Nagaland stands at an important environmental crossroads. The state has a rich biodiversity, but that inheritance cannot be taken for granted. Forests are under pressure, wetlands and streams are changing, and development is steadily altering natural habitats. The revision of Nagaland’s State Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan is therefore an opportunity to consider what kind of conservation model can actually work here.
Nagaland is different from many parts of the country. Most land is owned or managed by communities and customary institutions. Perhaps the government already knows very well that the people who own, use and live with the land have to be at the centre of conservation. The challenge may lie less in recognising this reality than in translating it into outcomes that can be seen and felt on the ground.
There are already examples of communities taking the initiative to protect their natural surroundings, while many other such efforts may remain less formally recognised. The Biodiversity Heritage Site framework offers an avenue to recognise areas with significant ecological and cultural value, and the ongoing revision could consider whether some community-conserved areas merit such recognition.
The same thinking could extend to agriculture. Jhum is often viewed mainly through its environmental impact, but it is also a traditional system shaped by generations of knowledge. Strengthening that knowledge through science, agroforestry and better soil and crop management could help show that farming needs and ecological conservation need not always be at odds.
Perhaps the larger question is how conservation can become worthwhile for the people who live with the land. If standing forests, healthy rivers and functioning wetlands can provide sustainable livelihoods, tourism opportunities, research value and other benefits, communities have greater reason to protect them. Conservation then becomes less about restriction and more about stewardship.
Ultimately, biodiversity conservation in Nagaland has to be rooted in its own social institutions. Village councils, customary bodies, churches and communities possess a level of social influence that government programmes alone cannot replicate.
The revised strategy should therefore do more than set targets. It should give communities a meaningful role, measurable responsibilities, tangible benefits and recognition.
Nagaland does not need to choose between development and conservation. It needs to ensure that development does not destroy the very natural heritage on which future generations will depend.