Indigenous ecological knowledge, biodiversity and sustainable ...

RAO et al. 93Tropical Ecology 44(1): 93-111, 2003 ISSN 0564-3295© International Society for Tropical EcologyIndigenous ecological knowledge, biodiversity and sustainabledevelopment in the central HimalayasK.S. RAO 1* , R.L. SEMWAL 2 , R.K. MAIKHURI 2 , S. NAUTIYAL 1 , K.K. SEN 1 , K. SINGH 3K. CHANDRASEKHAR 3 & K.G. SAXENA 3**1Sustainable Development and Rural Ecosystems Programme, G.B. Pant Institute of HimalayanEnvironment and Development, Almora-263 643, Uttaranchal; 2 Garhwal Unit, G.B. PantInstitute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Upper Bhaktiyana, P.O. Box 92, Srinagar-246 174, Pauri Garhwal, Uttaranchal; 3 School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal NehruUniversity, New Delhi 110067Abstract: The paper has looked at traditional systems of forestry and agricultural systemmanagement in the central himalayan region. Based on a detailed analysis of traditional ecologicalknowledge that is linked with biodiversity, natural and human-managed, various possibilitiesfor sustainable management of natural resources, with concerns for sustainable livelihoodof local communities have been explored for the Garhwal region in the central himalayas.It is concluded that if the development interests of local people are marginalized for a long periodof time, they might adopt actions detrimental to the goal of conservation. Capitalizing onthe positive dimensions of traditional knowledge and overcoming its negative dimensionsthrough conventional science-based inputs could ease the difficult process of securing people’sparticipation in environmental conservation together with the socio-economic development oflocal communities.Resumen: En este trabajo se examinaron los sistemas tradicionales de forestería y elmanejo del sistema agrícola en la región central de los Himalayas. Con base en un análisis detalladodel conocimiento ecológico tradicional ligado a la biodiversidad, tanto la natural como lasometida a manejo humano, se han explorado varias posibilidades para el manejo sostenible delos recursos naturales, con miras en el interés en la provisión sostenible de sustento para lascomunidades locales en la región Grahwal de los Himalayas centrales. Se concluye que si losintereses en el desarrollo de los pobladores locales son marginalizados por largos periodos,éstos pueden adoptar acciones que van en detrimento de la meta de la conservación. La capitalizaciónde las dimensiones positivas del conocimiento tradicional y la superación de sus dimensionesnegativas a través de aportaciones basadas en la ciencia convencional, podrían facilitarel difícil proceso de asegurar la participación de la gente en la conservación ambiental ala par del desarrollo socioeconómico de las comunidades locales.Resumo: O artigo debruça-se sobre os sistemas de silvicultura tradicionais e os sistemasde gestão agrícola na região central dos Himalaias. Com base na análise detalhada do conhecimentoecológico tradicional que está ligado à biodiversidade, natural ou de gestão humana, váriasposibilidades para a gestão sustentada dos recursos naturais, com preocupação para aqualidade de vida das comunidades locais foram exploradas para a região do Grahwal nosHimalaias centrais. Concluiu-se que se os interesses de desenvolvimento das populações locais* Present address: Centre for Inter-disciplinary Studies of Mountain & Hill Environment, University of Delhi, SouthCampus, Benita Jurez Road, New Delhi-110 021** Corresponding Author: email: saxena2002in@yahoo.com; kgsaxena@mail.jnu.ac.in; tel.: 91-11-26172438, ext. 2305,fax: 91-11-26172438, 26169962

94 BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTforem marginalizados por um longo período, elas podem adoptar acções que são detrimentaispara os objectivos da conservação. Capitalizar nas dimensões positivas do cohecimento tradicionale ultrapasar a sua dimensão negativa através de inputs de base científica podem facilitaro processo difícil de garantir a participação da população na conservação ambiental juntamentecom o desenvolvimento sócio-económico das comunidades locais.Key words:Biodiversity, natural resource management, rehabilitation ecology, sustainable livelihood,traditional knowledge and technology.IntroductionThe Himalayan mountain system covers only18% of the geographical area of India, but accountsfor more than 50% of India’s forest cover and for40% of the species endemic to the Indian subcontinent.Himalayan resources and ecosystem servicesare critical, not only for the sustainable livelihoodof 115 million mountain people, but also for amuch larger population inhabiting the adjoiningIndo-Gangetic plains. Depletion of forest cover,biodiversity and terrestrial carbon stock, decliningfarm productivity, increasing hydrological imbalanceand soil erosion are interconnected problemsand the root-causes of the poor economy of the hillpeople and threaten global environmental benefitsfrom the Himalayas (Chipika & Kowero 2000;Hamilton 1987; Hurni 1999; Ives & Messerli 1989;Myers 1990; Ramakrishnan et al. 1996).Until the 1970s, environmental conservationand rural development were, by and large, treatedas independent sectors. The poor results broughtby the sectoral approach catalyzed efforts towardsthe integrated approach, which targets the resolutionof environmental and socio-economic problemssimultaneously. Though knowledge of the principlesand potential advantages of this approach hasimproved considerably in recent years, there aregaps in knowledge and serious problems in puttingthe theory to practice (Antunes & Santos 1999;Bellamy & Johnson 2000; Jenssen & Goldsworthy1996; Lunde & Iremonger 2000).A simplistic view of integrated managementwould be to identify ‘key’ interventions [analogousto the concept of keystone species (Paine 1969;Walker 1991)] enabling environmental and socioeconomicbenefits simultaneously. There are twodivergent approaches to the characterization of theproblem-complex (multiple interlinked problems)or key interventions to overcome the problemcomplex:(a) building on the ways in which nature,resources and livelihood have been viewed by theindigenous/traditional communities, which hasbeen referred to as the ‘internal perspective’ approach(Hurni 2000) or as the indigenous knowledge-basedapproach or the bottom-up approach;and (b) the conventional scientific approach, orglobal economic and environmental world-view,referred to as the ‘external perspective’ approach(Hurni 2000), or top-down approach. Indigenousknowledge is an integral dimension of all societiesbut is more intact in areas, such as high-altituderemote Himalayan villages, where inaccessibilityand isolation have acted as barriers to outsideforces for a long period of time. In this article, wediscuss some aspects of indigenous knowledgebasedresource uses of management practices andchanges therein, and of the scope for integratingindigenous knowledge and conventional ecologicalscience for resolving biodiversity/environmentalconservation-development conflicts, within thecontext of the Himalayan mountain systems.Forest/wild biodiversity: impacts ofinterventionsCrop husbandry, animal husbandry, wild biodiversityand rural economy are subsystems of theintegrated traditional resource management system.On a regional scale, the landscape can be differentiatedinto: i) settled crop-livestock mixed agriculturepatches dispersed in the matrix of forestsand pastures; ii) almost pristine areas (permanentsnow area and adjoining alpine vegetation) practicallyimpossible to access for any consumptive resourceuse; iii) the remaining areas that are used

