See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288025047

Displacement as a conservation tool: lessons from the Kuno Wildlife

Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh

Chapter · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

11 398

2 authors, including:

Asmita Kabra
Ambedkar University Delhi
24 PUBLICATIONS   138 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Enhancing Quality, Access and Governance of Undergraduate Education in India View project

Displacement, Resettlement and Rehabilitation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Asmita Kabra on 30 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DISPLACEMENT AS A CONSERVATION TOOL :
Lessons from Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh
Asmita Kabra & Arpan Sharma

The steady rise of in the number and geographical coverage of wildlife protected areas in India – the
coverage under protected areas has risen from 0.5 % of the land mass in 1969 to over 5 % by 2001
(Rangarajan, 2001) has been paralleled by rise in the number of conservation refugees - people who have
been displaced as a consequence of conservation programmes. This has been accompanied by a raging
debate about the impact of human populations that use wildlife protected areas, with a clear polarization
emerging between schools of thought that advocate continued use of resources from protected areas (PAs)
and those that champion a hands-off approach (Saberwal and Rangarajan 2003). The case for displacement
has been built explicitly or implicitly on the hypothesis that human use of resources depletes their availability
and that if natural areas are to be safeguarded, people would have to be removed from these. In short, the
hypothesis is that people and wildlife cannot coexist (Terborgh et. al. 2002).
In this paper, we do not tackle this question explicitly. Instead we attempt to assess efficacy of displacement
as a tool for conservation using as a case study the experience of population displacement from a wildlife
protected area in central India – the Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in the state of Madhya Pradesh. We attempt to
examine, through the lens of the displacement experience of Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, whether an adequate
attempt is being made to reconcile these two imperatives. We argue that displacement can be considered a
sustainable and ethically tenable tool for conservation only if it fulfils these two imperatives simultaneously.
We hope to show, using the Kuno experience, that so far, population displacements from protected areas
(PAs) in India have been undertaken without basic understanding of and preparedness for handling the
complex tasks at hand, and have been implemented without adequate attention to restoring lost livelihoods
of the resident people. This indicates that successful and adequate rehabilitation of PA dependent
communities is unlikely to happen in India in the near future, unless significant changes can be made to the
policies and practices governing displacement. Without such changes, displacement will continue to be a
highly contentious conservation tool, which will, to the detriment of conservation goals, serve to sharpen
already serious human-wildlife conflicts.

At the outset, it is important to articulate what the debate is about, and equally, what it is not about. People –
wildlife debates are often analyzed through the either-or lens. We argue in this paper that this is a false
dichotomy. The question is not whether wild habitats need to be protected; they have to be. Similarly, we do
not propose to debate whether livelihoods of people resident in the vicinity of wild habitats (or otherwise
dependent upon such habitats) ought to be protected; these too have to be, given the stated principles that
govern India‟s democratic society and polity. Some arguments have been made in literature on the utility of
time-bound relocation as a management tool, and a parallel call has been given for better monitoring of
relocation by voluntary agencies (Karanth 2002). However, the experience of the authors with people‟s
displacement from Kuno sanctuary (as part of a nongovernment organization called Samrakshan Trust,
which has been working since 1999 with the people displaced from Kuno) indicates that the argument needs
to be far more nuanced than this. The Kuno experience shows that inspite of a relatively progressive
package and comparatively well-implemented relocation programme, the communities affected have

1
suffered a serious decline in livelihood security. While this does not seem to have been detrimental to the
PA in the short run, we argue that the adverse forces unleashed by this displacement do not augur well for
long term conservation prospects in this region. This paper is an attempt to highlight some of these nuances,
and bring out their significance for the larger debate on use of displacement as a tool for biodiversity
conservation.

The Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica)

The Asiatic lion once had an extensive distribution ranging from Syria through Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and most
of northern and central India. India was the country where lions probably had the most extensive distribution.
They have known to have ranged over the present day states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Uttar
Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, with stray reports from Bihar. The river Narmada seems to have been the
southern limit of its distribution in India. Based on hunting figures, one can estimate that the lion population
would have numbered in thousands. However, as has been the case with a number of terrestrial mega
fauna, uncontrolled shooting and destruction and fragmentation of habitats by human activities (largely,
conversion into agricultural settlements) led to a rapid and pronounced decline in the population of Asiatic
lions. The decline and extinction of the Asiatic lions was even more pronounced in areas outside India. The
last lion in Central India was shot near Guna (then in the Central Provinces, now in Madhya Pradesh) in
1873. Latest by 1888, the last lions in India but for those in Gir had been shot. A few lions managed to
survive till 1942 in Iran and for the last five decades Gir has held the only free ranging population Asiatic
lions. The small population size (about 300 individuals) of lions, coupled with their extremely restricted
distribution (they are confined to the 1412 sq. km. of the Gir protected area) has left them vulnerable to a
variety of extinction threats like epidemics, natural calamities and forest fires. In fact, the African lion
population (African lions are a distinct sub-species found in relatively greater abundance in the African
savannah, forests and deserts) of Serengeti National Park in Tanzania was left severely depleted as a result
of a outbreak of canine distemper virus in the 1990s. It is believed that 75% of the lions had been infected
and at least 30% of the population had died due to the infection. If an epidemic of such proportions were to
affect the lions of Gir, it would be very difficult to save them from extinction, given the much smaller size of
Gir and also the relatively smaller lion population. (WII 1995)
It was therefore proposed to establish an alternate free ranging population of lions to insure against the
threat to the Gir population. This would involve translocating a few lions from Gir to an appropriate alternate
site. Research projects carried out in Gir by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) produced data for better
management of the species in Gir, and also generated indicators for selecting an alternate site. Following
the Population and Habitat Viability Analysis Workshop on the Asiatic lion in Baroda in 1993, the forest
departments of Gujarat, UP, MP, Rajasthan and Haryana were invited to submit a list of protected areas in
their respective states that could potentially serve as a second home for lions. A team of scientists from the
WII short-listed three potential areas: Darrah-Jawaharsagar and Sitamata sanctuaries in Rajasthan, and the
Kuno Sanctuary in MP. A rapid assessment of these sites was carried out during 1993-94, principally on the
following counts: extent of forest area, quality of habitat, prey base availability and presence of human
population. While Darrah was found unsuitable on account of its small size and the degraded state of
habitat, Sitamata was ruled out on account of lack of prey and extensive human interference. Kuno emerged
as the most viable option for this translocation attempt. Human pressure in Kuno was considered
manageable and the habitat fairly healthy. Further, it was believed that the roughly 3000 sq. km of

