CONFLICT IN WILDLIFE RESERVE BETWEEN LOCAL PEOPLE AND NATIONAL PARK (A study conducted at Bardiya National Park, Nepal) A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Sociology/ Anthropology Tri- Chandra Multiple Campus, Tribhuvan University in the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Master of Arts in Sociology Submitted by Uttam Raj Regmi March 2010
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CONFLICT IN WILDLIFE RESERVE BETWEEN LOCAL PEOPLE AND NATIONAL PARK
(A study conducted at Bardiya National Park, Nepal)
A Dissertation Submitted to
the Department of Sociology/ Anthropology
Tri- Chandra Multiple Campus, Tribhuvan University
in the Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
Master of Arts
in
Sociology
Submitted by
Uttam Raj Regmi
March 2010
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
TRI CHANDRA MULTIPLE COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY/ANTHROPOLOGY
LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION
This dissertation entitled CONFLICT IN WILDLIFE RESERVE BETWEEN LOCAL PEOPLE AND NATIONAL PARK has been prepared by Mr. Uttam Raj Regmi under my supervision and guidance.
Therefore, I recommend this dissertation to the Evaluation Committee for it final approval
(Tika Kaini)
Lecturer / Thesis Supervisor
Department of Sociology/Anthropology
Tri- Chandra Multiple College
Kathmandu, Nepal
Date: 2010/ /
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
TRI CHANDRA MULTIPLE COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY/ANTHROPOLOGY
LETTER OF APPROVAL
The Evaluation Committee has approved this dissertation entitled CONFLICT IN WILDLIFE RESERVE BETWEEN LOCAL PEOPLE AND NATIONAL PARK prepared and submitted by Uttam Raj Regmi for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master’s Degree of Arts in Sociology.
Evaluation Committee
1. ……………..
Program Coordinator
2. ……………..
Supervisor
3. ……………..
External Examiner
Date: 2010/ /
ACRONYMS
CM Conflict Management
CR Conflict Resolutions
DDC District Development Committee
DNPWC Department of National Parks and wildlife Conservation
FUG Forest Users' Group
GEF Global environment Facility
HH Household
HMG/N His Majesty's Government, Nepal
ICIMOD International Center for Integrated Mountain Development
IG Income generation
IUCN World Conservation Union
NPC National Planning Commission
NR Natural resource
NRM Natural resource Management
PPP Park-People Project
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
BNP Bardiya National Park
UNDP United Nations Development Program
VDC Village Development Committee
WWF World Wildlife Fund
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my heartiest gratitude and sincere thanks to Mr. Tika Kaini,
lecturer, Department of Sociology/ Anthropology, Tri - Chandra Multiple College,
Kathmandu for providing me valuable guidance and regular suggestion as a supervisor
throughout this study. .
I received all necessary help for this research from Chief Warden, Bardiya National Park,
and other park staff. Thanks are due to them for their suggestion and help. Due thanks to
the government office staffs who helped me with their ideas and perception in relation to
the research topic.
My thanks go to the residents of the following village units who deserve my special
gratitude for their active participation and interest in the interviews during data
collection:Thakurdwara, Suryapatuwa, and ShivapurVDC,
In addition, I am thankful to Mr. Narayan Dhakal, Director, Bardiya National Trust for
Nature Conservation (TNC), Thakurdwara, Bardiya, Mr. Bhagawan Dahal, Research
officer, TNC for their generous help. My special gratitude goes to Ms. Silvie Walraven,
Director, Appropriate Agriculture Alternative, Mr. Rik van Keulen, Director, Nepal Trust
for their valuable feedback and comments.
I am indebted to my wife Sipa and daughter Agrima for their encouragement and
unconditional support throughout the research. I owe special thanks to Ram Raj Regmi
(father), Indu Regmi (mother) Bimal Raj Regmi (brother) Mr. Ashok Subedi, and Mr.
Surendra Prasad Tharu for their generous support in terms of ideas, logistic support, and
encouragement. Thanks are due to Mr. Shiva Sharma of Bardiya for facilitating our field
visit without whose help I could not have completed my fieldwork.
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Background of the study
Throughout history there are numerous examples of efforts made by governments, or
individual landowners to protect certain land areas that possessed unique natural values.
From the very beginning of establishment of national park or protected areas there has
been conflict. Chinese writing, some 3000 years ago, expressed views about nature
conservation, and described regulations protecting certain areas. Da Ju, published in the
6th century by Yi Zhau Shu, observes' do not cut down the trees during spring in order to
benefit the growth of herbed. Do not fish the rivers and lakes during summer in offer to
benefit the growth of fish and other aquatic life' (quoted in Li 1993) An edict from the
prime minister of Qi at that time, Guan Zuong, states that 'Pu mountain' is a forbidden
area because of the tea trees there; someone must suffer capital punishment if this law is
forbidden' (quoted in Li 1993).
