The term biodiversity has become a buzzword of the present world because it is now increasingly being seen as the resource of the future. The relationship between the people and biodiversity continues to change ever since mankind’s inception. This relationship creates and modifies the folk ecological knowledge and wisdom of the local biodiversity. In India, biological diversity is taken care of by the cooperation of masses of people, as many of them still depend on it for their day-to-day sustenance. In recognition of this reality, India’s Biological Diversity Act, 2002 proposes to decentralize the management of biodiversity to the level of Panchayati Raj institutions (three-tier councils starting from village, development block, and district) (Biological Diversity Act-2002), municipalities and city corporations, by establishing Biodiversity Management Committees (BMC) in these local bodies to complement the State Biodiversity Boards and the National Biodiversity Authority (MOEF2004). Much of the knowledge of the status and dynamics of biodiversity also resides with the people at the grassroots [1-3]. Thus the only reliable information on the status and dynamics of the natural medicinal plant populations, albeit limited to their localities, resides with forest produce collectors who are employed by agents of pharmaceutical companies, or with folk practitioners of herbal remedies. Since effective action can only flow from a sound base of knowledge and support management effort by a countrywide system of inventorying and periodically monitoring biodiversity along with the associated knowledge [4-5]. Due to the tremendous variation in the distribution and uses of biodiversity from place to place, this documentation is highly local and time specific. Biodiversity Management Committees at the level of the local bodies are supposed to undertake this detailed documentation. The rules promulgated under the Biological Diversity Act term such local level documentation as “People’s Biodiversity Register (PBR)”. It is one, albeit the most novel and significant, of the elements of the overall “Biodiversity Information System (BIS)” that is developed at the national level. The biodiversity of the areas is conserved by the local community for their cultural and spiritual need with their traditional wisdom. But to date there is no inventory made for the same with the participation of people and their traditional knowledge [6-7]. Documentation of knowledge associated with biodiversity is pertinent in the context of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 of India and also the provisions of CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) for equitable sharing of benefits with knowledge holders. To support this objective, the elaborated “People’s Biodiversity Register” (PBRs) has been included in the documentation of local biodiversity, relationships and their knowledge of biodiversity in the context of medicinal as well as other uses, their ecological knowledge, and their perceptions of on-going and desired patterns of biodiversity management [8-9]. Initially in 1996 a series of PBRs have been prepared with the help of networks of environment-oriented NGOs and educational institutions at the level of High School, Undergraduate, and Degree Colleges, with experience, growing availability, and capability of tools of modern information and communication technology. The programme has been refined so that much of the information so generated can be pooled together and organized with the help of a Rational Database Management System

2.0 Study area

Komaram Bheem district is one of the 31 districts in the state of Telangana. Komaram Bheem was carved out of Adilabad district and was made a district on October 11, 2016. Komaram Bheem district is spread across 4,878 square kilometers and has a population of 5,92,831 as of 2011 Census data. District headquarters is situated in Asifabad, which has a population of 58,511. Ginnedari is a Village in Tiryani Mandal in Komaram Bheem Asifabad District of Telangana State, India. It is located in 19.1973N, 79.239E coordinates, and 210 meters above sea level and towards 3 kilometers East of District headquarters Komaram bheem Asifabad. Biryani (4 km), Ullipitadorli (4 km), Devaiguda (6 km), Pangidi Madra (8 km), Gambiraopet (9 km) are the nearby villages to Ginnedari. Ginnedari is surrounded by Komaram Bheem Asifabad District towards the North, Rebbena Mandal towards the East, Kasipet Mandal towards the East, and Dandepally Mandal towards the South. Bellampalle, Kagaznagar, Mandamarri, and Mancherial are the nearby cities of Ginnedari. The total area of Ginnedari village is 641.42 hectares; out of which 125.7 hectares is a non-agricultural area and 5.72 hectares is a total irrigated area. The study area is depicted in Figure1 and 2.

Figure 1: Adilabad District Map                Figure 2:Location of Ginnedari Village

3.0 Methodology

For the present study, Ginnedhari village was selected. The process of PBR preparation was designed into three steps which are as follows:

1. Primary Data Collection
2. Secondary Data Collection
3. Process of PBR Preparation

3.1 Primary data collection

Data collection was done as per NBA, PBR formats regulating (Agro biodiversity) crops, weed, medicinal plants, ornamental plants, fruit plants, (Domesticated biodiversity) domesticated plants, domesticated animals, (wild biodiversity) wild plants, and wild animals forest data, etc. under human resources, data (primary information) was collected on social and economic aspects, population, number of households, literacy rate, drinking and irrigation water source, livestock, and sanitation, agriculture details etc.

3.2 Secondary data collection

Secondary data such as survey maps indicating land ownership, topographic maps, aerial photographs, satellite imagery, district gazetteers, human livestock census data, land use and cropping patterns, forest working plans, rainfall, and river flow statistics were collected from respective departments.

3.3 Process of PBR Preparation

Step 1: Interaction with the already formed Biodiversity Management Committee (BMC) by the Telangana Biodiversity Board.

Step 2: Sensitization of the public about the study, survey, and possible management of the natural resource.

Step 3: Interaction with knowledgeable members in the identification and collection of data on biological resources and traditional knowledge.

Step 4: Collection of data. Data collections include a review of literature on the natural resources of the districts, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRAs) at the village level, household interviews, individual interviews with village leaders and knowledgeable individuals, household heads, key actors of the panchayat raj institutions, and NGOs and direct field observations.

Step 5 Analysis and validation of data in consultation with the technical support group and BMC.

Step 6: Preparation of People’s Biodiversity Register (PBR) according to NBA formats.

Step 7: Computerization of information and resources.

The basic methodology used for this study was to approach the local people directly by means of individual, and group discussion and collect information. Data was collected as per the PBR Proforma from NBA (National Biodiversity Authority), New Delhi “People’s Biodiversity Register” methodology manual and data formats. The National Biodiversity Authority formats have been undertaken to understand the indigenous knowledge regarding local resources- flora, fauna, livelihood options, perceptions, and motivations of different biodiversity [10-14].

The following techniques were adopted for the preparation of PBR:

1. Interviews: Information related to the history of the village, local institutions and decision making, landscape aspects, and biodiversity were collected from village heads and knowledgeable individuals, through personal interviews. Local communities were shown local field guides on various taxa (e.g. birds, mammals, butterflies, and reptiles) and asked to list the species found in their village, their local names uses, and their current status.
2. Group discussions: were conducted with village elders and individuals who are well versed with the local biodiversity. Discussions were mainly held to validate the information gathered at various levels.
3. Field visits: were carried out with members of the village BMC council and local knowledgeable individuals to document the bio-resources of the village. For the fauna survey, opportunistic documentation was carried out and species observed were recorded.
4. Village BMC Council Meetings: A village BMC council meeting was conducted at the village council hall involving all the stakeholders. The village council members and the village development board members were present at the meeting along with women group members. Village health workers and other officials were also present during the meeting. This meeting helped to understand various issues the conservation of the conserved area and to identify possible solutions to tackle the problems.

Extensive interviews were conducted by using an interview schedule that consists of both open and closed-ended questionnaires. Group discussions and resource mapping were the other tools used to collect primary data. The secondary data was collected from the reports of the Forest Department, census data, and reports published by various agencies. The information was collected by visiting the village in person.

4.0 Results and Discussion

The preparation of PBR involves filed investigations and compilation of the information collected into the PBR document [15-22]. The process of field investigation includes the following components, identifying different biodiversity user groups, identifying knowledgeable individuals in different aspects of the distribution of biodiversity, interviewing individuals and groups with members representing different user groups, mapping the study site landscape, visiting representative elements of this landscape, and  also to document the species that are present in the village as per the people knowledge, according to the NBA Format.

Population composition

According to 2011 census, the total population of the Panchayat was 1583, out of which 775are males and 808 are females. This Panchayat includes 21 small hamlets and consists of 396 households. The major community is scheduled tribes (gonds).

Socio-Economic Profile

Based on the dependence of biodiversity, the village can be divided into dependent on agriculture, secondary groups dependent on resources like fuel wood collectors and cattle grazers, both directions depending on the local biodiversity, and some government employees, private employees, drivers, construction workers etc. indirectly depending on the local biodiversity. The average monthly income of village is 3000-8000 rupees.

Education and literacy

One primary school, one middle school, and high school are located within this Panchayat limits. Majority of the people including tribes aspire to send their children to schools as they see the education as a way out to escape from their deprived socio economic status. The literacy rate in this village is 50.4% and the female literacy rate is 21.1%.

Socio-cultural Aspects

The villagers have rich cultural heritage, which are visible through their festivals and religious practices. People also perform folk dance especially gussadi in the season of Diwali festival.

Soil and Water

Ginnedheri is located on the Plateau. It contains various types of soils such as  black  soils and alluvial soil (dubba soil).These types of soil allows plantation of various fruits and vegetable crops like mangoes, cotton ,maize,  paddy etc. This area has an average rain fall of about 978.4 mm/year.

