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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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: Issues in Protected Areasacross the
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 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?