There is growing worldwide agreement that conservation efforts should learn from past mistakes and seek the active involvement of local people, particularly rural and tribal communities, in conservation work. The big mistakes have been in terms of displacing people and harming their livelihoods which made them hostile and so their cooperation in conservation work could not be obtained, although it is they who are most capable of taking this work forward with their knowledge of local conditions.
Hence the way forward is to correct past policy distortions and involve local communities in conservation work including ecological regeneration of degraded areas, protection of natural forests and protection of wild life. To the extent that some erosion of local livelihoods cannot be avoided, this should be more than made up by new livelihoods generated for local people in various aspects of conservation work.
Such learning from past mistakes and policy revision on the basis of such learning is particularly important in the context of countries like India where the welfare of tribal communities is supposed to get top priority, as per frequently stated official precepts and where there are strong constitutional and other legal provisions in place for the rights and welfare of tribal communities which should not be violated.
Hence the case of people-oriented conservation policy in India is particularly important. The issue is not at all one of going back on conservation objectives, instead it is one of strengthening conservation tasks with the close involvement of villagers, particularly tribal communities.
It is in this context that the debates on Project Tiger in India should be seen. The displacement caused in the course of this project has often been a subject of controversy and criticism, and has resulted in a lot of discontent among the affected villagers and tribal communities in many parts of the country, as well as many others who fear that they may be in the line next.
Now comes a study, released on July 29 2024, which shows that the extent of displacement caused by this project in the more recent past and in the near future may be much higher that is commonly believed. Counting the past displacements and the ongoing or near future ones, this study mentions the figure of displaced people at over half a million which is very high and hence a cause of high concern for anyone committed to the welfare of tribal communities and other villagers living close to forests.
The study, which has presented these estimates by the Rights and Risks Analysis Group titled ‘India’s Tiger Reserves -- Tribals Get Out, Tourists Welcome’, tells us that the number of people displaced from 50 tiger reserves in various parts of the country before 2021 was 254,794 which worked out to almost 5,000 per protected areas. However the average number of people likely to be displaced from six tiger reserves since 2021 is over nine times higher at 48,333, with a total of about 290,000 likely to be displaced. This includes 72,772 people from the Nauradehi wildlife sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh, 160,000 people from the Kumbhalgarh wildlife sanctuary in Rajasthan and 45,000 from the Ranipur tiger sanctuary in Uttar Pradesh. The pre and post-2021 figure adds up to about 544,000 people displaced or facing displacement.
Enough land is just not available for the satisfactory resettlement of such a large number of people, although about 92,605 were re-located up to 2021. Even in five areas where tigers do not exists, people have been displaced in the name of protecting tigers! A different model is needed where people are not displaced but co-exist.
This is provided by Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Tiger Reserve Project where the Soliga tribals and villagers were not displaced and yet the protection of tigers could achieve very good results.
This shows that the alternative of pursuing conservation in ways that avoid displacement and disruption of rural communities exist but have not received the due attention. In fact in some places such disruption of rural communities has been accompanied also by a lot of violence against rural communities, at least partly to increase pressure on them to move out early.
This is extremely tragic, and entirely avoidable. As several experts have been pointing out, conservation models which are compatible with villagers’ sustainable livelihoods are not just possible, but may also have higher chances of success. Ramachandra Guha, delivering the keynote address to the Conference on Wild life and Human Rights in Asia at the University of Oslo said:
“The belief in a total ban on human intervention is misguided. Studies show that the highest levels of biological diversity are often found in areas with some (though not excessive) human intervention. In opening up new niches to be occupied by insects, plants and birds, partially disturbed ecosystems can have a greater diversity than untouched areas.”
According to David Western, in East Africa, “the ending of human activity in the parks, such as fires and shifting cultivation, has reduced biodiversity. Those human activities created the patchiness of terrain that encouraged more species. By pulling out the human components, and maintaining too many elephants we are losing biodiversity.”
In Bharatpur Park area of India (Rajasthan), some years back villagers protested when the authorities banned grazing. In the ensuing conflict seven villagers were killed. Yet the Bombay Natural History Society concluded that here buffalo grazing was “an integral part of the ecosystem, helping to counter the tendency of the wetland to turn into a grassland.”
Hence there was no need, even from a conservation viewpoint, to put a ban on grazing in the first place. The conflict, which caused the loss of life of innocent villagers, was thus entirely avoidable.
Enough land is just not available for the satisfactory resettlement of such a large number of people
In some other cases also, including the famous Valley of Flowers in Himalayan region, bans an traditional grazing had a negative impact on diversity and required a reintroduction of grazing or grass cutting.
Such research findings indicate that the interests of both human population as well as wild species in most situations can be better served by giving up the notion of parks as areas devoid of human intervention.
A more rewarding approach will be to look at how local people can prove helpful in protection of animals and birds, trees and plants, and evolve a system based on involving as well as rewarding the people for their help, making creative use of their impressive knowledge of local forests as well as their various skills.
Forests play an important role in the food security of several indigenous communities by providing free of cost food which is shared much more equally and generously compared to cultivated and market-purchased food.
A study by Living Farm organization in Odisha tells us that 121 types of food available from forests are known to the tribal communities which are shared by the community and are particularly useful for meeting needs of several micro-nutrients. During the lean season and during drought years the importance of this forest food increases further.
Several communities of forest dwellers have been living in harmony with wild life. They have self-imposed restrictions on forest-use as well as on hunting or causing any other harm to wild animals. There is much to learn from them regarding the way of peaceful coexistence with wild life.
When villagers are displaced from park areas, or their livelihood is gravely jeopardized then chances increase that some of them will be trapped by poachers and smugglers to work for them, thereby increasing the risks to wild life as well, and turning protectors and potential protectors of wild life into those who can threaten wild life.
So removal of villagers from park area can be harmful not only for them but also for biodiversity. The approach should be to involve them in the protection of biodiversity. The famous ornithologist from India, Salim Ali, had made a strong pitch for this.
He stated, “No conservation laws or measures can succeed fully unless they have the backing of informed public opinion, which in our case means the usually illiterate village cultivator.” He added that we (the conservationists) have to find the right approach for involving the villagers, not excluding them. He added, “We have never really tried enough. Devising a realistic strategy is now a challenge to all conservationists.”
A community in an area where poaching is a threat can be involved in steps to check poaching either in terms of full-time or part time jobs for some of its members, or in terms of an annual collective grant to the community for supporting various welfare activities.
---
*Honorary convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. Books: 'Planet in Peril', 'Man over Machine', 'A Day in 2071' and 'Protecting Earth for Children'
Comments