Chapter 2

47

CHAPTER 2 LIVELIHOOD AND CONSERVATION:

A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1. Introduction Review of literature is essential for the success of academic research (Hart, 1998). According to him, literature review is the process of selection of available documents containing ‘information, data, ideas and evidence’ on the topic of research and it involves ‘effective evaluation’ of the documents in view of the research being undertaken (p.13). Balnaves and Caputi (2001) drawing a parallel between a review of literature and a compass have commented that aiding in the conceptualisation process, the review enables the researcher to get a bearing on the research work. Hart has listed several purposes of reviewing existing literature and has considered that the most important aim is to be able to differentiate between work that has already been undertaken in the chosen area of research and the scope for future work. In addition to contributing towards establishing a rationale and scope of the study being undertaken by the researcher, the review also aids in identifying the different perspectives on the issue, ascertaining the methodologies adopted by previous researchers for the their work and drawing a connection between ideas and their application.

Knopf (2006) has opined that a review of literature can be undertaken in any of the following three contexts: it can be an end in itself, it can be an initial step in a research process and it can also be a part of the final research report. The review undertaken as part of this research can be considered as a preliminary step in this research work. The review was conducted in three stages. The first stage ‘preliminary review’ was carried out prior to the formulation of the research problem and it intended to explore whether the research questions raised in the study has been convincingly answered in any previous study. The review in this stage attempted to justify the attempt of this study to make new contribution to the existing knowledge on the issue of livelihood and conservation in the context of the Agarias of LRK.

Chapter 2

48

The second stage of the review was undertaken after the presentation of the research proposal and its subsequent acceptance by the Research Council of the Department of Social Work, University of Delhi. This was based on the benefits of review of literature elucidated by Knopf. The researcher was aware of the view against undertaking the review before conducting some fieldwork in a qualitative work as mentioned in the work of Yin (2011) as it may ‘create an unwanted lens or filter’(p.61). However, the researcher justifies his conduct of review at this stage based on the arguments of the same author that the stance against a pre-fieldwork review is losing ground and that the review aids the researcher gain an in-depth understanding of the topic and provides arguments for the filling up the gaps in previous studies. The review aimed to gain new insights for conducting the research and to place the current study in the existing body of literature on the subject. As noted byYin, at this stage a selective review was undertaken of the few studies conducted on the Agarias and those which closely matched the topic of the study. The final stage of ‘comprehensive review’ was conducted after the first visit to the field and was based on the description of this stage by Yin. It aimed at identifying the various dimensions of the topic of research, looking at the arguments for and against the major tenets and to understand the changing trends in the subject.

In the context of the present study, a comprehensive review was conducted under the broad topics of ‘Livelihood and Conservation’ and ‘Agarias of Little Rann of Kachchh’. The review under the topic, ‘Livelihood and Conservation’ has been divided into the following themes:

1. Protected Areas and Conservation; 2. Protected Areas and People; 3. Protected Areas and Local Livelihoods.

As noted by Cronin, Ryan, and Coughlan (2008), review of literature based on thematic or categorical headings has been a very popular approach undertaken by researchers for the purpose of presenting the review. The literature within the various themes has been organised into sub-themes and within a particular sub-theme attempt has been made to follow a chronological order while investigating the various dimensions of the people and protected area debate.

Chapter 2

49

The next step in the review process was the identification of relevant literature under the above stated themes. The search was carried out both manually and using computer aided techniques. The manual search was conducted in the Central Research Library, University of Delhi, Delhi; Central Science Library, University of Delhi, Delhi; Arts Library, University of Delhi, Delhi; Ratan Tata Library, University of Delhi, Delhi; Nehru Memorial Library, Delhi; Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi; Central Secretariat Library, Delhi; V.V. Giri National Labour Institute, Delhi; Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Ahmedabad; Tribal Research Centre, Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Ahmedabad; Gujarat University, Ahmedabad; National Institute of Occupational Health and Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Ahmedabad. In addition to these libraries relevant materials for the study was gathered from several state and central government departments, libraries of organisations in Delhi, Ahmedabad, Surendranagar, Patdi and Kachchh and personal libraries of persons in Ahmedabad, Kharaghoda and Surendranagar.

Computers were used to access resources from the internet and from electronic databases. The internet provided access to the documents in the websites of academic institutions, government departments, voluntary organisations and international organisations like IUCN and World Bank. The electronic databases subscribed to by the University of Delhi were a major source of literature on the selected themes. The following full text sources were accessed - Annual Reviews, Cambridge University Press, Elsevier Science, J-STOR, Oxford Journal of Social Science Archive, Oxford University Press, Sage Journal Online, Science Direct, Springer Link, Springer Online Journal Archives, Taylor and Francis and Wiley Online Library.

The keyword search option was used with emphasis on careful selection of the words for the search to show relevant results as stressed by (Cronin et al., 2008). The Boolean operators ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ were used to seek combinations of the keywords. The following is the list of most frequently used keywords and their combinations during the internet based search for literature - ‘Livelihood AND Conservation’, ‘Park AND People’, ‘Man AND Wildlife’, ‘Conservation’, ‘Agaria’, ‘Little Rann of Kachchh’, ‘Salt Worker’ and ‘Wild Ass’. The abundance of available literature on the ‘people and park’ debate in the African context was noted during this phase of review of literature. Efforts were made to ensure that relevant literature in the Indian context was included for the purpose of later review.

Chapter 2

50

The collected literature was grouped according to the classification given by Colling (Colling, 2003; as cited in Cronin et al., 2008). The four types of sources in which the collected literature was broadly divided were:

1. Primary sources comprising of original studies; 2. Secondary sources consisting of summary by someone other than the original researcher;

3. Conceptual/Theoretical papers describing theories or concepts; 4. Anecdotal/Opinion/Clinical containing views or opinions on the topic.

This was followed by the review of the literature based on the preview, question, read and summarise (PQRS) method as discussed by Cronin et al., (2008).

Seen in the context of the debate surrounding the creation and management of protected areas around the world, the issues of ‘livelihood and conservation’, ‘people and park’ and ‘man and animal’ are but different dimensions of the same debate. The inter-changeability of these issues created problems in categorising the reviewed literature into themes created for the purpose of this review. Most of the authors have touched upon all three facets of the debate in their work, offering little scope for the reviewer to draw distinct thematic boundaries. To ensure, the reviewer identified the focus of the work and its proximity to any one of the above mentioned themes. The judgement of the reviewer was used as a basis for including a particular work or its section under one of the pre-determined themes.

The final step of the process involved writing the review. The researcher while writing the review maintained objectivity and attempted to express the findings and views discussed in the literature in his own words while emphasising upon consistency and continuity of thought. In this chapter, the themes covering the ‘Livelihood and Conservation’ debate will be covered as they are central to the conduct of the present study. The review of literature under the topic ‘Agarias of Little Rann of Kachchh’ shall be presented along with the discussion on the Agaria community in chapter 5.

Chapter 2

51

2.2. Protected Areas and Conservation Protected areas in the view of West, Igoe and Brockington (2006) are sites of ‘social production and interaction’ (p.252). According to them, their creation has led to the renaming of places, demarcation of regions on the earth by boundaries and even erasure of boundaries between states. They have also pointed out that in the current context nature and environment are seen, understood, experienced and used by many people through these protected areas. Earlier in a paper published in 1993, Alcorn has viewed conservation as a ‘social and political process’ and has argued that creation of protected areas is a strategy adopted by many states to satisfy the conservationists (p.424). While considering present day conservation to have originated as a product of modernisation which took place in Europe and North America in mid-1800s, MacDonald (2003) has stated that conservation is both a social phenomenon and scientific practice. According to Fraga (2006), based on the user, conservation can assume manifold meanings and it incorporates economic, sociocultural, political and aesthetic dimensions.

