aga khan rural support programme - umb · aga khan rural support programme (akrsp) and the...

AGA KHAN RURAL SUPPORT PROGRAMME

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

Institutions and organisations: Field Report from Visits to Astore and Basho 7 – 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]: http://www.nlh.no/noragric

i

mailto:[email protected]


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 ChoungraBullin

Patipora

Bakhrat

lake

Kur

ai S

hung

Yat

chal

ito

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 forestJamiat 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

Ast

ore

Val

ley

Bob

in V

alle

y

Gudai Valley Daskhariam Valley

Deosai

Gultori

Bursil Pass

Kachura

Deosai

MOZA NOW- GAM

MOZA PAKORA

MOZA GUDAI

MOZA BOBIN

MOZA DASKHARIAM

Gud

ai

Shek

ong

Kharbay

Bomrai

Yagam

Bobin

Kha

ram

Das

Pai

n

Das

Bal

a

Chi

lam

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


− Natural conditions: Groundwater, temperature, sun exposure,

− Economy: Present land use, other economical activity, and dynamics.

− Property structures.

− Hazards: Avalanches, floods etc.

− Infrastructure: transport, irrigation, drainage, drinking water, sewage, ruminant – fields –

residence segregation.

− Cultural/social demands: Sites of religion and myths, Schools, Plazas, health care etc.

2.3. Institutional possibilities, agents and obstacles.

2.2. Recommendations.

3. Project mapping and geographical analysis service.

All components in phase 1 did produce geographical material. This could be better utilised in

interdisciplinary analysis if a more operative “mapping an GIS branch” had been available for the

different researchers. Hopefully there will be enough time and resources for this kind of processing

and presenting data in phase1 – after NLH team has returned to Norway.

In a phase 2 such capacity should be available. Such an element could preferably be placed under the

new information element of the project. Production of different maps will be an important part of the

projects presentations, and should be produced with uniform design and quality.

Håvard Steinsholt

Skardu 01.08.01.

27


Appendix 4: Institutions; Findings and recommendations,

Presented at Gilgit workshop 8 August 2001. Recommendations also presented at Basho workshop 31

July 2001 and at Skardu AKRSP workshop 4 August 2001.

Aga Khan Rural Support Programme

High Altitude Integrated Natural Resource Management: Institutional co-operation between the Aga Khan Rural Support

Programme (AKRSP) and the Agricultural University of Norway

(NLH)

Institutions and organisations in

pasture and forest management Håvard Steinsholt, Dept.of Land Use & Landscape Planning, NLH

Poul Wisborg, Noragric, NLH,

Hans Sevatdal, Dept.of Land Use & Landscape Planning, NLH

Jawad Ali, AKRSP Baltistan/Noragric, NLH

Mohammad Akbar Raza, AKRSP Baltistan

28


BACGROUND AND FOCUS

…organisations and institutions in pasture and forest management

…institutions and institutional change

METHODS

a. Mapping of forest and pastures.

b. Interviews and discussions with villagers

c. Interviews and discussions with public officers

d. Discussions with AKRSP experts and within the team.

Main focus: Basho Valley of Skardu (1998, 1999, 2001)

Comparison: Hunjor Broq, Khaplu. (1999)

Chougra valley, Astore (2001)

Gudai, Gudai valley, Astore (2001)

Findings and recommendations based on preliminary analysis at end of field period 2001.

BASHO: A TRADITIONAL RURAL ECONOMY?

(Comparison with Khaplu and Astore villages):

• Potential of more cultivated land and more farm forestry.

• Potential of more intensive agricultural production / better organisation and farm

infrastructure.

• Potential for more agglomerated use of pastures (constructions, organisation/management,

labour)

! Potential for more solid rules of rights and simplified conflict resolution institutions.

! A highly dynamic and institutionally fluctuate society.

! Cash dependent households / low degree of self-sufficiency.

! Lack of labour – women fully occupied - men employed outside. (Skardu and beyond).