RAO et al. 95for summer grazing by transhumance communities,the Gaddis and Bakarwals, who bring livestockfrom the distant foothill regions and the Anwals,Tarjias and Dogpas who supervise the livestockof the local hill communities. Traditionalsocio-cultural mechanisms of fostering systematicand regulated use of wild plant resources seem tohave evolved as a necessity to optimize economicoutputs from domesticated biodiversity. All acrossthe region, traditional management systems arecharacterized by practices favouring a balance inutilization and regeneration of the natural resourcebase, equity and social integrity to achievethe ultimate goal of sustainable livelihood withinsmall-scale subsistence economies in highly isolatedand inaccessible mountain settlements. Conventionalapproaches to conservation, i.e., the establishmentof wildlife sanctuaries and nationalparks, have assumed traditional practices to bedetrimental to the conservation of wild biodiversityand the functioning of ecosystems. This assumptionis the root-cause of people-conservation conflicts(Gadgil et al. 1993; Gomez-Pompa & Kaus1992; McNeely 1988). The nature and magnitudeof these restrictions, their impacts on local livelihoodand people’s responses to them may vary dependingupon the ecological and socio-economicand cultural contexts.Traditional forest/wild biodiversitymanagementTraditionally, each village had notional territoriesof forests and alpine meadows and resourceuses within these ‘common lands’ were decided bythe consensus of the communities. Even thoughlocal people were aware of potential economicbenefits from timber, the timber trade was neverpractised because they traditionally viewed theutilization of non-timber forest products and ecosystemservices to be more valuable for sustainablelivelihood than timber. In the traditional system,there was no restriction on the collection ofwild edibles, deadwood and leaf litter (to be usedas a constituent of manure applied to crop fields),partly because these resources were abundant.Lopping, grazing and utilization of forest productssuch as medicinal plants and bamboos (raw materialfor handicrafts) used to be undertaken ingroups during periods fixed by the consensus of thecommunity so as to reduce the risks of overexploitationby individuals. Traditions such as thesocial sanction to market forest resource-basedhandicrafts, medicinal plants and nomadic grazingonly by smallholders and landless people fosteredequity to a significant extent. Villages rich in someresources due to comparative ecological advantages(e.g. villages close to the alpine zone arericher in summer fodder, temperate bamboos andmedicinal plants than those in mid-altitude zonesand those in foothills which are richer in winterfodder) allowed other villages to use their resources,more from the point of achieving socialintegrity than from the point of economic gains(Maikhuri et al. 2000a,b; Rao & Saxena 1996). Localcommunities traditionally allowed grazing oflivestock from outside the region supervised bynomads for three reasons. First, nomads used thearea not grazed by local livestock and hence didnot offer any threat to local livelihood. Second, thepresence of livestock brought by nomads to the areasaround the villages reduced the probability ofdepredation of local livestock. Third, the nomadsbartered essential commodities, which were notavailable locally and brought from the foothillswith local products.Leopards and wolves are the two major predatorsof livestock studied in the region. In highaltituderegions, local people view wolves as amore serious threat than snow leopards becausethe former is a year-round predator on domesticlivestock, whereas the latter attacks mostly duringextreme winters. Estimates on livestock killing bysnow leopards fall within a range of 1% to 12% oftotal stockholding (Fox et al. 1988; Jackson 1991;Mallon 1991; Mishra 1997; Oli et al. 1994; Schalleret al. 1987). The assessment of killings by wolveshas not received as much attention as those bysnow leopards. Precise estimation of predationlosses is difficult because predation as a proximatecause of livestock death is confounded with ultimatecauses such as disease, malnutrition, badweather or accidents. All assessments of livestockdepredation are based on killings reported byfarmers who often deliberately inflate the figures.Livestock are less able to escape predatorsthan wild herbivores (Nowell & Jackson 1996).Local people traditionally accepted depredation asa natural hazard. Several measures are taken tominimize this loss. First, grazing of goats, sheep,donkeys and cows is kept close to permanent settlements.Two families, by rotation in a village,

96 BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTassemble all livestock of the village, accompanythem for grazing in areas away from crop fields inthe morning and bring them back to the respectivehouseholds in the evening. All animals are kept inrooms, the integral part of a dwelling. Second, robustmales are selected and kept as communityanimals so as to enhance the escape capabilities ofdomesticated animals. Then only yaks, dzomo/dzoand horses are taken to distant summer grazinggrounds (temporary summer settlements). Heretoo, animals that are more valuable are kept inencampments fenced by a 3-4 m high stonewallduring nights. Graziers make fires at night as ameasure to keep predators away. They haveevolved abilities to sense the presence of predatorsin the vicinity through the abnormal behaviour oflivestock. At the approach of predators, they shoutand throw stones to keep them away. A few lessvigorous animals are kept outside encampmentsduring the night to reduce the attacks on morevaluable animals within encampments.Retaliatory killings of snow leopards by localpeople are likely only when an animal causes frequentand large-scale damage and when leopardsare found guarding kills of large domestic animals(Fox & Chandawat 1988; Fox & Nurbu 1990; Oli etal. 1994). On the other hand, wolves are killedwhenever possible. Many villages have stone-pitwolf traps. Traditionally, the community (Fox &Nurbu 1990; Mishra 1997) rewards individualswho succeed in capturing pups.Blue sheep and snow cocks are traditionaldelicacies, but local people rarely go out with theintention of hunting these herbivores, partly becauseof religious-social-cultural norms discouragingwildlife killings (Fox & Nurbu 1990; Mallon1991) and partly because of the great ability ofthese herbivores to escape. Whenever a blue sheepis captured, all families of the village share itsmeat. People also understand that a reduction inthe population of wild herbivores might increasethe frequency of attacks on livestock. Thus, thereseems no immediate threat to the snow leopard’sor wolf’s main natural prey from traditional practices.Policy driven changesThe utilization of forest resources for nationaleconomic/industrial development and environmentalconservation was introduced as policy goalsdistinct from those related to people-forest relationships.Ground actions to achieve these policygoals were coupled with actions that led to drasticchanges in traditional uses of forests and wildplant diversity. The majority of village commonlands were taken over by the government and notifiedas forest and wasteland in late nineteenthcentury with the implementation of the first forestpolicy. As at present, government forest land wasstratified into: i) national parks where all consumptiveresource uses are strictly prohibited; ii)wildlife sanctuaries where traditional wildlifehunting is an offence but local communities maybe allowed some traditional plant resource usesfree of any cost; iii) reserve forest where concessionsto local communities are more liberal incomparison with those provided in the sanctuaries;resources can be exploited to meet the nationaleconomic/industrial raw material demands by governmentagencies; iv) community forests whosemanagement is entrusted to local institutions suchas the Forest Council (locally called Van Panchyatin the Uttranchal Himalayas) or to the traditionalvillage headman (locally called Gaon Budha/Siemin some parts of the north-eastern Himalayas);village institutions are authorized to decide onlyon subsistence needs and government approval toundertake any extraction on a commercial scaleand have to share benefits from any commercialextraction with the government. There were twoimportant generic implications of changes in forestland tenure/ownership and resource-use practicesimposed by policy and law: the reduction in areafreely accessible to local people and emergence of alocal perception that policies promote conservationor national economic development on a resourcebase that local people have conserved.GrazingInfluenced by the policies promoting forest resource-basedeconomic development, local peoplehave also begun to give more attention to monetarybenefits than to the traditional linkage betweenresource uses and social integrity and equity.In the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, alltraditional alpine meadows of a number of villages(e.g., Lata and Peng) became a part of sanctuary/nationalpark. The unaffected villages (e.g.,Malari) permitted livestock of the affected villagesto graze in their territories but on payment of Rs.20/horse or head of cattle and Rs. 4/sheep or goat.Such linkages between resource rich and poor vil-

