WRITING SAMPLE

GLOBALIZATION IN NEPAL

UNRAVELING THE COMPLEX ENGAGEMENTS OF

FRICTION IN CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

IN

POLITICAL SCIENCE

MAY 2010

By

Elizabeth R. Urbanczyk

Thesis Committee:

Sankaran Krishna, Chairperson

Michael Shapiro

Ehito Kimura

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1.

Globalization in Nepal ........................................................................................................ 1

Chapter 2.

Friction in the Terai of Nepal:

Unraveling the Collaboration of the Rhino Translocation ............................................... 24

Chapter 3.

Environmentality in Chitwan National Park:

Technologies of Government in the Changing Spaces of Conservation .......................... 45

Chapter 4.

The Illicit Flow of the Rhinoceros Horn:

Illegal Poaching and the International Wildlife Black Market in Nepal .......................... 68

Chapter 5.

Conclusions:

Interlaced Relationships of Globalization in Nepal .......................................................... 93

Chapter 2

Friction in the Terai of Nepal

Unraveling the Collaboration of the Rhino Translocation

Relationships in the Terai form a chaotic web of connection. In this chapter I try to

unravel some of this pandemonium to paint a clearer picture of globalization in action in

Chitwan National Park, Nepal. This will be done using the translocation of the greater one-

horned rhinoceros from CNP to Bardia National Park. Anna Tsing’s theory of friction will be the

lens used to look at relationships of globalization as they occur in the event of the rhino

translocation. There is a chaos that is the reality and propulsion of globalization in a local

context. For a brief moment there is a clear solution, resolution, or victory. In a flash this tumbles

into a mixed-up mess as new problems arise. Dissecting this one conservation strategy reveals

the revolving trajectory of friction that defines globalization. Too many poor people are landless,

land reforms occur, overpopulation and overuse of the land result. The rhino is then endangered,

so protected national parks are created. The parks reduce access to land and create conflict

among the people, animals, and the army, so buffer zones and wildlife corridors are established.

Buffer zones create new competition and restructure local political relationships. In this mess,

tourism to view the exotic rhino is introduced. Translocations are conceived to save the species

and redistribute the rhino. And then a new spiral of frictions and issues begins. The rest of this

paper seeks to explain in greater detail these cycles and frictions.

In March of 2002, from my safe seat atop an elephant, I surveyed the scene before me in

Nepal’s Chitwan National Park. I saw dozens upon dozens of elephants loaded to capacity with

eager observers and participants. We were gathered to help corral three greater one-horned

rhinoceros for a trained marksman shoot and tranquilize. These particular rhinos were loaded

into makeshift rhino wagons and relocated to their new home in Royal Bardia National Park in

the far western Terai of Nepal. The premise of rhino translocations is conservation of the species

by forced redistribution of the population; in many regards it has been a successful conservation

strategy for preserving this endangered species. The translocation project in the Terai serves as a

blueprint for similar efforts in other regions such as Africa.

The event described above was funded, backed, and implemented by a combination of

the following: headlining and executing were the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), His Majesty’s

Government (HMG), Nepal Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, and the

King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation (KMTNC). These groups were supported by: the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Rufford Foundation-UK; and the Asian Rhino and Elephant

Action Strategy (AREAS), a WWF program.1

Within the event of the rhino translocation are numerous engagements in friction among

people, animals, and ideas. Conservation of the rhino is only possible with the collaboration and

participation of, to name a few: all the agencies coordinating the event, the local peasants and

business owners, foreign donors, international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local

Nepalese NGOs, the Nepalese government, and the Nepalese army. One force of globalization

has been the interaction of different people and groups who did not historically collaborate,

much less pursue goals with enough similarity to force an overlap of interests. Interconnection

propels cooperation in the form of non-traditional engagements in pursuit of different goals. The

complexity of the web of global, regional, and local relationships makes collaboration

involuntary. As an event, the 2002 rhino translocation, a novel idea to preserve an endangered

species, is a chain of events and relationships that has brought together different collaborators,

each inspired to participate in pursuit of a unique outcome. Anna Tsing’s concept of friction is

one way of examining these relationships that helps to put into perspective some of the factors

that compel participation in the rhino translocation, sometimes seemingly against their own best

interests.2 I define friction as the necessary engagement between different interests who must

interact together to achieve their desired goal. We can consider the rhino translocation project as

one strand in the elaborate web of relationships interacting in the Terai of Nepal to try to

preserve the environment, species, and both sustain and increase human livelihood.

