• Environmental Review of Activities Undertaken for Habitat Improvement and Management under IEP in Gir National Park & Sanctuary
   

• Environmental Review of Activities Undertaken for Village Ecodevelopment under IEP in Gir National Park & Sanctuary

Salient findings
 
 The project became operational in December 1996 but the actual implementation could take place only in 1997 – 1998 financial year. Because of the availability of the Management Plan, the threats to biodiversity of the Gir ecosystem are well identified. The nature of threats to this ecosystem are in the form of recurrent drought, cyclones, forest fire, excessive grazing, encroachment, excessive traffic and weed infestation. High traffic and tourism, mining in peripherals zones, alignment of railway track through PA and narrow genetic base offer the greatest challenges for ecological security and biodiversity conservation in this PA.
 
 Habitat improvement and management activities proposed under the IEP project are largely for arresting soil compaction, fragmentation of habitat, grazing in PA and visitor influence. These have impacts for long term PA benefits. Activities to promote conservation of soil and water, increase productivity of the grass lands, improve regeneration in peripheral areas and improve habitat status for rare and unique biological values are expected to contribute positively in protection and long term conservation. Much more however still needs to be accomplished for improved habitat management than what has been accomplished already. Major policy decisions of enlarging the National Park area by inclusion of sanctuaries need careful considerations in planning. The decision is more than a political and administrative consideration and will have to be also premised on ecological, social, cultural, religious rationale and the uniqueness of the Gir ecosystem.
 
 The village ecodevelopment activities have yielded positive impacts. The more significant of these have been the successful trials with LPG distribution and the excitement and acceptability of the Ecokunj scheme. Despite this, village ecodevelopment activities are more biased towards land and cattle owners. There is very low potential in most activities to sustain the interest and motivation of the people in the landless and employed category. The social and institutional feasibility of some activities and their long term success depends on the ease and quickness with which economic returns come. The Ecokunj scheme will have to be steered towards achieving institutional sustainability as the dividends will take a few years to flow to the community. Similarly, lot of effort and continued support will be needed for ensuring a transition from use of fuelwood to LPG as an alternative amongst a still larger number of people.