RAO et al. 97lages did not depend on any monetary considerationin the traditional system.Indeed, the termination or reduction of grazingrights in forests and meadows may enhance plantdiversity and ecosystem functioning if the grazingpressure is intense. Long-term benefits to localcommunities from such enhancement may encouragethem to reduce livestock holdings and switchover to alternative livelihood strategies (Fox 1993;Maikhuri et al. 2000b; Sharma & Shaw 1993).Such responses are likely only when the unsustainabilityof traditional grazing practice is demonstratedand people are compensated for economiclosses due to termination/reduction of grazingrights within protected areas. There is no scientificevidence to show that traditional grazingpractices always cause loss of biodiversity and ecosystemfunctioning (Gabriel et al. 1998; Ward et al.1998, 2000). If the disturbances caused by traditionalresource uses were moderate, diversity maydecline following abandonment of these uses andthe recuperation of lost diversity may be a veryslow and costly process (Kotiluoto 1998; Stampfli& Zeiter 1999). Ecological impacts of traditionalresource uses and management need to be scientificallyevaluated before they are abandoned ormodified using legal instruments.Medicinal plantsTraditionally, medicinal plant collection was asubsidiary activity when people went away fromtheir dwellings to graze livestock. This resourcewas used for local health care as well as to generatesome income. The government granted permitsto individuals/contractors during 1980s andstarted earning some revenue through this practice.Contractors, by and large, employed outsidelabour rather than local people, as the latter werelikely to place greater stress on the extractionregenerationbalance than on maximization ofprofits. Local people strongly opposed this policy,partly because they did not get any direct benefitsand partly because of the threat to their livelihooddue to unsustainable harvesting by the outsidelabour. In the face of strong opposition from thepeople, this practice was terminated in 1988.Wood resourcesThe government sanctioned felling to contractorsduring 1970s as a way of earning revenuefrom timber, as well as serving national industrialdevelopment. Foreseeing the adverse environmentalimpacts of commercial felling on steepslopes and the long-term consequences of such impactsas concerns the lowering of the productivityof non-timber forest products, hydrological imbalanceand soil erosion, local people agitated andforced the government to withdraw fellings. Thisagitation (popularly referred to as the Chipkomovement, i.e., ‘hugging the tree’ movement),which was confined to the Uttaranchal Himalayaswas so effective that the government bannedfellings not only in the Uttranchal hills, but also inall mountain regions of the country. The removalof dead/diseased trees in Reserve Forests startedin the 1960s and continues. Government agenciescan sell dead/diseased trees in Reserve Forests,but forest councils can do so only with governmentapproval. If the market value of the proposed removalis assessed at Rs 5000 or less, the council isallowed to auction the deadwood and if more thanRs 5000, the auction is carried out by the forestdepartment. In the latter case, 10% of income goesto the forest department as institutional charges,36% for management of community forests jointlywith the council, 18% to the district developmentboard for district-level development projects and36% to the revenue department for development inthe concerned village. Lack of complete autonomyin mobilizing income from community forest resourcesis an issue in the people-government conflict.Rural development as a component ofprotected-area managementIn the traditional system, protection from exploitationby outsiders or insiders was a collectiveresponsibility; each household had to contributesome mandays towards protection. Policy interventionsviewed protection as enforcement rather thana social responsibility. Protection accounts for asubstantial proportion of government expenditureon conservation, but as far as the people are concerned,it is an unproductive investment, as it doesnot directly benefit them.Provisions of direct economic benefits to localpeople are being increasingly incorporated in protected-areamanagement plans. Afforestation, mechanicalsoil conservation measures and supply ofsolar power devices, wool, improved bee-hives andspinning devices at subsidized prices to selected

98 BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENThouseholds, have been included in the biospherereserve management plan. Yet, local people largelyperceive the benefits far less than the losses due toenforcement. This perception seems to stem from adivergence in the development options preferredby the local people from those incorporated inmanagement plans (Table 1), a perception whichin turn is rooted in the negligible involvement ofthe people in reserve management planning andmonitoring. Indeed, people’s perceptions may notalways be true when evaluated scientifically. People’spreferred ways of resource uses may not necessarilyfall in line with the goal of conservationand hence might need moderation (Maikhuri et al.1995; 1996; 1997a,b,c; Rao et al. 1999; Ward et al.2000), as exemplified in subsequent sections inthis article.People-wildlife conflictsPenalties for killing wildlife imposed by protected-areamanagers are another key change thatfollows the enforcement of protected areas. Localpeople dislike this policy as it treats outsiders whohunt wildlife for game or economic gains the sameas it does local people who resort to killing onlywhen a wild animal turns extremely hostile. Sucha policy is also viewed by local people as a way ofpromoting conservation at the cost of their livelihood.The involvement of local people in the surveillanceof game or commercial hunting, togetherwith interventions that keep the predators awayfrom settlements and their resource catchments,could be a way of resolving this conflict.Though it has been argued that the frequency oflivestock killings has increased in the recent pastbecause of an increase in the livestock population(Mishra 1997), the possibility of an increase in thepredator population following strict conservationmeasures implemented since 1972 cannot be completelyruled out. Protected-area management doeshave a provison of cash compensation for livestockkilled by wildlife, which is indeed an advantage tolocal people conferred by the conventional conservationapproaches. However, the available funds aretoo low to compensate for the losses and the proceduretoo complex to be understood by the community(Maikhuri et al. 2000b; Mishra 1997; Rao et al.2002). The policy of compensation also contributedto an erosion of the traditional institutions concernedwith depredation. The enhancement of traditionalpractices to protect livestock from wildlifedepredation is likely to be a more effective way ofresolving wildlife-people conflicts in developingcountries than providing cash compensation.Table 1. People’s perceptions of development options in the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, centralHimalayas (after Maikhuri et al. 2000b).Development optionsIncrease in crop yields:by expanding farm holdingsby using chemical fertilizersImprovement in livestock productivity:by increasing fodder productivity of degraded forest landsby replacing traditional breeds with high yielding breeds% of total responsesVillages nearto core zone214948Villages awayto core zoneIncome from timber of dead trees in community forests 96 92Improvement in margins of profits from local products:by local cooperative societiesby value addition locallyby protective government policiesOpening of core zone for tourism 98 96Plantation of coniferous trees by Reserve Authority 24 12Replacement of traditional beehives by ones provided by Reserve Authority 4 8Replacement of traditional looms, beehives, by new devices and supply of solarpower panels provided by Reserve Authority6 4181898212828121298

