A Case Study for Documenting Traditional Knowledge on Biodiversity

Dr.Nandini,
Bangalore University, Bangalore
Abstract
Originally, the People's Biodiversity Register is a programme set up to document people's
knowledge of biodiversity, intended to protect people's rights to their intellectual property and natural
resources. But with increasing environmental pressure, the tool has also been employed to carry out
Knowledge-and-Perceptions (KAP) analysis on environmental pollution, conservation of biodiversity
resources and prioritization of environmental issues involving local people. There is a widespread
belief that there is no Biodiversity in the urban centers. Almost all of the policy, research and scientific
resources directed at Biodiversity conservation are largely focused in biomes outside of urban centers.
This is where a large anomaly of protection and conservation of natural resources occurs based on the
concept that there is little left to conserve in the urban centers. This study has embarked on critical
assessment aimed at highlighting the urban viewpoint in Biodiversity protection and conservation using
PBR Tool of analysis and documentation. With the support of the Biodiversity Committee of Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), the Bangalore Municipal Council and the Karnataka
Biodiversity Board (KBB), a pilot study on documentation of Biodiversity resources in the Bangalore
Urban using PBR Tool was commissioned for Ward No. 2 in 2007. The study in Ward 2
(Malleswaram) concluded that the urge for Bodiversity conservation of the urban ecology and
Indigenous knowledge does run deep with the interviewed local population and especially the elderly.
Following the outputs and delimitations of the pilot study, the current study is carried out in phase wise
expansion to cover representative samples of the entire city. The objectives of the study in Bangalore
Urban include identification of focal issues of environmental importance such as health, education,
socio-economic patterns within the ward; identification of species and habitats pertinent to focal issues,
and communication of this information towards initiation and development of resources material on the
emergent set of habitats and species in the ward. This is mainly based upon the local practical
ecological knowledge and willingness to share that knowledge with the general public.
1.Introduction:
It can be argued that it was by far a case of accidental event upon which the concept of
People’s Biodiversity Register was instituted. The primary goal of PBR was to institute a national
response to the threats of Biopiracy which threatened to obliterate the remnants of ownership of
biodiversity resources and traditional knowledge from poor countries where eighty percent of the global
biodiversity resources were located. In case of India, this threat was exemplified by irresponsible
patenting of Indian traditional herbs by US companies. The People’s Biodiversity Registers (PBR) thus
became an important tool of a biodiversity information system in line with the provisions of the
Biological Diversity Act, 2002 which became operational later on. PBR would compile information on
variety of environmental issues, such as the status of ecological habitats, biodiversity elements,
customary property and access rights, conservation of resources and practices; existing technologies
and new innovations pertinent to biodiversity. In effect, PBR was a tool designed to document, store,
and protect the national traditional knowledge.
It is important to understand that the general objectives of PBR is to document knowledge of
occurence, practices of propogation, sustainable harvests and conservation, as well as economic uses of
biodiversity resources that resides with India's local communities. The tool also serves to document
sustainable and equitable share of benefits flowing from the use of such knowledge and such resources.
PBR also helps in participatory and active learning promoting environmental education and practical
ecological knowledge.This tool was initiated where it mattered most, and that was in rural India with its
agricultural and ecological richness. Rural India along with its pristine ecological habitats contained
invaluable biodiversity resources that have been estimated to carry the largest biodiversity financial
value of US$ 5 Billion. To some extent since the inception and implementation of PBR tool, the
country has managed to document extensively the scale and the magnitude of its largely untapped
reservoir of traditional knowledge, environmental issues, and on biodiversity conservation. Still, the
work is ongoing and will take some time before the documentation of major objectives is achieved.