2
contiguous forest surrounding the sanctuary could potentially sustain a growing lion population. (Ravi
Chellam, personal communication; WII 1995)

Previous attempts at reintroducing lions

At least four distinct attempts to reintroduce lions to a part of their formerly occupied range within India can
th
be traced over the 20 century. Interestingly the sites of two of these attempts were in geographic proximity
to the current day Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary and were initiated by the rulers of the erstwhile princely state of
Gwalior. Divyabhanusinh provides a fascinating narrative of the attempts made by the erstwhile rulers of
Gwalior to reintroduce lions in their forests in his forth coming book (Divyabhanusinh 2005). The following
paragraph is summarized from an extended narrative in this book. In 1901, the Maharaja of Gwalior
approached the Nawab of Rajkot to make available four lions and four lionesses so that these could be bred
and reintroduced in the Maharaja of Gwalior‟s hunting preserves. The Nawab promptly refused citing the
much reduced lion population in Gir as the reason for not wanting to part with any lions. Just after the first
world war, the same Maharaja of Gwalior made another attempt to bring lions back to his forests. On this
occasion, he was able to acquire African lions - four pairs of which were released in the forests of Shivpuri,
and subsequently shot either on account of having turned man eaters or cattle lifters. Some of these
individuals were also shot by various members of royalty. The last lion was shot 1950 on the banks of the
Kuno river, a good 30 years after they were first introduced in 1920. This would imply that either some of the
animals lived that long or that there was some breeding in the wild.
In 1938-39, a zoo-bred pair of African lions was released in the Terai region of Chitwan in Nepal. However
these had to be shot within a year of their release as they had started lifting cattle. (Divyabhanusinh 2005).
Following a recommendation made by Indian Wildlife board during its meeting held in Gir in 1956,. one male
and two female Asiatic lion were translocated from the Junagarh Zoo to the Chandraprabha Wildlife
Sanctuary, near Varanasi in the state of Uttar Pradesh in 1958-59. This experiment was successful during
the initial years; the number of lions rose from three to eleven within a period of nine years. Unfortunately the
lack of effective follow-up actions and other man-made factors, their whereabouts could not be traced later
on (Negi 1969). The lack of any subsequent reports of these animals implies that they either died a natural
death or were killed by people in retaliation. Thus, though a number of attempts have been made in the past
to reintroduce lions in the wild, none of these have succeeded so far. Will Kuno set a new trend?

The Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary-Biological Values

0 0 0 0
The Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, located between latitudes 25 30' N - 25 53' N and longitudes 77 07' E - 77 26'
E, is situated in district Sheopur in north-west Madhya Pradesh. It covers a total area of 344.686 sq.km.
The Sanctuary was notified vide Government of Madhya Pradesh Forest Department‟s Notification No.
15/8/79/10/2 - Bhopal, dated 16.1.1981. The Sanctuary is located 80 km north of the city of Shivpuri, 30 km
off the highway connecting Shivpuri to the town of Sheopur (which is the district headquarters). The nearest
airport and railheads are Gwalior (101 km from Shivpuri) and Jhansi (111 km from Shivpuri).
This area has a long conservation history. Before the merger of the Jagir (principality) of Palpur (the principal
village within the limits of the Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary) in the state of Madhya Pradesh, this forest was used
by the then Maharaja of Gwalior as a hunting preserve. Besides this, the sanctuary has also provided refuge
from time to time to various gangs of the infamous bandits of the Chambal region. These factors, combined
with the remoteness of the area have ensured that the habitat of the sanctuary and its neighbouring forests

3
has been well preserved. Similarly the contiguous forests surrounding the sanctuary comprise of habitat that
is capable of supporting wildlife. About 900 sq. km. of these forests, which legally are either Protected
Forests (PF) or Reserved Forests (RFs), have been placed under the administrative control of the Kuno
sanctuary management, thus increasing the effective area under the Kuno Wildlife Division to about 1250
sq. km. This was in line with recommendation by the WII to make a large area available for a growing and
dispersing lion population.
The sanctuary, located in the Vindhayan hill ranges, falls in the semi-arid zone and has a typical terrain of
Central Indian highlands, interspersed with woodlands and meadows. The vegetation is typical of dry
deciduous forests dominated by Acacia catechu, Anogeissus pendula , Acacia leucocephloea and Boswellia
serrata. All the faunal representatives of the dry deciduous forests of the Central India can be found in the
sanctuary. The Deer family is represented by Spotted Deer (Axis axis), Sambar (Cervus unicolor) and
Barking Deer (Muntiacus muntjak). Antelope found in the sanctuary include Chinkara (Gazella gazella), Blue
bull (Tragocamelus bosalaphus), Chowsingha (Tetracerus quardricornis) and Blackbuck (Antelope
cervicapra). Hanuman Langur (Presbytis entellus) and Rhesus Monkey (Macaca mulatta) represent
primates. Wild Boar (Sus scrofa), Sloth Bear (Melursus ursinus) can also be seen. Among carnivores,
Jungle Cat (Felis chaus), Wild Dog (Cuon alpinus), Leopard (Panthera pardus), and a small number of
Tigers (Panthera tigris) are also present. River Kuno, a tributary of the river Chambal (a major river of
Central India), vertically bisects the Sanctuary from north to south. The average rainfall in the area is 750
0
mm per year. The maximum temperature can rise up to 49 C while the minimum temperature recorded has
0
been 2 C.

The Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary- Cultural Values

Kuno wildlife sanctuary is located in the Sheopur district in the northwest part of the state of Madhya
st
Pradesh. The state of Madhya Pradesh was created on 1 November 1956 as a result of the redrawing of
the federal map of India on a linguistic basis. The provisional census data 2001 divides the state of Madhya
Pradesh into 9 Revenue Division, 45 Districts, 259 tehsils or subdivisions, 313 Community Development
Blocks, 55393 Villages and 394 urban centres. Before the creation of the new state of Chhatisgarh, Madhya
Pradesh was the largest state in India, with an area of 443,436 sq. km. At present, however, it occupies the
second position in the country in terms of its geographical spread and contributes 9.38% to the country‟s
total land area. It has also emerged as the seventh largest state population-wise. Madhya Pradesh has a
sizeable Scheduled Tribe population, constituting 23 per cent of the total population of the state. Tribals are
concentrated geographically in the undulating and hilly districts in the southern parts of the state.
District Sheopur was created in the year 1998 through the bifurcation of district Morena, of which Sheopur
rd
was earlier a subdivision. The district ranks 43 in the state in terms of its population. The district has a total
population of 559,715, which is about 0.93 % to the total population of the state of Madhya Pradesh (Census
1991).
The Lion Reintroduction Project being implemented in Kuno wildlife sanctuary has resulted in the
displacement of 24 villages to the outskirts of the sanctuary. Over 5000 people were residing in 24 villages
inside the sanctuary prior to the initiation of this project. A majority (over 90 per cent) of these comprised of
i
the Sahariya, a “primitive” tribal group that has historically been almost completely dependent upon forests
for survival. In addition to the Sahariya, the villages affected were also home to some other caste groups,
including Jatav, Brahmin, Gujjar, Kushwah and Yadav, and some families of nomadic tribes like the Moghia.

4
The Sahariya tribals have historically inhabited the belt along the Rajasthan-Madhya Pradesh border,
especially the districts of Gwalior, Shivpuri, Morena (including Sheopur) and Bhind. As is typical among the
poorest farmers of semi-arid tropics, the Sahariya of Kuno had also evolved a complex survival strategy to
cope with factors like a sparse natural resource base, low rainfall, frequent rain failure and drought. Forests
and common pool resources (CPRs) played a vital role in these survival strategies, and the Sahariya
practiced a composite livelihood consisting of a mix of subsistence agriculture, livestock rearing, collection
and sale of forest produce and wage labour. Over time, however, their dependence on agriculture has been
rising, owing to decreasing access to forests and CPRs.
The main crops of the Sahariya were bajra, tilli (sesame), corn and some pulses during kharif (the monsoon
crop), and mustard, black gram and wheat during rabi (the winter crop). A majority of the farmers depended
on rain-fed agriculture, but a few that had fields along rivers or streams also used diesel pump sets for
protective irrigation of the monsoon crop and productive irrigation of the winter crop.
Research by Samrakshan has confirmed that collection of non-timber forest produce (NTFP) for own
consumption as well as for sale (usually to local non-tribal middlemen) was an important component of the
livelihood basket of the Sahariya while inside the sanctuary. A variety of NTFP like gwarpatha (Aloe
barbadensis), Amla (Emblica officinalis), bahera (Ficus bellerica), honey, tendu (Diospyros melanoxylon),
Bel (Aegle marmelos), safed musli (Chlorophytum borivillianum), ber (zizyphus mauritiana), bilaiya
(Aspaaragus racemosus), Shankaholi (Evolvulus alsinoides) and Hadjuri (Cissus quadrangularis) were
harvested extensively by Sahariya households. While Samrakshan is still researching the precise
contribution of NTFP to household income, initial results indicate that this is likely to be in line with Jodha‟s
findings (1986) of 20 to 25 per cent of direct income among the poorest households. Moreover, and again in
line with Jodha‟s findings, strong complementarities could be discerned between access to CPRs and
livelihood from private property resources. Access to CPRs and forests improved agricultural productivity
because easy availability of fodder allowed farmers to keep livestock, reduce dependence on tractors and
produce their own farmyard manure. CPRs also provided timber and other resources to farmers for
constructing various farm tools and a range of items for use in the homestead. CPR and forests also played
a vital role in provision of nutrition among the Sahariya households in Kuno, and in a typical tribal
household‟s daily food intake, items collected from commons or forests had as much weightage as items
purchased from the market or cultivated on the family‟s own land. Food items collected from the forest
included various fruits, berries, tubers, roots, and of course, bush meat and eggs. Ungulates were the prime
targets of hunting, though hare and birds are known to have been taken regularly. At least six different
methods of hunting have been recorded.
Within the sanctuary, the Sahariya had access to wages generated by the forest department through
activities like maintenance of dirt tracks and fire lines and collection of tendu leaves. A large number of tribal
families also migrated seasonally to work as agricultural labor in the irrigated wheat growing tract of Sheopur
district. Households from about 17 of the 24 villages reported migration as the only source of income for
about two months of the year just prior to the onset of the monsoon.
The non-tribal ethnic groups resident inside the sanctuary were traders, money lenders and owners of vast
herds of cattle. Interestingly the non-tribals also had some of the largest tracts of agricultural land inside the
sanctuary. Though according to official records, the total amount of land cultivated cumulatively by the 24
villages inside the sanctuary was 1047.28 ha, according to our estimates the actual amount of land under
plough was at least 5 times this figure. The legal status of the cultivated land ranged from holdings with

5
formal title deeds to outright encroachment, some of which were recognized formally in land records of the
revenue department. Most of the high quality agricultural land was under effective control of the upper
castes and the non tribals, who employed the Sahariya as agricultural laborers or engaged them in
exploitative sharecropping arrangements in return for credit in cash or kind.

Displacement and Resettlement

The Wildlife Institute of India, in its report identifying Kuno as the second home for the Asiatic lion,
recommended relocation of the villages in order to:
I. Reduce the probability of conflict of villagers with a mega carnivore like the lion
II. Provide a habitat free of humans that would permit numbers of wild herbivores to regenerate and boost
the prey base for wild lions
Accordingly, the MP forest department (MPFD), with financial support from the Union Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF), undertook to shift the villages resident in the sanctuary to a location on its
north eastern periphery. A brief chronology of the displacement process is presented below:

Table 1: Time Line of Relocation under the Lion Reintroduction Programme

S. No. Description of Activity Year
1. Formulation of the relocation plan initiated by the Kuno sanctuary management 1995
2. Visit by a sub-committee of the state Cabinet to assess whether villagers were willing to 1996
shift out voluntarily
3. Pre-relocation activities like compilation of list of beneficiaries, identification of land for 1997-98
resettlement, steps for de-notification of identified land from forest to revenue
4. The first two villages, Khallai and Barrer shifted out to the relocation site 1998 (summer)
5. Villages located on the western bank of river Kuno shifted out 1998-99
6. Most villages located on the eastern bank of river Kuno shifted out gradually 1999-2002
7. The last village left inside the sanctuary (Parond) shifted out to the relocation site 2003 summer

The Rehabilitation Package

Rehabilitation of the people displaced from Kuno was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the
Beneficiary Oriented Scheme for Tribal Development (BOTD) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MoEF), Government of India. As part of this package, every male above the age of 18 years is considered a
separate family and is entitled to services worth Rupees 100,000 (Rs. 1 lakh), as described in Table 2.

