High Altitude Integrated Natural Resource Management
Institutions and organisations in pasture and forest management
Field Report 2001
Håvard Steinsholt, Poul Wisborg, Jawad Ali
Basho, 22 July 2001
High Altitude Integrated Natural Resource Management: Institutional cooperation between the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP) and the Agricultural University of Norway (NLH)
Håvard Steinsholt, Department of Landscape Planning, NLH; Poul Wisborg, Noragric, NLH; Jawad Ali, AKRSP Baltistan/Noragric, NLH
SUMMARY
Brief field visits to Choungra and Gudai Valleys of Astore, and a revisit to Basho Valley, Skardu District, Baltistan, Northern Areas, Pakistan were carried out to compare and test earlier work on institutions and organisations in alpine resource management. People in both areas face and are concerned with similar challenges of sustainable management of alpine resources and experiment with varieties of organisational and institutional arrangements to meet them. Village rights to defined areas appear clearer and more settled in Astore. Household rights to commons are based on landownership in the right-holding village, but residence and the degree of community membership are socially important. Migration and the semi-urban nature of the Astore sites seem to create more ambiguity about who enjoys (full) rights than is the case in Basho. In the Astore sites there are no organisations attempting to cover the whole valley the way the Basho Development Organisation (BDO) does. In stead, in Choungra the more integrated and co-ordinated summer farms (nirils) make pasture management appear more settled and less conflict prone. In Gudai Valley, the sub-watershed geographical and organisational units, mozas, provide leadership and cooperation at an intermediate level. In both Astore and Basho, Dehi Councils are a new government funding channel and system of local governance.
Apparently the same (male) leaders are central in both these and the AKRSP initiated village organisations, and we did not come across examples that this had lead to new approaches to management of common pool natural resources. In both areas male dominance and invisibility of women weaken governance and management of commons. In Basho, women are effectively excluded from both the Dehi Councils and the Basho Development Organisation, where their representation is through male leaders of inactive Women’s Organisations. Both Astore sites show cases of strengthened emphasis of forest conservation with backing by the Forest Department.
Generally, it still appears to rely heavily on monitoring and sanctioning illegal forest utilisation by local people;
the gaps between physical and economic needs and the legal rights and entitlements appear to make for lasting conflicts. In Basho, the emphasis on forest conservation by people and some forest officials co-exists with a corrupt and violent system of forest exploitation involving police, forest department officials. The violation of democratic rights and principles still undermine sustainable management efforts.
Aga Khan Rural Support Programme Regional Programme Office, Baltistan P.O. Box 610, Satpara Road, Skardu Northern Areas, PAKISTAN
Telephone: 00 92 575 27 51/28 67 Telefax: 00 92 575 29 42
The Agricultural University of Norway: Noragric, Centre for International Environment and Development Studies
P. O. Box 5001, N-1432 As, NORWAY Telephone: 00 47 64 94 99 50 Telefax: 00 47 64 94 07 60 E-mail: [email protected] WWW: http://www.nlh.no/noragric
i
Table of contents
1. BACKGROUND AND FOCUS... 1
2. PURPOSE ... 1
3. APPROACH AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... 1
4. FIELD VISIT TO ASTORE... 2
4.1. CHOUNGRA VALLEY... 2
4.1.1. Location and general information... 2
4.1.2. Common pool resources: pastures and forests... 4
4.1.3. Organisations and institutions ... 6
4.2. GUDAI VALLEY... 10
4.2.1. Location and general information... 10
4.2.2. Common pool resources: pastures, forests and river... 10
4.2.3. Organisations and institutions ... 11
5. BASHO ... 13
5.1. EVENTS AND CHANGES... 13
5.2. ORGANISATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE... 13
5.3. NATURAL FOREST GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT... 14
5.3.1. Conservation efforts ... 14
5.3.2. Corrupt timber extraction... 16
5.3.3. Basho forest later history ... 18
6. TALLEY WATERSHED... 19
7. COMPARATIVE POINTS AND LESSONS LEARNED ... 19
8. DISCUSSIONS AND WORKSHOPS... 21
APPENDIX 1: ITINERARY AND PEOPLE MET ... 22
APPENDIX 2: SELECTED KEYWORDS ... 24
APPENDIX 3: SUGGESTIONS FOR PHASE 2,... 25
APPENDIX 4: INSTITUTIONS; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ... 28
ii
1. BACKGROUND AND FOCUS
AN institutional co-operation between Aga Khan Rural Support Programme and Agricultural University of Norway focuses on High Altitude Integrated Natural Resource Management (NRM). It is funded by the Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation (NORAD) as an integrated part of support to the NRM programme of AKRSP Baltistan. We have studied organisations and institutions in pasture and forest management in the Basho Valley of Skardu. We made field visits to Basho in 1998 and 1999 (AKRSP-NLH, 1998: Report NO 2; AKRSP-NLH, 1999: Report No. 8). In 1999, fieldwork also involved field visit to and comparison with Hunjor Broq, Khaplu.
AKRSP and NLH formulated the aim and focus of this project component in a project document (AKRSP - NLH, 1997). Joint research/documentation is based on a model of interaction between actors, institutions (rules) and land use, with the emphasis on institutions and institutional change relevant for pasture, forest and possibly other alpine zone resources, such as wildlife and eco-tourism.
Examples of how people and organisations respond to changes in the institutional framework and to changes in the ecological status of production systems were thought to be of particular interest. The study addresses both formal institutions (Statuary law and regulations based on statuary law, and enforcement practices) and informal institutions (norms, values and traditions, customary law and enforcement mechanisms). Property rights (both formal and informal) cover individual and household ownership, common property at different levels (village, inter-village and watershed), state ownership and the distribution of property rights between the actors.
2. PURPOSE
The purpose of the field visits were to:
• Compare and consolidate findings and assess dynamics and development in Basho
• Co-operate with Jawad Ali to draw upon the synergy between this component and his PhD research on the management of forest commons. Jawad’s research involves comparing management and governance of forest commons in Basho and Gudai, Astore.
• Discuss lessons learned, including the relevance for AKRSP’s strategies and activities regarding common pool natural resources.
3. APPROACH AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We carried out brief field visits to Astore, aiming to get a crude, qualitative understanding of use and governance of natural resource commons. We visited two different sites: 1) Choungra ad Eid Gah villages of Choungra Valley, and 2) Gudai Village of Gudai Valley. We met local leaders and resource persons in meetings arranged by AKRSP/Jawad Ali, and combined them with scattered field
1
observations. Meetings were biased in favour of i) men (excluding women), ii) local notables/leaders iii) and landowners versus actual users. We spent two days in Choungra, but only did a half day meeting and field visit in Gudai. In Basho Valley, Skardu District, we updated previous information on organisational development by meeting representatives of village organisations and the Basho Development Organisation.
We are thankful to villagers in Astore and Baltistan for spending time and sharing knowledge with us;
to AKRSP Baltistan for co-operation including excellent logistical support; to drivers and Forest Hut staff who helped make the field visits possible and pleasant; to AKRSP and NLH colleagues for team discussions in Basho; and to NORAD for funding the AKRSP-NLH cooperation programme.
