Tuesday, August 14, 2012

On Demand: A RESULT of the pedestrian's day

This result of an assessment on the pedestrian's day would be the certificate of Bhutan's Leadership in environmental protection, But if only proven with positive impact of the day beyond just a drop in fuel consumption.
Curtsy: Bhutan News Service
So many Tuesdays passed after the government declared it as the pedestrians day. A decision bold enough and a sign of trying means to commit towards environmental conservation. Good enough.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Who is really paying for wild life conservation?

Actually the poor farmers are paying for wild life conservation and is voiced by other national and international agencies...............

curtsy: Climate Himalaya

While the human wild life conflict is seen as natural phenomenon for all living being having to live in one universe, it is more often fought between the wild animals and the villagers who cherish their domestic animals and their crops to whom they depend their livelihoods.

If there is no national and international conservation policies to protect the wild species, the winners will be the villagers who can hunt down or can poisoned the wild animals to death.

But these poor farmers living in villages by the forest sides are adhering to the policies that does not favor much to their interest keeping by the imposed law, although it hardens their livelihoods.

For instance, small tiny land locked country of Bhutan is voiced for its rich biodiversity and forest cover that give shelter to big cats. They are in Bhutan most probably because neighboring countries have used most of their forest and they are being pushed by urbanization in its neighboring countries. So they find solace in this country which protected them at the hardship of poor farmers in the remote villages.

While the farmers are not allowed to kill any of these wild animals and if killed is charged for criminality with huge fines and penalties, their domestic animals and crops lost to the wild animals are never compensated or if compensated.

The agencies concerned for wild life conservation seems to work hard on getting support from national and international donors and agencies interested in wild life conservation to support compensation to the villagers for their lost but gets nothing.

While it is the conservationists interest to save wild life, the burden seems to be put on farmers who do not actually having nothing to gain from conservation.

Why is the government who voices importance of conservation and international agencies who put so much importance in conservation does not comes forward in giving a helping hand to these farmers who tries to support the interest of the global conservationists. Rather than anything else, compensating farmers crops and domestic loss will mean who much conversationists care.

Only Nu500,000 from government(as reported in the MoAF website) was allocated just this time for compensation but international agencies are interested in research and not really conservation. If conservation is the key, they need to help their true partners, the farmer. What if they start to do what they should? do we throw them one after another in jail for protecting their livelihood? Why not step in and be the compensating agency to those poor farmers who loses all what they have for what we call conservation? Isn't this one of the factors that is challenging poverty reduction?

Over 2200 animals have lost in past 10 years in Bhutan according to the figures released on the MoAF's website, all that belongs to poor farmers in remotes corners and nomads living in high mountains. And when these cats pray on the yaks, every kill that counts from 5 to over 10 becomes a property of one poor family.  Who is taking this note?

I would say if you can't support these poor villagers, the farmers are worth defending their own survival and livelihoods than to support an interest which does not belong to them. Conservation programs have lots of money for research, collaring the animals, documenting and hell lots of other activities, but they have no money to compensate the loss of properties of a farmer. How fair is this?

Can we add a legal provision in wild life conservation act that the conservation should not happen at the cost of a farmer's livelihoods or just one provision that shall say a farmer who losses its property to wild animals be compensated by the concerned agency to its actual value?

Wild life conservationists love wild life and puts interest in wild life conservation. At the same time these farmers knows about their domestic animals as much as you know about the wild animals and loves them as much as you do.

So if conservationists take their own means to protect their loving animals, why cant these poor farmers take up measures to protect their loving feeders of their family.

When these poor farmers are supporting because the government law backs the global conservationists. Can that be rewarded with at lest a compensation worth to what they lose.