Impact of NTFP ban on the lives and livelihood of the ... - Vasundhara

IMPACT OF CONSERVATION POLICIES (SPECIFICFOCUS ON <strong>NTFP</strong> BAN ORDER BY SUPREME COURT)ON LIVES AND LIVELIHOOD OF LOCAL PEOPLELIVING IN AND AROUND THE PROTECTED AREASVASUNDHARAA/70, Sahid NagarBhu<strong>ban</strong>eswar

CONTENTS1 Abstract 32 Background42.1 Scope and Vision2.2 Key Objectives3 Methodology 5-64 Overview <strong>of</strong> Protected Areas and its issues 7-135 <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> Supreme Court Order (<strong>ban</strong> on <strong>NTFP</strong> withinPas) on the life and livelihood <strong>of</strong> the people14-156 Case Study 1: Baisipalli Wildlife Sanctuary 16-207 Case Study 2: Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary 21-428 Case Study 3: Simlipal Wildlife Sanctuary 43-509 Annexure 1 (Information Sheet) 51-532

ABSTRACTThe word Conservation is one, which we <strong>of</strong>ten hear, but what does it actually mean?Conservation does not mean just preserving the flora or fauna as it is, at the cost <strong>of</strong> man. Conservation involves sustainable or wiseutilization <strong>of</strong> the resources. Conservation stands on four pillars. The first pillar is ethical or moral concern. It is our moral responsibilitynot to impoverish our natural heritage to be passed on to future generations. The second pillar is aesthetic consideration. Nature isbeautiful and care and love for the nature not only provides us with aesthetic pleasure but also helps in its protection. The third pillar isour need for sustenance – food and raw material for producing essential goods and products <strong>of</strong> daily use. If do not conserve and use theresources widely they will soon get depleted. The fourth is the scientific pillar. All our technological and scientific breakthrough would nothave been possible without the natural resources. If any <strong>of</strong> the pillars <strong>of</strong> conservation falls then the whole ethic <strong>of</strong> conservation fails.Debates over the rationale for conservation are now fast being consigned to history. More people and governments than ever beforerecognize the need to conserve biological diversity, with over 180 countries now having become signatories to the International Conventionon Biological Diversity (UNEP 1992). With the dawn <strong>of</strong> such a broad consensus, conservation debates have now focused more narrowlyon the means <strong>of</strong> attaining the goal <strong>of</strong> conserving biological diversity. The conservation community in India, as in other regions in thetropics, stands polarised between two forceful conservation paradigms: preservationism and sustainable use. Preservationism—hitherto themost common approach to conservation—entails the earmarking <strong>of</strong> state-administered ‘wildlife reserves’ within which extractive humanactivity is either greatly restricted, or completely halted using coercive means. It holds that, given India’s socio-economic and demographicmilieu and the biology <strong>of</strong> wild species and ecosystems, strict and exclusive wildlife reserves represent the most important and realistic means<strong>of</strong> conserving biological diversity. Lately, however, there is growing popularity <strong>of</strong> an alternate paradigm—the sustainable use paradigm—which urges that authority over natural landscapes, including wildlife reserves, be devolved to the local communities using them. Thisapproach builds on the premise that subsistence users <strong>of</strong> biological diversity value it the most, are worst affected by its depletion and aretherefore motivated to use it in a sustainable fashion. While these divergent conservation paradigms might well apply to all landscapes inthe country, the debate assumes its most strident tone in respect <strong>of</strong> the country’s network <strong>of</strong> Protected Areas (wildlife sanctuaries andnational parks).The approach to biodiversity conservation Orissa, as elsewhere in the country, has been through exclusionary reserves for wildlifeconservation through creation <strong>of</strong> Protected Areas. In the past few months the State Government has taken steps in proposing an increasein the area under Protected Area network but on the other hand there has hardly been any effort to deal with the people living within theprotected areas. The present conservation paradigm based on exclusion principle directly hampers the livelihood <strong>of</strong> the local people livingwithin the Protected Areas by snatching away their ‘Right to Live’. Simultaneously threats to Protected Areas and local communitiesfrom activities like mining are rapidly increasing in Orissa. This is creating a conflicting as well as confusing situation as the peoplewithin the Protected Areas are not sure about their lives and livelihood.At this juncture it was felt that balancing conservation and livelihoods in the context <strong>of</strong> Protected Areas and tackling the key threats toconservation becomes very important. These dwindling situations prompted us to take up the issue and carry out intensive studies to knowthe exact situation <strong>of</strong> both the people and the wildlife (flora and fauna) within the Protected Areas and possibly come out withalternatives best suitable for both.3

BackgroundAll over the developing world, the problems and conflicts around biodiversity conservation areintense. This is especially the case, since models and paradigms <strong>of</strong> exclusionary conservation havebeen imposed on social and ecological contexts where human and resources interface is verypronounced. Forests in India, including most <strong>of</strong> the protected areas, are known to have a sizeablehuman presence with local communities critically dependent on the forest resources for theirlivelihood. Nearly 3 million people are residing within the Protected Areas in India and dependcritically on the natural resources particularly <strong>NTFP</strong> collection for their livelihood. But the plight <strong>of</strong>the Protected Area network is that it adopts the western conservation model (notably, theYellowstone National Park model <strong>of</strong> the United States) and advocates separation <strong>of</strong> wildlife frompeople and believes that co-existence <strong>of</strong> human and wildlife is impossible. In India, the debate onapplicability as well as effectiveness <strong>of</strong> exclusionary conservation paradigm has been intensifying inrecent years, and there have been increased advocacy efforts for participatory wildlife management.The actual progress in the direction <strong>of</strong> participatory and community based conservation strategies hasbeen limited. The People vs. Parks conflict was especially brought into sharp focus following therecent <strong>ban</strong> on collection <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> from the Protected Areas by the Supreme Court. This order <strong>of</strong> theSupreme Court (dated 14 th February 2000) followed by the enactment <strong>of</strong> the Wildlife (Amendment)Act 2002 (section 29), further worsened the livelihood situation <strong>of</strong> the forest dependent communitiesin and around the Protected Areas. The exclusionary principle <strong>of</strong> conservation curtails the customaryrights <strong>of</strong> the local people over the resources and the <strong>NTFP</strong> <strong>ban</strong> order in particular has severelycrippled the financial backbone <strong>of</strong> the local people.Scope and Vision (Purpose).The study will contribute towards addressing livelihood issues in Protected Areas and strengtheningefforts for participatory wildlife conservation. The proposed project aimed to focus on securing thelivelihoods <strong>of</strong> poor communities living in and around protected/ proposed protected areas <strong>of</strong> theState who critically depend on the forest resources for their sustenance. It would facilitate creation <strong>of</strong>an environment, which shall ensure protection <strong>of</strong> fundamental rights <strong>of</strong> life and livelihood <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>gatherers <strong>of</strong> more than thousands <strong>of</strong> people living in and around PAs in particular and similarcommunities in other parts <strong>of</strong> the country, a large section <strong>of</strong> whom are tribals and dalits and alsoinclude a number <strong>of</strong> primitive tribal groups (PTGs).Key Objectives• To document the resource use pattern <strong>of</strong> the local people.• To assess the impact on the livelihoods <strong>of</strong> the local people due to <strong>NTFP</strong> <strong>ban</strong>4

MethodologyMethodology for the studies taken up in the PAs:A number <strong>of</strong> methodological tools were used to achieve the above. These were Qualitative as well asQuantitative in nature:1. Building on available information, carrying out theoretical analysis <strong>of</strong> latest policy directives, t<strong>of</strong>ind out the various contradictions and complementaries in the related laws and to assess howthese directives are impacting livelihood security <strong>of</strong> communities dependent on protected areas.2. Undertaking field visits to selected protected areas, to understand landscape conservationinitiatives and to find out the impact <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Court order on the lives and livelihood <strong>of</strong>the people.3. Analysis <strong>of</strong> available databases on PAs, including raw data collected from different PAs. Whereavailable, other secondary data on socio-economic aspects were also used.4. Discussions with high-level <strong>of</strong>ficials at the central Ministry <strong>of</strong> Environment and Forests andwithin the state, and with selected national and state level NGOs, community leaders, andindependent conservationists/social activists. Primary data and information were collectedthrough standard methodology tools such as interviews and questionnaires, and analyzed.Opportunities for participating in workshops and consultations on these issues were also availed <strong>of</strong>.Finally, but not least, our existing network <strong>of</strong> contacts and associated organizations in specific areaswere tapped, to get information, help with insights and analysis, and bounce <strong>of</strong>f research results.Collection <strong>of</strong> the primary level data, household surveys were done in a participatory method with thelocal facilitators, volunteers etc. The preparation <strong>of</strong> study design, detailed questionnaire, methodologyto conduct the study were done by us with the help <strong>of</strong> consultants (WWF) and our local levelnetworks. Field visits and survey were done by Vasundhara staff along with the local volunteers,people’s institutions and facilitators. The collected information was thoroughly scrutinized at everylevel and corrections were made after verification at the ground level and repeated consultations withthe villagers and local groups. The case studies were designed accordingly which would help inchallenging the contradictory policies.While carrying out any studies, our primary goal was to capacitate the grass root level institutions,individuals and local people so that they can take up their issues at their own end and skill withoutany external help, hence every step <strong>of</strong> all our interventions and studies were on a participatory basis.5

SITE SELECTION:Criteria for Site Selection1. Location <strong>of</strong> sites in Schedule V/PTG areas and outside it. This would enable us tohave a comparative study <strong>of</strong> the situation2. Issues <strong>of</strong> resettlement and relocation is most intense in these sites3. The impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> <strong>ban</strong> on the forest dependent communities visible in these areas.4. Issue <strong>of</strong> forest villages, unsurveyed villages are also seen in the selected sites.Based on the above mentioned criteria the following Pas were selected within Orissa.• Baisipalli Wildlife Sanctuary (Nayagarh Dist)• Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary (Nuapada Dist) – PTG area• Similipal Wildlife Sanctuary andNational Park (Mayurbhanj District) – Scheduled V area as well as PTG area6

Issues in Protected Areasacross the countryINTRODUCTIONOver the last few decades, India has undertaken an ambitious programme <strong>of</strong> declaring areasprotected for wildlife, after Independence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972. The countrytoday has over 600 protected areas (PAs), covering almost 5% <strong>of</strong> its geographical area. In addition,there are a number <strong>of</strong> other legal and non-legal categories that provide varying degrees <strong>of</strong>conservation coverage to specific sites: protected and reserved forests (under the Indian Forest Act1927), biosphere reserves, tiger reserves, elephant reserves (none <strong>of</strong> these with legal backing),ecologically sensitive areas (under the Environment Protection Act 1986), and so on.These protected areas are vital to the conservation <strong>of</strong> the biological diversity <strong>of</strong> the country. Notonly are they valuable heritage assets, but they also play an important role in protecting watershedsand coastlines, providing livelihoods and encouraging conservation.Unfortunately all over the developing world, the problems and conflicts around biodiversityconservation are intense. This is especially the case, since models and paradigms <strong>of</strong> exclusionaryconservation have been imposed on social and ecological contexts where human and resourcesinterface is very pronounced. In India, the debate on applicability as well as effectiveness <strong>of</strong>exclusionary conservation paradigm has been intensifying in recent years, and there have beenincreased advocacy efforts for participatory wildlife management. The actual progress in thedirection <strong>of</strong> participatory and community based conservation strategies has been limited. Theconservation model applied to India (through the enactment <strong>of</strong> the WLPA 1972) comes directlyfrom the west (notably, the Yellowstone National Park model <strong>of</strong> the United States), and advocates aseparation <strong>of</strong> wildlife from people. The People vs. Parks conflict was especially brought into sharpfocus following the recent <strong>ban</strong> on collection <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> from the Protected Areas by the SupremeCourt. This order <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Court (dated 14 th February 2000) followed by the enactment <strong>of</strong>the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2002 (section 29), further worsened the livelihood situation <strong>of</strong> theforest dependent communities in and around the Protected Areas.In Orissa, Protected Areas cover around 4.2% <strong>of</strong> the total geographical area (8111.55 sq.kms.) and -11.4% <strong>of</strong> total forest area <strong>of</strong> the state. There are 18 sanctuaries and 2 National Parks in the state andmost <strong>of</strong> these protected areas are in the Scheduled V areas or in areas where the tribal population ispredominantly high.The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is a strong regulatory statute which restricts almost all activitiesinside Protected Areas. These include restrictions on entry to sanctuary (Section 27), removal <strong>of</strong>forest products including <strong>NTFP</strong>s (except for bonafide self consumption), regulation or prohibition<strong>of</strong> grazing or movement <strong>of</strong> livestock etc. This effectively exiles people living inside the Protectedarea from civilization, with restrictions on movement <strong>of</strong> goods and services.Thus the law provides power for acquisition or commutation <strong>of</strong> rights within the area intended to bedeclared as sanctuary or National parks. Certain assumptions lie beneath the process <strong>of</strong> acquisition<strong>of</strong> rights. One <strong>of</strong> the important one is that the rights in the area to be declared are already formally7

ecognized i.e. legal instruments and records exist <strong>of</strong> the rights <strong>of</strong> people in the area, both over landand other natural resources. These formal rights include ownership over land (provided by Surveyand Settlements), Nistar Rights over forest products, right <strong>of</strong> way etc. It is assumed that the state <strong>of</strong>formal rights represents justly the up to date situation <strong>of</strong> rights over natural resources in the area.However, given the ground level situation in tribal areas <strong>of</strong> Orissa, this assumption turns out bedeficient and problematic in many ways. These deficiencies lead to a distortion <strong>of</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong>natural justice and equity, drastically affecting the weakest sections <strong>of</strong> society i.e. Tribal communitiesincluding PTGs having constitutional protection, and in many case contravention <strong>of</strong> the rights to lifeBROAD ISSUES IN PROTECTED AREAS1. Management deficiencies in biodiversity conservationManagement system is the crucial part <strong>of</strong> wildlife conservation, which decides effectiveness <strong>of</strong> conservationefforts. But various lacunas in the management system are causing threat to the wild life conservation. It isvery important to consider each and every facet <strong>of</strong> the system with interactions between these factors, viz.ecological, economical, legal and socio-cultural. The present system is based on exclusionary principal,which exclude local people from conservation and imposing cost <strong>of</strong> conservation on weakest section <strong>of</strong>society which can’t afford it. Furthermore it is also neglecting the potential <strong>of</strong> local people in conservation,local people are good source <strong>of</strong> traditional knowledge, developed through human nature interfaces overthousands <strong>of</strong> years. Therefore consideration <strong>of</strong> human-face <strong>of</strong> wildlife management is very important.From various researches it is reflecting that protected areas are becoming islands <strong>of</strong> conservation,questioning survival <strong>of</strong> species as well as balance in life supporting system. Therefore holistic approach isrequired for wildlife management.2. Legal IssuesConflicts between laws: There are contradictory provisions regarding rights amongst the various laws. Thestringency <strong>of</strong> the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 for instance is countermanded by the Panchayati Raj Act,1998 and Panchayat (Extension <strong>of</strong> Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 which grants the local communities‘ownership’ rights as opposed to the usual usufructory rights, which is access and the right to use naturalresources in notified areas. The Panchayati Raj Act, 1998 and the Panchayat (Extension <strong>of</strong> Scheduled Areas)Act, 1996 read together with the 73rd Amendment and the JFM order, have special significance for thenatural resources rights <strong>of</strong> tribal communities and particularly for states like Madhya Pradesh. This poses aconflicting picture vis-a-vis forest and wildlife laws.Mainly legal issues are emerging from rights, control and access over resources. Our wildlife laws andpolicies limit the access <strong>of</strong> local people over resources, which create major conflict. Around 60% <strong>of</strong> India’sPAs are inhabited by humans. Almost 4 million people inside India’s protected areas most <strong>of</strong> thembelonging to families that have lived in these areas before the protected areas were notified. All these peopleare dependent on local resources for fulfillment <strong>of</strong> basic needs. All the people living inside protected areasand in regions adjacent to the protected areas are dependent on local resources for fuel, fodder, medicines,8

non-timber forest produce, fish and other aquatic produce, livelihoods, water, cultural sustenance, andmyriad other critical resources. In many cases collection <strong>of</strong> non-timber forest produce contributes to morethan 50% <strong>of</strong> each household’s earnings; more importantly, up-to 100% <strong>of</strong> the daily requirements <strong>of</strong> suchfamilies comes from forest or aquatic produce. Thus these people are primary stakeholders <strong>of</strong> ProtectedArea Management. But they are neither considered Protected Area Management nor their basic needs aredealt. Local people are closely linked with resources so they have great potential in wildlife conservation. Butin our conservation approach local people are always considered as threat to conservation therefore restrictsaccess <strong>of</strong> local people over resources, it is completely ignoring the social aspect <strong>of</strong> natural resourcemanagement, and excluding human from nature. Thus converts potential allies into poachers causingdepletion <strong>of</strong> resources, which are not only affecting humans but also our conservation goal.Many times due to improper survey and settlement processes these villagers are considered as encroachers.Many times conflict between forest <strong>of</strong>ficial and local people arises due to restriction on accesses to theresources, which were enjoyed from hundreds <strong>of</strong> years. But situations differs from location to location, itdepends upon various factors. Various tribes are becoming accustomed with modern forces <strong>of</strong> globalization.But Various PTGs are still maintaining their relations with nature, as these were century before.In comparison with other nations, wildlife laws in India are considered among the ‘progressive’ in the world,but they have failed to stop the drain <strong>of</strong> nature. The assumption at the governmental level and among manyur<strong>ban</strong> wildlife conservationists is that the presence <strong>of</strong> humans and their usufructory relation with the forestis contributing to the degradation <strong>of</strong> the environment. Some concede reluctantly that though historically‘eco-system’ people had a ‘symbiotic’ relationship with nature but presently their population has increased,as have their cattle and goats that graze the downy undergrowth in competition with the herbivorousungulates <strong>of</strong> the wilds. Political and financial reasons, inertia and ground realities have so far prevented thegovernment from taking any action towards permanently disassociating these people from their naturalsurrounds. Additionally, there is mounting pressure from the affected people themselves with the support <strong>of</strong>select community based social organisations.The role <strong>of</strong> the state as landlord or estate owner created a dual problem. On the one hand, it imposed theBritish legal system on an ethnocentric legal order based on customary usage and norms and guided byecological parameters. On the other, it paved the way for a western model <strong>of</strong> conservation inherentlyestablished on the duality <strong>of</strong> man and nature.The areas <strong>of</strong> conflict are wide and they range from the alienation <strong>of</strong> forest dwelling and dependantcommunities from the state and ur<strong>ban</strong> conservationists/wildlifers, the abrogation <strong>of</strong> the customary rights <strong>of</strong>these communities, including the spectre <strong>of</strong> displacement to the alleged harassment <strong>of</strong> the local people by<strong>of</strong>ficials <strong>of</strong> the forest department. There are rumours <strong>of</strong> forced evictions, loss <strong>of</strong> livelihood, lack <strong>of</strong> effectiverehabilitation and compensation.9

3. Issues pertaining to Right Settlement in Protected AreasAs per the Act, once the Government decides to create a sanctuary in an area, it issues a notification <strong>of</strong>intention <strong>of</strong> the same (section 18), appoints a Collector to determine rights and carry out inquiry with thepower to exclude rights bearing land from sanctuary boundary/ acquire the land under Land AcquisitionAct, 1894/ allow continuation <strong>of</strong> rights in consultation with Chief Wildlife Warden (section 24). A process<strong>of</strong> time bound serving <strong>of</strong> notice, submission <strong>of</strong> claim by affected persons, inquiry into the submissions andacquisition <strong>of</strong> rights has been laid out in the Act. Same provisions (section 19-26A) apply for declaration <strong>of</strong>National Parks.Thus the law provides power for acquisition or commutation <strong>of</strong> rights within the area intended to bedeclared as sanctuary or National parks. The argument put forward for such appropriation <strong>of</strong> land andresources was the extension <strong>of</strong> eminent domain, the authority or power <strong>of</strong> the state to acquire the propertybelonging to individuals for reasons <strong>of</strong> public interest, provided due compensation was paid to the formerproprietors and rights holders. It is clearly proved that a change in sovereignty does not imply theextinguishing <strong>of</strong> the right to domicile or other existing customary rights enjoyed by the local communitiesconcerning access and use <strong>of</strong> forest resources.Certain assumptions lie beneath the process <strong>of</strong> acquisition <strong>of</strong> rights. One <strong>of</strong> the important one is that therights in the area to be declared are already formally recognized i.e. legal instruments and records exist <strong>of</strong> therights <strong>of</strong> people in the area, both over land and other natural resources. These formal rights includeownership over land (provided by Survey and Settlements), Nistar Rights over forest products, right <strong>of</strong> wayetc. It is assumed that the state <strong>of</strong> formal rights represents justly the up to date situation <strong>of</strong> rights overnatural resources in the area.However, given the ground level situation in tribal areas <strong>of</strong> Orissa, this assumption turns out be deficientand problematic in many ways. These deficiencies lead to a perversion <strong>of</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong> natural justiceand equity, drastically affect the weakest sections <strong>of</strong> society i.e. Tribal communities including PTGs havingconstitutional protection, and in many case contravention <strong>of</strong> the rights to life. Some <strong>of</strong> these deficiencies areas follows:4. Lack <strong>of</strong> up to Date and Proper Settlements <strong>of</strong> Land Rights:Most <strong>of</strong> the sanctuaries are in the remote tribal areas. In most <strong>of</strong> these areas, only one round <strong>of</strong> Settlementshave taken place. The current situation in terms <strong>of</strong> land tenure in these areas is highly confused, with amajor discrepancy between formal tenure and informal land use. This includes extension <strong>of</strong> cultivation inpre 1980s periods, which haven’t been regularized and are therefore treated as encroachments, existence <strong>of</strong>unsurveyed areas etc. For example, in the Sunabeda Sanctuary area, there are 30 Revenue Villages but thereare 34 villages, which are shown as unsurveyed village. Forest Department treats these villages asencroachers, whereas records exist which show that most <strong>of</strong> these tribal settlements are very old and werenever surveyed. As per WPA, 1972, these villagers are not entitled to any compensation, and neither are10

those people who have been cultivating land not regularized in their names (and which should have beenrecorded in their name as per existing law).5. Non-recognition <strong>of</strong> Rights over Land in Survey and Settlement:This applies mainly to the practice <strong>of</strong> shifting cultivation, traditionally practiced by large number <strong>of</strong> tribalcommunities in Orissa. Even though many princely states condoned and even legalized shifting cultivation,the post independence statutes on land totally delegitimised it, and therefore in all shifting cultivation areas,the land on hill slopes was designated as Government land, even though these areas were being used forshifting cultivation. The estimates <strong>of</strong> shifting cultivation in Orissa range from 5000 sq. km. to 37,000 sq. km,a substantial part <strong>of</strong> the forested parts <strong>of</strong> Orissa. As the shifting cultivation land have been settled asGovernment land, declaration <strong>of</strong> sanctuaries means that the large number <strong>of</strong> tribals who depend on shiftingcultivation in sanctuary areas are summarily evicted, creating major conflicts and misery. (Kotgarh, Karlapat,Sunabeda, Lakhari sanctuaries)6. Non-recognition <strong>of</strong> Customary Use:Most <strong>of</strong> the customary uses <strong>of</strong> the local inhabitants on forests (including other natural resources like water)have not been codified or recorded in any record <strong>of</strong> rights. Nistar rights are a legacy <strong>of</strong> colonial periodwherein limited rights were given over forest produce, mainly to landowning families. Post independencethere has been no effort to redefine or formalize customary uses as per actual practice. Thus the existingrights systems don’t even start to cover the customary or actual use <strong>of</strong> natural resources in any area.However, these uses or dependence are a major source <strong>of</strong> livelihood and subsistence for a large number <strong>of</strong>poorest people, including Primitive Tribal groups. Declaration <strong>of</strong> protected areas with restrictions on entryand forest produce collection, means that the livelihoods are taken away without compensation oralternatives.In wildlife policies and laws concessions are given to residents to enjoy bonafide uses <strong>of</strong> forest products.But not mentioned any difference between bonafide and commercial use.7. Lack <strong>of</strong> Final Settlement <strong>of</strong> Claims:In most PAs in Orissa, the settlement <strong>of</strong> claims and rights as laid down in Sections 19-26A <strong>of</strong> WL Act, 1972hasn’t taken place. Only one PA has been finally notified. All the other PAs are at different stages <strong>of</strong>notifications. However, the Wildlife Administration, taking the plea <strong>of</strong> the provision on intention <strong>of</strong>declaration <strong>of</strong> protected area leading to suspension <strong>of</strong> rights even in case <strong>of</strong> non-completion <strong>of</strong> proceedings<strong>of</strong> determination and acquisition <strong>of</strong> rights [Section 25 A <strong>of</strong> Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2002], has clampeddown on the people living inside the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the PAs. This perversion <strong>of</strong> natural justice is against thespirit <strong>of</strong> law as well as constitution, as many <strong>of</strong> these processes <strong>of</strong> settlement have been pending for morethan a decade.11

These deficiencies need to be investigated and used to challenge the State’s promotion <strong>of</strong> an exclusionaryconservation model. One <strong>of</strong> the most serious livelihood issues have emerged from the <strong>ban</strong> on <strong>NTFP</strong>collection in PAs as per the Supreme Court order dated 14th February 2000(WP No. 202/95).8. Issues <strong>of</strong> Forest Villages:In many protected areas forest department itself established forest villages. The main objective behindestablishing these villages was to ensure availability <strong>of</strong> labour for carrying out various forestry works such asforest line demarcation, extinguishing forest fires, construction <strong>of</strong> forest roads etc. forest departmentallotted land to these villagers at that time for homestead and agriculture for meeting their subsistenceneeds. But till now these villages are not converted in to revenue villages.9. Non-Conversion <strong>of</strong> Forest Villages into Revenue Villages Deprived the Inhabitants from theGovt. Programmes & Schemes:The proposals <strong>of</strong> conversion <strong>of</strong> forest villages into revenue villages are still lying with GOI. But in13.11.2000 and 9.2.2004 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed interim orders no dereservation <strong>of</strong>forest/Sanctuaries/ National Parks shall be effected, therefore it is very difficult to convert these villages into revenue villages.As these villages are not being converted into Revenue Village, which deprives the inhabitants <strong>of</strong> thebenefits <strong>of</strong> various government programmes and schemes like old age pension, widow pension, AntodayaYojana and Annapurna Yojana, though all the households in these villages are coming under BPL category.10. No Legal Entitlement over the Allotted Land:Though forest department allotted land from forestland at different periods for their survival, but in most <strong>of</strong>the cases, forest department didn't issued any patta to any <strong>of</strong> the households residing in the village. Asvillagers do not have record <strong>of</strong> rights over the land cultivated & resided by them they are not able to accessany loan from the nationalized <strong>ban</strong>ks. During the emergency situations, they have been taking loans fromthe local people at a higher rate <strong>of</strong> interest. Even for obtaining bail, they have been depending upon othersfor which the ‘Jamindars’ (the person who takes bail) demands huge money in lieu <strong>of</strong> bail. Even thesefamilies are also being deprived from getting <strong>of</strong> the caste certificates 1 . As these villages are coming under thecategory <strong>of</strong> forest villages, the R.I is not issuing residential pro<strong>of</strong>, which is a prerequisite condition forobtaining caste certificate.11. Restrictions on mobility and access to basic servicesAnother major implication <strong>of</strong> wildlife policy is the increasing restriction on the mobility <strong>of</strong> people residingin the protected areas. The control <strong>of</strong> the authorities is further strengthened through the Wildlife(Amendment) Act 2002, according to which restrictions on the entry will immediately come into effect withthe declaration <strong>of</strong> intention to create a protected area(Section 27). People living inside the Sanctuary have to12

face lot <strong>of</strong> difficulties due to poor access to health facilities because <strong>of</strong> the distant location <strong>of</strong> Primary HealthCenters. There has been hardly any effort from the government side to provide alternative health services inthese areas. We have got reports from different protected areas that people carrying patients are stopped atthe gate leading to medical complications, and the reason cited is that going outside the sanctuary in night isnot permissible. Effectively all access to services from outside world is restricted, and the people are cut <strong>of</strong>ffrom basic human needs <strong>of</strong> health, education etc.Further, restrictions over the mobility <strong>of</strong> outside traders and local people (especially while carryingcommodities to sell outside), on implementation <strong>of</strong> social security programmes like Indira Awas Yojana,Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana, ICDS etc. deprive the people from basic services which is a violation <strong>of</strong>fundamental rights <strong>of</strong> people within the protected areas. Such incidents are being reported from almost allprotected areas in the State.12. Increasing Man-Animal conflictsCrop depredation by wild elephants is growing and has emerged as a serious problem not only in corevillages but even in the villages located in the periphery <strong>of</strong> the Sanctuary. The frequency <strong>of</strong> intrusion <strong>of</strong>elephants into the paddy fields <strong>of</strong> people increases during harvesting season when the herds destroy lot <strong>of</strong>standing crops falling on the way. Besides, attack on human lives has also increased and every year a case <strong>of</strong>human casualty is reported from the surrounding villages.13. Increasing Developmental ActivitiesVarious developmental projects like mining; big dams, etc. are immerging around Protected Areas. Variousprotected areas are denotified for these developmental projects. Protected Areas possesses rich stocks <strong>of</strong>mineral resources, which are viewed as very critical for industrial growth. But mining projects are seriouslyimpacting overall conservation scenario by negatively affecting ecosystem, it is not only adversely affectingecosystem but also creating Protected Areas as island <strong>of</strong> conservation by destroying important under naturalhabitats <strong>of</strong> considered species outside the protected areas. (e.g. mining in Keonjhar region is seriouslyimpacting elephant corridor thereby, brought out behavioral changes in elephants causing increased cases <strong>of</strong>man-elephant conflict, elephant poaching, etc.) Furthermore big dams are also threatening wildlifeconservation by submerging large patches <strong>of</strong> biodiversity rich forests (e.g. Rengali, Hirakud, Indravati, etc.had submerged large patches <strong>of</strong> biodiversity rich forests). Other projects like national highways, pipelinesare also impacting biodiversity adversely, thereby disturbing ecological balance.13

The Protected Areas in general are located in the regions, whichconstitute large population <strong>of</strong> tribal communities. Data collectedthrough multifarious studies in many parts <strong>of</strong> Orissa (see table below)show that a major part <strong>of</strong> livelihood and subsistence <strong>of</strong> forest dwellers and tribal people comes from <strong>NTFP</strong> economy.The <strong>NTFP</strong>s collection has immense significance in the livelihood <strong>of</strong> forest dwelling communities. The contribution <strong>of</strong><strong>NTFP</strong>s in the total annual household income ranges between 50-60%. In case <strong>of</strong> nomadic tribe, their livelihood is100% based on <strong>NTFP</strong>.Livelihood sources <strong>of</strong> Tribal and other Marginalized Communities residing in the protected areas(Similipal Tiger Reserve, Bhitarkanika National Park and Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary)<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> Supreme Court Order(<strong>ban</strong> on <strong>NTFP</strong> within Pas) onthe life and livelihood <strong>of</strong> thepeopleLocation Caste Groups <strong>NTFP</strong>s % to total HHannual incomeSimlipalReserveTigerKhadia (ST)Honey, Sal resin, Arrowroot,malika chera(root)60-70Makdia (ST) Siali fibre 100Khadia,Bathudi(ST)(ST)Sal and Siali leafplate stitching More than 50Bhitarkanika National Pa Dalei (ST) Honey and wax 50Harijan (SC) Nalia grass, bahumrugacreepers and Keutigrass(collection & processing)60-70Sunabeda WildlifeSanctuarySTKL, Mahua flower, Char,Myrobalans60-70(Source: Vasundhara, 2004)The order <strong>of</strong> Supreme Court restricting <strong>NTFP</strong> collection in protected areas followed by the enactment <strong>of</strong>Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2002 has extremely serious implications for the natives in and round 18proposed protected areas. As a result <strong>of</strong> legal restrictions on collections <strong>of</strong> forest products, people aregetting increasingly dependent on wage labour for eking out their sustenance. In many cases theserestrictions have compelled the forest dwellers to revert to illegal collection <strong>of</strong> such forest products, whichmakes them easy victims to rent seeking by petty <strong>of</strong>ficials.14

The Order <strong>of</strong> Supreme Court (dated 14th February 2000) restricting <strong>NTFP</strong> collection in Protected areasfollowed by the enactment <strong>of</strong> Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2002 (see section 29) has extremely seriousimplications for the tribal and forest dwellers living in and around the 18 Protected areas. Morecommunities are likely to face the adverse consequences once the 18 proposed protected areas (which are inthe pipelines) in the state get finally approved. As reported in a local Daily (Prajatantra, dated 17th July2002) <strong>NTFP</strong>s worth Rupees 35 lakh used to be traded annually from Sunabeda Sanctuary which has cometo a halt with the imposition <strong>of</strong> restriction. Considering that income from sale <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>s can contributemore than 50% in case <strong>of</strong> the poorest tribals, these policy decisions contravene the fundamental rights tolife and livelihood.For example, in the Similipal Tiger Reserve area, the villagers residing inside the sanctuary are restrictedfrom collecting and carrying <strong>NTFP</strong>s such as seeds <strong>of</strong> Karanj, Tamarind, Kusum, leaves <strong>of</strong> Date Palm, Salresin, Siali fibre, Honey, Arrowroot etc. through the gate <strong>of</strong> the Simlipal Tiger Reserve despite the fact thatsome <strong>of</strong> these <strong>NTFP</strong> items are collected by the people from their private lands. Similarly, collection <strong>of</strong><strong>NTFP</strong>s like Nalia grass, Honey, Bahumruga creeper etc. has been <strong>ban</strong>ned in Bhitarkanika National Parkcreating immense difficulties for the ST and SC people <strong>of</strong> Dangamal, Khamarasahi, Hariharpur, Okilapaland several other villages. Closure <strong>of</strong> Kendu leaf Phadis in the Sunabeda and Satakosia Sanctuary hasdeprived thousands <strong>of</strong> poor pluckers from their one <strong>of</strong> the most significant income source. In certain areas,it is alleged that people are also restricted from carrying agricultural produces for marketing outside thesanctuary area thus, reducing their livelihood options.The distress caused by loss <strong>of</strong> income from both stoppage <strong>of</strong> collection <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>s and loss <strong>of</strong> land hascompelled the nomadic tribe <strong>of</strong> protected areas to resort to wage labour, migrate to industrial places and attimes mortgaged their scarce assets to avail emergency loans.The most alarming thing is the imposition <strong>of</strong> <strong>ban</strong> on fuel-wood collection. Fuel-wood is very basic need <strong>of</strong>villagers. The villagers are restricted to pluck a piece <strong>of</strong> dried leaf and twig from the forest area and violation<strong>of</strong> this has reportedly led to the most inhuman consequences in the hands <strong>of</strong> the FD.15

CASE STUDY- 1BAISIPALLI WILDLIFE SANCTUARYThe study report presents a picture <strong>of</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> conservation policy in general and in particularthe Supreme Court <strong>ban</strong> order on collection <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>s from the protected area on the lives andlivelihood <strong>of</strong> people <strong>of</strong> three villages namely, Gochhabari, Dhipasahi and Kuchumura located insidethe Baisipalli Sanctuary. The study findings <strong>of</strong> three villages are presented in a compiled form andthe specific features found in the villages have been mentioned separately under the broad head.Brief pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> Baisipalli SanctuaryBaisipalli sanctuary is located in Nayagarh district to the south <strong>of</strong> Satkosiya Gorge Sanctuary. It is aquality sal forest with significant numbers <strong>of</strong> wild species such as tiger, leopard and elephant. TheBaisipalli sanctuary was notified u/s 18 <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 on 7 th November 1981. Itspreads over two forest divisions <strong>of</strong> Nayagarh and Boudh covering an area <strong>of</strong> 168.35 sq. kms. Thesanctuary is contiguous with the Satkosiya Wildlife Sanctuary. The sanctuary comes under themanagement control <strong>of</strong> the Mahanadi Wildlife Division, Nayagarh.Brief Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> the SanctuarySanctuaryAreaNo. <strong>of</strong> villages and Gram Panchayatsinside SanctuaryStatus <strong>of</strong> villagesTotal populationCaste groups (with % to totalpopulation)Status <strong>of</strong> SanctuaryBaisipalli Wildlife Sanctuary168.35 sq. kms35 villages4 Gram Panchayats30 – Revenue villages5 – Unsurveyed villages5874 (2001 Census)Scheduled Caste – 19%Scheduled Tribe – 32%Others – 49%Deemed Sanctuary [Though final notification has notbeen issued till the date, but it is being considered asDeemed Sanctuary as per the provisions laid down inWildlife (Amendment) Act,1991]16

Forest DivisionsBoudh Forest Division – 77.63 Sq kms• ‘A’ Class R.F – 46.74 Sq.kms (1916)• ‘B’ Class R.F – 30.89 Sq.kms (1925)Nayagarh Forest Division – 90.72 Sq kmsYear <strong>of</strong> formation 7 th November 1981Brief pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> studied villagesName <strong>of</strong> Villages Gochhabari Dhipasahi KuchumaraTotal no. <strong>of</strong> HHs 51 33 12PopulationMaleFemale2441311131859986612437Caste groupsSC pop.ST pop.73 (M-39, F-34)171 (M-92, F-79)14 (M – 8, F – 6)169 (M – 89, F – 80)061 (M-24, F-37)Proportion <strong>of</strong> SC 29.9 7.6 0.0population (%)Proportion <strong>of</strong> ST 70.1 91.4 100.0population (%)Block Gania Gania GaniaDistrict Nayagarh Nayagarh NayagarhLiteracy rate (%) 56.9 45.9 44.2Illiteracy rate (%) 62.7 72.0 73.1(Source: Data Dissemination Wing, <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> the Registrar General, India, New Delhi, and website: http://www.censusindia.net)Implications <strong>of</strong> conservation policy on lives and livelihoodLivelihood sourcesMost <strong>of</strong> the residents <strong>of</strong> the studied villages are tribal and are in possession <strong>of</strong> agricultural landsranging between 1-5 acres. The striking feature is that these people have no title deeds for the landsunder their occupation and a large chunk <strong>of</strong> lands come under this category. Currently, agricultureand wage labor constitutes the main livelihood sources. <strong>NTFP</strong> trade which formed anothersignificant livelihood avenue in the past has completely stopped now. Few families also make a livingfrom animal hus<strong>ban</strong>dry which is nominal. Among the agricultural crops; paddy, mustard seeds,maize, black gram, green gram and kolatha (pulse) are grown. Maize is grown primarily forconsumption purpose and is not marketed. Few families also grow vegetables such as, jhudunga andjhata. While income from agriculture sustains their food need for around 4-6 months, for the rest <strong>of</strong>the year they are dependent on wage labor. While the yearly income from agriculture is around Rs.6000, income from animal hus<strong>ban</strong>dry comes around Rs. 2500 and from that <strong>of</strong> the wage labor isaround Rs. 2000. Whereas other caste people particularly, Keuta (SC) have large landholdings incomparison to the tribals. As is found that some keuta families in Dhipa sahi village are inpossession <strong>of</strong> landholding to the17

extent <strong>of</strong> around 20 acres. Such households have an earning <strong>of</strong> around Rs. 30000 from agricultureand get engaged in wage labor only for 3 months.As has been mentioned above villagers are dependent on19%wage labor for around 6 months in a year. Agriculturecontributes 57% <strong>of</strong> the total annual household income57%24%while the contribution <strong>of</strong> animal hus<strong>ban</strong>dry and wagelabor to the total annual income is 24% and 19%Agriculture Animal Hus<strong>ban</strong>dry Wage labourrespectively. In case <strong>of</strong> Kuchumura village a member <strong>of</strong>one family is engaged in domestic help in theneighboring town. Further, few families from this village manage to make an additional earning <strong>of</strong>Rs. 3000-4000 from siali leaves in a year.Restrictions on collection and sale <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>s and its impactsLivelihood SourceAs narrated by the villagers, dependence <strong>of</strong> people on <strong>NTFP</strong>s has always remained extremely high.A variety <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>s used to be collected which included Honey, Resins, Bamboo, Sal seeds, Sialileaves, Kendu leaves, Mushrooms etc. and a major percentage <strong>of</strong> these products was sold out foreking a livelihood. Besides, for livelihood purpose dependence on forest products existed for selfconsumptiontoo; for eg. for making agricultural implements, house construction, food etc.Over the period, the situation has changed drastically leading to increased hardships in pursuing<strong>NTFP</strong> trade based livelihood. The change became visible particularly after 2000 with the increasedrestrictions faced by the villagers over collection and transportation <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>s to outside thesanctuary area for selling by the wildlife <strong>of</strong>ficials following the Supreme Court <strong>ban</strong> order oncollection <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>s from protected areas.As mentioned above the situation regarding <strong>NTFP</strong> livelihood in particular worsened with theclosure <strong>of</strong> KL phadis by Kendu leaf department and a<strong>ban</strong>donment <strong>of</strong> bamboo and silvicultureoperations undertaken by OFDC. Kendu leaf provided good cash income to the local people. Thevillagers used to collect leaves from the forest and revenue lands and deposit at the phadis(collection centers set up by the government). This activity was carried out during April-May.Similarly, bamboo coupes were undertaken by OFDC or paper mill which generated localemployment. Each family managed to earn Rs. 8000 to Rs. 9000 from <strong>NTFP</strong> collection and bambooworking alone. OFDC also engaged local people to undertake harvesting <strong>of</strong> dead, dried anddeceased wood from the forest areas. Earlier green felling was stopped but collection <strong>of</strong> fallen driedwood was allowed which has also been stopped now. Collection <strong>of</strong> sal seeds has also stopped. Allthese wage providing activities have been a<strong>ban</strong>doned since 2001. Similarly, ORMAS used to collectsiali leaves from Takra, a nearby village but following the Supreme Court order even ORMAS hasalso stopped the collection. TDCC has also been closed down. Villagers claimed that there has beena gradual decline in dependence on forests. Initially they collected many varieties <strong>of</strong> mushrooms,leafy vegetables, <strong>NTFP</strong>s like Mahua, sal seeds etc. and bamboo shots which formed a staple food18

item especially after monsoons. Leafy vegetables like Barada, Bhadalia are decreasing with theincrease in number <strong>of</strong> sheep and goat, respondents claimed. As cited by the villagers not only thatthey are facing difficulties in making a living from <strong>NTFP</strong>s but also that <strong>of</strong>ten, they have to make theforest guards happy by bribing them with petty money for being allowed to collect forest productseven for their self-consumption. Further, people are also debarred from cultivating lands under theiroccupation within the sanctuary thus, putting a severe blow to their livelihood sources.While on one hand, income <strong>of</strong> the villagers from agriculture is not promising; on the other,complete loss <strong>of</strong> forest income since last five years has made the people extremely vulnerable. Underthis situation, the villagers are facing immense difficulties in meeting their basic requirements <strong>of</strong>food, clothing, education and health.Other restrictions:Along with restrictions on collection <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>s, people are also stopped from grazing their cattle,beating drums during celebration <strong>of</strong> functions and marriage, playing radio and loudspeaker.On the other hand, all developmental works within the sanctuary area has been stopped. As narratedby the villagers <strong>of</strong> Gochhabari which falls under Badasillinga Gram Panchayat, houses have beensanctioned to the people under the Indira Awas Yojna but the Forest Department does not allow tocarry bricks and sand for construction <strong>of</strong> the houses. Neither the Forest Department repairs theroads leading to the village nor does it allow the Panchayat to do so. In every Panchayat, 10 lakhshas been sanctioned for construction <strong>of</strong> black tar road by the DRDA but FD has refused it and hasgiven permission for only morrum metal road.Access to information:Though the declaration <strong>of</strong> Sanctuary dates back to 1980-81, most <strong>of</strong> the villagers reiterated that theybecame aware about this few years back only. It was during post 2000 period when the peoplestarted experiencing different kinds <strong>of</strong> restrictions imposed by the wildlife <strong>of</strong>ficials, it came to theirnotice that the area is a wildlife sanctuary. However according to few others they came to knowabout the same during 90’s from the neighboring people and in the later period when they witnesseda signboard <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary installed in the gate. The villagers complained that they were keptuninformed about the declaration process. Neither, did they remember about any government<strong>of</strong>ficials educating them about the sanctuary status <strong>of</strong> the region in the past.When asked about their perception/understanding about the sanctuary, the response was to them asanctuary meant the following:• Ban on tree felling• No hunting• No cultivation <strong>of</strong> low-lying lands and,• more importantly no entry to forest area19

“Sanctuary meant wild animals shall live but human beings cannot”.Compensation Policy:Out <strong>of</strong> the three villages, people <strong>of</strong> Dhipa sahi and Kuchumura were found to be unaware about thecompensatory provisions against depredation <strong>of</strong> crops by wild animals and loss <strong>of</strong> cattle or humanlives by wild animals. However, in Gochhabari village few people are said to have applied forcompensation collectively through the Panchayat in the past years but till date have not received anykind <strong>of</strong> help in this regard.Developmental workThe people <strong>of</strong> Gochhabari village were found to have knowledge about different governmentwelfare schemes such as Indira Awas Yojana, Old age pension, Antodaya, Mother welfare and so on.They were also found to have fair idea about the infrastructure development programmes carriedout by the government like road construction, renovation <strong>of</strong> pond activities etc. The villagersinformed about the palli sabha which was organized in 2004 wherein the Block DevelopmentOfficer had participated. Some people from Gochhabari had also been to the meeting and wereinformed about the road construction work to be undertaken by the government. Similarly, inKuchumura village a Junior Engineer from the Block had made a visit for measurement work beforethe initiation <strong>of</strong> village road construction following which the villagers came to know that the roadconstruction work is going to be implemented in their village.HealthSince 2005, pulse polio Programme and mobile health check-up has been initiated in the region.However, this has provided partial satisfaction to the people. The villagers expressed theirdiscontentment over irregularity maintained in medical check-ups and non-availability <strong>of</strong> medicines.A small percentage <strong>of</strong> population is dependent on medicinal herbs and roots for treating minorailments. No traditional healers/Vaid's are there in Gochhabari village while in the case <strong>of</strong> the othertwo villages, two vaidyas are practicing. However, people in majority lack trust on herbal medicinesand a very small segment <strong>of</strong> population avail the service from the traditional healers.EducationThe school doesn’t have adequate number <strong>of</strong> teachers. For 80 students there exist only two teachersin Gochhabari village school whereas there is only one teacher in Dhipasahi village. The overallresponse <strong>of</strong> the villagers about the education was extremely unsatisfactory. It was observed thatolder girls were not allowed to go to school. Dropout rate is significant. Most <strong>of</strong> the children failedto pursue higher studies because <strong>of</strong> poor financial condition. Another primary reason has been thatchildren, especially girls have to leave education mid-way to become a helping hand in householdwork.20

CASE STUDY - 2SUNABEDA WILDLIFE SANCTUARYIntroductionSunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary is located in the Western most part <strong>of</strong> Orissa adjoining to the inter stateboundary in between Orissa and Chhattisgarh and situated within 20º23’51” to 20º44’1” latitudesnorth <strong>of</strong> equator and 82º 20’00” to 82º34’42” longitudes east <strong>of</strong> Greenwitch. The entire sanctuaryarea comes under the administrative control <strong>of</strong> Sunabeda Wildlife Division with Head quarters atNuapada and comes under the newly created Nuapada District. The Division is constituted with tworange i.e Komna (WL) Range and Nuapada (WL) Range having headquarters at Komna andNuapada respectively.The total land area <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary is 600 sq kms out <strong>of</strong> which 243.60 sq km comes under the corezones and the rest 356.40 sq km comes under the Buffer zone. The said area is notified videnotification no 8F (W) 40/88 10772/F.F.A.H dated 10.5.1998 <strong>of</strong> the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Forest andEnvironment Department, Govt. <strong>of</strong> Orissa in super session <strong>of</strong> the previous notification made in thisrespect in 1986 and 1983. The working plan prepared for Khariar Division <strong>of</strong> the period 1980-81 to1989-90 proposed for a sanctuary encircling the entire plateau and its adjoining area. A WildlifeDivision was created in 23.1.1985 to look after the wild animals present in the area and accordinglyGovt. <strong>of</strong> Orissa Forest, Fisheries and Animal Hus<strong>ban</strong>dry Department declared the Sunabeda plateauarea as Sanctuary vide their notification no. 24422/FFAH dated 13 th August 1986. Earlier the wholearea was under the control <strong>of</strong> Divisional Forest Office, Khariar (Territorial Division) which wastransferred to the wild life division, Sunabeda, Khariar Road vide notification no. 106/891619/FFAJ dated 11.7.1990.The entire sanctuary is constituted with six Forest Block besides 31 revenue mouzas and 1 hamletSl.No Name <strong>of</strong> the Forest Area in HectaresBlock1 Patidongar Block (Full) 3999.362 Patdhara Block (Part) 11814.403 Gatibeda Block (Full) 28068.404 Manikgarh Block (Full) 3904.205 Lodra Block (Part) 540.006 Ranimal Block (Full) 2628.76The six forest blocks has been proposed for reserve forest for which section 4 notification hasalready been issued under Q.F.A <strong>of</strong> 197221

List <strong>of</strong> Blocks Proposed for Reserve Forests U/S 4(1) <strong>of</strong> O.F.A 1972Sl No Name <strong>of</strong> the Block Notification No. Date1 Gatibeda 71395 FS 200/81 R 14.11.19842 Patdarha F.S 201/91-51524 2.8.19843 Ranimai 86798-F.S-316/78 R 7.5.19794 Manikgarh F.S 291/78-292/R 1.1.19795 Lodra F.S 159/78-68514/R 20.11.19786 Patidongar F.S 175/78 68708/R 21.11.19787 Musrangi F.S 174/76 68700/R 21.9.19788 Tanwat Ghati F.S 149/78 69092/R 23.9.19789 Mendhatal F.S 309/78 88684/R 30.12.197810 Chhata F.S 147/78 68494/R 20.11.197811 Rajana kachhar F.S 69709-150/78/R 24.11.197812 Bajini F.S 300/78 86823/R 26.12.197813 Bijakhaman F.S 163/78 69104/R 23.11.197814 Nimna F.S 152/78 6013/R 19.10.197815 Adipita 47370-F.S 70/79/R 19.07.197916 Gurudongar F.S 160/80 16605/R 07.03.198017 Karlakot 32392-F.S 118/79 R 24.4.197918 Barkot 29042. F.S 74/79-R 14.06.197919 Pipalpani F.S 278/78-75 887/R 20.11.197920 Redhamal F.S 354/81-29157/R 28.04.198421 Lankeswari 34596-F.S. 306/78 R 3.05.1979Hill Ranges:The hill ranges <strong>of</strong> Gatibera and Patadhara forest Blocks in the West form a long chain <strong>of</strong> Mountains.Some <strong>of</strong> the main hills <strong>of</strong> this area are Solhadongar , Deota Dongar( 717 meter), Supkondongar(882Meter) , Rasdongar( 871 meter) , Maradongar( 827 Meter) and Budharaja Dongar( 731 Meter) andthey are all arranged as long impenetrable blocks (Life in Sunabeda Plateau, N.Pattanaik.P.K.Mohanty and T.Sahoo, Tribal and Harijan Research-cum-Training Institute). The SunabedaPlateau is located in the Gotibera forest blocks and most <strong>of</strong> the Bhunjia Tribal families are dwellingin this area.The second series <strong>of</strong> hill ranges <strong>of</strong> Patidongar (632 Meter) run parallel to the hill ranges runningthrough the Gotibera and Patadhara forest Blocks. In the south it is intercepted by Udanti River.22

Manikgarh hill range extends in a semicircular direction and meets the common boundary <strong>of</strong>Patidongar, Patadhara, and Gotibera Blocks near Chereichuan village.The hill range <strong>of</strong> Lodra originates near the village <strong>of</strong> Lodra and runs through the village limits <strong>of</strong>Jhalap, Tikrapara and Gola<strong>ban</strong>dh in a semicircular way and meets the origin <strong>of</strong> Patidongar.Water Sources:The major sources <strong>of</strong> water are some important rivers like Jonk, Sundar, Indra, Udanti and number<strong>of</strong> water falls present in the first three rivers at Gatibera, Patadhara, Manikgarh and Pati Dongarforest blocks.Some <strong>of</strong> the important water falls are Kharaldhas(50 meter) and Seniadhas ( 25 meter) on the Jonkriver, Gaidhas(25 meter) , Parewadarha fall(22 meter) on the Indra river .The jonk river is the main river which originates from the Patadhara Forest blocks and flows in theheart <strong>of</strong> Sonabera Plateau and drains out the major areas <strong>of</strong> Gotibera forest Block, Manikgarh,Ranimal , Lodra and Patidongara .All the rivers are narrow in the upland hill regions, but in the lower regions they are shallow withwider <strong>ban</strong>ks. The sundar and Jonk Rivers have very constricted watercourse. During summer thewater gets confined to few places in some pools.Rainfall:The average annual rainfall varies from 1100 mm -1300mm.Floral and Faunal Diversity:Important flora <strong>of</strong> this dry deciduous forest include Piasal, Bija, Sisoo, Teak, Harida, Amala, Mahul,Bahada, Kendu, Karada, Dhaura, Sidha, Salai, Char, Mai, Kumbhi, Jamun,Salia Bamboo, Manyvarieties <strong>of</strong> succulent shrubs and palatable grasses .About 70% <strong>of</strong> the forests are located on thewestern and south-western portion <strong>of</strong> the area( Life in Sunabeda Platue, Pattaniak, Mohanty andSahoo) . The forests are mainly <strong>of</strong> northern tropical dry mixed deciduous type. Sal forests <strong>of</strong> poortype are present in Sunabera and Patadhar Block along with other some other species like Bija, Sahaj,Dhaura, Sisoo and Harida. Teak predominates in most <strong>of</strong> the areas <strong>of</strong> Ranimal Block. The NaturalTeak forests generally associated with the area contain important species like Ternalius, Pterocerpusmarsupiam, Adina cardifolia, Anogeissus latifolia and Dendrocalamus strictus. It is important to note herethat Khariar Range <strong>of</strong> forests is the only area in Orissa that form a natural Teak belt with theadjoining areas <strong>of</strong> Chattisgarh (Klahandi District Gazetteer, pp 150). Salia Baunsa is foundextensively in areas <strong>of</strong> Ranimal, Gatibera, Manikgarh and portions <strong>of</strong> Patadhara block. The bambo<strong>of</strong>orests have been degraded in many places due to illicit felling and removal <strong>of</strong> young shoots. ThePaharia Tribe is found near the long patches <strong>of</strong> bamboo and depends heavily on bamboo productselling for their livelihood. Other local Tribal people also use bamboo shoots (Karadi) and23

Hanclua(Dried bamboo shoots)for their food stuffs. Increasing pressure on bamboo has startedthinning once rich bamboo patches in the valley. The dense vegetation cover <strong>of</strong> this area has beendegraded a lot due to intrusion <strong>of</strong> Timber mafia and contractors from outside. The practice <strong>of</strong> Poducultivation among the Bhunjia had also added to the process <strong>of</strong> deforestation in many interior denseareas. However, presently the practice has been contained to a large extent.The faunal diversity <strong>of</strong> the Sunabeda sanctuary include varieties <strong>of</strong> endangered species <strong>of</strong> animalslike Royal Bengal Tiger, Leopard, Wild buffalo, Barasingha, Sambar, Gaur, Barking Deer, Chital,Porcupine, Hyena Wild boar, Langur, Rhesus Monkey etc. Apart from the above-mentioned species<strong>of</strong> animals there are varieties <strong>of</strong> birds like Hill Myna, Peafowl, Red Jungle fowl, Patridge, Greenpigeon,Coots, Snakebird, and Open billed stork, fishing eagles etc. are also seen to be occupyingdifferent areas <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary.Some <strong>of</strong> the species like wild buffalo and swamp deer are on a wane as the habitats have beenseverely affected. It is reported in many Travelogue and literature on the wild life Sanctuary that thearea had wild buffalos around 70 years back. However, these buffalos seem to have moved toUdanti Wild life Sanctuary in Chattisgarh, which is around 20 Kms from the Patadhra Forest Block<strong>of</strong> Sunabeda wild life Sanctuary. The narrow gap and advantageous location <strong>of</strong> these two sanctuarieshave led many experts to suggest that buffer zones <strong>of</strong> these two sanctuaries need to be extended upto state borders for better conservation (P.C, Kotawal, Hornbill Travelogue, 1997, Page 24-27).Sl No Animal Species Total Nos1 Royal Bengal Tiger 122 Leopard 83 Wolves 2714 Wild Dog 1635 Bear 2826 Elephant7 Bison 458 Sambar 1689 Spotted Deer 15210 Barking Deer 33611 Chowsingha 2312 Nilgai 8613 RH.Macaque 59514 H.langur 51015 Mangoose 27016 G.Hornbill 11817 P.Hornbill 16018 Hyena 39219 Wild Boar 92624

History <strong>of</strong> Protected Area Status and Contradictions:The process <strong>of</strong> final notification <strong>of</strong> Sunabeda wild life Sanctuary and inclusion <strong>of</strong> Revenue villageswithin the boundary <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary is fraught with inherent contradictions. Declaration <strong>of</strong> firstnotification for wild life Sanctuary as per <strong>of</strong>ficial notification dates back to 26 th July 1983 vide letterno.16045/FFAH and the final notification was issued on 10 th May 1988 vide letter no.10772/FFAH. The prevailing law for governance <strong>of</strong> protected areas says that the collector shouldproceed to determine, proclaim the boundaries <strong>of</strong> Sanctuary and settle rights <strong>of</strong> people (Within thepurview <strong>of</strong> u/s19 to 25 <strong>of</strong> Wild life protection Act, 1972) before acquisition <strong>of</strong> revenue land or theirinclusion within the boundary <strong>of</strong> Sanctuary. But in Sunabeda, the demarcated boundary <strong>of</strong> the wildlife sanctuary area was first declared vide <strong>of</strong>fice order no. 5023 dated 15.11.97 by the collector <strong>of</strong>Nuapada, which is around nine years after the final notification <strong>of</strong> the area as Wild life sanctuary. Ifthe area had been falling completely within reserve forest then only the wild life authorities couldhave skipped the legal procedure <strong>of</strong> settling rights <strong>of</strong> people living within. This provision applies incase <strong>of</strong> reserve forests and determination <strong>of</strong> rights u/s19-25 is not required as no private right isexpected to exist there and can be automatically declared as sanctuary u/s 26 A. But in case <strong>of</strong>Sunabeda wild life sanctuary, the initiation <strong>of</strong> settlement <strong>of</strong> rights should not have been delayed, asthe area doesn’t come under any reserve forest or territorial water (Letter <strong>of</strong> the collector dated17thDecember, 2000, Bearing letter no. 5440). Presently there are four Gram Panchayats namelySunabeda, Soseng, Bharuamunda and Kermeli consisting <strong>of</strong> 30 Revenue villages, which are comingunder sanctuary area. Apart from these procedural contradictions with respect to settlement <strong>of</strong> rights<strong>of</strong> people staying within the boundary <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary, there are many differences between theRevenue department and the wild life department regarding the demarcated boundary <strong>of</strong> thesanctuary and the Revenue villages contained within it.The letter issued by the District collector <strong>of</strong> Nuapada to the Chief <strong>of</strong> wild life warden on 17 thDecember 2000(Letter addressed to Chief <strong>of</strong> wild life warden by the collector, letter no. 5440,courtesy: Viswas) clearly states that the procedures adopted for declaration <strong>of</strong> wild life sanctuarywere not in accordance with certain provisions <strong>of</strong> the wild life protection Act. He also stronglyrefuted the suggestions <strong>of</strong> the wild life D.F.O to stall small development works undertaken by thePanchayat Samiti under the drought relief measures. His letter further revealed that the DistrictForest Officer was opposed to the settlement <strong>of</strong> land in favour <strong>of</strong> Tribal living in the area prior to1980 on the grounds <strong>of</strong> wild life sanctuary. The major contention was that the collector had beendirected to settle such forest lands used by Tribal prior to 1980(Through various Govt. orders) whilethe wild life authorities were opposed to any further settlement <strong>of</strong> land within the sanctuary area(u/s 20 Bar <strong>of</strong> accrual <strong>of</strong> rights) after the declaration <strong>of</strong> intention. Other major fact, which is hard toignore, is that most <strong>of</strong> the Tribal living within sanctuary boundary have been cultivating onforestlands since several decades. In the absence <strong>of</strong> Reserve status <strong>of</strong> the forests in past, the claims<strong>of</strong> Tribal cultivating on forestlands prior to 1980 also makes a strong case for settlement <strong>of</strong> lands intheir name. The inhabitants <strong>of</strong> Sunabeda (Studied village in Katingpani, Bhawsil, Bharuamunda,Kermali) claimed that the Revenue department in1988 had initiated a detail survey and settlement <strong>of</strong>25

encroached forestland, which was letter a<strong>ban</strong>doned due to mounting pressure from wildlifedepartment.Human Habitation:The Sanctuary contains around 22000 human population and 5660 families within the sanctuaryboundary. The majorities <strong>of</strong> the population are Scheduled Tribes (Around 87%) and comprise <strong>of</strong>Gond, Bhunjia and Paharia Tribes. Though the Paharias have not been included within theScheduled Tribes list in Orissa, they have been included in the list <strong>of</strong> Scheduled Tribes status in theneighboring Chattisgarh state since long.Four Gram Panchayats namely Sunabeda, Soseng, Bharuamunda and Kermali comprising <strong>of</strong> 23revenue villages are located completely within the demarcated Sanctuary boundary. While some <strong>of</strong>the villages <strong>of</strong> 2 more Panchayts from the Nuapada Block namely Dharam<strong>ban</strong>dha and Chulabhatand 3 Panchayats namely Siharlati, Michapali, and Pendar<strong>ban</strong> are coming partially within theboundary <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary area.Five Revenue villages and ten encroached villages are in the core area <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary. The details <strong>of</strong>total population and households are given below.Revenue villages in the Core areaSl No. Name <strong>of</strong> the Total housevillagesholds (No)ScheduledCaste (No.)ScheduledTribes(population)1 Rupiam 50 Nil 205 2052 Talabela 20 Nil 94 943 Kokar 10 37 374 Si<strong>ban</strong>arainpur 6 27 275 Jalmurai 12 78 78Encroached villages in the core area:TotalpopulationSl No. Name <strong>of</strong> thevillagesTotal No <strong>of</strong>House holdsScheduled caste ScheduledTribeTotalpopulation1 Datunama 30 Nil 103 1032 Khadanga Uninhibited3 Theripali 12 Nil 70 704 Gambharipani 17 Nil 73 735 Chandrasil 2 Nil 11 116 Chakola 13 Nil 80 807 Bora Uninhibited8 Badajhola 12 Nil 51 519 Gdagoda 20 Nil 87 8710 Bimbata 1 Nil 5 5(Source: Wild life department <strong>of</strong> Orissa, PCCF <strong>of</strong>fice)26

