The Great Himalayan National Park has finally bagged the Unesco World Heritage Site title. But is this global ‘accolade’ welcome? Stirring up an old debate on the impact of a Unesco tag many question the collateral damage increased footfall can have on a place like the GHNP. Is its fragile ecosystem, which includes some of the world’s most endangered species such as the Snow Leopard, Western Tragopan and Himalayan Tahr, ready to handle the pressure? Will its core area now risk ‘development’?

A poster child of conservation, the GHNP has encouraged and embraced community-based ecotourism to compensate for the loss of traditional livelihoods of the locals, many of whom are apparently happy with the alternative. But a handful of them continue to fight for grazing rights, even as three villages resist resettlement. Surely, co-opting these villagers against their will can’t be fair when they are at least partly responsible for making the GHNP count as one of the better-preserved national parks and are sceptical about the possible socio-economic benefits.

It has been argued that with the world watching a Unesco heritage site, countries are shamed into acting swiftly and according to international standards if something goes wrong. But India has not always been able to protect the interests of its World Heritage Sites — Manas National Park remained on the list of sites in danger from 1992 to 2011 due to indiscriminate poaching and fallouts of the Bodo insurgency. The GHNP too has a chequered history — parts of the park were denotified after it was first established in 1999 to accommodate the Parvati hydroelectricity project. The spectre of ‘progress’ still haunts it.

More than global recognition, what the GHNP needs is national appreciation, local ownership and pride.

Assistant Editor

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW