Proceedings

Ministry of Environment & Forests

Government of India

17-18 March, 1999

New Delhi

Executive summary

Introduction

Inaugural session

Background papers

Recommendations of the working groups

Concluding session

List of participants

The Botanical Survey of India and the Zoological Survey of India are the premier survey organisations of the country engaged in the survey and inventorization of floral and faunal resources of the country. International developments in recent years, including adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, have necessitated an assessment of work done by BSI and ZSI for reorienting these premier institutions to meet the emerging challenges of the coming century for survey, identification, monitoring, and conservation of biological diversity. ln context of this background the Ministry of Environment & Forests had organised a two day National seminar on 17-19 March 1999 at New Delhi.

The Hon’ble Minister of Environment and Forests, Shri. Suresh P. Prabhu, inaugurated the Seminar on 17th March, 1999. About 70 experts from all over India, including Dr. T.N. Khoshoo, Dr. Saldhana, Prof. M.S. Jairajpuri, Prof. C.R. Babu, Prof. T.N. Ananthakrishnan, participated in the deliberations for assessing the work done by BSI and ZSI and identifying critical gap areas. In order to reorient BSI and ZSI to face the challenge of the coming century the participants divided themselves into seven Working Groups. The themes of these Workmg Groups were: Stock taking and future strategy - BSI; Stock taking and future strategy - ZSI; Conservation of threatened species; Microorganisms; Database; Networking; and Restructuring of BSI and ZSI. Detailed background papers were prepared to facilitate the discussions.

During the Seminar eminent experts deliberated in great detail for formulation of a pragmatic Action Plan which would galvanize these two institutions with special reference to future strategies, networking, identification of gap areas, strategies for rehabilitation, ex-situ and in-situ conservation, coverage of microorganisms and development of multipurpose databases. In all, 108 recommendations emanated in this context.

The important recommendations emanating from the Seminar are as follows:

The working group I, which took stock of work done by Botanical Survey of India identified strengths and weaknesses of Botanical Survey of India, made several important recommendations regarding future strategies. The Group felt that the strength of the Survey lay in the areas of Taxonomic studies of flowering plants and nomenclature of higher plants, identification of rare and threatened species. It also serves as national repository of type collections and voucher specimens of India’s plant diversity. It identified the weaknesses of Botanical Survey of India in the areas of population studies, molecular systematics, genome studies and holistic studies on plant-animal interactions.

The Group also felt that the Botanical Survey of India had an extremely adverse ratio of scientists vis a vis supporting staff leading to serious managerial problems, which called for steps to optimise the ratio. It felt that interns and research scholars should form the bulk of the work force. It recommended greater decentralisation and identification of thrust areas for each of the regional centres, which should have specific theme and mission.

Talking of future strategies, the Group emphasised importance of taxonomy of micro-organisms. It recommended that for the purpose of surveys, phytogeographic approach should be followed rather than an approach which follows politically demarcated boundaries and also recommended sampling strategies based on advanced technologies like GIS, GPS and remote sensing. The Group further recommended that the services rendered by the organisation should not be free of cost and a certain fee should be levied to generate revenue for the organisation, and also emphasised need for regulating information to prevent rampant plagiarisation. It also made important recommendations for image building.

The group II, which took stock of work done by ZSI, emphasised the need to launch a national programme on mapping the spatial distribution of faunal diversity, and to take up studies on identification of micro-habitats for ecogeographic classification. The group felt that there was a need to consolidate the baseline data and clear the backlog of unidentified collections. Need for greater priority for the survey of protected areas was also felt. The group recommended incorporation of modern tools like DNA fingerprinting and cladistic analysis in taxonomic studies along with use of parataxonomy. The group also felt the need for establishment of a CITES Unit.

The working groups I and II shared several concerns common to BSI and ZSI and also came up with recommendations that were equally relevant to both the organizations.

• Training, capacity building and human resource development should be

undertaken.