Table 2: Rehabilitation Package under the Beneficiary Oriented Scheme for Tribal Development,
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India
S. No Heads Specified norms To be spent by
(Rs. per family)
1 Land Development (for 2 hectares per family) 36,000 Forest dept.
2 House construction (on 5,000 sq. feet per 36,000 Displaced family
house)
3 Community facilities 9,000 Forest department
4 Fuel and fodder plantation 8,000 Forest department
5 Pasture development 8,000 Forest department
6 Transport of household goods 1,000 Displaced family
7 Cash incentive for shifting 1,000 Displaced family
8. Miscellaneous expenses 1,000 Forest department
TOTAL Rs. 100,000

The package adopted for Kuno is a significant improvement over many other relocation packages adopted
so far in various relocation projects across the country. It does not suffer from the obvious lacunae of "land
for land" type compensation packages, which have had a history of marginalizing the most vulnerable strata

6
of rural society, particularly the landless (Fernandez et al 1989). Moreover, in the implementation of this
package, the Kuno sanctuary management has also managed to address some of the gray areas that the
BoTD guidelines are not very clear about, for instance, treatment of female heads of the family (Sharma
2003). It has been found that at the ground level, many of these problems have been addressed through
suitable modifications and inclusions in the list of displaced families to include eligible families.

ii
Impact on Peoples‟ Livelihood
Due to the close involvement of the authors (as part of the team at Samrakshan Trust) with the process of
rehabilitating the people displaced from Kuno, it has been possible to observe and record in detail the
impact of displacement on livelihood of the affected people. The erstwhile inhabitants of Kuno wildlife
sanctuary have been shifted from resource-rich but extremely remote forests to a region geographically not
too distant from their original place of residence. The average distance of the resettled villages from the site
of their villages inside the sanctuary is about 13 Km. However, in terms of natural resource endowments, the
relocation site differs significantly from the sanctuary. Displacement has therefore forced a community of
hunters, gatherers and subsistence cultivators to adopt a primarily agriculture-based livelihood, which has
constituted a significant break from its previous way of life and livelihood. The rehabilitation package did not
recreate their livelihood pattern at the relocation site, but substituted it by another pattern with which the
affected people were not entirely familiar, and all of this was done with no provision for handholding support
to and capacity building of the community in the crucial period of transition.
While it is fairly well recognized now that involuntary displacement affects not just the economic well being of
a community but also non-material and often non-quantifiable factors like identity, culture, social fabric and
institutions, this present paper limits itself to commenting on impact on livelihood of the displaced population.
Livelihood impacts of displacement can be assessed in terms of a number of parameters including asset-
holding (mainly in terms of land), agriculture, access to common property resources (including NTFP, fuel-
wood and fodder), livestock and wage employment opportunities. The impact of relocation on each of these
parameters is elucidated upon in order to arrive at some general conclusions regarding the efficacy of the
resettlement and rehabilitation exercise.

1. Land (quantity and quality)

While quality of land allotted to the displaced villages at the relocation site is not homogenous, by and large
iii
the displaced households have received land of poor quality . Although agricultural experts have certified
iv
most of this land as potentially cultivable , in general soil depth and soil moisture is lower than what was
available inside the sanctuary. While there are many instances of allotment by the forest department of
alternative land in lieu of poor agricultural plots, this has been a slow process, given the large number of
such cases and low availability of surplus land.
While the relocation package earmarked a sum of Rs.36,000 per household for land development activities
and a further Rs. 16,000 per household for development of fuel and fodder plantations, the utilization of this
money has not resulted in any significant improvement in land quality or reform in land use. The amount
allocated was definitely non-trivial, and with proper planning and judicious use could have resulted in
multiple and sustainable benefits to the displaced households in the form of immediate wage income as well
as long-term augmentation of land quality. The importance of soil and water conservation and watershed
development interventions cannot be overemphasized in the context of a dry and arid area like Kuno. As has

7
been stressed by recent studies (Shah and Vijayshankar 2002) for the central Indian drylands, reform in land
holding is not a sufficient condition for ensuring agriculture based livelihood security, unless accompanied by
land use reform. Though the forest department has undertaken some watershed development activities, the
lack of adequate planning and expertise has meant that the net impact of such activities has been negligible.
The reality of Kuno, however, is that the funds meant for land development have been used largely for
payment to external agencies for bulldozing and clearing of land, and till the end of 2004, not a single
functional fuel and fodder plantation had been created in any displaced village.

2.Agriculture
After relocation, the crop-mix has not changed much in the displaced villages, but our studies indicate that
the yield of most crops has gone down significantly. For instance, a survey of 14 displaced villages in
November-December 2002 found that only 19 out of 715 families (or 2.6 per cent of households surveyed)
were able to produce 40 kg or more of crop output on their farm plot of 2 hectares. In addition to three
consecutive rain failures between 2001-04, other factors responsible for this include low soil moisture, lack
of access to farmyard manure (because of fodder shortage, which limits livestock holdings), absence of
protective irrigation facilities, and poor quality of land. An important reason for reduced output is that the
displaced families have no facilities for protecting their crops against depredation by free-grazing cattle
belonging to host villages in the relocation area, which were traditionally left to graze in the land that has
now been given to the displaced villages for agriculture. The rehabilitation package did not foresee this
problem, and did not make provisions for crop protection measures. A linked problem, with far-reaching
impacts on the survival of surrounding forests and commons, is that the displaced households have resorted
to heavy deforestation to collect thorny bushes for fencing their fields (Samrakshan estimates that at least
10 to 15 cartloads of biomass is required for fencing one plot of 2 hectares). This has resulted in rapid
depletion of forest cover in the areas surrounding the relocated villages.
Another crucial factor responsible for poor agricultural performance is that the displaced households are
unable to keep livestock in any significant numbers due to lack of fodder. Consequently, the quantum of
farmyard manure available for soil nutrient replenishment has gone down, while income has not increased
adequately to allow farmers access to purchase chemical fertilizers. Moreover, most displaced households
either left their bullocks in the sanctuary at the time of relocation, or lost them to the severe drought of 2002.
Therefore, few farmers possess draught animals for ploughing their fields, and the dependence of the
displaced households on hired tractors has gone up heavily. In the absence of ready cash for payment to
tractor owners, a high proportion of tribal farmers enter into sharecropping arrangements with tractor owners
and end up losing more than half their farm produce to the latter. This illustrates clearly the point made
earlier about breakdown of traditional linkages between farm activities and livestock rearing, which is
symptomatic of disrupted complementarities between common and private property resources.

