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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: IMPACT OF CONSERVATION POLICIES (SP
Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACTThe word Conservation is on
Page 5 and 6: MethodologyMethodology for the stud
Page 7 and 8: Issues in Protected Areasacross the
Page 9 and 10: non-timber forest produce, fish and
Page 11 and 12: those people who have been cultivat
Page 13: face lot of diffic
Page 17 and 18: Forest DivisionsBoudh Forest Divisi
Page 19 and 20: item especially after monsoons. Lea
Page 21 and 22: CASE STUDY - 2SUNABEDA WILDLIFE SAN
Page 23 and 24: Manikgarh hill range extends in a s
Page 25 and 26: History of Protect
Page 27 and 28: The opinion of the
Page 29 and 30: sanctuary area. Dhaniram majhi, who
Page 31 and 32: surveyed villages but due to the pr
Page 33 and 34: In the year 2003, 134 households fr
Page 35 and 36: Village: KatingpaniKatingpani came
Page 37 and 38: Loss of KL Income
Page 39 and 40: 9%Growing Food Insecurity10%14%32%
Page 41 and 42: Village: GadgadaTotal Household- 18
Page 43 and 44: CASE STUDY-3SIMILIPAL WILDLIFE SANC
Page 45 and 46: diet of the people
Page 47 and 48: THE ONLY OPTION OF LIVELIHOOD SNATC
Page 49 and 50: is no bus service or any other mean
Page 51 and 52: Annexure-1BAN ON NTFP</stro
Page 53: 1. Sal/SialiLeaves2. Tenduleaves3.

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?