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 one universe, it is more often fought between the wild animals and the villagers who cherish their domestic animals 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 be 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, while some they adhere since it was imposed as a law on them to follow although it hardens their livelihoods.
National and international conservationists with monitory capacity leans back and watches while the poor farmers struggle with wild animals like bear, and big cats that kill their domestic animals often, while these section of international donors and conservationists stand ready to point fault and blame if the conservation is failed in an area.

For instance, a small tiny land locked country of Bhutan is voiced for its rich biodiversity and forest cover that give shelter to big cats those are being pushed by urbanization in its neighboring countries and is protected by this tiny kingdom 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 in some cases where kills of big cats are compensated, it can not replace a lost from what they are 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 like the conservation without benefit for them.

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.

Why only Nu500,000 from government(as reported in the MoAF website) and why is international agencies just donate some amount and watch how it does. Why not step in and be the compensating agency to those poor farmers who loses all what they have? 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, a yak herder and how much is he losing at an instant? Who is taking this note?

I would say if you cant support these poor villagers, the farmers are worth defending their own survival and livelihoods than to support an interest not in their mind or to follow the legality that backs the interest of conservationists. I here does not mean conservation is bullshit, but it needs a balanced legality to back conservation with protection of farmers livelihoods and their property. Wild life conservation have a legal backing but does farmers losing their property have any solid legal backing?

Can there be 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 the farmer who losses its property to wild animals be compensated by the concerned agency to its 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 loose.  

1 comment:

  1. "The argumentative Bhutanese"...Quite realistic and practicable arguments bravo.For every door people try to close, there has to be another one opening. To stop transgression on wildlife, there has to be commensurate effort to do the same on domestic animals which Sammy rightly pointed out to be the basis for livelihood of the rural people.

    Whenever we come up with a policy option we tend to miss out on the concept of "keep one door always open". This may be the reason why Bhutanese policy makers are dubbed as "Unidirectional" without the ability to look at both the ends.
    Anyways nice one bro!...keep writing!