STAKEHOLDERS

STAKEHOLDERS

Activity 16.6:

*  Make a list of forest produce that you use.

*  What do you think a person living near a forest would use?

*  What do you think a person living in a forest would use?
*  Discuss with your classmates how these needs differ or do not differ and the reasons for the same.

We all use various forest produce. But our dependency on forest resources varies. Some of us have access to alternatives, some do not. When we consider the conservation of forests, we need to look at the stakeholders who are –

i.  The people who live in or around forests are dependent on forest produce for various aspects of their life (see Fig. 16.2).

ii. The industrialists – from those who use ‘tendu’ leaves to make bidis to the ones with paper mills – who use various forest produce but are not dependent on the forests in any one area.

iii. The Forest Department of the Government which owns the land and controls the resources from forests.

iv. The wildlife and nature enthusiasts who want to conserve nature in its pristine form.

Let us take a look at what each of these groups needs/gets out of the forests. The local people need large quantities of firewood, small timber and thatch. Bamboo is used to make slats for huts, and baskets for collecting and storing food materials. Implements for agriculture, fishing and hunting are largely made of wood, also forests are sites for fishing and hunting. In addition to the people gathering fruits, nuts and medicines from the forests, their cattle also graze in forest areas or feed on the fodder which is collected from forests.

Do you think such use of forest resources would lead to the exhaustion of these resources? Do not forget that before the British came and took over most of our forest areas, people had been living in these forests for centuries. They had developed practices to ensure that the resources were used in a sustainable manner. After the British took control of the forests (which they exploited ruthlessly for their own purposes), these people were forced to depend on much smaller areas and forest resources started becoming over-exploited to some extent. The Forest Department in independent India took over from the British but local knowledge and local needs continued to be ignored in the management practices. Thus vast tracts of forests have been converted to monocultures of pine, teak or eucalyptus. In order to plant these trees, huge areas are first cleared of all vegetation. This destroys a large amount of biodiversity in the area. Not only this, the varied needs of the local people – leaves for fodder, herbs for medicines, fruits and nuts for food – can no longer be met from such forests. Such plantations are useful for the industries to access specific products and are an important source of revenue for the Forest Department.

Figure 16.2: A view of a forest life

Do you know how many industries are based on forest produce? A short count reveals timber, paper, lac and sports equipment.

Industries would consider the forest as merely a source of raw material for its factories. And huge interest-groups lobby the government for access to these raw materials at artificially low rates. Since these industries have a greater reach than the local people, they are not interested in the sustainability of the forest in one particular area. For example, after cutting down all the teak trees in one area, they will get their teak from a forest farther away. They do not have any stake in ensuring that one particular area should yield an optimal amount of some products for all generations to come. What do you think will stop the local people in behaving in a similar manner?

Activity 16.7:

*  Find out about any two forest produce that are the basis for industry.

*  Discuss whether this industry is sustainable in the long run. Or do we need to control our consumption of these products?

Lastly, we come to nature and wildlife enthusiasts who are in no way dependent on the forests, but who may have considerable say in their management. The conservationists were initially taken up with large animals like lions, tigers, elephants and rhinoceros. They now recognise the need to preserve biodiversity as a whole. But shouldn’t we recognise people as forming part of the forest system? There have been enough instances of local people working traditionally for the conservation of forests. For example, the case of the Bishnois community living in western Rajasthan on the border of the Thar desert. Conservation of forest and wildlife has been a religious tenet for them. These nature-loving people have for centuries, been conserving the flora and fauna to the extent of sacrificing their lives to protect the environment. They are living with the basic philosophy that all living things have a right to survive and share all resources. The Government of India has recently instituted an ‘Amrita Devi Bishnoi National Award for Wildlife Conservation’ in the memory of Amrita Devi Bishnoi, who in 1731 sacrificed her life along with 363 others for the protection of ‘khejri’ trees in Khejrali village near Jodhpur in Rajasthan.

Figure 16.3: Khejri Tree

Studies have shown that the prejudice against the traditional use of forest areas has no basis. Here is an example – the great Himalayan National Park contains, within its reserved area, alpine meadows which were grazed by sheep in summer. Nomadic shepherds drove their flock up from the valleys every summer. When this national park was formed, this practice was put to an end. Now it is seen that without the regular grazing by sheep the grass first grows very tall, and then falls over preventing fresh growth.

Management of protected areas by keeping the local people out or by using force cannot possibly be successful in the long run. In any case, the damage caused to forests cannot be attributed to only the local people – one cannot turn a blind eye to the deforestation caused by industrial needs or development projects like building roads or dams. The damage caused in these reserves by tourists or the arrangements made for their convenience is also to be considered.

We need to accept that human intervention has been very much a part of the forest landscape. What has to be managed in nature and what may be the extent of this intervention?

Forest resources ought to be used in a manner that is both environmentally and developmentally sound – in other words, while the environment is preserved, the benefits of the controlled exploitation go to the local people, a process in which decentralised economic growth and ecological conservation go hand in hand. The kind of economic and social development we want will ultimately determine whether the environment will be conserved or further destroyed. The environment must not be regarded as a pristine collection of plants and animals. It is a vast and complex entity that offers a range of natural resources for our use. We need to use these resources with due caution for our economic and social growth and to meet our material aspirations.

Source: This topic is taken from NCERT TEXTBOOK

MANAGEMENT OF FOREST

MANAGEMENT OF FOREST

We need to consider if the goals of all the above stakeholders with regard to the management of the forests are the same. Forest resources are often made available for industrial use at rates far below the market value while these are denied to the local people. The Chipko Andolan (‘Hug the Trees Movement’) was the result of a grassroot level effort to end the alienation of people from their forests. The movement originated from an incident in a remote village called Reni in Garhwal, high-up in the Himalayas during the early 1970s. There was a dispute between the local villagers and a logging contractor who had been allowed to fell trees in a forest close to the village. On a particular day, the contractor’s workers appeared in the forest to cut the trees while the men folk were absent. Undeterred, the women of the village reached the forest quickly and clasped the tree trunks thus preventing the workers from felling the trees. Thus thwarted, the contractor had to withdraw.

Inherent in such a competition to control a natural resource is the conservation of a replenishable resource. Specifically the method of use was being called into question. The contractor would have felled the trees, destroying them forever. The communities traditionally lop the branches and pluck the leaves, allowing the resource to replenish over time. The Chipko movement quickly spread across communities and media, and forced the government, to whom the forest belongs, to rethink their priorities in the use of forest produce. Experience has taught people that the destruction of forests affected not just the availability of forest products, but also the quality of soil and the sources of water. Participation of the local people can indeed lead to the efficient management of forests.

An Example of People’s Participation in the Management of Forests

Activity 16.8:

*  Debate the damage caused to forests by the following —

     (a) Building rest houses for tourists in national parks.

     (b) Grazing domestic animals in national parks.

     (c) Tourists throwing plastic bottles/covers and other litter in national parks

Questions:

1. Why should we conserve forests and wildlife?

2. Suggest some approaches towards the conservation of forests

Source: This topic is taken from NCERT TEXTBOOK