As far as the landmark in the history of national park is concerned, Yellowstone National
Park is the first one. Yellowstone was established at a time when it was believed that
natural resources were inexhaustible and should be utilized for the maximum benefit to
society. There was little public sentiment -and relatively little scientific evidence
available to support preservation of seemingly unlimited biological resources found on
the North American continent (Wright, 1996).
Nepal has so far aside 18.5% of its land as national park and protected areas. During the
span of recorded conservation history in Nepal i.e. from the establishment of first
national park – Royal Chitwan National Park to the latest one Kanchanganga National
Park, the conflict of different scale and magnitude have been evident. National park and
protected areas are from the very beginning being questioned on theoretical as well as
moral ground. Conservation biologist have pointed out that reserves alone are unlikely to
maintain viable populations of many species because they usually are to small and
isolated from one another (read F. Nose in National Parks and protected areas (Other
critics claims that parks and wilderness areas no longer play a useful role in reconciling
conservation and development because they are elitist and anti-people. For example, the
national park idea, when transferred to Africa and other developing countries, has
conflicted with the needs and aspirations of local human communities. (Harman 1997;
Barnes 1994)
Because of these and other reasons, protected areas are becoming evermore difficult to
establish in many parts of the world. Similarly in U.S, the philosopher Callicott (1994/95
(among others, contends that the wilderness idea is an achronistic, ecologically
uninformed, ethnocentric, historically naive and politically counter-productive. Although
Callicott attacks the wilderness idea rather than wilderness areas, his critique comes at a
time when politically inspired antagonism toward protected areas-and public lands in
general-is becoming increasingly virulent. (Noss F. Reed, 1996, in National parks and
protected Areas)
The conservation of biological diversity of flora and fauna so far depends solely on the
success and failure of national parks and wildlife reserves. From the very beginning,
there has been the local people and park authority. Park authority blame local people for
their activities that park authority suppose to be dangerous while local people are
unhappy with park authority for various reasons. The conflict so deep rooted that park
authority and public perceive one another as enemy and this perception is usually
reflected in confrontation-sometime clash.
Some groups in society (for ex. indigenous people as part of their belief systems (have
very strong cultural attachments to species or habitats. As a result, aesthetic, inspirational,
spiritual and educational needs may all depend to some extent on diverse natural systems.
IUCN uses six categories for classification according to the management objectives of the
sites (IUCN 1994; 17-23)
Bridgewater (1992) summaries the common and significant threats to protected area
systems worldwide as follows:
∗ Conflicts with local people
∗ Lack of policy commitment at nation state level to adequately protect systems
∗ Ineffective management by trained staff of individual protected areas
∗ Funding is insufficient or unsure
∗ Inadequate public support
∗ Conflict can be defined as antagonism caused by a clash of cultural, social,
economic and/or political interest between individuals or groups. Integrating
development with conservation through protected areas can be an act of
conflict resolution as various key actors may have a broad range of interests,
which they may want to protect. (Furze et.al.1996)
There are some 8000 protected areas in the world, covering around 750 million hectares,
and accounting for 5.1% of terrestrial ecosystem. Whilst these figures would indicate a
relatively substantial protected estate, a number of common and significant threats to
protected area system worldwide have been identified.
Out of seven, the following two strategies set by The Global Biodiversity Strategy (WRI
et al, 1992:27) clearly indicates that the conservation of biodiversity is thus a
multidimensional in nature.
∗ The creation of conditions and incentives for local biodiversity conservation
∗ The expansion of human capacity to conserve biodiversity (including
increasing the awareness and appreciation of biodiversity values, helping
disseminate information needed to conserve biodiversity, promote basic and
applied research on biodiversity conservation, and develop a human capacity
for biodiversity conservation)
1.2. Understanding conflict
Conflict is an active stage of disagreement between people with opposing opinions,
principles and practices manifested in different forms (grievance, conflict and dispute)
(Walker and Daniels, 1997). Grievance is an initial stage of conflict in which individuals
or groups are apperceived to be unjust, and provides grounds for resentment of
complaints. This condition potentially erupts into conflict. When this stage turns into
conflict antagonism is caused by a clash of cultural, political, social or economic interests
between individuals and groups. At the final stage of conflict, people make the matter
public and opting for confrontation (Buckles, 1999; Bush 1995; Caplan 1995, Walker and
Daniels, 1997; Warner, 2000). Felstiner et al. (1981) coined the phrase 'injurious
experiences' to describe the process of transformation patterns of conflict. According to
the stages of transformations of conflict are:
a) Naming (when unperceived injurious feelings are transformed into perceived
injurious experiences).