These interactions of friction over conservation are both elucidating and constraining. For

example, there is conflicting motivation for local people to both conserve and to use. The

conservation movement has nurtured a new understanding of the scarcity of resources, but what

expectations should we place on those who use these resources? There is an inherent dilemma

between trying to save for the future and using right now what is available before it is all gone. 1Information on the 2002 Rhino Translocation in Chitwan, Nepal, is from the author’s personal journal, experience, and memories of the event unless otherwise cited.2Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Who is given power and authority over resources is not predetermined, but is instead an outcome

of friction. These collaborations have rearranged cultural and political relationships in the Terai.

Proponents of globalization suggest that cooperative homogenization fueled by neo-

liberal characteristics of freedom and equality is creating a better world for everyone.3 In

contrast, poverty and underdevelopment persist. In the face of massive foreign aid campaigns,

Nepal remains a least-developed country.4 To understand the reality at the local level in the Terai

of Nepal, it is useful to interpret globalization as being instead a force that brings about unequal

encounters that can result in either concession or empowerment, instead of homogenization. The

rhino translocation is a stage for sources of global, national, and local power to play out friction.

This is easier to demonstrate by looking at some of the players acting in the rhino translocation,

understanding their motivations, and how they are engaging with the other actors.

Starting at the local level, the businesses and peasants who live outside Chitwan National

Park are more often than not marginalized in their encounters with international actors and the

national government, but it is a misconception that local residents are silently being bowled over

by global power.5 However, if the local population is negatively affected by the rhino

translocation projects, why do they continue to participate? The rhino translocations are projects

of environmental conservation. Conservation in the Terai, and globally, has proved to be a much

more complicated goal than initially predicted. Non-state actors who are proponents of

conservation, such as various non-governmental organizations, academic researchers, and

scientists may have more money, power, and influence over local residents in Chitwan, but

attainment of their environmental goals is completely reliant on coercing or appeasing these

same people to cooperate. There is an intrinsic duality in that each conservation victory often

produces a new problem. I will show how on the one hand an incentive has been created for local

involvement in the conservation of the rhino, while at the same time this very participation and

resulting success have created new hardships for the local residents.

Human-Animal Conflict

Growing rhino populations, and the reintroduction of the rhino throughout the small

nation through translocations, has created competition between humans and the animal.

3Friedman, Thomas L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. 1st Anchor Books ed. New York: Anchor Books, 2000.4UN-OHRLLS. Http://Www.Unohrlls.Org/En/Orphan/303/. November 8, 2009.5Tsing, 6.

Primarily this comes in the form of crop damage and physical confrontation between the rhino

and humans. Increased funding through international aid organizations has established anti-

poaching units that make the consequences for retaliation against the animal and poaching

increasingly harsh. In addition, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation is

endowed with legislative power to impose serious fines and jail time on offenders. As a result,

local residents find themselves largely helpless to deal with a large mammal capable of

destroying a precarious livelihood. In friction with this reality are the incentives for locals to

participate in rhino conservation; ironically helping to save the animal plaguing them. An

example of such an incentive is the promise of economic gain from tourists coming to view the

rhino. A more subliminal incentive that preserves the habitat of the species is teaching people

that excessive foraging for fodder and fuel wood can result in flooding that damages crops. The

integration of human development and environmental conservation often leaves both sides

feeling they are being neglected in the new arrangements.6

Globalization often brings the byproducts of industrialization to developing states.

