A Study of Livelihoods patterns in Buffer Zone of Tiger Reserve-

Case Study Of Sahyadri Tiger Reserve Maharashtra

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Completion of Bachelor of Social Science

Under the Guidance of

Dr. Aparna watve
Associate Professor
By Sudarshan Ankush Kasbe
(Roll no – 56)
A.Y. 2015-2016
Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
School of Rural Development,
Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, Maharashtra

Declaration

I Sudarshan Kasbe, hereby declare that this dissertation titled A Study of

Livelihoods pattrens in Buffer Zone of Tiger Reserve-Case Study Of
 Sahyadri Tiger Reserve Maharashtra‟ is the outcome of my own study
undertaken under the guidance of Dr. Aparna Watve, School of Rural
Development, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, and Tuljapur. It has not
previously formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma or
certificate of this or any other university. I have duly acknowledged all the
sources used by me in the preparation of this dissertation.

Date 18th March 2016 Sudarshan Ankush Kasbe

Bachelor of Arts in Social Sciences
Roll no- 56

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the "A Study of Livelihoods patterns in Buffer Zone of Tiger

Reserve-Case Study Of Sahyadri Tiger Reserve Maharashtra". is the record of the

original work done by Sudarshan Ankush Kasbe under my guidance. The results of the

research presented in this dissertation have not previously formed the basis for the award of

any degree, diploma or certificate of this or any other university.

 Prof. Dr. Aparna Watve

School of Rural Development

Tata Institute of Social Sciences

Tuljapur campus

Acknowledgment
Learner owes great thanks to many great people who have helped and supported me in
Dissertation as well as during the writing of this project. Learner would like to express
sincere thanks to the wildlife researsch and conservation society pune and Tata Institute of
Social Sciences, Tuljapur for extending his support and showing interest in learner and
providing this opportunity.. This could have Never been possible without the proper
guidance of my Guide and mentor Dr. Aparna Watve; Professor, Tata Institute of Social
Sciences, Tuljapur campus. I am thankful to her and Feel blessed for me being accepted by
her as a research student. I am grateful to her for always being by my side and providing me
step by step guidance of the Dissertation for guiding and correcting various documents of
mine with attention and care. She has taken pain to go through the Dissertation and make
necessary suggestions and recommendations whenever needed.
I would like to thank my parents for their unconditional love and support.
I would like to thanks Tulshiram Waghmare, he is my inspiration and his help in this
research
journey. I would like to thanks Prateek Priyadarshi, Ashank Chndrapillai, Nirma Thalor and
Arunima Iyyer for helping me with their valuable inputs to complete this piece of work.
I am Also grateful to Sunil Kale; program co-ordinator WRCS , Pandit Rao Sir; ACF
wildlife division, Sanjay Thakur and Grampanchayat of Nechal village. My deeps sense of
gratitude to Special mention goes to enthusiastic Abhilash Durugkar, Umesh Waghchaure,
Utkarsha Patil, rahul Pokharikar, Md asadullah, and all the classmates and friends inside the
campus and outside the campus.
Last but not the least I would like to dedicate this Study to the Farmers of Marathwada.
I would thank to all people those, who have and who have not helped me.

Content
Chapter – 1………………………………………………………………………………4-6
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………..4-6
Chapter -2………………………………………………………………………………..7-
13
2.1 Literature review………………………………………………………………… 7
2.2
Livelihood………………………………………………………………………………..7
2.3Sustainable livelihood………………………………………………………………..8
2.4 Sanctuary ………………………………………………………………… 9
2.5 Buffer zone………………………………………………………………. 9
2.6 Projects in buffer zone………………………………………………. 10
2.7 Problem Statement……………………………………………. 12
2.8 Rationle…………………………………………………………………………13
2.9 Objective………………………………………………………………………..13
Chapter – 3……………………………………………………………………… 14-15
3.1 Methodology……………………………………………………………….. 14
3.2 Sampling Method……………………………………………………………..14
3.3 Report Strcture………………………………………………………………… 14
3.4 Research Questions…………………………………………………………..15
Chapter – 4…………………………………………………………………………16-21
4.1 Study Area………………………………………………………………………...16
4.2 Village infrastructure………………………………………………………….16
4.3 Village demography…………………………………………………………….17
4.4 List of livelihood activities…………………………………………………….18
4.5 Natural Capital …………………………………………………………………..…19
Chapter -5 ……………………………………………………………………………….22-
24
5.1 Social Perspective…………………………………………………………………22
5.2 political Perspective………………………………………………………………..22
5.3 Economical perspective…………………………………………………………..23
5.4 Suggestions………………………………………………………………………………
24
Questionare…………………………………………………………………………………..
25-29
References……………………………………………………………………………………
30-32