Naughton-Treves and Sanderson (1995) have viewed the debate surrounding wildlife conservation as a manifestation of the conflict between property and property rights. He has showed that the opposing claims over wildlife have been extant since hunting started and it dictates the current discourse on conservation. Granfield and Colomy (2005) have located the advent of game laws and the outlawing of poaching in the social changes occurring in England and America at that time. These were the precursors to the establishment of protected areas and according to their view, its emergence was rooted in the altered views of land use which intended to convert common land into private property and considered wildlife as a property of the landlords.

Noting the continued extraction of resources by elites linked to the state from protected areas, Alcorn (1993) has expressed that the strategy of conservation through protected areas has not only been unsuccessful but it also overlooks the capacity of local people to protect nature. Peluso (1993) while discussing the various international agreements framed to demarcate land for wildlife has pointed out the underlying assumption of the ability, legitimacy and will of the states to control all resources within its territorial boundaries. She has added that the compliance to these agreements provides states with

Chapter 2

52

the justification for its management practices. Based on her examination of articles and communication on conservation related to wildlife in Kenya she has argued that besides leaving out the social history of the places and political and ecological frameworks of the origin of the parks the conservation strategies leave out the significance role played by the locals in creating the particular environment. Naughton-Treves and Sanderson (1995) have commented that species conservation worldwide is driven by political and economic forces operating at a global level which are insensitive to the long term bio-physical requirements of conservation.

Peluso (1993) has highlighted the support of the international organisations to states through funding for the implementation of the conservation strategies as laid down by the international agreements on conservation. Citing the role of foreign agencies working on conservation in Kenya, she has added that they pressurised the state to initiate conservation strategies and negotiate the pace and form of resource management in the terms of the state. Neumann (1995) based on his work in Tanzania has looked at the role of political and economic changes in impacting the politics of wildlife conservation and tourism. He has viewed conservation to be juxtaposed between the campaigns for rights by marginalised sections like the pastoralist and the increasing role of international conservation NGOs.

O’Neill (1996) has highlighted the role of international politics in the formulation of policies to protect individual species through the establishment of national parks. He has stated that the environmentalists from developed countries through the institutionalisation of international political relations in the form of the United Nations (UN) and other inter-governmental and NGOS have applied their ideas to the developing countries. The promulgation of legislations by governments to create protected areas and form bodies entrusted with the task of defending these areas has become an important strategy to ensure that nature is safe and well protected. Knudsen (1999) has noted the compulsion of economic considerations in forcing Third World governments to follow IUCN’s strict guidelines for protected areas. The power exerted by the international organisations during discussions on protected areas has also been noted by Adams and Hutton (2007).

Chapter 2

53

Saberwal (2000) has highlighted the intricacies and debates associated with creation of protected areas for conservation in India and other parts of the world by stating that beyond the protection of wild animals and plants it includes issues of human rights, exclusion of all humans and complete state control over protected areas. He has commented that the practice of conservation necessarily involves imposing rules over access to resources and defining those who can have access to the resources and the terms of access. According to him, these are reflections of the power relations at the local, regional or national level. Colchester (2003) discussing another important dimension related to the establishment of protected areas has stated that for people with vested interests, policies emphasising upon the demarcation of a specific percentage of total area as protected areas implies that the rest of the area is not protected and in these areas unsustainable developments is allowed or even encouraged. He has cited the examples of Mato Grosso and Rondonia in Amazonia, where initially areas were marked as indigenous reserves and protected areas and later the rest of the areas witnessed extensive deforestation. Colchester (2004) has argued that one of the characteristic features of protected areas since the days of its initial establishment in U.S. has been its management for the future generation leading to denial of the rights of indigenous people, their eviction and ensuing long term conflict. According to him, the conservation policy worldwide has followed this model causing agony and resentment.

Adams and Hutton (2007) have brought to fore the underlying differences in power among the different actors involved in conservation and creation of protected areas. They have focussed on the manner in which the rights and interests of some sections are twisted and fitted into the scheme of planners of these areas, while nature at large is destroyed by rapid forces of industrialisation. Brockington et al. (2008) have commented that states have used the parks to spread their bureaucratic powers over land use and lives. According to them, parks have led to marginalisation and disempowerment of local resource management and have played a crucial role in changing the livelihoods from which people derive their identities.

On the contrary, Scherl and Emerton (2008) have used case studies from Nam Et-Phou Loei Area in Laos, Lupande Game Management Area in Zambia, Maya Biosphere

Chapter 2

54

Reserve in Guatemala, Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary in Cambodia, Hikkaduwa Marine Protected Area in Sri Lanka, Alto Fragua-Indiwasi National Park in Colombia and Caprivi Game Park in Namibia to illustrate the reduction of poverty through the establishment of protected areas. While discussing the developments in the five World Park Congresses, Guthridge-Gould (2010) has also projected protected areas as the success story of conservation and has highlighted the benefits of protected areas to human kind including its support to livelihoods.

Zimmerer, Galt, and Buck (2004) in their study on the locations and types of expansion of global conservation coverage during the 1980s and 1990s have attempted to understand the linkages between globalisation and protected area coverage. They have stressed upon the connection of political, economic, socio-cultural and environmental factors aided by the environmental agreements at international level and the role of global conservation organisations and multilateral and bilateral funding agencies in the expansion and management of protected areas. They have also elaborated upon the significant part played by UN organisations, IUCN and international environmental NGOs leading to the creation of global bodies such as the WCMC and WCPA which have been instrumental in creating ideas, planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating, managing and aerial estimation of these areas around the world. West et al. (2006) have pointed out that only state activity has been recorded by the database of protected areas around the world and that it provides no information about the individual and informal collective activity including those of the private protected areas.

Brockington et al. (2008) have reported rapid growth in the protected areas between 1985 and 1995, which is also the period when neo-liberal economic policies were dominant globally. Attempting to find a link between the increase in the state control and restriction on land and natural resource use at times when governments are shrinking, they have remarked that the conservationists have been cooperating with the neo-liberal regimes and conservation practice has been influenced by neo-liberal policies and values. They have substantiated their argument that conservation and capitalism are partners in reshaping the landscape of the world with examples from IUCN support to dams in Laos and mining and conservation initiatives in Madagascar.

Chapter 2

55

Grimble and Laidlaw (2002) while analysing the biodiversity and livelihood linkages ten years after the Rio Summit in Brazil have highlighted the top-down and globally oriented approach to conservation adding that the approach has not been successful in protecting wildlife and has adversely impacted the lives of the local people. Brockington (2003) has argued that owing to the weakness of local population and the strong forces comprising of governments, guards, local and international NGOs against whom they are pitted conservation can be imposed from the top, rendering any local resistance ineffective. Dressler, Kull, and Mederith (2006) have drawn from their work in Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park in Philippines to criticise the centralised, top-down conservation efforts, stating that this has led to reduction in access to resources, impacted livelihood security and produced conflicts making conservation inequitable, inefficient and unsustainable. Based on their work in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan Shahabuddin, Kumar and Shrivastava (2007) have critically looked at the top-down approach adopted for the management of protected areas which ignored the scientific, historical and socio-economic considerations associated with the area.