The group III on conservation of threatened species laid emphasis on awareness building on threatened species and identification of areas under serious threat of habitat modification requiring immediate conservation efforts. It recommended ex-situ conservation through conventional and modern biotechnological methods. The group felt that programmes like Operation Tiger ****

• Validation of threatened species listed in Red Data Books should be undertaken through a network of organisations, State Forest Departments, Universities etc. employing quantification methods.

• Development of packages (both in-situ and ex-situ) for rehabilitation of threatened species should be undertaken.

Working Group IV : Microorganisms

• Strengthen capacity of BSI/ZSI to undertake survey and inventorisation of microrganisms.

• Database should be created using standard text and picture format like HTML or any interact GIS compatible formats.

• Training and capacity building to personnel for using information technology should be undertaken.

• BSI/ZSI should develop their own homepage.

global levels with relevant organisations in relevant sectors.

• Restructuring of BSI/ZSI should be undertaken in a phased manner.
• Ratio of scientists to other categories of staff should be altered, and more qualified personnel should be inducted.

The concluding session of the Seminar was held on 18.3.99. The Minister in his concluding remarks, while appreciating the hard work put in by the participants during the two-day brainstorming, assured that these recommendations would be operationlised in the shortest possible time. Highlighting the interlinkages and commonalties in the functioning of BSI and ZSI, the Minister emphasised the requirement to consider the future of these two organisations together. The Minister reiterated the need for developing effective linkages and networking with the other organisations through modem information technological tools for efficient delivery and interface with people, and for creating mass awareness. The Minister stressed the importance of public participation particularly in conservation of Protected Areas. For this purpose, he highlighted the necessity to make the people aware of the ecological goods and services provided by these conservation areas and to develop organic linkages with the ecosystems. The Minister hoped that the recommendations emanating from this seminar would provide a long-term vision and a short term action plan for BSI and ZSI in the next millennium.

A sound knowledge of taxonomy is a prerequisite for assessment and understanding of biodiversity. The conservation of biodiversity is critical for the survival of human race. Sound management strategies for sustainable use of bioresources cannot be evolved without proper understanding of biodiversity through taxonomic study of the biological components. In fact, a study undertaken by the SBSSTA at the behest of COP to the CBD had recognised there was a general decline of interest in taxonomy the world over. In an attempt to address this problem in the Indian context the MoEF, GoI, has initiated a project on capacity building in taxonomy. The Botanical Survey of India (BSI) and the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) are the premier scientific organisations of the country and have been engaged in the survey and inventorisation of floral and faunal resources of the country for more than a century. The survey carried out by the two organisations has so far resulted in identification of about 47,000 species of plants and 81,000 species of animals. These life forms are actually and potentially important for developments in the fields of food, medicine, textiles, energy, recreation and tourism. International developments in recent years including adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992 have necessitated an assessment of work done by BSI and ZSI for reorienting these premier institutions to meet the emerging challenges of the coming century for survey, identification, monitoring, and conservation of biological diversity. It is in this context that the Ministry of Environment & Forests organised a two day National seminar during 17-18 March 1999 at New Delhi on the role of BSI and ZSI in the next millennium. The objectives of the seminar included:

• Assessment of work done by the BSI and ZSI and identification of critical gap areas;

• Reorienting of BSI and ZSI to meet emerging needs for survey, identification, monitoring and conservation of biological diversity;

• Networking with user organisations and development of computer compatible standard databases; and

• Capacity building of the organisations.

About 70 leading experts from all over India participated in the seminar.

The experts were divided into seven working groups for the purpose of focused and intensive deliberations in the following theme areas.

