1.1 PAs and Relocation

India’s first modern “protected area” was Hailey National Park created in 1936 by the British colonialists, though there were many reserves declared by rulers before this, and thousands of sites protected by communities for centuries. From a number of about 100 in the early 1970s, when the Wild Life (Protection) Act (WLPA) 1972 was promulgated, India today has 657 PAs (99 n ational parks, 513 wildlife sanctuaries, 41 conservation reserves and four community reserves) (MoEF 2008a). These together cover almost 5% of the country’s land area.

The management of these PAs is based on premises inherited from the western concept of conservation: it requires the exclusio n of subsistence demands and other resource uses, and only centrali sed trained bureaucracies are capable, with no role for local communities and their knowledge (Kothari et al 1995; S aberwal et al 2001). In this paper we do not challenge or accept this world view (there is already a considerably large body of lite rature debating it), but only note its consequences in relation to displacement of people.

Thus, human habitation and uses of natural resources are prohibited or severely restricted within most PAs. There are three to four million people living inside these PAs and several million more in adjacent or nearby areas, whose livelihoods depend on natural resources from these PAs (Kothari et al 1995). These local communities often have unclear or unregistered right to natural resources and lands. Moreover, many d evelopment facilities (access to basic amenities, transport, health and education facilities, land development, etc) do not reach adequately to villages l ocated inside PAs. Hence, local communities inside PAs have varying a ccess to natural resources for survival and livelihoods, but often also live in a state of deprivation, poverty and in confl ict with PA managers, who usually perceive them as being responsible for the loss of wildlife.

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

They are also sometimes in conflict with wildlife through crop or livestock damage, or human injury and death on the one hand, and retaliatory killings of animals on the other. Thus voluntary or forced displacement from PAs has long been seen as a solution to these issues.2

1.2 Policy and Legislative Background

There are a few national and state laws, policies or programmes governing or related to displacement of local communities from PAs:

1.3 Kinds of Displacement/Relocation

For the purposes of analysis, we distinguish three kinds of displacement or relocation, depending on the willingness (or lack thereof) of the displaced families to be relocated:

• Voluntary Displacement: When the concerned communities or families on their own and without situations created by the PA, ask for relocation.

38

The category of “induced” displacement is crucial to understand, for it may be the most common one in recent times, and could get mistaken for “voluntary” displacement. With greater public visibility, mobilisation of communities, and involvement of civil society, it has become politically difficult to forcibly evict communities. Much more common now (either as a deliberate method or as a situation that gets created without any intention) is where communities accept or ask for relocation because life within the PA is very diffi cult.

Available literature does not necessarily distinguish amongst these three categories. Our attempt to place each of the displacemen t cases below into one of these categories should therefore be treated as provisional, subject to change if the information base changes.

This paper is mainly based on existing literature. No fresh fieldwork was done for this paper, though field observations by one of the authors (AK) have been used. The judgments expressed in this paper, on the nature and impacts of relocation cases, are also based on the views of the authors of the literature cited. There is a general paucity of independent and systematic documentation or long-term studies on PA-related relocation in India. The paper is, therefore, intended as a first-cut attempt at consolidating available information on relocation.

Some of the terms used in this paper are subject to varying interpretations. The concepts of “core” and “buffer”, for instance, had no legal basis till recently,4 but were used as an administrative measure. Often the “core” of a TR would be a national park, and the “buffer” would be a sanctuary and reserve forests or other lands. But this is not necessarily the case. The term is used here in the way the original source has used it, and no attempt has been made to make the usage consistent.

We have also made a mention of the governance of the relocation process. This indicates whether basic factors of good governance, such as participation of affected people, access to relevant information, transparency of decision-making, and so on, were in place. Again, available literature does not necessarily provide adequate information on this, so our assessment should be considered provisional and subject to change.

