Land and ConflictCDP 532: Unit 2 cont…

Context: Land for conflict / peace Historical context: Emergence of state and ruler from territorial expansion

and land conquest enhanced the revenue and surplus extraction (also in Nepal) Most of initial state structures were built on land related issues!

Land as economic assets: means of production and basis for livelihoods (Agrarian livelihoods)

Source of material and symbolic power and reflection of unequal social structure (therefore concern for the justice)

Land in politics: For identity and sovereignty and for revolutionary ideology (Marxism)

Land shapes social and political ideologies and therefore interest of conflict entrepreneurs

Weak and contested institutional mechanisms in land (legal / formal and customary / traditional): competing claims and insecure tenure rights

Ecological context (hill with less arable land), population growth, environmental stress and scarcity of land resource

Changing society and economy: from farm to non-farm economy / livelihoods But: Land still matters for conflict and peace, why?

People have fought over land since the beginning of recorded history. Population growth and environmental stresses have exacerbated the perception of land as a dwindling resource, tightening the connection between land and violent conflict. Land is often a significant factor in widespread violence and is also a critical element in peace-building and economic reconstruction in post-conflict situations.

Land conflict types

Competing claims for agriculture Competing claims for agriculture and other

use (industry, mining, protected areas, hydropower)

Claims over land (by peasants) against state (including organized conflict against state)

Conflict at the institutional level (even at the state level)

Political economy of land conflict

Two ideas Resource access:

Resource scarcity hypothesis (Homer-Dixon) of land based conflict

But does not answer how political and economic force interact across spatial scale to structure the access

Therefore land conflict should be situated within the historic, social, political and economic circumstances of specific places

Frontier development Competition for resources occurring within frontier (region with

abundant resource and weak institutions) Failure of land titling to keep pace with frontier expansion Land conflict as class struggle and mobilizing political power

Political economy of land conflict Brazilian Amazon (Simmons 2004)

Land-based struggles in Nepal(Upreti et al eds. 2008. Land politics and conflict in Nepal. CSRC and NCCR-North South)

Before 1950 1950-1960

Land struggle of Bhim Dutta Pant Land Struggle in Kathmandu and Bhaktapur Ji Kaho struggle Land struggle in Pyuthan Expansion of land struggle in Tarai Land right struggle in Dang

1960-1990 Jhoda land right struggle Jhapa struggle Bhakari Phod struggle in Dhanusha Chhintang movement Piskor movement, Sindhpalchok, 1983

Post 1990 1993 – Kanara movement in Bardiya: 1995 – No grain payment movement in Rasuwa: 1996 – Movement led by CSRC and NLRF: 1997– Bagdari and Pitmari movements: 1997– Formation of The Kamaiya Concern Group: 1998– Land capturing at Gijara Faram in Banke. 2000– Liberation of Kamaiyas: 2000– Encirclement by peasants in Sindhupalchok: 2004– Case registration: More than 73,000 cases were filed (CSRC, 2004). 2004– Hunger strike at Rajbiraj: (CSRC, 2004). 2004– Case registration: More than 21,000 cases were filed (CSRC, 2006). 2006– Relay hunger strike at Sunsari: (CSRC, 2006). 2006– Padlocking the district land revenue offices (CSRC, 2006). 2007– 'Sit-in' programmes: (CSRC, 2007). 2007– Badi women's protest:

Actors of land conflict

State represented by various government bodies

Political parties and organizations NGOs IPOs Development projects and institutions Others

Land in Nepali contentious politics

From PN Shah’s state to the ending of monarchyStill relevant:

Various political movement How emergence of each of major political parties in the current Nepali

politics (NC, UML, Maoists, Madheshi) and the movement led by them is linked with land?

Maoist insurgency and Madhesh movement How these two insurgencies / rebellion of current Nepal are linked with

issues of land?

Current notions of indigeneity and exclusion How the construction of ind people and their marginalization and the

current notions of ‘indigeneity’ in Nepal is linked with land?