4. FIELD VISIT TO ASTORE 4.1. Choungra Valley
4.1.1. Location and general information
Choungra Valley stretches west from Astore River at Astore Proper in Diamer District of Gilgit Region, and is located approximately 115 km from Gilgit. The watershed covers an area of about 8 times 12 km (100 km2). The meaning of Choungra comes from Choung, onion, and relates to the shape of the watershed with Astore proper as the base and three to four ‘leaves’ of land divided by streams stretching upwards towards the alpine zone (Figure 1). Choungra consists of about 25 mohallas (hamlets) grouped in three dars or sub-villages: Budi Dar (‘big’, bazaar area), Majini Dar (middle) and Thoko Dar. Budi Dar has one Dehi Council, Majini and Thoko one together1. Choungra has about 450 households and 4,500 inhabitants. There are six AKRSP Village Organisation (VOs) and three Women’s Organisations (WOs). The membership in Dehi Councils and VO leadership is to a large extent overlapping. General villager participation differs in that VO membership is voluntary, generally involving 85 to 90% of households.
Eid Gah (“the place were people meet for prayer and festivals”) is a part of Astore Proper, divided from the original bazaar area (Budi Dar, Choungra) by the Yachalito (ghost) River and gorge. Eid Gah has about 350 households divided in eight mohallas. There are 19 government and non-government offices (including AKRSP Field Management Unit) in the village, which is expanding due to land scarcity in Budi Dar of Choungra.
1 In 2000 the poverty alleviation project implemented through the Dehi Council were repairs on link road and three irrigation channels. In 2001 funds would be allocated to metalling of the road in Astore proper.
2
Figure 1: Sketch map of Choungra Valley
Sangosar
Khutimus
Shatang
Rama Niril Rama
Forest PTDC
NAPWD
Eid Gah Choungra Bullin
Patipora Bakhrat
lake
Kurai Shung Yatchalito
Direction Nanga Parbat
Village
Early summer settlement
Summer farm (Niril), a few of the existing Thick forest Thinner forest Stream/ gulch LEGEND
Astore river
N
Some villagers from Eid Gah (100 households) and the lower parts of Choungra village have acquired land in the Bakhrat (“the point that animals should be kept above”) hamlet of the upper part of the watershed. This extensive single-cropping field area serves as an early summer settlement for its landowners, who move with their animals to this place at a fixed date. Eid Gah villagers with no land at Bakhat move directly to the high pastures at a later date.
Villagers know about external organisations in this field and have occasionally participated in meetings regarding the management of commons. IUCN’s MACP programme includes parts of Astore (Dashkin, Bunji and Bullachi), but not the areas visited. A significant number of village organisations in Astore have established links with other institutions working on management of natural resources:
IUCN (19 VOs/15 WOs), WWF (8 VOs/8 WOs); Forest Department (25 VOs) (Source: AKRSP FMU Files, December 31 2000). AKRSP’s cooperation with Macauley Land Use Research Institute looks into pasture management in Bunji. AKRSP Astore has so far not engaged in special valley pilot sites for integrated watershed management; however, staff co-ordinate their support to livestock, agriculture
3
and forestry, reflecting the mixed faring system of villages and households (meeting with Astore FMU, 12.07.). AKRSP has provided improved Yak bulls (21), Kael sheep and Jersy bulls (7) for breeding purposes and on 50% subsidy basis (Dr Nazir Ahmed, meeting 12.07.). Today AKRSP pursues a policy of reducing subsidies and shifting emphasis from service delivery to institutional development an competence building.
4.1.2. Common pool resources: pastures and forests
The Choungra commons are the forests and pastures within a watershed stretching from the bazaar areas to the ridges above Rama Forest and Sangosar Lake (Figure 2) in direction of Nanga Parbat.
Like in Basho, rights and usage of pastures and forest are integrated. The commons are shared, in different combinations between villages. Villagers from Harcho and Bullen, like people from Eid Gah, hold rights to and pass through Choungra to access some of their commons. Patipora is a village within the Choungra watershed, traditionally sharing the same commons, but administratively separate from Choungra. As in Basho, pastures and forests are complex, scattered resources and the tables below are neither neutral nor complete. They are also integrated in terms of rights and usage.
Table 1: Choungra Pastures
Pasture area Right-holding villages Comment
Sangosar Choungra, Eid Gah, Patipora Includes Rama forest area and the nirils Sangosar, Khutimus, Chatang and Rama Harcho Harcho, Choungra and Eid Gah Only Harcho has right to build sheds
(harai) Source: Meetings in Choungra, Eid Gah and at Sangosar Niril
Meeting participants said that pasture conditions were highly variable, but some thought that they were degraded as compared to the past, linking it to reduced rainfall in recent years and population growth: While the total number of livestock had perhaps increased (disputed/unclear), the number of livestock per household was said to have been reduced. It is estimated to be about five large and five small ruminants per household (Dr Nazir, AKRSP FMU). One person said that yak and yak-cow cross breeds have increased in importance, and that they were “pushing” small ruminants both to more marginal pastures and cultivated fields below. One participant thought that the improved breeds of livestock were needed to reduce pressure on pastures (leading to a discussion of with the AKRSP representative because these are no longer provided at subsidised rates).
Forested areas are the sources of firewood, timber for house construction, minor forest products and grazing for livestock, as well as an important tourist attraction (particularly Rama).
4
Table 2: Forests used by Eid Gah
Forest area Right-holding villages Comment
Rama Forest Choungra, Eid Gah, Patipora
Kachick Forest Eid Gah, Patipora Eid Gah villagers through owning land in Bakhat, Choungra
Jamiat Forest Bullen and Eid Gah Grazing and firewood collection banned by villages since approximately 1990.
Bullen Forest Bullen, Eid Gah Source: Meeting in Eid Gah, 12 July 2001
Figure 2: Sketch map of Choungra Valley forest areas
People’s perceptions vary, but comments and some recently introduced rules indicate that people see the forest as being degraded through human utilization. According to villagers, a major reduction in forest cover occurred during 1970 to 1983, through logging primarily by contractors working for the army. Today, the extensive export of timber appears to have been stopped. Rama in the upper part of the watershed is an impressive and attractive area of blue-pine, deodar, Jalgosa Pine, spruce and birch forest. The Jalgosa Pine has valuable nuts (selling at 200 Rs per kg), and it is one of the factors that
5
Eid Gah Choungra
Patipora lake
Bullen
Bakhrat
Rama forest
Bullen forest
Catchic forest Jamiat forest
Rama forest:
Choungra, Eid Gah and Patipora rights.
Catchic forest:
Rights for Patipora, Choungra and those from Eid Gah with lans at Bakhratthos with land at Bachet.
Bullen Forest:
Eid Gah and Bullen rights.
Jamiat Forest:
Eid Gah and Bullen rights (10 years ban on any harvesting locally imposed).
N
motivate people to protect forest. The Rama PTDC Hotel and NAPWD Rest House are located in the Rama Forest, close to a large green meadow that provides for convenient heli-plats, cricket/polo grounds and campsites. The forest is clearly shaped by human use (lobbing of branches, felling, grazing, collection of chips and resin, and burning). Villagers estimate that a daily average of 400 donkey loads of firewood is carried from the forest during the months March to November, adding up to 2,500 tons per year2. As in Basho human use gives it an attractive, open and park like quality, while in the eyes of the PTDC manager it shows the ruthless destruction of the “natural beauty” of the area.