b) Blaming (when it transforms into a grievance).
c) Claiming (when people charge the responsibility to the opposite party and
demand a remedy from them).
d) Dispute (when the demanded remedy is wholly or partly rejected). Conflict occurs
in many societies and it may or may not be managed or resolved. It transforms
over time and leads to different outcomes with a multitude of short term and long-
term effects (Yordan, 2000; Raifa 1991; Scimecca, 1993).
Conflict has two stages i.e. latent conflict (a relatively permanent condition between
conflicting parties with divergent and competing interests) or active (actual interplay of
the disputants over a specific problem). Conflict can be categorized into four groups
based on solvability. They are:
i) A terminal conflict that seems unsolvable by agreement and results in a win-
lose situation;
ii) A paradoxical conflict, which looks obscure and of questionable solvability
having a lose-lose outcome,
iii) A litigious conflict, which seems solvable and produces a win-win of a
consensus result (Martinelli and Almeida, 1998) and
iv) Illusory conflict where disputants want the same thing but fail to realize it.
Conflict in society is also influenced by the social context (organization and structure of
society), patterns of interaction (escalation or de-escalation), mode (e.g.. violence,
disagreement), time (specific period of time), belief of conflicting parties and the degree
of incompatibility of their goals and power structures. Conflict has many dimensions. It
occurs at different levels (e.g. from interpersonal, family and community to
international). It also varies in nature (from use of resources to personal identity).
Perception of reality by different people rather than the reality itself greatly influences
conflict, because people behave according to their perception and interpretation.
There can be several methods to study NR -related conflicts. The interpretative method
(Bell et al., 1989) helps to examine conflict by analyzing structures, processes, functions,
and their relationships as well as the pattern of interaction among people. Opting for the
interpretative method of analyzing conflict has also implications for the methodology as
it relies on an ethnographic study. An ethnographic study focuses on understanding how
conflict arise (actual occurrence) and how they are subsequently handled, considering
power relationship and social context (Caplan, 1970). This means that both the personal,
psychological, and collective social dimensions of the parties in the conflict have to be
analyzed. The behavioral analysis of individuals considers anger, emotions, and the
response of the individual actors in conflict and draws inferences based on them. In the
analysis of the social behavior of the disputants towards NR-related conflict, the conflicts
needs to be examined at the level of groups, social classes, political movements, religious
and ethnic entities, coalitions and cultural systems. This analysis basically focuses on the
collective behavior of the disputants. In a NR-related conflict both individual and
collective behavior is important. The following three methods of analysis are useful in
studying conflict (Bell et al., 1989):
1. Interpretative analysis is empirical in nature and describes how people
behave: how they perceive uncertainties, accumulate evidence, and update
perceptions; how they learn and adapt their behavior; why they think the
way they do. Interpretative analysis is mainly used by social scientists to
analyze conflict without influencing the behavior of people.
2. Abstractive analysis deals with how an idealized, rational person acts. This
analysis is more common in behavioral analysis of individuals involved in
conflict.
3. Prescriptive analysis is more advisory in nature and focuses on what
people should do to make better choices, what thoughts, decision aids,
conceptual schemes and methodology are useful, not for idealized,
mythical people, but for normal people (Bell et al., 19899; Kremenyuk,
1991)
1.3. Emergence of Conflict in Managing the National Parks or Protected Areas System
The concepts of national parks and protected areas developed with a philosophy of
preservation of living resources. Frome et al (1990) have stated that in the United States,
philosophies of national parks were pioneered to protect the natural and cultural features
by acknowledging that national parks reflect the common heritage of all people, where
people were not permitted to harvest in any form from park resources, or to live within
the park. The United States National Parks system enjoys a high level of protection
against private exploitation while making them accessible in a natural condition (Frome,
1990).
Frustrated with the inability of parks to control such problems (poaching, market hunting,
theft of resources and vandalism) in 1886, secretary of the Interior Lewis Lamar
requested that army troops be stationed in larger parks like Yellowstone and Sequoia to
protect the resources and administer the parks. The U.S. army remained in control of
Yellowstone until 1918. (Wright, 1992)
The national park and protected areas system in other countries of the world followed the
conservation philosophy of the United States. However, many protected area
management authorities failed to adopt appropriate principles and guidelines to protect
their areas against the threats of inevitable human pressure for traditional exploitation of
natural resources (Sharma, 1991). The application of the United States philosophy in a
'pure' form was clearly not suited to the different situations, which existed in countries
where ecologically important areas also had a long history of human occupation and
traditional use.