1. Working Group I: Stocktaking and Future Strategy - BSI

3. Working Group III: Conservation of Threatened Species

4. Working Group IV: Microorganisms

5. Working Group V: Database Development

6. Working Group VI : Networking

7. Working Group VII : Restructuring

The Hon’ble Minister of Environment and Forests, Shri. Suresh P. Prabhu, inaugurated the Seminar at 10.30 a.m. on 17^th March, 1999. Shri Babu Lal Marandi, Minister of State (E&F), Dr. T.N. Khoshoo, Chairman, Programme Advisory Committee (ZSI and BSI) and Shri Vinod Vaish, Special Secretary, MoEF, were present in the inaugural session. Welcoming the participants, Shri Vinod Vaish emphasised the importance of the Botanical and Zoological Surveys of India, and highlighted the need for their reorientation in order to meet the present day requirements. In his inaugural address, Shri Suresh P. Prabhu underscored the enhanced role of BSI and ZSI especially in view of the richness of biodiversity in India. He explained that this seminar was organised as a part of an overall exercise initiated in the Ministry to reorient the various organisations of the Ministry. Shri Prabhu urged the BSI and ZSI to reorient themselves in a dedicated manner so as to be able to face the emerging challenges. Shri Babu Lal Marandi highlighted the contribution of survey organisations towards conservation of the country’s biodiversity. He also laid stress on peoples participation in conserving the biological resources.

Referring to the uniqueness of biodiversity in the country, Dr. T.N. Khoshoo appreciated the foresightedness and vision of the founding fathers of the BSI and ZSI. He mentioned that these survey organisations have had a glorious past, but reiterated the need to reorient these organisations to ensure an equally promising future for them.

The participants divided themselves into seven Working Groups. The details of these Working Groups are as follows:

1. Working Group 1 : Stocktaking and Future Strategy - BSI

3. Working Group 111 : Conservation of Threatened Species

Chairman: Prof. M.S.Jairajpuri

4. Working Group IV: Microorganisms

Chairman: Prof. B.N. Johri

5. Working Group V: Database

Chairman: Dr. S.P.S.Khuswaha

6. Working Group VI : Networking

Chairman: Prof. C.R.Babu

7. Working Group VII : Restructuring

Chairman: Fr. C.J. Saldhana

The background papers and the recommendations of the seven Working Groups are given below.

Botanical Survey of India was established in 1890 with the basic objectives of carrying out floristic surveys. It was revived and reorganised in 1954. During the successive plan periods its functions have been gradually expanded. The objectives and perspectives of BSI were thoroughly reviewed in 1987-88 as follows:

1 . To survey the entire plant resources of the country.

1 . To undertake studies on selected, critical and fragile ecosystems.

4. To carry out geo-botanical studies in areas specified by the Ministry

Targets Achievements

1 . North East India

Manipur Survey completed.

Nagaland Survey completed.

4. South-western Ghats Survey completed.

Himalayas Survey completed; Flora of Deserts of NW

1 . Terai regions of Uttar Pradesh About 50% survey and explorations

2. Bundelkhand, Uttar Pradesh Work not yet completed.

Madhya Pradesh Work not yet completed.

4. Eastern Aravaili hills, Rajasthan Survey completed; Flora of Rajasthan, Vols.

7. Terai regions of Bihar Work not yet completed.

allotted to Universities Reports on 29 districts received of

and useful plants About 90 plant species were collected

Live Collections, Etc. Work not yet completed.

2. Environment Impact Assessments Targets achieved as and when

Bastar dist.& Nagaland) Work completed except for

Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh

Manipur,J&K, Mizoram Completed

9. Less known useful &

economic Plants Information from about 26 districts

It is estimated that about 20% of the recorded angiosperms are threatened. This data is based on 65-70% of the area surveyed so far. The criteria being used by BSI for identifying endangered species include endemism, range country, isolation, geographic trend, nature and extent of threat and economic potential. So far three volumes of the Red Data Books have been published by BSI, while the fourth volume is in press.

For the volumes so far published, the earlier IUCN criteria were followed. In November 1994, the IUCN has revised these criteria. In these new guidelines, quantification of data and some new categories have been added to reduce subjectivity. The Red Data Books serve a very useful purpose for providing benchmark data. However, there is a need to validate the data through field based observations and quantification.

The identification of endangered species of animals is somewhat more difficult as compared to plants, since animals are mobile. It is only the larger animals that are taken into consideration while preparing lists of endangered animals.

The important issues which need attention are:

i) Current status of publication of threatened species.

ii) Current methodologies followed for identification of threatened species.

iii) Quantification and population studies

iv) Validation for identified threatened species.

v) Conservation plans for identified threatened species.