The opinion <strong>of</strong> the people regarding the core area however differs from that <strong>of</strong> the area and villagesdemarcated by the wild life department. The whole <strong>of</strong> Sunabeda Panchayat which was letter dividedin to two Panchayats namely Sunabeda and Soseng are located in the core area <strong>of</strong> the Sanctuary.Though majority <strong>of</strong> the villages <strong>of</strong> these Panchayats have not yet been included in the core area, theyare likely to be added when the much publicized 2 nd Tiger reserve <strong>of</strong> the state gets sanctioned. Thewild life department has proposed some changes in the area <strong>of</strong> core and buffer zone for theforthcoming Tiger Reserve. As the issue is quite contentious at the backdrop <strong>of</strong> many organizeddemonstrations by the local level people’s organizations, these plans have not yet been implemented.There are 34 villages, which are being recognized as encroached villages by the wild life department.Most <strong>of</strong> these villages have substantial human population and almost 90% <strong>of</strong> them are included inthe voters list. The revenue department recognizes 12 un surveyed villages to have existed sincecenturies and proposals for survey <strong>of</strong> two villages namely Dhekunpani and Jharlong is pendingbefore the board <strong>of</strong> Revenue Orissa, Cuttack for long (Letter <strong>of</strong> the collector). This clearly hints thatthe Revenue Department recognizes the existence <strong>of</strong> such villages since long within the Sanctuaryarea and doesn’t entirely support the claim <strong>of</strong> the wild life department <strong>of</strong> terming them asencroached villages.Major Tribes <strong>of</strong> the Plateau and their cultural TraditionsBhunjia Tribe:Bhunjia is a small Tribe, which is found in the Nawapara District and the neighboring RaipurDistrict <strong>of</strong> newly formed Chattisgarh State. Around 76% <strong>of</strong> the Bhunjia Tribes <strong>of</strong> the state arelocated in the Nawapara District (District gazetteer, Kalahandi, page 93). According to the tribe, theterm Bhunjia means growing out <strong>of</strong> land, and the bhunjias believe that they were the forerunners <strong>of</strong>those who were born on the land. The bhunjias belong to the Dravidian group and are divided in totwo sections namely Chakutia and Chinda Bhunjia. The Chakutia bhunjias mainly inhibit theSonabera plateau and are regarded as the original section <strong>of</strong> the bhunjia population. Chinda bhunjiasare scattered in plains and continuously come in contact with other Tribal and non- Tribalpopulation. The dialect is a mixture <strong>of</strong> Oriya and Chattisgarh. Influence <strong>of</strong> Chattisgari culture is alsoapparent from their dress pattern. Child marriage is very much prevalent among the Chakutias asthey prefer pre-puberty marriage. Son is preferred over girls. Marriage from the same lineage is notallowed and most <strong>of</strong> the marriages are arranged marriages. After the marriage the girl is not allowedto return to her parent’s house. Chakutia Bhunjia used to practice shifting cultivation earlier in some<strong>of</strong> the hill ranges <strong>of</strong> Gotibera and Patadhara Blocks.The Chakutia Bhunjias accord high sacred status to the Kitchen sheds and usually fence it so thatthe outsiders cannot touch it. In case any outsider touches even by mistake then it is set on fire. Theuse <strong>of</strong> tile ro<strong>of</strong> or Khapar is also a taboo among the Chakutias and no such ro<strong>of</strong> is seen among thetribes in the valley. When the Inspection Bungalow built by the Forest department used the Tile27

o<strong>of</strong>s during its construction it had been strongly objected by the Chakutias. However, theirweakness for tea was letter used by the department to persuade them.Gond:The Gonds are the other major Tribes <strong>of</strong> the area who are able to speak Oriya apart from their ownlanguage Gondi. Gonds have been dwelling in most part <strong>of</strong> the Sunabeda along with the Bhunjias.The marriages between relatives <strong>of</strong> different clans are encouraged among the gonds. Some <strong>of</strong> theTraditions like Bhuasuni provide women the choice <strong>of</strong> choosing their mates where she is sent on atrial basis to her future in- laws. Her convenience in her future in –laws house determine theprospect <strong>of</strong> the marriage. Apart from this, either the bride or the groom party can visit each other’svillage for conducting the marriage as per the convenience.Gonds are mostly settled cultivators and depend on agriculture and forest produces for theirlivelihood.Pharias:Pharias have been accorded the Scheduled Tribes status in the neighboring Chattisgarh State whereas in Orissa they are not in the Scheduled Tribes category. They mainly prefer to stay in the place <strong>of</strong>bamboos stretches, as they are very skilled bamboo weavers and basket builders. They dependheavily on bamboo products selling for their livelihood.Natural Resources and related livelihood options:The major livelihood options for the Tribal people <strong>of</strong> the Sunabeda sanctuary are consumption andselling <strong>of</strong> forest produces and cultivation on forestland. Lack <strong>of</strong> other livelihood sources and poorconnectivity with the outside world has prompted people to coexist with their nature and draw theirsource <strong>of</strong> living from them. Collection and selling <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> like Mahul, Kendu leaves, Char, Amala,Harida, Bahada, Sal leaves etc provided them the opportunity to supplement their incomesignificantly. On an average the selling <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> ensured 4-5 months <strong>of</strong> livelihood security for eachfamily in the area. Abundance <strong>of</strong> varieties <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> and their proper processing at the householdlevel had helped to grow a traditionally well developed market over the years in some <strong>of</strong> theimportant villages like Kermeli, Bharuamunda, etc. Traders from far <strong>of</strong>f places frequented the placeto collect the <strong>NTFP</strong>s from the doorsteps <strong>of</strong> people and bartered them with paddy and other foodgrains. The volume <strong>of</strong> trading can be gauged from the fact that traders visited the place with truckloads <strong>of</strong> grain to collect invaluable <strong>NTFP</strong>s. This kind <strong>of</strong> traditional informal network also providedample opportunity for Pharia Tribes to sell their bamboo products to the outside traders duringtheir visit. It is estimated that <strong>NTFP</strong>s (Like Mahul, Chahar, Harada, Kendu leave etc) worth 35Lakhs rupees used to be traded before the imposition <strong>of</strong> restriction in 2000(Oriya Daily, Prajatantra,Dated17th July 2002). Apart from other items <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>, availability <strong>of</strong> large quantity <strong>of</strong> Kenduleaves had prompted the Government to set up 22 Phadis for collection <strong>of</strong> Kendu leaf within the28

sanctuary area. Dhaniram majhi, who previously worked as a phadi in one <strong>of</strong> phadis at Katingpanirevealed that each person involved in Kendu leaf plucking earned around 5000 Rs on an averageeach year .It appeared to be a dynamic process that involved interactions at various levels foreconomic transactions. The Tribal people <strong>of</strong> the area use timbers for construction <strong>of</strong> their houses,firewood for cooking, bamboos for fencing, ro<strong>of</strong>ing and making small handicraft items and grassesfor thatching their ro<strong>of</strong>.Apart from the heavy dependence <strong>of</strong> people on forest produces, majority <strong>of</strong> people in fourpanchayats have been cultivating on forestlands since last five-six decades. Cultivation on theseencroached lands has been supplementing the livelihood <strong>of</strong> the people, as the magnitude <strong>of</strong> revenueland possessed by people is very less. Sample data collection in some <strong>of</strong> the selected villages <strong>of</strong> fourpanchayats namely Sunabeda, Kermeli, Bharuamunda and Soseng depicts magnitude <strong>of</strong> forestlandssince last four decades.Sl No. Gram Panchayat Name <strong>of</strong> the village Total No. OfHouse holdsNo. <strong>of</strong> householdsencroachedforest landsTotal landencroached1 Bharuamunda Bharuamunda 154 37 74.962 Chitidora 36 35 69.93 Katingpani 102 77 181.544 Kermeli Gola<strong>ban</strong>dha 92 39 63.735 Kankermanji 108 77 223.566 Pethiapali 79 60 196.787 Sunabeda Shi<strong>ban</strong>arayanpur 16 16 408 Jamgaon 83 67 187.339 Tlabela 20 3 1110 Jhallarama 34 34 155.2611 Soseng Rupiam 54 53 318.1512 Deosil 53 48 222.513 Adar 66 57 306.2414 Soseng 127 74 210.31Bhawsil 45 30 137.67(Source: Survey Conducted by Local NGO, VISWAS)Even during erstwhile Zamindari system <strong>of</strong> Khariar, the Tribal had access to some un prohibitedspecies like Dha, Amala, Karda, Salai, Arjun etc <strong>of</strong> two feet girth. There were provisions <strong>of</strong> royaltyfor accessing Tree species <strong>of</strong> some prohibited species like Saguan, Bija, Sisoo, Sal, Bandhan, andAchu <strong>of</strong> more than two feet girth. Details <strong>of</strong> these rights and concessions enjoyed by the local Tribalover forests and forest produces are mentioned in the “Wazib-ul-urz” <strong>of</strong> the Ex-Zamindari system(Life in Sunabera Plateau by N.Pattanaik, P.K.Mohanty and T.Sahoo, Page 29). Analysis <strong>of</strong> theserights and concessions also reveal that people had the access to fruit bearing trees despite theultimate right <strong>of</strong> Zamindar over the trees. Only while selling fruits derived from such trees they weresupposed to sell fruits to contractors appointed by Zamindar. Tribal staying there also had the rightto use small and miscellaneous trees <strong>of</strong> girth up to 2 feet. It is quite obvious that the erstwhileZamindari system was aware <strong>of</strong> people’s dependence on their natural resources and had made29

provisions that suited the administration without encroaching upon the customary rights <strong>of</strong> peoplemuch.Even after the abolition <strong>of</strong> the Zamindari system people had access over the <strong>NTFP</strong>, fuel wood, andforestlands for cultivation, which together provided them major share <strong>of</strong> their livelihood.Issues in Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary• Confusion Over Legal Status <strong>of</strong> Sunabeda Wildife Sanctuary:The process <strong>of</strong> final notification <strong>of</strong> Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary and inclusion <strong>of</strong> Revenuevillages within the boundary <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary is fraught with inherent contradictions. Firstdeclaration for constitution <strong>of</strong> the Sanctuary as per <strong>of</strong>ficial notification dates back to 26 th July1983 (vide letter no.16045/FFAH) and the final notification was issued on 10 th May 1988 (videletter no. 10772/FFAH) as per the note prepared by the then DFO Mr. H.K. Bist.The prevailing law for governance <strong>of</strong> protected areas says that the collector should proceed todetermine, proclaim the boundaries <strong>of</strong> sanctuary and settle rights <strong>of</strong> people (within the purview<strong>of</strong> u/s19-25 <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Protection Act, 1972) before acquisition <strong>of</strong> revenue land or theirinclusion within the boundary <strong>of</strong> Sanctuary. But in Sunabeda, the demarcated boundary <strong>of</strong> thewild life sanctuary area was first declared vide <strong>of</strong>fice order no. 5023 dated 15.11.97 by theCollector <strong>of</strong> Nuapada, around nine years after the final notification. If the area had been fallingcompletely within reserve forest then only the wild life authorities could have skipped the legalprocedure <strong>of</strong> settling rights <strong>of</strong> people living within. As in case <strong>of</strong> reserve forests determination <strong>of</strong>rights u/s19-25 is not required as no private right is expected to exist there and can beautomatically declared as sanctuary u/s 26 A. But in case <strong>of</strong> Sunabeda wild life sanctuary, theinitiation <strong>of</strong> settlement <strong>of</strong> rights should not have been delayed, as the area doesn’t come underany reserve forest or territorial water (Letter <strong>of</strong> the Collector dated17th December, 2000, bearingletter no. 5440). Presently there are four Gram Panchayats namely Sunabeda, Soseng,Bharuamunda and Kermeli consisting <strong>of</strong> 30 Revenue villages, which are coming under sanctuaryarea. Apart from these procedural contradictions with respect to settlement <strong>of</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> peoplestaying within the boundary <strong>of</strong> the sanctuary, there are many differences between the RevenueDepartment and the Wildlife Department regarding the demarcated boundary <strong>of</strong> the sanctuaryand the revenue villages contained within it.The letter from the District Collector <strong>of</strong> Nuapada to the Chief Wildlife Warden on 17 thDecember 2000(Letter no. 5440, Courtesy: Viswas) clearly states that the procedures adopted fordeclaration <strong>of</strong> wild life sanctuary were not in accordance with certain provisions <strong>of</strong> the WildlifeProtection Act.• Controversy Over Existence <strong>of</strong> Un-Surveyed Villages and Continuance <strong>of</strong> Right <strong>of</strong>Inhabitants:There are 64 habitations inside the sanctuary boundary <strong>of</strong> which 34 habitations falls under unsurveyedcategory. In 1988 the revenue department initiated the process <strong>of</strong> settling the un-30

