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

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