RAO et al. 99Traditional agriculture and emergingchangesTraditional settled farming systems in the centralHimalayas are characterised by: i) cultivationof three crops in two years in low-altitude villagesand one crop per year in high-altitude villages; ii)community decision on the period of fallowing (thevillage is divided into two halves termed Mullaand Malla Sar, each household owns at least oneplot in each Sar, and a Sar is fallowed during onewinter-crop season over a period of two years) butindependent household decisions on choice of cropand management practices; iii) exclusive use oforganic manure derived from livestock excretamixed with forest leaf litter; iv) exchange of seedswithout any monetary considerations; v) use oflocal cultivars. Traditional agriculture has undergoneprominent changes in the recent past inmany segments of the Himalayas. Though there isno perceptible change in cropping intensity, thearea under agriculture and crop diversity and husbandrypractices have changed. Echinochloa frumentacea,Glycine max, Setaria italica and Pennisetumtyphoides at lower altitudes and Hordeumvulgare at higher altitudes, have been abandoned,while the area under cash crops Solanum tuberosum(potato) and Phaseolus species has substantiallyincreased (Appendix I). These changes haveaccompanied substantial improvements in the localeconomy, but at significant environmental cost.The expansion of potato, the by-products of whichdo not have any fodder value, implies a lower productionof fodder from private farms and therebygreater pressure on forest use. Further, soil erosionfrom potato fields could be 6-8 times higherthan that from traditional staple food crops (Table2), despite of an organic manure input which is 2-4times higher in the former as compared to the latter.Larger quantities of manure input imply moreremoval of litter from forests and hence risks ofdeterioration in forest ecosystem services (Maikhuriet al. 2000b; Sen et al. 1997). A change suchas the cultivation of medicinal plants (which usedto be harvested from the wild and many of whichare recognized as rare and endangered species), anindigenous knowledge-based response, falls in linewith the goal of conservation. On the other hand,changes like the loss of traditional lesser-knowncrops and cultivars and the negative environmentalimplications of potato cultivation do notserve the goal of conservation.Traditional water management andchanges thereinTraditionally, the upland people have capitalizedon sub-surface water sources and small rainfedrivulets (Table 3). Sub-surface flows were thepreferred sources of potable water. This preferenceto sub-surface water necessitated conservation offorests around sources. While drinking watersources were used and managed separately bylower and higher caste groups, there used to be aunified canal irrigation system for the entire village(Saxena et al. 1994). Though a huge quantityof water is available from snow-fed rivers, peoplerarely used it for two reasons: (a) the water flow istoo fast to be managed with the traditional capacityand (b) river water contains a much higher contentof coarse particles and is cooler, propertiesconsidered undesirable for drinking or irrigationpurposes. The traditional concerns of water managementthus centered around minimum energy ormaterial inputs for purification, storage and canalizationof water, minimal interference with naturalTable 2. Soil loss from different crop fields and terrace slope in the Pranmati watershed of the centralHimalayas (after Sen et al. 1997).Soil loss from terrace slope (t ha -1 yr -1 )CropLow (

100 BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTTable 3. Traditional water management systems in the central Himalayas.Name of traditionalsystemGoolsChoyasDharaTechnical featuresWater from rainfed small rivers called Gaad orrivulets called Gadhera is diverted to agriculturalfields through a network of channels enablingflow along gravity. Points of stable perennialflow are identified on the natural course. Ifthe flow is slow or sources dry up for some timein the lean season, a small storage tank is constructed.The tank is desilted almost every year.Tiny seasonal seepages, very close to farm fieldsdischarging water insufficient for canalizationare called Choyas. The flow is diverted towards aterrace. Whenever water accumulates, the excess,if any, flows to the terrace below. Farmfield connected.Dharas are believed to be undergorund waterchannels that get exposed usually on lower ormid-slopes. Water recharge and flow are adequateenough to yield a perennial clear andperpetual water thread. A small shallow tank isusually dug and lined with locally availablestones/slates below the point of exposure. Waterdirectly from the exposed source is used fordrinking and cooking and from the tank forother household purposes. This tank is oftenconnected to another unlined tank below usedfor retting fiber plants like Grewia, Cannabisand Urtica.Management featuresA hamlet or village was the operational managementunit for water management. Distributionof irrigation water and responsibilities ofmaintenance of tank/ channels among householdswere decided by a selected group of eldersconstituting the ‘Pani Panchayat (Water Council)’.Usually, a group of 3-4 households is identifiedfor repairing canals in the face breeches orobstruction to water flow due to accumulation ofstones in the stretches lying outside privatefarmlands. These households are rotated on anannual basis and are compensated by food grainsor money by the remaining households.This system is an environmental opportunity fora few households and not for the entire village. Itis managed independently by the concernedhousehold(s).By and large, drinking water sources of lowercaste people were in more difficult terrain andaway from dwellings, compared to those ofhigher caste people. Sources are managed collectivelyby the concerned caste groups.hydrological processes and minimal risk of damageto life and cultivated land from overlandflow.The traditional systems became ineffective inmost cases when irrigation and drinking watersupply were provided as government service facilities.People did benefit, in that water wasprovided as a free commodity, but the benefitcould not be sustained for long. An analysis of acluster of villages showed that the area underirrigated farming declined in more than 50% ofthe villages between 1971-81 (Rao & Saxena1994). This failure has largely been because ofthe inappropriateness of the water harvestingand distribution technologies, which were introduced,and of the management institutions(Kothyari et al. 1991).Traditional knowledge-basedecosystem rehabilitation strategiesOut of the 59-million ha total geographicalarea of the Indian Himalayas, 7.3 million ha aredegraded community lands and 13.5 million hadegraded government forest lands. In many villages,per capita cultivated land is lower than percapita degraded forestland. Though numerous landrehabilitation projects have been implementedsince the 1970s, the impact has, by and large, beenpoor because of inappropriate technologies andbecause of the callous or negative attitudes of thelocal people. In mountain regions, active participationby local people is a prerequisite to the successof any rehabilitation effort. One way of securingpeople’s participation would be to formulate a re-

RAO et al. 101Table 4. People’s preferences for rehabilitation ofdegraded lands. Total number of respondents 70.People’s preferences were sought before initiationof the project (after Rao et al. 1999).Land use optionTreatments/inputs% of the respondentssupporting land useoptionPlantation of trees 8Plantation of bamboo (Thamnocalamus58spathiflorus)Cultivation of medicinal plantsAconitum heterophyllum 34Allium stracheyi 34Angelica glauca 34Carum carvi 34Nardostachys grandiflora 17Orachis latifolia 9Picrorhiza kurrooa 34Podophyllum hexandrum 17Rheum australe 34Saussurea lappa 9Swertia chirayta 9Tanacetum tomentosum 34Thalictrum foliosum 17Introduction of both bamboo and27medicinal speciesProtection from grazing 100Soil management/organic manuring100Decision makingBy formal village institutionsNilBy entire village community informally100People’s contributionVoluntary labourNilFarm yard manure 95Propagules/seedlings/saplings98from community forestReinvestment of a portion of returns95for replication of the reha-bilitation modelhabilitation strategy which addresses the people’sneeds/priorities and to complement/supplementindigenous knowledge /informal institutions withconventional scientific knowledge/formal institutions.A comparative and concise account of successfulland rehabilitation achieved in a highaltitudevillage and a low-altitude village (Tables 4& 5) is presented in the following sections.People’s perceptionsAt both locations, people were more concernedabout immediate tangible benefits from rehabilitationthan about indirect/intangible benefits (soilconservation, hydrological balance, carbon sequestrationand biodiversity conservation, the primenational and global concern; they were aware of allthese aspects, except for carbon sequestration).Over 90% of the respondents did not prefer exclusivetree plantation, which has been a commonintervention for rehabilitation by governmentTable 5. People’s preferences for rehabilitation ofdegraded community lands (after Maikhuri et al.1997a,b).Treatments/inputsAfforestationConiferous speciesLocal multipurpose broad-leaved species% of totalresponse*AgroforestryLocal multipurpose trees + cash crops 87Local multipurpose trees + staple food crops 5AgriculturenilWater management 64Proper terracing 58Organic manuring 98Inorganic fertilizers 8Decision makingBy formal institutions 7By entire village community informally 87By other means 6People’s contributionVoluntary labournilOrganic manurenilSocial fencing 98Seedlings/saplings from private farmland 98Seeds of cash crops 98Reinvestment of a portion of returns for 92replication of the rehabilitation model*Total number of respondents: 21926