In Nepal, many of the areas judged to be of national park quality in terms of their unique
features and ecology had such a history of human habitation and often villages existed
within the proposed boundaries. In Nepal, the United States system was tried at the
beginning of the national parks movement. It was assumed that successful wildlife
conservation hinged on the exclusion of those who grazed their cattle and were dependent
on fuel wood and construction timber within the parks. As an experiment, two villages
near Lake Rara National Park were evacuated and destroyed. The inhabitants, who used
to the harsh climate of the mountains, were moved to the Terai where many succumbed
to Malaria. The Government later decided that the North American model of national
Park was not suitable for Nepal. The very process of establishing national parks alienated
people who had their lands appropriated. Hence a new concept developed with new ideas,
but which has also brought its own set of management problems.
Many concerned planners and managers are striving to manage national parks or
protected areas systems against human pressures but where the objectives of management
for protection run counter to the needs of local people, park people conflict can result.
Given the formal requirement to protect an area's resources, antagonism between the
national park administration and the local people is inevitable. Common issues involve
the use of resources such as fodder, fiber and fuel wood, compensation for the loss of
crops and stock through wildlife depredation as well as other non-core cultural factors.
2. Statement of the problem
Ecosystem management also recognizes that humans cannot be divorced from the
ecosystem but, rather, are an integral part of it.(Wright R. Gerald,1996)
By seeing conservation issues as development issues, we locate people very firmly in the
conservation equation. (Culture, conservation and biodiversity)
Threats to protected areas are identified as follows:
∗ Conflicts with local people
∗ Lack of policy commitment at nation state level to adequately protect systems
∗ Ineffective management by trained staff of individual protected areas
∗ Funding is insufficient or unsure.
∗ Inadequate public support
It is equally important to note that participation does not equal local development, nor
does local development equal participation. They are mutually dependent.
For participation to be meaningful, local involvement and consultation must mean a
partnership of equals. If local people are consulted and action based on mutual
cooperation and a better understanding of the variety of issues involved is the result, then
meaningful participation is achieved. (Furge et al,)
It is evident that there are several reasons for conflicts to take place among park authority
and people residing within or outside the park boundary. These reasons could be:
∗ Neglecting the core as well as outward sphere of culture defined by Julian
Steward
∗ Difficulties faced by local people because of inability to adjust with frequently
changing government rule, red-tapes and other kind of bureaucratic systems
∗ Attitude and behavior of the park staff and local people to each other
∗ Differences in the understanding the need of park by people and park staffs
∗ Lack of people participation in planning and implementation of park
management activities (too often wild lands are treated as 'wastelands' and
wild lives as 'free goods ' to be exploited at little or no costs by the people).
3. Objective of the study
As a rule, conflicts are always there despite of their difference in nature.
Conflicts are by nature changing its forms and extent. Whenever we try to resolve the
conflicting situation, for the time being it seems to be settled down but in reality it
changes the situation and ultimately there would come another issue where two and more
than two parties, by virtue of their different interest experience conflicts.
Followings were the objectives of the present study:
1. To identify the causes of conflicts in Bardiya National Park area.
2. To identify and rank the different conflicting issues in that area.
3. To explore the different perspectives of park authority and local people regarding
the conflicts.
4. Conceptual / Theoretical Frameworks
An analytical framework helps in thinking about phenomena, to order data and to reveal
patterns (Rapport, 1985). Therefore, an analytical framework is a heuristic device
designed to identify and analyze the relevant characteristics of a NR-related conflict.
Hence two contemporary complementary perspectives have been used to analyze NR
-relater conflicts. A legal -anthropological perspective gives conceptual tools to explore
the diversity of laws (Plurality of state, religious and local customary rules) and provides
substantive criteria to evaluate conflicts and their interrelationships as well as procedures
to manage them. A social learning perspective provides conceptual roadmaps to look for
improvement of the existing conflict.
While analyzing conflict, I am looking at a wide range of issues: from misunderstanding.
