Local Socio-Economic Dynamics Shaping Forest Ecosystems …
53
930.325 ha of the forest area and resulted in monetary loss of Rs. 2357707.00 as
estimated by State Forest Department (Fig. 5) (Uttarakhand State Forest Department
2016). Though, the loss is manifold as Forest department only considered timber
cost for estimating the loss incurred.
Examples discussed reflect poor economic condition to be an important precursor
in involvement of locals in many unsustinable and overharvesting of resources without any idea of the consequences of their activities. Collaborative resource management in some villages has been successful by creation of Eco-development Committees and also in well-managed communal forests/Van Panchayats of the region. The
weakness that undermine institutional ability to address the challenges of increasing
demand for natural resources and biomass from forests of Central Himalayas include:
• Less availability of alternative and cheap energy resources. Remoteness of villages
and undulating terrains adds to inaccessibility to these energy resources
• Continous fodder requirements for livestock rearing practices that include both
stall feeding and grazing
• Reserve and Protected Forests that exclude traditional and indigenous communities
for sustainably collecting resources for supporting their subsistence requirements
• Limited incentives to sustainable management of forests by rotational harvesting
as under Van Panchayats
• Low appreciation and understanding about the importance and value of forest
biodiversity for future by the surrounding communities
• No sense of ownership because of stringent forest policies that are less flexible for
locals and more flexible for industrial exploitation
• Not acknowledging the rights of locals and indigenous communities on forest
lands under Forest Rights Act, 2008
• Better profitability of alternative land uses such as tourism, exploitation of NTFPs,
MAPs and wild edibles from forests, cash cropping.
These weaknesses are aggravated by the lack of clear land use policy, extreme
climatic conditions (variabilities and vulnerabilities) and also shift in rainfall and
snow fall patterns bringing prolonged flood situations that regularly occur in the
region enhancing misery of locals.
4.5 Addressing Threats and Challenges for Addressing
Socio-Economic Drivers of Biodiversity Loss
Socio-economic drivers are a set of factors leading to biodiversity loss across the
globe but their distance from actual instances of loss both spatially as well as temporally makes it challenging to identify and reduce their impacts by controlling
them. Socio-economic forces work cumulatively along with other direct and indirect
drivers of biodiversity loss in a complex manner affecting resource use and resource
health. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report (MEA 2005) as well as recently
released report of IPBES (Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
53
930.325 ha of the forest area and resulted in monetary loss of Rs. 2357707.00 as
estimated by State Forest Department (Fig. 5) (Uttarakhand State Forest Department
2016). Though, the loss is manifold as Forest department only considered timber
cost for estimating the loss incurred.
Examples discussed reflect poor economic condition to be an important precursor
in involvement of locals in many unsustinable and overharvesting of resources without any idea of the consequences of their activities. Collaborative resource management in some villages has been successful by creation of Eco-development Committees and also in well-managed communal forests/Van Panchayats of the region. The
weakness that undermine institutional ability to address the challenges of increasing
demand for natural resources and biomass from forests of Central Himalayas include:
• Less availability of alternative and cheap energy resources. Remoteness of villages
and undulating terrains adds to inaccessibility to these energy resources
• Continous fodder requirements for livestock rearing practices that include both
stall feeding and grazing
• Reserve and Protected Forests that exclude traditional and indigenous communities
for sustainably collecting resources for supporting their subsistence requirements
• Limited incentives to sustainable management of forests by rotational harvesting
as under Van Panchayats
• Low appreciation and understanding about the importance and value of forest
biodiversity for future by the surrounding communities
• No sense of ownership because of stringent forest policies that are less flexible for
locals and more flexible for industrial exploitation
• Not acknowledging the rights of locals and indigenous communities on forest
lands under Forest Rights Act, 2008
• Better profitability of alternative land uses such as tourism, exploitation of NTFPs,
MAPs and wild edibles from forests, cash cropping.
These weaknesses are aggravated by the lack of clear land use policy, extreme
climatic conditions (variabilities and vulnerabilities) and also shift in rainfall and
snow fall patterns bringing prolonged flood situations that regularly occur in the
region enhancing misery of locals.
4.5 Addressing Threats and Challenges for Addressing
Socio-Economic Drivers of Biodiversity Loss
Socio-economic drivers are a set of factors leading to biodiversity loss across the
globe but their distance from actual instances of loss both spatially as well as temporally makes it challenging to identify and reduce their impacts by controlling
them. Socio-economic forces work cumulatively along with other direct and indirect
drivers of biodiversity loss in a complex manner affecting resource use and resource
health. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report (MEA 2005) as well as recently
released report of IPBES (Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem