Status and Contestations over Resource Use

Located in Gujarat state in the western part of India, Gir is one of the largest compact tracts of dry deciduous forest spread over an area of 1,412.1 sq kms. The PA is surrounded by a peripheral forest of 470.5 sq kms. The area had faced severe risk of extinction of its flagship wildlife species, i e, the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica), before it was notified as sanctuary in 1965. Subsequently, a part of the sanctuary was notified as national park in 1975.9 This facilitated undertaking a number of conservation measures, resulting in improved vegetation [Pathak 1996], and culminating into successful revival of wildlife within the PA [Singh and Kamboj 1995]. By the turn of the century, wildlife population had overshot what traditionally used to be considered as “carrying capacity” of the ecosystem.10

The success could be largely attributed to effective protection and habitat development practices adopted by the forest department. A seminal study by Sharma and Johnsingh (1996) has presented detailed account of the increased vegetation in the PA, suggesting coexistence of the wildlife and the people who continued to live inside the sanctuary after the relocation of a sub-set of the maldhari families since the mid-1970s. Relocation of these families therefore, is not being seen as high priority agenda in the current thinking of PA-management. This section gives a brief account of the status of natural resources and the issues of contestation over their use.

Gir, apart from being the only home of the Asiatic lion and the largest intact stretch of natural forest in the region, assumes special significance because of its tremendous regenerating, selfsupporting and sustaining capacity for the rich and diverse fauna and flora [Singh and Kamboj 1995; Pathak 1996].11 Nevertheless, the PA has suffered severe degradation of resources, especially in the post-1980s, owing to natural phenomenon like frequent droughts and cyclone on the one hand, and human interventions on the other. The main features of degradation have been listed as follows:

(iii) Digging of large number of bore wells (for irrigation) resulting in decline in the water table. Similarly large number of waterholes (i e, artificial sources of water), pose risk of accidents and damage to wildlife. Scarcity of water becomes a major problem for supporting wildlife during summer months.

reducing the availability of fodder to support livestock particularly, among land-poor households.

Degradation of resources is both – cause as well as result of conflicts between the PA-management and the people living within and outside the PA [Chaudhary 2000; Ganguly 2004]. The conflicts get manifested in terms of (a) re-entry of a number of families relocated outside the PA; and infiltration of livestock from the periphery and other regions; (b) overgrazing and selling of farmyard manure, top soil, fuel wood by households; (c) frequent attacks by wildlife resulting in loss of crops and human lives as well as livestock; (d) resentment among people especially in the 23 villages, which have lost the entire pasture land at the time of demarcation of PA-boundary; and (e) accidental as well as intentional fires more or less on a regular basis. This of course leaves out poaching of wildlife, probably by criminal gangs, that may be independent of the conservation-livelihood interface in the region. Overall, this suggests a fairly contentious situation; growth of population, human, livestock and wildlife – in the recent past seems to have aggravated the imbalance between conservation and people’s needs.12

People’s Dependence on Protected Areasand Village Pastures

Presently, about 8,000 people and 11,000 livestock inhabit 54 nesses and 14 forest settlements inside the PA. Systematic estimate of the population however, are not available in the public domain.

Besides these there are 99 villages in the radius of 5-7 kms from the PA-boundary, inhabiting about 0.2 million people, and about

0.1 million livestock population [Singh 2001].

According to a study by Berwick (1996), the area under Gir-PA could support a total of about 21,000 cattle, and human population of 3.8 persons per sq kms. This suggests that the present population of both human as well as livestock have far exceeded the norms for sustainable resource use. Conceding that the vegetative cover and availability of fodder plus NTFP (including fuel wood) have improved since then, the area could support larger number of human, livestock, and wildlife population as compared to the earlier norms.13 In this backdrop, this section presents broad estimates of resource-dependence among people within and outside the PA. The estimates are based on the primary data, extrapolated with the help of the estimates of average production/consumption of fodder, fuel, and other resources per area/cattle/households in the region.

Resource Use among Cattle Herders in Nesses

An exercise was carried out for estimating direct use of PAresources among maldhari households living inside the sanctuary. Table 1 presents monetary value of the various resources, using average estimates obtained through focus group discussions (FGDs) with these households. As per the estimates in Table 1, value of direct use of forest resources is Rs 114.78 million per annum. Compared to this, the cost borne by the Maldharis is Rs 11.25 million. The net benefit is Rs 103.53 million. Besides the monetary costs, other disadvantages faced by these households are mainly in terms of lack of physical infrastructure, social and economic alienation, and conflicts with the forest department.

The estimates of benefits and cost to the households living inside the PA prima facie, suggests substantial scope for strengthening conservation measures by adopting consultative/ participatory approaches. This is particularly important in the light of the fact that, while these people living inside the sanctuary draw upon various resources, they also contribute significantly towards sustenance of the ecology in several ways.14

Resource Use by People in the Peripheral Villages

Ascertaining the extent and nature of resource use by the people living in the periphery is difficult because the extraction is deemed as “illegal”. The estimates therefore, are subject to gross under-reporting by the households residing outside the PA. To resolve this problem we have tried to (a) gauge the broad magnitude of the households reporting use of fodder/fuel wood/ other resources from the PA; and (b) generate macro estimates of the resource use based on the average requirement per cattle/ households. The estimates are based on the primary data collected through census as well as sample surveys in four villages in the periphery.

Results from the census survey of households provided basic profile of the study villages. It was observed that whereas 44 per cent of the households did not report ownership of land, about 32 per cent did not have any livestock. The average number of milch animals owned by the household was fairly small, i e,

2.4. The estimate of livestock ownership excludes a large number of livestock that is brought to the region for grazing. The limited ownership of livestock in terms of coverage of households and average size is a manifestation of the shrinking quality as well as quantity of common property land resources (CPLRs) in the peripheral villages.

As many as 48 per cent of the households reported that forest (including the PA) is an important source of fodder (Table 3). Of these, 21 per cent obtained less than 25 per cent of their fodder requirement from the forest whereas, 27 per cent obtained more than that. To a large extent, the extraction is likely to be from the PA rather than from the peripheral forest, which is under highly degraded conditions as noted earlier. Since a substantially large proportion of households did not own any livestock the proportion of households accessing fodder from the PA works out to be 32.6 per cent of the sample households. This is fairly substantial given the fact that extraction of fodder from forest (PA) is legally prohibited, hence likely to be underreported.

Alternatively, we tried to assess a more realistic scenario by working out total availability of fodder in the region using the norm of average productivity of 3,000 kg per hectare during a normal year [Tewari 1994].15 Accordingly the total production of fodder from the PA and the peripheral forest worked out to be around 0.4 million tonnes per year. Against this the estimated fodder requirement for livestock and other herbivores inside the PA is 0.24 million tonnes. This would leave a surplus of about

0.17 million tonnes of fodder to support livestock @ an average consumption of 7-8 kg of fodder per day per animal. The surplus fodder could support around 21,000 large animals (i e, cow, buffalo and bullock) in the periphery.

Assuming that about 50 per cent of the estimated livestock of about one lakh in the periphery consists of cows, buffalo and

Notes: * Per cent of households owning livestock; **Include forest inside and in the periphery of PA. However, in most cases, the extraction is from the PA, since peripheral forests have lost their productivity due to excessive growing and faulty management practices [Singh 2001;78].

Source: Primary survey.

Table 4: Status of CPLRs in Selected Villages in the Periphery

Details Ha

Total area under pastures before PA-notification 5386.9 Area covered by PA 1585.4 Area reported as encroached 1015.4 Area under other use/transfer 576.0 Details No of villages Currently available for development area (Ha) 2211.0 < 15 Ha 12 16-50 Ha 8 > 50 Ha 9

Status of the village pastures Medium-Poor 21 Very poor 4 Not applicable 4

Source: Data collected from revenue records, triangulated through physical verification and discussions with informed persons within villages.