Environmental conservation is often trying to reverse these effects. For example, strict

regulations that prevent the felling of timber for sale are conservationists’ efforts to repair and

prevent damage inflicted by the destructive forces of industrialization and the byproducts of

commodification.7 To battle against this foe, conservation has in some ways had to commodify

itself and become an industry. This translates into the creation of a local tourism industry to save

the environment, or the national campaign for the Nepal Tourism Year 2011, which places

tourism as a top priority in the economic plans of the nation.8 If the state can no longer fell

timber to foster the industry, they must turn elsewhere for economic stability. In Nepal, this has

been tourism. I have come to identify local incentive to actively protect an animal that can

destroy their livelihood as one byproduct of this commmodification. I felt the power of these

incentives to motivate a community with my personal experience of a rhino translocation in

Chitwan.

It is difficult to encapsulate the enthusiasm I felt and experienced during the 2002 rhino

6For an analysis of how integration has failed both ecological and social objectives, see Brown, Katrina. “Integrating Conservation and Development: A Case of Institutional Misfit.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 1, no. 9 (2003): 479–87.7Tsing.8Nepal Government. “NTY2011” Http://nepaltourismyear2011.com/ (accessed March 11, 2010).

translocation. It was a super-charged, week-long event. A tangible excitement replaced the

dullness of everyday routine. The entire community came out to lend a hand with the project;

this was a big, big, deal. The small village surrounding the location was inundated with

representatives from every group with a stake in the Terai. Nothing compares to watching about

800 Nepalis simultaneously try to help load a zonked-out rhinoceros into the craziest-looking

jury-rigged truck. Here was an event of global significance to save biodiversity and prevent the

extinction of a species, using elephants and what might pass as a 2 x 4 to roll an enormous rhino

up a plank into the truck. There was a collective yelp of excitement when the marksman made

his shot to tranquilize the wild rhino, and the crowd involuntarily lurched back when the rhino

woke to find herself trapped in an enclosed and seemingly breakable cage.

Local businesses, for which I had had the honor of being the only customer for the

previous three months, overflowed with people eating, drinking, and connecting. Hotels

hardened to months of zero occupancy were full. I suspect this one week may have sustained

many businesses for the season, particularly because 2002 was a dismal year for tourism in

general.9

As mentioned earlier, in contrast to negative feelings toward the rhino, there is also a

substantial sense of pride in the local community that Chitwan National Park contained the only

remaining rhinos in the country. From the production before me, I would not have known that

many of these people harbor deep resentments toward the animal. Do not be fooled by their

poverty; these people are well aware in a global sense that these rhinos are special, and that

makes them special. The rhino translocation requires a conjuring of the three different spaces of

foreign, national, and local.10 In Chitwan, the universal of species conservation requires the

interlocking of all three, each participating with vigor, even though they all arrive with different

motivations and leave with a different result. The following is my interpretation of each actor’s

motivations and perceived incentives. The international conservation NGOs—for example the

World Wildlife Fund—has a mission to save the rhino and satisfy donors. The national govern-

ment—HMG Nepal—envisions a profit from their cooperation and participation with the

foreign. Lastly, the local resident is aware that their participation is crucial to the success of the

event, and this importance encourages active engagement. Secondly, the event will most likely

occur with or without their consent, so involvement is the most likely path to reducing 9Based on personal observation and “Tourism Industry in Nepal and Destination Chitwan.” Web. March 11, 2010.10Tsing.

marginalization and possibly reaping benefits. Thirdly, who could not get caught up in the

energy of such a spectacle?

The ideology of conservation has evolved from the traditional top-down approach that

favors isolated protection of nature. The World Wildlife Fund, one of the largest aid donors in

the Terai and a world conservation leader, stated, “WWF’s ultimate goal is to build a world

where people live in harmony with nature.”11 The continued unattainability of this goal lies in

how it is pursued. The list of actors engaged in “building a world where people live in harmony

with nature” is endless. Each actor enters into the relationship with different values and

perceptions of not only how to achieve this goal, but even what constitutes that harmony. With

the emergence of a new conservation ideology, the emphasis shifted to an understanding that

sustainability would come from programs that were conscious of the intertwined relationship

