 |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
1. Issue and Context The Shivapuri National Park, initially established as Shivapuri Watershed Reserve in 1976, Shivapuri Watershed and Wildlife Reserve in 1984, and located 12 kilometers north of the Kathmandu metropolis, was gazetted in 2002. The locals living in and around the park have been complaining that they are being denied access to and use of natural resources. Caught between wildlife (wild boars, porcupines) wreaking havoc with their crops and the army protecting the park, they say they increasingly feel like prisoners. Their mobility has been severely restricted: after sunset, if inside the park, they cannot exit; and if outside, they cannot enter. They have to wait another day. Moreover, the locals, who have depended on the nearby forests for fuel wood and non-timber forest products for generations, can now be detained or/and fined, if caught doing so. Quite clearly, conservation has come to Shivapuri at the expense of the local communities, and with scant regard for the rights of the indigenous peoples living in and around the park. The Shivapuri watershed is one of the main sources of water for the Kathmandu valley residents. Complaints have been lodged against the Shivapuri communities for polluting the source. To protect this water source, one of the options being considered in the new management plan developed by the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation (KMTNC) is relocating the communities living inside the National Park. There is every chance that the government may hand over the management of the national park to private sector. If this happens, this will be deemed a controversial move, given that there is already a call for participatory and co-management approach involving local communities as key stakeholders in park management. Coincidentally, all this development has come about at a time when conservationists as well as mainstream conservation organizations have come under scathing criticism for their disturbing neglect of the indigenous peoples whose land they are in business to protect (see Related Links b & c below). The radio project team learnt of the brewing discontent among the communities of Okhreni and Mulkharka, comprising some 400 households. We interviewed some of the locals of Mulkharka about the park-people conflict. The issue of relocation invariably came up. There is no doubt that relocation, whether 'forced' or 'voluntary', is going to entail a hard landing for the affected communities. It remains to be seen whether their relocation, if it ever comes to that, will be carried out with their prior informed consent, and whether they will be adequately compensated for severing their ties to their land, home, forests and traditional way of life - in short, virtually everything - to make way for biodiversity conservation. |
||||
|
2. People's Voices
Sarita Timalsina: "If they (the government) give us basic amenities like drinking water we're better off under their protection. However, it is up to the government to make a decision regarding village toilets - whether to manage them themselves or to get rid of them." Chitra Bahadur Gurung: "We will die if we have to relocate. But if the government is willing to provide us with proper housing with safety shutters, we will have to agree to their plan if it ever comes up." Maya Thapa: "They shouldn't do this to us. Where is the government going to relocate so many of us?" Dawa Sherpa: "They might relocate us. If they give us no choice as to where we want to relocate, there is nothing we can do. What can we do? We might have to go along. Let them kill us, chop us down. If we decide to stay put against their will, they will throw us out. Let them." Bhiva Gurung: "I don't want to leave my village. I want to stay right here." Pulman Gurung: "If we must relocate, we will. But they have to provide us with the kind of amenities we already enjoy here." Sita Lama: "It's not right to just say: "I will go." If all agree to relocate, I will also relocate, if they don't, I will not either." Sang Tshring Lama: "I don't know whether it is right or wrong to relocate the village(s)." Kanchhi Maya Gurung: "They [people working for the park] ask for Rs 10 per household in this village and the next; however, they don't spend even Rs 5 for the welfare of these villages. If we don't give, they threaten to imprison us, they say they will send the army after us. We need permission to take our farm-produce to the market. There is restriction on collecting mushroom, and niuro (fern-like edible plant). We used to sell wicker baskets and dokos, and now there is ban on their sale too." |
||||
|
3. Experts' Opinion Surya Bahadur Pandey, Deputy Management Officer, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation: "We provide wood, sand and stone for free to the locals and are prepared to mobilize economic assistance by partnering with development organizations. The locals can visit our department. They can go to Sundarijal range post, army barracks and the national park headquarters. If they submit an application at the headquarters in Pani Muhan, we can provide soil and stone for toilet construction for free. In all national parks, it is common practice to give away materials such as wood, soil and stone as per the submitted estimates." T. C. Lama of Vishnu Budhanilkantha Village Development Committee: "There is restriction on collecting fodder and wood. How can the villagers cook meal without fuel wood? National park is fine. But they must also assume greater responsibility. It is not enough to make law. The national park has a boundary wall, but it is of no use. Since the establishment of national park, the wildlife population has increased. The wildlife doesn't run away from us. We grow corn, but wild boars destroy it. The farmer cannot protect his corn. We cannot kill wildlife, so the management must repair the stonewall to prevent wildlife from venturing into our fields." Surya Bahadur Pandey, Deputy Management Officer, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation: "It is not proper to complain that wild boars or monkeys have destroyed crops, now that this is national park. Management plan is under consideration. Rules and regulations will be formulated, and through people participation appropriate measures will be implemented. The stone wall is there to prevent the locals' livestock from straying into forests, as well as to keep wildlife from straying into people's fields. The wall needs to be repaired. We need to build motorable road as well. All this we will do." Karna Shakya, Tourism Entrepreneur: "When I went to Kenya, I saw a billboard at the airport that read: The Capital Closest to the National Park. It promoted Kenya's national park. Now we have gone Kenya one better. The Shivapuri National Park is only seven kilometers from the international airport. We must likewise publicize this park." |
||||
|
"Shivapuri is and has always been the main source of water for the Kathmandu valley residents. The best option is to relocate the village(s) elsewhere. Another possibility is to develop village tourism so that the communities are able to make income, raise their education and health standards, and thus live better than now. They would then be less likely to pollute the water reservoir. Another option is if they wish, we can provide them skill-development trainings, and if they relocate, this would be an ideal outcome from the point of view of protecting the water source. "What are each local person's expectations? If we decide to go for village tourism, what is its feasibility and how much can the locals benefit from it? All these issues have to be examined. We have made management plan. Our core-belief is to take local people and conservation together, raise people's living standard and at the same time conserve biodiversity. Certainly the best option is to develop village tourism: this would raise people's living standard and lessen pollution. Whatever the decision, we will not be involved in relocating the village(s)." |
||||
|
5. Related Link(s)/ Reference(s)
a. Radio script for episode 4, Nepali version (PDF) |
<