Challenges to the current peace process Issues of ‘seized properties’ in the current peace process: Should be

returned or not returned without proper arrangement for landless people?

Policies and practices to land reforms, forest management

Nepal, at glance

Nepal’s population dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods, > 75%

A greater emphasis has been laid with the implementing land reforms and providing land to the landless people and giving tenancy right to the tenants

Importance of Property Rights Land reform is critical to achieving overall political and economic

stability. Owners have incentives to use resources productively and to

conserve where possible. Private ownership of property provides an incentive for good care

that is lacking under government control. A resource owner has legal rights against anyone who would harm

the resource. Property rights provide long-term incentives for maximizing the

value of a resource, even for owners whose personal outlook is short-term.

Land Ownership Two stages of Land Ownership: Pre-1964 and Post-1964

Ownership of land (Pre-1964) in Nepal is traditionally vested in the State: As state offering lands to private individuals (birta), Government current employees (jagir), Royal vassals and former rulers (rajya), Religious and charitable institutions (guthi) and Communal land ownership (kipat).

A series of Land Acts were subsequently enacted in the 1950s until 1964 retaining only the raikar and birta as the main forms of tenure with objective of securing the right of land holders and tillers so that land productivity could be enhanced (Lumsalee, 2002).

Land Tenure system

Birta land grants made by the state to individuals usually on an inheritable and tax-exempt basis; abolished in 1959

Chhap-Birta a class of Birta made on a lifetime and taxable basis; abolished 1959

Chhut-Guthi Raj Guthi endowments administered by individuals, abolished 1972

Jagera Raikar land (state land) not assigned as Jagir Jagir Raikar land assigned to government employees in lieu of salaries;

abolished 1952 Jagirdar the beneficiary of Jagir Jhara forced and unpaid labour due government, pre-dated Rakam Jimidar an individual responsible for tax collection at village level in the Tarai Jimidari the holding of a Jimidar Jimmawals village heads appointed during Rana regime to collect taxes from cultivators; usually large landlords

Feudal tenures and relations

Form of Tenure Area (hectares) Percentage of Total Area

Raikar 963,500 50

Birta 700,080 36.3

Guthi 40,000 2

Kipat 77,090 4

Rajya, Jagir, Rakam, etc. 146, 330 7.7

Total 1,927,000 100

Note: Since a part of land under Birta was used by individuals as Guthi, total area under Guthi tenure may have been much more Birta- land grants made by the state to individuals usually on an

inheritable and tax-exempt basis; abolished in 1959

Source: Zaman (1973), Bhattarai (2003)

Area under the different forms of Land Tenure Before 1950

Features of the Land Reform in Nepal

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001, 2006

Land Reform Policy

1. The protection of tenants

2. The protection of hired workers

3. Resettlement of landless farmers

4. Birta Reform

5. Provision of agricultural credit

6. Consolidation of fragmented holding

Acts, Rules and Regulations रा�ष्ट्रि�य भू�-उपय�ग नी�ति�, २०६९ - - भू�ष्ट्रि� प्रशा�सनी ऐनी, २०२४ - Land Administration Act, 2024 (1967) – ��लप�� (ति�शा�ष व्य�स्था�) ऐनी, २०१८- Land Revenue (Special Provision) Act, 2018 ��लप�� (ष्ट्रि�न्हा�) ऐनी, २०१९ - Land Revenue (Remission )Act, 2019 (1962) जग्ग� (नी�प ज�'च) ऐनी, २०१९ - Land (Survey and Measurement) Act, 2019 (1963) भू�ष्ट्रि�सम्बन्धी� ऐनी, २०२१ - Lands Act, 2021(1964) – ��लप�� ऐनी, २०३४ - Land Revenue Act, 2034 (1978) ग-ठी/ स0स्था�नी ऐनी, २०३३ - Guthi Corporation Act, 2033 (1976)

Rules and Regulations

��लप�� तिनीय���ल�, २०३६ – Land revenue regulations 2036 जग्ग� ( नी�प ज�'च) तिनीय���ल�, २०५८- Land survey regulation भू�ष्ट्रि� सम्बन्धी� तिनीय�हारू, २०२१ – Land acquisition rules