9
However, there is one place where PBR process has largely overlooked and this is within the bastion of
human habitats, their industrialization, commerce, and population concentration – the urban centers.
There is a widespread belief that there is no Biodiversity in the urban centers. Almost all of the
policy, research and scientific resources directed at Biodiversity conservation are largely focused in
biomes outside of urban centers. This is where a large anomaly of protection and conservation of
natural resources occurs based on the concept that there is little left to conserve in the urban centers.
This is far from the ecological truth. This study has embarked on critical assessment aimed at
highlighting the urban viewpoint in Biodiversity protection and conservation using the similar PBR
Tool of analysis and documentation.
2. Background to the Study:
One of the interesting aspects of life in Bangalore is the availability and application of an open
space (Lung space or a biological element). However the quality of lung spaces in Bangalore has
deteriorated over the years due to several reasons. Physical growth, rapid development, increase in
traffic, encroachment into parks and green avenues, and also lack of management of open/lung spaces
have all contributed to this. The CBD (Central Business District) area of the city which used to cater for
a city of 2 million in 1980 has to now cater to a city of 5 million. One can imagine the demand for fresh
air and quality of environment in this zone alone.
Any city can be categorized environmentally based on the built-up land, agriculture land, forest
land, waste land, water bodies, etc. According to Karnataka State Remote Sensing Application Center,
the expansion of Bangalore city derives enormous pressure on the infrastructure which then eats away
the natural biological elements that characterize the environmental identity of this city. The satellite and
aerial data have derived various and strong information databases on several ecological points of
concern within the city. This information has provided us with critical environmental pressures
plaguing the city including disappearing frontiers that once demarcated forest zones from built up areas.
Due to population increase, there is an excessive demand on land and this has effectively altered the
urban ecological balance of the city itself. Lung spaces such as forest, historical avenue trees, water
bodies, and city’s parks have fallen prey to mismanaged policies of urban planning.
Lung spaces play a critical role in servicing the local ecology and remediate its natural periodical
inadequacies. They are the natural remedial biospheres that cancel or reduce degree of environmental
deterioration of the city’s ecosystem. Moreover, lung spaces are biological elements that act as Carbon
sinks to vehicular and industrial emissions, harvest rainwater before filtering and filling it to the
ground; absorb noise levels, act as sanctuary for different species including phyto-planktons,
zooplanktons, amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and bird species; play important role in regulating
the heat-island effect and temperatures. These, among many more, provide priceless ecological services
to urban communities including human beings to perpetuate their own survival.
Bangalore city is undergoing a negative feedback syndrome wherein the physical growth of the
city is literally consuming the environmental checks-and-balances spheres that help support a normal
life cycle. The last 15 years has seen the physical change in the surface terrain of the city. While the
concrete jungle is expanding exponentially, the water sources are invaded and destroyed. The
characteristic hilly terrains of the city are being scrapped bare, not only for quarrying, but in efforts to
expand settlements and industries into hilly zone which act as vital catchment surfaces for the supply of
ground water for the city’s 7 Million people.
`The forests that used to insulate the city’s metro from heat and drastic climatic patterns have
now been laid bare and open to more unrelenting pattern of destruction in the race for land grab. What
the majority of city dwellers don’t understand is the fact that deforestation has already cost the city its
characteristic climatic pattern. Water sources are gone and the ground water is increasingly becoming
non-potable, corrosive and toxic with industrial outputs such as heavy metals. In the context of the
above profile, it is imperative to engage a public participation process using PBR Tool to highlight
major issues of concern in urban ecology and its efforts to conserve and protect biodiversity. In May
2007, the first pilot study on PBR documentation of Urban Centers was carried out in Ward 2 of
Bangalore City. This study produced tremendous amount of outputs from people as well as deploying
student power in ecological reconnaissance. The issues generated from this pilot study gives a clear

