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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 and 14: face lot of diffic
Page 15 and 16: The Order of Supre
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: sanctuary area. Dhaniram majhi, who
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?