuvilakam 50 14.5 9 Paruthippally Kani 

16 Pattankulichapara 118 20 20 Paruthippally Kani 

17 Orupara 49 15 9 Paruthippally Kani 

18 Vayalippullu 166 52 35 Paruthippally Kani 

19 Kallupara 49 15 10 Paruthippally Kani 

20 Mullumanipuram 14 3 3 Paruthippally Kani 

21 Chathencode 116 18 21 Paruthippally Kani 

22 Valiyakala 113 40 20 Paruthippally Kani 

23 Narakathinkala 203 27.5 55 Paruthippally Kani 

24 Oolankode 69 2.5 14 Paruthippally Kani 

25 Aravalakkaikkakam 37 3 7 Paruthippally Kani 

26 Manithookki 66 7 13 Paruthippally Kani 

27 Ottakkudi 19 3 4 Paruthippally Kani 

28 Pottanchira 119 19 23 Paruthippally Kani 

29 Ettimoodu 82 4 16 Paruthippally Kani 

30 Aranakkuzhy 29 6 5 Paruthippally Kani 

31 Chamakkara 27 5 5 Paruthippally Kani 

32 Adappupara 31 20 6 Paruthippally Kani 

297 





33 Kappithottom 6 7 1 Paruthippally Kani 

34 Ottakudi 16 4 3 Paruthippally Kani 

35 Kooranpanjakkala 77 10 15 Paruthippally Kani 

36 Pannikkala 119 25 27 Paruthippally Kani 

37 Kilikkode 113 19 20 Paruthippally Kani 

38 Pannikkuzhi 116 15 22 Paruthippally Kani 

39 Theviarkunni 1056 150 214 Paruthippally Kani 

Total 5727 940.5 1241 

Source: Compiled out of Division Level Official Records and the current fieldwork 

data, 2006 

Table 14: Kulathuppuzha 

No Settlement Population Area No hhs Range Tribe 

1 Kalayampuram 237 119 66 Kulathuppuzha Kani 

2 Thamannu 134 51 38 Kulathuppuzha Kani 

3 Pottamavu 196 72 56 Kulathuppuzha Kani 

4 Thannimoodu 158 64 45 Kulathuppuzha Kani 

Total 725 306 205 

Source: Compiled out of Division Level Official Records and the current fieldwork 