CHAPTER FIRST
Introduction
There is very simple and also very complex kind of relationship between livelihood and
rural area. One can always analyses the rural economy and get to know that what kind of
problems are there in villages in context of livelihood. Rural areas are mostly having
agrarian economy which surely leads to many allied activities and livelihood.
Rural Development is one of the major factor in the Economy of Country. A country like
India which is mostly having Rural Area will surely gave lot of importance towards this
sector while still there is most GDP Coming from service sector. So many scholar are trying
to study what are cause for backlog of rural areas in GDP.
A major task for governments, civil society organizations (CSOs) and international
development agencies is assessing the impact and performance of their policies,
programmes and projects. Attempts at measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of policy
prescriptions have been aided by the development of specific indicators that strive to
capture a particular circumstance, situation or condition (i.e., GDP). The current shift in
thinking and action towards a more people-centred, human development paradigm has
necessitated a concurrent re-orientation of the policies and programmes pursued by
development agencies, CSOs and governments. Evaluating these efforts has meant looking
beyond conventional quantitative indicators to more qualitative ones (i.e., governance).
This has been, by no means, an easy task. Qualitative processes such as empowerment, for
example, do not easily lend themselves to being objectively measured.
Sustainable livelihood is a systemic and adaptive approach that links issues of poverty
reduction, sustainability and empowerment processes (e.g., participation, gender
empowerment, and good governance). The attractiveness of SL lies in its applicability to
different contexts, situations of uncertainty and in its capacity as a consultative and
participatory process for the cross-fertilization of ideas and strategies between various
stakeholders. Those living in extreme poverty and outside the formal labor market, for
example, constantly improvise their livelihood strategies due to high uncertainty and
limited options. A subsistence farmer in the off-season or during drought becomes a wage
laborer and could later revert back to farming when it is time to plough the field. In a
similar vein, we find that job security in the traditional sense seems to be decreasing in the
modern/formal/urban sectors and people are changing jobs several times in their life time.
The SL approach has the flexibility to tap into such kinds of adaptive responses and utilize
them as entry points for policy making.
Underlying these complex issues of human sustenance and livelihoods, is peoples'
interconnectedness with the natural environment. The earth's natural resources are not
limitless. Can we then produce and consume resources and also realize our livelihood
aspirations without jeopardizing the capacities of each other, or of the future generations in
maintaining at least the same level of opportunities?
Taking all these matters into account, the present study adopts DFID’s livelihood
framework to assess the capital assets in selected villages of Western Ghats . Each capital
asset consists of key indicators, for example, physical assets reflecting road and transport,
market, energy and agricultural machinery. A single asset can generate multiple benefits, for
example, if a household has secure access to land, they are also likely to be well endowed
with financial assets, as they can use the land for productive purposes and to secure loans
(Chambers, 1987; Cline-Cole, 1995; DFID, 2000; Nicol, 2000). Amongst the different
assets, natural assets are quite valuable to those people who obtain their livelihoods from
resource-based activities such as farming, fishing, gathering from forests, and mineral
extraction such as sand or gems. Physical assets are very important, for example, without
transport services inputs such as fertilizer and planting materials may not be easily available
for farming and this may result in a decrease in agricultural yield, it is then difficult and
expensive to transport produce to the market.
Creation of Protected Areas (PA) has been central to the Indian government's conservation
efforts. National Parks and wildlife sanctuaries have been declared in many states under
the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Declaration of some PAs as Tiger Reserves was
considered important for protecting the Indian national animal, which was threatened by
excessive
hunting and habitat loss for over century. The strict protection regime used in management
of the PA made it necessary to rehabilitate villages out of the core zone of PA boundary for
creation of inviolate areas. Even in buffer areas, restrictions might be placed over natural
resources use by local communities. This has led to conflicts amongst forest department and
local communities in and around Tiger Reserves like Ranathambore, Panna, Corbette.
In 2012, Sahyadri Tiger Reserve was declared in Northern Western Ghats, including Koyna
WLS, Radhanagari WLS and Chandoli NP. This is the only Tiger reserve in this
ecologically sensitive area and includes important tiger habitat and corridors in between.
Declaration of core and buffer area happened around the same time as declaration of these
PAs as World Natural
 Heritage Sites, and the controversial report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel
(WGEEP) designating many areas as Ecologically Sensitive in the region. As a result there
is widespread fear related to future of present livelihood activities, which is partly created
by local politicians and by corporates involved in natural resource exploitation.
The Western Ghats are a well-known hotspot of biodiversity. The need for ecologically
sensitive development planning of the villages was emphasized by Prof. M. Gadgil in the
report of the Western Ghats Ecology Experts Panel (WGEEP, 2012). Considering the global
importance of biodiversity, and importance of the region as water and nutrient catchment;
exploitative development such as mining, large industries cannot be established in the
region. However, in the absence of such ventures, livelihoods of people depend exclusively
on the natural capital, and planning for sustainable use of the natural capital is of paramount
importance. A diversity of livelihood practices using natural resources of the region is
documented here. The sustainability in terms of natural and human capital is discussed. The
old and the new community based institutions for governing the natural resource use are
documented
Declaration of tiger reserve places restrictions on natural resource extraction, but it also
offers new opportunities of nature-based livelihoods. Growth of wildlife tourism is seen
around many tiger reserves in central and south India, which leads to employment
opportunities at local level. Programmes such as Ecodevelopment, Integrated Conservation
and Development Planning can also provide increased livelihood opportunities if executed
sensitively by area managers. Committement of villagers as well a Forest Department
towards sustainable development is needed for planning livelihoods in the region.

.
CHAPTER SECOND
2.1 Literature review
One can find very diverse literature on forest and nearby ecology or environment. Many
writers have written about forest issues and describing how to conserve environment and
biodiversity. There is very less material available on people who are living in buffer zone.
These people have their own culture and traditional practices which are mainly based upon
forest. Due to various reason these people are suffering from drastic change in their
livelihood practices But no attempt has been made by anyone on livelihood strategies of
people residing in buffer zone of tiger reserve. This study is the very first attempt on this
new emerging livelihood and copping mechanism aspect in chandoli tiger reserve.
2.2 Livelihood
Livelihood is a concepts that has been central to rural development as a broader scenario in
the past decade. The basic concepts of livelihood is come from a very simple question i.e
how people live differently at different places? How do they sustain? This study is
particularly based on livelihood patterns of those people who live in buffer zone of the
sanctuaries and national reserve parks.
When you start a basic literature search on livelihood you will get tremendous amount of
results and various terms attached to the term livelihood. Ian Scoone say
“A mobile and flexible term, ‘livelihoods’ can be attached to all sorts of other
words to construct whole fields of development inquiry and practice. These relate to locales
(rural or urban livelihoods), occupations (farming, pastoral or fishing livelihoods), social
difference (gendered, age-defined livelihoods), directions (livelihood pathways,
trajectories), dynamic patterns (sustainable or resilient livelihoods)and many more”.

