Community Participation in Conservation of Great Himalayan National Park, India

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN CONSERVATION OF GREAT HIMALAYAN NATIONAL PARK, INDIA

SUMAN BHANOO

Notion Press

#5 Muthu Kalathy Street, Triplicane,

Chennai - 600 005

First Published by Notion Press 2015

Copyright © Suman Bhanoo 2015

All Rights Reserved.

ISBN: 978-93-52061-18-1

This book has been published in good faith that the work of the author is original. All efforts have been taken to make the material error-free. However, the author and the publisher disclaim the responsibility.

No part of this book may be used, reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission from the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Dedicated to My Parents

FOREWORD

To understand why this book is so important one will have to understand the total context within which this book has been written. Today, to protect the forests one needs to ensure that the Government notifies the area of concern and passes a law that converts the zone into a Protected Area.

This is not without problems. It seems initially that this is the best move. It protects the biodiversity of the Protected Area (PA). However, this area that has been created was not empty of human beings. Even within deep forests and high mountains, these areas have villages that fall within the region. These villages have been living within these PAs for generations. Now suddenly, they see wire barriers and government officials controlling their lands.

The situations within these PAs are peculiarly difficult for these old communities. They have to follow new rules. They are unable to hunt or pick up herbs, mushrooms or wood from the trees there, or even increase their agricultural lands. There is pressure from the government to move out. However, they cannot just let go of their old ways and look for jobs in the neighbourhood. Their land is without much commercial value now. The government does not allow development activities and good roads or businesses within the PAs. There is almost no transportation in the interior areas.

This is an ideal situation where local people start building up resentment against the government. That may only be a surface scenario. In reality, it undermines the protection of endangered species in the PA because people then begin to lie to get their own way. They continue to go into the PA for wood, for herbs and for other items that they need to survive. They also begin a more dangerous mode of obtaining biodiversity from the Park for the market for earning a livelihood.

This volatile situation can only be saved by the Park authorities collaborating with the people living inside and in the neighbourhood to ensure that they obtain a livelihood. Also, they are sometime given limited permissions to harvest things like medicinal herbs and mushrooms from the PA. In return, they are educated about the Park and help to protect the biodiversity within the PA. The government as well as other NGOs can help in this situation.

This is exactly the situation that Dr. Suman Bhanoo describes in her book, which was developed as a result of the study she conducted as part of her Ph.D. on the same issue. This book describes in detail the People and Parks interaction, as it is called by many, through its various stages and details at the Great Himalayan National Park in Himachal Pradesh.

Author begins the book with an introduction that gives us an idea of the issues involved. She also states that one of the few things that could be done by the government in the case of the Great Himalayan National Park was to inculcate among the people the principles of Community Based Eco-Tourism and Development, with some help and assistance from government agencies. Using the background data of the laws and policies of the government relating to PAs, her study was appropriately located within the lacunae of these studies. Using this as a model, the book goes on to describe issues of research methodology before going on to the background of the Great Himalayan National Park. A brief outline of the selected villages for study has also been given. A segment of the book details the practice of Community Based Eco-Tourism within the PA, in the context of sustainable development of the region. A detailed ethnography of the people of the region has been given based on the villages studied. A separate Chapter details the role of women in the conservation of the Park. The historical and socio-political perspective of the villagers in the context of the Park is then linked together to understand the conflicting issues relating to People and Parks. This provides an analysis of the totality of the situation as seen by the researcher, which has been summarised in second last chapter. Based on her discussions with the people and the authorities of the Park, among others, a set of recommendations for a further development of the region has been set out in the last Chapter as a conclusion.

Prof. Abhik Ghosh

Chairperson, Department of Anthropology

Panjab University, Chandigarh

PREFACE

The Protected Area conservation saga usually follows two main problems at the global as well as at the local level: first, the basic principles of the PAs do not allow local people access to forest resources on which they have been dependent since ages. Secondly, affected people who were displaced from PAs rarely get the compensation or if they do it is a very small amount, which would not help them to establish new work. It is the need of the hour to introduce community based participation work in the PA conservation. It is impossible to persuade community to be part of biodiversity conservation without first understanding and having empathy for their own fundamental rights.