with humans. In Nepal, WWF has adopted several programs that attempt to quell the increasing

animosity of local Nepalese to the rhino; and WWF conservationists persistently tinker with

different tactics aimed at creating rhino and human harmony. Besides translocation of the rhino,

other efforts to be discussed later in this paper include: creating buffer zones around protected

areas, establishing wildlife corridors between protected areas, education encouraging acceptance

of the rhino, and the establishment of alternative livelihoods (to subsistence farming) that will

not require further encroachment into rhino habitat.12 These solutions entail enormous changes in

the culture (accepting the rhino and nurturing an appreciation of the animal), socio-economics

(creating entirely new markets and jobs to be filled by the poorest subsistence farmers), and

politics (buffer zones are organized and run by community groups that must interact and vote in

new local political arrangements.)13

The current situation in the Terai—poverty and overpopulation coupled with

environmental degradation—was a result of the international political climate of the Cold War.

In the 1950s, Nepal became the recipient of significant amounts of funding from the United

States, India, and China.14 Unilateral interest in directly funding Nepal began to diminish in the

11World Wildlife Fund. Http://www.wwf.org/. November 8, 2009.12World Wildlife Fund-International. Human-Animal Conflict Fact Sheet, 2006.13For politics and management of buffer zones, see Paudel, Naya Sharma. Buffer Zone Management in Royal Chitwan National Park: Understanding the Micro Politics, 2003.14For more on the international political environment that stimulated this funding, see Sharma, Sudhindra, Helsingin yliopisto. Kehitysmaainstituutti, and Interdisciplinary Analysts (Kathmand Nepal). Aid under Stress: Water, Forests, and Finnish Support in Nepal. Lalitpur: Published by Himal Books for Institute of Development Studies, University of Helsinki and Interdisciplinary Analysts, Kathmandu, 2004.

1970s, while there was an increasing role in the small kingdom of large multi-lateral aid

organizations such as the United Nations, World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.15

Eradication of malaria from the Terai led to massive land reforms in the Terai in the 1960s that

resulted in heavy in-migration that rapidly depleted natural resources and quickly contributed to

diminishing already meager populations of several animal species, including the greater one-

horned rhinoceros, Bengal tiger, gharial, gangetic dolphin, and Asian elephant.16 While the Nepal

of the 1960s and 1970s did not lose its geopolitical significance between India and China, the

Terai region gained some additional popular international attention as the habitat for these exotic

species.17 In the conservation world, Chitwan National Park (CNP) is a great success story.

Efforts to revitalize populations of the rhino are evidence of this success. In 1968, there were

approximately 100 rhinos remaining in all of Nepal, the entire population residing in CNP.18

Heavy anti-poaching aid and accompanying policy contributed to a count of 544 Rhinos in 2000.

(This number has fallen off to 435 in 2008. The drop is attributed to political turmoil in the

Maoist uprising and their subsequent control of the parks.)19 Within this time period through

rhino translocations, the species was reintroduced into Royal Bardia National Park located in the

western Terai and a breeding population was created in Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve.

Table 4. Numbers of Rhinoceroses Translocated from CNP

S No. YearSex

Release Site TotalMale Female1 1986 8 5 Bardia National Park, Thakurdwara 132 1991 8 17 Bardia National Park, Babai Valley 253 1999 4 — Bardia National Park, Babai Valley 44 2000 8 8 Bardia National Park, Babai Valley 165 2000 1 3 Sukhlapanta Wildlife Reserve, Ranital 46 2001 2 3 Bardia National Park, Babai Valley 57 2002 5 5 Bardia National Park, Babai Valley 108 2003 3 7 Bardia National Park, Babai Valley 10

TOTAL 39 48 — 87

15Ghimire, K.B. Forest or Farm? The Politics of Poverty and Land Hunger in Nepal. Delhi, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 16For an understanding of land reforms see: Ghimire, K.B. Forest or Farm? The Politics of Poverty and Land Hunger in Nepal. Delhi, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 17For the history behind international interest and motivation in development aid to Nepal, see: Khadka, Narayan. Foreign Aid, Poverty and Stagnation in Nepal. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1991.18Mishra, Hemanta R. “Balancing Human Needs and Conservation in Nepal’s Royal Chitwan Park.” Ambio 11.5 (1982): 246–51. 246.19World Wildlife Fund. Http://Nepal.Panda.Org/Our_Solutions/. 2008. November 14, 2009.