Many researchers have tried to define the livelihood as a concept. It starts with the
definition suggested by Chambers and Conway about livelihood is
“ A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social
resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it
can cope with and recover from stress and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities
and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base.”
(Chambers & Conway, 1991)
Robert Chambers simply says that livelihood is nothing but ‘the means
of gaining a living’ (Chambers, 1995) or ‘a combination of the resources used and
the activities undertaken in order to live’. In detail description of a descriptive analysis
shows a complex structure of various activities and interactive sessions which gave
importance to the diversity in living style of peoples.
Frank Ellis has wrote book titled as Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing
Countries in which he has described concept, definitions and framework of livelihood in
details. He has defined livelihood as.
 “a livelihood comprises the assets (Natural, physical, human, financial and social
capital), the activities, and the access to these (mediated by institutions and social
relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual or household”.

He described various aspects related to livelihood such as Diversity and diversification of

livelihood, then social arenas of analysis, agrarian change and rural development in context
of livelihood generation. He explains in detail the framework of livelihood. However, he
also mentions about how to use this framework for livelihood analysis.

2.3 Sustainable Livelihood

With livelihood as a concepts one more concept emerges, which is, sustainable livelihood.
He explains agriculture and farm productivity with its various aspects and environment and
sustainability with some economic factors and conservation problems. He has also
included resource management institutions and livelihood which are highly related to each
other. Frank Ellis wrote on gender and rural livelihood where he has sensitized the issue of
gender in context of rural livelihood. He described gender and agriculture, gender and
poverty, gender and environment, gender concern to labour market and migration and
finally he ends with assets and gender. This book is concept based and at the last he gave
some case studies from Tanzania.
Also, sustainable livelihood has to be related with a very broader set of issues which control
debate of relationship between poverty and environment.
Careswell et al (1997: 10) has made pointed out that,
“definition of sustainable livelihood are often unclear, inconsistent and relatively narrow,
without clarification there is risk of simply adding to a conceptual muddle.....”

Ian Scoones gave five key elements of sustainable livelihoods, in his paper sustainable
livelihood rural livelihoods. In this paper he touches the issues of combining different types
of capital and says that, to create livelihood, people must combine capital endowments and
have access to and control over it. He has also given some livelihood strangers such as
livelihood diversification, agricultural intensification and migration.
2.4 Sanctuary.
What is sanctuary?
According to wildlife protection act 1972 government declared “sanctuary as any area
comprised within any reserve forest or any part of the territorial waters, which is considered
by the State Government to be of adequate ecological, faunal, geomorphological, natural or
zoological significance for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wildlife or
its environment, is to be included in a sanctuary”, (WPA, 1972).
With reference to sanctuary they have also described National park as a “Whenever it
appears to the State Government that an area, whether within a sanctuary or not, is, by
reason of its ecological, fauna, floral, geomorphological, or zoological association or
importance, needed to be constituted as a National Park for the purpose of protection &
propagating or developing wildlife therein or its environment, it may, by notification,
declare its intention to constitute such area as a National Park.” Government has been
continuously making policies and working for conservation and putting various restrictions
on protected areas. One of the major component of this restrictions are exercised on those
people who lives in buffer zone.

2.5 Buffer Zone

Definition of buffer zone is not exact for some particular purpose. A buffer zone serves to
provide an additional layer of protection to a Wildlife Protected Area. The concept of a
buffer zone was first included in the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the
World Heritage Convention in 1977.
As a Wikipedia sources perceive A buffer zone is intended to avert the effect of negative
environmental or human influences, whether or not it embodies great natural or cultural
value itself. The importance and function of a buffer zone and the necessary protective
measures derived thereof is a relatively new concept in conservation science and can differ
greatly for each site
Forestry Nepal says Buffer zones are areas in and around national parks and wildlife
reserves created to lessen biotic pressure and for the sustainable management of natural
resources. The creation of buffer zones is aimed at motivating local communities in the
participatory management of forest resources to fulfill their needs of forest products
through the User Groups.
In context of India The national wildlife action plan NWAP 2002-2016 Indicates that
“areas outsides the protected areas network are often vital ecological carridor links and
must be protected to prevent isolation of fragments of biodiversity which will not survive in
the long run”.
They have also indicates that “all identified areas around protected areas and wildlife
corridors to be declared as ecological fragile under Environment protection Act,1986.”
Due to various policies and Restrictions the people residing in buffer zones are now face a
dramatic scenario where Dependence on forest for livelihood is increased but access to
forest is restricted to this people. As they belong to buffer zone there are so many
economical growth barrier due to government restriction to upcoming industries and mines.

2.6 Projects In Buffer Zone

I tried to access some material which highlights the forest dependent livelihood in which
found some are like EDP Eco Development Project, NTFP Non Timber Forest Products,
Ecotourism and ICDP Integrated Conservation Development Program. The one of major
livelihood option is Eco-tourism. In the research paper Economics of wildlife tourism
written by Bitapi Sinha (*) quoted Honey's lines which are scholar of eco-tourism have
identified at least four principles that must be satisfied for genuine eco-tourism. These are
1) minimization of environmental impacts, 2) generation of funds for conservation, 3)
benefits to local communities and 4) education of visitor. (Honey 1999) In the peripheral
area of sanctuaries, a high proportion of the communities belongs to rural poor, who suffer
from many cases and serious livelihood insecurities. They are heavily dependent on forest
for fuel and fodder.

Author has had a study on the study area of Hanha national park and he found that the
number of visitors to Kanha national park has risen dramatically with 72% increase
between 1998 and 2009 which is huge success and generated a large amount of foreign
currency despite of all this there is social crisis of benefit sharing with the tribal.
This study highlighted local attitude and approach. The similar study conducted in
Haleakala -Overabundant Tiger reserve, India. It is conducted by M Arjuna,Christopher
Holmes ,Jean- Phillipp Caravansary and Oriya avider in which they discussed attitude and
resource use interest.
They have stated Exclusion of people from Forest in order to protect Wildlife Often
antagonize the local communities and creates an unfavorable climate for conservation. In
case of policies, there is no effect on people's participation by them.
To talk about the case of policy planning, EDP, which is funded by the World Bank, does
not seem to have changed its attitude in a significant manner excluding that the
beneficiaries are more favorably inclined towards the forest Departments.

