Villagers around Keibul Lamjao National Park:
Custodians or Culprits in wildlife conservation

Dr. R. S. Khoiyangbam *

Keibul Lamjao National Park :: Photo Credits :: neceer.org.in

The landmark of protected wildlife areas began with the establishment of the world's first National Park, Yellowstone, in the United States in 1872. This model was replicated later on in many countries including India to set up an exclusive network of Protected Areas (PAs). Today, PAs are the cornerstone of conservation of not only world's biodiversity, but also other natural and related cultural resources. There are more than 2600 PAs in the world, covering nearly 4 million km2 in 124 countries and they are credited with saving wildlife from extinction.

Had it not been for the timely intervention and declaration of PA in Keibul Lamjao, the wild animals in the area including 'Sangai' could have succumbed to a tragic end. Nonetheless, conserving wildlife in developing country like India is always a challenge as PAs are often understaffed, ill-equipped and underfunded and Keibul Lamjao National Park (KLNP) in Manipur is no exception. In spite of the many constraints, the park management in KLNP has put their best possible efforts nurturing the then meagre wildlife population to the present-day bountiful state.

There are good reasons to applause the tireless efforts on the part of the park management - making us all feel proud of 'Sangai'. Yet, it's not the end of the road, we are at the crossroad between the traditional and modern conservation approaches. It is the wisdom of the nation's conservationist elite to choose which path KLNP move forward.

There is greater need for exploring new horizons and redefining the effectiveness of the PA. Conservation biologist often considered a conservation success only if the endemic species are present in viable populations. However, an anthropologist viewing the same PA may deem it a failure if local communities' rights or livelihoods were undermined.

The enactment of the Wildlife (protection) Act in 1972, in India provides three categories of PAs: national parks (NP), sanctuaries and closed areas. NPs are given highest level of protection, with no rights permitted within them. However, the First Indian Survey of PA Network, found that a huge number of NPs in the country have human habitation within their boundaries.

A study of 171 NPs and sanctuaries conducted in the mid-1980s found that there were 1.6 million people living in the 118 parks that were inhabited (Kothari et al, 1989). Large grazing cattle population inside PAs are associated problems. Though some NPs allow limited grazing within its boundaries, unauthorized grazing was reported from these PAs. Considering the large cattle population India has (18% of world's cattle) in its limited land area (2.5% of geographical land cover) this is highly expected.

Worldwide, the scenario remains not much different due to the so called "Rich Forests, Poor People" syndrome. The vast majority of the world's PAs (84.5% of those with assigned IUCN categories) are open to some form of human use. In South America, for example, 86% of NPs have people living in them and using the natural resources of the Parks to some extent (Amend and Amend, 1992). It is clear from the above that one of the most difficult challenge facing PA managers is the reconciliation of issues related to livelihood with biodiversity conservation.

Failure to strike the right balance will certainly be harmful to communities and quite possibly damaging for conservation. In its worst, this may result into severe social and ecological crisis in the area. Logic and evidence show that PAs and laws on their own would not be able to do much to protect the wildlife in the long term without the involvement of local community.

Since the inception of KLNP, the protection of perceived wildernesses has necessitated the exclusion of local people. Interestingly, contrary to the popular notion of a former untouched pristine ecosystem, KLNP when established was inside the "human footprint"-areas defined as largely impacted by people. There is good evidence to show that virtually every part of the KLNP has anthropogenic influences throughout our human past.

The establishment of the park in 1977 has isolated the people from the land they have traditionally considered to be their own. Laws governing the park turn the centuries old practice of subsistence fishing and extraction of natural resources into a crime. Till today, local people often see the KLNP from a different perspective as opposed to the perception of those who do not live in close proximity.

While many conservationists claim wildlife and natural resources as a national heritage, rural people have traditionally seen it as a gift of nature, which is theirs to use, and which often plays an important role in local cultures, diets and economies. A sense of alienation among local people developed because of legal restrictions on access to the natural resources.

In general this constitutes what is commonly regarded as human-wildlife conflict. In KLNP, issues related to such conflicts are often sidelined by other conservation initiatives, perhaps because it is such a complex and difficult issue. Yet, if overall conservation efforts do not directly address the conflict, the conservation efforts in the park will likely fail in the face of unresolved conflicts.

The impacts of state-driven conservation on people have received considerable attention over the last few decades. A growing body of empirical evidence now indicates that the transfer of `Western' conservation approaches to the Third World has had adverse effects. Unlike their western counterparts, PAs in India have higher human and cattle presence.

Embarking on conservation methods with the 'fortress-and-fines' model, an approach that was easy to conceptualize and adapt may simply fail. This may rather result into resentment by local people to PAs legislation and enforcement agencies, leading to acts of sabotage and civil disobedience. Local resentments are not restricted to PAs in India, but are common worldwide, where wildlife and human population coexist and share resources.

In India, for instance, villagers in the Kanha NP of Madhya Pradesh had set fire to large areas of NP (Gadgil and Guha, 1992). Maria people in the Kutru Tiger and Buffalo Reserve in M.P., have side with Naxalites due to resentments (Furer Haimendorf, 1986). In the Amboseli NP in Kenya the Masai expressed their resentment by spearing lions, rhinos and other wildlife.