Domestic State and NGO related employment and illegal use of forest gives alternative income

! Low education level.

• Very little domestic trade, tourism and industry.

BASHO: A SUBURBAN RURAL ECONOMY?

Or even: A SUBURBAN RURAL “SLUM” ECONOMY?

INSTITUTIONS –RECOURCES IN THE COMMONS

29


1. FORMAL RIGHTS

− General law/rights principles (State ownership – local rights)

− Recorded rights

− Written agreements.

− Formal transactions

2. LOCAL SUBSYSTEMS

− Local adaptations of formal rights

− Long time use

− Oral agreements between rightholders

− Practical solutions / subsystems by users (men and women)

− Lease, sharing, co-operation (land, rights, constructions, animals, labour)

3. CONFLICT RESOLUTION SYSTEMS

− Local systems (elders, religious scholars, Confl Res. Comm.)

− State systems (Police, courts)

4. OTHER INFLUENCAL INSTITUTIONS

− Internal (VO, WO, DC etc.)

− External (Departments, Public servants, Political bodies, Police, NGOs etc.)

GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(BOTH PASTURES AND FOREST)

1. FORMAL RIGHTS

Findings

• Inter-village agreement (1918) subdivide pasture areas/use

• User right derives from:

- Holding land

- “Being an villager”

Both categories are unclear. User group is not strictly limited. (Land heritage and fragmentation, not

satisfactory cadaster services, absentee landholders (heirs), mobility, “urbanisation", new ethnic,

household and “economic” groups).

30


Recommendations:

− Develop / renew acceptable institutions to limit land subdivision.

− Empower and modernise land revenue records – to reflect present situation and to satisfy present

land information demands.

− Draw clear lines between “insiders” and “outsiders” for use of resources in the commons (wood

and grazing).

− Limit rightholders’ and authorities’ possibilities to give access for outsiders (ban transactions with

rights etc.)

− Empower local institutions to control and stop outsiders’ extraction.

2. LOCAL SUBSYSTEMS

Findings

• Local subsystems refine formal system (ex. Grazing right / grazing + summer settlement

construction right). User right often interpreted parallel to land ownership.

• L.S. regulates village subdivision in more detail and also regulates use to intra-village (household)

level.

• Local subsystems may be highly dynamic, but are often institutionally loose, ad. hoc. constructed

and raise considerable conflicts and transaction costs.

• Conflicts are sometimes constructed to change existing institutions or to occupy resources in the

common.

• Local subsystems tend to bring more parties into the subtraction of resources than the original

rightholders.

• Local subsystems seems to have limited protection when challenged by formal systems.

Recommendations

− Consolidate the formal framework and encourage / develop more solid local institutions.

− Study and “standardise” local subsystems.

− Secure good local extralegal subsystems by giving them formal security.

− Include and train groups that actually are performing the resource withdrawal – using the rights

(women, poorer employees).

31


3. CONFLICT RESOLUTION SYSTEMS

Findings

• Local institutions (elders, Jirga, VO Conf. Res. Com.) elegantly resolve most of the local conflicts

to low transaction costs.

• Local institutions are dynamically (and wisely) nested with formal systems (Police, Courts.

Political system, Departments).

• Intervention from formal systems sometimes brings undesirable effects. Like high costs,

conflict/insult/force level, allow village/watershed problems to be nested into “larger games”.

• Local conflict resolution institutions tend to resolute parties by compromise or ad. hoc. solutions.

• Local conflict resolution institutions hardly appear as bodies for real decisions (policies) for long-

term management.

Recommendations

• Maintain and empower able and cheap local conflict resolution institutions.

• Train local conflict soluters – to standardise procedures and achieve less ad.hoc /confusing

/extralegal solutions. Link solutions to policies for the areas.

• Improve possibilities to record end secure such good solutions.

4. OTHER INFLUENCAL INSTITUTIONS

Findings

− There exists a variety of non-formal local organisations / groups.

