Conservation Vs Livelihood

This is an excerpt from a workshop held in the Sainj and Tirthan valleys of the state of Himachal Pradesh in the North of India. The workshop involved community, researchers, NGOs, and others from different parts of the country struggling on this issue.

In 1984, the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued notification of its intention to constitute certain areas of Sainj and Tirthan valleys of the Kullu district in Himachal Pradesh as the Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP), and also appointed a director and other staff to manage the intended Park. A management plan for the protected area was made that allowed the local people to fully exercise, unhindered and unrestricted, their traditional and legal resource use rights inside the intended National Park. Then, suddenly, in 1999, the state government initiated a settlement of rights' process in the area and also made final notification of GHNP
in the record time of a few months.This resulted in extinguishing all types of resource use rights of approximately 50,000 people living on the boundaries of the area. This was done without prior notice to the population living in and dependent on the area and without making proper rehabilitation or alternative arrangements. The inhabitants, highly dependent on the area's forests for agriculture and animal husbandry and the life-giving medicines and whose socio-religious life, culture, and polity were totally integrated with the forests, were caught unawares. This act of the government not only resulted in despair in the local communities but also gave rise to spontaneous agitation and created an atmosphere of confusion, suspicion, and severe conflicts between the local people and forest department.

A three-year ecological study of livestock grazing and biodiversity conservation has estimated that there are 25,000 to 30,000 local and migratory livestock that graze in more than 140 prime alpine pastures of the GHNP. Nearly 88% of the area is situated inside National Parks and Sanctuaries, compared to only 12% in the eco-development area (outside GHNP). There are no alternative pastures available for livestock grazing inside GHNP; and all other available pastures are already being used by other villages. The fodder available outside the GHNP and in the vicinity of the villages is collected for use in winter when there is heavy snow.

Similarly, another study on the socioeconomic conditions of people living inside and adjacent to the GHNP and the social impact of the conservation of biodiversity project - including the process of documentation of right settlement - pointed out that near about 70% of the people are dependent on the collection of medicinal plants and mushrooms for earning the cash needed to buy essential market goods. In addition, almost all the households are dependent on GHNP forests for their bona fide agricultural and domestic needs, e.g., wood, branches of trees, and certain grass species for agricultural implements, household utensils, and manure. For
the landless and scheduled castes, who are totally dependent on GHNP resources for their survival by making handicrafts, agricultural implements, and so on, using bamboo and certain species of grasses taken from the area and selling them to nearby higher caste villagers is the only source of subsistence.

The social impact assessment of eco-development projects indicates that most of the investments were made in civil works such as building construction, inspection paths, and stone soling of village streets with only token investments in improving on-farm and off-farm employment. Eco-development investments could not provide sustainable alternative employment to the dependent population. The participation of vulnerable sections of the affected population in decision-making has been negligible. The settlement of rights' process has been very defective and has violated provisions contained in the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972
and Land Acquisition Act of 1894.

Until the government provides alternative pastures and other forest resources to the affected people, their legal and traditional rights over GHNP will be violated. Providing alternative pastures and other forest resources may take 5 to 50 years, depending upon the regeneration period required for various species. It follows that final notification has been made without providing these right holders with either cash compensation or alternative forest resources, but rather on the basis of a promise that they shall be provided with the same in the near future.

There is evidence that the state government's main intention is to exclude certain biodiversity rich areas to hand them over to the multi-million dollar Parbati hydel power project. Research studies conducted by various national and international scientists show that the area recommended by the chief wildlife warden for exclusion from the Park is very rich in wildlife biodiversity.

Link: http://www.icimod.org/apmn/publications/Chapter10.pdf