data, 2006 

Table 15: Fringe Settlements – Dependent Population 


1 Itinjar 22 

2 Javahar Colony 16 

3 Palode 34 

4 Nandiyode 38 

5 Chullimanur 27 

6 Vithura 57 

7 Theviyode 35 

8 Anappara 29 

9 Kallar Ex-service men colony 14 

10 Markiston (Estate) 23 

11 Ponmuti (Estate) 24 

12 Kolachikkara (Estate) 18 

13 Makki 12 

14 Maruthamala 32 

15 Ariparampu 21 

16 Baunacode (Estate) 39 

17 Kuttichal 42 

18 Paruthippalli 47 

Total 530 

Source: Adapted from Earlier Study Data, 2004 and Field Data, 2006 

298 





Table 16: Settlements, Neyyar WLS 

S.No Settlement No of 

Families 

Land held 

in acrs 

Distance to 

Town in km 

1 Chakkappara 52 .75 4 

2 Ayyavilakam 22 .60 5 

3 Kaippanplavila 11 1 3 

4 Kunnathumala 34 .70 5 

5 Kallukadu 3 3 7 

6 Karikuzhy 28 .50 3 

7 Sangumconam 12 .60 5 

8 Puravimala 91 .40 2 

9 Thenmala 44 .75 4 

10 Kannammamoodu 11 1 8 

11 Vlavetty 101 .20 3 

12 Mele Amala 6 5 11 

13 Thazhe Amala 5 5 11 

14 Kombai 10 3 8 

15 Pathayamvacha 

2 3 9 

Appu 

16 Aayiramkal 6 2 10 

17 Anakal 12 4 14 

18 Plath 6 5 13 

Total 456 479 125 


Table 17: Settlements Peppara WLS 

Sl No. Peppara WLS Tribal Settlements 

Number of 

Families 

1 Chemmankala 12 

2 Podiyakala 44 

3 Podium 26 

4 Kamalakam 24 

5 Kombidi 08 

6 Cherumangal 18 

7 Aamoodu 09 

8 Viavila 09 

9 Parandodu 08 

10 Kunnatheri 07 

11 Pattampara 05 

12 Pothodu 09 

13 Erumbiyadu 13 

Total 192 


299 





Table 18: Settlements ABP 

Sl.No Settlement No of Families Land held in ha 

1 Ariyavila 6 10 

2 Chompara 18 18 

3 Kaithodu 20 20 

4 Mankodu 13 20 

5 Mulamudu 13 12 

6 Valppara 10 16 

7 Cheriyakunnadu 3 4 

8 Pankavu 11 4 

9 Ponginkuzhi 9 7 

10 Thottinpuram 14 12 

11 Valiyakunnadu 16 8 

12 Kamukinkuzhi Nil 3 

13 Panniyankarikkonam Nil 4 

Total 133 140 

300 





ANNEXURE – 4: NWFP COLLECTION DATA 

Table 1: NWFP Collection, Thiruvananthapuram Division, Mode & Approximate 

Quantity per Year 

Item Botanical Name Quantity in kg. 

Per year 

Collection 

Mode 

Honey Then 5500 Traditional 

Vayana Cinnamomum malabatrum 5000 De facto 

Orila Desmodium gangeticum 10,000 De facto 

Moovila Psueudarthria viscida 12,000 De facto 

Garudakkoti Aristolochia indica 9000 De facto 

Manjavelli - 13000 De facto 

Karuvilanji - 7000 De facto 

Kavala Dioscorea spicata 6000 De facto 

Kattukoovayila Schumanianthus variagatus 30,000 Traditional 

Arogyapacha Trichopus zeylanicus 65,000 Traditional 

Kutampuli Garcinia gummi-gutta - 7000 Traditional 

Cotton seeds - 6000 Traditional 

Gooseberry Phyllanthus emblica 12,000 Cutting Branches 

Karaka Eleocarpus serratus 13,000 De facto 

Tamarind Tamarindus indica 18,000 Traditional 

Channanga Cycas circinallis 7000 De facto 

Parantakka Entada rhedii 9000 De facto 

Natuvankizhangu Dioscorea 11000 De facto 

Mukkizhangu Dioscora sp 8500 De facto 

Nurankizhangu Dioscorea pentaphylla 12000 De facto 

Kananchakka Artocarpus lacucha 650 Traditional 

Pinnar Dioscora 500 Traditional 

Karuvalli Dioscora 600 De facto 

Marotti Hydnocarpus pentandra 800 Traditional 

Inchipullu Cymbopogon flexuosus 14000 Traditional 

Kuruva Cinnamomum zeylanicum 700 Traditional 

Ramacham Vettiveria zizanioides 300 De facto 


301 





Table 2: The Approximate No of HHs, Quantity of Firewood Collection from 

the RF and along the Fringes of the Thiruvananthapuram Division, Per Day 

S. 

No. 

Item 

Kani Hhs within the 

RF/WLS 

For 

cooking 

For 

cooking 

and sale 

Kani Hhs along 

the fringes pf 

RF/WLS 

For 

cooking 

For 

cooking 

and 

sale 

Non 

Kani 

Hhs 

For 

cooking 

and sale 

Total 

1 Number of 2450 2400 120 1250 380 6900 

Houses 

2 Approximate 35 75 35 75 75 

Consumption 

/day(kg) per 

Hh 

3 Total Kg 65750 180000 4200 93750 28500 343700 


Table No. 3 Approximate Quantity of Fodder Extracted from Neyyar/Peppara 

WLS 

S.No. Area No. of 

Goats 

Approximate 

Consumptio 

n 

No. of 

Cows 

Approximat 

e quantity 

(kg) 

1 Tribal 91 728 21 420 

area 

2 Bonoccord 2 16 106 2120 

Total 93 744 127 2540 

Source: Management Plan, Neyyar/Peppara, 2003 

Table No. 4 Materials Taken by Kanis for House Construction/Maintenance 

S.No 

Item 

Approximate 

Quantity per 

house (kg) 

Total 

(kg) 

1 Reed leaves for thatching 400 72800 

2 Pillars (Venga/Maruthu/Myla/Thembavu) 320 58240 

3 Utharam (Venga/Maruthu/Myla) 640 116480 

4 Kazhukkol (Mula/Vatta) 480 87360 

5 Varichil Mula 700 127400 

6 Mallu (Maruthu/Myla/Thembavu) 50 9100 

7 Fibre (Vakka, Vazhukkan) 80 14560 


302 





Table No. 5 Fuel wood Collected from the Sanctuary per day 

S.No. Item Quantity 

(kg) 

