top of page
Unique Pic 8 Well-preserved low-altitude broadleaf mixed forests, Tirthan Valley.JPG

From GHNP to a Western Himalayan World Heritage Landscape

Great Himalayan National Park, Linked Protected Areas and the Future of Biodiversity Conservation

Why GHNPCA Matters for the Western Himalayas

The Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area (GHNPCA) is already inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The World Heritage Committee has explicitly called for the extension of the property to include Khirganga and Pin Valley National Parks, and Rupi Bhaba and Kanawar Wildlife Sanctuaries. The merger of Khirganga National Park with GHNP has been decided in principle; settlement of local rights is underway and final notification will pave the way for its inclusion.

Taken together, these areas form the core of what could become a continuous Western Himalayan World Heritage landscape – one of the most important intact mountain ecosystems in South Asia.

Protected Areas (PAs) are the most widely used tool for conserving biodiversity worldwide. The first National Park – Yellowstone (USA, 1872) – was conceived as a largely people-free wilderness. In many developing countries, however, people live in and around PAs, depend on forest resources, and maintain complex customary rights. Simply excluding people can cause serious social and economic disruption.

GHNPCA offers a different story: it is a strictly protected core area (no human habitation, rights extinguished) surrounded by an active Ecozone where local communities are partners in conservation. This model, built over three decades of experimentation, shows how socially responsive conservation can secure biodiversity in a developing-country context.

A Core of Minimal Human Interference

Himachal Pradesh has hundreds of square kilometres of heavily grazed alpine meadows and deforested temperate ridges. Domestic sheep, goats and cattle dominate much of the middle and high-altitude landscape. If we want to conserve the full range of Western Himalayan ecosystems – from heavily modified to virtually pristine – we need at least one area where:

  • Human activities are minimal, especially grazing and herb collection

  • Temperate and alpine ecosystems can function much as they did before large-scale transhumant grazing

GHNP, with its Final Notification in 1999 and the subsequent ban on grazing and herb collection inside the Park, provides precisely that kind of core. In the adjoining protected areas, where rights have not yet been settled, traditional uses continue; GHNP’s role is to anchor the landscape with a fully protected reference ecosystem.

The GHNP Model: Conservation with Communities

The central question tested at GHNP was simple but radical:

Can alternative livelihoods for Park-dependent communities reduce pressures on biodiversity and improve conservation outcomes?

Before 1999, between 4,000 and 5,000 people – including labourers hired by commercial herb traders – entered the area seasonally to dig out high-value medicinal herbs. After Final Notification, free access was stopped. Only 390 households with documented historical rights (Anderson’s Settlement, 1886) received compensation. Many other poor households, especially women, lost a crucial seasonal income source.

Instead of relying solely on enforcement, Park management developed a livelihood-based conservation programme focused on:

  • The Ecozone (no villages inside the Park itself)

  • Women Saving and Credit Groups (WSCGs) as core institutions

  • Income options that are low-investment, nature-friendly and market-linked

Women Saving and Credit Groups

​

About 1,000 Park-dependent households (mainly former herb collectors) were identified. Women from these households formed small, village-based Saving and Credit Groups, which:

  • Saved and managed their own funds

  • Accessed microloans for production activities

  • Became focal points for conservation education (street theatre, meetings, training)

Income sources linked directly or indirectly to GHNP included:

  • Vermicompost production – sold to Park nurseries and local farmers

  • Cultivation of medicinal plants in designated plots

  • Value-added products – apricot oil, handicrafts, agricultural produce

  • Wage labour via medicinal plant propagation projects and MNREGS

  • Drudgery-reducing interventions such as LPG and pressure cookers to reduce fuelwood collection

For men from these households, Community-Based Ecotourism created jobs as porters, cooks and trekking guides.

Over time, incomes from these new sources matched or exceeded the ~₹7,000 per year families had once earned from herb collection. Just as importantly, their energies shifted from extracting resources inside the Park to growing or producing on their own land or in designated areas.

What Changed on the Ground

Independent Evaluations

 

The IUCN–WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE), conducted by the Wildlife Institute of India and MoEFCC, described the livelihood and community work at GHNP as:

​

“The most positive and effective aspect of the management of Great Himalayan National Park… Formation of 92 Women’s Savings and Credit Groups, covering 980 poor households… earning over ₹32 lakh.”

​

GHNP scored 76.5% on the MEE scorecard – a high rating among Indian PAs.

The World Bank’s Implementation Completion Report (2002), while critical of earlier, generic “ecodevelopment” work, explicitly recognised that post-credit innovations – especially WSCGs and the Biodiversity Conservation Society – were promising, locally owned and better linked to conservation needs.

Institutions, Successes and Setbacks

​

As groups grew, women federated and registered their own NGO (SAHARA). Later, issues of transparency and leadership emerged, illustrating:

  • The importance of robust governance and bookkeeping in community institutions

  • The need for Park management to support with training and systems, not just funds

SAHARA was replaced by BTCA (Biodiversity Tourism and Conservation Advancement). A separate Ecotourism Cooperative formed in 2014, with about 100 village youth, performed well up to 2017.

The lessons – about trust, financial literacy, leadership and the risks of NGO capture – are as important as the successes.

Limits and Unresolved Issues

The GHNP model has clear limitations, especially around grazing:

  • Traditional graziers who used Park meadows seasonally came from scattered, distant villages.

  • Anderson’s 1886 Settlement did not formally recognise grazing rights; neither did the 1999 settlement.

  • Providing compensation or equivalent livelihoods to such a dispersed, seasonal user group proved extremely difficult.

In practice, alternative grazing routes were offered and free access was terminated first by persuasion, later by law enforcement. The lesson is stark:

Sudden exclusion without realistic alternatives creates conflict.
Conservation in such landscapes requires a careful blend of incentives and sanctions, rooted in equity and law.

Other structural issues remain:

  • Remoteness and poverty in Ecozone villages

  • Low female literacy and first-time exposure to money handling

  • A sometimes rigid forest bureaucracy that is more comfortable with enforcement than facilitation

  • Frequent transfers and limited wildlife or social training for many Park staff

Biodiversity Recovery and Monitoring

Ten years after the closure of grazing and herb collection, meadow monitoring in sites such as Dhel, Patal and Guntarao showed encouraging trends:

  • Jurinea macrocephala (dhoop) – heavily exploited earlier – showed strong recovery

  • Dactylorhiza hatagirea, Aconitum violaceum, Saussurea obvallata, Rhododendron anthopogon, R. lepidotum and other alpine species increased in density

  • Around Rolla and near the Park periphery, native species like Angelica glauca, Berberis lycium, Thymus linearis expanded in cover as grazing pressure fell

Wildlife research echoed these patterns:

  • Miller et al. (2008) and subsequent work (Pandey 2013) recorded increases in pheasant abundance, notably Western Tragopan and Koklass, following restrictions on mushroom collectors and their dogs

  • More frequent sightings of herbivores were reported in forests and alpine zones

Taken together, these observations suggest that livelihood support + reduced extraction + strategic enforcement can lead to measurable habitat regeneration and wildlife recovery.

Ecosystem Services, Climate Change and Culture

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework helps explain why GHNPCA matters beyond its boundaries. Biodiversity underpins:

  1. Provisioning services – food, water, medicinal plants

  2. Regulating services – local climate and hydrology, carbon storage

  3. Cultural services – spiritual, recreational, aesthetic values

  4. Supporting services – soil formation, nutrient cycling, pollination

Mountain ecosystems are especially vulnerable to climate change: melting glaciers, increased hazards, shifting vegetation zones. Healthy native forests and alpine communities are a form of “ecological insurance”, buffering downstream water supplies, stabilising slopes and storing carbon.

Conversely, invasive species such as Lantana, Parthenium, wattles and certain eucalypts can undermine these services.

In GHNP’s Ecozone, biodiversity and culture are tightly intertwined:

  • Local devtas (deities), temple carvings, festival masks and sacred peaks all encode respect for animals and landscapes.

  • Pilgrimages such as Srikhand Mahadev over 5,000 m demonstrate how cultural and spiritual values draw people deep into mountain ecosystems.

GHNP’s model uses this cultural capital as a positive force for conservation.