2.1 Early Relocation

Before studying the relocation cases that have taken place in I ndia for a few decades, a brief historical review of relocation in India seems relevant (adopted from Rangarajan and Shahabuddin 2006, unless otherwise stated). The first relocation cases date

decEMBER 5, 2009 vol xliv no 49

from the pre-independence times. Even during the 19th century, the British made some proposals for relocation of local communities. But the fi rst actual relocation reportedly took place in 1908 from Kaziranga reserve in Assam, when two small villages were removed (and the another three in 1914).5 In 1910, 10 villages in Dachigam in Kashmir were removed from shikar reserves.6 Then, Baigas (an indigenous or tribal people) were displaced by the British from the Banjar Valley Reserve Forest (now the Kanha N ational Park) in Madhya Pradesh. Even when no displacement took place, the British controlled forest and hill communities and limited their customary rights over lands and natural resources. Soon after 1947, there were some displacement cases in the S ariska Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan, in the Gir Forest in G ujarat and in the Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh. But relocation from PAs really became common during the 1970s, after the passing of the WLPA in 1972, and the launching of Project Tiger in 1973. We will review these post-1972 relocation cases later.

2.2 Scale of Relocation

Precise figures on the number of people displaced from PAs are not available (itself an indication of the casual way in which this has been treated by state and central governments). Extrapolating from figures obtained from about 300 PAs in the mid-1980s (Kothari et al 1989), the number could be about 1,00,000. Other observers, however, put the figure at over 6,00,000 (Fernandes and Paranjpye 1997), the basis of which is not clear.

The Tiger Task Force (2005) estimated that in the case of TR, 80 villages with 2,904 families and a population of 46,341, had been relocated.

The figures collated in this review, appearing in Annex 3 (posted on the EPW web site along with the text of this paper), suggest a relocation of between 15,000 and 20,000 families. This comes close to the estimate of 1,00,000 (people) stated above. But there could be serious under-reporting, and therefore, the figure may be greater. It is an indication of the general lackadaisical approach of the government to relocation, that no accurate or comprehensive figures exist with either the forest department (FD) or any other government agency.

It is worth pointing out here that displacement from PAs is a very small percentage of overall displacement of people, with the other causes (especially “development” projects like dams and mining, and processes of urbanisation) leading to far larger numbers. One estimate based on numerous studies, is 60 million (Mathur 2008).

2.3 Review of Specific Relocation Cases

We provide brief case studies of displacement (past, ongoing, or proposed) from PAs, with the following information where available: year of displacement/relocation; number of villages/families displaced from this PA; the place where these villages/families were relocated to; governance of the relocation process, the kind or nature of relocation (voluntary, induced or forced). These are arranged statewise.

The data available at Annex 3 (posted on the EPW web site along with the text of this paper) sums up the main information on relocation cases given in this section.

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

In virtually all cases, the officially stated reasons for displacement were “human pressures” or “human-wildlife confl icts”, so we have not mentioned these in each case. Only where there is a unique or uncommon reason not found universally, have we m entioned it.

The legal status of the PA and the date(s) of notifi cation are largely taken from Kutty and Kothari (2001).

between the FD and the villagers (they heard about the relocation decision only in 1982) and many conflicts (protests, fi res, demonstrations, petitions). Thus, the villagers resisted the relocation for 26 years. In 2000, the relocation process finally started with fewer conflicts, thanks to a better governance and coordination between the FD, local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the villagers. Indeed, there was a better participation of the villagers in the process and an improved relocation package. Thus, the relocation process in Bhadra is considered by some as an example of good governance. There are still five villages in the TR (MoEF 2005).

o ptions. There are still six villages located in the national park, and 60 villages in the overall reserve. There was earlier a plan to relocate 50 villages (4,000 families), which is not accepted by the locals (MoEF 2005). Currently, officials are talking of relocating between 13 and 16 villages.15

decEMBER 5, 2009 vol xliv no 49

some also due to a dam) (Devullu et al 2005). This displacement was conflict-ridden because of mismanagement by FD, evidence of corruption and disagreements between the local communities and the FD. There is still one village in the core area and 100 villages in the TR (MoEF 2005).