According to Gustave and Borchers (2008), the case of Komodo National Park in Indonesia highlighted the gap between rhetoric and practice. In the park co-management remains an idea restricted to paper while in practice the major stakeholders are excluded from the decision making process. The management practice in the protected area, according to them, have the stamp of traditional practice of conservation strategy which considered local people incompetent to assume planning, management and decision-making responsibilities. Rinzin, Vermeulen, Wassen, and Glasbergen (2009) have commented that the management of the Jigme Dorji National Parks and Thrumsingla National Park in Bhutan points towards the indifference of the authorities to the local norms and showcases a top-down approach to conservation. On similar lines, Mishra, Badola, and Bhardwaj (2009) while discussing the IEDP in India have touched upon the ineffectiveness of conventional ‘Gun and Guard’ method of conservation in handling the socio-ecological complexities and political dimensions of biodiversity conservation.

Moore (2009) based on his understanding of the strategy for elephant conservation in Namibia has stated that conservation officials paid scant regard to the cultural values attached by the local to the elephants. He has added that the conservationists also alter

Chapter 2

56

the local perceptions of nature to ensure that the colonial strategies of conservation remained intact. Bray and Velazquez (2009) have referred to parks as bureaucratic top-down creations of central governments which reflect the whims of public policy and rickety budgets. Khan and Bhagwat (2010) have pointed out that the top-down management plan adopted in the Chitral Gol National Park in Pakistan which excluded local people from the process of decision making has led to the perceived unpleasantness of the park authorities as reported by the local people.

The Third National Consultation on Wildlife Conservation and People’s Livelihood Rights in India in 1999 in its joint statement has considered the throwing open of protected areas for development activities like mining, dams etc., delay in the settlement of rights of millions people living inside India’s protected areas and the misuse of wildlife laws against local people causing their alienation as major challenges in resolving the park and people debate. Mandal (2003) has stated that the major issues facing protected areas in India includes the non-completion of legal procedures for establishment of several protected areas (60 per cent of National Parks and 90 per cent of the Sanctuaries), lack of management plans (57 per cent of National Parks and 27 per cent of the Sanctuaries), low adherence to minimum standards and demand for income from the protected area by the local population along with meeting the objectives of conservation.

Other major challenges to the management of protected areas have been pointed out as the de-notification of sanctuaries to facilitate location of extractive industries, resorts and plants (p.190), the issue of giving out leases inside such areas as in the case of Kudremukh National Park in Karnataka, India (p.80) and the threats arising out of the development initiatives including construction, mining, commercial plantation etc. (Saberwal et al., 2001; Rangarajan, 2005; Shahabuddin, 2010). Shahabuddin (2010) has discussed the cases of wind energy in project in Kudremukh National Park; railway line in Senchal Wildlife Sanctuary in West Bengal, India; increase of Mullaperiyar dam height near Periyar National Park in Kerala, India; hydro-power project in Askot Wildlife Sanctuary in Uttarakhand, India and thermal plant in Bandipur National Park in Karnataka, India to describe the impact of development on conservation initiatves. In addition she has also discussed the existence of protected areas existing only in papers.

Chapter 2

57

Mehta and Kellert (1998) have suggested the need to include the following components in conservation initiatives to ensure the long term success of such initiatives:

1. Addressing the local development needs; 2. Encouraging women’s participation in community forestry; 3. Settling the disputes with the community forest-user groups; 4. Allowing the hunting of pest wild animals.

Arunachalam, Sarmah, Adhikari, Majumder, and Khan (2004) have stressed upon the need to form biodiversity management committees, create a buffer zone, resettle communities in the core zone and provide alternative conservation options for the better management of Namdapha Nature Reserve in Arunachal Pradesh, India along with deployment of adequate number of well-equipped staff for reserve management. Cumming (2004) has pointed out that the most recent phase in conservation embodies the ideas of social and economic benefits exemplified by the concept of ‘parks for people’. He has also explored the potential of parks playing a major role in rural development and has stated that the trend towards inclusion of people has not been without any resistance.

Walpole and Thouless (2005) have drawn from cases in the tropical developing countries to showcase the employment avenues which have opened up for the local communities from tourism in the protected areas. They have also discussed the strategy to promote tolerance of wildlife through community participation in return for a share of financial benefits from the park. They have outlined three important factors for the success of tourism to combine economic development and conservation:

1. The initiatives must create net profits for communities; 2. The differential cost borne by individuals should be considered while sharing benefits; 3. The linkages between the receipt of benefits from wildlife and the need to conserve it should be explicitly maintained.

Dearden and Bennet (2005) in an interesting survey based on 110 national protected areas world-wide in IUCN categories (I - III) have ascertained the trends in protected areas management from 1992-2002. The study has revealed that 81 per cent of the protected areas are part of a larger government ministry, mainly the Ministry of

Chapter 2

58

Environment. The results of the study have pointed towards a participatory stance adopted by management during the past decade. Laying stress on the need to adopt multiple pathways for the governance of protected areas the study has identified the following challenges to effective management of such area:

1. Involving and cooperating with stakeholder groups; 2. Obtaining adequate funding; 3. Achieving institutional transformation within protected area agencies; 4. Improving relationships between government bodies; 5. Capacity building of park management personnel; 6. Enforcing protected area rules, policies, regulations and mandates.

Mbile et al. (2005) have highlighted the need to understand the essential needs of community including its strengths as critical for forging a partnership. They have viewed the management process adopted in Korup National Park in Cameroon which comprised of components such as protection, community involvement, research, monitoring, eco-tourism and administration aspects as a way forward. They have added that the integration of the local realities, potentials, experiences, knowledge and aspirations of the local people in the management approach for the protected area prepares the base for implementing an inclusive management model. Hanna, Negrave, Kutas, and Jojkic (2008) have argued that those in opposition to the changes in protected area management policies have predicted unsustainable development and dilution of the prime objective of protecting ecological values.

Sandwith and Besançon (2008) have discussed the innovative concept of creating Trans-boundary protected areas (TBPA) with the purpose of promoting peace among countries in conflict. They have drawn from the examples of Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, which encompassed the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park in South Africa and Gemsbok National Park in Botswana and Cordillera del Cóndor Transboundary Protected Area between Peru and Ecuador to showcase their role as ‘peace parks’. Acciaioli (2008) has described the work of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Lore Lindu National Park in Indonesia and has illustrated the significant role played by private players in managing protected areas around the world especially in the global south.

Chapter 2

59

Referring to the conservation practices of the Soligas near Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka, India, Madegowda (2009) has urged the need for involvement of the local communities and integration of their knowledge base regarding resource utilisation with existing system for achieving the conservation objectives. Bray and Velazquez (2009) have discussed the need to solicit the support of local and national stakeholders for the effective management of protective areas, as alienation of people would lead to the loss of opportunity to meet the objectives of conservation. Rinzin et al. (2009) have recommended the integration of local capabilities through provision of conservation education and have stressed upon the need for preventing loss of traditional community ownership through the imposition of new systems. Higgins-Zogib, Dudley, and Kothari (2010) have referred to the development of plans by the Mursi tribe of Ethiopia in 2009 to establish their own protected area. According to them, the tribesmen intended to influence land and resource policies to their benefit through the creation of their own protected area against a model of conservation imposed upon them. 2.3. Protected Areas and People According to Miller, Minteer, and Malan (2011), the earlier ‘conservation vs. preservation’ debate has taken the shape of ‘parks vs. people’ debate during the end of 20th century. The debate has been largely shaped by the changes in the field of conservation biology and has pitted the nature protectionists against the social conservationists. Discussing this debate, West et al. (2006) have identified the following categories of people influenced by the protected areas: those living inside them, those living in areas adjacent to them and those displaced by them. In addition they have remarked that it has also affected the lives of the people working for the government agencies and NGOS involved in the creation and management of these areas.