Management of Gir-PA

The above description highlighted a situation of continued pressure and contestations over natural resources as well as wildlife, notwithstanding the significant achievements of the PAmanagement in the past few decades. The conflicts often take different forms of violence, mistrust and antagonism between the protectors and the people. This section tries to explore alternative management plan in the light of people’s perceptions about resource management in the region.

The PA-management has already recognised the need for land use planning on a regional basis, which in turn, would necessitate appropriate structure of incentives and restrictions on resource use by different categories of households. In what follows we present some of the important observations on people’s perceptions about PA-management and expectations thereof by focusing on three aspects of land-use viz; regeneration of CPLRs; changing crop-mix and thereby use of ground water; and shifting of maldharis from interior to areas nearer to the PA-boundary.

(a) On CPLRs: Our field study indicated that whereas access to fodder resources is the most important expectation, followed by regeneration of CPLRs, collective action for protecting the CPLRs was considered the least important, given the degraded status of the pastures (see Table 5). The major challenge is to remove/ reduce the encroachment on these resources. This, of course is difficult as has been widely observed in the case of similar interventions like watershed or eco-development projects in different parts of the country [Shah 1998].20

There was however, a fair amount of consensus among households on the issue of conservation and ecological sustenance in Gir. We tried to ascertain what kind of support/compensation would be required by the households if, the protection mechanism is to become more stringent. In other words, we tried to capture people’s willingness to accept a stricter ban on the use of PAresources. The most important expectations, presented in Table 6 suggest that increased opportunities for income-employment topped the list (40 per cent), which is followed by assured supply of fodder and fuel wood (22 per cent), and then by access to alternative sources of fuel such as gobar gas plants, LPG etc, (12 per cent).

Though not entirely new the responses suggest two important aspects. First, people do value conservation of ecosystem and the need for conservation as well as protection measures. And second, in absence of adequate support for fodder and fuel from the village pastures, the households may continue their partial dependence on the PA, notwithstanding their awareness about need for conservation. It is in this context that a holistic, rather than a compartmental approach for regeneration of pastures within and outside the PA becomes critical, where resources within the PA may provide the requisite leverage for mobilising collective action for development of pastures in the periphery.

(b) On crop-land: Another issue pertains to exploring possibilities for changing the crop-mix and at the same time increasing productivity of bio-mass, a part of which could help bridging the supply gap for fodder. An attempt was made to examine these possibilities by comparing the relative net benefits from crops and farmers’ perception about willingness to shift to alternative cropping pattern (from water intensive crops such as sugarcane, cotton and wheat to the conventional crops like mango, groundnut and fodder) along with expected policy support. This was ascertained in the light of depletion of ground water table, reported by a large number of households.

The results indicate that whereas a large majority of the farmers had shown reluctance towards changing the crop-mix, mainly on the ground of loss of income, several of them were willing to adopt technologies for improving water use efficiency (Table 7). While this is important, the need is to simultaneously address the issue of soil water conservation (SWC) in the upper catchments of seven the rivers originating from the PA. Absence of adequate measures for SWC inside the PA has led to an ironical situation wherein fields in the periphery have rich vegetation whereas land inside the sanctuary area is facing severe water shortage. The imbalance in availability of water and vegetation may give further impetus for human-wildlife conflict.21

(c) Shifting of maldharis: The scenario pertaining to Maldharis is somewhat fluid, as infiltration of human/livestock population had continued for long, mainly due to inadequate/inefficient policies for resettlement of maldhari households in the past. According to Choudhary (2000), 269 out of the 592 households resettled outside the PA during the seventies, had re-entered the PA. Similarly, infiltration of livestock into the PA is fairly common, especially during droughts. Also there is little by way of information on the number of households and their livestock, besides their legal status, in the public domain. All these hamper meaningful consultations and effective solutions for PAmanagement.