surveyed villages but due to the pressure from Sanctuary authorities the process <strong>of</strong> settlementwas a<strong>ban</strong>doned. Further in 1997-98 the then Collector once again invited applications from theinhabitants <strong>of</strong> un-surveyed villages and landless families <strong>of</strong> revenue villages, which raised anumber <strong>of</strong> questions in regards to the status <strong>of</strong> Sunabeda Wildlife Sanctuary. According to theDFO, state government has instituted Sunabeda Plateau as Sunabeda Widlife Sanctuary under section 18 <strong>of</strong>WLP Act, 1972 on 26 th July 1983 (vide Notification No. 16045-FFAH) and finally notified as Sanctuaryunder section 26(A) <strong>of</strong> WLP Act 1972 on 10 th May 1988 (vide Notification No. 10772-FFAH). Underthis situation pattas cannot be issued inside the sanctuary area.But the opinion <strong>of</strong> revenue department authorities completely differs from that <strong>of</strong> the forest<strong>of</strong>ficials. According to Revenue department, since there are 64 villages existing within thesanctuary, it automatically comes under the jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the revenue department and therevenue department is the only competent authority to settle Govt. land in favor <strong>of</strong> applicantsfrom revenue and un-surveyed as the process <strong>of</strong> right settlement as required under section 19 to25 <strong>of</strong> WLP <strong>of</strong> 1972 has not completed. The revenue department had asked for a copy <strong>of</strong> final notification<strong>of</strong> the sanctuary to the forest department but failed to get the same. The revenue department had received around197 applications for homestead land and 63 applications for settlement <strong>of</strong> agricultural land from four villagesnamely Rupiam, Katingpani, Gatibeda and Deosil”. As said by the Collector, Mr Bishnupad Sethi thevillages, which are being recognized as encroached villages by the Wildlife authority, has been inexistence since centuries and proposals for settlement is pending before the Board <strong>of</strong> Revenue.Most <strong>of</strong> these villages have substantial human population and almost 90% <strong>of</strong> them (more thanage <strong>of</strong> 18) are included in the voters list. “How can their rights be denied and the settlements be consideredas illegal encroachments?”Till date, the issue has not been resolved but recently in a local daily there was news about thearea saying that eviction notice has been served to these villages as per the Supreme courts’order.• Restrictions Over Collection and Selling <strong>of</strong> Forest Products Severely Affecting the Lives& Livelihood <strong>of</strong> around 6000 Families:There are 62 villages inside the sanctuary. The total population is around 22000 as per the 1991census. Majority <strong>of</strong> population belongs to Scheduled Tribe (around 87%) and comprises <strong>of</strong>Gond, Bhunjia and Paharia tribes. Though the Paharias are not <strong>of</strong>ficially considered asScheduled Tribe in Orissa but, they have been included in the list <strong>of</strong> Scheduled Tribe in theneighboring Chattisgarh state.For these people <strong>NTFP</strong>s like Mahul, Kendu leaves, Char, Amala, Harida, Bahada, Sal leaves etc.provided significant income. On an average <strong>NTFP</strong>s ensured 6-7 months <strong>of</strong> livelihood security tothese families. Abundance <strong>of</strong> varieties <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> and their proper processing at the householdlevel had helped to grow a traditionally well developed market over the years in some <strong>of</strong> the31

important villages like Kermeli, Bharuamunda, etc. Traders from far <strong>of</strong>f places frequented theplace to collect <strong>NTFP</strong>s from the doorsteps <strong>of</strong> people and bartered them with paddy and otherfood grains. The volume <strong>of</strong> trading can be gauged from the fact that traders visited the placewith truckloads <strong>of</strong> grain to collect invaluable <strong>NTFP</strong>s. This kind <strong>of</strong> traditional informal networkalso provided ample opportunity for Pharia Tribes to sell their bamboo products to the outsidetraders during their visit. It is estimated that <strong>NTFP</strong>s (Like Mahul, Char, Harada, Kendu leave etc) worth35 Lakhs rupees used to be traded before the imposition <strong>of</strong> restriction in 2000 (Oriya Daily, Prajatantra,Dated17th July 2002). Apart from other items <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>, availability <strong>of</strong> large quantity <strong>of</strong> Kenduleaves had prompted the Government to set up 22 Phadis for collection <strong>of</strong> Kendu leaf withinthe sanctuary area. As revealed by a Phadi Munsi Dhaniram Majhi previously working in a Phadi atKatingpani, an individual KL plucker earned around Rs. 1000 - 1500 within a span <strong>of</strong> 15days in each year.The first jolt came when restriction was imposed by the forest <strong>of</strong>ficials on collection and selling<strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>s from the sanctuary area in March 2000. Few months after in August in the same yearthe state government issued an <strong>of</strong>ficial order to the wildlife division to close down all the kenduleaf phadis inside the sanctuary. These restrictions stifled the major source <strong>of</strong> livelihood <strong>of</strong> thepeople staying within the sanctuary area and disrupted the customary trading practices in thevillage market. Traders were prevented to move inside the sanctuary. Even the people wereharassed by the wildlife department staff while carrying <strong>NTFP</strong>s to different local weekly haats.Again, the restrictions and harassment have brought down the rates <strong>of</strong> forest produce.The following table gives a glimpse <strong>of</strong> the rate <strong>of</strong> few <strong>NTFP</strong>s before and after the regulation onTrading:Name <strong>of</strong> the <strong>NTFP</strong>ItemRate per Kg(in Rs.)1999-2000 <strong>NTFP</strong> Year 2000-2001 <strong>NTFP</strong> YearHarida 2.50 -3.00 1.00 - 1.50Bahada 1.00 -1.5 0.50Amala 10.00 6.00 – 7.00Chhar 20.00 – 25.00 10.00 –12.00Mahul 7.00 3.00-3.50(Source: Interaction with the community members from Bhuasil Village)Similarly, closure <strong>of</strong> Kendu leaf phadis has severely affected the lives and livelihood <strong>of</strong> thepeople residing inside the sanctuary. There were 22 Kendu leaf phadis where the inhabitants <strong>of</strong>62 villages used to depend for selling <strong>of</strong> kendu leaves. The decision <strong>of</strong> closure <strong>of</strong> phadis wasprotested hard and strong by the people from the protected areas in response to which aninformal arrangement was worked out that allowed the pluckers to deposit their collections inthe Phadies located outside the sanctuary boundary. On one hand this though gave someadvantage to the villagers but the problem was that the pluckers now had to traverse longdistance i.e., minimum 15 kms and in some cases even longer distances to sell leaves to thePhadies.32

In the year 2003, 134 households from Kermili, Pethiapalli, Tileimal, Golabndha undertook KLplucking activity and a total <strong>of</strong> 3,05,750 Kerries <strong>of</strong> leaves (1 Kerry consists <strong>of</strong> 20 leaves) worth <strong>of</strong>Rs. 64,203 (calculated at the existing price @ 21 paisa per 20 leaves) were collected however, thepluckers are yet to receive their payment since all the leaves from these villages were seized byDFO. This has resulted in loss <strong>of</strong> average Rs. 500 to a tribal household, which forms one <strong>of</strong> themost important cash incomes particularly during the lean season when other livelihood earningavenues are scarce and the block where 87% <strong>of</strong> the total population is below poverty line.Similarly, the Pharias whose traditional occupation is bamboo weaving, also lost their source <strong>of</strong>income due to the restriction over collection <strong>of</strong> bamboo.• Restrictions on Implementation <strong>of</strong> Developmental Work:These contradictions have also affected the people and development <strong>of</strong> the area adversely. Manydevelopment programmes executed through the Gram Panchayat have been obstructed by thesanctuary authorities. Even some <strong>of</strong> the earthwork, panchayat roads, land development workshave been prevented. During the construction <strong>of</strong> Water Harvesting Structure undertaken byChakutia Bhunjia Development Authority through the Western Orissa Rural Livelihood Projectat Soseng Panchayat, the Sanctuary authorities delayed the process by not allowing the stones tobe picked up from within the Sanctuary. Some <strong>of</strong> the minor construction works undertaken bythe Panchayat are obstructed by not allowing the building materials to pass through the checkgates deliberately.• Restrictions on Mobility and Grazing:There are a number <strong>of</strong> instances where the local people were severely beaten up and harassed bythe local staff <strong>of</strong> wildlife division. For instance, On 25 th July 2002, two forest guards andfourteen hired goons beat up eight Tribal grazers severely in Sunabeda Panchayat and destroyedlarge quantity <strong>of</strong> milk products. This incident came to limelight, when a local daily published thenews on 7 th August 2002 (Oriya Daily, Samay, Dated 7 th August, 2002). Similarly, an old womenfrom Kermeli village had gone to forest and collected some harida and medicinal roots for herterribly sick son. On the way <strong>of</strong> return to her village the local forest guard snatched the collectedfruits and roots and destroyed it. Inthe same village another womenMarin Majhi aged around 60 yearswas beaten up severely by Wildlife<strong>of</strong>ficials while trying to take some<strong>NTFP</strong>s outside the checkgate. Theseincidents <strong>of</strong> extreme harassment bywild life <strong>of</strong>ficials had set the stage forVillage Roads in Sunabeda33

a major conflict, which later broke out in the form <strong>of</strong> destruction <strong>of</strong> check gates by the localresidents in April 2001.The restrictions on mobility <strong>of</strong> people through the check gates has also witnessed manyconflicts. Nal Singh Majhi <strong>of</strong> Bhaumunda had a major scuffle with the guards on 1 st March 2004,while bringing the emergency feeding material for one Anganwadi center located inside theSanctuary.Village Bhauwsil:Bhawsil is a Revenue village, which earlier came under Sunabeda Panchayat and Komna Block. Butafter the division <strong>of</strong> Sunabeda Panchyat, it now comes under the Soseng panchayat. The villagecomprises <strong>of</strong> 45 households and the major Tribe <strong>of</strong> the village is Bhunjia.The major livelihood source <strong>of</strong> the village is collection and selling <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>. The major <strong>NTFP</strong>savailable in the area are Mahula, Char, Amala, Harida, Kendu leaf etc. Collection and selling <strong>of</strong><strong>NTFP</strong> provided them around 5-6 months <strong>of</strong> their income and livelihood source. Selling <strong>of</strong> Kenduleaf and Mahula used to be the main source <strong>of</strong> their income before the imposition <strong>of</strong> restrictions bythe Sanctuary Authorities. Abundance <strong>of</strong> Large quantity <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> in the area had turned this villageinto one <strong>of</strong> the major markets for the traders from outside. Mahula used to be bartered with foodgrains like paddy, Dal etc. As Gopal Bhunjia revealed the scale <strong>of</strong> trading, his deep moorings for theweekly market and its lost glory was quite evident “Agru amake kensithane jibar lagi nai padu thai, beparimane nije asuthile, 10 Kg Mahul ke 15 Kg dhan bepari mankar thanu miluthila. Amar gaon ne bahut lok hentamahul deikari dhan pau thile. Tulsi ram 10-12 quintal dhan pai thila. Ehade sabu <strong>ban</strong>d kari deichan. ame arumahul , Kendu patar kichi biki nai parbar . Chalbar lagi bahut asubidha heuche”. The restrictions on <strong>NTFP</strong>trading have brought down the rates <strong>of</strong> all products. Closure <strong>of</strong> Kendu leaf phadis has also affectedtheir income significantly as around 60% <strong>of</strong> the families were involved in Kendu leaf plucking.All together 11 families have land Pattas for agricultural land and 14 families have homestead land inthe village from the previous land settlement during. The last land settlement process had beeninitiated during 1988 in the village and the Revenue department had carried out a detail survey. 12Tribal families had been identified for disbursement <strong>of</strong> land pattas. However, the process was lettera<strong>ban</strong>doned due to pressure from Sanctuary authorities. The Sanctuary authorities were opposed toany new settlement <strong>of</strong> land.Some development programmes like construction <strong>of</strong> Water Harvesting Structures have also beeninitiated in the village through a local development agency namely Chakutia Bhunjia DevelopmentAgency with support from WORLP. Though the major supporting agency for the project happenedto be another government department, Sanctuary authorities tried to prevent to access the naturallyavailable building materials within the sanctuary like stone, sand etc.34

Village: KatingpaniKatingpani came under Bharuamunda Panchayat, which is in buffer Zone. It consists <strong>of</strong> 102households, out <strong>of</strong> which 20 households belong to Gond Tribes, 40 households belong to BhunjiaTribes, 40 households to Pahadia Tribe, 1 household to Mali caste and 1 household to general caste.The Gond Tribes had migrated to this area from Bolangir around 200 years back.The majority <strong>of</strong> Gonds depended on forestland cultivation, while the Bhunjias Primary occupationremained collection and selling <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>. The practice <strong>of</strong> forestland cultivation was followed bymost <strong>of</strong> the families in the village since many decades. Around 77 families in the village cultivated anestimated land up to 181 Acres <strong>of</strong> forestland (Survey conducted by Viswas, A local NGO). Detailsurvey <strong>of</strong> encroached forestland had also been completed in this village by the Revenue Departmentfor settlement <strong>of</strong> land in the name <strong>of</strong> claimants during 1988. However, this process was letterstopped after final notification <strong>of</strong> Sanctuary.The Bhunjias and the Pahadias are highly dependent on forest produces for their livelihood security.The regulation on collection and trading <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> within the sanctuary area forced people to carrytheir collected items to the outside. But while carrying the <strong>NTFP</strong> items outside, they were eitherforced to pay bribe or face the humiliation caused by guards and other <strong>of</strong>ficials.<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> regulations on livelihood options and rights over Natural Resources:The first major decision that affected the Tribal pr<strong>of</strong>oundly was the restrictions imposed by the thenD.F.O, Mr. H.K. Bist, on collection and selling <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> within the sanctuary from March 2000(Oriya Daily, Samaja, Dated 17 th July, 2000). Restrictions kept on growing and orders forimmediately stopping collection <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> within the sanctuary area from Wild life department in themonth <strong>of</strong> August 2000, further increased the drive <strong>of</strong> forest <strong>of</strong>ficials to restrict collection and trading<strong>of</strong> such items. These restrictions stifled the major source <strong>of</strong> livelihood <strong>of</strong> the people staying withinthe sanctuary area and disrupted the customary trading practices in the village market. Traders wereprevented to get inside the sanctuary and people carrying even food grains were harassed. All the 22Kendu leaf Phadis were also closed down forcing Kenduleaf pluckers <strong>of</strong> Sunabeda and SosengPanchayat to travel as far as Barkot (The kendu leaf 35hadi <strong>of</strong> Barkot is around 30-35 Kms fromthese two Pnchayats). The pluckers <strong>of</strong> Kermali and Bharuamunda Panchayat also had to travel toPhadis at Kholsa and Juria, which are around 10 Kms from these areas. Further, the restrictionswithin the sanctuary area for trading <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> also brought down the rates <strong>of</strong> forest produce, asthere were few buyers for the unsold materials. These changes led to lot <strong>of</strong> hardship on the part <strong>of</strong>the inhabitants <strong>of</strong> the Sunabeda sanctuary, as they had to grapple with the scarce livelihoodresources and constant anxiety resulting out <strong>of</strong> conflicts with forest <strong>of</strong>ficials.Difference in the rate <strong>of</strong> selected <strong>NTFP</strong> items before and after the regulation on TradingSl No. Name <strong>of</strong> the<strong>NTFP</strong> ItemPrevious Rates perKg in RsPresent Rtes per Kgin Rs35

1 Harida 2.50-3 1.502 Bahada 1-1.5 0.503 Amala 10 6-74 Chhar 20-25 10-125 Mahul 7.00 3-3.5(Source: Interaction with the community members from Bhuasil Village)Significance <strong>of</strong> income from Kendu leaves in the livelihood <strong>of</strong> peopleThe following table highlights the importance <strong>of</strong> KL income in the livelihood <strong>of</strong> poorer householdsin four villages namely, Kermeli, Pethipali, Gola<strong>ban</strong>dha and Tileimal located within the Sanctuary. Asignificant percentage <strong>of</strong> population residing in these villages constitutes tribals for whom KLincome is extremely important. Around 90% <strong>of</strong> the KL pluckers are the tribals.Looking into the availability <strong>of</strong> large quantity <strong>of</strong> Kendu leaves the government had set up 22Phadies for collection <strong>of</strong> Kendu leaf within the sanctuary area. On an average, one family earnedbetween Rupees 500-800 from KL in one season. Problems relating to KL aroused after 2000when KL Phadies within the sanctuary were closed down by the government. This action wasundertaken following the issuance <strong>of</strong> the government circular [No. F(L)12/2000 - 12732 F&E] on19th August in the same year stating . This policy decision was protested hard and strong by thepeople from the protected areas in response to which an informal arrangement was worked out thatallowed the pluckers to deposit their collections in the Phadies located outside the sanctuaryboundary. Under the new informal arrangement this brought in severe hardship to the pluckers asthy now had to traverse long distance i.e., minimum 15 kms and in some cases even longer distancesto sell leaves to the Phadies.In the year 2003, 134 households in the above mentioned four villages undertook KL pluckingactivity and a total <strong>of</strong> 3,05,750 Kerries <strong>of</strong> leaves (1 Kerry consists <strong>of</strong> 20 leaves) worth <strong>of</strong> Rs. 64,203(calculated at the existing price @ 21 paisa per 20 leaves) were collected. However, the pluckers inthese villages are yet to receive their payment since all the leaves from these villages were seized byDFO even though the department had created an informal arrangement for collection <strong>of</strong> leaves tohelp thee poor pluckers residing inside the sanctuary to continue with their livelihood option. Thishas resulted in loss <strong>of</strong> average Rs. 500 to a tribal household, which forms one <strong>of</strong> the most importantcash incomes particularly during the lean season when other livelihood earning avenues are scarceand the block where 87% <strong>of</strong> the total population is below poverty line.36

