Tropentag, October 6 - 8, 2009 in Hamburg "Biophysical and Socio-economic Frame Conditions for the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources"

Conserving the Forests of the Indian Himalayan: A Comparison of Four Conservation Regimes

¹Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Institute of Socioeconomics, Germany
²Institute for Social and Economic Change, Centre for Ecological Economics and Natural Resources, India

Abstract

The Indian Himalayas are one of the 34 biodiversity hotspots in the world. These are the world's richest and most threatened reservoirs of plant and animal live. Although population density is relatively low compared to other parts of India human pressure on the Himalayan forests is intense. They are exploited as sources of energy and animal fodder. Many studies reported that the current rate of forest degradation is posing a severe threat to the landscape and existing biodiversity in the region. Soil erosion and slope instability cause further problems.
In the present study we compared four different approaches of forest conservation that are widely recognised in the study region of the Uttarakhand state in central Himalayas: (1) Traditionally conserved forests, (2) Governmentally conserved forests, (3) Protected areas, and (4) Community conserved forests. We used remote sensing data of the last three decades (such as Multi-Spectral Scanner, Linear Imaging and Self Scanning, and Enhanced Thematic Mapper) to study the change in vegetation dynamics of the mountain forests. We also collected botanical ground data from the forests to verify the spatial dimension and the validity of the remote sensing approach. Furthermore the acceptance of the different conservation regimes by the Himalayan dwellers was studied.
All conservation regimes showed different results regarding the state of the forests. We concluded that the “Community conserved forests” showed the best results regarding biodiversity conservation and forest management in the region. This is due to a variety of reasons including the level of social acceptance of conservation regimes. We recommend encouraging this conservation approach in the Himalayas, alongside with the sustainable livelihood concept of the mountain societies. But all four conservation regimes may fit to certain conditions and the concept of “Community conserved forests” may not be accepted by all communities. Therefore, we suggest advancement and a revision of the concepts of “Protected Areas” and the “Governmentally conserved forests”. Furthermore some elements of the “Community conserved forests” may be included in the concept of “Traditionally conserved forests” to meet the rapid socio-economic and cultural changes taking place in the communities.

Keywords: Conservation regimes, diversity, empirical study, forests, Himalaya, land cover, remote sensing, sustainable development

Contact Address: Thomas Kutter, Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Institute of Socioeconomics, Eberswalder Str. 84 , 15374  Muencheberg , Germany, e-mail: Thomas.Kutterzalf.de