10
picture as to how useful it is to employ PBR Tool in engaging environmental issues of highest priority
affecting the urban population, their knowledge and perceptions on environmental conservation and
traditional knowledge, their practices in maintaining and sustaining both indoor and outdoor floral
diversity and their suggestions in action plan aimed to conserve and protect biodiversity resources. The
success of the Ward 2 PBR exercise is the basis of the Phase 2 of the PBR Tool covering extensive
areas of Bangalore in effort to strengthen the documentation of biodiversity resources around the city.
3. The Outputs of Ward 2 PBR Pilot Study for Bangalore Urban:
With the support of the Biodiversity Committee of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
(BBMP), the Bangalore Municipal Council and the Karnataka Biodiversity Board (KBB), a pilot study
on documentation of Biodiversity resources in the Bangalore Urban using PBR Tool was commissioned
for Ward No. 2 in 2007. The study in Ward 2 (Malleswaram) concluded that Indigenous knowledge
does run deep with the interviewed local population and especially the elderly. Respondents were able
to impart a great amount of knowledge on the history and development of their locality vis-à-vis natural
resources, faunal and floral species and the causes that paved way for their destruction or extinction
from within their locality. With the help of the local residents, the study team was able to compile
various dominant species and rare ones such as cocus nucifera (20.5%); Ocimum sanctum (22.1%);
Eucalyptus spp. (5.70%); Pongamia spp (9.40%); Papavera somnifera (9.30%); Bauhinia racemosa
(12.4%); Anacardium occidentale (10.4%); Terminalia alata (8.40%); Jasminum officinale (0.05%);
Piper bettle (0.36%); Acacia ferruginea (0.20%); Samanea saman (0.36%); Ficus virens (0.15%);
Acacia leucopholea (0.1%); Tectona grandis (0.1%); Coccinia indica (0.2%).
Home garden plots, heritage sites, schools, temples, and parks are the most important hotspots for
biodiversity conservation as found in Ward 2. These places were considered critical on ensuring the
safety growth of several rare and endangered species including the medicinal plants in a critical urban
environment. This also supports the fact the Biodiversity and culture are historically inter-related. Our
cultural richness is now playing a major part in preservation of our indigenous knowledge and
biodiversity preservation. The study also noted an increasing level of awareness among the local
residents in application of various environmentally sound technologies such as training of local people
for environmental awareness; rain water harvesting technologies, solar energy utilization, domestic
waste composting, waste paper recycling and planting trees, herbs, shrubs, climbers, creepers in front
houses have also been applied by a number of residents.
The study also identified hotspots of biodiversity degradation in the ward. Encroachment of water
bodies; unaccounted sewage, illegal construction activities were discussed as among the factors causing
rapid loss of the local natural resources. Urban sprawling has caused a major impact on Ward 2. People
are facing a huge problem of flooding during rainy season and air and water pollution poses a great
health risk for the local populations. Air pollution related asthma cases have been recorded, water
pollution related disorders like gastro-intestinal diseases, diarrhoea, etc have also been noted. Mosquito
menace continues to persist even after the rejuvenation of Mathikere lake because of the neglected poor
drainage system which even threatens the quality of the ground water bore wells within the area. Illegal
dumping of solid waste and unaccounted garbage have been noted and observed by the study team.
According to the residents of the Ward No. 2, there has been a massive decline in the green cover of the
Ward which has also caused a decline in the biodiversity area, species richness and abundance.
Pollution of natural resources such as small wetlands and nalas running through the ward has rendered
the surface water quality of the area unsuitable even for recreational purposes. The railways waste
continues to pose a problem to the rejuvenated JP Park (Mathikere) Lake.
4. Objectives of the Current Study:
Following the outputs and delimitations of the pilot study, the current study is carried out in phase wise
expansion to cover representative samples of the entire city. The objectives of the study include:

Familiarization with community members on provisions of the National Biological Diversity