Rhino translocations from Chitwan to Bardia and Sukhlaphanta have occurred eight times

between 1986 and 2003, including the one that happened when I was there.20 Recreating

populations of the rhino in other parts of the country could spread human-rhino conflicts into

other areas. However, Chitwan is unique in its overpopulation of both humans and rhinos. There

are fewer reports and research indicating a similar level of conflict around other national parks.

There are several reasons for dispersing the population of rhinos throughout the country.

Dispersion protects the species against regional specific disease, natural disasters, and

overpopulation (large mammals need a certain amount of space in which to thrive).21

Translocations are also one of the primary strategies to deal with some of the negative

repercussions this small conservation victory has had on the local people living around CNP who

are less than enthusiastic about the increased population of dangerous large mammals threatening

their livelihoods. Thus, again the flipside to the pride of sharing an environment with the

endangered greater one-horned rhinoceros is that you are, well, sharing an environment with a

rhinoceros.

The Trouble with Wild Animals

The exotic rhino is a big troublemaker for local populations because it can quickly

destroy an entire year’s crop and kill livestock and humans.22 Rhinos also can maul domesticated

animals. Imagine the devastation felt by a subsistence farmer who loses his most valuable

commodity—the domestic water buffalo. Headlines such as “Rhino Kills Girl” appear regularly

in Nepali newspapers. In 2009, a 17-year-old girl was killed in Chitwan by an attacking rhino.

This was not a unique event. Since 2003, 34 people were killed by rhinos in Chitwan, and 81

people were killed by wild animals around CNP.23 The environmental conservation that provided

the necessary habitat for the rhino also helped revive populations of other large mammals,

namely elephants and tigers. The camp where I lived while in Nepal kept a small fleet of

domesticated elephants. With the river low before the monsoon, a notorious wild bull elephant

regularly plowed into camp in pursuit of the chained and vulnerable female elephants.

Apparently he had come back for more; our camp also housed his year-old son. This baby was

considered a dud—half-wild and half-domesticated, he would never be trusted, even though he

20United Nations Environmental Programme. Royal Chitwan National Park-Nepal, 2008.21World Wildlife Fund-International. Human-Animal Conflict Fact Sheet, 2006.22Mishra, 246.23International Rhino Foundation. “Rhino Kills Girl.” http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?ac-tion=news_details&news_id=9162. Accessed March 11, 2010.

was the pampered pet of the mahouts in the camp. This comical situation is symptomatic of a

larger issue. Not only was this bull elephant a danger to the camp residents, but by impregnating

one of our few viable female elephants, he jeopardized the local economy. Besides lighting a

bonfire in the hope of scaring the bull back into the park, nothing could be done.24

Yearly, villagers are killed and mauled by rhinos, tigers, and elephants. Specific tigers

gain a reputation as maneaters and local lore of tigers goes something like this: Once a maneater,

always a maneater, so until the capture of that specific tiger, villagers remain in an apprehensive

state, fearing the next attack. This friction between local populations and wildlife promotes an

increasing resentment toward CNP. Psychologically, the reservation of protected areas of

valuable land exclusively for the safety of what is probably viewed locally as a valueless species

(i.e., cannot be used for any sort of subsistence, unless illegally poached and sold to the black

market), indicates a higher regard and value for wildlife than human life. Friction across

difference can produce misunderstanding that can evolve into insurrection: “Without even trying,

friction gets in the way of the smooth operation of global power,” inspiring creative solutions to

avoid conflict.25 In the span of four years between 1978 and 1982, five people residing in