Land conflicts

Land grievance is a major source of unrest and civil war

It is no coincidence that of 71 current civil wars and

insurgencies around the world, 84% are intra-state civil conflicts focuses around land resources

Nepal law book

People are taking more control of land reform from state-controlled to market-assisted redistribution- Support

provided financially from state-driven to people-led reforms- Brazilian land workers

movement from collectivization to individualization- private ownership from a focus upon equitable farm small holdings to a shift of focus

onto the poorest rural underclass. from abolition of tenancy to securer tenancy from outright redistribution to administrative measures to limit

polarisation from the centralised cadastre to simplified and landholder-controlled community land registers and decision-making boards from ‘farm to forest’ in the sense of widening the resource targets of

reform from the rural to urban domain from a focus on the landlord-tenant relationship to the state-people

relationship

Owning a Land in Nepal

Economic Development

Owning a land meaning inclusion

Social Developmnet

Political Development

Land right movements

Interim Constitution

The Interim Constitution 2007 has a provision of scientific land reform. As per the Interim Three Year Plan of the government (2008-2010) this is meant –

end of feudal relationship existing in land ownership and land relations; implementing land ceiling for social justice and productivity; land rights to those who uses labour and skills on land; landless farmers provided with land for shelter; determining the rights to farmers cultivating guthi, ailani (public land), and

parti (barren) land; land records, land administration and land related services to be made

scientific and efficient; preparing a ’national land policy’ that encompasses all land related issues

and implement that policy; and co-ordinated programmes in agriculture, irrigation and physical development

to increase the production and productivity of land.

NRM-Institutions-Property

RightsIn

stit

utio

nsM

icro

-Mes

o-M

acro

Property Rights

- Users Rights

- Management Rights

- Exclusion Rights

- Alienation Rights

Out Come

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

e

Natural Resource Management

Conflict-property rights-NRM

Identical with their principle

Institution Change/evolve

To reduce uncertainty & informal constrain

Conflicting actor to enforce new rules

Decentralization/ Centralization

Abundancy theory

Scarcity theory

Breeding and Security ground

Con

flic

t

Get revenueEasy & efficient ownership

Change in form of property rights

Change in NRM

Forest Acts, Policies and Regulations The Department of Forests was established in 1942 Decentralization Act of 1982- Panchayat system to

wards Master Plan for the Forestry Sector of 1988 Forest Act of 1993 and Forest Regulation of 1995 Forest Sector Policy 2000- pay 40% to the government

Forest management and administration history in Nepal

Time Change Function

Before 1927 No administrative Forest Offices Distribution of Lands for Farming

1927 Establishment of Kathmahal To supply Railway sleepers To India.

1939 Establishment of” Eastern Wing and Western Wing”

To manage the supply of sleepers to India and collection of Revenue.

1942 Establishment of DFO with “3 circles and 12 Banjanch”

To control and manage the forest administration

1951 Establishment of 2 circles and 44 Ranges covering the Terai areas.Establishment of IOF

To control and manage the forest administration in Terai.Production of Skilled manpower inside the country

1957 Nationalization of Forests.  

1959 Establishment of Ministry of Forest (MOF)

To cover forest activities nationwide.

Forest management and administration history in Nepal

1960 MOF was abandoned (lack of staff). CCF office was established with 7 circles and 22 Divisions.

To collect revenue to the country.External assistance started.

1961 Establishment of TCN To utilize timber from resettlement areas.Protection oriented laws were enabled (1961,1967,1970), power to forest staff, women became users, corruption.

1962 Working plans were prepared for some Terai districts.

To start planning processes in forest activities.

1966  

Establishment of “Fuelwood Corporation.”  

To supply fuelwood to Katmandu.  

1967 Formulation of especial Forest protection act

To enable the forest conservation & protection activities.DFO became policing and Lawyer.  