Alcorn (1993) has viewed conservation as integral to the lives of people living near the protected areas and the western concept of identifying conservation as separate from the other activities as contrary to their understanding of conservation. Based on their work with local people around Arusha, Kilimanjaro, Tarangire, Lake Manyara, and Mikumi National Parks and the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania, Newmark and Manyanza (1994) have urged upon the need to understand the conservation attitudes of local

Chapter 2

60

people, their historical use of resources, issues of land tenure and the nature and cause of conflict between people and protected areas while planning integrated conservation projects. As highlighted by Naughton-Treves and Sanderson (1995), the political and ecological geographies of wildlife are incongruent, making the involvement of several communities essential for the sustenance of wildlife. Fragoso, Bodmer, and Silvus (2004), while discussing the conservation beliefs of local people in South and Central America have pointed out that complex interaction among biological, cultural and socio-economic systems result in the development of the local attitudes to wildlife conservation.

Saberwal (2000) has interrogated the idea of ‘nature as a delicate web’ which dictates popular understanding of nature and provides a basis for formulating policies which force people out of protected areas by stating that recent research points towards nature functioning in a more chaotic and less deterministic manner. According to him, research has showed that human disturbances are integral to the system. Describing the impact of disturbance on species diversity, he has stated that as per theoretical considerations of changes in biodiversity, decreased levels of species diversity is seen at high and the low extremes of the disturbance spectrum and at moderate levels of disturbance the diversity increases. To validate his argument he has provided the case of fire regimes and their role in determining the structure and composition of savannah, prairie and forest communities. He has further cited the exclusion of livestock grazing from Keoladeo National Park in Rajasthan, India and the Valley of Flowers National Park in Uttarakhand, India and the resultant increase in weeds. Middleton (2005) and Sarkar (2005) have also discussed the banning of water buffalo from grazing inside the Keoladeo National Park, India, and the resultant protests by people for whom access to the area is crucial for the sustenance of their livelihood. They have cited this example to highlight the high handedness of protected area authority and their faulty decision making which was detrimental for both the park and the people.

As noted by Alcorn (1993), the trend showing conservationists in many countries opting to work with local organisations pointed to the changes in the conservation strategy. Hulme and Murphree (1999) while discussing the conservation efforts in Africa have identified three arguments guiding the ‘New Conservation’. According to

Chapter 2

61

them, the first argument pertains to the debate that rather than being a state-centric activity it should be based in the local level like the case of CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe where community is the proprietor or in Mgahinga Gorilla National Park in Uganda and Tarangire National Park in Tanzania where people are considered as neighbours. The second strand emphasises upon the need to unite the objectives of conservation and development and the third arising out of the neo-liberal thought stresses upon the reliance on market processes for deciding the apt conservation strategy.

Nelson and Sportza (2000) have opined that the changes in the protected area planning came about in 1980s as a result of complex interplay of several factors which included global funding, alterations in protected area cultures and values, sustainable development, changes in science and information and the changing role of government and other actors involved in the conservation efforts. According to them, the four important factors for the planning for parks are:

1. Understanding the historical, socio-economic and political context of the park; 2. Understanding the needs and activities of local people and their effects on the parks; 3. Use of traditional knowledge of the local people; 4. Emphasising on human dimensions in research and monitoring and reporting.

According to Grimble and Laidlaw (2002), community-based approach to conservation which emerged in the mid-1980s marked a change in the conservation strategy. According to them, this approach was aimed towards working along with the local people using their knowledge and enhancing local livelihoods. This change in the prevalent conservation paradigm in international conservation policy from human exclusion to community participation from 1980s has also been noted by Roe, Hutton, Elliott, Saruchera, and Chitepo (2003). They have also pointed the focus laid by governments, donor agencies and NGOs on local participation in planning and decision regarding natural resource management initiated in 1980 by the publication of World Conservation Strategy by IUCN.

Jones and Murphree based on their work in Africa has stated that over the past two decades, influenced by the central development discourses and reduced capacities of the state to manage the environment, community-based conservation has gained a lot of

Chapter 2

62

support. Dressler et al. (2006) have demonstrated that decentralisation and devolution of management authority can lead to opposing claims to resource access leading to support of the local elite and division on ethnic lines resulting in further marginalisation of the indigenous people. They have suggested the need for institutions that support management to adjust to the divergent needs of communities and ensure ample representation in decision making structures.

Nagendra, Pareeth, and Ghate (2006) based on their work in Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve in Maharastra, India have also emphasised upon the need to garner the support of and participation of local communities for the effective control of poaching and other illegal activities inside the protected area. The have opined that the need of the hour is to change the perspective of looking at residents inside the protected areas from ones only causing damage to those capable of causing both positive and negative impacts depending how they are approached. Based on their work on co-management of natural resources with the indigenous communities of New Zealand, Tipa and Welch (2006) have stated that conservation strategies which aims at co-management should deliver specific outcomes and must include preservation of cultural identity, recognition of the right to access, use, develop and protect resources, self-determination and use of traditional environmental knowledge. Shrivastava and Heinen, (2007) have highlighted the need to stress upon the local differences in ethnicity, demography, livestock holdings, land holdings, land tenure and immigration for the development of conservation strategies.

While looking at the process of stakeholder identification and involvement adopted by TNC in Derawan Islands, Raja Ampat Islands, Wakatobi National Park, Komodo National Park and Segah in Indonesia, Halim, Soekirman, and Ramono (2008) have commented on the need to involve all stakeholders to ensure the success of conservation strategies. Francis (2008) has viewed the Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) as an attempt to reconcile conservation goals with needs of the local community in tune with the theme of sustainability adopted by IUCN. Kothari (2008) citing the example of Kaa-Iya del Gran Chaco National Park in Bolivia and the communally controlled forest of the Ekuri people in Nigeria has remarked that the increased participation of local communities has led to the initiation of Collaboratively Managed Protected Area (CMPA) and the recognition of Community

Chapter 2

63

Conserved Area (CCA) marking a change in protected area policy and management. Based on their study in Churn Creek Protected Area in British Columbia, Hanna, Clark, and Slocombe (2008) have also pointed to the shift in protected area management approach towards inclusion of local people.

The study conducted by Mehta and Kellert (1998) to gauge the local attitudes toward community-based conservation policy and programmes in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area in Nepal has indicated that local people were unsure of the role of the project in community development. The study showed that faced with only economic losses local communities are likely to pay scant regard to the rules and regulations, and may even disrupt conservation efforts. This has also been reported by Maikhuri, Nautiyala, Rao, and Saxena (2001) based on their work in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve in Uttarakhand, India. According to them, positive attitude is reported only in expectation of future benefits from the protected area.

The study conducted by Badola (1998) to examine the attitudes of local people living in and around the forest corridor linking the Rajaji and Corbett National Parks in Uttarakhand, India has revealed that people support the concept of conservation and this refutes the perception that people living in the villages in the Third World countries are against conservation efforts. The antagonism of the people, according to the study, is a result of man-animal conflict and indifference of the forest department to the concern of the local people. Further the findings showed that lack of alternatives make it imperative for people to extract biomass from the park. She has stressed upon the need to recognise and promote positive attitudes among local people about conservation in order to improve the relationship between people and protected area. Paudel (2002) has described the alienation of members of the local fishing community due to the imposition of restrictions under the conservation policies leading to the loss of their livelihood in the Royal Chitwan National Park in Nepal. He has linked it to the increased poaching and logging in the park.

MacDonald (2003) in his analysis of the studies linking ecological practice, conservation and institutional authority has showed that transformed ideologies of nature, loss of secure tenure over lands and resources and centralised authority may

Chapter 2

64

result in a decline in conservationist practice. Colchester (2003) has added to this by stating that diminished interest in the area arising out of the loss of traditional rights due to the creation of protected areas can create impediments in the achievement of the goals of establishment of the protected area. Harada 2003 has explored the conservation attitudes of local people in the Gunung Halimun National Park, Indonesia. The study has revealed that the local people are aware of the laws related to the protected area. They support the need for conservation and are willing to be a part of the conservation efforts though they resent any move to relocate them from the area.