Chitwan were killed by tigers; three of the victims by one tigress. Distressed, villagers concluded

that the park authorities had intentionally released this maneating tigress into the community to

keep people out of the park. In an effort to regain legitimacy in the eyes of the villagers, the park

authorities killed the tigress in a public demonstration to try to validate that while they protected

nature, they also prize human life.26

Perceptions of Power and Resource Control

Protected national parks in Nepal are guarded against illegal poaching, foraging, grazing

or other subsistence activities by the Nepalese army and wildlife officers of the Department of

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. This protection and the rights to enforce regulations

were added in amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1973. The

wardens of parks and their officers are given the right to search, arrest without warrant,

investigate, and confiscate wildlife products they believe were illegally acquired. This

empowerment of the DNPWC removes usufruct rights of local people.27 This has led to a 24This information is based on personal experience and recollection.25Tsing, 6.26Mishra, 248.27Shrestha, Joel Heinen and Suresh. “Evolving Policies for Conservation: An Historical Profile of the Protected Area

disparity between the local and state, as far as perceptions of stealing from the forest go. The

government cries thief to anyone taking resources from the protected park, but this is a ridiculous

barrier in the eyes of local agrarian populations that rely on converting forest products into

sources of energy as both fuel and fodder.28 As supplies diminish and demand increases, the

importance of power comes into play. Maintenance of power over capital is a three-pronged goal

and includes “control of land, control of species, and control of forest labor.”29 These three

mechanisms, in and of themselves, supply power, and achieving all three is the trifecta of

authority. In the case of CNP, park rangers are the representation of this authority, and therefore

the object of local dissatisfaction. Nancy Peluso touches directly on the friction relationship in

the Terai between conservation of the environment and species and continued poverty in the

same region. Conditions are perpetuated because conservation programs are reliant on the state’s

cooperation and its control. This restricts the local resident and in effect maintains poverty and

discontent. For the local population, the park authority is the only visible representative to whom

they can express discontent over issues such as restriction of access and wildlife encounters.

Chapter 3 explores in greater detail these antagonisms and how they have shifted.

Tourism in Chitwan

Tourism is a double-edged sword in conservation; it can be the key to funding

conservation while at the same time, if unregulated, may harm the environment. The concern

here is who benefits economically from tourism, and how promising such prospects have been

used to pacify local residents outside of Chitwan National Park. Newfound mobility enables

international travelers to go to places such as South Asia and Africa to see exotic and rare wild

animals. The rhino is very forgiving, unlike, for example, elusive tigers. If you spend the money

and time to travel all the way to Chitwan National Park in Nepal, you are pretty much guaranteed

to see a rhino.30 In addition to the conservation benefits of translocation, reestablishing the rhino

population in other parks throughout the country has the potential to draw more tourists to other

areas of Nepal that may otherwise go unvisited and perhaps keep these tourists in the country

longer, spending more money. From the inception of the national park system in Nepal, tourism

System of Nepal.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49, No. 1 (2005), 41–58.28Peluso, Nancy Lee. Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance in Java. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992, 57.29Peluso, 17.30Personal journal.

has been heavily promoted as an alternative economic resource, and conservationists had high

hopes that ecotourism would essentially fund conservation in the Terai.31 Tourism has fluctuated

in Nepal and not produced jobs and economic stability to specific marginalized groups as

promised.32 The following remains one of my favorite descriptions of the disparity and

misunderstanding that tourism ignite:

Since the national park was established, Kumar has to graze the cattle along the open banks of the Rapti River, where there is little grazing, and ensure that none of his cattle cross the river into the national park, or pay a fine of five Rupees for any animal found grazing on park land. . . . [He does] not realize that the national park cannot sustain grazing pressures, or that there will not be any trees left if fuel wood collection is permitted. He regularly sees strange-looking foreigners going through the jungle on elephant back and fails to understand why an area is set aside for them at the cost of his earlier liberty to use the jungle.33

This excerpt is more than 25 years old; such confusion about the actions of international

travelers has changed in Chitwan. However, this is the history of perception that is part of the

long-term friction among the government, conservationists, and locals.