Ground water is the major source of drinking water in the hamlets. In most of the village areas the people were of the opinion that they get drinking water reasonably well (Number of Tube wells: 30-40, Water Tanks: 1, Number of Hand Pumps: 0 Major Minor Water Tanks: 0), but the major problem was water for agriculture.

The biodiversity data was collected according to the NBA Format:

The data regarding the agro-biodiversity of Ginnedhari village is given in Table 2.

Table 2: Agro biodiversity of Ginnedhari Village

Agro-biodiversity

Ginnedhari is driven mainly by agriculture as far as the economy is concerned. The farmers depend on the rain-fed sources of water for irrigation. The major food crop is rice. Other significant crops are cotton, maize, etc. Agro-biodiversity data is provided in (table 2), major crops belong to Poeaceae, Malvaceae, Fabaceae, Cucurbitaceous, Solanaceae family. In agro-biodiversity, four types have been identified, among which there are 31 species of crops, 13 species of weeds, 4 species are fruit bearing, and 13 species of pests.

Wild plant biodiversity

The majority of wild plants can be classified into four categories and belongs to the following families.

Timber Plants     -Meliaceae, Moraceae, Anacardiaceae Lamiaceae

Medicinal plants   – Moraceae, Fabaceae, Arecaceae, Amaranthaceae, Sapindaceae

Ornament plants –Asteraceae, Asparagaceae, Malvaceae

Fumigatory plants – Meliaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae.

Plants with high medicinal values were found in Ginnedari village, which are

Ippapuvvu (Madhucalongifolia)-Madhuka flowers are used as a fermenting agents, Asava and Arishta Fermented Alcoholic Liquid Medicine Preparation, andArjuna (Terminaliaarjuna)- plant mainly used for heart diseases due to its cardio protective and cardio-strengthening properties.

 Table 3: Wild Plant biodiversity of Ginnedhari Village

 Table 4: Wild Relative Plant Biodiversity of Ginnedhari Village

 Table 5: Domesticated Animal Biodiversity of Ginnedhari Village

 Domestic animal biodiversity

In Ginnedhari village cluster cattle, dogs and chicken are the three animal groups maintained under domestication by a significant proportion of people for many generations. Buffalo, goat, and pig have been introduced at the beginning of the 20th century.  Chicken and goat are purchased only for meat. The majority of the domesticated animals belonging to Bovidae, Canidae, and Phasianidae family is shown in Table 5.

In domesticated biodiversity three classes of animals have been identified. Among these 6 belong to the class Mammalia, 1 belongs to Aves (birds) and 2 belong to Reptilia.

 Table 6: Various types of biodiversity species in Ginnedari village

In wild biodiversity ten types have been identified. Among these shrubs consist of 09 species,4 herbs, 4 tubers, 4 types of grass, 2 climbers, 4 fumigatory plants, 12 timber plants,36 medicinal plants, 4 ornamental plants, and 9 tree species.

Table 7; Wild Animal Biodiversity of Ginnedhari Village

Wild Animal Biodiversity

Monkeys and wild pigs are commonly seen in this area. Wild boars, also frequently seen are damaging the agriculture crops and5 different types of snakes, 8 types of reptiles, 12 types of birds, and foxes, etc. are present in the forest nearby.

Conclusions

People’s biodiversity registers contain comprehensive information and knowledge of local bio-resources, their medicinal and other uses and traditional knowledge associated with these resources. The necessity to document the information regarding biodiversity in the form of PBR is to know about the existing biodiversity and to strengthen the biodiversity-based livelihoods and strive for biodiversity conservation. The main function of PBR is to the documentation of existing data on biodiversity conservation with the involvement of knowledgeable local people. This data will be further used as a baseline data to strengthen biodiversity-based livelihoods, to strive for sustainable biodiversity conservation with the involvement of locals, to know about the traditional methods of conservation and their practical utilities in the present scenario for creating awareness in the newer generations, to include the local issues in the planning and development process, to regulate the access to bio-resources, to identify the commercial application of local knowledge for access benefit sharing with the traditional knowledge holders. PBRs give an idea about the complexity of the relationship between people’s lives and the local biodiversity. The involvement of local people and the decentralization of management to the lowest level make PBR a unique kind of documentation rather than just a list of species of local flora and fauna.