India is endowed with rich microbial diversity. Microorganisms include small microscopic organisms falling into the category of bacteria, viruses, actinomycetes, etc. Bacteria are simplest and the most ancient group of living organisms. They were found in rocks of 3.5 billion years old and represent a separate kingdom (Monera) and are characterised by prokaryotic organisms. They are most abundant in environment both in terms of numbers and weight. About 2,500 different kinds of bacteria have been described so far, but estimates put the figure to 33 million. The diversity in bacteria can be assessed by their physiological, biochemical and molecular characteristics. Some bacteria cause diseases in animals (including man) and plants. Some produce a variety of industrial products. The taxonomic knowledge base of the bacteria is fragmentary and the same is essential in the field of medicine, agriculture, forestry, industry and environmental protection technologies.

The viruses are the simplest organisms that are somewhat intermediate between living and non-living. The viruses are important biological entities and the diversity in viruses is extremely high in their host organisms including animals and plants. Eight major groups are recognised in viruses based on their nature and size of genetic material. A vast majority of viruses cause diseases. The diversity of viruses in India is not known and identification of viruses is critical in diagonistic and treatment of diseases.

The fungi constitute an unique kingdom of livign organisms. These are fillamentous. Fungi together with bacteria help in degradation of organic substances and cycling of nutrients. About 1,00,000 species have been described so far. Taxonomic knowledge base and expertise for this important group is not adequate in India.

There is an urgent need to undertake the assessment of diversity in microorganisms. BSI and ZSI should accord priority to the survey and identification of microorganisms and lower groups of plants and animals and capacity building in these areas.

A sound taxonomic database is a prerequisite for environmental assessment; ecological research, effective conservation, management and sustainable use of biological resources. Taxonomic research warrants a holistic database development to meet the requirements of taxonomists as well as of other users including policy makers, and conservationists. Development of taxonomic database is imperative, as it provides the basic knowledge underpinning efforts to conserve biological diversity, optimise the use of biological resources in a sustainable way, and thereby enhance the quality of life.

An indicative list of the critical focal areas for development of databases includes:

1. Nomenclature database i.e., valid scientific names.

2. Distribution database i.e. recording distribution of species and mapping distribution through use of GIS tools, etc.

3. Threatened species database including conservation status of the threatened species.

4. Economic use database on known and potential uses of species;

5. Herbarium database and devleopment of CD Rom.

6. Agro-biodiversity database documenting the wide range of cultivers and their wild relatives.

These databases serve as a basline for further research in taxonomy. Moreover, depending on the user needs, the outputs could be utlised for species conservation, sustainable utilisation and habitat management. The databases developed should primarily serve users like policy makers in the decision making process or habitat managers in conservation efforts, and serve researchers and scientists as authentic and valid baseline information to further develop their specific areas of specialisation. In context to biodiversity it may be necessary to have the database in a form and manner which makes it accessible from any of the network centres. The quality, validity and interpretation, if any, of the data provided would be important to data user. It is also important that the data available is accessible in a standard format.

To meet the above requirements, there is a need to standardise the format for data collection, management (i.e. adopt common questionnaires, data coding and hardware and software etc.)

Thus, some of the important issues in developing taxonomic database are :

• Development of multipurpose database
• Standardization and formatting
• Hardware and software requirements
• Development of expert systems
• Creation of websites

Taxonomy is the oldest of biological sciences and is based on many centuries of observations, research, discovery and philosophical evaluations. The subject is passing through a phase of crisis so much so that virtually an extinction spasm is feared. Some of the reasons for decline in the interest in the field of taxonomy is the lack of trained taxonomists, teachers, opportunities and general awareness of the importance of taxonomy. There has been hardly any coordination among the research institutions and individuals working in this field.

The Botanical Survey of India (BSI) and Zoological survey of India (ZSI) through their network of regional offices are important centres for taxonomic research in the country. Under the University system many departments are also engaged in taxonomic research.