1 Fuel wood collected for consumption within 

4277.00 

the sanctuary 

2 Fuel wood collected by outsider’s for 

2346.00 

consumption 

3 Fuel wood collected from sanctuary for sale 2660.00 

Total 9283 


303 





ANNEXURE - 5: SHG SUCCESS STORIES FROM THE KANYAKUMARI WLS 

Sl.No 

Table 1: Women Self Help Group Details - Range wise 

Name of the 

Range / Village 

Name of the Self Help 

Group 

Total 

Mem 

bers 

I Alagiapandipuram Range 

1) Vana magalir SHG 20 

1 Pudugrammam 2) Roja malar SHG 20 

III 

Kalial Range 

Pathukani 

3) Punitha Saveriar SHG 20 

1) Agasthiyar 20 

2) Pothigai 20 

3) Sree dharma 13 

4) Sree Dhevi 14 

5) Thamburan Kavu 18 

6) Tulasi 12 

7) Zion kids 12 

1) Moogambigai 18 

2) Vana Kurunchi 20 

3) Vana Roja 13 

304 

Activities 

‣ Tailoring 

‣ Helping by 

rotational 

funds. 

‣ Chilli, Daniya 

powder preparation 

‣ Loan facilities for 

rubber growers 

‣ Soap powder 

preparation 

‣ Attended 8 days 

training for 

vermiculure, turkey 

rearing, vegetable 

garden cultivation 

and washing 

powder 

preparation. 

Helping by rotational 

fund 

Thalakkumalai 1) Parasakthi 19 

2) Kanchiramparai 17 

Purathimalai - - - 

Mookkaraikal 1) Maha Lakshmi 17 

Mothiramalai 

1) Ayyappan 15 

2) Ganga 15 

3) Pothigaimalai 19 

4) Kaveri 15 

5) Athivasi Mahalir 


fund 


fund 

Kulasekaram Range 

Kakkachal - - - 

Chekkumoodu 


fund 





4) Vana Malai 10 

5) Vana Mullai 12 

Manalikadu 1) Yamuna 12 


fund 

Kodithurai - - - 

Mudavanpothai 

1) Sree Samundeswari 15 

2) Sree Krishna 12 

3) Maha Vishnu 15 

‣ Rs.5000/ given to 

Madhavan as Loan 

for keeping shop 

‣ Rubber sheeting 

Machine 

V 

Agasthiya 

Sanjeevi Mooligai 

Group 

Vellimalai Range 

1) Agasthiya sanjeevi 20 

2) Sree Agasthiya 20 

3) Sanjeevi Gents SHG 12 

4) Sree Karumpandi 

15 

Amman 

5) Thatchamalai 15 

6) Mangamalai 15 

7) Kalapparai Gents SHG 15 

8) Gorvaikuzhi 20 

1) Vana Devi 20 

Herbal Powder 

preparation 

Puravilai 

Oorakonam 

2) Vana Tulasi 15 

3) Vana Dalia 15 

4) Vana Kurinchi 15 

5) Malaiarasan Gents SHG 20 

1) Vanamalli 15 

2) Chenthamarai 12 

3) Suryaghandi 18 

4) Pitchipoo 15 

5) Red rose 15 

Helping by rotation 

fund 

‣ Candle making 

‣ Rotation fund 

Note highlighting activities of Women Self Help Groups under Forest 

Development, Agency, Kanyakumari District. 

‣ Under Forest Development Agency Women Self Helps of the Joint Forest 

Management Committee's are encouraged to participate actively in Forest 

Conservation. 7 Nos. of new Women Self Help Groups have newly formed 

during 2003-2004 in Joint Forest Management Committee's areas namely 

Mookkarakkal, Puravilai, Mothiramalai and Purathimalai in addition to already 

existing 29 Women Self Help Groups. 

305 





‣ Due to the action taken by Forest Development Agency 20 Nos of Women Self 

Help Groups belonging to the Tribal Joint Forest Management Committee's 

have been provided with Rs. 10000/- subsidy each from District Rural 

Development Agency (DRDA) and Rs. 15000/- loan from the Bank during 

August 2004. 

‣ Further 2 Women Self Help Groups in Arukani have been provided Rs. 

100000/- loan each from the local bank. Further Entrepreneurship 

Development Programme has been conducted to the Women Self Help Groups 

on Arukani for 10 days by Society for Social Development, Nagercoil and also 

by the DRDA. 