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

sources, however, give a different picture. In 1994, 85 tribal families were displaced in an induced way from the sanctuary and relocated in Krishnanagar and Tulsadeipur villages (Kothari and Asher 2005). Three hundred and ninety eight other families r efused to be relocated and chose to stay inside the sanctuary. According to these authors, the governance of the relocation process was really bad, without any participation of the tribals and written contract. Moreover, there were serious administrative delays in the process, since the provisions included in the relocation package had not been given to the displaced tribals even a decade later. Sustained pressure by NGOs like Vasundhara has more recently (more than a decade after relocation) led to attention by the state assembly, a visit by the Public Accounts Committee in May 2006, and supply of agricultural land, homestead land titles, and developmental facilities.23

mix of voluntary and induced factors including serious wildlife related damage and lack of access to development projects (Negi 2003). According to Negi, the relocation process was t ransparent and participative: creation of village committees, meetings between the different villages and good participation of villagers in the relocation package. There are still 25 villages in the overall TR (MoEF 2005), of which relocation of one (Laldhang) is in the fi nal stages, and of another two (Teria and Pandh) is proposed.25

According to unpublished data from a survey conducted by the Indian Institute of Public Administration, there are also some cases of relocation in the following PAs, for which further information is not available to us: Balphakram NP, Meghalaya;27 Barnawapara WLS, Chhattisgarh; Chinnar WLS, Kerala; Hadgarh WLS, Orissa; Kazir an g a NP, Assam; Pakke WLS, Arunachal Pradesh; Sunabeda WLS, Oriss a.

2.4 Future Relocations?

Several other national parks and sanctuaries in India continue to have communities living inside. It is likely that there will be proposals for relocation in the following situations: National parks, since the WLPA mandates this; core zones of sanctuaries, though there is no legal necessity to relocate villages in such areas, critical wildlife habitats declared under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest-Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006. Villagers can be relocated from these with their consent. As of late 2008, there are sporadic reports from some states that the government is planning such relocation. However, no

o fficial proposals have yet been made to the MoEF, as required under the Act’s provisions. TRs, which will now be notifi ed under a new legal category provided for in the Wild Life Amendment Act 2006; under this, critical tiger habitats are to be made “inviolate” though only with local community consent.

Examples where these conditions may apply include many of the PAs listed above, where villages still exist inside, and some additional ones below:

3.1 Environmental Impacts

The main expected environmental impact of relocation at the old site is the decrease of human pressures and disturbance. However, there are only a few studies and mostly anecdotal evidence of this. After relocation of 411 families from Corbett TR in Uttarakhand, the tiger population has increased by 52% over the period 1984-2002; and 273 ha of land were restored back to prime tiger habitat (MoEF 2006b), though it is not clear if there may have been a number of other factors involved in these changes such as improved management and increasing resources for the TR. S imilarly, it is reported that the hard-ground subspecies of the Swamp deer or barasingha (Cervus duvaucelii), once down to only 66 in the 1970s, increased to over 400 after relocation of v illages from the Kanha National Park (see http://www.indiawildlife-tours.com/wildlife-packages/national-parks-in-india/ swamp-deer-in-kanha-national-park.html; also Panwar 1978). Karanth (2006) reports the recovery of prey and predator populations in areas that have been freed of human presence.

The other reported impacts at the old site are the decrease of forest fires and human-wildlife conflicts, leading to a better conservation. On the other hand, local people and scholars also point out that relocation sometimes leads to reclamation of grasslands and grassy blanks by the forest, reducing the space for herbivores and grassland birds, and indirectly impacting predators (Rangarajan and Shahabuddin 2006). This then necessitates the use of fire or grass cutting as a management tool, as in Kanha and C orbett Tiger Reserves.

It is interesting that in many cases the relocation of people has been undertaken or sought under the assumption that it will help sustain the current “natural” features of the landscape, without realising that these features may actually be a result of longstanding human interactions with the resources. This was shown, for instance, in the case of a number of protected areas in the United States, such as those with extensive prairies that were a result of repeated fires lit by the natives (see, for instance, Schama 1995 in the case of Yosemite).

Indeed, there appear to be very few systematic or long-term studies to show the changes that take place at sites from where villages are relocated. In their absence, the assumption with which relocation is carried out remains, in many or most cases, only an assumption.

At the new (rehabilitation) site, the main environmental i mpact is the destruction or degradation of natural ecosystems. This is directly due to clearance for cultivation and housing sites, roads, etc, or indirectly due to increased biotic pressure by the relocated human and livestock population. Again, there are very few systematic studies on this aspect. In the case of the relocation of Dhain village from Satpura Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh, over 30,000 trees were felled to prepare the rehabilitation site, but there is no assessment of the loss of wildlife that this entailed (Wani and Kothari 2006). The relocation of villages from the Tadoba National Park has claimed 550 hectares of biologically diverse forest, in which forest officials and local people have r eported the presence of tiger,

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

leopard, and other wildlife including substantial fl oral diversity (Dilip Gode, VNCS, personal communication 2007; Mehra 2004).

We could not find a single study of the ecological costs and benefits of relocation, comparing what happens at the old site to what happens at the rehabilitation site. This is a shocking gap, given that relocation is always justified from the point of view of reducing pressures and securing wildlife habitats.

3.2 Socio-economic Impacts

Relocation results in a host of socio-economic impacts. In many cases, especially relating to tribal communities that have been relatively isolated from the outside world, the displacement is traumatic from both economic and cultural points of view. From a predominantly non-monetised economy to a money-dominated one, and from relatively isolated cultural existence to one in which other cultures start imposing themselves, the transition is painful. In many cases, free access to survival and livelihood resources such as water, fuel, fodder, medicinal plants, and wild foods, has to be replaced by purchasing these goods in the market, which opens up such communities to serious exploitation.

In the case of land-based rehabilitation, the quality of the new land is an important factor. Often the new land given is degraded forest land. Fertility of such lands varies from good to very poor, and there could be situations where the land is not even cultivable at the time of the shift (e g, in the case of relocation from R ajaji National Park in Uttarakhand, see Dasgupta 2003; or in the case of New Dhain village resettled from Satpura Tiger Reserve in Madhya Pradesh, where it took a year after relocation for the land to be fully cleared and readied for cultivation, see Wani and Kothari 2006).

For communities dependent on livestock, the availability of grazing lands and fodder is crucial. In many cases no provision was made for grazing land or fodder. The loss of livestock in the relocation process is also quite frequent, which can lead to loss of income29 (e g, in the case of relocation from Rajaji National Park in Uttarakhand, see Dasgupta 2003). But there are also other cases in which pasture development is part of the relocation package (e g, in the case of relocation from Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh, see Panwar 2003).

For communities heavily dependent on non-timber forest produce or aquatic produce at their traditional locations, there is

o ften a severe loss since the resettlement sites do not have the same kind or level of resources. This impacts both the household economy and in particular aspects like nutrition, as also market economy and in particular earnings from forest produce. In Tadoba, for instance, the sites earmarked for resettlement have far less quantities of species like bamboo, mahua (Madhuca i ndica) and tendu (Diospyros melanoxylon), which form a substantial part of the income for villagers at their present prerelocation sites (Bhagwan and Ghate 2003).

Another essential aspect is the availability of water sources at the new site. In some cases, displaced people have to face serious issues of water scarcity (for both drinking and irrigation). This was the experience in the case of relocation from Pench National Park in Madhya Pradesh. Consequently, agriculture and h orticulture are sometimes impossible at the new site, leading to loss of food security and income. But in other cases, the relocation package includes provisions like drinking water and irrigation facilities (e g, in the case of relocation from Melghat PA in Maharashtra, see Rithe 2003).