In the conclusion part of paper they have mentioned that positive attitude has indicated a
lack of resource use and interests of local community living adjacent to Kalakad
Mundanthurai tiger reserve.
In case of NTFP I have studied one paper based on case study from Periyar tiger reserve
where they tried to study that can non timber forest products solve livelihood problems? In
which they have clearly state that NTFP as a development mechanism for poor
communities have disadvantages also. They have given example such as, people who
collect NTFP are not real needy because those collectors most in need of income support
from NTFPs are least able to benefit from an NTFP-based development strategy because
they have the poorest developed skills, lack of resources to store, process and market their
produce, and face prejudice and unfair treatment due to their social status. There is another
problem also in that is in the long-term there is also the risk that the price for some NTFPs
will decline as factory-made alternatives such as plastic containers for Bamboo and reed
baskets, and plastic for rattan furniture, become more widely available and also the
institutions and practices for monitoring harvesting rates and capacity building for
commercial NTFP production require more time and resources than other development
options (Barrett & Arcese, 1998; Ballabh et al., 2002; Gubbi, 2006)

This is although not the same but is similar in case of every sanctuary and people who live
in buffer zone of that sanctuary. As whatever literature I tried to access, I observed one
thing which is very common, that is, there is a need to conduct various programs on
community level with the inclusion of community. This study is qualitative and Exploratory
in nature that focus on patterns livelihood, their alternative and sustainability. The main
motive of this study is to counter livelihoods problem and find a solution within the
framework of restrictions posed in context of buffer zone. I will try to contribute a good
literature in the context of community inclusive programs and policies for sustainable
livelihood.

2.7 Problem Statement

When Chandoli National Park and Koyana Wildlife Sanctuary are declared as Sahyadri
Tiger Reserve there is no certain guidelines about buffer zone area. Villages which comes
under core area of Tiger reserve are displaced and people from this area get some
compensation may be in form of money or land. I am not saying that this are well addressed
and there is no problem with this issue but feel one more issue should be addressed in this
area and I.e about people who are living in buffer zone.

These people are basically do not come under any government compensation but they need
to follow many restrictions as they belongs to buffer zone. There is confusion in this people
regarding policies of forest department. They are not sure about what will happen to there
land, how the village infrastructure will be and many more questions are there.
The people who lives in buffer zone are always scared by the thought of forest department
will acquire there land and they will be displaced somewhere. But in reality there is no such
guideline in any of GR. When we look at the issue of livelihood in buffer zone we get to
know that there is serious lack of literature and studies conducted in that area. There is need
of assessment of the existing livelihood structure and changes in livelihood pattern. This
need of assessment is not addressed by forest department nor by government official till
date causing lack of communication between them.
If we try to analyze the current scenario of livelihood pattern now, we can see due to
declaration as Sahyadri Tiger Reserve new regulations are setup in buffer zone. This
affected people traditional livelihood practices and activities in that area. People are forced
to change the agricultural practices and other forest dependent activities which are
necessary for their day today living. Majority of population is unaware about governmental
policies but they heard so many negative things which may lead to creating hatred among
them against wildlife.
2.8 Rational
The Study Area is having many problems as compared to other villages nearby cities or
may be mainstream villages. The village Nechal is situated at the top of Western ghats.
Which is in Corridor zone for Chandoli National Park and Koyana sanctuary which has
many Restriction on the villagers. At the time of Declaration of sahyadri National park this
villages comes under buffer zone of tiger reserve which again Gave many Restriction for
the villagers. All this restriction and there traditional problem leads to Outbreak of rage of
villagers. There is very dominating politics have been played by local politicians in regard
with declaration of Sahyadri Tiger Reserve. Now there is very furious Debate on the rights
of villagers and restrictions put on them. Villagers of Nechal Village are very attached to
nature or Forest for there day today activities which became difficult after Declarations and
governmental intervention.

2.9 Objectives
1. To understand diversity of livelihood activities currently available in the study area
2. To analyze the impact on livelihood activities in the study area.
3. To find out alternative livelihood opportunities in buffer zone.