3. NTFP and Fuel wood

After relocation of villages, access to forests has been reduced, and consequently, many traditional NTFP
collection activities have now disappeared almost entirely from the activity chart of the community. The
diversity and quantity of forest products collected by each family has dwindled. The adverse impact of this
has been especially high during drought years, since such communities typically resort to forest produce
collection as an important coping strategy during lean agricultural periods and drought (Jodha 1986).

8
Loss of NTFP has also reduced availability of medicinal herbs for indigenous medicine or home remedies.
Increased dependence of the community on allopathic medicines, coupled with short supply and
prohibitively high cost of qualified medical professionals and quality medicines, has led the displaced people
to depend on untrained but expensive medical practitioners with dubious qualifications..

4. Livestock
Post relocation, nearly two-thirds of the displaced families have had to leave most of their livestock inside
the sanctuary because of low availability of fodder at the relocation site. At best, some families have been
able to get a few cows, or a pair of bullocks with them to the new settlements. Compared to their earlier
practice of free-grazing cattle in the forest, fodder at the relocation site is collected from common land or
purchased from the market for stall feeding the livestock. With reduced access to common land, over 80 per
cent of the displaced households have experienced heavy reduction in fodder availability and consequent
decline in livestock holdings. This has impacted adversely their nutrition intake, as well as availability of
farmyard manure and draught animals for various farm operations.
A clear shift can be observed among the displaced villages in favour of small ruminants like goats and
sheep, as compared to cows and buffaloes. This is again a typical response among poor and tribal
households in semi-arid tropics to deepening poverty and CPR loss (Jodha 1986). In the absence of stall-
feeding practices, this is likely to cause heavy damage to the surrounding CPRs in the medium to long run.
This is one of the important limitations of displacement as a conservation tool, since it simply transfers
pressures from protected areas to other forested regions located outside the PA network. This is obviously a
short-term response, which does nothing to address the fundamental problem of unsustainable resource use
practices.

5. Wage labor
In the initial stages of relocation, the many households obtained wage employment on their own land
through activities like digging wells, clearing land and constructing houses, for which funds from the
rehabilitation package were allocated to them. This initially checked seasonal and distress migration, but
was only a short term phenomenon that lasted only till funds were available for rehabilitation. Employment
opportunities for the displaced households inside the sanctuary on works carried out by the forest
department have also declined after relocation, because of the much greater physical distance between
these villages and Kuno sanctuary. However, the loss of livelihood from forest department wage works
needs to be offset against the greater wage earning opportunities made available by the process of
relocation itself, under which various construction activities were commissioned at the resettlement site.
Access to wage labor on government sponsored drought relief works also been an important source of wage
income after relocation.

Overall assessment of the resettlement and rehabilitation package and its implementation
A clear distinction needs to be made between a relative assessment of the package and its delivery (in
comparison with other efforts at resettlement and rehabilitation elsewhere in the country), and a judgment in
absolute terms of whether the relocated people have been compensated fully for the losses suffered due to
displacement. While implementing / assessing the rehabilitation programme, it is also common to make the
critical analytical error of comparing the actual poverty situation of the villages before relocation with the

9
potential benefits that they stand to gain after relocation. Clearly, this methodology is problematic; one can
compare between either the actual (pre- and post-relocation) scenarios, or the potential (pre- and post-
relocation) scenario in order to arrive at any meaningful conclusions about the impact of relocation.

It is important to emphasize that the Kuno experience is in a higher league than many other displacement
experiences in India, since delivery of rehabilitation facilities and assets to the displaced households was
fairly well targeted and largely free of corruption. However, this does not necessarily mean that the relocated
community is better off than before. The perceived strengths of the rehabilitation package and its
implementation need to be set against some major gaps and weaknesses. The first of these relates to the
resettlement and rehabilitation package offered under the BOTD scheme, which arbitrarily fixes the
compensation to each family at Rs 100,000, irrespective of their original livelihood level. The same package
has been administered to communities as diverse as the Sahariya of Kuno wildlife sanctuary, the oustees
from Bhadra wildlife sanctuary and the villages displaced from Nagarhole National Park in Karnataka, even
though the livelihood pattern and overall socio-economic conditions of communities affected are very
different in the three cases. Moreover, no prior assessment was made of the pre-displacement level and
pattern of livelihood in any of the above cases. Clearly, one cannot even begin to judge the quality of
rehabilitation when the rehabilitation package is not based on an assessment of what precisely each
household is being compensated for.
When a generalized package such as the BoTD is applied under varying circumstances, the allotted
compensation amount may or may not be sufficient for re-establishing access of each family to the various
livelihood resources lost due to relocation. In the present case, for instance, the total amount earmarked for
'land development' activities is Rs. 36,000, which was to be used for making the allotted land „cultivable‟.
This involved various activities like clearing and deep-ploughing of land, and land clearing through removal
of stones and boulders. However, given the manner in which fund utilization was planned, as well as the
prevailing cost structure in this region, the earmarked amount leaves left no surplus for provision of irrigation
facilities, and for the range of soil and water conservation measures that are necessary for enhancing
productivity of the degraded land allotted to the displaced families.
In Kuno, inter-agency coordination to ensure service delivery without duplication has been conspicuous by
its absence, rendering its impossible to dovetail different schemes of the central and state government to
meet gaps in the R&R package. The imminent risk is that once the forest department completely utilizes the
entire quota of resettlement and rehabilitation funds, the community would be left with little support in the
form of benefits from regular state government schemes for social and economic development. As a stopgap
measure, the Kuno sanctuary management has attempted to bridge this gap by tapping other funds from
various schemes of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. For instance, funds have been raised for
provision of irrigation through open wells and lift irrigation schemes, and for construction of a few large
water-harvesting structures. However, in the absence of proper planning and a formal institutional
mechanism for interagency coordination, such efforts remain piecemeal, haphazard and woefully
inadequate.
A fundamental problem with the rehabilitation package is that it focuses on a primarily agriculture based
livelihood for the displaced people, ignoring the well-documented fact that Central Indian adivasi
communities typically used to be part hunter-gatherers and part subsistence farmers. Thus, they are not
likely to be equipped to handle the transition to a mainly farm-based livelihood, and usually need to be