102 BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTagencies. The reasons for this dislike of exclusivetree plantation were:(a) Coniferous timber species, viz., Pinusroxburghii, P. wallichiana, Cupressus torulosaand Cedrus deodara were planted on a large scalein degraded forestlands. The choice of coniferousspecies was based on their well-known silviculture,their non-palatability, which is advantageousin natural protection from grazing andtheir ability to establish themselves in poor soilconditions. Coniferous species are not highly valuedin respect of leaf litter, fuel wood and minortimber required in bulk quantities to sustain traditionallivelihood. There is evidence to show thatconiferous forests may not render as favourable ahydrological balance and slope stability as broadleavedforests (Singh et al. 1992), but local peopledid not perceive this of the service dimension ecosystem.(b) Income is a major local concern, but thepolicy does not provide for timber extraction formonetary benefits, in view of the risks of soil erosionand hydrological imbalance by tree cuttingand associated disturbances in the fragile Himalayanlandscape.(c) Local people were involved merely as labourersbecause their wages were much lower thanthose of the outside labour force. It was assumedthat the traditional knowledge and experiences ofthe local people would not confer any technical orpractical advantage.(d) It was assumed that selected speciescould withstand all sorts of soil stresses and hencethere was a lack of any basal improvement in soilphysico-chemical properties in plantation programmes.(e) Seedlings/saplings were raised in centralizednurseries and damage during the course oftransport led to the transplanting of unhealthyindividuals (Rao & Saxena 1994; Saxena et al.1993).At high altitude, the planting of temperatebamboo (Thamnocalamus spathiflorus, locally referredto as Ringal) was the most common choice,followed by the cultivation of medicinal plants,while at low altitude, people stressed multipurposetree-cash crop integrated agroforestry (Table 6).The choice of these species was based on their economicpotential, comparative ecological advantagesand some indigenous knowledge of their husbandry.Decision-making by the entire village communityrather than a few elected individuals suggestedthat people had lost faith in formal institutionsand intended to rejuvenate traditional consensusdecisions. Even though they were assuredthat all benefits from the proposed rehabilitatedsite would go to the community, none of the respondentsagreed to voluntary labour. They suggestedthat their contribution would be in terms ofsocial fencing (the community would ensure thatthe treated area was protected from grazingthrough their traditional regulatory mechanisms),supply of seeds and seedlings/saplings from thecommunity forests and farmyard manure.Moderation of people’s perceptionsAn analysis of people’s perceptions revealedstrengths and weaknesses of the indigenousknowledge and provided scope for overcoming theweaknesses. The challenge was how people’s perceptionsand priorities could be integrated withnational/global priorities. In the high-altitude village,the following points were gathered from theexisting scientific knowledge and from a rapid ecologicalsurvey of the regional landscape. These aspectswere either altogether unknown or, their implicationswere not properly understood by thepeople:(a) The people were not aware of the biologicalpeculiarity of Thamnocalamus spathiflorus,viz., its gregarious flowering and low productivityfor 3-4 years after flowering. As bamboo floweringis unpredictable, pure plantation of this specieswould be risky.(b) T. spathiflorus and many medicinal specieswere regenerating in shaded and moist microhabitatsin Q. leucotrichophora-Aesculus indica-Juglans regia mixed forests. Local people valuedthese tree species for their multipurpose products.Bamboo and medicinal species requested for plantationwere thus likely to survive the continuedgrowth of tree canopy. Apart from a range of products,planting of trees in degraded lands couldbring in micro-environmental changes facilitatingnatural regeneration of medicinal plants and temperatebamboo. A shortfall in grass fodder productionwas expected with the development of treecanopy because most palatable grasses grew inopen habitats. This shortfall was likely to be compensatedby income from bamboo, medicinal plantsand tree products.

RAO et al. 103(c) The cultivation of medicinal species wasa risky proposition because of the poor agronomicand ecological knowledge pertaining to them.(d) Medicinal species, being tender herbs,would require intense weeding and soil managementfor success in degraded sites. Since privatefarm fields had better soil fertility and were partlyabandoned, cultivation of these species would bemore advantageous in abandoned fields. Rehabilitationshould serve primarily the purpose of producingpropagules and secondarily economic needs.(e) Bamboo could be planted only throughvegetative means, as its seeds were not available,whereas both seed and vegetative propagation optionswere available for medicinal plants. Mortalityin a stressed environment was less likely withvegetative propagation than with sexual reproduction.(f) Continuous harvest of bamboo, medicinalspecies and grass fodder was likely to aggravatenutrient stress in a recovering site because allthese species had root systems confined to surfacesoil. Trees with fast decomposing litter althoughthey may not offer a large number of immediatetangible benefits, would draw nutrients fromdeeper soils and enrich the surface soil. This inturn would enhance productivity of products preferredby the people. The nitrogen-fixing trees Alnusnepalensis and Alnus nitida were more suitablefrom the point of view of enabling of a rapidrecovery in soil fertility.When the above points were discussed with thepeople, they agreed to the planting of the tree speciesAesculus indica, Quercus leucotrichophora andJuglans regia, along with medicinal plants andbamboo. Alnus species, though desirable from thepoint of soil fertility recovery, were not acceptablebecause of the insignificant direct benefits over ashort-term period.Water stress was perceived as a problem onlyin the low-altitude village. People felt that whilecanal-based irrigation introduced by conventionalagencies cannot be sustained in the long run, itwas practically impossible to establish the traditionalsystem in the changed socio-economic andecological conditions. Based on an ecological surveyof the landscape, it was felt that the crops preferredby the local people for cultivation wouldneed only life-saving irrigation and not flood irrigation,for which the canal system was designed.Because of large-scale land degradation in thepast, the run-off around and within degradedlands was quite high. People accepted the proposalto establish simple water-harvesting tanks for collectingrun-off and to recycle the stored water followingtraditional irrigation practice (Kothyari etal. 1991).OutcomeTree biomassAt the high-altitude site, the bamboo T.spathiflorus showed significantly higher abovegroundbiomass accumulation over a period of7 years, followed by the tree A. indica. There wasno significant difference in biomass accumulationby Q. leucotrichophora and J. regia (Table 6). Becauseof a more favourable temperature and largerquantities of manure applied primarily for crops,tree biomass even after 5 years was better at thelower altitude site, and more so in the irrigatedtreatment (Maikhuri et al. 2000a).Soil fertility recovery and carbon sequestrationThere was a significant improvement in thewater-holding capacity and fertility status of thesoil over a period of 5 and 7 years after land rehabilitationin Banswara and Khaljhuni, representinglower and higher altitude sites, respectively(Table 7). Rehabilitation also implied a higherlevel of carbon sequestration as a result of organicTable 6. Growth after 7 years of plantation of tree and bamboo species in a high-altitude village (Khaljhuni,Almora district) rehabilitated site of the central Himalayas (after Rao et al. 1999).Species / Abovegroundbiomass (kg plant -1 )AesculusindicaJuglansregiaQuercusleucotrichophoraThamnocalamusspathiflorusBole/Main stems 8.1 ± 1.1 2.8 ± 0.7 3.2 ± 0.6 25.6 ± 0.8Branches 2.6 ± 0.3 1.1 ± 0.3 0.8 ± 0.1 8.1 ± 0.5Leaves 1.1 ± 0.2 1.2 ± 0.5 1.5 ± 0.3 10.6 ± 0.8Total 11.8 ± 1.2 5.1 ± 1.0 5.5 ± 0.5 44.3 ± 1.8