1968 Establishment of 14 circles and 75 DFOs (but failed due to lack of trained manpower.)Establishment of 7 circles, 22 divisions and “Pradhan Ban Karyala”.

To coincide with other administrative structures.To strengthen the organization with available manpower.

1970 Formulation of Forest production rules.

To restrict, control and collect the revenue.

1976 Publish of National Forestry Plan.(9 circles and 40 Divisions covering 75 districts).

To implement the forestry activities nationwide on a planned basis.

1978  Promulgation of Community Forestry Rules

To involve the local people in the management of Forest.

1982 Decentralization Act. To empower the local level administration.

1983-88 Establishment of 5 Regional Directorates (MFSC) and 75 DFO offices.

To match with decentralization Act.

1989 Master Plan For Forestry sector was made.

 To improve the policy of Forestry sector.

Time Change Function

1993 5 Regional Directorates (MFSC) and 74 DFOS.Huge reduction in central organization.

To reduce central control.But reduce whole forestry programs.

 

1993 New Forest Act. To handover the national forest to the adjoining forest users for accountable management.

1995 Forest Bylaws  To launch the forest management programs according to the Forest act 1993.Complete power to Forest user group for decision-making.HMG stood as the facilitator in CF programs.

1998 Forest Bylaws To launch the forest management programs according to the Forest act 1993.Complete power to Forest user group for decision-making but legal provision to contribute 40% of CF income as the government treasure.

The evolution also reflected in the five-year planning!Year Forest Plans

First (1956-61) Ag. development and forest revenue (nationalization of forest)

Eighth Integration of environmental management with development

Ninth Sustainable resource management and promotion of CF

Tenth Good governance of natural resource management

Interim 3 Year plans Inclusion of marginalized communities and global discourse of climate change and conservation

CFUG rights as per the Forest Act (1993) and Forest Regulation (1995)

1. Right to self-governance Communities have rights to form a Community Forest User Group (CFUG) as per

their willingness, capacity, and customary rights. Community forest boundaries will not be restricted to existing administrative or

political boundaries. Government can dismantle the CFUG if the latter is found to engage in large scale

deforestation but it is the duty of the government to reconstitute the CFUG. CFUGs can elect, select or change executive committee anytime. CFUGs can punish members who break their rules. CFUGs can amend or revise their constitution any time.

2. Right to forest management and utilization There is no limit to the forest area that can be handed over to communities. CFUGs can make optimal use of their forest by growing cash crops together with

forest crops. CFUGs can mortgage their standing forest products with financial institutions to

obtain loans. CFUGs can utilize their funds for any purpose (but 25% of income from forest must

be spent in forest development) CFUGs can freely fix prices and market their forest produce.

CFUGs can establish enterprises and make profits. CFUGs can seek support from any organization. CFUGs can raise funds by various forestry and non-

forestry means with all income going to group funds with no requirement for sharing financial revenues with government.

CFUGs can invest in any areas, persons or development activities according to the decision of CFUG assembly.

Sources: Pokharel et al. (2008): Forest Act 1993; Forest Regulation 1995

CFUG rights as per the Forest Act (1993) and Forest Regulation (1995)

Who Are Destroyers of Forest Resources? Historically, State and Rulers Encroached upon

Forest Resources of People Distributed as Salary, Bravery, Reward, etc. Even, British Raj in India Looted Nepal’s Forest

for Railway Slippers and others. By 1950, One-Third of the Forest Land

Distributed to Elites and Powerful and Three-Fourth went to the Rana Families

Initiative after 1951

Nationalization of Private Forests Forest Act 1961: Dual Admonostration PF and PPF failed The Master Plan (1989) developed policy to dev

olve rights of management to users Development of Charter and Operational Plan by

consensus are requirement for hand-over

DFO is supposed to make sure consensus is reached

However, the process is not followed and issues raised

The Change Process: Trusting People as Managers Moving from Resource Creation to

Institution Building and Strengthening Focus on People Rather Than Trees Users as Managers and Forest Officials as