CHAPTER THIRD
3.1 Research Methodology
A suitable methodology has been followed to undertake the present study. It comprises of
the qualitative and quantitative research, in quantitative research- collection, analysis and
interpretation of data, the design of sample, interview schedule and use of secondary data
and in qualitative research the Focus Group Discussion,Participatory Rural Appraisal are
used. This sample is of diverse background, The tools like household surveys and focus on
group discussions are to collect the primary data from the sample. For this study interviews
had carried out with youth, farmers (small, middle and large landowners), laborers
(agricultural, non-agricultural), women, Forest guards, Forest Officers, etc. Other tools are
used as Social Mapping, Resource mapping, Socio-economic condition, demographic, risk
factor to the livelihoods and livelihood framework for detail study.
Also there is use of ‘Sustainable Livelihood Framework’ (SLF) which is most widely used
livelihoods frameworks in development practice. It is created by British Department for
International Development (DFID. Selected area for Study is Buffer zone of Sahyadri Tiger
Reserve, Maharashtra.
3.2 Sampling method
Purposive random samples keeping in mind that involvement of all the caste and social
groups from study area. The obvious advantage of proportionate stratified sampling is that
it ensures a proper representation of attributes or variables which consider more significant
for study (Sisodiya, 1999).
3.3 Report Stucture
Chapter First consist of Introduction to the Topic where all the basic Idea and orientation in
explained in Brief. Livelihood and Rural Development relation is briefly explained. It has
introduction to topic in details explaining background of the study and interrelation
between different streams.
Chapter Second consist of literature review which has tried to explain important terms more
broadly. It has explained some concepts like livelihood, sustainable livelihood, sanctuary,
Buffer zone and various projected conducted in buffer zone so far. This chapter has problem
statement and rationle with the objectives of the study.
Third chapter is mainly based on Research Methodologies which are used to conduct study
and collect data for the purpose of study. It contain brief introduction towards research
methodologies, report structure, sample size, sampling method etc which are crucial part of
the study. This chapter has elaborate explanation about which tools are used for collecting
data in what way.
Fourth chapter is very important chapter in this research because it is based on the data
which is colletected from the study area. It is focused on the various data and information
we received from primary as well as secondary sources. It has amalgamation of all the
issues and information of village. It contains information about study area, infroemation
about village infrastructure, village demography, list of livelihood activies in village, and
 information about natural capital in that region.
Chapter fifth is more crucial part of this study because it has all analysis of all the data
collected and it is further divided into three perspective to look at. There is social
perspective, political perspective and economical perspective is given on the collected data.
And the last some suggestion for different agencies which can help to solve problem are
given.
Research main emphasize will be qualitative for the dissertation.
1. Sampling size: 25-30 household
2. Type of data collection: primary data, secondery data
3. Schedule: October-November ( Diwali vaccation)
4. Process: Questionnaire and interview
 Type of Analysis: Qualitative
3.4 Research Question
After 3 years from Declaration of Sahyadri Tiger Reserve many questions are remains non
adressed.
1. The main question is how the declaration of Tiger Reserve affects population residing
in buffer Zone?
2. New regulations and restrictions are forced on people living in study area due to
Buffer Zone Declaration. So how it affects living and livelihood options over there?
3. One more question which forces to think about them is what are aspirations of this
people who live in buffer zone.
CHAPTER FOURTH
Results
4.1 Study Area
Village Nechal is situated at Karad Chiplun road on the edge off Western Ghats. Nechal
comes under patan Taluka district Satara. It belongs to pune division. It is arund some 54
KM towards south of satara. It is 24 K< away from the Taluka Patan. It is surrounded by
Chiplun taluka towards west, Sangmeshwar taluka towards south, Satara taluka towards
north and khed taluka towards north. The nearby cities for this village are chiplun, satara,
mahabaleshwar etc. This village is very small and comes under buffer zone of sahyadri tiger
reserve. If one tries to see its geographical location the village can the seen at midst of
western ghat. This is area which have high rain fall in the monsoon season and have thick
forest cover. It consists of community based households situated at specific distance from
each other. This village is quite sophisticated may be due to connectivity problem. This
village is one the original version of villages of Western Ghats. We can say that these are
least explored areas over time.

Information on the village

Nechal village has four hamlets. They call it as “VASTI” and the names of four vastis are
Mohite VASTI, GHOLAP VASTI, KADAM VASTI and KAMBLE VASTI. First two
localities Mohite vasti and Gholap vasti belongs to Maratha caste people. While Kadam and
Kamble vasti are scheduled caste people they are quite distant from upper caste localities.
4.2 Infrastucture
The village does not have a good infrastructure as it remains very isolated from
neighbouring villages and also it has been difficult to create new infrastructure due to
declaration of tiger reserve. Currently the village as a primary school in village which gave
education till fourth standard and after that students have to go to nearby villages for further
study. There is no primary health centre in village and one has to go to Helwak which is
around 7 kilometer. Also there is poor road construction which gets damaged every year in
rainy season. It is very difficult in rainy season because the roads are damaged and also it is
very season for transporting wood it gets more damaged. It leads to transport problem in
village and outside.
4.3 Demography
According to 2011 census there is population of 407 people in nechal village which
consist of 216 Males and 191 Female.
(Based on survey Conducted in research area)
This Population is again divided in four localities as mentioned these are caste based so
there population create a major chunk in decision making. This population is divided into
three categories because there is no one in the village who belongs to Scheduled tribe.
There are 154 people belongs to Scheduled Caste which consist 84 Males and 70 female
staying at 31 households. While there are only 2 families belongs to other backward class
who has 17 personnel as the total population in total. Nechal Village has majority of
population belongs to general category which consist of 216 Males and 191 Females
staying at 50 household. While there is large section of this category goes for migration and
come back to village seasonally.In total population of village there 26 children’s are below
age of 6 years. There is not so dense population in the village and so many people migrate
to another cities for livelihood generation.
There are three social groups are present in the village which have their forces working on
the local politics. Basically the majority of village population consists of Upper caste
people who are mostly Marathas. They have control of most of village land and forest
resources as they have dominant in population they also been very dominant in politics.
Mostly land resource belongs to this Maratha community people where the SC people does
have not land holdings. They usually go for daily wages at others farm or work on contract
basis at some compony or contractors.
Local Politics is majorly focused on government programme in this area. They have many
programmes from forest department about forest conservation which centre for all the local
politicians. They have targeted declaration of national reserve and also declaration of
sanctuary. They have time to time opposition towards restriction put on them. According to
them they have started a battle for their Rights and they fighting against government rule in
their Area. Mostly these fights are fought with political motivation by using local means.
4.4 List of livelihood activities at village level
There are mostly two three types of livelihood activities are performed. As it is forest area
and now governmental restrictions leads to limit the options t livelihood. In nechal village
mostly family who have lands does Farming for one season and then rest or migrate to
nearby cities. While those who do not any have land they usually work as a daily wage
labourers that may be farming or non farming activities. Many of them migrate to big cities
or in some industrial area in searching of better livelihood opportunities.
One of the dominant livelihoods practice is farming as majority of population is performing
the arming in the village but it is complete seasonal so other one is migration towards big
cities. Migrated labour mostly works in factories or companies as unskilled labour which
does not allow them get good income. Also many times it happened be that their income in
big cities is not sufficient for themselves to survive in there. Eventually when they are
unable to save anything they again come back to village in rainy season to work on their
fields as daily wage laborers. In the village the youth is most likely to migrate towards big
and faraway cities while middle aged or elderly people choose some nearby city. In case of
youth when are at age of 16 to 18 years old they usually try to earn money to support the
family. If they are dropped out at very young age they they work as unskilled labour in
factories but those who has any skill are better off than others. Many people go to nearby
district to work on tractor, or jeep as driver but they are selectively preferred by the owner
of vehicle.
4.5 Natural Capital
Natural Capital is the term used for the Natural resource stocks from which resource flows
and services (such as land, water, forest, air quality, etc.) useful for livelihoods are derived.
It is of special importance for those who derive all or part of their livelihoods from natural
resource- based activities, as it is often the case for the poor stakeholders, but also in more
general terms, since a good air & water quality represents a basis for good health & other
aspects of a livelihood.