11
 Establishing a network and working relationship of various educational institutions around
Bangalore City working on the concept of People’s Biodiversity Register and possible
educational value of engaging in a PBR process between these institutions and the local
(native) people of that particular locality.
Developing a rapport between the teacher-student team and local community members for
documentation and compilation purposes.
Identification of focal issues of environmental importance such as health, education, socio-
economic patterns within the ward.
Identification of species and habitats pertinent to focal issues, and communication of this
information towards initiation and development of resources material on the emergent set of
habitats and species in the ward. This is mainly based upon the local knowledge and
willingness to share that knowledge with the general public through the interdisciplinary study
team.
Participatory mapping of the landscape of the selected ward.
Capacity building for teachers, students and local community members and the preparation of
the environmental information database of the study area
5. Materials and Methods:
5.1. Selecting and Demarcating the Study Area:
The current study has been engaged on five different zones of Bangalore City. These zones are
identified as the Northern, Eastern, South, Central, and Western Zones respectively. A total five (5)
Wards have been selected for each zone and fifty (50) households randomly and symmetrically selected
from ten (10) streets. Each street therefore has been marked to pick up at least five (5) households. The
Major Zones and their Streets are identified with the help of Maps of General Surveyor of India, GIS
generated maps, and Google Earth Imageries. The Wards maps and their official demarcations have
been procured from the Government of Karnataka. In selecting the study area, all areas which fall under
forest Department are not part of the current study.
5.2. Identifying Resourceful Respondents:
In order to avoid biased sampling, Identification of viable and resourceful respondents is often
difficult prior to the process. In this case, the exercise is tasked to identify resourceful and
knowledgeable individuals during the sampling process and who will then be approached for focal
group discussion in later stages of the study to give us detailed chronology of events in an ecological
history of the study area and provide timeline analysis of biodiversity trends in that study area along
with their own priority issues. In the study, it has been imperative to engage gender-balanced samples
on the basis of producing a strong KAP Analysis feedback which can be used in different categories of
cross cutting issues.
5.3. Deploying Student Power:
Involvement of students of various interdisciplinary subjects in schools and colleges, preferably
from within the selected study area is of a vital step in associating this study with local community in
sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity resources. Students can complement their knowledge
of the study area with harvesting of local knowledge of various environmental strata and validation of
the information thus recorded. This also helps in creation of a local environmental information network
between schools/colleges and their own local community. The schools/colleges can then establish a link
as nodal units of that local area with a state or national biodiversity information system.
5.4. Employing Questionnaire Structure:
The questionnaire used is a semi-structured with mix of both open-ended and closed format
with both qualitative and quantitative outputs. In addition a questionnaire conductor (a deployed
interdisciplinary student) has been enabled to engage the respondent in unstructured (in-depth)
interviews with a respondent on perceived focal issues. This could help in formulating future discussion
groups on certain issues of priority. The questionnaire has been pre-tested in different models and has
been modified consistently with the experimented priority issues. Moreover, this structure has been
made to accommodate the outputs of secondary research done in previous PBR studies in India.