While cursory observation suggests dominance of old trees and limited natural regeneration, as in Basho one finds ‘surprising’ pockets of vigorous and dense regeneration in the Rama Forest. Some Choungra villagers believe that grazing damages regeneration, stating that they saw good sprouting of saplings in March-April, only to have been eaten at the time of the meeting (mid-July); people had discussed reducing the goat population due to their perceived impact on forest regeneration.
4.1.3. Organisations and institutions Villages and households
In Choungra, leaders claimed to have a more firmly established right to pastures than Eid Gah (based on old revenue records). However, according to Eid Gah leaders, the old name of the village is Sangou, which means ‘light’ and stresses its relation to the Sangosar Lake and pasture areas in the uppermost part of the watershed.
The dominant view expressed was that rights to pastures are based on landownership and residence in the right-holding village. As we understand it, legally rights are primarily an attribute of land ownership, while residence and other aspects of community membership are socially important. A respected resident (for example a government employee) would hold rights to the commons; for a non- resident landowner they would often be challenged or curtailed. Rights to commons were contested in various ways:
• One minority view claimed that Eid Gah villagers rights to “Choungra” commons was based on land ownership in the Choungra mohalla Bakhrat
• One minority view held that villagers from Harcho and Eid Gah had rights only as tenants of the Raja (rejected by others, since the tenant status was abolished with the Raja system, and rights now belong to village)
2 About 800 households (Chougra, Eid Gah, Patipora) collect firewood in the Rama Forest. Villagers estimate their annual household requirement to 150 maunds or approximately 6 tons, i.e. a total of 4,800 tons. Rama Forest, then, supplies about half of this. The same estimation of household consumption is reported from Gudai and it also corresponds with Knut Velles estimations from Basho.
6
• Apparently, a majority view (Choungra meeting) was that recent immigrants had limited rights to pastures (i.e., that it would take some time to gain full rights). Some participants in the Choungra meeting explained that the problem is that winter fodder limits ‘local people’, while (some) recent immigrants obtain fodder from forests through illegal practices3. There is an on-going court case concerning a number of recent immigrants from Chilas; both the Jirga and court rulings so far confirmed the principle of residence-based household rights (Text box 1). Still, participants in the Eid Gah meeting claimed that some ‘Gilgit immigrants’ (and land- owners) used lower pastures, not by ‘right’, but by ‘general consent’ in the village.
Text box 1: The case of the Chilas immigrants to Choungra
Choungra has introduced a rule that new residents may only bring one donkey plus milking animals for household consumption to the common pastures. Immigrants from Chilas, who have bought land in the Bazaar area, have challenged this rule.
The case was initially brought before the Jirga, which proposed two alternatives:
1) The immigrants offer a gesture of apology through slaughtering a tzo and then enjoy equal rights to the pastures, or:
2) Choungra villagers buy back the land at market value from Chilas residents, who will then be forced to migrate.
Choungra villagers opted for the second, but Chilas immigrants did not accept. The case has therefore been referred to in the courts. Level 1 and 2 have ruled that forcing Chilas immigrants is ‘against human values’. In its eighth year, the case is now considered at level 3.
Source: Meeting with local leaders from Choungra
Government jurisdiction and village rights is formalised in records held by the Revenue Department;
however, several sources say that the records are unreliable due to various forms of manipulation (including illegally converting state-commons to private land). AKRSP Astore, in their work, rely on local people’s knowledge about property boundaries.
Pasture committees
Both Choungra and Eid Gah have a committee (termed ‘Panchayat’ in Urdu) that governs pasture use;
it consists of five members selected among village elders. Eid Gah claimed to have a strong committee with a prominent leader (Mr Habab). There is, reportedly, no compulsory co-ordination between the two pasture committees of Choungra and Eid Gah respectively, and they may decide on different dates for moving livestock to and from pastures. Snow conditions on pastures are anyway a major factor, even if protection of fields and animal-related health problems in village probably are the most important factors.
3 Apparently a market-based supply of winter fodder would lead to the same problem.
7
The committee in Choungra appoints guards (zaite), whose main role is to protect cultivated areas from livestock, both those of villagers passing through from below and those straying from grazing areas above. There are about five guards in each of the sub-villagers (dars); households from the relevant dar pay 20 kg of wheat per year to each guard. Guards impose fines on households when goats (5 Rs.) or donkeys (10 Rs) enter the fields. Guards do not deal with grazing in forest areas.
Organised nirils (cluster of summer farm, Balti: khlas)
At the Sangosar Niril (meaning: ‘bright lake’ or ‘stone lake’), people told us that there were twelve households staying today (from Chougra, Eid Gah ad Patipora), against twenty to twenty-five “before”
(some had died, some had gone into ‘other businesses’). These households managed about 1,000 sheep/goats and 500 large ruminants. At the Khutimus Niril lower down, only households from Eid Gah stay, but they use the same grazing areas (Sangosar and Khutimus are “like one thing”). The pattern of movement is in two steps for those who own land in Bakhat (April-May) or in one move for those who do not (June). We heard slightly different versions of grazing and harai (shed, Balti : khlas) building rights. Apparently all Choungra, Eid Gah and Patipora households have such rights in Sangosar. The zimidari (Balti: norais) system of multi-household herding groups is important. Almost all the 350 households in Eid Gah own and send livestock to the pastures: yet only about forty send a household member to stay in the nirils. In Sangosar, households without a harai or membership in a zimidari may leave their dry animals for free grazing and bring their milk animals for day grazing. The niril has an elected leader. Households take turns in the daily herding of livestock to the higher pastures. The summer farm sheds are constructed in a ‘planned’ manner with separation of livestock and humans, footpaths and special places for storage of manure (later brought down to the fields).
People said that man and wife (or brother/sister, father/daughter) often go together to the niril, and share the workload with no special gender pattern. Some women said that life at the niril is attractive due to the cooler climate.
Forest rights and rules
All the natural forests discussed are state-claimed ‘Protected Forest’ with ownership and management rights held by the Forest Department. The Forest Department monitors utilisation and occasionally impose fines; people in Choungra described their relationship with the Forest Department as a game of
“hide and seek” (meeting 12.07.). An example was the FD check-post established on the road from Rama Forest to Astore: people said there were many other routes down, and that bribing of the guards was common. They often applied for permits to fell old trees for house construction, but these were generally rejected or stuck in the bureaucratic process. In stead they would therefore chop down
‘donkey size’ trees at night (Choungra meeting 12.07.). However, in those cases when FD does mark
8
trees for felling, local people get the timber (Eid Gah meeting, 13.07.). People do not have the right to lob trees, but do so. They have rights to ‘dead standing trees’, but almost all of those are gone.
An old conflict between Choungra and Eid Gah villages had let to a court case that lay down some rules for forest use. The background was that Eid Gah villagers had almost depleted other forest areas to which they had rights, and therefore increasingly exercised their rights in the less accessible Rama Forest (pers. com. Jawad Ali). This lead to a conflict and a court case between Eid Gah and Choungra (1978). The court decision recognised the rights of both Chougra (through written records and practice) and Eid Gah (through practice) to using the Rama Forest within the framework of forest law.
Choungra villagers could extract firewood for both domestic use and sale, Eid Gah only for domestic use (Choungra meeting). Participants in the Eid Gah meeting did not agree that the court decision made such a distinction and said that at any rate the two villages had agreed between themselves not to sell firewood to outsiders (though Choungra villagers were violating this agreement).
