Scribd
Upload
72 views2 pages

Management of Protected Areas Led To Socio Cultural Disruptions

Management of protected areas has led to socio-cultural disruptions and conflicts between local communities and conservation authorities. Protected areas are often isolated without integration of buffer zones, resulting in loss of biodiversity. The top-down conservation approach has threatened livelihoods and cultural heritage of local people through resettlement and restricted access to resources. This has diminished communities' capacity to protect against poachers and contributed to further loss of biodiversity. Moving forward, conservation must prioritize a bottom-up community-based approach, rural development, improving livelihoods, and building cooperation between local people and authorities.

Uploaded by

baby
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views2 pages

Management of Protected Areas Led To Socio Cultural Disruptions

Management of protected areas has led to socio-cultural disruptions and conflicts between local communities and conservation authorities. Protected areas are often isolated without integration of buffer zones, resulting in loss of biodiversity. The top-down conservation approach has threatened livelihoods and cultural heritage of local people through resettlement and restricted access to resources. This has diminished communities' capacity to protect against poachers and contributed to further loss of biodiversity. Moving forward, conservation must prioritize a bottom-up community-based approach, rural development, improving livelihoods, and building cooperation between local people and authorities.

Uploaded by

baby
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Management of protected areas led to socio cultural disruptions :-

 Protected Areas are often under threat from ad hoc and heavily intrusive
‘management’ that involves unscientific habitat manipulation, earth moving and
construction…

 Conflicts often arise regarding compensation for cattle killed by carnivores in the
reserves or for damages caused to crops by wild animals

 The PAs have not been integrated through forested corridors (for maintaining
genetic continuity) or establishing complimentary multiple use areas. In many cases
the Protected areas remain as isolated islands.

 lack of integration of protected areas with surrounding areas or buffers. 

 Vaccination of local domestic cattle to protect the wildlife is rarely done.


 Insufficiency of funds and facilities,
 lack of public awareness, limited jurisdiction and training of staff,

 lack of work force and lack of necessary information base make the functioning
of Protected  areas a difficult task.
 Environmentally unsustainable activities take place both within and outside forest
are 

 Protected areas  even failed to conserve biodiversity.

  This top-down conservation approach has led to management decisions
seriously threatening the livelihood and cultural heritage of local people, such as the
resettlement programme established to move people from villages inside the park,
and the reduction of access to resources and traditional rights. 

 the lack of guaranteed access to resources is an impediment to a truly participatory


approach at the community level .


 The lack of security in land ownership and the erosion of local statute laws
have diminished the capacity of communities to stand up to outsiders, like
poachers and wood smugglers, and have also contributed to the loss of
biodiversity.

communal land surrounding villages is being increasingly privatised, which leads to the
dwindling of the little parcels of communal land available to farmers.

 , local communities have frequently been subjected to eviction, often with grave
consequences to their identity and future development.

 Indeed, eviction also creates a kind of ‘socio-cultural stress’ and relocated
populations lose not only the economic base of their survival, but also undergo a
considerable reduction of their cultural heritage.
 Forest officers are often seen by the local communities as authoritarian
individuals who have the arbitrary power to punish and to deny access to resources. 
Way forward:-
 The bottom-up management approach will enable communities surrounding
protected areas to be actively involved in the management and administration of
their regions. 
 Conservation policies should shift from the current focus on control and sanction 
to a growing emphasis on rural development, an essential component of every
conservation programme.

 A change in the attitude of the conservation authorities vis-à-vis local
communities is essential.

 protected area managers to put in place measures that can aid communities to
enhance their living standards for example improved educational and infrastructure
facilities.

 Alternative development options (e.g., skills acquisition training in tailoring,
sustainable farming, carpentry, etc.)

 Developing skills among forest officers to work with communities

  reorienting institutional policies, procedures and development practices.

 NGOs and grass root organizations have a greater role to play not only to act as
the interface between the forest department and community but actually being a part
of monitoring and evaluation process of eco development programmes

 . Overall increased awareness should be created towards importance of
biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection.
 

You might also like