Man’s activities are responsible for creating an imbalance in the ecosystem and creating a loss of biodiversity. Establishment of PAs was considered as the central strategies for biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. Despite the advancement of such thinking in the conservation and management of PAs, there are still many cases and reasons where local communities fenced off from their previous lands in the name of conservation. It has not only created trouble in accessing natural resources but also formed a major problem in dealing with livelihood issues for local and affected people. The government’s policies are outrightly working to fulfil the goals of sustainability at the cost of community.

The government’s guidelines are following a One-Way Sustainability which supposed to benefit all at the ecological level. Sustainability should be Two-Way or Double-Sustainability which satisfied the social aspects as well as the attainment of ecological goals. It should address the defence of both biodiversity and community’s’ livelihood. No doubt, conservation has become a global issue and the government and international organizations are implementing various projects at the regional, national and international level to attain the goals of conservation but simultaneously it is contributing to local poverty, denying poor peoples’ control and access to natural resources. Therefore, the higher goals of conservation at the global and national level at the expense of local people’s livelihood, directly or indirectly affecting the socio-economic condition of the society.

Dr. Suman Bhanoo

Dyal Singh College

Delhi University

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This piece of work is the joint effort of many people. I may forget to mention many names, but in the core of my heart they are always there for their kind help and never-ending support. This book is by product of my Ph.D research work. Book would have been unimaginable without the support of countless individuals. I would like to thank Panjab University for providing "Diamond Jubilee Research Fellowship Award" and Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR) for providing me with a "Doctoral Fellowship" for all financial assistance.

I extend my sincere thanks to my revered supervisor and mentor Dr. Abhik Ghosh for his astute guidance, enthusiasm and endless patience. His support and detailed comments have helped me shape my ideas, realize my aims and complete this book.

I am indebted to my informants and Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP) administration for their co-operation during the field work. I am grateful to GHNP and Forest departments for providing the resources, services and permission that made my research possible. I am humbled by Mr. Ajay Srivastav, IFS, Former Director GHNP for his remarkable motivation, guidance and support that he provided me during the entire period of my work.

I owe special acknowledgment to Professor R.K Kohli (Vice Chancellor, Central University of Panjab) for his cooperative attitude and valuable suggestions.

I am indebted to the all villagers; I feel their innocent wishes worked throughout my work. The work would not have been possible without the generosity and insight of the many people I met and interviewed during the research. I thank villagers for their warm hospitality and sharing their valuable knowledge with me.

Contents

Title

Copyright

Dedication

Foreward

Preface

Acknowledgement

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 8

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 10

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

LIST OF FIGURES

3.1: Research Design Flow Chart

6.1: Yearly Cycle of Fairs and Festivals

6.2: Daily Cycle of People

7.1: Integration of Women Saving Credit Groups (WSCGs) in Panchayati Raj System

7.2: Social Stratification in Ecozone Area

9.1: Education Level of the People in Sampled Household

9.2: Percentage of Land Ownership in Sampled Households

9.3: Primary Source of Income for Sampled Households

9.4: Secondary Source of Income for Sampled Households

9.5: Tertiary Source of Income for Sampled Households

9.6: Graph Showing Arrival of Tourists in Last Four Years

9.7: Amount Generated in Last Four Years

9.8: Men and Women’s Daily Schedule in Eco-zone Region

9.9: Income from NTFP in Years 2009-2011

9.10: Percentage of Dependency on GHNP

LIST OF MAPS AND PICTURES

Picture

3.1 Tough Terrains of GHNP Ecozone (Pashi Village)

6.1 Women in Traditional Attire

6.2 Men in Traditional Attire

6.3 Women in Traditional Attire and Jewellery

6.4 Women in Traditional Attire and Jewellery

6.5 Khaddi Outside a House with Patti on the Loom

6.6 Showing the Local Architecture and Household Features

6.7 Cattle Shed and Cattle’s in Eco-zone Region

6.8 Cattle Shed and Cattle’s in Eco-zone Region

6.9 Cattle Shed and Cattle’s in Eco-zone Region

6.10 Household Features in Ecozone Region

6.11 Household Features in Ecozone Region

6.12 Showing the Local Deities during Dussehra Mela

6.13 Devata ka ped

6.14 Nagar Panchayat Meeting at Barnagi Village, Tirthan Range

6.15 Local Deity and its Band

6.16 Local Deity and its Band

9.1 Ecolodge in Tirthan Range

Map

3.1 GHNP and Adjoining Wildlife Sancturies

4.1 Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area (GHNPCA)