Choungra does not have a special purpose committee for forest management. Eid Gah ad Bullen each have a forest protection committee to monitor the ten year old ban of all utilisation of the Jamiat Forest (Table 2); the committees include a member from that of the other village and must report the transgressions that they discover and sanction (in 2000, the Eid Gah imposed a one-goat-fine on 17 households). In 1998 a large meeting of local forest users (VO’s, local leaders, District Chairman and others), banned use of tractors and jeeps to transport firewood (leaving donkeys as the main mode).
This apparently is monitored by villagers themselves and respected. They have not placed a limit on households’ extraction of firewood from Rama (as mentioned it is estimated at about half of their total consumption of 4,800 tons per year).
Unlike Basho (and Gudai), the Choungra meeting claimed that only men collect firewood (they may have had in mind only the collection and transport of firewood for winter storage).
A prominent leader (and prosecutor for FD) saw lack of capacity to monitor and manage forests as a major weakness of the Forest Department, quoting as an example that they only have about one guard per 10 km2. He suggested that governance and management rights should be transferred to community-based organisations. Participants in the Choungra meeting stressed that national policy, rather than the Forest Department itself, is the constraint on sustainable management. Villagers saqid they need economic and technical support to achieve sustainable management of the commons:
• Improved breeds of livestock, to further reduce per household numbers
• Training and compensation for forest protection and regeneration
• Alternative sources of energy: hydro-power/kerosene.
9
4.2. Gudai Valley
4.2.1. Location and general information
Gudai Valley stretches southwest from Astore Valley towards Deosai. The main villages from south to north are Makial, Nowgam, Pakora, Gudai, Daskaram and Chilam. The valley used to be the main travel route between Kashmir, Skardu and Gilgit. Gudai is the main village and was once the administrative centre of Astore. There are three sub-villages: Lower Gudai, Upper Gudai and Shekong. Each has a VO and there are two Women’s Oganisations (WO’s). Gudai has about 250 households today, up from about 20 households around 1920 (according to a ninety year-old villager).
Figure 3: Sketch Map of Gudai Valley: Main villages and moza subdivisions
Astore Valley Bobin Valley
Gudai Valley Daskhariam Valley
Deosai
Gultori
Bursil Pass Kachura
Deosai
MOZA NOW- GAM
MOZA
PAKORA MOZA GUDAI
MOZA BOBIN
MOZA DASKHARIAM
Gudai Shekong
Kharbay Bomrai
Yagam Bobin
Kharam Das Pain Das Bala Chilam
Allamo (Alampi) pass
Original drawn by Mohammad Iqbal of Gudai
N
4.2.2. Common pool resources: pastures, forests and river
Pasture and forest resources of the Himalayan mountains around Gudai are rich and diverse. The valley used to be famous for its unbroken forest cover from Gudai to Chilam. Villagers stress the big potential for natural forest regeneration (as compared to Baltistan, where plantations are necessary and
10
have received much more attention). Pastures and wildlife in Deosai Plain are regarded as a common for the whole of the Astore Valley and migrating Gujjars. Gudai Valley has one of the best trout rivers in the country. While local people have introduced rules to avoid over-fishing and to share fish- resources, they have no authority to charge or control the fishing by outsiders. In the Ghizer River Project in Gilgit local people were given powers to do licensing and get incomes from trout fishing, and it has inspired a similar initiative in Gudai Valley supported by AKRSP Astore. While the valley is so long and extensive that one common organisation around pastures and forests has not been practicable, the river is a common pool resource around which new valley-based organisational and institutional development may be emerging.
4.2.3. Organisations and institutions
The discussion with local leaders in Gudai focussed on two features: the traditional ‘moza’ division and management of commons; and the work of a Forest Protection Committee established in 1997.
The moza
The Gudai Valley is divided into moza´s, linking villages in sections of the valley with nearby alpine commons (Figure 3). Mozas are recorded in settlements dating back some hundred years. Gudai forms a moza together with Shekong. The boundaries of their shared commons are marked in the terrain and well known to villagers. In the Raja time, a moza would have one Nambadar. Today, mozas have one or several joint committees for decision-making and management of commons. Its functions are therefore to
• Identify and link a geographical area of both valley and alpine zone
• Identify right-holding villages and households
• Establish joint organisation and rules for management of commons
While the moza orders people’s use of the commons, it is a general pattern with exceptions and flexibility. People in Gudai have rights to a pasture area (Karney) in Bobin Moza; people from Nowgam, Pakora, Gudai and Bobin share rights to the Thrina pasture. The moza system is combined with similar arrangements as those in seen in Choungra. Residence is the main criterion of rights to the commons. Households co-operate about summer herding: from Gudai some 30 to 40 households go to the summer pastures, on average bringing the livestock of seven to eight other households. Some places the harai are scattered, built by one to three households together; in other places there are integrated summer farm ‘micro-villages’ like the Sangosar Niril in Choungra.
Gudai Moza does not have a special committee for pastures. The dates for movements up and down are fixed according to tradition: 30 June is the last day to move animals up and 15 October is the first
11
day to bring them back. People say that pasture conditions are highly variable, but they believe they have deteriorated. They have discussed making a pasture committee comparable to the one for forests (below). Some participants said that it is not feasible to try to regulate household livestock numbers. In stead, they have discussed sending their animals to Deosai to allow regeneration of pastures in their moza. Gujjars come to the area with less livestock than in the past; in certain pastures (Bobin) they have been excluded. In the perception of the residents, Gujjars do not hold ‘rights’, but are accepted by general village consent on the basis of traditional use. When passing through or staying in forested areas and on the Deosai plateaux, the Forest Department claims a ‘grazing tax’ from Gujjars (Gudai meeting 13.07. and discussion with Gujjars on Deosai 14.07.).
The Forest Protection Committee in Gudai
In 1997, encouraged by the Forest Department, Gudai Moza established a Forest Protection Committee to control illegal cutting by insiders and outsiders. It has eight members including prominent villagers (all male). The committee has introduced:
• Fines for illegal felling (Rs 5,000), which come in addition to Forest Department fines.
• Weekly monitoring of forests by a committee member and Forest Guard together
• Annual monitoring of households’ firewood stores, checking if green trees have been cut for firewood purpose. If so, fines are imposed.
• From 2001, a general rule that firewood collection shall be limited to household needs (this is monitored, although not specified as a certain amount)
• Checking and stopping wood traffic on the roads. In some cases such traffic stopped even if approved by Forest Department.
• Five-year ban on grazing, firewood collection and felling in one specific forest above the central villages.
• Giving local advice (priorities) regarding applications for timber to the Forest Department
The Forest Committee makes most decisions independently, but in some cases have called in elders and notables or presented issues to a general village meeting. Leaders described their role as “co- sharers” of the forest, stressing that no resources may be sold to outsiders by Forest Department. The used the term ownership about the forest area they have decided to protect.
Committee leaders stressed their need for financial, technical and human resources to support forest regeneration in their own and other parts of Gudai Valley.
