Park, People and Biodiversity Conservation in Kaziranga National Park, India

Abstract

Kaziranga National Park (henceforth, KNP) is a protected area situated in the North Eastern part of India. The park is a World Heritage Site and has a very rich ecosystem. KNP is an attractive tourist destination and occupies a significant place in the life and culture of the people living in this part of the country. Conservation of the park started more than a century ago, and local people have often contested such efforts. This is mainly because indigenous people have been facing displacement and deprivation from resources, which they have been using for centuries. Besides deprivation, wild animals often damage their properties and paddy fields. This leads to resentment among local people and become potential cause of grudge in the form of encroachment, poaching, biodiversity loss, and excessive collection of forest products. As a result, conservation measures may fail to deliver desired outcome. This paper tries to examine the gains and losses for living around KNP and assess the park-people relation. We conduct a case study in some periphery villages of the park and find that people have been suffering from difficulty in rearing livestock and loss caused by wild animal. However, people gain from tourism business. Based on the findings we recommend extension of tourism/allied activities and community welfare measures. The findings may be used to derive policy implication for sustainable management of the park.

Conservation and Livelihood Conflict of Kaziranga National Park: A World Heritage Site of Assam, India

“…Later, KNP was given 'maximum protection under Indian conditions' at all levels of administration under the Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2002, and was segregated according to zones and conservation strategies were applied (Mathur et al, 2005). Timber harvesting and use of forest produce were banned for local people as conservation efforts took a strict turn (Das, 2017). Despite this, official reports and relevant studies suggested the death of around 567 rhinos between 1980 and 2005 due to poaching, with their regeneration rate on a declining trend (Mathur et al, 2007).…”

“…Disruption of traditional ways of living can trigger unwanted adverse impacts on local communities (Garcia-Frapolli et al, 2009) which are tantamount to the poaching of wildlife within the park. Local communities around KNP have over the years tried to resist laws and strategies implemented for protection of the park 'because of a fear psychosis' (Das, 2017). There is a consensus among the villagers regarding the fear of losing lands and income sources to the conservation process.…”

“…Occupational profile of the local villages categorically indicates livelihood avenues to be primarily agriculture and livestock rearing, with a minority involved in other occupations (Borah et al, 2018;Das, 2017). They are immensely dependent upon KNP for acquiring natural resources and using them as inputs in agriculture or as feedstock for cattle and other livestock.…”

“…The spread of such damages covers almost 70% of the entire KNP vicinity and has become a significant issue. Although economic valuation of property and crop damages is not reliably available, studies cite an average cost of USD 55 and USD 69 per household respectively (Das, 2017). Greatest damages are faced by those who live in the transition zone and face costs upto INR 10,000 per attack (Mackenzie et al, 2012).…”

“…This relates to the fact that villagers have to submit pieces of evidence of crop damage due to wildlife, which is not a well thought feasible policy plan. With villagers failing to keep shreds of evidence in the way of photographs, they fail to claim compensation (Das, 2017).…”