5.1 Great Himalayan National Park and adjoining Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary, Jeewanal Sanctuary, Eco-zone

5.2 Three Ranges around the GHNP

9.1 Selected Villages in Seven Panchayats of Tirthan Range

9.2 Ecolodges in Tirthan Range

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 IUCN Protected Area Categories

3.1 Number of Surveyed Households

4.1 Description of Various Rights

4.2 History of Park Formation

4.2 History of Park Formation

4.3 Forest Cover in Park and Surrounding Area

5.1 Guidelines for Successful Accomplishment of CBET

7.1 Summary of Gender Specific Responsibilities and Rights to Natural Resources in Eco-zone Area of GHNP

8.1 Dissimilarities between Global and Local Biodiversity Conservation: Perceptions and Priorities

9.6 Dependency on Protected Area for Earning and Subsistence Activities

9.7 Relationship Between Protected Area and People

9.8 Analysis of Case Studies

10.1 Results and Conclusions

LIST OF ANNEXURES

A   Abbrevation

B   Wildlife Protection Act-1972

C   Anderson’s Report

D  Earth Summit 1992

E   Locally Used Medicinal Plants From Great Himalayan National Park

F   Sacred Groves in GHNP Range

G   Indian Civil Calender

H   Protected Forest in Ecozone

I   Un-demarcated Forest in Ecozone

J   Reserved Forest in Ecozone

K   List Applicants Who Got Compensation

L   Tourism Permit

M   Men and Women’s Daily Schedule in Ecozone Region

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Endless Battle Between People And Parks:

Whoever Wins The World Loses

The unnecessary intrusion of human beings has threatened nature. Natural wealth is affected by an overexploitation of natural resources, resulting in the destruction of habitats and ecosystems. The need to proclaim certain areas as protected areas arises out of the need to conserve valuable natural resources or to avoid loss of biodiversity. The concept of protected areas has been a fine step to protect and conserve nature. Many protected areas continue to be established every year all over the world. Protected areas began to rise rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s in Asia, especially in China, India and Indonesia (International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources hence forth IUCN, 1994). Protected areas have succeeded in distributing global profit to human beings. These are an integral part of biodiversity conservation. The establishment of protected areas is a wise method to conserve nature and natural resources. Protected Areas (henceforth, PAs) have brought many benefits such as the potential for tourism, conservation of watersheds, recreation, ecological balance and the protection of biodiversity, as well as providing resources for education and research. After the formulation of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), there has been a significant growth in the number of PAs worldwide, which provided guidelines for the establishment and effective management of PAs (Hamilton and McMillan, 2004). Protected areas were considered as a source of local delight and potential income for some local governments but more often, they were viewed as a non-productive drain on local resources. As a result, some natural assets had neither staff nor budgets to conduct basic constructions, so those nature reserves became Paper Protected Areas.

1.1 Concept of National Park

The challenge is not to preserve the wild but peoples’ relationships with the wild.

Bill Adams, Cambridge University

In the developing world, the concept of PAs is at a critical point. The home of the world’s first National Park, Yellowstone National Park, established in the year 1872, was the American model of the PA (Eagles, et al.; 2002). According to the World Conservation Union (IUCN, 2006), there are now 6,555 National Parks worldwide.

To better conserve the biodiversity and natural resources of the country, land-use systems like the establishment of National Parks, Wild Life Sanctuaries and PAs were introduced. In India, the network of biogeographically representative PAs comprising National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries have been established for 10 National Parks and 127 Wildlife Sanctuaries in 1970 (Rodgers, et al.; 2000). As of May 2010, there are 99 National Parks and 514 Wildlife Sanctuaries. According to the Government of India, there are 91,307 species of the animal kingdom (7.46 percent of the global total), 1,232 species of birds out of the global total of 9026, 99 National Parks, 513 Wildlife Sanctuaries, 3 Community reserves and 43 conservation reserves in India (Srinivasan, 2010).

