Shova and Karki, 2010 Flashcards
Shova and Karki
2010
2010
Shova and Karki
What is the case study
The impact of socio-economic factors involved in illegal fuelwood and fodder extraction at Bardia National Park in Nepal
Illegal resource extraction in literature
Illegal resource extraction and the relationship with communities’ livelihoods has gained little attention in academic literature
How many people met their needs by illegally extracting resources from the park
Almost half
How do almost half of people meet their needs
By illegally extracting resource from the park
What impacted whether or not people illegally extracted resourced
Proximity and access to resources (through the forest and buffer zones)
Heinen and Shrestha 2006
Nepal excluded communities from land for the establishment of protected areas through restrictive legislation and removal of customary rights
‘Nepal excluded communities from land for the establishment of protected areas through restrictive legislation and removal of customary rights’
Heinen and Shrestha 2006
Brown 1997
Resource use and extraction are important components of rural livelihoods but at the same time a source of concern for park management
‘Resource use and extraction are important components of rural livelihoods but at the same time a source of concern for park management’
Brown 1997
What resources are extracted from the park
The surveyed households identified 50 different plants which were used regularly for a wide range of functions.
What are resources extracted from the park used for
Cooking, feeding livestock, food, cleaning, house building, ceremonies and thatching roofs, demonstrating that resources extracted from the park were socially, culturally and economically important to these households
How many households in Shivapur illegally extract
65% households are involved in illegal resource extraction
Why does Shivapur have such high rates of illegal resource extraction
They have no alternative resource extraction methods such as access to a buffer zone
How does illegal resource extraction vary
With village specific contexts such as socio-economic characteristics of households, distribution of resources, the location and impacts of protected areas
Which houses were less dependent on park resources
Households with large land holdings as they could grow trees and grasses on their own land
Link between involvement in development projects and illegal resource extraction
Households involved in development projects were less likely to be involved in illegal resource extraction as they gained alternative income generation strategies and were able to improve their livelihood status
Nepal and Weber (1995)
In their study they found that where there was a lack of alternative sources communities’ continued visiting and extracting resources from the Chitwan National Park on a regular basis
Who did a study on the Chitwan National Park
Nepal and Weber (1995)
Are households aware of the impacts of illegal resource extraction
Yes they are aware of the detrimental impacts it has on the park ecosystem but due to lack of alternative resources locals did not cease resource extraction from he park
How did the park management aim to reduce illegal extraction in Shivapur
They realised the importance of a community buffer zone so gave them part of a degraded forest. The management wanted them to work together and restore the forest and the sustainable use the resources
Why did Shivapur not accept the degraded forest
They argued the park just wanted free labour and were worried they would reclaim the forest once it was in better condition. Also another village (Thakurdwara) was given a fully stocked forest and they would like the same
Why does a one-size fits all approach to solving development in the area
there are differences in community needs, interests and provisions.
What would be a more suitable approach to solving issues in the area
Site-specific management strategies based on the socio-economic needs of communities, ti would be most influential for long term-sustainability