The Masai are said to have hunted the black rhino to near extinction, not so much for its valuable horn, but because they believed white tourists desire to see the animal was the cause of them losing so much land to the park (Koch, 1994). The past incidences of damaging and burning parks properties in KLNP, public protest, mass rallies and the destruction of park fencing erected to protect cattle entry at Khordak village some months back are indications of local resentments.

Conservation itself needs rethinking. Three decades ago, PAs were largely the domain of ecologists, forestry officials, and the occasional land-use planner. Now, they are included in the international arena as part of the Millennium Development Goals, to eradicate extreme poverty and end hunger. Correspondingly, biodiversity funding has been increasingly linked with poverty alleviation.

By global mandate, in addition to conservation, PAs are to provide economic benefits at multiple scales, alleviate poverty, protect threatened cultures, and promote peace. This development has been reflected in most of the IUCN organised international fora on PAs in the recent decades. At the 1982 World Parks Congress in Bali, the consensus emerged that "PAs in developing countries will survive only insofar as they address human concerns".

In 1992 the Congress called for conservationists to devise "win-win" scenarios of conservation and development in which both appropriate human use of natural resources and the preservation of the same could occur simultaneously. The World Parks Congress in Durban, 2003 recommended to compensate members of communities affected by PAs for economic losses caused by protected wildlife.

A key to success in PAs is recognizing that parks are more than geographical entities. To do this requires a park management philosophy that combines resource management with a sensitive understanding of the social and economic needs of the people. Conservation involving local development generally falls into three broad groups: community-based natural resource management, community-based conservation, and integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs).

The term ICDP was introduced in a study of 23 projects linking development activities to conservation at 18 parks in 14 countries. The underlying model is to establish "core" in which uses are restricted and, in the surrounding areas a "buffer zones", to promote socioeconomic development and income generation compatible with park management objectives.

Economic activities promoted ranged from ecotourism to agro-forestry to sustainable harvest of biological resources. The local residents are given the right to limited and sustainable use of natural resources while promoting tolerance towards wildlife, responsible interaction with their natural environment and the recognition of the value or natural heritages. Implementing such initiatives has become commonplace in the last decade that they are now considered mainstream conservation practice, and touted as the impetus of 'new people's conservation'.

Most conservationists celebrate the designation and expansion of PAs. However, they often disagree regarding how best to manage the parks. Further, conservation scientists tend to perceive PAs through their narrow professional expertise window often missing the complex internal linkages. Today park managers in KLNP need to attend to a number of other equally critical issues. Of all, prevention of habitat degradation is probably the most significant. As per the IUCN, habitat loss over exceeds all other threats including overexploitation, threatening some 85% of all species classified as "threatened" and "endangered" in the IUCN's Red Lists. Habitat degradation in KLNP is primarily attributed to the change in hydrological regime in the aftermath of the commissioning of hydropower project in 1983.

Thinning, fragmentation and drifting of smaller pieces of floating island of phumdi by wind harbouring animals are sometimes reported. But the most unfortunate part is, Loktak Lake in which KLNP forms a part of it, is currently a divided water body of two incompatible pursuits: biodiversity conservation and hydropower generation. There is merit in either allowing the lake to be used for hydropower generation or devoted fully to conserve its wilderness and associated cultural importance. However, it is certain that neither of the two will be ready to leave the scene, at least for decades to come. It is, therefore, worthwhile to propose and develop a separate reservoir regulating mechanism for KLNP.

In fact, population around KLNP are the flood victims of the hydropower reservoir, who had lost their private, ranch and community lands. Recurring floods of whatever land left makes them more marginalised, vulnerable and dependent on KLNP. Some of the other emerging issues that the park management needs to engage include the impacts of climate change on the park, biological magnification of pesticides, invasion of exotic weeds, countering poaching, vaccination of livestock, etc.

Considering the population growth rate and the economic hardship faced by the local people, it seems that the conflict between human and wildlife in KLNP will not be eradicated in the near future. However, it is neither ethically right nor often administratively or politically feasible to disregard the legitimacy of people's claims to natural resources for livelihood sustenance. Therefore, long term success of KLNP would require a paradigm shift in management philosophy.

The central challenge now is to find ways of putting people back into conservation. While it is true that allowing the people to access to natural resources in the park cannot alleviate poverty for a substantial number of poor people around KLNP, biodiversity conservation can significantly help to prevent and reduce poverty by maintaining ecosystem services and supporting livelihoods. Equally important is winning the heart and confidence of the local people towards conservation efforts.

Moreover, a lasting resolution of 'park-people conflicts' will not come with short-term solutions by sporadic distribution of some material goods like the apiculture box, fishing net, pressure cooker, etc. Pursuing a serious human-wildlife conflict resolution programme may entail a holistic approach based on sound scientific knowledge, plus conviction and a well synchronised synergistic effort on the parts of the Park management and local communities. This should at the best be augmented by a framework of a boarder investments and strategic reform in government policies.