Natural areas of land or sea, are designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) excludes exploitation or occupational inimical to the purpose of designation of the area and (c) provides a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible (IUCN, 1994).

IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) defined a PA as: an area of land or sea that was especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of the biological diversity and natural and associated cultural resources managed through legal or other effective means (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).

Protected areas (PAs) have long struggled to successfully implement compliance with their regulations. Even some of the best-funded PAs in the world face shortcomings in using enforcement as an effective restraint to PA opposition (Stern, 2008). The PAs are located in the biogeographical zones and represent 4.51% of the total geographical area (Rodgers and Panwar,1998). The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 prohibits human settlement in protected areas and allows only regulated grazing in the case of wildlife sanctuaries. In practice, this is not the ground reality. Instead, more than 50% of the PAs have human populations within them and more than 80% of PAs have human populations around them. Nearly 40% have rights for their use by people in and around them. Kothari, 1989 in their review on the management of PAs in India, have demarcated that only 40% of National Parks and 16% of Wildlife Sanctuaries had completed their legal procedures. A study by the Indian Institute of Public Administration in the mid and late 1980s revealed that 69% of the surveyed PAs had human populations living inside; and 64% had rights, leases, or concessions to extract fuel and fodder, to graze, or to carry out other activities (Kothari, 1989).

Undoubtedly, the formation of PAs saved many species, habitats and forests from local peoples’ intrusion and destruction, but simultaneously caused severe adversity to local communities living near the PAs, whose livelihood was based on forest resources. In order to overcome these pressures, the PA management undertakes measures to protect the area, habitat restoration and improvement activities, plantation, weed control, soil and moisture conservation, maintaining the water table as well as management of tourism and other related activities. Varying levels of inputs (in quality as well as in quantity) were being provided in different PAs across the country. Communities living in and around the protected areas have been regarded as a management problem, and there is little attempt made to involve them in the management of the PAs. To counter this, a beginning has been made in selected PAs to initiate eco-activities for the dependent people. Recently, eco-tourism has emerged as a tool, which aims to protect the natural environment and cultural diversity by attracting and generating a source of revenue for the local people without harming nature. This has been supported by various global processes. These processes have agreed to the crucial problems related to the indigenous people, their ownership rights and resources. By clearer understanding and recognition of the strong ethical and spiritual dimensions and survival spirit of the indigenous people in the changing world, it has been understood that eco-tourism can prove to be supportive as it works at a local scale and incorporates land-scapes and people-scapes, in particular (Bhattacharya and Kumari, 2004).

Conservation of natural resources has been applied since time immemorial. Protected areas and National Parks are playing a crucial role in conserving biodiversity and ecosystems. Declaring Wildlife Sanctuaries, National Parks and Biosphere Reserves is one of the most important ways of conserving natural resources and enhancing biodiversity (Nangia and Kumar, 2001). Conservation usually reflects the priorities of regional, national and, above all international interests over local subsistence needs. Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is fundamental to ecologically sustainable development. Sustainable and effective conservation calls for an emphasis on the natural resource management and enabling a policy framework. Biodiversity conservation has not only ethical and aesthetic implications but also has various economic and social dimensions (Kulkarni and Vaidya, et al.; 2002). The growth and development of PAs and National Parks has been extensively promoted because of its potential for sustainable regional development and judicious conservation of natural resources. Kothari, 1998 highlighted the rough list of feasible benefits that a protected can yield is:

• Subsistence:

Non timber forest product

Fuel

Fodder

Fish/ other aquatic produces

Timber

• Economic/ Livelihood:

Employment

Tourist revenue

Development inputs

Compensation from wildlife damage /opportunities lost

• Social/Cultural/Political:

Social recognition

Protection of cultural value

Empowerment control

Community-based conservation is likely to be more cost effective and sustainable. It requires the creation of communicating networks and participatory research linkages between the public sector, non-government organizations (NGOs) and rural people involved in protected areas and wildlife management (Pimbert and Pretty, 1997). Biodiversity conservation is directly linked with the socio-economic issue of local people. If one is interested in biodiversity conservation, first of all one needed to resolve the socio-economic issues of the local people. Biodiversity conservation at the Great Himalayan National Park has become synonymous with people management. In 1999, the rights of the local people in the Park were settled which resulted in the displacement of their livelihoods. The GHNP management plan looks at the whole issue of biodiversity conservation from many stakeholders’ perspectives and not merely from the wildlifer’s viewpoint (Pandey, 2004a).