The existing mechanism of coordination among the institutions and individuals is inadequate. It is only through conferences, seminars, workshops that some of the taxonomists meet, discuss and share their work with each other. There is no difinite networking mechanism in the country. Often central government Ministries grant projects to taxonomists but here again no coordination exists in assessing the project during its implementation. Coordination is also poor while taking up taxonomic studies or identifying areas for survey work – resulting in duplication of the work. Collaboration betweeen individuals and institutions working on taxonomy is almost non-existent. The BSI and ZSI are, however, maintaining some collaboration with other individuals and institutions engaged in taxonomic work through their flora and fauna projects.

Networking is necessary to make best use of the revolution in information technology. Failure to network can lead to an ever widening knowledge gap. Information technology is rapidly changing the way in which people share and disseminate the accumulated knowledge in the area of their specialisation. Networking can help botanists and taxonomists in several ways:

• Provide faster, cheaper and easier access to knowledge.

• Provide better contact with fellow scientists in the country and worldwide.

• Avoid duplication of research efforts.

• Be abreast with current trends and developments.

• Share research findings and resources more effectively.

• Quickly locate plants of interest, their status and researchers working on them.

• Communicate more effectively, share taxonomic knowledge with end-users such as administrators, policy makers, NGOs, environmentalists, conservation biologists, industries, students and mass media.

• Provide access via computer to herbaria held in different parts of the world.

• Help in joint publications, sharing databases, indexing publications, cataloging and borrowing books.

• Speedily learn about symposia/ conferences/ interest group meetings and new publications.

• Emphasis should be placed on the taxonomy of microorganisms and this should be linked with Species 2000 Asian Network on Microbial Researches and Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).

• It is emphasized that a phytogeographic approach be given imprtance over district floras which are politically demarcated.

• Ecology as a driving force of evolution should be given due importance in taxonomy, which may also cover agrobiodiversity in collaboration with other concerned organisations.

• In a fast changing global scenario, biodiversity services (identifications), should be charged and revenue flow back to BSI. This is required because of heavy expenditure invested in maintenance of herbaria at central and regional herbaria and building up of the taxonomic expertise.

• BSI should use modern technologies like remote sensing, GIS, GPS and plan appropriate strategies for sampling specific priority areas. Field methods need to be appropriately modernised with use of laptop computers for on-field data storage, photo camera for close images, digital photocamera for photo documentation, liquid nitrogen for isozyme analyses, and iceboxes. This would help quick capturing of field data and presentation in modern format.

• Staff size can be substantially reduced by offering incentives with generous retirement benefits (along the golden handshake concept).

• Since there is a general feeling that data of the survey organisations are being rampantly misused/ plagiarised, there is an urgent need to regulate the use of information. Some selected data on biodiversity needs to be on-line which can be accessed through Internet on paymnet (with users keying in their credit card numbers). This also means slowly phasing out of hard copy production (excepting the Flora/ Fauna of India) to save on printing costs. The resources generated through online services would also help augment financial resources (keeping in mind that the organisations should become self sustaining in the future).

• Taxonomic surveys shold have joint teams which includes taxonomists of both Botanical Survey of India and ZSI, ecologists, etc.

• Intensive studies of selected plant/ animal groups, which require research inputs for study of their reproductive biology, isozyme analyses, genome studies, etc., can be farmed out to research institutions or universities having the required infrastructure.

• In any endeavour delivery systems require fine tuning. The survey organisations may aim at decentralisation and alternative management methods. A horizontal management structure is suggested. The present set up of surveys may be made autonomous. Each centre or circle should be theme-based with an identified thrust area and they should be connected to a nodal centre.

• Each centre/ circle should have a specific mission. Examples of themes are threatened plants, medicinal plants, database on types, database on hotspots/protected areas, etc. The centre must be competent, staff-wise compact and small. Theme/ mission oriented activities and its success should be rewarded. Dynamic shifts in leadership is envisaged following the modern management principles.

• Paper publications of routine nature other than new species descriptions, nomenclature notes, new distribution records, revisions and monographs are to be discouraged. The whole concept involves not open ended research which may be academic but mission oriented targeted project programmes.

• Interns and research scholars should form the bulk of the work force for research support.

• Capacity building in taxonomy to include in-service training.