Given the fact that contemporary policies discourage involuntary relocation, the strategy in Gir-PA is to maintain the status quo. There is however, a move to shift maldharis households from more remote to areas in proximity of the PA-boundary [Singh M 2001]. This, apparently, creates a “win-win” situation where the households continue to enjoy privileges of being inside the PA, and at the same time, access benefits of markets, connectivity and other amenities available outside the PA. It is expected that these households may eventually accept the option for moving out, once they get used to the advantages of the “modern” lifestyle outside the economy. The initial response was found to be positive. Nevertheless, it could be short-lived, if the households do not find substantial improvements in access to resource outside the PA.

The need is to adopt a twofold approach whereby incentives for maldhari households resettled outside to re-enter the PA is reduced, and at the same time disincentives in terms of better compliance for regulated use of resources is increased.

The foregoing analysis highlighted critical importance of improving vegetation in order to simultaneously address the twin objectives of ecological regeneration and livelihood support. The next stage of PA-management therefore, poses a new set of issues and challenges such as: (a) habitat management which is conducive for the flagship wildlife species; (b) regeneration of vegetation that could sustain wildlife and also people’s needs;

Reasons for Not Changing the Crop-mix Per Cent of Landed HHS

Uncertainty of income 51.9 Increase in cost 12.7 Susceptible to pest, hence increase in cost 58.8 Low forage value 16.6 Not suitable for soil or soil degradation 36.3 Other 22.5 Total no of responses 203

Note: No of respondents = 102. Source: Primary Survey.

Summing Up

The central argument of the paper is that participatory approaches, at best, may yield only limited results unless the management approach comes up with a holistic view of the interface between ecological and economic services emanating from the PA. This would call for going beyond the existing legal framework. Since people’s livelihood dependence on forest varies across households owing to differential socio-economic and political characteristics, it may open up avenues for negotiations and, at times, cross subsidisation among different groups within the village communities. Institutional arrangements would have a central role to play while adopting an inclusive approach for PA-management.

While the present management plan has already recognised critical importance of regeneration of resources within and outside the PA, interdependence between the two and its implications for mobilising people’s commitment towards protection of the PA need to be clearly spelt out. Centrality of soil-water conservation in the upper catchments of watersheds (i e, inside the PA), as a precondition for regeneration of village pastures in the periphery, needs to be strengthened further. Similarly it is essential to acknowledge the fact that overlooking people’s stakes, and being blind to their livelihood need, may perpetuate over-exploitation of resources by people, at times, in connivance with the protectors. Lack of transparency may aggravate the situation of mutual distrust.

Pooling of resources from pastures within the PA as well as in the peripheral villages is important for bridging the demand-supply gaps in fodder and fuel wood. This may provide effective leverage for renegotiating people’s stakes on the one hand, and commitments for compliance to regulate resource-use, and eventually reduce pressure on the PA. Setting up appropriate legal-institutional arrangements is crucial. This would call for identification of appropriate incentives and restraints in the light of a more detailed assessment of people’s livelihood base, and their dependence on the PA within a regional setting.

There cannot be any blueprint for participatory approaches nor, could it work within the stipulated time frame of four or five years. Nevertheless, one could reiterate some of the important elements of an alternative approach, which is essentially dynamic, interactive and above all, based on a minimum amount of mutual trust between people and the PA-management. A critical missing link that needs immediate attention is creating a space in public domain for exchange of information, negotiations, and informed decisions.

Notes

27 In actual practice the focus was to trade-off resource extraction from the PA against one time assistance in the form of cooking gas; building material; fencing to the crop-fields; deepening of privately owned irrigation-wells; and at times, construction of check dam or plantation on community land, etc. Since most of the benefits had accrued on individual as against community basis, the larger vision for moving towards a sustainable land use – within and outside the PA – is seldom addressed.