Environmental conservation is not possible without active local community participation in natural resource management. This is now being seen as critical to the long-term success of any conservation programme. Eco-tourism may help in protecting forest and traditional cultures while also meeting the needs of local residents. Eco-tourism is a special kind of market integration for rural communities. In other words, it is linking of the livelihood approach with biodiversity conservation. According to the Indian Wildlife Protection Act (1972), no habitation is permitted in the National Park within an area of 90 sq. km. In such a case, eco-tourism can resolve this conflict and bring Parks and People together. Tourism has become the most vital industry for PAs (Jaswal, 2008a).

This work considers the global, national, local and case-specific conceptualizations and manifestations of conservation-related activities through the spectrum of sustainable development, focusing on environmental protection, economic prosperity, social development and cultural sustainability.

1.2 Problems in Protected Area Conservation at Global and Local Levels

In India, conventional conservation norms, policies and programmes have been characterized by ignorance and the deliberate neglect of the important association between rural communities and natural habitat. For survival, a majority of the country’s population still depends directly on natural resources. This is even truer of PAs than elsewhere, for the simple reason that they are primarily inhabited by highly ecosystem-dependent people (Kothari, 1998). The crux of matter that highlights the chaos between people, PAs and the authorities involved in PA management. The main conflict comes between peoples’ rights and Park management official norms. The Park management makes it necessary to resettle people out of the Park and removes them from using the Park’s natural resources. On the other hand, people are vehemently against any resettlement moves from the Park management. This dispute is based on the question that where and why are we being moved out of our land?

Though conservation of natural resources is necessary and justified in one aspect, but dissatisfaction regarding PA norms is questioning the social dimensions of conservation in PAs. Whenever it comes to conservation-related issues, overall global relations between Park authorities and villagers have often been poor and aggressive clashes are not unusual. The conservation saga usually follows two main problems: first, the basic principles of the PAs do not allow local people access to forest resources on which they have been dependent since ages for firewood collection, grazing of their cattle, medicinal plant and herb collections. Secondly, affected people who were displaced from protected areas rarely get the compensation or if they do it is a very small amount, which would not help them to establish new work or to buy property. Usually, PA conservation faces the same problems at the global as well as at the local level. If one takes the local problem by highlighting the Great Himalayan National Park, the local people use the Park mainly for grazing their livestock and for collecting herbs and mushrooms. About 35,000 sheep and goats graze in the park during summer months (Mehta, et al.; 1993). The major problem which GHNP faces is the verification of the original rights-holders.

Anderson’s report provided rights only for the life time of the right holder. The conditions of this report have been adopted as such after Independence. This brought forth that fact that in passing on the rights after the death of the right-holder, to the offspring was not permitted the passage of time; the hereditary rights of the local inhabitants had become quite unclear. Many of the actual right-holders were dead, making it very difficult to verify the rights of the persons who entered into the National Park (Anderson, 1886 a).

Hardin (1968) highlighted the fact that National Parks presented an additional instance of the working out of the ‘tragedy of the commons’. The tragedy of the commons is a concept which highlights the dilemma arising from the condition in which numerous individuals, acting solely and independently seeking their own self-interest and benefit, will ultimately exhaust the limited resources. The study pointed out that the population grows without limit but Parks themselves are limited in extent. The values that visitors seek in the Parks are steadily eroded. Clearly, they must cease to treat the Parks as commons or they will be of no value to anyone. Hardin’s ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ Theory is regularly cited to support the concept of environmental protection, sustainable development, economic growth and has had an effect on numerous current issues, including the debate over climate change and global warming. The commons dilemma is a definite class of social dilemma in which people’s short-term selfish interests is at odds with long-term group interests and the common good. In layman’s terminology, the concept emphasizes on the over-harvesting of common resources in the field as well as in laboratory experimentation. The baseline of the concept is Freedom in commons brings ruins to all.