Loss <strong>of</strong> KL Income during the period 2003 (after the closure <strong>of</strong> KL phadies)Collect TotalAvg.HHName <strong>of</strong> theTotalHHs engaged in -ion Total Income incomeVillage GP Block HHs Population KL pluckingdays Kerry (in Rs.) (in Rs.)ST SC Others ST SC Others TotalKermeli Kermeli Nuapada 133 83% 7% 10% 90% 6% 4% 52 17 127825 26843 516Pethiapali Kermeli Nuapada 50 84% 12.30% 3.30% 96% 4% 23 15 45725 9600 417Gola<strong>ban</strong>dha Kermeli Nuapada 88 71% 20.70% 7.90% 83% 13% 3% 30 15 65050 13660 455Tileimal Kermeli Nuapada 145 51% 7% 42% 79% 21% 29 17 67150 14100 486Total 134 305750 64203Closed Kendu Leaf Phaddis in Kermeli GP, Sunabeda37

Seasonality Chart showing the livelihood dependence <strong>of</strong> people in different seasons (This issame for all the villages inside the sanctuary)Month Crop Forest ProduceJanuary(Push) Pulses(Kandul) Kanda(Tuber), Ainla(Amla), Bhat Kanda,Pita Kanda, Sarangi Kanda(Tuber Roots),Siali Fruit, Kendu, Hill BroomFebruary(Magh) Kandul(Pulse), Jada(Castor) Tamarind, Siali Seed, Hill Broom, Harda,Bahada, Kendu FruitMarch(Phagun) Field preparation Tamarind, Mahua, Char, Kendu Fruit,Tuber Roots, Hill BroomApril (Chait) Field Preparation Char, Kendu FruitMay (Baisakh) Raggi(Seed Sowing) Char, Kendu FruitJune (Landi)July(Guncha)August(Shravan)September(Bhudo)Kandul, Jhudung(Pulses), Kaopi,Jada(Oilseed)Paddy, Raggi, Biri,Kolath(Pulses), Alsi (Niger)Paddy, Raggi, Biri,Kolath(Pulses), Alsi (Niger)Bhata Dhan(Upland Paddy),Kandul, Jhudung(Pulses), Maize,Gurji(Millet)Honey, Kendu Leaf, SialiTuber Roots, Kendu Leaf, Siali LeafMushroom, Char, Bamboo Shoots, TuberRootsBamboo Shoots, MushroomsOctober(Dasara) Paddy, Mustard, Niger,Millet Bamboo Shoots, MushroomsNovember(Diali) Raggi, Paddy(Chot Dhan) Tuber RootsDecember(Pond) Raggi, Paddy Siali Leaf, Amla, Harda, BahadaAfter the imposition <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Court’s <strong>ban</strong> order on collection <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> from ProtectedAreas, there was strict restriction on the local people and the forest produce collection came downto almost nil. Even if there was collection, it is termed as illegal and the people have to face theatrocities <strong>of</strong> the Forest Department.Such severe restrictions have led to growing food insecurity among the people and the worst hit arethe women and children who suffer from malnutrition.The graph below shows the hardly 59% <strong>of</strong> the population <strong>of</strong> Sunabeda manage to get onesquare meal food daily. About 24% <strong>of</strong> the population gets less than one square meal per day.38

9%Growing Food Insecurity10%14%32%

• Such trading stopped after the imposition <strong>of</strong> <strong>ban</strong> and traders started to source theirrequirement from other areas.• People used to visit the local haat (mandi) at Kurumpuri prior to the <strong>ban</strong> which alsostopped.• This is how a flourishing <strong>NTFP</strong> market was destroyed by the imposition <strong>of</strong> the <strong>ban</strong>.<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> the <strong>ban</strong> on the Informal financial networks:Barter SystemIt was a practice in the area to barter goods from the traders in lieu <strong>of</strong> the <strong>NTFP</strong> produceexchanged. Such informal arrangements used to be a boon for a people who do not have access toconsistent financial support and whose source <strong>of</strong> earning varies from season to season. So in thetime <strong>of</strong> economic stress people used to depend upon these informal arrangements to cope up thedistress situation. With the imposition <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Court <strong>ban</strong> such support system collapsed andpeople became more vulnerable to seasonal variations.Informal Credit Source4%12%9%Unrestricted access to <strong>NTFP</strong>s inthe area, prior to the imposition <strong>of</strong>the <strong>ban</strong>, had increased thebargaining power <strong>of</strong> the people visà-visthe <strong>NTFP</strong> market. Peoplewere also able to source credit fromthe traders who were willing toextend financial supportconsidering the <strong>NTFP</strong> potential <strong>of</strong>the area and considering the control<strong>of</strong> people over their resources. Thisinformal financial linkage whichwas one <strong>of</strong> the major supports for the people was snapped after the <strong>ban</strong> as a resource rich peoplesuddenly became resource poor and they lost their control over their resources.Migration:8%Indebtedness67%Daily Consumption (Inf)For Production (Inf)Other Purpose (Inf)Borrowing FromInstitutional AgenciesNo Indebtedness PossesAssets• Instances <strong>of</strong> migration have increased after the <strong>ban</strong> order as people are deprived <strong>of</strong> theirlivelihood base. People from this area are migrating to Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh towork in the Brick Kilns.40

Village: GadgadaTotal Household- 18Total Population- 79Entirely consist <strong>of</strong> Paharia CommunityScenario <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong> collection after <strong>ban</strong> (Bamboo)• Most <strong>of</strong> the villagers depend upon bamboo work as their source <strong>of</strong> livelihood.• Different articles are prepared from bamboo collected from nearby forest which they sell inthe weekly haat.Following table illustrates the decrease in the collection <strong>of</strong> bamboo after the imposition <strong>of</strong> <strong>ban</strong>.Collection/Day Number <strong>of</strong> Income/MonthArticles madeper BambooBefore 4 7 Supa (Article) Rs800each sold atRs30 in theWeekly HaatAfter 2 4 Supa (Article) Rs48050% Decrease 40% Decrease• In 6-7 years their income has decreased by 40% and collection <strong>of</strong> <strong>NTFP</strong>s has decreased by50%.Average Annual Income12%1%1%46%40%Less than 3000 3000-5988 6000-17988 18000-30000 More Than 30000Displacement• Recently villagers have been served with notice for eviction.• People have come to know from sources in the Forest department that they are planning toshift them to Dhorlamunda.• Similar attempts for displacing people have also been made in the recent past as per theinformation with people.41

• Such displacement has not only uprooted people from their home and hearth but also haslanded them in precarious situation.• In many cases as in the present case people have been assured homestead land and farmlandin their new settlement, but very <strong>of</strong>ten the land allotted turns out to be encroached land. Sopeople face resistance in the village while claiming the land allotted. Such situation has alsoresulted in conflict and violence between the displaced and the original inhabitants.• Distur<strong>ban</strong>ce in the social harmony has been found to a direct consequence <strong>of</strong> insensitiveimplementation <strong>of</strong> conservation policies and laws.Human Rights Violation:• Villagers were not permitted to do agriculture on their land after the imposition <strong>of</strong> <strong>ban</strong>.• The farmlands <strong>of</strong> these people were targeted by the forest department which initiatedforceful plantation in the agriculture land.• Example <strong>of</strong> blatant human rights violation in the name <strong>of</strong> conservation is galore in this area.The following example from this village is a case in point where innocent villagers weremeted out with unjustifiable harassment and torture by the forest department <strong>of</strong>ficials.• 2years before Muri Paharia and Jhandru Paharia (Late) were arrested by the Forest <strong>of</strong>ficialswhen they were ploughing their field.• They were told that since that was the ‘Soil Maturity Time/Period’ (Raja), they committed an<strong>of</strong>fence by working on their land.• Once they were picked up on baseless charges they were subjected to untold harassment(physical, mental and financial) by the <strong>of</strong>ficials.• They were released only after the villagers were forced to sign on a paper whose contentswere not revealed to them.42

CASE STUDY-3SIMILIPAL WILDLIFE SANCTUARYBrief Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> the Similipal Forest AreaSimilipal is known to the entire world due to its densely forested hill-range and its rich floral andfaunal diversity. It is located around 250 kms from the state capital and is close to Mayurbhanjdistrict headquarter; Baripada.The Similipal forests spread over an area <strong>of</strong> 2750 sq.km <strong>of</strong> which2151.73 sq. km is Reserve Forest Area. In 1973, Similipal forestarea got status <strong>of</strong> Tiger Reserve under ‘Project Tiger’ and in theyear 1979, State Government declared its intention to accord theentire area as Sanctuary under Wildlife Protection Act 1972.Further, in the year 1980 and 1986, the core area <strong>of</strong> the proposedSanctuary, which consists an area <strong>of</strong> 845.70 sq. km has beenproposed to declare as National Park. Till date final notification inrespect <strong>of</strong> Sanctuary and National Park is not published as requiredunder The Wildlife Protection Act 1972.Further, in the year 1994 an additional area <strong>of</strong> 2595 sq. km, covering 10 km radius <strong>of</strong> the buffer area<strong>of</strong> Sanctuary was added to the Sanctuary area and the entire area <strong>of</strong> around 5569 sq. km was decaledas Biosphere Reserve.Demographic Information <strong>of</strong> Similipal Forest AreaThe entire Similipal forest area falls under one <strong>of</strong> the Scheduled Vth districts <strong>of</strong> the state, known asMayurbhanj district. There are 1265 villages inside the Simlipal Biosphere Reserve with a totalpopulation <strong>of</strong> 4.62 lakhs <strong>of</strong> which 73.44% belongs to Schedule Tribes. Out <strong>of</strong> 1265 villages, 65villages are situated inside the Sanctuary area <strong>of</strong> which 61 villages are in the buffer area and rest 4villages are in core area. The total population <strong>of</strong> villages located in buffer and core area is 12000 and449 respectively. In buffer area the percentage <strong>of</strong> Scheduled tribe is 87% while in core area it is100%. (Source: Census 2001)All the villages <strong>of</strong> Biosphere Reserve falls under 8 CD Block, while the 65 villages <strong>of</strong> Sanctuary areacomes under the jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> Joshipur and Bangiriposi CD Block. The 65 villages which arecoming under Sanctuary falls under the 5 Gram Panchayats namely Gudugudia, Astakuanr,Barehipani from Joshipur CD Block and Brahmangoan and Sarispal GP <strong>of</strong> Bangiriposhi CD Block.According to Census 2001 the total ST population in the two blocks is around 11,520 which isaround 91.77% <strong>of</strong> the total population.Similipal Forest area is also known for the homeland <strong>of</strong> tribal ethnic groups. It is being inhabitatedby Ho, Kolhas, Bathudi, Santhal, Bhumij, Munda tribes. The population <strong>of</strong> Kol/Kolhas is higher43

than the other tribal community. Similipal is also the abode <strong>of</strong> 2 Primitive Tribal Groups; the HillKhadias and the MankadiasAmong the non-tribal castes are the Mohantas and the Goudas. However, their percentage isinsignificant in comparison with the tribal population so far the number is concerned although infinancial powers and other influential capabilities many <strong>of</strong> them (particularly, the Mohantas)dominate the tribals.Study Area: Villages from Gudgudia (Kumaribill, Gudgudia) and Barehipani GPSocio-Economic Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> Gudugudia and Barehipani GP:According to the BPL survey conducted byGovernment <strong>of</strong> Orissa in 2002 more than 90% <strong>of</strong>families in Gudugudia and Barehipani GP arecoming under BPL category, whose annualincome is less than Rs. 11000. The survey revealsthat the annual income <strong>of</strong> 46.9% families’ <strong>of</strong>Gudgudia Panchayat is less than Rs.3000/-.Monthly Average Income <strong>of</strong> Families in GudgudiaPanchayat46.90% 48.70%2.50% 0.98% 0.78%Series1The tribal are dependent on forests for theirlivelihood. 50% <strong>of</strong> their annual household incomecomes from forest, 20% from agriculture and the rest 30%comes from wage labour. (Source: Vasundhara study report, 2001)Major chunk <strong>of</strong> families living in these GPs are almost landless.The land holding pattern <strong>of</strong> Gudgudia Panchayat shows thataround 27.49% <strong>of</strong>••Agriculture (1 to 2months)<strong>NTFP</strong> collectionLandholding <strong>of</strong> GUDUGUDIA G.Pthe families are • Wage labour61.28landless while (approximately 2 months)61.28% are27.49marginal farmers. (Source: BPL Survey report 2002). The8.082.27 0.88non-tribal families holds quite major chunk <strong>of</strong> good andfertile land. Similar situation is also prevailing inLandless M.F S.F Med.F B.FBarehipani GP. In Barehipani GP 80% landholders aremarginal farmers. (Source: BPL Survey report 2002).Landholding <strong>of</strong> BAREHIPANI G.PExcept few families in Gudugudia and BarehipaniGPs most <strong>of</strong> families grows one crop in the year. Thepeople primarily produce rice in their field which laststhem only for two to three months. Seasonally veryfew families grow leafy vegetables (Saag) in their fieldswhich form their staple diet. Rice and salt is the stapleLess than250250-499 500-1499 1500-2500 More Than25004.13Main Source <strong>of</strong> livelihood8014.61.11 0.16Landless M.F S.F Med.F B.F44

diet <strong>of</strong> the people. Other items include leafy vegetables, tubers and mushrooms which is seasonal.The condition <strong>of</strong> landless family is even worse in comparison to the families having agricultural land.Most <strong>of</strong> the marginal farmers and landless families customarily depend upon forest products fortheir survival. Around 50% <strong>of</strong> their annual income is derived by selling <strong>of</strong> forest products likehoney, Sal seed, Jhuna (Sal Latex), Paluo, Sal Leaf, Siali leaf, Siali fiber etc. The study carried out byVasundhara in the year 2001, reveals that in case <strong>of</strong> Khadia and Mankidia 60 to 100%. <strong>of</strong> the annualincome <strong>of</strong> the families comes from forest produces.Location Caste Groups <strong>NTFP</strong>s % to total HH annual incomeSimlipal Tiger Reserve Khadia (ST) Honey, Sal Resin, Arrowroot, 60-70Malika chera(root), Sal Leaf, SalSeedMakdia (ST) Siali fibre, Honey 100Bathudi(ST)Sal and Siali leaf plate stitching,Sal SeedMore than 50I.A No.548 in the Godavarman case is a matter in which allstate governments were restrained from ordering theremoval <strong>of</strong> dead, diseased, dying or wild fallen tree, driftwood and grasses etc from any National Park or gamesanctuary. Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.2.2000 passed andorder restraining ‘the removal <strong>of</strong> dead, diseased, dyingor wind fallen trees, drift wood and grasses, etc fromany National Park or Game Sanctuary or forest’. On28.2.2000 the Supreme Court passed another orderclarifying further on the 14.2.2000 order which said, In theorder dated 14.02.2000 the word for forest in the 2 nd line from bottomat page 4, are ordered to be deleted. The sentence would read thus as:‘…In the meantime, we restrain respondent No. 2 to 32from ordering the removal <strong>of</strong> dead, diseased, dying orwind fallen trees, drift wood and grasses, etc from anyNational Park or Game Sanctuary…. There weresubsequent orders by the court and Central EmpoweredCommittee, which were towards restriction <strong>of</strong> rights <strong>of</strong>forest dependant communities.But collection <strong>of</strong> forest productsincluding <strong>NTFP</strong>s has been <strong>ban</strong>nedinside the Sanctuary and National Parkareas since 2000 following the order <strong>of</strong>Supreme Court dated on 14.2.2000, inWP No. 202/95. Since all the villages<strong>of</strong> Gudugudia and Barehipani fallswithin the sanctuary boundary, thepeople are being restricted by theSanctuary authorities for collection andselling <strong>of</strong> any forest products. Even ifsuch restriction is still in force in duecourse <strong>of</strong> time due to non-availabilityother means <strong>of</strong> survival the tribalpeople are collecting the productsillegally from the Sanctuary area andselling it to the traders in throw awayprices.45