12
5. BASHO
5.1. Events and changes
Throughout the years of AKRSP-NLH involvement, Basho has been a dynamic place. Some new things evolving, happening or on the agenda in 2001 are:
• A 23 MW hydro-power project is in the planning stage. BDO is negotiating conditions with WAPDA and GTZ (back-donor)
• The first girl’s school in the valley (established in 2000 in Sultanabad) is struggling for funds and about to move to Nazimabad
• Five mullahs from Basho undergoing training in Iran have visited the valley and criticised the co-operation with AKRSP and foreigners
• Villagers are constructing a drinking water supply systems for all villages except Sultanabad and Matillo4, funded by Aga Khan Building and Construction Programme
• During the first half of 2001, the valley experienced a major outbreak of pneumonia and intestinal diseases among livestock (primarily small ruminants), which lead to bout 90%
losses in the two lower villages of Bathang and Matillo and about 20% in other villages (Ghulam Rasool, BDO Chairman)
• A new channel is irrigating formerly barren slopes
• Tourists visiting the new private campsite on the green, riverside lawns of Ranga is a common site
5.2. Organisational and institutional change
The new local government system of Dehi Councils introduced by the government in 2000 has added to the local organisations in Basho. The Basho and Basingo valleys together form a Dehi Council.
Basho have four members, each representing a pair of neighbouring villages. Members were appointed by gatherings of village men, for a period of five years. They are generally the men who are also VO and BDO representatives. Haji Ahmed Ali from Matillo, Honorary President of the BDO, is the Dehi Council Chairman (selected by and among the council members). BDO General Secretary Moh.
Younus Shehzad represents Meito/Guncho in the Dehi Council. VO Manager Nazimabad and BDO Chairman, Ghulam Rasool, is an (elected) member of the Union Council. A group of men confirmed tat they regarded the Dehi Council as a ‘democratic’ form of local government.
4 BACIP require 60 households to support a project, while there are only 28 in Sultanabad; Matillo does not have the required VO/WO.
13
While women may vote for Union Council members, they had no role in the nomination of members for the Dehi Council in Basho (by men, among men). According to Basho men, there is no government requirement for women’s participation (“Government did not ask, and we did not push them”, villager, meeting 20.07.). Asked whether women are not included in the concept of
‘democratic’, they justified the situation by referring to the facts that a) women are not educated and b) due to the culture and sub-ordinate role in households, women do no have a status to participate in public life. Formally the BDO also represents the five Women’s Organisations in Basho (AKRSP- NLH, Report no. 2, 1998), but they are in effect excluded form the organisation (meeting with male notables 20.7.). The WOs in Basho are said to exist mainly ‘on paper’ (one motive for creating them were to qualify for certain AKRSP investments and services, such as drinking water supply). Male managers and presidents represent the WOs, but they are regarded as weak. They do not have a seat in the BDO (“the BDO is already full”), but may be called for consultation.
According to the people we met the Dehi Councils have not led to major changes or conflict with the VO/WO/BDO organisational structure (AKRSP-NLH, Report No. 2, 1998). It has its powers from government, and has generally not taken over functions of the BDO. Their perceived role and impact primarily relate to:
• They channel new government funds directly to a local level political organisation (road project 2000). Resources are generally divided among the ‘village pairs’.
• Dehi Councils are authorised to monitor and report on the performance of public servants in their communities (the case of corrupt timber extraction at he expense of the majority of local people show the limits of real capacity to use this opportunity)
• (According to a recent declaration), Dehi Councils will elect a district level chairman (Nazim) with wide powers, replacing the Deputy Commissioner as head of the district administration (e.g. Skardu).
5.3. Natural forest governance and management 5.3.1. Conservation efforts
To manage the forest with a long term perspective and equitable sharing of benefits was one of the motives when people initiated the Basho Development Organisation in 1997. However, it has also been a problem for BDO both to gain recognition as a partner for Forest Department and to enforce its conservation rules internally (AKRSP-NLH, Report no. 2, 1998; AKRSP-NLH, Report no. 8, 1999).
In 2001, casual observation indicates improved regeneration of forest, clearly visible in the Ranga area. The new Forest Guard responsible for the Basho-Basingo watershed reported improved co-
14
operation with the BDO in 2001 (Mr Ghulam Mehdi, FG, Meeting, 19.07.). Some ‘elements’ in the renewed scheme, as seen by Mr Mehdi are:
1. ”Forest Department and BDO have entered a written agreement about forest management”5. 2. As part of the new agreement the procedures for approving applications for dead fallen or
dead standing timber for construction has been simplified6. BDO make lists and priorities households with needs. Forest Guard and BDO verify availability on the spot. The Skardu DFO may approve applications.
3. The DFO of Skardu has banned selling of firewood from the natural forest in Basho (and other valleys).
4. More regular visits and monitoring.
5. Fines have been increased and are more strictly enforced:
- 50 Rs/100 kilo on export of firewood from the forest7
- 130 Rs per cubic feet on timber, minimum 1,500 Rs (market value is about 170 Rs per cubic feet)
- Making cuts in of live trees (for chips or resin) may be fined as felling
6. The control of forest product exports at the Matillo check post is more strictly enforced. Only farm-forest trees may be exported (willow, poplar, mulberry etc.), and only during day time.
Complete ban on export of Juniper whether dry or green.
In Mr Mehdi’s perception some outcomes of the renewed efforts are that:
1. Illegal felling has been reduced, partly due to more regular monitoring, regarding timber outtake regarded as less than increment. There is however still a big gap between household needs for timber and the amount available as dead standing or dead fallen trees.8
2. Mr Mehdi believes that firewood collection (estimated at 6 tons per household per year) is higher than the increment, but the regeneration of young trees is overall satisfactory. The survival rate of seedlings planted in Durom by FD in 1998 has been recorded at 10%.
5 Apparently the statement refers to the Basho Conservation Plan prepared IUCN an signed, in addition, by BDO, FD and AKRSP.
6 Standard processing takes at least a year: Applicant → DFO (Skardu) → RFO → FG (Basho, verification) → DFO → Chief Secretary (Gilgit, approval) – DFO → RFO →
7 Equivalent to the fee paid in case of legal selling based on a ‘route permit from the Forest Department (when applicable). This fine may appear low compared to the market value of approximately 110 Rs per maund (Skardu), but the transportation cost is estimated by the Forest Guard to 1,500 – 1,800 Rs per load (35 maunds) or about 50 Rs per maund.
8 Looking across the Ranga from Forest Hut, the Forest Guard noted that a group of dead standing pine trees below Durom forest had shrunk somewhat during his absence for an eye treatment in Skardu (noting the joke!).
15
3. Conflicts have not been eliminated. For example, working at the forest check post involves regular verbal and physical confrontations with violators (Mr Taqui, Forest Guard, reported four such incidences during his first four months on the post).
In the Forest Guard’s view, the agreement recognises BDO as a legal partner responsible for jurisdiction vis-à-vis villages and households, but local people feel that this is not the case (Discussion with BO representative, 21.07.). According to both the Forest Guards and BDO representative the
“new” management system is based on “equal rights” of all households from eight villages to timber, although some practical considerations (distance) are take when allocating trees. Due to this, there is now no reason for villagers to “rush out and mark fallen trees”. However, village-based rights to grazing and khlas construction will affect forest management; for example, villagers may take timber (including green trees) for khlas construction without any procedures of approval (while the Forest Guard monitors that the timber remains on the khlas).
The dynamics between a more strictly enforced system of control based on limited, formal and equal rights of households, on the one hand, and a ‘traditional-evolving’ system of village ‘rights’ and informal rules, knowledge and practices at lower levels is still crucial for system understanding and for predicting the outcome of the “new” regime.