• Day to day housekeeping and infrastructure maintenance should be on contract basis.

• Develop a network of Zoological and Botanical Clubs in schools.

• Awareness building of extinction prone species.

• Popularise the subject of taxonomy and make it user friendly.

• Develop strategies with other institutions in the country so that the forest cover of India becomes 1/3^rd of the land as stipulated in the forest policy.

• Appropriate mass awareness programmes, including publication/display of publicity material, documentary films on CITES species, TV slots on conservation themes, release of stamps on endangered species.

• National Programme on mapping of faunal biodiversity

• Studies on biotic and spatial distribution, identification of micro-habitats and classification based on ecological zones.

• Strengthen the existing infrastructure and develop multi-institutional interaction.

• Training and capacity building in survey, collection and taxonomy.

• Utilisation of services of retired scientists.

• Career opportunities to younger generation.

• Extensive inventorisation programmes.

• Ecological studies.

• Establish region-wise museum.

• Develop a directory of taxonomists.

• Teaching taxonomy at University level.

• Multi-institutional collaborative projects on taxonomy.

• ZS1 should act as a nodal repository for all the type specimens.

• Strengthening of expertise in the regional stations.

• Consolidation of baseline data and networking.

• Easy access to information.

• Training of scientists and interaction with international community in the respective areas of specialisation.

• Organisation of workshops at the regional level.

• Completion of backlog of unidentified collections.

• Survey identified conservation areas.

• Publication of monographs on identified on identified fragile ecosystems.

• Popularise taxonomy and creation of awareness and work done by the Survey.

• Project on Western Ghats - one of the hotspots.

• Modern trends in Taxonomy.

• Application of GIS and Remote Sensing Technology.

• Establishment of CITES Unit.

• Survey and inventorisation of marine biodiversity.

The working group recognised that

1. The threatened status of plants and animals is important in view of plant animal interactions.

2. Interlinking of Forest Departments, University Departments and Institutes dealing with plant and animal research, particularly in the highly endangered and economically potential species, is essential.

3. Involvement of local people and utilization of their knowledge for conservation is a must.

Based on the above premise the working group came up with the following recommendations.

Separate Centres of Excellence with adequate manpower and infrastructure

facilities to be created in Botanical Survey of India and Zoological Survey of India to undertake identification, validation and conservation of endangered species.

3. Necessary infrastructure would be required to undertake culturing,

A. Development of Databases

It was felt that the databases already existing with BSI/ZSI have to be more comprehensive with respect to nomenclature, species distribution, species status, economic/ecological value, herbarium/National Zoological Collections (including types) data base and biodiversity, live collections in botanic gardens as well as collections of germplasm and plant genetic resources, so that it can meet the requirement of various individuals.

B. Standardisiation and Formatting

• Both BSI and ZSI should use world class standards of database using software available with market

• This would require a Remote Sensing and GIS database cell in each of these

two organisations.

C. Hardware and Software

Both BSI and ZSI at present are not adequately equipped for creation of above spatial and non-spatial database, hence they need to equip themselves with Pentium-111 processor/Intergraph with minimum 20 GBHD capacity and Window NT or ORACLE Operating Systems and GIS software, like ILWIS Archinfo. (The ILWIS is available through IIR, Dehradun). Use of Global Positioning Systems is recommended in survey and exploration. Use of scanners and printers/plotters is recommended to digitise and print pictorial data.

D. Development of Expert Systems

• Use of expert systems for taxonomic purposes is recommended. The Hardware and Software for this can either be developed in consultation with experts.
• To carry our all the above mentioned jobs one qualified person for database creation should be provided. In due course, at least two Nodal persons in each centre of BSI and ZSI be identified and trained in database creation, Remote Sensing, GIS and GPS applications.
• Compute literacy with knowledge in remote sensing and GIS could possibly be made as one of the desirable qualifications for recruitment of scientists in both these organisations.

E. Creation of Websites

• Both BSI and ZSI should have home page either independently or as a website of MoEF itself so that database is accessible through internet.