10
supported intensively through training and capacity-building inputs for sustainable farming. However, the
rehabilitation package in Kuno envisaged no such inputs, and consequently, the displaced families have not
been able to adjust to their new economic situation. This has increased their vulnerability to a host of
problems like indebtedness, land alienation and migration.
Another aspect that has remained seriously problematic, despite being a part of the relocation plan drawn up
by the Kuno sanctuary management, is the formation of viable community institutions for guiding the process
of rehabilitation and helping people to deal with the drastic transitions that relocation involves. The staff of
the forest department in most PAs, given their initial qualifications, job profile and training, are usually in a
position antagonistic to people depending on the resources of the PA. This hinders them in taking on the
role of a catalyst who helps in the formation of community institutions, since this task requires tremendous
patience, specialized skills and a flair for working with people.
In Kuno, near-complete insulation of the sanctuary management to the complexities of social development
processes, and their inability to garner support from specialized agencies that could help in such
mobilization and institution building, was responsible for continuation of this gap. The field staff at Kuno
sanctuary by and large did not possess the skills, drive and even stamina necessary for planning and
executing the complex rehabilitation exercise. There were no provisions for their training and capacity
building to help them deal with the variety of new and bewildering tasks that they were expected to perform.
The Kuno sanctuary management was unable to utilize optimally the expertise available with potential
supporters like line departments of the district, local NGOs, wildlife research agencies and knowledge within
the community, largely due to systemic limitations. The field officer responsible for implementation of the
rehabilitation did not receive adequate handholding and back-up support from superiors in the state
government and at the centre. The management was therefore unable to tap existing knowledge, expertise
and best practices relating to population displacement, and was forced to respond to every new crisis with
knee-jerk reactions. All of this made the sanctuary management wary of and defensive towards suggestions
coming from civil society players like NGOs and CBOs (community based organizations). Thus, in view of
the Kuno experience, the hypothesis of supporters of displacement, that the forest department can
successful carry out voluntary displacement from PAs with the help of suitable NGOs (Karanth, 2002), seem
extremely simplistic.
An immediate impact of relocation was to give the displaced families greater access to cash (grants for
house construction and transport of household effects, and wages for clearing land). This may have helped
some of them to shift briefly from the chronically poor to the transient poor category, using the income
measure of poverty. However, most of this cash was spent on consumption needs (including necessary
expenses like food, as well as wasteful expenditure like liquor), and did not get converted to productive
assets or investment in land or other income generating activities. Meanwhile, loss of other sources of
money income due to displacement has resulted in re-entry of these families into income poverty as the flow
of rehabilitation-related funds dries up. Thus, the Kuno experience is similar to the experience of
rehabilitation elsewhere in India, where cash compensation without other inputs aimed at re-establishing
livelihoods has typically resulted in an at best temporary escape from poverty.
Due to inadequate compensation for social, financial and physical assets and common pool resources, the
displaced persons face livelihood insecurity and increased vulnerability due to political disempowerment,
degradation of common property resources and poor rainfall. This has long term implications for poverty,
since loss of these assets results in impoverishment that tends to get transmitted across generations, thus

11
enhancing the risk of chronic and inescapable poverty. Relocation has exposed the community to the
mainstream economy through better availability of transport and communications infrastructure. However, in
view of the unfamiliar social and economic environment, irrelevance of earlier coping strategies and sudden
loss of assets, the terms at which they interact with mainstream forces like markets and the media are highly
disadvantageous, and may create pressures (for instance, through demonstration effects, pressures towards
conspicuous consumption, easy availability of liquor) that they are unable to cope with.
Table 3 summarises the overall impact of displacement in terms of access to different types of assets, and
demonstrates that the net impact of displacement has been to deepen poverty and vulnerability of the
displaced households.
Table 3: Impact of displacement on asset-holding: A summary
Dimensions of Poverty / Pre-Relocation Scenario Post-Relocation Scenario
well-being
Physical assets Adequate availability of land, partly Higher quantum of land for all families
 Land through legal rights and partly through
encroachment
Drastic decline in livestock held, due to
 Livestock Abundant ownership of cattle due to inadequate fodder
ample access to fodder
Adequate cash for new house
 House Adequate housing; easy access to construction; poor access to inputs for
inputs for construction and repair construction / repair
Income from wages, rent, sale Income from sale of surplus farm output; Sharp decline in surplus farm produce;
of produce, trade and other sporadic access to wages from forest greater access to and dependence on
sources department; wages from migrant labour wage labour; drastic decline in income
available when needed; regular income from sale of NTFP
from sale of NTFP
Access to forests and common Abundant access to CPRs for fodder, Sharp decline in access to CPRs; stiff
pool resources fuel, medicinal plants and biomass for competition with host community for
household use limited resources
Social infrastructure Very low access to public health and Improved access to public health facilities,
 Health and sanitation, sanitation facilities; only partly offset by but poor quality of personnel and
drinking water, availability of traditional medicinal medicines; decline in access to traditional
nutrition plants; varied diet and easy and free medicines; poor access to drinking water
access to milk, meat and edible forest for some villages; worsening of nutritional
products (seasonal) intake; access to milk, meat, fruit
conditional upon availability of money
Poor or no access to schools; few Improved access to government schools,
 Education opportunities to learn new skills through but very poor quality of education;
formal training; dependence on reduced utility of old coping strategies in
traditional coping strategies new environment; no formal training
inputs from the state;
Economic infrastructure Very limited and fair weather access to Improved access to transport and
 Transport roads communications
 Communications Very limited access to communications Electricity connections made available
 Power media Improved access to and influence of
 Access to markets No electricity markets
Limited and difficult access to markets
Social and political cohesion High dependence on local elite for Dependence and vulnerability continued;
credit, inputs and marketing of output; however, some decline in stranglehold of
vulnerability based on ethnicity; poor the local elite due to less remote location
political and social networks and more equitable landholding pattern
Psychological security and well- Low dignity and self-esteem due to Inter-generation transfer of the culture of
being chronic poverty and social poverty continued
discrimination; transfer of these traits
across generations
Source: Adapted from Kabra 2004

In the context of the theme of this book, the relevant question is how does all this impact conservation, if at
all? The next section deals with this question.