Facilitators Secure Rights of Users To Manage Decision Making by Consensus

Outcome:

The Forestry Officials are Reoriented Local Users Have Developed Ownership 18000 User Groups Managing 1.8 Million

Hectare of Forest Greenery is Back and Forest Destruction is

halted Community Development Activities Initiated FECOFUN is Created

Statement of the Problem Forestry in Nepal has been a playing field

for rulers, politicians and bureaucrats. Community forestry as a priority program 61% of forest is supposed to be turned

into community forests The forest bureaucracy backtracking with

introduction of OFMP and CFM

The Local Government Agencies (LGAS) are empowered by Law

The LGAs have rights to manage fallow land, raise taxes and develop plans for resources management

The Forest Department and the LGAs are allying against users with provision of DFCC and allocation of 20% revenue

Forest Management Practices and Status…. Community Managed Forest vs. Government

Owned Better Forest Management vs. DegradationOwnership to the community vs. Government Patrolling

SystemDemocratic Functioning and grass root governance vs.

Passive ManagementInvolvement of 33% people in CBFM with social process

vs. regulatory system

Enhanced Forest Status and contribution in local economy: Passive Management System

Community forestry institutions before 1990

User Groups

Ministry

Conventions and donors

Department

International

Trans-boarder- Regional

National

District

Local

Root causes of conflicts in Community Forestry of Nepal.

•Disagreements and disputes over access to, control and use of, Forest resources.

•Differences in perceptions, work style, attitudes, communication problems, individuals differences.

• Unwilling to respond to social, political, cultural, technological, economic and other changes in the society (uprety, 2007).

•Growing Group fund, Forests boundary, Growing interest to become group leader, exclusion of users in a group

(All these conclusions are based on the study of UPRETY (2003-2007), AND expert consultation WS, 2011)

Results: Actors Involve in Conflicts

Community Forest Users’ Group (CFUG): Group of rural people involve in Forest management with certain regulations.

Forest Users’ Committee (FUC): The executive body of CFUG, possess right on decision making.

Non-Users (Users who don’t have membership from CFUG), secondary users or distance users.

Lower caste people, tribe/ethnic people. District Forestry staffs, Related NGOs staffs. Village Development Committee (VDC)- The lower

administrative Unit of Government. Federation of Forest Users’ Nepal (FECOFUN). Department of Forest and Ministry of Forest

A Glimpse of CFUG

Frame of understanding conflict

Conservation in NepalHistory and status of wildlife conservation in NepalWildlife: Animals, birds, insects, etc that are wild and live in a natural environment (Oxford)A vast assemblage of plants and animals in their natural environment (Trippensee, 1953)Wildlife Management:WL Mgt is an art of producing desired population of wild animals. It includes restoring,protecting, conserviing and maintaining the animal populationConservation: [Management/ preservation/ protection/ sustainable development/wise-use/ welfare]To protect the valueTo increase importanceTo make favorable environment for livingTo increase the extent in number, their quantity as well as qualityConservation for whom? ... for human welfare so extent of conservation depends up on thenature of interest or degree of attitude of human

PA management and its history

Divide the conservation status in three periods

A. Before 1950s (Early Shah Kings and Rana rulers)

B. Period between 1950s and 1970s

C. After 1970s (the dawn of modern wildlife conservation)

History…

A. Before 1950s (Early Shah Kings and Rana rulers)

“Hariyo Ban Nepal ko Dhan” - 1881 B.S. Ram Shah.

