Forum (Spotlight Weekly)

Crisis in Conservation: Before or After Insurgency?

By Subas Dhakal

Like several other sectors of Nepal, nature conservation initiatives have been hard hit by the ongoing insurgency. There is no doubt that escalated insurgency has severely restricted conservation initiatives at the field level. No wonder, sporadic conservation gatherings limited to Kathmandu often ends with the school of thought that insurgency has caused 'crisis in conservation'. Has it really? Well, other school of thought is that creed of conservation was in crisis long before the insurgency and blaming it single-handedly now is nothing but an ambiguous excuse. Such excuse may go uncontested if conservation activities of the recent past are not looked at carefully. Not too long ago, trend of simultaneous increase in number of ecotourists and population of key endangered species was the common buzz. Authorities were riding high on success of conservation initiatives through participatory approaches in managing community forests, buffer zones and conservation areas to a certain extent. That clearly made authorities over-confident enough to overlook the fact that ratio between inputs in conservation and its outputs were not proportionate even prior to the insurgency. Inspite of magnanimous conservation efforts of governmental and non-governmental agencies, daunting reality was that most of the success was limited in identifying people (who are deprived from access to the natural resources without any tangible alternative livelihood options) as the major threat to the conservation and finding ways to involve them in a process of conservation. While trying to minimize such 'people-oriented' threats several proactive programs and policies were put into effect but the results were barely impressive. Instead, inequity in revenue sharing, top to bottom approach management, centralized policies and detrimental political intervention contributed towards crisis long before the insurgency.

Insurgency was nowhere around when several mitigating programs with noble goals to improve livelihood of people living in and around protected areas failed to live up to expectations because a) large chunk of revenue generated from tourism activities within protected areas were infiltrated through the strata of institutions and magnitude of share reaching down to needy ones for the right cause became negligible b) enforced green-development activities through micro-credit often turned into failed entrepreneurship due to scores of similar entrepreneurship in many parts of the country without the sustainable and tangible market access c) such failure induced inability to payback credit offset people's chores and further escalated dependency on natural resources in and around protected areas d) unwilling to believe that helping conservation would bring about changes in their life, people became further involved in unnecessary and excessive extraction of natural resources, encroachment of forested areas and poaching/retaliatory killing of endangered species. These scenarios were (and still are) the reality of majority of households in and around protected areas where conservation programs integrated with development were implemented prior to the insurgency. Yet at the time when insurgency has paralyzed the conservation endeavors, instead of evaluating ongoing programs to strengthen future endeavors authorities are pretending to be functioning by bringing policies that lacks rigorous homework and acknowledgement of existing legal framework. Most of the controversial policies that have emerged recently like taxation of community forestry revenue, entry of domestic elephants to the protected areas and wildlife farming opportunities have no intention of addressing real needs of the people. It is shocking that a group of adequately educated and well-experienced experts can put forward such policies thereby aiding in crisis. Guiding principle into formulating such policies have been the 'Greed and not the Need' and that has nothing to do with the insurgency whatsoever. Furthermore, politics and political figures were responsible in vandalizing conservation initiatives before the insurgency. As a matter of fact it wouldn't be wrong to say that current political void has significantly reduced political encroachment into the nature conservation initiatives of Nepal. With an incompetent academic background and corrupt traits, expecting those futile political leaders to be sensitive about issues of conservation was certainly asking too much. Yet coalition between the authorities with such leaders to influence decision-makings that enabled selected few to exploit natural resources was strong in a period well before the insurgency. Political decision to relocate padampur VDC from the fringes of Royal Chitwan National Park by clearing thousands of hectares of eastern portion of Barandabhar Forest was one of such decisions. That particular decision has imposed more threats to the integrity of landscape of Chitwan than anything else so far. Barandabhar forest that contains suitable habitat for several globally significant endangered species including tiger and rhino has been under tremendous pressure due to the relocation and associated politically backed unplanned development activities. Forest that once served as a seasonal migratory route for endangered species (between the park and the foothills of Mahabharat range) is in the process of disastrous fragmentation directly affecting the species within the park as well. Ecological and economical cost of such relocation has certainly outrun the benefits and isn't it obvious that why authorities did not foresee such impacts and oppose horrendous decision then? These examples clearly illustrate that crisis is not a sole outcome of often-claimed insurgency.

It will be unethical to undermine the toll of insurgency in ongoing conservation initiatives of Nepal but so will be to held insurgency single-handedly liable for the widening gap between aspiration behind conservation and the reality of management in Nepal. It's apparent that authorities have attempted to cover up past conservation failures due to the inept management, misleading policies with murky objectives and decision by ludicrous and corrupt politicians by misusing insurgency. Authorities are being contradictory by ambiguously portraying insurgency for crisis while recently brought policies (with vested interest to benefit selected group of people) would allow the legal looting of the natural resources! Well, does such contradictory claims should really be a concern of common citizens? It surely should be in spite of the reality that citizen's concern over nature conservation issues has been marginalized due to the gloomy situation brought by insurgency. Nevertheless it's important for conservation enthusiasts and majority of the citizens who are dependant on natural resources for their livelihood to understand that once insurgency will be resolved and when the time for rebuilding the country from ground zero will come, sustainable utilization of natural resources with conservation and management tools better than what's been practiced today will be the only way out for their survival and country's economic revival. Therefore, conservation enthusiasts, common citizens and particularly media should be careful not to let unaccountable conservation authorities to cover up crisis brought by baffling design/delivery of programs, deceiving polices and candid alliance with dim-witted politicians in the name of insurgency!

(For comments, feedbacks and suggestions please contact author at: conservationeducation@rediffmail.com )