in the degradation of wetlands (Sarthi and Singh 2013). The average monthly precipitation over this area was in the range of 92.61–128.44 mm during 2012–2016, which is less than the expected precipitation (140 mm), and clearly indicates a water shortage. This site is a declared wildlife sanctuary and bird sanctuary with an area of 6311 ha by MoEF, the Government of India, and the Government of Bihar, however, there is still no clear‐cut outer boundary demarcation, and only the core waterlogging area of 2350 ha is monitored by the agencies. This wetland is used for the water supply of irrigation and domestic purposes, fishing, netting of waterfowls, the harvesting of wild fruits like singhara (Trapa natans) and makhana (Euryale ferox), edible mollusks (Pila globosa) (Ambastha et al. 2007a, b; Kumar 2013a), and the cultivation of wild rice on open lands (Scott 1989). When this wetland was declared a protected area in 1986, all the landholders who lost their land were promised compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (1894) by the government, however, many people are still claiming land ownership rights in the wetland area. There have been more than 15 legal petitions and approximately 1600 public objections are still pending before the local administration and court regarding these issues as per different reports. The rights for the access of different wetland resources were given to some of the local communities for fishing, vegetation biomass collection, and wild paddy cultivation in the wetland under the provisions of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, while land deals, bird trapping, and wild animal poaching were banned (Rakshi and Sanghi 1996; Kumar 2013b).
As per the report of the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE 2008), the villages surrounding the Kanwar wetland are highly populated and underdeveloped. The wetland has lost its connectivity to the main river and is now considered an oxbow and a rain‐fed wetland in some of the literature (Kumar 2013a). The reduced rainfall over this region is the reason for water scarcity and the heavy siltation is the reason for the decrease in the water logging area. The relatively elevated areas of the wetland, locally called Rahis, and the low‐lying areas, called Dove, were intensively encroached by people, which have altered the land‐use dynamics of this wetland. The water and sediment quality is mainly becoming compromised with harmful heavy metals from different sources (Figure 2.12), which are posing a severe threat not only for the resources of the wetland but also to the health of the dependent population. The heavy siltation in different stretches, the premature death of fish, the intensive growth of weed biomass like Eichhornia, and the reporting of frequent human diseases of skin allergies, indigestion, blood pressure, and kidney and nervous disorders are very common among the population (Singh et al. 2018).
Figure 2.12 Elevation map of the Kanwar watershed showing possible sources of heavy metals.
(Source: Based on Struhsaker et al. 2005.)
Even though most of the population around the wetland was highly dependent on its resources, they were still very positive and ready to cooperate with the administration in the co‐management and conservation of the wetland. Therefore, a collaborative approach needs to be initiated to address the issues of this wetland and dependent population for its effective management and conservation as suggested by Struhsaker et al. (2005).
2.5 Conclusion
The conclusion of this study is that the Kanwar wetland is facing severe problems of water scarcity, heavy siltation, and enormous weed growth due to climatic variations and human encroachments. Water was being localized in patches during lean periods, i.e. summer, and open/scrub areas were used for other purposes by the local population. A significant change in LULC has taken place in the wetland. Different resources of this wetland like water, sediment, aquatic, and cultivated species of flora and fauna are contaminated with harmful heavy metals like lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd).
Most of the nearby population is dependent on wetland resources for their livelihoods and they are willing to conserve it in cooperation with the administration. Therefore, an inclusive and collaborative approach should be initiated to conserve this important wetland, without compromising the interests of locals with the following recommendations:
The inlet channel of the wetland should be cleaned to allow water from the Basahi barrage to maintain the water level for the maximum time.
A barrage across the outlet channel can help maintain the water level.
An immediate de‐siltation and weed removal program should be initiated.
A clear‐cut boundary demarcation should be made for the Kanwar wildlife sanctuary.
Illegal land acquisition, agriculture, waste disposal, land digging, and bird trapping in the wetland should be stopped.
The land disputes among different community groups in the wetland area should be resolved.
The over‐extraction of water from the wetland should be avoided.
Conflicts among different sections of society for the utilization of the Kanwar wetland resources should be resolved.
Awareness programs should be initiated to make people aware of the importance and values of wetlands in society.
Eco‐tourism should be promoted to provide alternative livelihood options for local people.
References
1 Alongi, D.M. (2009). Paradigm shifts in mangrove biology. In: Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach (eds. G.M.E. Perillo, E. Walanski, D.R. Cahoon and M.M. Brinson), 615–640. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
2 Ambastha, K., Hussain, S.A., and Badola, R. (2007a). Resource dependence and attitudes of local people toward conservation of Kabartal wetland: a case study of Indo‐Gangetic plains. Wetlands Ecology and Management 15: 287–302.
3 Ambastha, K., Hussain, S.A., and Badola, R. (2007b). Social and economic considerations in conserving wetlands of Indo‐Gangetic plains: a case study of KabarTal wetland, India. Environmentalist 27: 261–273.
4 Anand, S. and Joshi, P.K. (2013). Remote sensing to quantify wetland loss. 14th Esri India User Conference, New Delhi.
5 APHA (2005). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, 21ste. Washington, D.C: American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation.
6 Awashthi, S.K. (2000). Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 37, 1954. Central and State Rules as Amended for 1999. Ashoka Law House, New Delhi.
7 BIS: Bureau of Indian Standards. IS: 2296 and IS: 10500 (1991). Indian Standards for Surface Water, New Delhi.
8 Bullock, A. (1992). Dambo hydrology in Southern Africa: review and reassessment. Journal of Hydrology 134: 373–396.
9 Bullock, A. and Acreman, M. (2003). The role of wetlands in the hydrological cycle. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 7 (3): 358–389.
10 Carter, V. (1986). An overview of the hydrologic concerns related to wetlands in United States. Canadian Journal of Botany 64: 364–374.
11 Champion, H.G. and Seth, S.K. (1968). A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India. New Delhi, India: Government of India Press.