Disagreement, hostility, verbal exchange, public complaint, filing cases, physical assault,
personal and social desolations, injurious social relations to violence and civil unrest at
different levels (between individuals, between individuals and groups and between
groups)
Throughout the human history, there have been tremendous changes not only in natural
environments, but also equally in terms of cultural forms. Specific cultures evolve their
specific cultural forms in the process of adapting to specific environmental conditions
(Ortner, 1984). The assumption of Julian Steward, while conceptualizing Cultural
Ecology, is based upon the recognition that culture and environment are not separate
spheres but are involved in dialectic interplay. or what is called feedback or reciprocal
causality (Hardesty,1977).The changes in natural environments, by whatever means, thus
directly influence the human culture and vice versa. Different cultural types evolve, as a
process of adapting different environmental conditions. From the survival point of view,
the core elements of culture-exploitative technology, population patterns and economic
organization plays an important role rather than non elements of culture i.e. religion,
language, values and art. The restriction of any kind imposed to the community regarding
their culture would result in conflicting situation as conflict is situation where there are
differences in interest among two or more than two parties. Obviously if the restriction
imposed comes to direct confrontation with the cultural core, the conflict would
obviously be intense than the conflict caused by the disturbances in non -core elements of
culture. Even before the eradication of malaria, the tribal groups of people known as
Tharu were residing in Terai. They had their own culture evolved to cope with the
underlying problems and they had their exploitative technology and survival strategy.
Recognition of importance of natural environment, the establishment of National Park
and Wildlife Reserve took place under the Wild National Park Act. In order to conserve
flora and fauna in its natural habitat, the rules and regulations imposed by the park
authority caused problems to the community as well as the violation of these rules and
regulations by the community caused to develop antagonistic relationship among park
and people. As the power, prestige and property determines the status of the people, the
accessibility in the scarce resources is varied accordingly.
Thus apart from park and people conflict, there must be inter group and intra group
conflict as well among people. Economic deterministic approach of Conflict theory
entails how the underlying dynamics of resources, production system and distribution
pattern in terms of people's accessibility determines the extent of conflicts in any society.
As far as the economic commonality is concerned, each and every society has to undergo
following aspects:
As the power, prestige and property of different caste group residing nearby the wildlife
reserve differs, so do their accessibility to the natural resources. The conflicts among
different caste groups are thus inevitable regarding the resources uses pattern.
4. Importance of the study
In order to resolve the conflicts it is must to identify the conflicting issues along with causes for these issues to exist. There have been several studies regarding park and people conflicts in different national park areas. The most important issues to keep in mind here is that the issues, extent and causes of conflicts from one national park to another park obviously differs. The population dynamics, social and economic conditions of the people residing nearby national park boundary determines the issue to great extent. Though there have been several studies, Bardiya National Park is neglected from this point of view. Apart from this, most of the studies have focused in biological aspect of the conflict. There has been hardly any effort to explain the issues from anthropological perspective.
Present study has tried to explain the conflict of national park and people from anthropological perspective so as to provide the concerned people and authority with in-depth idea how the core and non core cultural factors have determined the extent of conflicts existing in the Bardiya National Park.
Chapter Two
Review of the literature
The Bardiya National Park is situated on the eastern banks of the Karnali River, about
400-km west of Kathmandu. The park is 968 sq. km in area and extends from the Churia
hills southward to the gentle slopes of the 'Bhabhar'. The western end of the Bardiya is
bounded by numerous waterways of the Karnali River, which have created many large
and small gravel islands. A mosaic of grassland and forest of Acacia, Sisam and the large
Buttressed silk cotton trees cover these islands and much to the lower ground.
Bardiya is the home of a wide variety of animals, many of which live in and around the
National Park. Spotted deer, Black buck, Hog deer, Samber deer, Wild boar, Swamp
deer, two species of Monkeys, Wild elephants, Crocodile, Dolphin and Blue bull are
found here. More than 350 species of birds have been recorded in Bardia, truly a bird+
watcher's paradise. Getting There:
A total of 333 plant species, comprising of 5 Pteridophytes, 1Gymnosperm, and 327
Angiosperms, have been recorded in BNP. Satisal (Dalbergia latifolia), Santawar
(Asparagus racemosus) , and Jharbaruwa (Raulwolfia serpentina), which are threatened
with over exploitation in other parts of Nepal, are found in good population in this
reserve. The vegetation is broadly categorized into six forest types: mixed deciduous
revering, mixed deciduous hardwood, sal, sal-pine, pine and acacia (Chaudhary, 1995).
Sal (Shorea robusta) and its associated species cover approximately 90 % of the reserve.
The reserve harbors an approximate population of 35 Asian wild elephants (Elephas
maximus). Altogether, 32 species of mammals have been recorded (Budha et al 1998).
The main species are gaur (Bos gaurus), royal Bengal tiger (panthera tigris), striped