Karki 2013 Flashcards
Karki
2013
2013
Karki
What does this paper look at
Nepal’s Bardia National Park and conservation incentives to see if they have contributed to the sustainable livelihoods of households
Why may conserving land become a development issue
As it restricts agricultural expansion and resource exploitation
What was the conclusion
That the impacts on households were dependent on household characteristics, access to prior capital, and the social position of the household within society
Which groups were least excluded from the benefits of development projects
Households lacking resources, being poor and belonging to lower castes
Fortin and Gagnon, 1999
Some areas benefit from tourism in protected areas
‘Some areas benefit from tourism in protected areas’
Fortin and Gagnon 1999
Do the majority of areas benefit from tourism in protected areas
No, the majority suffer issues as it places higher social burden on local communities
What has been implemented to minimise the social costs for local communities
Compensatory and incentive-based programmes (IBPs) - benefit sharing
What do research studies on the negative impacts of IBPs include
Exacerbation of social differences, generation of high expectations without meeting targets, and an unfair distribution of benefits (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005, West and Brockington, 2006).
How much of Nepal is protected land
23.23%
What have influenced the social-ecological system of protected areas in Nepal
Park-people conflicts, displacements of local communities and loss of household livelihoods, and increased illegal resource extraction
What national park is looked at
Barida National Park
Features of Barida National Park
- High wildlife densities
- Habitats
- Main river course
- They extended the park boudoirs may times
How many people live near the park
20 village development committees border the park in a buffer zone (forest, river, agricultural land, settlements etc.)
What do buffer zones do
Provide the opportunity for local people to use forest products, and provides an extended habitat for animals
How much money is put back into development of buffer zones
30-50% park revenue
Baral and Heinen 2007
The IBPs also include income generation activities, training, school development, infrastructure support etc.
Main source of livelihoods in the 3 surrounding villages
92% agriculture
Shivapur - dependent on parks
65% of households were illegally dependent upon the park resources to fulfil their daily needs and to supplement their subsistence-based agriculture
What village had 65% of households illegally dependent on the park
Shivapur
Trust
Since the IBPs were in place, 52% of respondents agreed trust between villagers had degraded, as there are more conflicts between wealth
How many people believed they had benefitted
More than 60% households believed they had benefited from development projects and they are satisfied
Productivity
Participants claimed that since the park was established they had faced a decline in productivity due to crop damage and restricted resource use
Livestock
Households have reduced their livestock due to lack of fodder and grazing areas
What are the 4 conservation benefits provided to households
- The annual grass cutting programme where once a year people are allowed to enter the park for 3 days to collect thatch grass
- The revenue sharing programme where 30-50% of the revenue generated from the park is given back into communities
- The buffer zone community forest
- Development projects from external organisations at the individual level
What people are eligible for the 4 conservation benefits
All houses that fall within the buffer zone
What do poor people gain from the programme
More support for machine donation and livestock