‣ The Assistant Joint Manager (NABARD), District Adhi Dravida Welfare Officer 

visited and trained the Women Self Help Group of the Tribal Joint Forest 

Management Committee's. on 

‣ Under the Western Ghat Development Programme 10 Tribal Self Help Groups 

have been provided with the Assistance of Rs. 20000/ each. 

‣ The 5 No. of Women Self Help Group in Puravilai and the 5 No. of Women 

Self Help Groups in Oorakonam VFC's have been provided with Revolving fund 

of Rs. 1,00,000/- under FDA. 

‣ Also the Agasthiya Sanjeevi Women Self Help Group of FDA in Pechiparai 

have been provided with the assistance of Rs. 55000/- under FDA and they 

are running provision shop at Kulasekaram successfully. 

‣ All the Women Self Help Groups of the FDA conducted World Environmental 

Day Celebration on June 11 th at Nagercoil in the presence of District Collector 

and vowed to protect the Kanyakumari Forest Area. 

‣ Further 3 no of Women Self Help Group in Mothiramalai and 5 no. of Women 

Self Help Group in Mookkarkkal have raised Bamboo Nursery of 50000 each 

number (Totally 1 lakh) from their own cost and labour and this will be 

utilised for the FDA Planting. 

306 





ANNEXURE – 6: FORMAL INSTITUTIONS 

Table 1: Democratic Local Bodies under the Forest Department: Tamil Nadu 

Name of 

Institution 

NAP 

Since when 

in place 

and what 

are the 

functions / 

mandates 

Promotion of 

IGAs through 

forestry 

activities 

related 

employment 

Is 

it 

functioning 

well or not 

and reasons 

for the same 

Functional not 

with 

satisfactory 

results. In 

Kerala the 

money is 

largely 

underutilized, 

for want of 

enough land to 

be afforested 

EDC (WLS) 1998 Functioned well 

in PTR and 

KMTR 

VFC (RF) 

Functioning 

well at a few 

places in KMTR 

& Kanyakumari 

WLS 

SHG (WLS 1994 Functioning 

& RF) 

well 

Is it being run 

democratically 

or been taken 

over by the 

village elite 

Yes 

(Democratisation 

at the grassroots 

has not picked up. 

It is still a topdown 

system.) 

-do- 

Yes 

No 

What do the 

targeted 

beneficiaries 

have to say 

about it 

Good things 

because it 

provides 

employment. 

(People are able 

to think only in 

terms of 

immediate 

benefits. 

Institutional 

development 

with the politicise 

of CPR) 

consciousness is 

at low ebb. 

-do- 

-do- 

-do- 

Table 2: Institutional Information: TN Side 

FDA Divisional Office Afforestation NAP Link up 

& WLS 

possible 

VFC Divisional Office Livelihood Development 

NAP -do- 

& WLS 

EDC WLS Office Eco Development in the WLS and NAP -do- 

Afforestation along the fringes 

307 





Table 3: Line Departments: TN Side 

Name 

Agency 

of 

The State 

Department 

of Animal 

Husbandry 

Rural 

Welfare 

Department 

Panchayath 

Department 

The State 

Electricity 

Board 

The State 

Department 

of Inland 

Fisheries 

Key 

functions / 

mandate of 

the agency 

Health Care 

of domestic 

animals and 

Promotion of 

hyv. Medical 

camps for 

immunization 

of cattle 

Poverty 

alleviation 

and rural 

development 

Poverty 

alleviation 

and rural 

development 

Power 

production 

and 

distribution 

Promotion of 

fishing 

community 

development, 

and 

marketing 

and 

management 

of inland 

fishes 

Major 

ongoing 

programs / 

projects 

including any 

EAP 

Nil 

Provide water 

and sanitary 

facilities 

Construction of 

Low cost 

houses, 

Distribution of 

Solar lamps, 

Construction of 

Community 

Hall 

Nil 

Nil 

Comment on the potential 

relationship with BCRLIP with 

special ref to promoting 

‘convergence’ amongst related 

agencies with in the LS 

Collaboration necessary in the issue 

of the reduction of scrub cattle in the 

RF and its fringes. 

