Grassroots Organisation Engaging Conservation Agency in Nepal: A case of indigenous fishing communities' struggle for right to fishing in South-Central Nepal
Anil Bhattarai and Sudeep Jana, Nepal South Asia Centre (NESAC)

Introduction to the case
This case examines the struggle of the Bote, Majhi and Musahar communities for their right to fish in a river and have access to local forest resources in South-Central Nepal. From the later part of the 1960s, the Nepali government, with assistance from international agencies (such as the United Nations) began to implement conservation policies. The Royal Chitwan National Park (RCNP) was set up particularly for the protection of one-horned rhinos whose population had significantly declined by the 1950s. These policies were based on the assumption that people were the main culprits in the destruction of wildlife and, therefore, they needed to be excluded from the conservation areas. After the introduction of these policies, their entry to the forest was severely restricted and fishing in the river made illegal. By the mid-1980s, ferrying was banned across the river.

By the late 1980s, however, conservation agencies were becoming aware of conflicts between local fishing communities and the RCNP. Slowly, they began to implement the concept of partnership between conservation agencies and local people through some developmental programmes. But exclusionary practices continued. In fact, in December 1992, armed guards of the RCNP raided several villages lying along the river and seized all the boats, nets and other fishing utensils from all the houses in the villages. It was in response to this crisis that a local people's organisation named Majhi, Mushahar, Bote Kalyan Sewa Samiti (MMBKSS) was set up in 1993 by the fishing communities.

The type and extent of policy change
Fishing communities now have access to the Buffer Zone Management Council as a Buffer Zone User's Committee member. This committee controls two major sources of resources: the community forest lying within the buffer zone and a share of the revenue generated from the RCNP for the purpose of local community development activities.

Some thoughts on the explanation of the policy change
The political context
The formation of a people's organisation and their struggle became possible because of a more open political context following the restoration of democratic rights in 1990. Before 1990, the autocratic rulers did not allow the formation of any political organisation. The new constitution of 1990 in Nepal ensured citizen's fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, right to information and freedom of assembly, amongst others.

International factors
International conservation agencies were also beginning to realise that exclusionary policies have led to conflicts with local communities and failures in achieving conservation objectives. A new emphasis was beginning to be put on participation of local communities in conservation activities.

The nature of research-based evidence
A research centre, CDO, conducted a study on conservation policies and the practices of conservation institutions. The study focused on how local communities were dependent on local resources, and their daily interactions with the staff of RCNP. It also carried out an analysis of the impact of conservation policies and practices on the livelihoods of the fishing communities. CDO also carried out a short study on damage done by wild animals. These findings were used to highlight the fact that local communities were bearing the burden of conservation and therefore were entitled to the revenue generated by the RCNP.

The ways CSOs tried to affect policy change (strategy and activities)
Following the raid in their villages by armed guards of RCNP and subsequent crisis of livelihoods, village leaders, who were to form MMBKSS, began to organise themselves and discuss their rights and claims over natural resources in different villages. They also began lobbying with local political leaders for change. Dialogue with various stakeholders including political parties, local government representatives, journalists, member of parliaments and other local level institutions helped to increase public awareness on the issue.

In addition to generating knowledge, CDO also trained members of MMBKSS in techniques of non-violent action, sponsored further studies and carried out public education interventions about community members' rights under the existing policies. CDO also took some journalists on study tour in the villages so that they could write about the livelihood crisis of the fishing communities. This generated publicity about their plight.

In the meantime, MMBKSS carried out different non-violent activities to put pressure on the RCNP and generated national level debates.

Conclusions on what the case might tell us

• This case study shows that generation of local knowledge is an essential component of local struggles for access to livelihood resources.
  
• Non-violent strategies and pressure tactics coupled with popular support can challenge the unjust structures and practices.
  
• The struggles would not have been possible without conscious involvement of CDO in training of local activists within the MMBKSS. But research alone would not have been enough.
  
• Since policies are also made at national level, it is also necessary to campaign beyond the local area.

View full case study ( 136kb)

Back to Case Studies index