Baird, Leslie, and McCabe (2009) have shown through their study in Tarangire National Park in Tanzania that staying in the vicinity of a protected area influences the local perceptions of risk and has noted varied behavioural responses to those perceived risks. Heinen and Shrivastava (2009) have found after their survey of villages surrounding Kaziranga National Park in Assam, India that attitudes and awareness about conservation varies with change in ethno-religious group, educational level and socioeconomic and immigration status. The study has showed high degree of conservation awareness but negative conservation attitudes arising out of crop loss to wildlife favouring a microsite planning approach for conservation and targeted intervention in view of differential economic needs of different communities.

Mombeshora and Le Bel (2009) have brought to fore the contradiction concerning the place of people in protected areas. They have stated that while the conservationists, who are concerned with wilderness, find the presence of people near the protected areas loathsome, those in opposition to this view have pointed out the inseparable ties of people with nature. In the Indian context, Mukherjee (2009) has alluded to the antagonism among rural people as a result of creation of protected areas which has paved the way for continuous struggle over land and natural resources on which they been dependent. The findings of the study conducted by Khan and Bhagwat (2010) with the people around the Chitral Gol National Park in Pakistan has revealed lack of awareness and low levels of participation of the people in the management of the protected area. The study has also showed that the people are willing to be a part of the conservation activities.

Chapter 2

65

Knudsen (1999) based on his work in Khunjerab National Park in Pakistan has highlighted that local communities have to bear the indirect costs like heightened predator pressure of establishment of protected areas leading to conflict with conservationists. Ghate (2005) has taken the case of Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve in Maharashtra, India to highlight the plight of the villagers after the declaration of a protected area. She has pointed out that all developmental activities in the area have been suspended since the declaration leading to disruption of basic services like primary health facilities to the villagers. The lack of any employment/livelihood security heightened the apprehensions of the villagers regarding their future. Colchester (2004) has identified several adverse impacts of the establishment of protected areas on the people living in the vicinity as illustrated in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Impact of Protected Areas on People

Denial of rights to land Denial of use of and access to natural resources

Disorganised settlement patterns

Disrupted kinship systems

Denial of political rights and the validity of customary institutions

Loss of informal social networks, fundamental to the local economy

Undermining of livelihoods, loss of property, no compensation

Poverty

Disruption of customary systems of environment management

Enforced illegality Leadership systems destroyed

Symbolic ties to environment broken

Cultural identity weakened Forced resettlement

Intensified pressure on natural resources outside the protected areas

Popular unrest, resistance, incendiarism, social conflict and ensuing repression

Based on Colchester (2004) Colchester (2003) has argued that there is no difference between conventional development programmes and protected areas as both lead to the loss of rights over land and imposition of access decided by outsiders. Kaimowitz, Faune, and Mendoza (2003) analysing the process of creation of Bosawas National Natural Resource Reserve in Nicaragua have stated that emphasis is laid on implementing the polices of central government which is one of the actors in the process rather in understanding the issues of the Mestizo inhabitants living in the area. They have pointed out that the process ignores the traditional resource management systems of the locals.

Chapter 2

66

Discussing the metaphor of parks as islands surrounded by an external threat, Miller et al. (2011) have showed that establishment of such areas leads to several adverse impacts on local people including restrictions on land use and access to resources, conflicts with wildlife and displacement. The exclusion of traditional users including Maasai, Kamba, Orma and other pastoralists and ethnic groups from the protected areas in Kenya, according to Peluso (1993), exemplified the manner in which conservation legitimises the government initiatives to deny locals access to and control over resources. Kaus (1993), based on an anthropological study in the Mapimi Biosphere Reserve in Mexico has suggested that the boundaries of the protected area differ from the local land divisions and the lack of integration of the local political system of land use with the system introduced by the park authorities triggers conflict between people and park. Third National Consultation on Wildlife Conservation and People’s Livelihood Rights (1999) has viewed the ignorance about the reliance of local communities on the resources, their traditional conservation practices and denial of their rights as major reasons for the park and people conflict. It has been further added in its joint statement that increasing politicisation and commercialisation of rural areas, collapse of traditions and demands made by the increase in human and livestock populations have heightened the conflict.

Saberwal (2000) has pointed that denial of access to basic necessities due to the implementation of conservation programs may result in acrimony among local people leading to support for activities such as poaching. Rangarajan (2001) has reasoned that the absence of benefit sharing with the local population, denied access to resources for livelihood and lack of involvement in conservation initiatives are causes of tension with protected area authority. Colchester (2003) has commented that the conflict stems from the fact that outside agencies based on their limited knowledge of the local environment impose restrictions on the indigenous people rather than working towards a strategy of mutual agreement. Mbilea et al. (2005) have discussed the incongruence arising out of community approaches and scientific methods of management as another dimension of the conflict between local people and protected area managers.

Chapter 2

67

Anitha, Muraleedharan, and Binilkumar (2006) have drawn from the results of their study in Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala, India and have identified the following conflicts in the context of sanctuaries:

1. Conflict for land; 2. Conflict for produce for self-consumption or for sale; 3. Conflict for political dominance leading extremist behaviour.

They have stated that these conflicts can be witnessed on both outer and inner boundaries of the protected area, can involve various social groups and can be between the forest department and the local communities. Considering the integrated landscape-livelihood approach implemented in a participatory mode as the most suitable for the management of protected area they have suggested the need to integrate local needs and aspirations in evolving a management plan. They have further added that the apt and timely mitigation of conflicts is crucial for inspiring local population and ensuring their involvement in the attainment of objectives of establishment of the protected area.

Shah (2007) has been of the opinion that driven by the conservationist approach, the legal framework in India is aimed towards the elimination of human causes of biotic pressure in entirety. Based on her work in Gir National Park in Gujarat, India, she has pointed to the following manifestations of the man-animal conflict:

1. Re-entry of a number of families relocated outside the protected area; 2. Infiltration of livestock from the periphery and other regions; 3. Overgrazing and selling of farmyard manure, top soil, fuel wood by households; 4. Attacks by wildlife resulting in loss of crops, human lives and livestock; 5. Accidental as well as intentional fires more or less on a regular basis.

She has highlighted the anguish among the villagers who had lost entire pasture land at the time of demarcation of boundary of the protected area and has stressed the need for a long-term process of conservation-induced development. She has also added that planning, implementation and compliance of the norms for resource use and payment of subsidies/compensation should be participatory involving community-based institutions.

Chapter 2

68

Erb and Jelahut (2008) based on their work in Ruteng Nature Recreation Park in Indonesia have reported both horizontal and vertical conflicts arising out the strict conservation efforts of the state. The horizontal conflicts emanates from the loss of traditional relationships between villages and the reclamation of the land by people results in vertical conflicts. They have commented that authoritarian measures towards conservation and protection of parks and reserves can never be successful. Purwanto (2008) has described the animosity among the villagers towards the conservation officials in the Tanjung Puting National Park in Borneo. The conflict emanated from the park management blaming the villagers for the destruction of the habitat of the orang-utans and the local people in turn accusing the park officials of restricting their entry inside the area, putting false accusations on them for causing damage to the area and their failure to provide them with any alternate means of livelihood.