5.3.2. Corrupt timber extraction
From 1997 local people and the BDO have placed increased emphasis on forest conservation, but with several practical, economic and enforcement problems; for example they found themselves unable to finance the voluntary forest guards appointed in 1997-98. A promise by FD that proceeds from the auctioning of confiscated timber would be shared with BDO was not honoured. A case in 1999 where a Forest Guard and a local were caught in illegal selling of timber led to lack of motivation and a feeling that the FD was not sincere. Local people confirmed that, after a troubled period, they had strengthened conservation measures through meetings and decisions in September 2000. The strengthened system of control involved:
• Creating a forest check-post at Matillo with one FD staff and one community member.
According to an agreement with the Range Forest Officer the monthly salary to be shared between FD (500 Rs) and BDO (1,000 Rs)9
• Uncovering and reporting 32 cases of transgression to the police.
9 So far FD has not paid its share.
16
People felt that not all the (recently increased) fines imposed were fair: some poorer villagers were unable to pay, while some offences went unpunished. People expressed a need for the “government to sit with us”. In the perception of local people and BDO leaders, the current situation is that corrupt timber extraction by government officials in cooperation with a ‘timber mafia’ consisting of powerful locals and companions (estimated by Chairman Haji Ahmed Ali to a5-6 % of the population) has again undermined all controls and respect (BDO meeting, 22.07.). A case has evolved since December 2000, illustrating some of the mechanisms of disempowerment and resource degradation (Textbox 2). The story is partly confirmed by Chairman Haji Ahmed Ali.
Text box 2: Illegal timber extraction from Basho: Conflict and corruption
The case has evolved from December 2000 to present through a series of confrontations:
1. Dec 2000. BDO members at a meeting in Matillo hear a vehicle passing several times with timber. At the third trip they stop the vehicle at the check-post (community member and volounteer local forest guard, Salman, was on a week’s leave). Wood confiscated and put in custody of FD. It is one of two conflicting groups of Matillo that is caught red-handed (it is grouped around a powerful owner of a vehicle and a sawmill in Matillo)
2. This “A-group” becomes active in monitoring, and catches the “B-group” carrying timber via fields to a vehicle waiting below the check-post.
3. As a continuation of the same incident, the Forest Guard and Salman go after the vehicle, catch the driver and bring both driver and vehicle back to the check-post. Here eight to nine members of the ‘A- group’ misunderstand the situation, thinking Salman and the FG are working for their opponents, and beat up Salman.
4. Some further ‘mess’ and conflict occurs, leading the ‘A-group’ to report BDO members to the police.
5. Because the police has so far been receiving wood from Basho forests illegally, they (i.e., the Station House Officer (SHO) for Kachura and Basho) take the opportunity to ”get revenge” by arresting the BDO members and filing a serious criminal case against them through its First Investigation Report (FIR).
6. The Assistant Commissioner, Skardu, handles the case. Regarding BDO members favourably as defenders of the forest of Basho, he decides that they may be released on bail. The conditions of the bail are 1) That two guarantors (with one witness) have guaranteed for 150,000 Rs for each of the eight BDO members arrested and to be paid if any one of them come into conflict again during a period of one year (also impose on members of the ‘A-group’); and 2) Members of both parties must produce a statement at the end of the one-year period, expressing that the conflict has been settled.
7. In February 2001, BDO raised the matter with the District Conservation Committee (including the Deputy Commissioner, AKSRP and the Divisional Forest Officer), so far without result.
8. Sawing of timber from Basho and export of boards and other forest products is proceeding.
9. BDO are afraid of retaliation if they pursue controls further or try to report misbehaviour of public servants through the Dehi Council system.
10. Police have collected firewood for sale or own use from households in Bathang and Khar, exploiting the fact that the two villages are involved in a court case and therefore dependent on the police.
11. About a month back, a police officer was taking out timber from Basho, past the Matillo check-post but meeting the DFO at Sari Check-post towards Skardu. The DFO ordered the timber placed in custody of his department, but after his departure it was released and taken to Skardu for sale.
Source: Meeting with BDO representatives 22.07.
17
5.3.3. Basho forest later history
23. July 2001 J.W and H.S interviewed Chairman Haji Ahmed Ali, who was emplyoed by the Forest department from 1966. First as Work Muncji for construction of the Basho Forest Road, later as a Forest Guard. The Cjhairman tells that borth ordinary people and Nambardars Were against the road project, since they believed it wold implement nore restrictions on lakals’ utilisation of forest. Even so, the most resistant persons took labour on the road project.
At that time the forest areas were about the same as today. Haji Ahmed Ali only remebers som small patces above Sultanabad that has changed from forest to barren land since the 60ties. The timber line up against the mountain is alsom mostly unchanged. No more areas had forest cover down the valley – both to the resondents memory and to what he has learned from his fathjer and grandafther. But the forests has, with few exeptions (Tanmosa jungal) become conciderable thinner. Before construction of the Forest Road, people of Basho produced resinious chips and carried these to Skardu marked in special pots. They also produced wooden pots, Treching equipment and other wooden items for the marked.
Even before the road project the army had extracted conciderable amount of timber from the souther parts of Ranga (are around the F.dept. Resthouse – later flooded). In late 60ties most forest of Ranga and todays open slopes of Dorum was clearcut (even if also avelances and flood made contributions to reducing forest).
We asked Haji Ahmed Ali to quantify the reduction of different forested areas in Basho. By
“reduction” we refer to a more visual judgement of the forstes thickness. We did choose 1966 as reference year, because this was before building of the Forest Road. 1985 was the year for implementation on the protective felling ban.
18
Table 3: Forests reduction, Basho forests 1966-2001.
Forest reduction % Forest area
1966-85 85-01 65-01
Komment.
(Haji Ahmed Ali,)
“Upper forest, north”:
Ruskin - Khoro - Sari - Cherimon
15 5 20 Pole-shaped juniper trunks extracteds in early period.
Enforced ban in late period.
“Upper forest, south”:
Zierkun-Chat-Sanpotchomik- Tangmosa-Siatchin-Natachin- Durom-Ranga-Foroqcho
20 5 25 Enforced ban and less natural damage (less snow) in late period.
Goriaq 10 20 30 Small marking activity first
period. Less control than in upper forest in last period.
Farah / Kiltar 5 10 15 Small marking activity first
period. Less control than in upper forest in last period.
Metzik 1 9 10 Difficult to access, Less
control than in upper forest in last period.
Nilo / Bolom / Tienchin 5 20 25 Great natural damage in late periode.
Barren areas forested in the past: some Patches above Sultanabad.
Jawad Ali will later produce similar interview information from other informants.
6. TALLEY WATERSHED
The NLH team with AKRSP counterparts visited Talley Watershed for one day, 25th july 2001. There were held one meeting in one central village including tea in a newly built VO house (erected without any external funding) with Thalley VO leaders, Watershed development organisation leaders and notabilities. Later the team had lunch and a long walk/horseride through Thalley Broq and into the exceptional landscapes above.
7. COMPARATIVE POINTS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Villagers in Choungra, Gudai and Basho face similar challenges in managing geographically extensive and complex resources under conditions of severe economic scarcity. Some perceive the forest and pasture resources as degraded or threatened, linking it to population growth, governmental exploitation and rapid disappearance of old institutional arrangements of the Raja system. With the reservation that
19
field visit were very short and many groups did not participate in meetings, we have noted some comparative points and lessons:
1. Village rights and right-holder status. We got indications that village rights to alpine resources are clearer and more settled in Astore. Household right-holder status legally builds on land
ownership, but socially residence and other aspects of membership in the community is important.