Livelihoods in Support of Biodiversity Conservation

Conserving a biodiversity-rich area like GHNP is not simply about fencing nature off; it is about aligning rural development with ecological health.

Key enabling elements around GHNP include:

  • A legally recognised Ecozone / buffer functioning as an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) and “shock absorber”, under Park administration

  • Livelihood-based Management Plans that deliberately put:

    1. Community livelihoods and reduced dependency first

    2. Habitat and species management and monitoring second – achievable only with community cooperation

In practice, this has meant:

  • The Park and Panchayats jointly establishing 19 medicinal plant propagation units

  • Targeting women’s groups for MNREGS and nursery work

  • Linking fuelwood reduction to energy-saving technologies (LPG, efficient stoves, pressure cookers)

  • Giving men preferred access to ecotourism jobs in return for compliance with Park rules

Gender-Inclusive Conservation

Most GHNP Ecozone villages share common challenges:

  • Greater poverty and fewer income options with distance from roads

  • Heavy workloads for women (water, fuelwood, fodder, childcare)

  • Lower literacy and social marginalisation among women and Scheduled Castes

Experience at GHNP shows that women are often more responsive to saving schemes, small-scale income projects and conservation messages than men. Women’s Saving and Credit Groups became:

  • Vehicles to reduce drudgery and increase income

  • Platforms for conservation education and micro-planning

  • Legitimate political actors, influencing Panchayats and accessing government schemes

Involving women is not an “add-on”; it is a central pillar of a resilient conservation–livelihoods strategy.

Leadership, Process and Scaling Up

Building a model like GHNP’s requires more than rules; it needs leadership and process:

  • Park staff must shift from a purely “policing” mindset to a facilitation role, helping communities organise and solve their own livelihood and resource problems.

  • A process approach – many small, sequenced steps – is essential: group formation, confidence-building, training, incremental livelihood gains, then deeper conservation responsibilities.

  • Scaling up models like medicinal plant cultivation or vermicompost across Himachal Pradesh could create significant rural incomes while reducing pressure on wild populations.

Important lessons from GHNP include:

  • Facilitation and flexibility are key in working with communities

  • Participatory management is a continuous process, not a one-off project

  • Community institutions (WSCGs, federations, NGOs, cooperatives) need long-term mentoring in leadership and transparency

  • The most effective conservation happens when diverse actors – villagers, NGOs, scientists, forest staff, faith leaders – work together on the basis of expertise and shared goals, not just hierarchy

Looking Ahead: A Western Himalayan World Heritage Landscape

Himachal Pradesh is changing rapidly: new roads, hydroelectric schemes, resorts and mass tourism are reshaping the landscape. GHNP too sees increasing trekking and camping. These visitors can be allies – bringing income and awareness – but only if their numbers and activities are carefully managed.

The UNESCO World Heritage Committee’s recommendation to extend GHNP to include Khirganga, Pin Valley, Rupi Bhaba and Kanawar is both a challenge and an opportunity:

  • A larger, connected World Heritage landscape can better sustain wide-ranging species like Snow Leopard and Brown Bear, protect full altitudinal gradients, and accommodate climate-driven range shifts.

  • At the same time, it will require deeper engagement with communities whose rights are not yet settled, and stronger, more imaginative governance across multiple Protected Areas.

Somewhere between hydro projects, ski slopes and hill resorts, India must find room for the beauty and complexity of natural Western Himalayan ecosystems. GHNP’s experience suggests that:

  • A strictly protected core is essential

  • Surrounding communities must see real benefits and be treated as partners

  • Long-term conservation depends on patient facilitation, gender-sensitive approaches, scientific monitoring and courageous leadership

In myth, heroes like Bhima and Hanuman traversed these mountains in search of rare flowers and healing herbs. Today, GHNP and its linked Protected Areas keep a living remnant of those ancient Himalayan landscapes. Protecting them – and extending that protection across the Western Himalaya – will demand continued dedication from local people, forest staff, scientists, policymakers and visitors alike.

This is not only about conserving a few valleys with their bears, leopards and pheasants. It is about the future of biodiversity, water, climate resilience and cultural identity for the Western Himalayas – and far beyond.

bottom of page