Most ecotourists utilize the larger hotels or jungle lodges (because, as I would attest,

these hotels are not really that large or expensive in comparison to those in any developed

nation). The industry is almost wholly financed by foreign capital and operating principally

autonomously from the local context. Research shows that even in years where tourist numbers

are high, there is minimal economic impact on household incomes in the areas around CNP. For

example, in the late 1990s, of the 87,000 working-age people living near CNP, fewer than 1,100

were working directly in the ecotourism industry. In the same survey of 996 households, only 6

percent earned any income directly or indirectly from ecotourism. The minimal positive impact

was felt on households located at the park’s main entrance. As a result, in contrast to what was

promised to local residents by the government and conservation organizations, in the 1990s there

was little overt economic incentive for the local community to participate in conservation to

support ecotourism.34

As will be discussed further in the following chapters, shifts in conservation approaches

in Nepal occurred in the latter half of the 1990s. Until this transformation, there was considerable 31Dinerstein, Eric. The Return of the Unicorns: The Natural History and Conservation of the Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2003.32Mishra.33Mishra.34Dinerstein, 2003.

disappointment about the failure of tourism to have positive impacts on the villages surrounding

CNP. More decision-making power and conservation programs were turned over to local

residents in CNP in the form of community forestry in buffer zones around the park. These

projects are funded in three ways: 30 to 50 percent of park revenue is allocated to local residents

through these programs, by charging user fees to members and tourists using the forests, and by

the donor funds of NGOs. The allocation of 30 to 50 percent of income from the park, most of

which comes from tourism, is a dramatic gesture toward ameliorating the discontent of local

residents who did not feel they were benefiting from tourism. Such changes may have changed

local residents’ feelings about ecotourism, but there is minimal ethnographic research that

evaluates local residents’ current feelings toward ecotourism. It is difficult to assess if

guardianship toward the environment and species has resulted from economic gain received from

ecotourism.

The ongoing political instability caused by the Maoist People’s War has had devastating

consequences on the tourism industry and is also a factor impeding research. The height of the

violence was in 2002. The following data correlates the decline in visiting tourists and a 40 to 60

percent drop in income generated from park entry fees.35

Table 5. Profits of Tourism in the Parks of Nepal

2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003U.S. dollars generated in protected areas of Nepal from tourism 1,796,000 912,000 802,000

The hard work of conservationists to create programs that engaged local people to protect

the environment with promises of gains from tourists paying to see it has backfired. Ecotourism

is now seen as a complementary source of income for conservation. Thus, it may no longer be a

persuasive tool in convincing local residents to tolerate the behavior of the endangered

rhinoceros.

Conflicting Rationalization of Resource Conservation

While the rhino translocations have tried to alleviate some of the pressures of increased

human and rhino populations, conservation of natural resources to maintain an environment for

35Heinen, Nabin Baral and Joel. “The Maoist People’s War and Conservation in Nepal.” Politics and the Life Sciences. 24, No. 1/2 (2005), 2–11.

the rhino is an absolute necessity. In the overpopulated Terai, the landless are desperate for the

bounty of restricted resources that are just at their fingertips. There is awareness at the local level

that depletion of resources is occurring, and that this will have negative long-term consequences.

On the other hand, in the short term it is entirely understandable that activities such as poaching

and illegal gathering continue to be problems. What rationalization is there for conserving

resources if you are going to die of starvation? Thus there exists a constant friction over

resources, and an interesting relationship of the local people to donors who have taken on the

responsibility of trying to solve the unavoidable resource issue that evolves when poor people

and conservation try to achieve their respective notions of progress in the same locale. Resources

are limited to only specific groups, those for whom political and social reasons were on the

losing end of foreign-funded, government-installed land reforms.36 These people simply do not

have any other means by which to subsist, except for the forest and rivers, all of which are now

protected areas. They have neither other goods to trade nor alternate sources of energy for

cooking, and neither access nor means to acquire building materials to create shelter. While the

park authority may be the object toward which dissatisfaction is directed because they stand

between the local and the forest, it is the NGOs and multilateral institutions that present

innovative ideas to try to solve this dilemma.