12
Some Cross Cutting Issues:
The Question of Voluntary versus Involuntary Displacement
Literature on displacement (in general, and not only conservation induced) has grappled repeatedly with the
issue of involuntary or coercive displacement, and the very definitions of these terms are controversial. The
commonly understood distinction between voluntary and involuntary displacement derives from the literal
meaning of these words, that is, involuntary displacement involves coercion and violence, but this is by no
means the only view on the matter. For instance, Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau offer the following definition:
“The determination of whether a resettlement is voluntary or involuntary is not related to the existence of legal titles of landownership,
but to the fundamental question: do the resettlers have the option to stay, or not?”
In the case of Kuno sanctuary, the PA management cites the following evidence of consultation for
determining the people‟s willingness to relocate:
 A Cabinet Sub-Committee of the MP Government visited village Palpur on January 14, 1996, to extract
the views of the villagers regarding their willingness to relocate. The Sub-Committee, in its report, adjudged
the relocation voluntary and recommended relocation and rehabilitation.
 The MP Cabinet has approved the relocation of villages situated inside the sanctuary to a suitable site
outside, vide item no. 10, dated 28th of February 1996.
It is clear from this that the decision to displace 24 villages with over 5,000 people was taken on the basis of
the views expressed by a very small proportion of this community. It is noteworthy that the visit of the state
cabinet committee members was limited to only one village inside the sanctuary (Palpur, where the forest
rest house is located), and was attended by „representatives‟ of only a few villages. These were randomly
selected individuals that happened to have been notified about the meeting by the forest department staff,
and this was by no means an inclusive process that involved even adequate advance information to
villagers, especially the most vulnerable segments like women and the poorest households. The 'voluntary'
nature of this relocation can therefore be questioned on grounds of limited ability of such a committee to
interact with a remote and scattered community of ill-informed villagers over a period as brief as two days.
Interviews with villagers through 1998 and 1999, before and during the resettlement process, revealed a
variety of opinions among them on the question of resettlement. A common thread that ran through most of
the interviews was of the willingness to move if the implementation agency was able to make available the
amenities that had been promised, especially irrigation, schools and electricity. Tribals presented a mixed
picture vis-à-vis displacement, with some of them expressing apprehension with regard to shifting, while
others were willing to leave in view of the range of facilities, especially the large cash grant being offered. An
exception to this were some non-tribal farmers, who were cultivating vast stretches of encroached land
inside the sanctuary and stood to lose this land as a consequence of displacement. From the interviews, two
major factors emerged as instrumental in inducing people to leave as soon as possible. The first was the
promise of getting Rs.36,000 in cash (for construction of houses), which was a non-trivial sum of money,
especially for the tribal households. The other factor was the decision of the police department to shift the
police station located at village Palpur, which immediately increased the threat perception of the community
from bandits who frequent the sanctuary. Once the first few villages shifted out to the relocation site, others
began to follow suit in haste to get the best possible land on offer, and also because of loss of security
arising from relocation of adjoining villages, which left them more vulnerable to harassment by bandits.
When queried about whether they would prefer to stay inside the sanctuary or move out, across the board
the people interviewed said that they effectively did not have this option. They felt that if the government had

13
decided that relocation is to be carried out, they would have to move, whether they wanted to or not. While
we did not come across any instance of the forest department having used physical coersion to move
people out of Kuno sanctuary, the issues raised above are critical enough to put a question mark against
any claims that this displacement was truly „voluntary‟, and was made by a majority of the affected people as
a matter of informed choice.

Does Conservation benefit or suffer from people‟s displacement?

To evaluate the implications of displacement from PAs for the larger goal of biodiversity conservation, the
question that needs to be asked is: do conservation imperatives benefit or suffer when population
displacement and/or inadequate rehabilitation occurs? Actual experiences from Asia and Africa present
some interesting answers to this question. Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau (2003) present evidence from Africa
suggesting that socially irresponsible and unnecessary displacement can often have negative consequences
for conservation, for a number of reasons. Populations that have hitherto had limited interactions with the
market, as a consequence of displacement become more active players who can channel PA resources
illegally into the market economy at a larger scale. Hunters have greater opportunity and incentive to poach
for the market, and similarly, NTFP collected from in and around the PA can reach a potentially wider and
better paying market. While it could be argued that effective policing of protected areas will be able to
circumvent such pressures, the question is, are such policing mechanisms in place in most third world
countries? More importantly, for how long will it be possible to keep impoverished rural populations away by
force from the biodiversity supermarkets that wildlife protected areas are? Turton (2002) argues that
displacement from national parks „will alienate the local population from conservation objectives and thus
require an ever increasing and, in the long run, unsustainable level of investment in policing activities‟. A
similar point is made by Kothari (2004), who questions the wisdom “protecting” protected areas by policing,
while pursuing conservation policies that continue to alienate local communities. „People‟s expulsion from
biodiversity-rich areas is likely to make their attitudes vis-à-vis conservation and conservationists
increasingly negative, with measurable increase in instances of poaching and vandalization of natural
resources, often accompanied by land invasions‟ (Fabricius & de Wet 2002: 152 quoted in Cernea and
Schmidt-Soltau 2003). Interestingly Beazly (this volume) makes a similar point on the basis of research in
Madhav National Park, Madhya Pradesh, citing instances of people extracting more fire wood than they
need for their bona fide consumption out of “spite” for the protected area.
Ghimire (1994), in a case study of the Mananara Biosphere Project in Madagascar, argues that “the
expansion of protected areas can result in an increasing displacement of people and a disruption of their
livelihoods, but also that this process is frequently accompanied by further environmental deterioration,
including higher rates of deforestation.” The presence of resident groups in forests quite often has been an
effective deterrent against other local and external groups that might encroach and plunder resources.
Displacement of resident people eliminates the customary protector, and it is doubtful whether „the state‟ can
be as effective against other users, local or commercial interests. In Kuno, for instance, displaced families
have claimed repeatedly in interviews to Samrakshan that their presence acted as a deterrent to, for
instance, the Mogiya hunters who frequent the sanctuary, and that their own displacement has left the forest
wide open to pressures from such quarters.
Brockington (2004) on the other hand argues that conservation can flourish despite local opposition. He draws
extensively from his research into the displacement of the Masaai people from the Mkomazi game Reserve

14
in Tanzania to demonstrate how local support may not be vital for the survival of protected areas. The
following quote is particularly illustrative :

“Conservation can be imposed despite local opposition and protected areas can flourish notwithstanding resistance to them. Rural
poverty and injustice do not undermine the foundations of conservation. Indeed they can underpin them.”