104 BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTTable 7. Soil physico-chemical characteristics (mean ± standard deviation) before rehabilitation and 7years after rehabilitation in a low-altitude village (Banswara, Chamoli district) and a high-altitude village(Khaljhuni, Almora district) in central Himalayas (after Rao et al. 1999).CharacteristicsBanswaraKhaljhuniBefore rehabilitation After rehabilitation Before rehabilitation After rehabilitationpH 6.6 ± 0.9 6.2 ± 0.8 5.8 ± 0.04 6.1 ± 0.04Water-holding capacity 26.2 ± 6.0 46.7 ± 4.1 27.5 ± 4.2 35.6 ± 3.6Carbon (%) 0.94 ± 0.2 1.76 ± 0.2 1.7 ± 0.7 2.9 ± 0.7Nitrogen (%) 0.15 ± 0.05 0.28 ± 0.07 0.15 ± 0.02 0.21 ± 0.09matter in the soil and woody biomass build-up(Table 8).Economic viabilityThe NPV of investment was recovered over aperiod of 7 years (Tables 9 and 10). Local participationwas economically advantageous in thatTable 8. Carbon sequestration rate (t ha -1 yr -1 ) insoil and vegetation after rehabilitation in a lowaltitudevillage (Banswara, Chamoli district, overa period of 5 years) and a high-altitude village(Khaljhuni, Almora district, over a period of 7years) in the central Himalayas (after Maikhuri etal. 2000a and Rao et al. 1999).Carbon sequestrationCharacteristicsBanswara KhaljhuniSoil (0-15 cm) 2.2 3.4Tree bole/bamboo culm 0.9 4.3Total 3.1 7.7costs for the mechanical measures of protection,centralized nurseries and transportation could besaved. Indeed, any strategy combining local economicconcerns and national/global environmentalconcerns will be more costly (US$ 305 per ha in thepresent case, as compared to US$ 160-190 per hathe exclusive tree plantation programmes implementedby the government (Maikhuri et al.1997a,b; Saxena et al. 1993), but investment in theformer is more secure. One way of meeting thehuge investment required for the rehabilitation ofvast areas would be to establish model plots withgovernment/donor funding, on the condition that aportion of the income from the treated plot wouldbe invested for replication and participatory approachesfor further improvement.Off-site benefitsThe availability of fodder, medicinal plantsand bamboo from the rehabilitated site close to thedwellings could save on the average 48 man-daysof labour per year in the high-altitude villageTable 9. Monetary costs and benefits (Rs ha -1 ; net present value at discount rate of 12%) of land rehabilitationover a period of 7 years in a high-altitude village (Khaljhuni, Almora district) of the central Himalayas(after Rao et al. 1999).Costs / benefits Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 TotalCOSTSLand preparation 1335 - - - - - - 1335Plantation 5363 - - - - - - 5363Maintenance 2780 493 473 343 307 274 245 4915Total cost 9478 493 473 343 307 274 245 11613BENEFITSFodder 1607 1674 1495 1336 1193 1065 815 9185Bamboo - - - 268 738 852 951 2809Medicinal products - - 214 304 77 94 387 1076Total benefits 1607 1674 1709 1908 2008 2011 2153 13070Net return 1457

RAO et al. 105Table 10. Monetary costs and benefits (Rs ha -1 ) of land rehabilitation over a period of 5 years in a lowaltitudevillage (Banswara, Chamoli district) of the central Himalayas (after Maikhuri et al. 1997b).Cost/Benefit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 TotalCOSTSTools and implements 500 300 200 300 400 1700Water harvesting tank (material cost) 7478 250 100 - 50 7878Labour 12584 11300 10700 10550 9500 54634Other costs (including transport,2400 700 500 - - 3600maintenance)Total cost 22962 12550 11500 10850 9950 67812BENEFITSWood and fodder 900 1400 3000 4100 6500 15900Agronomic yield 20670 22070 22570 22870 23055 111235Total benefits 21570 23470 25570 26970 29555 127135Net return over a period of 5 years 59323which, otherwise, would have been spent in collectingfrom distant forests (Rao et al. 1999). This savingof labour must have been diverted towardsother productive activities, but we could not quantifyit. Further availability of these products fromdegraded lands implies less pressure on forestsand thereby fewer threats to the conservation ofwild biodiversity and ecosystem service. Initiatives,following the rehabilitation treatment, in thecultivation of medicinal plants on private farmland,although involving only 3 farmers, can alsobe viewed as an off-site benefit.The lessons learntUnfavourable site conditions and poor soil seedbank are the key problems for the restoration ofdegraded lands on steep slopes (Andreas &Michaela 1999; Ramakrishnan 1992). Plantationand reseeding together with mechanical and biologicalamendments of the soil become essentialsteps to accelerate the process of ecological restoration.The introduction of ‘nurse species’ or ‘keystonespecies’ would be the most desired course ofaction from the point of accelerating the naturalrecovery processes, but will be appreciated by thepeople only when they can satisfy their immediateneeds. Further, limited ecological knowledge oftraditionally valued species limits the scope foridentifying keystone species (Kettler 1996; Ramakrishnan1992). Despite this limitation, as shownfrom this study, there is scope for building successfulrehabilitation strategies on indigenous knowledge,supplemented/ complemented with existingscientific knowledge and institutional support(Altieri & Masera 1993; DeWalt 1994).There are two major problems in scaling out orup the elements of indigenous knowledge foundeffective on a small/local scale. First, ecologicaland socio-economic problems and prospects in theHimalayas are so diverse that interventions foundappropriate in one region might not hold true inother regions. Second, although researchers havestressed the importance of flexibility, adaptabilityand an objective analysis of indigenous knowledgefor reconciling the conflicts among different stakeholders(Holling & Meffe 1996; Ramakrishnan1992; Ramakrishnan et al. 2000), these elementsneed to be properly accounted in policies and implementationprogrammes.Incremental improvement in traditionalagroforestry systemsManaging tree lopping practicesProductivity of both crop and tree componentsin traditional rainfed agroforestry systems in thecentral himalayas is limited by water and nutrientstress (Maikhuri et al. 1997a,b, 2000a). Localfarmers believe that the yield-depressing effects oftrees always outweighs their yield-enhancing effects,but maintain trees for fodder and fuel woodnear dwellings during lean winter periods (Maikhuriet al. 1997a,b). As two food crops are harvestedin a year, lopping seems an essential man-