There is need for collaboration since 

rural development initiatives of the 

Dept. offers chances of convergence 

with BCRLIP initiatives 

There is need for collaboration since 

rural development initiatives of the 

Dept. converges on BCRLIP 

schemes 

Need to seek cooperation since it has 

negative impact on biodiversity 

-do- 

308 





Table 4: Democratic Local Bodies under the Forest Department: Kerala Side 

Name of Agency Key functions / Major ongoing Comment on the 

mandate of the programs / potential 

agency 

projects 

relationship with 

including any BCRLIP with 

EAP 

special ref to 

promoting 

‘convergence’ 

amongst related 

agencies with in 

the LS 

FDA Afforestation NAP Link up possible 

VSS 

Livelihood 

NAP 

-do- 

Development 

EDC 

Eco Development in Nil 

-dothe 

WLS and 

Afforestation along 

the fringes 

Table 5: Institutional information: Kerala Side 

Name of 

Institution 

NAP 

EDC (WLS) 

Since when in 

place and 

what are the 

functions / 

mandates 

Promotion of 

IGAs through 

forestry 

activities 

related 

employment 

From 1998 at 

PTR. 

Subsequently 

Is it 

functioning 

well or not 

and reasons 

for the same 

Not effective. In 

Kerala the 

money is largely 

underutilized, 

for want of 

enough land to 

be afforested 

Functioned well 

in PTR. It did 

not function 

309 

Is it being run 


or been taken 

over by the 

village elite* 

Yes 

(Democratisation 

at the grassroots 

has not picked 

up. It is still a 

top-down 

system.) 

Run 


What do the 

targeted 

beneficiaries 

have to say 

about it* 

Good things, 

because it 

provides 

employment. 

(People are 

able to think 

only in terms 

of immediate 

benefits. 

Institutional 

development 

with the 

politicise of 

CPR 

consciousness 

is at low 

ebb.) 

Not of much 

use 





VSS (RF) 

SHG (WLS & 

RF) 

at 

Neyyar/Peppara 

and Shenduruni 

from 2003. 

Reduction of 

dependence 

and negative 

impact. 

well under the 

Kerala Forestry 

Project. Lack of 

funds was the 

main problem. 

Not properly 

institutionalized 

Functioning well 

at a few places 

in the LS 

Run 


1994 Functioning well Run 


Not of much 

use 

-do- 

Table 6: Line Departments: The Kerala Side 

The State 

Department 

of Animal 

Husbandry 

The State 

Department 

of 

Agricultural 

Extension 

The State 

Department 

of 

Scheduled 

Castes 

Developme 

nt 

Corporation 

Directorate of Animal 

Husbandry 


Directorate of 

Agricultural Extension 


Directorate of SC 

Development 

Corporation, Thrissur 

Health Care of 

domestic animals 

and Promotion of 

hyv. Medical 

camps for 

immunization of 

cattle 

Promotion of 

chemical intensive 

agronomy and 

extension of 

advanced 

agriculture, hyv, 

Promotion of the 

educational 

development of 

the SC 

Nil 

Nil 

Nil 

Collaboration 

necessary in 

the issue of 

the reduction 

of scrub 

cattle in the 

RF and its 

fringes. 

Need to 

ensure coordination 

since 

schemes of 

agronomy 

clash with 

biodiversity 

issues 

There is need 

for 

collaboration 

since SC 

development 

initiatives of 

the Dept. 

offers 

chances of 

convergence 

with BCRLIP 

initiatives 

310 





State 

Department 

of Tribal 

Developme 

nt 

The 

Panchayath 

Directorate 

The Rural 

Developme 

nt 

The Rubber 

Board 

Directorate of Tribal 

Development 

Directorate of the 

Panchayath, 


Directorate of Rural 

Development, Vikas 

Bhavan, 


Head Quarters, Rubber 

Board Building, 

Kottayam, 686 001 

Promotion of the 

housing and 

educational 

development of 

the ST 

Poverty alleviation 

and rural 

development 

Poverty alleviation 

and rural 

development 

Rubber Plantation 

Research, 

Development and 

Extension 

Nil 

Constructio 

n of Low 

cost 

houses, 

Distribution 

of Solar 

lamps, 

Constructio 

n of 

Community 

Hall 

Provide 

water and 

sanitary 

facilities 

Free 

Planting 

and 

maintenanc 

e of rubber 

plants in 

the tribal 

tracts 

There is need 

for 

coordination 

since ST 

development 


the Dept. 

offers 

chances of 

convergence 

with BCRLIP 

initiatives 

There is need 

for 

collaboration 

since rural 

development 


the Dept. 

converges on 

BCRLIP 

schemes 

There is need 

for 

collaboration 

since rural 

development 


the Dept. 