The goal of 21^st century is the sustainable development, and the long-term management of ecosystem health. Understanding of ecosystem functioning requires multi disciplinary/ multi institutional integrated approach. Taxonomy has central rule in this approach, as it is the only science which will explain what kinds of organism is there and natural properties and how they respond to the changing environment. Consequently that the Botanical Survey of India and Zoological Survey of India which are the premier institution for taxonomic research should evolve extensive linkages and cross linkages to contribute to the sustainable development. To achieve this mission, the expert group after lengthy discussions have drawn up the following recommendations:

The Botanical Survey of India and Zoological Survey of India shall develop linkages at the local, state, national, regional and global levels in the following areas:

i. Explorations

ii. Exchange of collection

The Botanical Survey of India and Zoological Survey of India shall establish linkages with the following sectors:

i. Agriculture

ii. Forestry

x. Environmental awareness and education

Botanical Survey of India & Zoological Survey of India shall interact with the local communities at Panchayat, Block Development Officers, District Administration and State level administration for promoting environmental education and awareness through establishment of eco/nature clubs, organising field based camps and audio-visuals and holding exhibitions.

To identify the resource personnel, BSI & ZSI should enter into exchange programme relating to manpower development in the areas where expertise is lacking. For this MoU between national and international institutions has to be signed.

The Botanical Survey of India & Zoological Survey of India shall undertake joint research programmes not only by interacting among themselves, but also interacting with the universities, NG0s, National and International institutions as well as managers of protected areas.

To implement the recommendation 1 to 5 the following institutional mechanism shall be addressed:

4. Both the surveys shall be provided additional financial resources to participate in the national programme of environmental awareness and education.

5. Consultancy:

To encourage the scientists to enter into' collaborative programmes. Consultancy shall be permitted on the same pattern of CSIR/ ICAR.

f) Regional autonomy:

The Directors of both the surveys shall be empowered to institute the fellowship to the deserving scientists/scholars independently and shall be earmarked for this purpose, suitable mechanism has to be developed.

There should be a mechanism to oversee the implementation of recommendations annually.

Recommendations of Working Group VII - Networking

It was put on record by Group VII on Restructuring that the surveys have done excellent work since their inception. However, considering the problems faced by both the surveys and challenges of the next millennium, the following recommendations are made:

• The existing staff pattern has to be changed and restructured in a phased manner. A golden handshake may be necessary to achieve this. The ratio of scientists to other categories should be altered. Therefore, attention should be paid to recruit more qualified scientists to carry out the mandate of the surveys.
• So as to achieve the above mentioned objective, an autonomous National Biological Survey may be created by putting the two surveys under a Director General with headquarters in Delhi. This should be headed by an eminent scientist.
• Experts in the gap areas should be recruited/ trained to be suitably located in selected regional centres, which may be declared as centres of excellence.
• For enhanced scientific support to the two surveys the scheme of research fellows may be strengthened.
• Probationers (Group A) may be recruited and trained for two years for better scientific achievements and enhanced capacity building.
• A scheme may be evolved for retired scientists of eminence for better achievement of the mandate.

1. Dr. M.P. Nayar TBGRI,Palod, Thiruvananthapuram.

Director.

2. Dr. V.S. Vijayan SACON, Coimbatore

Director.

3. Dr. S.Z.Siddiqui Zoological Survey of India,

Asstt. Zool. & O/c Hyderabad

4. Dr. T.K. Chatterjee, Zoological Survey of India, Digha.

Scientist ‘SE’ & O/C

5. Dr. T.J. Pandian Univ.of Madurai,Kamraj,Madurai.

Professor.

6. Dr. C.A.N. Rao, Zoological Survey of India,

Scientist ‘SE’ & O/C. Behrampur

7. Dr. L.K. Banerjee Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta

8. Dr.P.S.N. Rao Botanical Survey of India, Port Blair

Scientist’SD’

9. Dr. H.S. Mehta Zoological Survey of India, Solan

Scientist ‘SE’ & O/C

10. Dr. M. Sanjappa Botanical Survey of India, Howrah

11. Dr. A.S. Chauhan Botanical Survey of India,Gangtok

Scientist ‘SD’

12. Dr. H.S. Debnath Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta

13. Dr. P.M. Padheya Botanical Survey of India, Jodhpur

14. Dr.H.J. Choudhury Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta

15. Dr.P.Daniel Botanical Survey of India,

Scientist ‘SD’ Coimbatore

16. Dr.Umesh Srivastava NBPGR, New Delhi.

17. Dr.K. Venkataraman Zoological Survey of India, Chennai

Scientist ‘SE’ & O/C.