Equity (or inequity) in distribution of land and compensation during the relocation process is another crucial factor. In some cases, the allocation of land is very equitable (“land for land”) and land is provided to landless too (e g, in the case of relocation from Kanha National Park in Madhya Pradesh, see Panwar 2003). But in other cases people can obtain a cultivable land smaller than their land at the old site, leading to rivalry between families and loss of income from agriculture. Often, the landless may r eceive very little or nothing (this is perhaps especially so for the very early relocations).

Some relocation packages provide land and agriculture development schemes, which can improve the livelihoods of the displaced families (e g, in the case of Bhadra Sanctuary, see Karanth and Karanth 2007).

Some families can also have no access to landownership or land titles in the relocation process (e g, in the case of relocation from Rajaji National Park in Uttarakhand, see Dasgupta 2003). This is particularly problematic where land legally classified as forest is given for relocation, and its legal status is not changed, exposing the relocated population to future uncertainties created by legislation related to forests (e g, in the case of Tadoba- Andhari Tiger Reserve, Rucha Ghate, Shodh, personal communication, 2007).

In some relocation cases there is a drastic change in occupation, with little time for the displaced communities to adjust and learn new skills. For instance, in the case of Maldharis from Gir National Park (Gujarat) (Sharma 2003), pastoralists were forced to shift to settled agriculture at the new site. Most families did not know how to make this transition, and it took years for people to settle down.

In some cases (e g, New Dhain village relocated from Satpura Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, see Wani and Kothari 2006), houses at the new site are constructed by or with the families themselves, leading to a more satisfactory outcome.

Some communities who did not have access to local and central development schemes at the old site inside the PA (because of remoteness and the inability of government services to reach there), can get funds from these schemes after relocation (e g, in the case of relocation from Melghat Tiger Reserve in Maharashtra, see Rithe 2003).

Some relocation packages provide access to existing or new e ducation, electricity, transport and health facilities at the new site (e g, in the cases of relocation from Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh, though with the usual ineffi ciencies plaguing r ural development departments in general, see Sharma and Kabra 2003 and Chouhan 2003; and Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka, see Kumar 2003 and Karanth 2005), which can change the lives of the displaced families. Moreover, transport facilities allow a better access to markets and developed towns around the new site.

Lastly, relocation of villages can lead to socio-economic confl icts with the locals at the new site (as is the case with the New Dhain relocated village vis-à-vis the existing Doobjhirna village, outside the Satpura Tiger Reserve, see Wani and Kothari 2006). Indeed, the land chosen for resettlement is sometimes already used by some people living in the surrounding areas. So the displaced families can be in conflict with the locals for access to natural resources and income generation at the new site. It can even lead to physical clashes in some cases.

There seems to be no gender-differentiated impact assessment of relocation from PAs. Given the much greater day to day d ependence of women on natural resources, and their greater vulnerability to socio-economic changes, it can be assumed that displacement has greater and special impacts on them compared to men. However, this aspect needs further study.

Having to suddenly live in another cultural environment, with other values and references, can be traumatic. They are expected to forget their old culturally important sites and beliefs (including sacred natural places), and a common question asked by them is: “we can move, but how will our gods move?”. They also have to adapt themselves to new cultural concepts (law, fi nance, state, development, etc). There could also be serious psychological i mpacts, given that many families lead a very uncertain life for at least some time after the relocation. There appear to be no studies on these aspects in relation to relocation from PAs.

3.3 Other Impacts

When local communities are displaced from PAs by force or through inducement, or when the relocation package is not adapted to their livelihood needs, there are almost always confl ic ts between FD offi cials or PA authorities and local communities. But even after relocation takes place, the relationships between the displaced families and the authorities can remain tense. Often, when local communities are forced or induced to be relocated, or when the relocation package is not adapted to their livelihood needs, they try to come back at the old site or go back to their old economic activities. Thus, there are often confl icts o ccurring between them and PA authorities during and after such relocation processes.

(Contd)

irregular quality of soils

-Conflicts with locals on water access.