offers 

chances of 

convergence 

with BCRLIP 

initiatives 

Need to 

ensure coordination 

since 

schemes of 

agronomy 

clash with 

biodiversity 

issues 

311 





The State 

Electricity 

Board 

The State 

Department 

of Inland 

Fisheries 

Chairman, State 

Electricity Board, 


Director, Inland Fisheries 

Department, 


Power production 

and distribution 

Promotion of 

fishing community 

development, and 

marketing and 

management of 

inland fishes 

Nil 

Nil 

Need to seek 

cooperation 

since it has 

negative 

impact on 

biodiversity 

-do- 

Table 7: Non Formal Institutions/NGOs in the TN Side 

Name of 

Agency 

Conservation of 

Nature Trust 

Arumbugal 

Trust 

Key 

functions / 

mandate of 

the agency 

Nature 

Conservation 

Initiatives 

Developmental 

initiatives 

Major ongoing 

programs / 

projects 

including any 

EAP 

Conservation 

awareness 

campaigns 

PRA assistance 

and allied 

consultancy 

Comment on the potential 

relationship with BCRLIP 

with special ref to 

promoting ‘convergence’ 

amongst related agencies 

with in the LS 

The objectives and activities 

of the NGO have direct 

relation with the BCRLIP 

Scope of seeking support for 

social mobilisation and 

institutionalisation under 

BCRLIP 

CFST 

Ram Co 

Charitable Trust 

Community 

Development 

Initiatives 

Wildlife 

Conservation 

and Tribal 

Development 

Initiatives 

Awareness 

Campaigns 

Tribal Health and 

Education 

Campaigns and 

Extension Services 

Support for social 

mobilisation 

A very potential NGO for 

BCRLIP Initiatives 

312 





Table 8: Non Formal Institutions/NGOs in the Kerala Side 

Name of 

Agency 

Kerala 

Sasthra 

Sahithya 

Parishat 

(KSSP) 

Key functions / 

mandate of the 

agency 

Promotion of 

scientific thinking, 

environmental 

awareness, 

grassroots 

democracy, and 

sustainable 

development 

Major ongoing 

programs / 

projects 

including any 

EAP 

People’s 

awareness 

campaign 

Comment on the 

potential relationship 

with BCRLIP with 

special ref to promoting 

‘convergence’ amongst 

related agencies with in 

the LS 

Support for social 

mobilisation 

and 

institutionalisation for 

participatory mode of 

natural 

resources 

conservation 

313 





ANNEXURE – 7: STAFF POSITIONS IN THE FOREST DEPARTMENT 

Table: 1 - Staff Strength in the LS: TN Side 

Post 

Number 

Sanctioned 

Number in 

Position 

Executive Officers 

C. F. 4 4 

D.F.O 5 5 

A. C. F. (IFS or SFS) 5 5 

Research Officer 0 0 

Field Staff 

Forest Ranger 30 29 

Deputy Ranger/ Forester 94 91 

Forest Guard 302 291 

Forest Watcher 220 231 

Mali 5 12 

Office Staff 

Superintendent 7 7 

Jr. Accountant 10 8 

Assistant 25 20 

Jr. Assistant 22 16 

Steno typist 5 5 

Typist 10 8 

Office Assistant 15 11 

Office Watchman 7 5 

Technical Staff 

Jr. Engineer 5 5 

Draughting Officer 5 3 

Jr. Draughting Officer 5 4 

Computer Assistant 0 0 

Driver 10 10 

314 





Table: 2 - Staff 

Strength in the LS: Kerala Side 

Post 

Number 

Sanctioned 

Number in 

Position 

Executive Officers 

C. F/FD 2 2 

D.F.O 2 2 

D. C.F/EDO 2 2 

A. C. F. ( SFS) 3 3 

Field Staff 

Forest Ranger 12 12 

Deputy Ranger 5 5 

WL Asst. 2 2 

Forester 52 42 

Forest Guard 133 127 

Watchman 4 13 

Office Staff* 

Senior Superintendent 3 3 

Head Accountant 5 5 

Junior Supdt. 2 2 

Administrative Asst. 21 13 

Confidential.Asst. 2 2 

UD Clerk 33 27 

LDC 25 22 

Typist 7 7 

Technical Staff 

Draughtsman 3 3 

Driver 26 24 

315

Annexures (Final).pdf - PEACE Institute Charitable Trust

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?