106 BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTagement in the regulation of tree-crop competitionfor optimizing multiple benefits from the system.Even though farmers are aware of a reduction incrop yields during the rainy season due to the treecanopy, they do not practise lopping during therainy season for two reasons. First, the policy providesfor the free utilization of non-timber forestproducts, which are abundant during the rainyseason in the government forests (Rao et al. 1999).Second, they believe that lopping during the rainyseason, although it may enable higher crop yields,will be detrimental to tree vigour. Farmers usuallylop all branches of farm trees during the winterseason because green fodder and fuel wood arescarce in forests at this time of the year. Tree loppingmay result in an increase in PAR, day temperatureand availability of water and nutrients tounderstory crops. The magnitude of these changesand their impacts on crop yields would dependupon the lopping intensity and ecophysiologicalattributes of trees and crops growing in association.Experimental trials showed that removal of25% of the branches during the winter season wastoo low to result in any significant change in theyields of any of the crops except lentil. An almostlinear increase in agronomic and by-product yieldsin all crops between 25% and 75% lopping rates,but insignificant difference in yields between 75%and full lopping (100%) treatments, suggests thatlopping of >75% branches would not confer anyadvantage in terms of enhanced crop yields tofarmers. As lopping and leaf fall in most of the treespecies occurred during the winter season, wintercrops showed a lower reduction in yields as comparedto rainy-season crops when all tree specieshad the densest canopy. Lopping will certainly affectthe tree growth. Availability of products fromtrees will depend on the magnitude of compensatorygrowth following lopping. Thus, the loss ofcrop yields may not be significant if 25% of thebranches are retained (Semwal et al. 2002). Such apractice might also improve tree vigour in traditionalagroforestry systems and reduce pressure onforests.Soil fertility managementTraditionally, leaf litter from forests is used asbedding material in cattle-sheds and a litter-cattleexcreta mixture is used as manure in the cropfields. An intensive survey of variation in yield inrelation to forest type showed higher yields in oakdominated landscapes as compared to pine dominatedones (Ghosh et al. 1997). This formed thebasis of a short-term experiment to test whetheroak forest based manure will enable higher yieldsthan pine based manure. The concentration of nutrientswas higher and the C/N ratio and moisturecontent lower in oak manure as compared to pinemanure, but the polyphenol concentration was almostthe same (Table 11). The experiment carriedout in a poor soil showed yields in oak manuretreatment to be 15% higher than that in pine manuretreatment (Table 12). Thus, there is scope forimproving productivity in traditional agricultureby managing manure quality (Semwal et al. 2003;Woomer & Swift 1994).Table 11. Important characteristics (mean ± standarddeviation, n = 5) of oak-based and pine-basedorganic manure. Mean values of the two manuretypes are significantly (P

RAO et al. 107ConclusionsThough conservation and socio-economic developmentof local communities are complementaryand equally important tasks, stress has beenlaid on achieving conservation through legal enforcement.If the development interests of localpeople are marginalized for a long period of time,they might adopt actions detrimental to the goal ofconservation. Capitalizing on the positive dimensionsof traditional knowledge and overcoming itsnegative dimensions through conventional sciencebasedinputs could ease the difficult process of securingpeople’s participation in environmental conservationtogether with the socio-economic developmentof local communities.AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to the Director, G.B. Pant Instituteof Himalayan Environment and Development forthe facilities, to the Ministry of Environment and Forests,CSIR and UNESCO, Delhi, MacArthur Foundation,USA, and TSBF, Nairobi, for financial assistanceto carry out some of the work presented here. Theviews expressed here are those of the authors and notnecessarily those of the institutions with which theyare affiliated or of the funding agencies.ReferencesAltieri, M.A. & O. Masera. 1993. Sustainable rural developmentin Latin America: building from the bottomup. Ecological Economics 7: 93-121.Andreas, S. & Z. Michaela. 1999. Plant species declinedue to abandonment of meadows cannot easily bereversed by mowing. A case study from the Alps.Journal of Vegetation Science 10: 151-164.Antunes, P. & R. Santos. 1999. Integrated environmentalmanagement of the oceans. Ecological Economics31: 215-226.Bellamy, J.A. & A.K.L. Johnson. 2000. Integrated resourcemanagement: moving from rhetoric to practicein Australian agriculture. Environmental Management25: 265-280.Chipika, J.T. & G. Kowero. 2000. Deforestation of woodlandsin communal areas of Zimbabwe: is it due toagricultural policies. Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment 79: 175-185.DeWalt, B.R. 1994. Using indigenous knowledge to improveagriculture and natural resource management.Human Organizations 5: 123-131.Fox, J. 1993. Forest resources in a Nepali village in1980 and 1990: positive influence of populationgrowth. Mountain Research and Development 13:89-98.Fox, J. & R. Chundawat. 1988. Observations of snowleopard stalking, killing and feeding behaviour.Mammalia 52: 137-140.Fox, J.L. & C. Nurbu. 1990. Hemis, a national parkfor snow leopard in India’s trans-Himalaya. InternationalPedigree Book of Snow Leopards 6:71-84.Fox, J.L., S.P. Sinha, R.S. Chundawat & P.K. Das. 1988.A field survey of snow leopard presence and habitatuse in northwestern India. pp. 99-111. In: H. Freeman(ed.) Proceedings of the Fifth InternationalSnow Leopard Symposium. International SnowLeopard Trust, Bellevue, Washington and WildlifeInstitute of India, Dehradun, India.Gabriel, O., A. Cibils, P. Borrelli & G. Humano. 1998.Stable states in relation to grazing in Patagonia: a10 year experimental trial. Journal of Arid Environment40: 113-131.Gadgil, M., F. Berkes & C. Folke. 1993. Indigenousknowledge of biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22:151-156.Ghosh, S., K.K. Sen, U. Rana, K.S. Rao & K.G. Saxena.1997. GIS Applications to Natural Resource Managementand Development Planning in a Rural Area– Pranmati Watershed, Garhwal Himalayas, India.MENRIS Case Study Series No. 5, InternationalCentre for Integrated Mountain Development,Kathmandu, Nepal.Gomez-Pompa, A. & A. Kaus. 1992. Taming the wildernessmyth. Bioscience 42: 271-279.Hamilton, L.S. 1987. What are the impacts of Himalayandeforestation on Ganges-Brahmputra lowlandsand delta? Mountain Research and Development 7:256-263.Holling, C.S. & G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and controland the pathology of natural resource management.Conservation Biology 10: 328-337.Hurni, H. 1999. Sustainable management of naturalresources in African and Asian mountains. Ambio28: 382-389.Hurni, H. 2000. Assessing sustainable land management(SLM). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment81: 83-92.Ives, J.D. & B. Messerli. 1989. The Himalayan Dilemma:Reconciling Environment and Development.Routledge, London, UK.Jackson, R. 1991. A Wildlife Survey of the QomolangmaNature Preserve, Tibet Autonomous Region, People’sRepublic of China. Woodlands Mountain Institute,Franklin, West Virginia, USA.