Primary resources inside the park that local people need are: thatch grass, bamboo, fuel

wood, and grazing lands. Besides the valuable horn of the rhino, CNP also houses tempting tiger

skins and elephant tusks that are extremely valuable on the black market. Solutions to thwart

local need for these restricted resources range from the buffer zones to relocation of entire

villages.

Two seemingly unrelated programs—for example, introducing mushroom farming to

local farmers and biologists collecting and hatching gharial eggs in a breeding facility—are in

many ways connected. The endangered gharial, a prehistoric-looking, crocodile-like reptile,

waddles out of the river to lay its eggs near the edge. The eggs are usually lost to poaching by

local villagers or washed away by pre-monsoon floods, maintaining the endangered status of the

species. “In protein-starved South Asia, gharial eggs [are] not only easy to collect but also a

sought-after item by poor villagers, to eat themselves or to sell to brokers.”37 Even though

36For details on land reform in Nepal and how it is a factor contributing to current overpopulation in the Terai, see Ghimirre, 1992.37Dinerstein, Eric. Tigerland and Other Unintended Destinations. Washington: Island Press, 2005, 32.

poaching the eggs is illegal, in the short term there is a clear logic to picking up all the eggs

before the rain washes them away. The logic that the few remaining eggs that survive the

monsoon will prevent the extinction of the gharial is really not sufficient incentive. Hatcheries

are the answer to this dilemma for the scientists. Mushroom farming is one example of a solution

implemented by NGOs to try to create a practical vegetable protein for local people that might

deter interest in the gharial egg (versus animal protein which will be more of a strain on the

environment and create larger social divisions because animal protein is so much more

valuable).38 It is hard to imagine a mushroom replacing a rare gharial egg, either for eating or

selling. NGOs are often the groups responsible for the social mobilization necessary to see the

realization of these sustainability programs. Social mobilizing to introduce and sustain a new

economy based on mushrooms is “based on negotiating more or less recognized differences in

the goals, objects, and strategies of the cause.” Understanding the different perspectives

surrounding the mushroom and gharial egg should be done as an exercise to promote

appreciation of diversity and to find new ways to use these differences positively, not to try to

force perspectives to conform.39

Tsing argues that instead of the repetition of the same outcome, “collaboration does . . .

draw attention to the formation of new cultural and political configurations that change the arena

of conflict, rather than just repeating old contests.”40 Some scholars tend to look for the apparent

contests between different parties in the engagement. Instead of trying to identify the winners

and losers in the Terai of Nepal, I try to give more attention to the politics of collaborations. It

seems realistic that more can be understood from a different perspective that appreciates the

political and social outcomes of the collaborations than from the alternative—narrowly focusing

on the loser of the contest.

In the Terai, as in all underdeveloped areas, it is difficult to assign precedence to one

issue over another. Environmental conservation, poverty reduction, social inequality, women,

education, infrastructure, and biodiversity are all most important to someone. When

collaboration is viewed as a contest, the assumption is that there will be a winner. Through the

rhino translocation, I try to demonstrate how a few of these most importants are interlocking in

constant cycles of change.38King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation in Nepal. Http://Www.Kmtnc.Org.Np/Bcc_Update.Php. 2009. November 16, 2009.39Tsing, x.40Tsing, 161.

Unraveling the relationships of friction in the Terai is a daunting task. The rhino

translocation only skims the surface of the impact of globalization in Chitwan. This cursory

understanding of both the motivations and consequences of such collaborations is a jumping-off

point to delve deeper into the dynamic evolution of environmental identities and conservation in

Chitwan National Park. Here I have outlined some of the basic motivations and factors that have

made the rhino translocations a success in spite of local resistance. Using friction as a lens to

view the event of the translocation has helped shape the complexities of globalization in this

local context. In Chapter 3, I will examine the techniques of environmentality that have propelled

the engagement of local residents in conservation and formed the environmental identity of local

actors.