Bikkapathy Mund

General Narrative criteria:

Bikkapathy Mund has changed a lot over the past few years. Though memory spread over 12 years can deceive, yet Robert Leo maintains that the extent of the wetland was much more in the bygone years as compared to the present. The reasons for this are visible to the naked eye and is much the same as in other places - encroachment and in this case - agriculture.

However, the scale of disturbance (excluding the diversion of the original in some places) remains much less as compared to others. There are several possible reasons for this -

• Low population density
• Small-scale agriculture.
• Ecosystemic people have preserved their connections till date.
• Remoteness of the area

The general feature of the wetland follows two major inflow points - both orijnate from the shola. The first inflow is impounded by a small check dam at it head and water seeps from the dam. The water is almost stagnant and has a turbid, muddy colour indicating the high rate of bacterial activity. The seeping water serves to meet the needs of the forest guesthouse located just below.

The second inflow point is at the edge of the shola and has a considerably larger watershed area as compared to the first. The water is impounded by a much larger check dam, almost three times the size of the first wetland.

Water seeping from both the check dams meets lower down and is diverted towards agriculture. The flow is then channelised as it passes through a small patch of agriculture and finally flowing freely as a stream after one hundred metres.

Threats:

The wetland is nominally at risk, because of the degree of protection accorded to the sources inside the forest and partly because of the low pressure of human. However, the fear that with growing populations and demand on the limited land, there could be increased pressure on the wetland, as there are evidences of the swamp may have been converted into agricultural plots.

Therefore, Bikkapthy Mund needs immediate action on the part of relevant authorities who will be willing to ensure that the wetland is preserved and the livelihood of the people of the people not adversely affected by conservation practices.