The somewhat ambiguous status of recent immigrants (Chilas people in Choungra) is perhaps higher in the town-near Astore valleys we visited, but may increase in Basho.
2. Reliance on the official legal system. While people in Astore expressed grievances with the slowness of the legal system, cases showed that they had relied on or were expecting resolution of conflicts in the court system.
3. Summer farm coordination and leadership. To integrate summer farms (physically and organisationally) may facilitate joint management where villages do not have other joint organisations for the purpose (Choungra-Eid Gah). It appeared to contribute to a less conflict- prone management system (whether between households or villages). Our impression is that in Astore families jointly go to summer farms, whereas in Basho single members go on more ad hoc basis. The Astore nirils we learnt about were for pure livestock herding, whereas the major broqs in Basho are integrated farming-pasture systems
4. The moza. The moza is an intermediate level between village organisation (overcoming its limits) and watershed organisation (avoiding problems scale, complexity and distance between leaders and users). Moza level organisations set limits for what kind of benefits non-resident landowners may enjoy.
5. Large scale tree felling for outsiders appears to have been controlled in the Astore cases and people are experimenting with ways to organise improved forest management (beyond government regulations). In Choungra, a coalition of stakeholders met and decided to introduce the ‘donkey-rules’ is one example; the twin-committees of Eid Gah ad Bullen another. The Forest Protection Committee in Gudai has renewed forest management, making the moza system effective in a changing context. Backing by Forest Department appears to have strengthened implementation in the Gudai case.
6. Basho forests. The Basho Development Organisation and Forest Department have introduced quite strict conservation measures, but may learn from the protection of specific areas for
20
regeneration in Eid Gah/Bullen and Gudai). In the mean time, illegal extraction by the police- mafia complex is undermining trust and conservation efforts.
7. Forest policy. When villagers feel confident about control over present future forest benefits they are motivated and able to take long-term management objectives. Yet, in neither Astore nor Basho do we see a ‘rational’ felling of mature trees to meet the gap between household needs for
construction and the dwindling amount available as ‘dead fallen’/’dead standing’. The policing approach to this economic and technical management issue seems equally doomed to fail in both contexts.
8. Gender and commons. The two Astore cases show different roles of men and women in forest utilisation. Both our meetings, current organisation and the presentation of issues reflect male dominance and invisibility of women. As in Basho, that is likely to weaken governance and management of commons far into the future.
8. DISCUSSIONS AND WORKSHOPS
A workshop with partisipation of both AKRSP counterparts and NLH team was conducted in Khaplu 26 aqnd 27 July. The components contribution contained report, findings and lessons learned from this years visit to Astore walley, as described above.
The Kahaplu workshop continued on 28 July with discusssions owr propsals for Phase 2. The component’s suggestions were as described in appendix 3.
Villagers of Basho were invited to workshops 30 (womens meeting in Nazimabad) and 31 (mens meeting at Forest Hut) July. The component’s conribution was paralell to the recommendations from Gilgit workshop (appendix 4).
A workahop for AKRSP Bakltistan staff was conducted in Skarrdu 4 August. The component’s conribution was identical with the recommendations from Gilgit workshop (appendix 4).
The Gilgit workshop with invited represerntatives from Pakistan Departments, NGO’s, Basho villagers, Norwegioan Embassy, was conducted 7 and 8 August in Rupol Hotel, Gilgit. The component’s conribution (8th) is reported in appendix 4.
Islamabad, 9 August 2001: Håvard Steinsholt 21
Appendix 1: Itinerary and people met
Participants: Håvard Steinsholt, Associate Professor (Team Leader), Poul Wisborg, Research Fellow, Jawad Ali, Manager Forest/Research Fellow
Mon 09.07
Islamabad (09.00)– Skardu (09.45) by air. Met by Ghulam, AKRSP (researcher Basho project).
Meeting with other NLH participants (Øystein) and Dr Abbas.
Tue 10.07
Travel by car, accompanied by Dr Abbas and Karim (driver): Skardu (09.00) – Deosai – Gudai - Astore Proper – Rama PTDC in Choungra Valley
Wed 11.07
Morning: Meeting with local leaders and resource persons from Choungra village of Choungra Valley Afternoon: Field trip to Sangosar Summer Farm Cluster (niril)
Thu 12.07
Morning: Meeting with local leaders and resource persons in Eid Gah village of Choungra Valley (Alam Sha, Gen. Secretary, Anjunan (local welfare org.); Dildar Ali, Secretary, Anjunan; Rafiullah Khan, Finance Secr., Anjuna; Sharbaz Khan, Chairman, Anjuna; Raja Tanveer, Village Chairman;
Sahib Hussain, Member Dehi Council; Abdid Wahah, Chairman Dehi Coucil; Raja M. Sher, Notable of Eid Gah; M, Musa, Member Dehi Council; Azra Jan, Notable of Eid Gah; Ijilal, S.O. , AKRSP)
Afternoon: Meeting with staff of AKRSP Field Management Unit, Astore (Dr Nazir Ahmed, Veterinarian, Mr Ijilal, Social Organisor; Ms Sadiqua, Social Organisor; Abdul Afghan, Agriculturist;
Maqsood Ali, Engineer; (experience-sharing on integrated NRM) Fri
13.07
Travel from Rama, Choungra, to Gudai Village of Gudai Valley, Astore.
Meeting with local leaders and resource persons (Moh. Ayub, Moh. Latif, Akbar Khan, Ghulsm Shah, Jamshad Ali (Member Union Council), Fasidullah Khan, Saifullah Khan, Murad Khan, Moh. Nisar, Ahmad Khan).
Field trip and trout fishing in Bobin Valley (towards Kachura, Skardu District) Meals and accommodation with relatives of Jawad Ali.
Sat 14.07
Travel Gudai – Chillum – Deosai. Stay at field camp of Himalayan Wildlife Foundation (receiving NORAD funding). Dinner and discussion with camp staff, including Camp Leader: Mohammad Younas and visiting Gujjar herdsmen.
Sun 15.07
Morning: Travel from Deosai to Skardu, check in at Concordia Afternoon: Report writing
Mon 16.07
Discussing and writing up findings. Meeting with AKRSP:
Tue 17.07
Discussing and writing up findings. Meeting with AKRSP:
Wed 18.07
Travel Skardu – Basho. AKRSP-NLH updating and planning meeting.
Thu 19.07
Basho. Report writing, team discussions. Meeting with Mr Ghulam Mehdi, Forest Guard, Basho and Mr Mohammad Taqui, Forest Guard, Basho
Fri 20.07
Basho. Field trip to Ruskin summer farm area. Meeting with Haji Haider, Chairman Islahi Committee and Mr Hasan, School Teacher, Sultanabad. AKRSP-NLH dinner at Forest Hut.
Sat 21.07
Basho. Meeting with Ghulam Rasool, Chairman, BDO. Informal discussions with Younus Shehzad, General Secretary, BDO. Report, writing, analysis.
Sun 22.07
Meeting with BDO representatives (Moh. Younus Shezad, Guncho; Fida Mohammad, Meito; Ahmed Shahen, Nazimabad; Mr Ali, Meito; Akhun Mohammad, Guncho; Mr Ahmed, Meito; Ghulaam Rasool, Nazimabad; Mr Salman, Sutanabad; Mr Sharif, Sultanabad. Report, writing, analysis. Preparation for departure (Poul Wisborg)
Mon 23.07
Poul Wisborg and framily leaves for Gilgit and Norway.