− The Watershed (Basho) Dev. Organisation (BDO) and the VO’s are the hub of social organisation

(even if often challenged by other groups). Overlay between the “modern” and “traditional”.

− Local organisations so far have mostly limited their activity to discuss and implement State or

NGO related (financed) projects, to handle local conflicts and to be counterpart to external

authorities and organisations.

− Capacity of real political local decisions and implementation is still in its start: (IUCN Cons. Plan,

BDO and FD attempt to control wood traffic, use of State grant for maintenance of Forest Road.

− External authorities often have problematic co-operation with local people and organisations

because of absent authority, competence and interest and low confidence among locals.

32


Recommendations

Continue development of local organisations:

− Develop formal, democratic procedures – that gives proper possibilities for participation from all

groups.

− Develop capacity to come to real (political) decisions.

− Develop LO as exclusive channel for contact / intervention from external organisations.

PASTURES

Findings

• No village (Basho, Astore Proper, Khaplu, Gudai) has come to decisions about limitation of

ruminants (numbers or composition) in the summer pastures.

• Most informants believe that the pastures have degraded.

• Winter fodder situation, diseases and (even unclear) ban on in-transported ruminants are limiting

factors.

• Enlarged winter fodder production, better quality of winter fodder and better veterinary services

may make summer pasture critical factor.

Recommendations

− Clarify rights and duties for a whole common. Secure rights by proper record services.

− Draw clear lines between “insiders” and “outsiders” (excluded) when it comes to use of resources

in the commons.

− Develop solid rules of how limitation of utilisation should be distributed among rightholders.

− Develop solid systems for handling of abnormal situations.

− Develop organisation (“Pasture committee”) empowered to decide and implement rules for the

grazing activity.

FOREST

Findings

• Massive out-take of timber (1960-1990) mostly stopped.

• The FD – local conflict after 1986 general ban turned into a more constructive phase.

• Local awareness of forest situation. Some (experimental) systems of control imposed.

33


• Local rules: (Astore Proper and Gudai: Ban on firewood transport by motorised vehicles. Ban on

any out-take (and grazing) in specific areas. Gudai: firewood storage control of green tree felling

and control of quantity rel. to demand.

• Both Basho and Astore villages have tried to enforce FD ban on export of timber and firewood.

Gudai has even stopped legal out-take to outsiders.

Recommendations (package)

− Knowledge

− Research on high altitude forests (regeneration, increment, management and harvesting

principles).

− Knowledge and skills have to be communicated via plans/principles to the actual users/managers.

− “Rights”

− Clarify rights and duties.

− Draw clear lines between “insiders” and “outsiders” (excluded).

− Develop solid rules of recourse prioritisation and distribution,

• deficit situation (local demand > increment): local demand prioritised, just end even reduction

among rightholders.

• balanced situation (local demand = increment): local demand prioritised.

• surplus situation (local demand < increment): FD handles the surplus quantities.

3. Organisation

• Develop organisation (“Forest committee”) empowered to decide and implement rules for the

grazing activity. Extra-imposed fines should go to local society.

• Enforced control of out-takes and exports.

• “NP Forest Watershed Organisation”: Union with representatives from all forested watersheds;

Policy counterpart to FD.

4. Forest management

• The present (somewhat successful) forest protection strategy is hardly sustainable.

• This general protection strategy must be followed by knowledge based and local accepted

management strategies:

− Knowledge about one forest and different scenarios must be communicated to all parties.

34


− Based on such knowledge there must be set clear aims for future development of the forest

(timber, fire-wood, cash income, tourism, biodiversity, pasture etc…)

− From such aims there must be formed a management strategy and a management plan for the

forest.

− The management plan must be implemented and enforced by FD and local users.

e. Less pressure

− As long as marked wood demand is much larger than the legal production, control of out-take will

be troublesome. Stove improvements, better housing, alternative energy should be implemented in

the whole marked area.

35

aga khan rural support programme - umb · aga khan rural support programme (akrsp) and the...

Documents