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

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