Mombeshora and Le Bel (2009) while investigating the sources of conflict between Gonarezhou National Park and Chitsa community in Zimbabwe have attributed it to the interaction between several factors including history of relocation and dispossession, demographic stresses, restricted economic openings, land reform programme and dynastic politics. Emphasising the effectiveness of traditional conflict resolution mechanisms they have suggested that solutions to the park and people conflict should be located within the local culture and power dynamic and should aim at addressing the livelihood needs. They have stressed upon the need to avoid forceful relocations as solutions to such conflicts. Bavinck and Vivekanandan (2010) have offered a four way classification of conflicts while discussing the finding of their study on conservation and conflict in the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve, India:

1. Conflicts between people, processes and events in and outside the protected area; 2. Conflicts between governing actors in and outside the protected area; 3. Conflicts between groups of people within the protected area; 4. Conflicts between people within the protected area and the governing actors. 2.4. Protected Areas and Local Livelihoods Kaus (1993) has urged upon the need to shift the thinking from looking at the role of people in protected area to that of protected area in the lives of local people to ensure

Chapter 2

69

success of the conservation initiatives. Based on their work with the Maasai Pastoralists in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Homewood and Rodgers (1991) in their book ‘Maasailand Ecology’ have highlighted the lopsided sharing of benefits derived from the establishment of a protected area. In the context of the eviction of the Maasai pastoralists, they have stated that the aesthetic experience and the scientific opportunities are enjoyed by the foreign visitor by paying minimal financial costs, the national prestige and international political leverage gained by the national government balance the political and financial costs. Besides the government and the private sector share the revenue earned from tourism. The authors have opined that the original inhabitants of the area who have traditionally relied on the resources of the area for their survival are forced to bear only losses, which according to them, include denial of access to resources, land alienation, damage to land and property and emotional loss.

Peluso (1993) has shown how the declaration of the Ambroseli basin in Africa as a national park has led to the Massai pastoralists being denied access to graze their cattle. She has pointed to the formation of new social organisations and change in the livelihood and cultural values of the people who had been living in the area for centuries. She has further highlighted how the loss of access prompts locals to oppose conservation by attacking wildlife and aiding the ivory hunters. Based on her study in Khunjerab National Park, Pakistan, Knudsen (1999) has stated that the establishment of the protected area has led to the undermining of the traditional rights of the Wakhi villagers which has impacted their livelihood. The study has blamed the central government and the international conservation organisations for failing to incorporate the livelihood concerns of the locals who are traditionally dependent on the resources of the area.

Bokil (1999) through the the case of local people living near the Koyna Sanctuary in Maharashtra has showed how restrictions on the access to the resources inside the sanctuary on which they depend cause adverse effect on the traditional lifestyle, besides impacting their livelihood activities and freedom of movement. He has also noted the altered aspirations of the younger generation leading to their rejection of the traditional lifestyle. Hulme and Murphree (1999) have remarked that conservation initiatives have adversely impacted local livelihoods almost everywhere and have at times involved the

Chapter 2

70

use of violence against people and property as in the case of Lake Mburo National Park in Uganda and forced resettlement leading to long term deterioration of living standards, as in Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania. Roe et al. (2003) have sought the need to seek different conservation approaches focussing on people and their livelihood security to be able to reduce poverty.

Nightingale (2003) while looking at community forestry initiatives in Nepal has opined that the establishment of protected areas has led to two fold impact on the lives of the local people, on one hand it has denied them access to the natural resources on which they have been depended and on the other they have not been provided with any new options to earn their livelihood. The results of the study conducted by Mbile et al. (2005) in Korup National Park in Cameroon have revealed that the creation of a protected area impacts the livelihoods of people living in and depending on it. The findings of the livelihood analysis have indicated the need to involve local communities for the successful management of the protected area due to the importance of the resources in the protected area for the local community.

Drawing from the results of their study in Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala; Anitha et al. (2006) have identified a combination of demographic changes and limits to sustainable extraction of renewable natural resources as causes of conflict between local communities and protected area managers over natural resources. Shrivastava and Heinen (2007) have highlighted the confrontation arising out of denial of rights to the locals for fishing which is an important livelihood activity inside the Kaziranga National Park in Assam, India. They have discussed the scope for park authorities to develop the fisheries with local knowledge, as this would provide alternative sources of livelihood to the people, thereby reducing the extraction of other resources from the national park.

Based on their assessment of the impact of conservation policy on economic activities of the local communities, Rinzin et al. (2009) have concluded that heightened competition for the limited resources arises out of the restriction on the access to the protected area and is linked to the reduced concern about the conservation of the resources. The findings of Mukherjee (2009), based on her work with the members of

Chapter 2

71

Baiga and Gond communities living near Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh, India support her argument that indifference towards wildlife brew in cases when communities whose livelihood is dependent on the wild are disassociated and distanced from nature. The reliance on practices such as illegal entry to the park are signs of resistance against their loss of livelihood and corrupt practices of the park officials. Shahabuddin (2010) based on her studies on community forestry has opined that in places where there is a heavy demand on natural resources, the economic necessities may eventually predominate over the ecological one. She has substantiated her argument with example from Annapurna Conservation Area Project in Nepal where livelihood issues emerged as winners over conservation priorities.

Exploring the links between poverty and protected areas Higgins-Zogib, Dudley, Mansourian, and Sukuwasan (2010) have come up with two reasons which lead to poverty among people living near the protected areas. According to them, these are restriction on the access to the resources which are crucial for the subsistence of the local people and the fact that these resources act as buffers which support them during periods of scarcity. These arguments are validated by examples of eviction of the Bambuti Batwa from the Kahuzi-Biega National Park in Democratic Republic of Congo and the creation of Mount Guiting-Guiting Natural Park in Philippines which led to restriction on the access to resources by people living in the area.

Lewis (1996) has discussed the following approaches to enable local people to benefit from the protected areas:

1. Provision of controlled access to resources in protected area; 2. Provision of livelihood alternatives to the local people; 3. Offer of employment and direct benefits from the protected area; 4. Improvement of the socioeconomic conditions of local communities; 5. Provision of compensation to local people for the incurred losses.

The following case studies of different authors compiled by Lewis (1996) from different parts of the world have elucidated the various dimensions of the people and park conflict. Njiforti & Tchamba has taken the case of Benoue, Faro and Bouba-Njida National Parks in Cameroon to show that ignoring the needs and interests of local

Chapter 2

72

people and their lack of involvement in management of the area can lead to conflict with the protected area authorities. Robinson & Fowkes has laid stress on the need to integrate community interest with that of the park management for successful implementation of conservation strategy. They have drawn their understanding from the case of Richtersveld National Park in South Africa. The conflict between people from Shimshali and Gojali communities and the government authorities in Kunjerab National Park in Pakistan has led Ahmad to comment that denial of access to resources in areas on which the communities have traditionally relied would lead to conflict and non-provision of adequate compensation may result in loss to wildlife in contrary to the objectives of the protected area.

As part of the above compilation, Ferreira, Rodriguez & Sharpes have illustrated from the case of National Park of Paria Peninsula in Venezuela that the protected area management has to take steps to improve the lives of the people living in the vicinity of the park to ensure their support in the conservation activities. They have highlighted the efforts to provide education about alternative agricultural practices, development of economic alternatives and facilitation of establishment of linkages with markets by the authorities to overcome the antagonism of the local people. The case of Manas Tiger Reserve in Assam, India, according to Roy & Jackson supported the need for multi-faceted approach for the management of protected areas. In this case the park management relied upon improvement of community health care, provision of support to undertake alternative income generation activities and an eco-development program which took into consideration traditional knowledge of the community.