12
 The questionnaire has been designed to collect primary information on the respondent’s gender,
age group, family size, employment category and income group. The questionnaire also attempts to tap
into the respondent’s experience in the ecological history of his/her area which includes the time that
the respondent has been in the study area, his/her knowledge of various flora (economic and ecological)
such as Avenue Trees, Heritage Trees, Ornamental Plants, Medicinal Plants, Fruit Plants, Orchids and
others.
Information on faunal diversity such as snakes, butterflies, bats, owls, sparrows, is emphasized.
The respondent’s knowledge of and perception on the ecology of the study area, quality of drinking
water, the scale of water, air, noise pollution and industrial units located around the area is documented.
Access to energy resources and sanitation services have been highlighted along with the respondent’s
perception on critical biodiversity issues such as climate change, reduced crop yields, carbon emissions,
loss of forest resources and depletion of urban wetlands. Issues and perceptions on Biodiversity
conservation are prioritized along with respondent’s health patterns.
6. Results and Outputs:
Apart from documenting knowledge and perception analysis (KAP) from the samples
respondents, the study is expected to provide a positive feedback on floral and faunal diversity,
documentation of unregistered heritage trees, heritage sites, as well as providing current status on issues
of environmental degradation and the ongoing physical changes affecting the urban ecology; also on
conservation of biodiversity resources within private lands. The study will also help in recording of
practical ecological knowledge especially on Traditional Knowledge and help highlight people’s
aspiration on how issues of environmental concern should be tackled. This could include a co-
ordination with local councils, Government agencies, educational and scientific institutions, up to the
state and national levels.
7. Conclusion
The PBR Study on Bangalore Urban is very much in its inception stage. This study is a primary
attempt to use this tool to involve full people’s participation and help reduce the knowledge gap that
currently exists between local agencies, educational institutions, and local citizens in tackling problems
of environmental degradation of their urban ecology. By engaging on this active participatory tool, a
multi-pronged concerted action (involving scientific and policy making) to restore, conserve and
maintain the biodiversity resources of our urban ecology can only then be made possible. This study
has embarked to attempt just that.
Acknowledgment:
We wish to highly acknowledge the help of Dr. Ramesh C. Prajapathi, IFS; Addl. PCCF &
Member Secretary, Karnataka Biodiversity Board who was actively involved in the Pilot Study of Ward
No.2 and Sri Yellappa Reddy, IFS Retired. We also wish to acknowledge all the members of the
Bangalore University study team that was involved in the pilot PBR Study for Bangalore Urban (Ward
No. 2.). The Lecturers and Professors of Bangalore University including Dr. N.Sunitha, Dr. Ashok
Hanjagi, and Dr. Santaveeranna Goud. We are also indebted to Research Scholars of Department of
Environmental Science, Bangalore University - Mrs Sucharita Tandon, Mrs Anupama B.S., Mr.
Durgesh, Ms. Pavithra. We are also grateful to the MSc students of Departments of Geography and
Environmental Science, Bangalore University - Mr.Nandagopal P, Mr.Rajkamal, Mr. Rajanna A H, Mr.
Syed Yaseer Arafath, Ms Bindiya C, Ms. Shashikala, Ms.Deepthi N, Ms Anitha, Ms Asha bai, Ms
Soumya, Ms Brunda Gourav, Mr.Pradeep, Mr. Muniraj, Mr.Mahesh, Mr.Vinay, Ms Malkan Mussarath,
and Technical Assistance from Mr.Keerthi Kumar C. K.
Selected Reference
Harish Bhat, Basappa G., Chandrappa, Dasegowda, Gangadharappa M, GiddeGowda B. G. S.,
Gundappa B. V., Harshini, Indiramma N., Jayanthi Shetty, KrishneGowda C., Mamata, Meti Y.
B.,.Pramod Naik, Puttaraju D., Ramakrishnappa, Shrinivas, Simhasena Indra, Suma P, Thontadarya B.
H., Venkatesh Babu M. N., Prabhakar Achar K., Naik M. B., Shrikanth Gunaga, Sivan V.V., Srinidhi
S., Sridhar Patgar, Subramaniyan K.A., Madhav Gadgil, (2004) Deploying Student Power to Monitor
Biodiversity: Five Years of School Biodiversity Registers (1999 – 2003); ENVIS Technical Report

13
No. 17, Environmental Information System (ENVIS), Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute
of Science
Madhav Gadgil (2000) People’s Biodiversity Register: Lessons Learnt; Environment,
Developmentand Sustainability, 2:232-323
Madhav Gadgil (2006). Ecology is for the People: A Methodology Manual for People’s
Biodiversity Register; National Workshop on People’s Biodiversity Register, 22-23 June 2006.
Ghate Utkarsh (1999) People’s Biodiversity Register; COMPAS Newsletter Vol 1-2, 1999.
Department of Environment, Government of West Bengal; People's Biodiversity Register;
Environment Information System of Government of West Bengal
Food and Agricultural Organization; (2005) Framework for the Preparation of a People's
Biodiversity Register for the Maldives; FAO Corporate Document Repository;
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac792e/AC792E00.HTM.
Madhav Gadgil, M. D. Subhash Chandran, P. Pramod, Utkarsh Ghate, Prema Iyer, Yogesh Gokhale, D.
Winfred Thomas and Parvathi Menon, People’s Biodiversity Register – A record for India’s
Wealth; FRLHT and Western Ghats Biodiversity Network; Centre for
Participatory Management of Biodiversity
1 Reader; Department of Environmental Science, Bangalore University, Jnanabharathi Campus
560056
2 PhD Scholar, Department of Environmental Science, Bangalore University, Jnanabharathi
Campus, Bangalore 560056

------

14