Status in the 50’s About 65% of the total land was covered with forests. The country was forbidden for foreigners and the forests were intact. We had ‘char kose jadi’ along the Chure foothills were impenetrable. Terai region known for its large population of a number of large

animals – tiger, rhino, wild elephants, leopards, sloth bear, crocodiles, sambar deer, wild dog, etc.

history…

In the 50’s wildlife was protected- no hunting illegally or killing of capturing was allowed

Facts and details

1996 B.S. Heavy punishment for illegal killing and capturing wild animals (Royal Ordinance)

Status

2000 B.S.:- Rs. 200.00 fine for killing Sambar deer (jarayo) and Musk deer (kasturi)

2001 B.S:- Reward system for controlling poaching: 20% of the total fine. Other small animals – 15% of the total fine.

Rana rulers hunted ‘big game’ British Rulers and dignities invited for hunting

Hunting records

During seven hunting seasons from 1933 to 1940 A.D., Juddha S JBR killed:

433 tigers 33 rhinos 93 leopards 22 bears 20 crocodiles 1 arna Several wild dogs and hyaenas.

B. Period between 1950s and 1970s 1950’ and 1970’s observed major changes in Nepal’s

history Malaria once prevalent throughout the Terai and inner Terai was

eradicated Mass migration of people from the hills to the Terai as a result of

famine and landslides Drastic increase in human population and livestock in the Terai Massive clearance of forests for agricultural extension and

human settlement Rampant killing of wildlife – the population of tiger and rhino

declined drastically All the private forests were nationalized in 2013 B. S.

50’ and 70’s change

The Chitwan valley had luxurious forests Tharu, Bote, Darai settlements (they were immune to malaria) Encroached and over 60% forested area was lost. Wildlife poaching was devastating. Protection of the forests and their denizens, the wildlife came into

existense. Wildlife Conservation Act 2015 (1957 A.D.) was enacted to provide

legal protection to the forests and wildlife. Rhino Sanctuary in 1957 A.D :- The remaining forests and the

grasslands along the Rapti River in the Chitwan valley were declared a. ‘Rhino Patrol’ (Gainda Gasti) a special unit of armed guards was

formed and deployed in Chitwan to protect the rhinos. Later in 1967, Karnali floodplain area was declared Royal Karnali

Hunting Reserve.

C. After 1970s (the dawn of modern wildlife conservation)

Act replaced the Wildlife Conservation Act 2015 to

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2029 enacted in 1973 A.D – A land mark in the modern history of biodiversity conservation

50’s and 70’s

The NPWC Act 2029 made provision: To gazette and establish different protected

areas (national parks, wildlife reserves, hunting reserve, conservation areas, buffer zones)

Protected wildlife species System of rewards and punishment Quasi-judiciary power Benefit sharing with local communities for

buffer zone programs

1973

Gaida Gasti above were replaced by Nepal Army- 1974

70 80 90 20001967

Conservation Approaches

Establishment and managementof PAs for in-situ conservation

Species Large Mammals

ICDP Community

Integrated Conservation and Development through declaration of BZs and CAs

ERC Landscape- Level

Landscape level conservation for maintaining ecological integrity

Very strict with hunting to rapid forest degradation-migration-Acts-ecosystem approach-participatory approach

10 National Parks

3 Wildlife Reserves

6 Conservation Areas

1 Hunting Reserves

11 Buffer Zones

61

Terai Arc Landscape

The Scared Himalayan Landscape

Development Phase in WL ConservationWWF views: Development Phase

Era-1. 1960-1980’s: Species preservation era Era-2. 1980’s-mid 1990’s: Conservation and

development era Era-3. Mid 1990’s to present: Started regional level

cooperation, eco-regional cooperation Initiation of trans-boundary concept has been set up Started landscape level project (Jamuna river in India in

the west to Bagmati river in Nepal in the east)

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2029 (1973) Government can declare and manage PAs (National Park, Wildlife

Reserve, Hunting Reserve, Conservation Area, Buffer Zone, Strict nature Reserve)

27 mammals, 9 birds, 3 reptiles as Protected animals species Power to inspect and search, to arrest without a warrant, to

investigate and file cases Rewards up to Rs. 50,000.00 Management of licensed hunting Quasi-judiciary power to the CW, Wardens, and DFOs:

Fine from Rs.50000:00upto Rs. 100,000:00 or imprisonment upto 15 years or both

30-50% of the park/reserve revenue for local development (buffer zone program)