18. Prof.M.S. Jairajpuri Maulana Azad National Afforestation

19. Prof. K. Hanumantha Rao Deptt. of Zoology,Andhra University

20. Dr. A.Laxminarayana CMFRI, Cochin.

Sr. Scientist.

21. Prof. B.N. Johri GB Pant University of Agriculture,

Professor of Microbilogy. Pant Nagar.

22. Prof. C.J. Saldhana Centre for Taxonomic Studies,

23. Dr. S.P.S. Kushwaha Indian Instt. of Remote Sensing,

Scientist ‘SF’ Dehradun.

24. Prof. M.M.Bhandari New Pali Road, Jodhpur

25. Prof. T.N. Ananthakrishnan Loyala College, Chennai.

Director.

26. Shri K.N. Reddy Zoological Survey of India,West

27. Dr. Q.H. Baqri Zoological Survey of India, Jodhpur

Scientist ‘SF’ & O/C

28. Shri C.Radhakrishnan Zoological Survey of India,

Scientist ‘SE’ & O/C Kozhikode.

29. Dr. M.S. Pradhan Zoological Survey of India, Pune.

Scientist ‘SB’ & O/C

30. Dr. Y.N.P. Sinha Zoological Survey of India, Patna

Scientist ‘SG’ & O/C

31. Dr. P.T. Cherian Zoological Survey of India, Chennai

Scientist ‘SG’ & O/C

32. Dr. Kailash Chandra Zoological Survey of India, Jabalpur

Scientist ‘SE’ & O/C

33. Dr. B.D. Sharma Faridabad.

34. Dr. R.M. Borges Centre for Ecological Sciences,

35. Dr. J.R. Sharma Botanical Survey of India, Dehradun

36. Dr. M.S. Mondal Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta

37. Sh. Brahm Dutta Press

38. Dr. Vijendra Singh Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta

Director-in-Charge.

39. Dr. T.M. Hennywta Botanical Survey of India, Shillong.

Scientist ‘SD’

40. Dr. R.D. Dixit Botanical Survey of India,

Scientist ‘SF’ Allahabad

41. Dr. D.K. Singh Botanical Survey of India, Dehradun

Scientist ‘SE’

42. Dr. S.T. Shende Janakpuri

43. Dr. S.J.S. Hattar Zoological Survey of India, Shillong

Scientist ‘SB’

44. Dr. H.R. Khan Division of Entomology, Dehradun.

Head

45. Prof. S.C. Srivastava Deptt. of Botany, Lucknow

46. Dr. N.P. Singh Botanical Survey of India, Pune.

Scientist ‘SE’

47. Shri. A.R.K. Sastry WWF, New Delhi

48. Dr. M. Ahmedullah WWF, New Delhi

49. Dr. J.R.B. Alfred Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta

Director

50. Dr. Arun Kumar Zoological Survey of India,

Scientist Dehradun

51. Sh. O.P. Sharma ICAR, New Delhi

Sr. Scientist.

52. Dr. J.K. Jonathan Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta

53. Dr. G.K. Srivastava Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta

54. Dr. S.K. Mitra Zoological Survey of India,Calcutta

55. Dr. RA. Khan Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta

56. Dr. K.K. Tiwari, Bhopal

Retd. Director, ZSI

57. Prof. R. Ramamurthy Deptt. of Zoology, Tirupati.

58. Ms. Asha Ramchandran Press

59. Sh. K.S. Kaira Press

60. Sh. M. Asokan Press

61. Sh. Vishnu God Press

62. Mukesh Press

63. Dr. C.R. Babu Deptt. of Botany, Delhi Univ.