Basho. Jawad Ali and H.Steinsholt interviews Haji Ahmed Ali about the Basho forest history.
Tue 24.07
Poul W: Meetings in Gilgit
Håvard S.: Morning: Travel Basho – Skardu Evening: Preparations forworkshop in Khaplu.
Wed 25.07
Håvard S.: Travel Skardu Thalley valley, meeeting with NLH team, AKRSP team, and Thalley VO members, watershed organisation members, natabilities: Possible resarch area for next phase. Lunch at Talley Broq. Walk above Talley Broq. Discussions about livestock and farming systems.
Travel Talley – Khaplu.
22
Thu 26.07
Poul W: Travel Gilgit – Islamabad.
Håvard S.: AKRSP – NLH workshop. Summing up.
Visit to local fish farm/park.
Fri 27.07
Poul W: Meetings in Islamabad
Håvard S.: AKRSP – NLH workshop. Summing up.
Sat 28.07
Poul W: Leaves Islamabad Airport for Oslo
Håvard S.:AKRSP – NLH workshop. Evaluating project.
Dinner and discussions with Muhammad Iqbal, Man. Dir. Baltistan Tours Pakistan.
Sun 29.07
Morning: Travel Khaplu – Skardu, check in at Concordia Motel.
Evening: Meeting at AKRSP office, work at Concordia: Preparing Basho workshop.
Mon 30.07
Morning: Trvale Skardu – Basho.
Evening: Meeting, summin up Womens’ workshop / Peparing next days workshop.
Tue 31.07
Meeting NLH/AKRSP team and Basho men (Basho Dev. Org. members, VO members, other village representatives, notabilities, workshop.
Late evening: Summing up workshop, sceduling next week.
Wed 01.08
Morning: Travel Basho – Skardu. check in at Concordia Motel.
Evening: Preparing next workshops, preparing suggestion for phase 2.
Thu 02.08
Skardu: Preparing next workshops Fri
03.08
Skardu: Preparing next workshops Sat
04.08
Skardu: workshop with AKRSP staff.
Sun 05.08
Morning: Travel Skardu – Giligit Gilgit: Preparing workshop Mon
06.08
Gilgit: Preparing workshop.
Tue 07.08
Gilgit workshop: AKRSP/NLH team, represerntatives from Pakistan Departments, NGO’s, Basho villagers, Norwegioan Embassy.
Wed 08.08
Gilgit workshop: AKRSP/NLH team, represerntatives from Pakistan Departments, NGO’s, Basho villagers, Norwegioan Embassy.
Meeting AKRSP-NLH team with Bjørn Johannesen, Norwegian Emassy; next phase.
Dinner KARSP-NLH team.
Thu 09.08
Travel (heli) Gilgit – Islamabad Fri
10.08
Ialamabad: Summin up.
Evening: Meeting at Bjørn Johannesen’s home, Islamabad.
Sat 11.08
Travel Islamabad – Oslo via London.
23
Appendix 2: Selected keywords
Balti Shina Urdu English
Land
Oul Geit Grassland
Broq Niril Nullah Summer farm on upland pasture
Sosa Charukush Grazing area on upland pasture
Khlas Harai Summer farm shed (building)
Land tenure and tenure processes
(Khalisa) (Khalisa) Khalisa (Sarkar) State land
(Shamilat) (Shamilat) Shamilat Land adjacent to private land (as far as the shadow of a tree standing on the boundary)
(Murusi) (Murusi) Murusi Inherited land
(Inteqal) (Inteqal) Inteqal Land registration
Natesa Private land
Chosa Rajigon Jagir Raja-land
Raja Wallah Tenant on Raja-land
(Hibba) (Hibba) Hibba (Persian) Give land/exchange land
Not known Not known Istamali arazi Land consolidation, “to bring the land closer”
Bar-hrnas (Bar-hrnas) Grass-sharing based on lease of land
Bar-tab (Bar-tab) Share-cropping
Chorais Waigon Bari Turning irrigation
Norais Zimadari Grazing system at lower broqs where
animals from several households are herded together and the workload is shared by the owners
(Kabza) (Kabza) Kabza Land appropriation by use
People and habitation
Tutpa Dum - lit. smoke, local Dar - lit. door (regional)
Chula - lit. stove Household
Cho (Raja) Raja (Raja)
Sarma Baro One elder
Shakh Baikhan (Jirga) Jirga Council of Elders
Mohalla Hamlet
Dar Sub-village
Other
Choo Wai Pani Water
(Jungle) Jail (Jungle) Jungle Forest
Staqji Tom Darakht Tree
Ba Gawo Gai Cow
Khalang Dono Bail Ox
Rabaq Mugur (f), Ail (m) Bakri Goat
Loo Aash (f), Kara (m) Bhard Sheep
24
Appendix 3: Suggestions for Phase 2,
Discussed with AKRSP-NLH team 28 July 2001, Khaplu
High Altitude Integrated Natural Resource Management
Institutions and organisations Suggestions Phase 2
Håvard Steinsholt, NLH, Dept. of Land Use and Landscape Planning
Suggestions from the 1999 report (Poul Wisborg, Håvard Steinsholt, Mohammad Akbar Raza):
The component on institutions and organisations addresses issues that deserve further follow-up, particularly:
• The development of rules and practices in alpine pasture management, linked to the evolving focus on range conditions and the productivity of vegetation and livestock.
• The development of rights and responsibilities in forest management, linked to the development of co-management arrangements at watershed or village levels
• The role of the BDO, perhaps changed by the new framework provided by a conservation and management plan for Basho
• A closer investigation in Khaplu or other Baltistan area to broader the scope.
As per the project document, in the coming two years the project should move more in the direction of training, learning and application of new methods. The findings and analytical points from the Basho study should be strengthened and then used as a case in experience sharing and competence building through further study by AKRSP staff.
New suggestions (Håvard Steinsholt):
Methods (both project suggestions) will mainly be interviews with villagers, representatives of their organisations and trained personnel an officers. Both suggestions do include mapping activities.
Preferably students (NLH – and perhaps Balti) could perform considerable parts of the fieldwork.
1. Population growth and fragmentation of land and rights;
25
1.1 Land structure and right structure (fragmentation) history
− fields ”down-village”
− cultivated summer settlement (Broq),
− rights in the commons.
1.1.1 Recorded history and present records over case area (Land Rev. Dept).
1.1.2 Owners’ and users’ perception of land structure (interviews of male locals).
1.1.3 Fragmenting and consolidating institutions, historically and present.
− formal
− “local formal”
− informal (subsystems).
1.2 Fragmentation and socio-economic effects:
i) land use
ii) time perspective, planning and investments iii) infrastructure and co-operation,
iv) livelihood, food security, other forms of security strategies v) organisation of households and production
vi) number of users and utilisation pressure on common recourses.
vii) transaction costs, conflicts, conflict resolution.
1.3 Marked of land and rights
− Prizes, marked turnover.
− Cultural and legal frames for marked
1.4 Consolidating models, Islamic/Pakistani law, and Local traditions. (interviews with locals, discussions with competent persons).
2. Physical planning aspects of villages and summer settlements.
2.1. Descriptive case studies (problem analysis):
26