National Park and WL Conservation Act 1973: Silent features

This is a main act related to conservation of WL and PAs in Nepal

It provides basis for establishment and administration of PAs

Responsible for conservation of WL animals, birds, reptiles and their respective habitats

It indicates 2 objectives: Primary; protection of sites or landscapes of scientific,

geographical, aesthetic importance together with associated flora and fauna

Secondary; development of such areas for tourism

Legislative doc. For WL Conservation NPWC regulation 2030 (1973/74), 2nd amendments in

2035 (1978/79), 3rd in 2042 (1985) RCNP regulation 2030 (1973/74) WLR regulation 2034 (1977), 2nd amendments in 2042

(1985) Himalayan NP regulation 2036 (1979) Khaptad NP regulation 2044 (1987) RBNP regulation 2053 (1998) Conservation area regulation 2053 (1998) BZ management regulation 2052 (1996) BZ guidelines 1999

Other related acts

Forest act 2049 (1993) and regulation 2051 (1995) NTNC act 2040 and regulation 2042 (1985) Soil conservation act 2042 (1982) Tourism act 2035, Water resource act 1992 Environmental protection act 1996, Local self

government act 1998, etc

International Agreements: CITES 1973: Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of wild flora and fauna- Nepal signed this treaty and became member parts in 1975

Rangeland

Nepal's total rangelands are estimated to cover about 1.75 million hectares, or

nearly 12 percent of Nepal’s total land area.

The key sources of rangeland in Nepal come primarily from high mountains and high Himal areas which make up nearly 79.83% of Nepal's total rangeland

IMPORTANCE OF RANGELANDS

Rangeland ecosystem is the originating environment of many water bodies and river system in

Nepal. Thus the hydroelectric power, irrigation and drinking water system at lower elevation is related with the rangeland of high mountain region.

Rangelands are rich in biodiversity of plants, animals, and other important genetic materials for future use.

The vast rangelands provide forages for grazing livestock. The rangeland unsuitable for growing crops, can be utilized by animals for producing high value animal product.

Tourism in the mountain rangeland is useful for improving the livelihood of the local people of the mountainous region.

Threats to rangeland management

Declining quality of Rangelands Higher no. of livestock and insufficient Kharkas Colonization of white clover in the Kharkas Insufficient pasture infrastructures Low productivity of livestock population Human-wildlife conflict Livestock disease and lack of veterinary services Herder-herder conflict High consumption of fuel wood Limited mobility of milk collection center

Strategies of RL Management

Strengthen local institution like RMC Implement Rangeland management

practices Use alternative sources of energy Promote forage production and stall

feeding Animal health and improved breeds

Resolving conflicts between park/peopleConflict Situation: An incompatible differences resulting in some

form of interference or opposition no matter whether the differences are rationale or not

A relationship between two or more interdependent parties in which at least one perceives the relationship to be negative or detects and pursues to be negative or detects and pursues opposing interests and needs

(All conflicts are not bad)

continuum of differences and conflicts

difference disagreement problem dispute conflict violence

war

Conflict through goals vs. behaviors

Compatible goals Incompatible goals

Compatible behavior

No conflict Latent conflict

Incompatible behavior

Surface conflict Open conflict

Sources of conflict

Unequal power Unfairness in structure of relationships Unjust distribution of resources Lack of access to information/resources Lack of rights and representation Personal ego Vested interest/incompatible goals Lack of understanding/knowledge Mis-communication

Park/people conflict: (major causes) Loss of crops by wildlife Loss of human life and injury to humans by

wildlife Loss of property due to wildlife Illegal activities inside the park by local people

(grazing, grass cutting, fuel wood/fodder collection, timber felling, intentional fire, illegal hunting and disturbing wildlife, etc)

Resolution of park/people conflict (local level) Establish appropriate damage prevention and control

measures (for wildlife damages control and prevention) Establish appropriate compensation scheme Conduct education and awareness program Resolve conflict :

Conflict management techniques Negotiation and agreement Facilitation Mediation Conflict resolution committee Community based approach Presentation of facts and figures (fact identification)