Budhini Dehuri, resident <strong>of</strong> Gudugudia village, living in the colony, told the team that earlierOFDC used to buy <strong>NTFP</strong>s from them. They sold honey @ Rs 70/kg – Rs 80/kg to OFDC and“How we will survive?” A question being raised by Budhini Dehuri, resident <strong>of</strong>Gudugudia, belongs to Mankadia PTG groupDuring the interaction with Budhini Dehuri, she desperately asked the question to the team“is it illegal? You all are the educated people; can you all tell me how we should survive?We Makidias solely depend upon the forest product. We can’t do the labor work as it isagainst our custom. Even if we agree to do that, where is the work? Without providing uswere earning around Rs.100/- within a week. But since last 5 years OFDC is not purchasing honeyfrom them and they are selling to the trader @ Rs 30/kg – Rs 40/kg. and many times the Sanctuaryauthorities threaten them <strong>of</strong> filing legal case against them.Similar is the case in terms <strong>of</strong> sale <strong>of</strong> all other <strong>NTFP</strong>s. During the last 5 yrs after the enforcement <strong>of</strong>the sanctuary law, life has become miserable for the people and left with no livelihood options,people have started cutting timber illegally.Bijoy Lal Mohanta, Secretary <strong>of</strong> CREFDTA, a local NGO, in an interaction with the team said thatSimlipal has been declared as Biosphere Reserve in the year 1994. The intention <strong>of</strong> such programmeis to maintain the ecological balance <strong>of</strong> the area through promoting ecologically compatible socioeconomicdevelopment <strong>of</strong> the local people. He told to the team few months back AnthropologicalSurvey <strong>of</strong> India, carried out a study in the core villages <strong>of</strong> the Similipal Tiger Reserve, where theyfound the presence <strong>of</strong> local people is not detrimental to the ecosystem. He also showed anotherreport from the web site <strong>of</strong> Project Tiger (www.projecttiger.nic.in), where it is mentioned that ‘Tribalpopulation whose usage to forest produces is minimal and no visible adverse affect has been noticed as a result <strong>of</strong> theirpresence and usage <strong>of</strong> forest produce inhabits these villages’46

THE ONLY OPTION OF LIVELIHOOD SNATCHED AWAY: LEFT TO DIE“We don’t have money? How should I take my child to Jashipur hospital? I am waiting to sell the Sal Seed. Till dateno trader turned has out. My hus<strong>ban</strong>d has gone to Joshipur in search <strong>of</strong> work” It is the version <strong>of</strong> Chandramani Dehuri,w/o Harshi Dehuri, who is living in the Mankadia colony in Gudgudia village with her only two years kid Sagar Dehuri.When the team went to her house, she was eating food and her kid was sitting in the Barandha. One <strong>of</strong> the teammembers went near the kid and lifted him and suddenly said that the kid is suffering with fever. When we asked hismother, she didn’t respond to our question. She just closed down the door. Then we took help <strong>of</strong> Budhini Dehuri, whois the neighbour <strong>of</strong> Chandramani Dehuri. Shetold us, that her kid was suffering fever fromlast two days. She went to the mobile healthunit, which is located just 100 yards from herhouse, the pharmacist gave some medicineand she is continuing that medicine. But, thefever has not come down. When we askedwhy she is not taking her kid to Joshipurhospital for treatment. She replied by sayingthis is a lean season. No work is available inthe area. Earlier they used to earn money byselling <strong>of</strong> Sal Seed during this lean season.This year though she collected the Sal seedbut no trader has turned up. Her hus<strong>ban</strong>dHarshi Dehuri waited for couple <strong>of</strong> days, but now has gone to Joshipur in search <strong>of</strong> work. “Once we go Joshipur, weneed minimum <strong>of</strong> Rs. 1000/-. Where should we get the money? When we asked why she needed money, when she canget medicines free <strong>of</strong> cost at the government hospital. She told that as the government hospital do not have themedicines even for common diseases; they are compelled to purchase the medicine from outside as prescribed by thedoctor.Food SecurityAccording to the information available in the web site <strong>of</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong> Rural Development underBPL Survey 2002 portal, around 69% <strong>of</strong>families <strong>of</strong> Gudugudia and 42% <strong>of</strong> families <strong>of</strong>Food Security <strong>of</strong> Gudgudia PanchayatBarehipani GP get less than 1 squaremeal/day throughout the year. As already11%2% 11%7%mentioned the monthly income <strong>of</strong> most <strong>of</strong>the families is below Rs 3000 i.e. around Rs250/month, the people do not have thepurchase capacity to supplement their diet.69%The restricted livelihood options and thelack <strong>of</strong> basic facilities seem to be themajor reasons for the people suffering from malnutrition and dying due to starvation andhunger.47

Government Schemes and ProgrammesThough all the govt. schemes and programmes are available at the village but gross irregularitieswere found in the implementation <strong>of</strong> these programmes. For e.g Shrimati Subhasini Sahu told thatJob cards have been distributed to all the villagers under OREGS/NREGS but when the team askedsome villagers to show their job cards (in Kuanribill and Gudugudia village), we could see the blankpages <strong>of</strong> the job card which indicated that no job hasbeen provided to them till date. Some <strong>of</strong> the villagers List <strong>of</strong> Welfare Schemes andwere not even able to do show their job cards as it Programs available in the areawas not with them. We were told that their job cards• ICDS programmewere with the VLW. Most <strong>of</strong> the villagers <strong>of</strong>• PDSGudugudia told that they have not got any job under• NRHMOREGS/NREGS though the panchayat wall painting• Antodaya and Annapurnasuggests that 6 OREGS/NREGS work worth <strong>of</strong>Scheme23.15 lakhs has been carried out in the GP. The• Indira Awas Yojnavillagers told that very few people from the village got• NREGS/OREGSengaged in the road construction work carried out lastyear under OREGS/NREGS.According to the information available inthe web site <strong>of</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong> RuralDevelopment under BPL Survey 2002 portal,around 69% <strong>of</strong> families <strong>of</strong> Gudgudia and42% <strong>of</strong> families <strong>of</strong> Barehipani GP get lessSimilarly the team found out that the most <strong>of</strong>the people are also not aware <strong>of</strong> the purposeand benefits <strong>of</strong> this scheme as no initiativehas been taken till date to generate awarenessamong the local people about the scheme.than 1 square meal/day throughout the year. The local tribal people complained that thework carried out under OREGS/NREGS isonly <strong>of</strong> road construction or construction <strong>of</strong>water tanks. This provides with very limited opportunities for the engagement <strong>of</strong> the people in theactivities.HealthSimilipal area is malaria prone and death due to cerebral malaria is quite rampant in the area. In factMayurbhanj district has been identified as one <strong>of</strong> the malaria prone districts <strong>of</strong> the state. Last year inGudugudia GP around 21 people died due to cerebral malaria, <strong>of</strong> which 17 were children. The areais quite prone to diseases like malaria, malnutrition and diarrhoea. According to Prafulla Dehuri,resident <strong>of</strong> Gudugudia village, whose niece Sumati Dehuri died on 26 th April 2007, every yearespecially during the month <strong>of</strong> April to July the area witnesses deaths, but no definite steps has beentaken by the state government till date. No medicines are available in the Mobile Health Unit, whichis located in Gudugudia village. He told to the team ‘God knows when doctor comes and goes’. Each timedoctor refers the patient either to Jashipur or to Baripada, which is far away from their village. There48

is no bus service or any other means <strong>of</strong> communication to Jashipur, which around 40 km away fromthe Panchayat headquarter. Only available option is either one has to walk down to Jashipur or takehelp <strong>of</strong> the ambulance which is stationed at Gudugudia. The cost <strong>of</strong> ambulance service is tooexpensive for them to bear.According to the norms <strong>of</strong> the ICDS programme the Anganwadi worker should provide rice bag toevery house having pregnant mother or children upto five years <strong>of</strong> age. As it is virtually impossiblefor children below 5 years <strong>of</strong> age and pregnant women to travel long distances to come to theAnganwadi centre to take meals, they are generally devoid <strong>of</strong> getting the benefits <strong>of</strong> the ICDSprogramme. Even if there is an effort made to provide these rice bags to each household to thedistant villages it is not possible for the Anganwadi worker to do so because <strong>of</strong> the inaccessibility <strong>of</strong>the villages.There is 1 Anganwadi Centre for every 1000 population. Even the immunization programmes arenot being carried out properly in the village. A child should be immunized with measles vaccinationwithin 9 months age but none <strong>of</strong> the children in Kumaribill have been immunized for measles.Children and women are not provided with malaria medicines at the Anganwadi centre. Otherimmunization (DPT, Pulse Polio) is also not carried out properly by the Anganwadi worker.The Anganwadi didi, who is in charge <strong>of</strong> Gudugudia Anganwadi center, has to cover around 30 kmradius, and it becomes impossible on her part to respond to each and every situation. When theteam interacted with the Anganwadi worker (Sukumari Lohar), she expressed her displeasure overthe facility provided by the state. She told that everyday she is spending around 10 to 12 hours andsingle handedly she has to take care <strong>of</strong> the children coming to center and also attend to otheremergency cases. She also told the team that with the on set <strong>of</strong> rains, most <strong>of</strong> the villages likeKuanribil, Kumari, Chandibil are cut <strong>of</strong>f from Gudugudia due to heavy flow <strong>of</strong> water in Khairi nalafor which they face lot <strong>of</strong> problems for immunization, taking care <strong>of</strong> antenatal women, attendingemergency cases, supplying anganwadi food, monitoring weight <strong>of</strong> kids etc.Due to ignorance the people depend upon unscientific methods for curing their diseases. Thecondition <strong>of</strong> the village is so grim that even in case <strong>of</strong> disease and ill health, the villagers prefer goingto ‘Raula’ for ‘Jhad Phoonk’ or black magic rather than going to Jashipur hospital which is a twoday journey by foot.According to the tribals the medical services are so expensive for them to bear that theyleave the health <strong>of</strong> their children at the mercy <strong>of</strong> God. Stringent conservation policies havemade them deprived <strong>of</strong> the basic facilities which are the minimum rights <strong>of</strong> a human beingto lead a dignified life.49

SanitationPoor sanitation and unhygienic drinking water leads to various diseases (particularly water relatedvector borne diseases) like diarrohea and jaundice. Very few villages have tube wells for drinkingwater purpose. Rest <strong>of</strong> the villages has to depend on streamsand water channels for household chores aswell as drinkingpurpose.Water used for household as well asdrinking purposewater’.Sarat Chandra Sabhoo the retd. Pharmacist pointed thatdrinking polluted water is also one <strong>of</strong> the prime causes <strong>of</strong>infant deaths. He further added ‘bore/tube wells are notdugin the villages as the strict sanctuary lawdoes not allowthe operation <strong>of</strong> big machines and movement <strong>of</strong> heavyvehicles inside as thearea comesunder Tiger Reserve . Thepeople have no other options but to drink the pollutedCommunicationCommunication is a major problem and thevillage becomes completely inaccessible during therains. Under such circumstances the people are virtually left at the mercy <strong>of</strong> God as no facilities orhelp could possibly reach them and the peopleare imprisoned in the Green jail. There arenoroads connecting to some <strong>of</strong> the villages henceeven themedical van cannot reach them forregular check up. Last year when the incidence <strong>of</strong>mass infant death took place in Kuanribill village,due to heavy rains every connectivity to thevillage was cut <strong>of</strong>f andit was verydifficult forthemedical team to reach the village for help. Atemporary wooden bridge has been constructed connecting the village but the condition <strong>of</strong> thebridge (inthe photograph) showss that it cannot sustain the rains this year. Similar is the conditionfor most <strong>of</strong> the villages and such condition makes the life <strong>of</strong> the peoplee miserable.50

Annexure-1BAN ON <strong>NTFP</strong> COLLECTION AND ITS IMPACT ON PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE INPAs IN ORISSASection 1: Pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> PA1. Name and Status:2. Area:3. Date <strong>of</strong> declaration4. Type <strong>of</strong> ecosystem:5. Important features:6. Major threats to the PAINFORMATION SHEET7. People’s perception on importance <strong>of</strong> forest:8. When was <strong>NTFP</strong> collection <strong>of</strong>ficially <strong>ban</strong>ned?:Section 2: Impressions <strong>of</strong> the local <strong>of</strong>ficials (forest/revenue/education/health)1. When was the <strong>ban</strong> implemented?2. What all has been <strong>ban</strong>ned?3. What do people do now that the <strong>ban</strong> has been imposed?4. What has been the impact on people?5. Has there been any positive impact on the wildlife because <strong>of</strong> the <strong>ban</strong>?6. Has there been any negative impact on wildlife because <strong>of</strong> the <strong>ban</strong>?7. What has been planned to resolve the situation?8. Has there been an alternatives suggested by the government to counter the impacts <strong>of</strong> the<strong>ban</strong>? What are they? How have they been implemented?Section 3: Village pr<strong>of</strong>ile1. District Name:2. Block Name:3. Village Selected:51

4. Population:Total Household No.:No. and name <strong>of</strong> different communities:Total Tribal Population:5. Land Holding Pattern <strong>of</strong> the villagers:Landless family:Households having land between 1-5 acres:Households having land between 6-10 acres:Households having 11 acres <strong>of</strong> land:6. Land Use <strong>of</strong> the village:7. When did people get to know about the <strong>ban</strong>?8. What steps have been taken by the department to implement the <strong>ban</strong>?9. What were the main sources <strong>of</strong> income before the <strong>ban</strong>?10. What do people have to resort to after the <strong>ban</strong>?11. Is the <strong>ban</strong> good or bad for the forest?12. What has been the impact <strong>of</strong> the <strong>ban</strong> on people?Economically:Family status:Health:Education:Women:Community relationship and dynamics:13. Has there been an alternatives suggested by the government to counter the impacts <strong>of</strong>the <strong>ban</strong>? What are they? How have they been implemented?Section 4: Resource Use/Dependency1. Resource Availability and Use in the villageS.No.a. Personal useResourceQuantity<strong>of</strong>collection(mentionfor sale orpersonaluse)Where/how soldPr<strong>of</strong>itBef Aft Before After Before After52

1. Sal/SialiLeaves2. Tenduleaves3. Mahuaflowers4. Mahuaseeds5. Bamboopoles6. Bambooshoots(karadi)7. Fuelwood8. Wood9. Jhuna10 Honey11 Tubers12 Mushroom13 Mango14 Creeper15 DatePalm(Khajuri)16 Fruits17 Greenleaves18 Gum19 Kendufruit20 HillBroom2122oreer2. Resource and agriculture seasonality chart <strong>of</strong> the village53