Hulme and Murphree (1999) in their paper have pointed to the success of the community-based approach to wildlife conservation in Kunene region in Namibia. Discussing the challenges involved in promoting community-based wildlife management the paper has focussed on the changes brought about in the people’s understanding of the role of wildlife in development by ensuring transfer of power over wildlife and tourism to the community in the area. They have further added that in addition to enhancing livelihood options conservation is also dependent on the retaining the value attributed to wildlife by people and ensuring their transference to future generations. While evaluating linkages between business, environment and local communities, Salafsky, Cordes, Parks, and

Chapter 2

73

Hochman (1999) have attempted to answer whether the enterprise strategy can lead to and pay for conservation. According to them, provision of sustainable biodiversity-based enterprises may prove to be beneficial to the local communities and will also protect the biodiversity of the area from both internal and external threats.

Highlighting the need to garner the support of the local population in conservation through the provision of benefits, Walpole and Goodwin (2001) have discussed the case of development of tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Based on the local support for tourism due to its potential to generate income they have argued that the success of initiatives aimed at including local people in management and decision-making will balance the cost of conservation and will lead to positive attitudes towards conservation among the local people. Paudel (2002) has suggested a social ecology approach to balance conservation and local livelihoods. This will in his opinion also mitigate the social costs borne by the local people due to reduced livelihood options and neglect of local institutions. He has underlined the need for approaches which serve the dual purposes of ensuring sustainable rural livelihoods and improving local ecological conditions to be rooted in the local milieu.

Emphasising upon the popularity of the strategy to share profit with the local people through eco-tourism, Colchester (2003) has questioned the fairness of offsetting the costs incurred by the local residents which included loss of rights, autonomy and changed way of life by providing them with a share of the profit. He has highlighted the success in the Arfak Mountains Strict Nature Reserve in Indonesia with the Hatan community and with the villagers inside the Wasur National Park in Indonesia. In both the sites, the protected area management was able to gain the support of the local communities by engaging them in the conservation efforts and allowing the continuation of traditional practices of resource utilisation from the protected area. He has further cited the cases of introduction of apiculture methods as part of the Amboseli experiment in Kenya and allowing local residents to collect resources from the Royal Chitwan National Park in Nepal as examples of benefit and profit sharing with the local residents.

Arunachalam et al. (2004) based on their study in Namdapha Nature Reserve, India have also stressed upon the need to boost the participation of local communities in the

Chapter 2

74

management of protected areas and to provide them with incentives for their efforts at sustainable utilisation of the resources. Based on the evaluation of conservation attitudes of the local villagers living adjacent to the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in Kerala, India, six years after implementation of the eco-development project, Arjunan, Holmes, Puyravaud, and Davidar (2005), have highlighted that livelihood concerns determine the support for conservation. They have emphasised on the role of education in altering the cultural attitudes while mentioning that women are more supportive of the project than men in the area.

Mbilea et al. (2005) have recommended the need for the protected area management to connect with local communities through provision of information on policies and environmental problems, by ensuring support to the local decision-making institutions and by facilitating ways for the local residents to generation income. Haenn (2006) has described the calming of voices opposed to imposition of restriction on campesinos in the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve in Mexico through the provision of economic aid in the form of sustainable development projects. The study conducted by Gaire (2006) in the buffer zone of Bardia National Park in Nepal has demonstrated the linkage between biodiversity conservation and the improvement in rural livelihoods.

Beinart and Hughes (2007) have also discussed in detail the conflict between Maasai pastoralists and park authorities in Amboseli and the resulting actions of the pastoralists against wildlife inside the protected area. They have further added that the introduction of the project aimed at provision of direct benefits to them in 1977 has led to noticeable increase in the number of wildlife. Gustave and Borchers (2008) have stated that the conservation efforts of TNC were crucial to the reduction of the destructive practices of the local communities leading to the renovation of the ecosystem in the Komodo National Park in Indonesia. They have added that the conservation strategy did entail distress for the already marginalised local community, who relied on the resources inside the area for sustenance.

Walpole and Wilder (2008) have explored the portfolio of Fauna & Flora International, an international conservation organisation operating in some of the poorest countries and regions. They have examined reports from 88 projects and categorised the

Chapter 2

75

rationales, approaches and outcomes of a sample of 34 livelihoods-focused projects. According to them, the strategies adopted through the projects involved:

1. Strengthening of existing livelihoods in Cambodia; 2. Provision of alternative linked livelihood: a. Development of tourism in Zanzibar; b. Sustainable use of resources in Kyrgyzstan; 3. Alternative non-linked livelihoods in Kazhakistan; 4. Multiple livelihoods strategies in Liberia; 5. No direct livelihoods strategies focussed on generating awareness in Philippines.

Based on the study, they have concluded that alternative measures adopted to benefit local people cannot fully mitigate the cost incurred by them due to conservation efforts. They have argued that conservation activities are relevant for the poor and can make a difference at sites where biodiversity has been threatened by local poverty. The findings of the study have further showed that the reliance on multiple approaches like direct site and species management, education, capacity building, policy and legislative initiatives and research are essential for the attainment of the goals of conservation rather than depending only on livelihood interventions and poverty reduction initiatives.

In the context of the protected areas in Indonesia, Bickford et al. (2008) have mentioned that the protected areas conflict directly with the livelihoods of local people. They have stressed upon the need for local people to restrict or curtail their natural resource use from protected areas while stating that losses incurred due to such restrictions should be balanced by provision of tangible benefits and spreading awareness about protected areas. Based on her analysis of IEDP in Gir National Park in Gujarat, India from 1996 to 2001, Varma (2009) has held the opinion that availability of alternative resources will reduce the dependence of the local population on the resources of the protected area. She has pointed out the failure of the project in establishing linkage between protection of biodiversity, distribution of the benefits and improving the relationship between the Maldharis and the forest officials. Oglethorpe, Mwachui, Weru, and Honzak (2010) have discussed the success of the Population-Health-Environment approach with the fishing community in Kiunga Marine National Reserve in Kenya.

Chapter 2

76

According to them, the integration of three components under the multi-sector model has led to the attainment of human well-being and conservation objectives in comparison to the single-sector models.

Miller et al. (2011) have cited the example of the African Heartland Programme (AHP) developed by the African Wildlife Foundation to emphasis upon the need to integrate the dual goals of protecting the biodiversity of the area and improving the nature-based livelihood of the local people. According to them, such new conservation strategies rely on landscape-level conservation planning aimed at extending the scope of conservation beyond the protected areas. Highlighting the emergence of new policy tools like payment for ecosystem services, they have argued that the demands for sustainable livelihoods and welfare of local people can be incorporated in the conservation policies since given a suitable time scale and a adequately large spatial extent, the interests of species tends to be compatible with the interests of human communities. 2.5. Conclusion The present review has attempted to highlight the major standpoints and the findings on the livelihood and conservation. The reviewed literature presented in this chapter has been compiled from two major sources, books and journals published from India and abroad. The chronological arrangement of the literature selected to be reviewed has revealed that majority of the academic writings, including the review articles on the social impact of protected areas and the displacement due to the creation of protected areas have been published in the last decade. This indicates the intensification of people and park conflicts around the world in the last decade and also points to the prominence gained by the debate in academic circles.

The reviewed literature mostly drew from the experience of people around the protected areas in Africa. The remaining literature comprised of works done in the Asian and South & Central American context. This has been supported by the findings of West et al. (2006) that the extensive cover of protected areas in Africa has been reflected in the pre-ponderance of literature based on the continent. From their linkage of absence of literature on the people and park issue from the European regions to the absence of

Chapter 2

77

protected area induced adversity in the region, it can be alluded that increased network of protected areas coupled with regional demographic and socio-economic conditions have heightened the tussle between people and protected areas in Africa. This has a direct bearing on the availability of academic literature on the topic.