Consent and Ethical Approval

As per university standard guidelines, participant consent and ethical approval have been collected and preserved by the authors

Competing interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Authors’ Contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

 References

1. Sagar, R. (2005). Intellectual property, benefit-sharing and traditional knowledge: how effective is the Indian Biological Diversity Act, 2002.  World Intell. Prop., 8, 383.
2. Gadgil, M., & Seshagiri Rao, P. R. (1998). Nurturing biodiversity. Centre for Environment Education.
3. Gadgil, M., Seshagiri Rao, P. R., Utkarsh, G., Pramod, P., & Chhatre, A. (2000). New meanings for old knowledge: the people’s biodiversity registers program. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1307-1317.
4. Chavan, V., & Krishnan, S. (2003). Biodiversity Information in India: Challenges and Potentials. In  Shimura.(ed.). Joint international forum on biodiversity information, building capacity in Asia and Oceania. National Institute for Environmental Studies. Tsukuba, Japan(pp. 114-120).
5. Gadgil, M., Achar, K. P., Bhat, H., Bhat, P. R., Deshmukh, S., & Dolke, A. (2006). Ecology is for the people: a methodology manual for people’s biodiversity register. Centre for Ecological Sciences/Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. 233p.
6. Gupta, A. K. (1999). Conserving biodiversity and rewarding associated knowledge and innovation systems: Honey bee perspective. Bern: Paper presented at the World Trade Forum.
7. Gupta, A. K., & Sinha, R. (2002). Contested Domains, Fragmented Spaces: rights, responsibilities and rewards for conserving biodiversity and associated knowledge systems. Traditional ecological knowledge for managing biosphere reserves in south and central Asia, 161-181.
8. Hansen, S., & VanFleet, J. (2003). Traditional Knowedge and Intellectual Property: A Handbook on Issues and Options for Traditional Knowledge Holders in Protecting their Intellectual Property and Maintaining Biological Diversity. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
9. Mohan, M., & Gurjar, B. R. (2004). A risk-based model to establish threshold planning quantities of hazardous substances. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 54(4), 495-503.
10. Rautaray, O. P., Pradhan, R. N., Behera, P., & Sahu, H. K. (2014). People’s biodiversity register [PBR]: a community based new venture in Odisha to document natural resources. Environ Ecol Res, 2(8), 285-290.
11. Kim, K. C., & Byrne, L. B. (2006). Biodiversity loss and the taxonomic bottleneck: emerging biodiversity science. Ecological Research, 21(6), 794-810.
12. Singh, G., & Dukariya, G. (2021). Insights in Biodiversity Management and Conservation in India: Structure and Role of Multi-tier Legal System. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology, 10(1), 40-45.
13. Bawa, Kamaljit S., Asmita Sengupta, Vishwas Chavan, Ravi Chellam, R. Ganesan, Jagdish Krishnaswamy, Vinod B. Mathur et al. “Securing biodiversity, securing our future: A national mission on biodiversity and human well-being for India.” Biological Conservation253 (2021): 108867.
14. Saha, R., & Bhattacharya, P. (2011). Biodiversity Register and Indigenous Knowledge: A Case Study of Baigachak Area, in Dindori District of Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Biodiversity, 2(2), 127-140.
15. Debbarma, S. (2006). An assessment of the implementation of the Indian government’s international commitments on traditional forest-related knowledge from the perspective of indigenous peoples. The International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests (eds.): Our Knowledge for Our Survival, Chiang Mai, 225-245.
16. Jose, A., & Manchikanti, P. (2022). Protection of Geographical Indication: The Interface with Traditional Knowledge. In Geographical Indication Protection in India(pp. 141-166). Springer, Singapore.
17. Jacob, C. T., Yadava, Y. S., & Lal, K. K. (2021). Review of the Implementation of Aichi Biodiversity Targets with Special Reference to Inland, Coastal and Marine Fisheries Sectors. Asian Biotechnology & Development Review, 23(2).
18. Mani, S., Mohanakumar, S. M., Santhakumar, V., & Abhilash, T. Conservation of Agrobiodiversity: Lessons from Kerala.
19. Manchikanti, P., Datta, S., & Bandopadhyay, T. K. (2022). Foodstuffs and Geographical Indications in India: An Analysis. In Geographical Indication Protection in India(pp. 105-140). Springer, Singapore.
20. Ravindran, A. M. Intellectual Property Right Issues in a Globalised World: A Study with Particular Reference to Traditional Knowledge. A Biannual Journal of South Asian Studies, 21, 212.
21. Peschard, K. (2014). Farmers’ rights and food sovereignty: Critical insights from India. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 1085-1108.
22. Patil, K., & Wadekar, R. (2021). Herbal Drug Patenting. In Evidence Based Validation of Traditional Medicines(pp. 555-588). Springer, Singapore.