The natural capital of the area can be broadly classified in three main categories.

A. Land :
Nechal villagers are settled in the area for a long time, but the land ownership has always
been disputed. It comes in corridor region of Chandoli national park and koyana wildlife
sanctuary. This has direct impact on the social, economic and political aspect of the village
society. Now when the government declared sahydri tiger reserve across the area of nechal
village comes under buffer zone of tiger reserve, The village development as a whole, in
terms of infrastructure is also compromised in some cases due to the conflicting land
claims.

(Based on the data collected from Grampanchayat Office Nechal)

B. Water:

Nechal is spread over and area of 892 ha. and is Village(Gavthan) spread over an area of
2.23 ha. More than 565.72 ha of this is forest land, and more than 83.41 has been non
cultivateble. Owing to its position at high altitude 610 metres above the sea level.Nechal
receives unusually high rainfall- an average of inches/year which is mostly concentrated in
the months of June, July, August and September. Ample water is available till January, as
many waterbodies form naturally, and village wells get surface and sub-surface water.
However, at the peak of summer, water availability is less and people depend entirely on
storage waterbodies.

C. Forest :

Quantified data on forest resources are unavailable but during the initial investigation, it
was informed by the community that almost all households in both the villages make use
the forest as a source of fuel wood, fodder, edible and medicinal plants.

The forests of western ghats are semi-evergreen type interspersed with lateritic plateaus and
shrub savanna. Nechal constitute rich evergreen, semi-evergreen and moist deciduous
forests and rocky grasslands which are used by the many herders in this region for grazing
cattle. The forests are extremely rich in terms of plants and animals especially endemics.
There are various unique and endemic varieties of frogs, geckos, reptiles and butterflies-
more still being discovered every year. This attracts wildlife researchers and nature lovers.
The area is especially important as a wildlife corridor between the forests of Maharashtra,
Karnataka and Goa. Many rare and threatened species of carnivores have been sited here,
including Black Panther and Tiger. However, as in the other parts of the Sahaydri Hills,
denudation of the forest cover is common. Unrestricted development of farm houses,
highway, and resorts are gradually ruining a once pristine environment.

The local communities are heavily dependent on the forest for fuelwood, fodder, other
forest produce and medicinal plants. Currently the forest department is trying to promote
Joint Forest Management Committee to locally manage nature tourism and conservation of
forest. The forest and other habitats in the area are not only of direct productive and
consumptive value, but have many indirect values for the local communities. Ecological
value of forest in the maintenance of water resources is invaluable. Part of the area is
designated as Sacred Grove (See Box), of religious and cultural importance to the villagers.
Aesthetic and environmental values of the forest are the main attractions for visitors and are
the base of the tourism livelihoods.

But at the same time the forest poses certain problems for the local communities as well.
Infrastructural development in forest habitations is difficult and electricity and roads have
not been made so far. Wildlife such as wild boars, gaurs, hare are regularly raiding the crops
and causing heavy damages, leading to poor agricultural production. Constructing fences of
thorns and branches, occasionally shooting the raiding animals have all been tried.

Thus, management of forest resources in a non-exploitative and innovative way is required

for the enhancing the livelihoods of local people.

Head of Household No of Household

Male 29

Female 11
 Total 40

(Based on collected Data from grampanchayat office nechal)

From the above table clearly one can say that there is number of women as head of
household is quite high as compared to other villages but this issue is quite twisted. many of
the household which are controlled by women are not by there wish and also they do not
much importance in decision making. In Nechal village many people have migrated so
there household are taken care by the elderly women in family. This women does not have
any security for food necessary things such as water or medicine. Many times those who
have migrated for their livelihood are unable to send anything back to villages. In that case
this elderly people need to go for work because they have no other option.
There was very much debate is going on in the village after themselves declaration of tiger
reserve as this area is put under buffer zone which means they have to follow some rules
and restrictions in their day today business. Many people started to mobilize these people
against the declaration. There is very furious debate on the restrictions which are proposed
in the buffer-core area. In the month of November 2015 people were going to protest in
koyana river and sacrifice their life against the declaration of buffer zone area. Protesters
are asking to remove some 18 villages from buffer zone area which are near the road but till
date there no any action taken by government.

CHAPTER FIFTH
Findings
5.1 Social Perspective - In case of Nechal village it has became very unstable society as
there is no guarantee of who will be in village at what time except monsoon. In the rainy
season only the village will be full of people or on the vacation of diwali because these are
the only things which gets nechal village at one halt. Currently there are 60 % of population
who migrate very often and 40 % are continuously outside for livelihood generation. These
things have a large impact on social life of people in the society. There is very strong
bonding between elderly people in village but also there is kind unease in youth of village.
The communities are mostly divided in caste from long ago but now these have taken a
different shape it has been deciding factor in community level arguments and events.
As many are getting excess to new things and learning new ways of life they are also
changing lifestyle of villagers and children in village. When the people come to village
after long time it fascinate unemployed youth which choose to migrate towards village
which makes him vulnerable to many problem which are not there before. The children are
also getting away from the rural or natural touch of village. As many of the parents sent
there childrens in school where they migrate they also ensure that these children should not
get back to village because they believe this village is reached to so call "saturation point of
production" and there is no good predicted in village.
5.2. Political perspective
There is very much influence of politics in many aspects related to Nechal village. There
are number of people who do not have anything to say about forest or declaration of
Sahyadri tiger reserve but still they oppose. Many interactive sessions are proved that large
number villagers are not actually aware of what are the restriction and they have to face due
to declaration but they are mobilized by their political leaders. There are only two parties
mostly prevalent in this area and they are Shivsena and Rashtravadi which are mostly
controlled by Maratha community of that area. In case of Nechal village last time the gram
panchayat seat was reserved for ST candidate now it reserved for SC so there is shift in
Political parties. The ruling party was Shivena but this time whole panel of Rashtrawadi
comes to power which has a different stand on the issue of buffer zone declaration. The
shivsena Party people are ready follow the restrictions and whatever the rules are posed on
villagers because they are one who gave no objection certificate to forest department for the
land clearance. But as opposite party in village, Rashtrawadi had opposed so many time and
they have led protest against forest department. These protest were mostly politically
motivated and on local level.
There is one another broad side of this issue of politics. Till the last election of
loksabha( upper House) there was a MP(Member of Parliment) from Rashtrawadi
Congress in but This time MP belongs to shivsena. So this all resulted in more agitation
against government because rastravdi has won over many grampanchayat which gave them
a support of people. Now Rastrawadi is working as Pressure Group in this area still they
have not achieved any success. As one can see there is lot of politics involved in the issue
of declaration of buffer zone which make the issue complicated to resolve as everyone so
seeking their personal interest.

5.3 Economical Perspective-

There was large number of contractors who were used to take a contract and cut the tree
from located area but after the declaration of sahyadri tiger reserve this has been banned
resulted in many people losing their job. It was one of the major component of village
economy as daily wage labourer are very earner of that. But due to this ban they left no
choice to find the other job which resulted in their migration from village. Secondly at the
same time many of the manufacturer companies had come to Koyana were started to leave
the area because of restrictions put on them. These factories were started during building of
Koyana Dam but now they after so many years they started to leave this place one by one
which increased the number of unemployed youth in the village.
The Village economy is mostly focused on two things first one is rice which they produce
during monsoon and the second one is wood collected from the forest. In the Rainy Season
the villagers of nechal sell all the wood collected during summer to contractor who again
sell them to market. In this period each and every household is storing large number of
wood and that generate income for them which last them for the season. After the
declaration the number and quantity of wood has reduced but still there is vast quantity of
wood is sold in market.
5.4 Suggestions
 To provide the employment in the village there should be maximum use of
government schemes like MGNAREGA.
 There should be skill develeopement program conducted in villages based on natural
resources which can be utilized.
 There should be social mobilization in village by the Local NGO instead of Political
Agitation.
 There is large scope for youth potential in village which is not benefiting the village.
 We have motivate them for new startup and innovative ideas instead of forcing them to
labour work.

QUESTIONNAIRES OF DISSERTATION:
(A) BASIC INFORMATION:-
1) Household no:- Postal Address:
2) Respondent name:-
3) Family members
Name of household Relation to head Age Education Occupation Income
members of family male/female

4) Cast and Sub Cast:-

5) Type of House:- Kaccha / Pucca /
Own/rented/
6) Electricity in house:- Yes / NO (Duration approx. per day: )
7) Drinking water facility:- Yes / NO (Well/ handpump/ spring/ ……………………)
Period of drinking water scarcity if any:
(B) Livelihood information
1) Land Owned :
Irrigated: Non-irrigated:
Have you sold land in last 5 years? How much?
2) Livestock owned and numbers
Cows : Bullocks: Buffalo: Goat:
Other:
3. Livelihood practices and income from each per year
Livelihood practice Dependence for sustenance Income from each
High/moderate/low
High/moderate/low
 Farming:
Sale of farm produce
Wage labour
Shop
Dairy:
Goat rearing:
Forest produce collection and
sale
Money sent by migrated
person
Pension

High: Cannot sustain without High: Main source of

this practice income
Moderate: Important, but can Moderate: supports cash
be substituted by something needs
else for higher gains Low: can be given up
Low: Can be given up without without much effect on
much effect on sustenance family income

Any other :
High: Cannot sustain without this practice/ Chief source of income
Moderate: Important, but can be substituted by something else for higher gains/ supports cash
needs
Low: Can be given up without much effect on sustenance/ can be given up without much effect
on family income
Total family income per year :
Detailed information about the livelihood practices
1. Farming:
Crop grown Period Average yield problems faced (water, wild
per year animals, etc.)

2. Livestock rearing purpose: farming/ dairy/ meat or any other

How many are stall fed:
 Grazing area:
Problems faced:
3) Forest produce collection:
List of forest produce collected, place of collection, approximate quantities, market , problems
faced
4) Migration:-
Name of migrant Place of Work at place of Reason for Duration of Money sent
family member destination migration migration migration home per year

(C) Impact due to buffer zone declaration:-

1) Which of following activities are or will be affected by buffer area declaration? How?
Farming:
Labour:
Livestock grazing
Forest produce collection
Water availability
Roads
Electricity
Educational facilities
Medical facilities
Migration
2) How will you cope with the changes in livelihood?
Do you think your next generation will do the same work as you? If Yes then why, if No also
why?
3) Is there any organization working on livelihood of people in this area? if yes, have you
benefited from their help? How?
4) Has any government agency visited to discuss buffer zone regulations in the village
Has any government agency suggested alternative livelihoods
Information to be collected from community/grampanchayat
1. Total households, population
2. List of livelihood activities carried out by people
3. Number of households involved in farming, wage labour, migration, livestock rearing, dairy
etc.
4. How much of land has been sold to non-resident so far
5. How much land is being cultivated
6. What are the main restrictions due to buffer area declaration
7. Is there a joint forest management committee in the village? How many are involved, what is
the work done?
8. Which of the government programmes are running in the village
MGNAREGA
Self-help groups
Ecodevelopment programme
Any other
9. What actions have been taken by forest department in the village area after buffer
declaration?
10. What are the different types of conflicts with the forest department
Human-wildlife conflict, land conflict, any other

References
 ARNOLD, J.E.M. & PEREZ, M.R. (2001) Can non-timber forest products match
tropical forest conservation and development objectives? Ecological Economics, 39,
437–447.
 BALLABH, V., BALOONI, K. & DAVE, S. (2002) Why local resources management
institutions decline: a comparative analysis of van (forests) panchayats and forest
protection committees in India. World Development, 30, 2153–2167.
 BARRETT, C.B. & ARCESE, P. (1998) Wildlife harvest in integrated conservation and
development projects: linking harvest to household demand, agricultural production, and
environmental shocks in the Serengeti. Land Economics, 74, 449–465.
 BAWA, K.S. & GADGIL, M. (1997) Ecosystem services in subsistence economics and
conservation of biodiversity. In Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural
 Ecosystems (ed. G.C. Daily), pp. 295–310. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
 BHATTACHARYA, P. & HAYAT, S.F. (2004) Sustainable NTFP management for rural
development: a case from Madhya Pradesh, India. International Forestry Review, 6,
161–168.
 BHATTACHARYA, P., JOSHI, B., BHAGAT, N.K. & HAYAT, F. (2002) Sustainable
harvesting of kullu (Sterculia urens) gum. Indian Institute of Forest Management
Newsletter, 1 & 2, 3–5.
 DANG, H. (2005) The end of conservation. Seminar, 552, 50–54. DES (Department of
Economics and Statistics) (2003) Economic Review 2003.
 Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, India. DES (Department of Economics
and Statistics) (2005) Season and Crop Report 2004-2005. Government of Tamilnadu,
Chennai, India.
 DINERSTEIN, E., LOUCKS, C., HEYDLAUFF, A., WIKRAMANAYAKE, E.,
BRYJA, G., FORREST, J.et al. (2006) Setting Priorities for the Conservation and
Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005-2015.
 A User’s Guide. WWF, WCS, Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF, Washington, DC and New
York, USA.
 GADGIL, M. & GUHA, R. (1992) This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India.
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India.
 GANESAN, R. (2003) Identification, distribution and conservation of Phyllanthus
indofischeri, another source of Indian gooseberry. Current Science, 84, 1515–1518.
 GOPALAKRISHNAN, C., WICKRAMASINGHE, W.A.R., GUNATILAKE, H.M. &
ILLUKPITIYA, P. (2005) Estimating the demand for nontimber forest products among
rural communities: a case study (MacMillan, 2008)
 Adams,W.M.,Aveling, R.,Brockington,D.,Dickson,B.,Elliot, J.,Hutton,J., ...Wolmer,W.
(2004). Biodiversity conservation and eradication of poverty. Science, 306, 1146–1149.
 Adams, V.M., Pressey, R.L., & Naidoo, R. (2010). Opportunity costs: Who really pays
for conservation? Biological Conservation, 143, 439–448.
 Azmi, N. (2005). The economics of tourism: Maximising the benefits of ecotourism for
the locality. Environmental Sciences, 9, 43–52.
 Boerner, B.A.(2007).Stakeholders, globalization
andcorporatesocialresponsibility:Alookat international ecotourism. Proceedings of the
7th Global Conference on Business and Economics, Rome, Italy.
 Bookbinder, M.P., Dinerstein, E., Rijhal, A., Cauley, H., & Rajouria, A. (1998).
Ecotourism’s support of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 12(6), 1399–
1404.
 Bushell, R.,& McCool, S.F. (2007).Tourism as atool for conservation andsupport of
protected areas: Setting the agenda. In R. Bushell & P.F.J. Eagles (Eds.), Tourism and
protected areas: Benefits beyond boundaries (pp. 12–26).
 Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Cook, S.D., Stewart, E., & Repass, K. (1992).
Tourism and the environment (p. 79). Washington, DC: Travel industry association of
America.
 Eagles, P.F.J. (2007). Global trends affecting tourism in protected areas. In R. Bushell &
P. Eagles (Eds.), Tourism and protected areas: Benefits beyond boundaries (pp. 27–43).
 Ghate, R. (2003). Global gains at local costs – imposing protected areas: Evidence from
central India. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 10,
377–389.
 Gopal, R., & Shukla, R. (2000). Management plan of Kanha Tiger Reserve. Bhopal,
India: Madhya Pradesh Forest Department. Government of India. (2001). Census of
India. Author. Government of India. (2009). Report of the expert group to review the
methodology for estimation of poverty. Report by the Planning Commission,
Government of India.
 Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise?
Washington DC: Island Press. IUCN/UNEP/WWF. (1980). World conservation startegy.
Living resource conservation for sustainable development (p. 26). Gland Switzerland:
IUCN, UNEP and WWF.
 Jhala, Y.V., Gopal, R., & Qureshi, Q. (2008). Status of tigers, co-predators and Prey in
India. TR08/ 001, p. 164. Dehradun, India: Wildlife Institute of India.
 McNeely, J.A. (1995). Expanding partnerships in conservation. Washington, DC: Island
Press. Milne, S., & Ewing, G. (2004). Community participation in Caribbean tourism:
 Problems and prospects. In D.T. Duval (Ed.), Tourism in the Caribbean (pp. 335–358).
London: Routledge.
 Mishra, H.R., Wemmer, C., Smith, J.L.D., & Wegge, P. (1992). Biopolitics of saving
Asian mammals in the wild: balancing conservation with human needs in Nepal. In P.
Wegge (Ed.), Mammal conservation in developing countries: A new approach,
Occasional Paper Series. (pp. 9–35). Norway: NLH Agriculture University.