108 BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTJenssen, W. & P. Goldsworthy. 1996. Multidisciplinaryresearch for natural resource management: conceptualand practical implications. Agricultural Systems51: 259-279.Kettler, J.S. 1996. Weeds in traditional slash/mulchpractice of frijol tapado: indigenous characterisationand ecological implications. Weed Research 36: 385-393.Kotiluoto, R. 1998. Vegetation changes in restored seminaturalmeadows in the Turku Archipelago of SWFinland. Plant Ecology 136: 53-67.Kothyari, B.P., K.S. Rao, K.G. Saxena, T. Kumar & P.S.Ramakrisnan. 1991. Institutional approaches in developmentand transfer of water harvest technologyin the Himalaya. pp. 673-678. In: G. Tsakiris (ed.)Advances in Water Resource Technology. A.Balkema, Rotterdam.Lunde, H.G. & S. Iremonger. 2000. Omissions, commissionsand decisions: the need for integrated resourceassessments. Forest Ecology and Management 28: 3-10.Maikhuri, R.K., K.G. Saxena & K.S. Rao. 1995. Experiencesin developing a village agroforestry project inGarhwal Himalaya. International Tree Crops Journal8: 213-221.Maikhuri, R.K., K.S. Rao & K.G. Saxena. 1996. Traditionalcrop diversity for sustainable development ofCentral Himalaya. International Journal of SustainableDevelopment and World Ecology 2: 8-31.Maikhuri, R.K., R.L. Semwal, K.S. Rao & K.G. Saxena.1997a. Agroforestry for rehabilitation of degradedcommunity lands: a case study in Garhwal Himalaya.International Tree Crops Journal 9:89-99.Maikhuri, R.K., R.L. Semwal, K.S. Rao, & K.G. Saxena.1997b. Rehabilitation of degraded community landsfor sustainable development in Himalaya: a casestudy in Garhwal Himalaya. International Journalof Sustainable Development and World Ecology 4:192-203.Maikhuri, R.K., R.L. Semwal, K.S. Rao, S. Nautiyal &K.G. Saxena. 1997c. Eroding traditional crop diversityimperils the sustainability of agricultural systemsin central Himalaya. Current Science 73: 777-782.Maikhuri, R.K., R.L. Semwal, K.S. Rao, K. Singh & K.G.Saxena. 2000a. Growth and ecological impacts oftraditional agroforestry tree species in central Himalaya,India. Agroforestry Systems 48: 257-272.Maikhuri, R.K., S. Nautiyal, K.S. Rao, K. Chandrasekhar,R. Gavali & K.G. Saxena. 2000b. Analysis andresolution of protected area-people conflicts inNanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. EnvironmentalConservation 27: 43-53.Mallon, D.P. 1991. Status and conservation of largemammals in Ladakh. Biological Conservation 56:101-119.McNeely, J.A. 1988. Economics and Biological Diversity:Developing and Using Economic Incentives for ConservingBiological Resources. IUCN Publications,Gland, Switzerland.Mishra, C. 1997. Livestock depredation by large carnivoresin the Indian trans-Himalaya: conflict perceptionsand conservation prospects. EnvironmentalConservation 24: 338-343.Myers, N. 1990. The biodiversity challenge: expandedhot-spots analysis. The Environmentalist 10: 243-256.Nowell, K. & P. Jackson. 1996. Status and ConservationAction Plan: Wild Cats. IUCN/SSC Cat SpecialistGroup, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Oli, M.K., I.R. Taylor & M.E. Rogers. 1994. Snow leopardPanthera uncia predation of livestock: an assessmentof local perceptions in the AnnapurnaConservation Area, Nepal. Biological Conservation68: 63-68.Paine, R.T. 1969. A note on trophic complexity andcommunity stability. American Naturalist 103: 91-93.Ramakrishnan, P.S. 1992. Shifting Agriculture and SustainableDevelopment of North-Eastern India.UNESCO-MAB Series, Paris, Parthenon Publication,Carnforth, Lancs. U.K.Ramakrishnan, P.S., A.N. Purohit, K.G. Saxena, K.S.Rao & R.K. Maikhuri (eds.). 1996. Conservationand Management of Biological Resources in Himalaya.Oxford & IBH, New Delhi, India.Ramakrishnan, P.S., U.M. Chandrashekara, C.Elouard, C.Z. Guilmoto, R.K. Maikhuri, K.S. Rao,S. Sankar & K.G. Saxena (eds.). 2000. MountainBiodiversity, Land Use Dynamics and TraditionalEcological Knowledge. Oxford & IBH, New Delhi,India.Rao, K.S. & K.G. Saxena. 1994. Sustainable Developmentand Rehabilitation of Degraded VillageLands in Himalaya. Himavikas Publication No. 8,Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun,India.Rao, K.S. & K.G. Saxena. 1996. Minor forest products’management: problems and prospects in high altitudevillages of central Himalaya. InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and WorldEcology 3: 60-70.Rao, K.S., R.K. Maikhuri & K.G. Saxena. 1999. Participatoryapproach to rehabilitation of degraded forestlands: a case study in a high altitude village of IndianHimalaya. International Tree Crops Journal10: 1-17

RAO et al. 109Rao, K.S., R.K. Maikhuri, S. Nautiyal & K.G. Saxena.2002. Crop damage and livestock depredation bywildlife: a case study from Nanda Devi BiosphereReserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management66: 317-327.Saxena, K.G., K.S. Rao & A.N. Purohit. 1993. Sustainableforestry- prospects in India. Journal of SustainableForestry 1: 69-95.Saxena, K.G., K.S. Rao, A. Pande, U. Rana, K.K. Sen,N.A. Farouquee & B.S. Majila. 1994. Sustainable RuralDevelopment Opportunities and Constraints (AMicrolevel Analysis of Pranmati Watershed in UttarPradesh Himalaya). Himavikas Publication No. 6,G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment andDevelopment, Almora, India.Schaller, G.B., L. Hong, L. Hua, R. Jurang, Q. Mingjiang& W. Haibin. 1987. Status of large mammals in theTaxkorgan reserve, Xinjiang, China. Biological Conservation42: 53-71.Semwal, R.L., R.K. Maikhuri, K.S. Rao, K. Singh & K.G.Saxena. 2002. Crop productivity under differentlylopped canopies of multipurpose trees in centralHimalaya, India. Agroforestry Systems 56: 57-63.Semwal, R.L., R.K. Maikhuri, K.S. Rao, K.K. Sen & K.G.Saxena. 2003. Leaf litter decomposition and nutrientrelease patterns of six multipurpose tree speciesof central Himalaya, India. Biomass and Bioenergy24: 3-11.Sen, K.K., K.S. Rao & K.G. Saxena. 1997. Soil erosiondue to settled upland farming in the Himalaya: acase study in Pranmati watershed. InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development and WorldEcology 4: 65-74.Sharma, U.R. & W.W. Shaw. 1993. Role of Nepal’s RoyalChitwan National Park in meeting the grazing andfodder needs of local people. Environmental Conservation20: 139-142.Singh, S.P., R.P. Singh & Y.S. Rawat. 1992. Patterns ofSoil and Vegetation and Factors Determining theirForms and Hydrologic Cycle in Nanda Devi BiosphereReserve. Final Report to Ministry of Environmentand Forests, Govt. of India, New Delhi.Stampfli, A. & M. Zeiter. 1999. Plant-species decline dueto abandonment of meadows cannot be easily reversedby mowing. A case study from the SouthernAlps. Journal of Vegetation Science 10: 151-164.Walker, B.H. 1991. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy.Conservation Biology 6: 18-23.Ward, D., B.T. Ngairorue, J. Kathena, R. Samuels & Y.Ofran. 1998. Land degradation is not a necessaryoutcome of communal pastoralism in arid Namibia.Journal of Arid Environment 40: 357-371.Ward, D., B.T. Ngairorue, A. Apollus & H. Tjiveze. 2000.Perceptions and realities of land degradation in aridOtimbingwe, Namibia. Journal of Arid Environment45: 337-356.Woomer, P.L. & M.J. Swift (eds.). 1994. The BiologicalManagement of Tropical Soil Fertility. John Wiley &Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom.

110 BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

RAO et al. 111