The placement of the reviewed literature on a hypothetical scale with the two extreme points being marked by people-free protected areas on one end and community-conserved areas on the other has revealed that most of the works did not denounce the policy of creation of protected areas in entirety. These authors have opposed the exclusion of people from protected areas while pointing out that the policies seeking the removal of people from protected areas have originated from the western notion of ‘fortress conservation’. Without advocating for the complete transfer of the areas to local communities, they have strongly pressed for changes in the protected area policy framework to ensure that communities and their knowledge are included in the process leading to the creation of protected areas and later in the various aspects of its management.

On the other hand, the authors who have favoured people-free parks have drawn attention to the impact of human activities in the loss of biodiversity. They have supported their arguments with case studies highlighting the success of protected areas. The authors who have towed this line have also expressed the need to compensate the communities for the losses incurred by them through sharing of benefits derived from the protected area. It has to be stated that many of these works have been published in association with international organisations promoting the concept of protected areas around the world.

The review of literature under the theme ‘Protected Areas and Conservation’ has revealed that attempts to highlight the social and cultural dimensions attached to conservation have accompanied the arguments of authors who have voiced their opposition against the exclusionary process associated with the creation of protected areas around the world. It is essential to reveal these dimensions of conservation as its

Chapter 2

78

scientific definition which cemented the role of protected areas in guarding biodiversity does not emphasis upon them. By expounding the wide arena encompassed by conservation, they have also attempted to establish the significance of the role of people in conservation strategies, including the creation of protected areas. The discussion on protected areas has underlined the fact that they have inherited a history of exclusion of original inhabitants from the sites of their creation.

In addition to the discussion on the denial of rights of the people who have been living in the area and an obliteration of their history during the process of creation of protected areas, various authors have deliberated upon different aspects of protected areas including the role of the state and international organisations in the creation and management of these areas, dynamics of power among the various stakeholders and the linkage of protected areas with the changes occurring at global level. Few studies reviewed under this theme have also attempted to highlight the importance of protected areas in ensuring the well-being of people by listing the benefits derived from them.

The findings of several studies conducted in protected areas around the world have revealed the high handedness of the protected area authorities in their dealings with local communities and their indifference to local situations. This is reflective of the top-down management approach adopted by protected area authorities throughout the world and has been the central issue of discussion of several studies including the ones in the Indian context reviewed under this theme. These studies have also reported a sense of antagonism among local people as a direct fall out of this strategy of persistent neglect of local needs and aspirations leading to confrontation with protected area authority at several sites.

Several studies have emphasised upon the changes in the conservation strategy which was the hallmark of 1980s and have discussed the concomitant alterations in the policies related to protected area targeted at ensuring greater involvement of local communities. Most of these studies have reported that the initiation of efforts like ICDP

Chapter 2

79

was aimed at addressing the livelihood concerns of local people and seeking local support. Local support has been pointed by several studies in this review as crucial for the success of any conservation initiative. The literature on the challenges which lay in the path of the protected areas achieving their objectives and the ways to overcome these challenges has also been covered under the theme.

The review of literature under the themes ‘Protected Areas and People’ and ‘Protected Areas and Local Livelihoods’ have laid bare the various facets of the people and park interactions. As pointed out by several authors, interactions between local communities and protected area play a crucial role in shaping the ecology of the area designated as a protected area. The studies have pointed out to the need to identify the various categories of people whose lives are linked to the protected areas. They have also stressed upon the need to augment the policies related to protected areas with the understanding of the social milieu of the area where they are proposed.

Several studies conducted in protected areas in India and various other countries of the world have reported a decline in conservation attitude among residents living near protected areas. According to these studies, the decline has been a direct function of the extent of loss borne by local people as a result of the establishment of the protected area. Contrary to popular notion, the findings of these studies have also revealed that local people support the conservation initiatives and in expectation of an improvement in their lives are keen to become a part of the initiative. The reviewed literature under the former theme also delved into details about the negative impacts of the protected areas on the lives of the people. Enforced restrictions on traditional land use patterns, denial of access to resources on which they have depended for subsistence, conflicts with wildlife and displacement from ancestral land are the major impacts discussed in these studies.

The literature under the latter theme is unanimous in its assertion that the establishment of protected areas has led to the loss of livelihood of the people who were previously dependent on the same. Most studies have suggested that a loss of livelihood and the damage of traditional ties with land invariably result in protests from local

Chapter 2

80

communities. A few studies have also pointed out that such protests can also take the form of local support for activities inimical to the goals of the establishment of the protected area. It has been clearly indicated by all authors that sincere efforts are needed to integrate the issue of loss of traditional local livelihood within the protected area policy framework. According to them, such steps will be decisive for the achievement of the objectives of protected areas in the future.

The measures suggested in the literature to mitigate the cost of loss of livelihood ranged from compensating the loss through direct payment, promotion of sustainable alternative livelihoods, provision of direct benefits which could include sharing of revenue generated through activities like tourism and provision of employment in the protected area depended sectors. Tourism featured as an important alternative livelihood strategy suggested in several studies to ensure the support and involvement of the local people in the management of protected area. In addition to these measures, the authors have stressed upon the need to spread awareness about the benefits of protected areas, invest in education at local level and most importantly recognise the significance of the involvement of local communities in the steps leading to the attainment of a viable solution to the issue of loss of livelihood. As noted by many authors, there is a need to shift the outlook of the policy makers towards the local communities. The present review of literature has underlined the role of people in all the stages of protected area creation and management. It has clearly indicated the need to earnestly scrutinise the impact of protected areas on the lives of people who have been dependent on them. In addition, it has stressed upon the need to understand the linkages between local livelihoods and conservation and to secure the livelihood of the people inside or adjacent to the protected areas for the success of conservation initiatives.

The emerging trends and issues in the field of conservation like management of whole ecosystems highlight the changing paradigm in the philosophy and practice of modern conservation (Stolton; 2010). Besides the global expansion of the protected-area based conservation initiatives and the establishment of trans-boundary protected areas and corridor projects for conservation like the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor connecting the protected areas of eight countries from Mexico to Panama are indicative of the impact of globalisation on protected areas (Zimmerer et al.; 2004). In the wake of these changes, a

Chapter 2

81

need has been felt to realign the priorities in the policies and strategies concerning protected areas around the world. This can involve formation of partnerships with indigenous people leading to feasible solutions for the accomplishment of on-ground conservation both inside and outside protected areas (Alcorn, 1993; Shrivastava and Heinen, 2007). It has to be pointed out that mere changes in the policy level would not suffice. It has to be accompanied by a facilitative environment, as demonstrated by the success of IEDP projects in Great Himalayan National Park, Himachal Pradesh; Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala and Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Tamil Nadu (Mishra et al.; 2009).

As highlighted by several studies in this review, the key to mitigation of livelihood and conservation conflicts lies in finding ways to ensure the co-existence of people and the diverse floral and faunal species the protected areas intend to conserve. This co-existence has to be founded on a platform of mutual respect between the protected area authorities and the communities (Mbile et al., 2005), where the former ensures the livelihood security of the communities and the latter assists in the achievement of the conservation goals. However, the disparity between the interests of the nation and that of the indigenous vision (Ulloa et al., 2004) is a major stumbling block in the path leading to the formulation of an inclusive policy which is essential for the success of long-term conservation strategies.

As stated by Newmark and Hough (2000), the challenge lies in designing strategies which will safeguard the long-term sustainability of species and ecosystems and are ‘politically and economically acceptable to local communities and government’ (p.585). The formulation of policies aimed at the integration of the dual objectives calls for an extensive understanding of various issues involving the local communities affected by the protected areas. Since the present study attempts to contribute to this knowledge, the current review of literature supports the rationale for conducting this study on livelihood and conservation in the context of the Agarias of Little Rann of Kachchh.