Though this idea may be unpalatable ethically, it seems to be backed by unflinching evidence. In India itself,
parks like Kanha that have seen violent displacements of resident tribal people continue to flourish in terms
of biodiversity values. In fact, Kanha is widely cited as among the best managed parks in India, and has
received recognition, awards and publicity for its well-preserved habitat and wildlife. Similarly Kaziranga, one
of the few strongholds of the one horned rhinoceros in India, is a conservation success story predicated
upon strong policing, a point that was made repeatedly at a seminar organized in Guwahati in February
2005 to mark the centenary of Kaziranga. Across India, there have been many such illustrations where
exclusion of local use coupled with punitive policing has resulted in parks that have been able to survive and
even thrive.

The case of Kuno is somewhat mixed. There has been little evidence of a well-coordinated response from
the affected people in Kuno to the destitution that displacement has wrought upon them. Brockington‟s
hypothesis - that conservation can be imposed because the rural poor are weak, and resistance to
conservation, though present, may be ineffective - appears to be borne out by the Kuno experience.
Whereas the displaced community has displayed its dissatisfaction sporadically, there has been no
organized resistance that could force the state to take notice. The peoples‟ dissatisfaction has manifested
itself most often in instances of symbolic reoccupation of their original villages inside the sanctuary. The first
instance was in 2001, when 35 families of village Paira reoccupied their original village. In 2003, 40 families
from village Nayagaon did the same. In 2004, Nayagaon (70 families); Pipalbaodi (55 families); Palpur (30
families); Basantpura (25 families) and Paira (40 families) returned to their original villages inside the
sanctuary. The displaced people seem to have used this move as a weapon to force the Kuno sanctuary
management to attend to their most pressing problems relating to proper resettlement, and also to earn
livelihood through NTFP collection from the sanctuary in economic emergencies like drought. However, due
to lack of organization and effective leadership among the displaced households, none of these efforts was
serious enough to make a significant impact on the sanctuary. The sanctuary management has tackled the
token protests successfully on each occasion, using a combination of carrot-and-stick measures targeted at
select individual „leaders‟ and „problematic‟ individuals, without any major repercussions on the sanctuary
itself. Eventually, most the families that had reoccupied the sanctuary at different points of time returned to
the resettlement site, and this measure of protest is losing its appeal gradually among the displaced villages.
Thus, in Kuno conservation has not suffered, at least not directly and immediately, from poor rehabilitation of
displaced people. In fact, in the opinion of various conservationists as well as the sanctuary management,
wildlife sightings have improved marginally after the villages were displaced (Johnsingh, 2004 –
unpublished; Rawat, 2004 - unpublished). This could be an early indicator of improved preybase, although
no firm data have been made public to substantiate this view. Ironically, one of the most important factors
that has contributed, de facto, to improved preybase is that the displaced families left over 5000 cattle
behind in Kuno at the time of displacement (due to lack of adequate fodder at the relocation site). These
cattle have now turned feral and form an important part of the preybase for large and small carnivores inside
Kuno and potential prey for the lions proposed to be translocated (Rawat, 2004 – unpublished). Thus, poor

15
relocation, through an inability to provide sufficient fodder for use by the displaced families (and this is
notwithstanding an outlay of Rs.8,000 per household in the R&R package for development of fodder
plantations), has ironically improved the capacity of the protected area to receive and sustain a new species
of megacarnivore, the Asiatic lion. The experience of Kanha national park also shows that there are no
significant threats to the sanctuary in the long run from dissatisfied people living on its periphery. The
displacements from Kanha took place during the 1970s, and till date, the park has faced no serious threats
from displaced villages. The displaced people get periodic economic support from the forest department
under schemes like ecodevelopment, which serve as palliatives and may have prevented them from
reverting to the resources of the protected area.
These experiences illustrate the central point made by Brockington, which is that displacement of weak and
disempowered people may entail no immediate costs for conservation, in that the PA itself may continue to
succeed in its objective of biodiversity conservation through effective exlusion of local communities. This is
in stark contrast to the point made by some proponents of community based conservation, who argue that
displacement can cause a range of negative impacts on the protected area, and may end up hindering
rather than furthering the cause of conservation. We find this argument simplistic, since experiences like
Kuno and Kanha show clearly that effective policing measures can be combined with strategic „doles‟ to
displace poor and marginalized communities effectively from PAs.
The above arguments, however, are more applicable in the case of highly marginalized communities
(usually tribals) such as the Sahariya of Kuno or the Baiga and Gond of Kanha. Such communities are
characterized by a history of marginalization and political disempowerment, and usually are unable to
mobilize themselves effectively to oppose the forest department in the highly unequal fight over the PA‟s
resources. However, in many other cases in India and elsewhere, communities that were more vocal,
organized and aware of their rights have not only resisted displacement, but in some cases have managed
to colonize wildlife protected areas. The cases of Murlen and Intanki National Parks in the north east Indian
states of Mizoram and Nagaland, respectively, are illustrative of this. In case of Murlen, the sole village
inside the park has been successfully resisting displacement since 1991. Numerous attempts have been
made by the forest department to coax the people into vacating the park, but to no avail. In Intanki National
Park, a village comprising of 649 people has settled in a portion of the park since 1994 and has resisted all
attempts at eviction. A combination of factors like political support, tribal loyalties and the ability to articulate
their stand has ensured that not only has the village not been evicted, but moves have been initiated to
legitimize the occupation. (Sharma and Singh 2002).
The differences between these two categories of experiences shed important light on the politics of the
prevalent conservation paradigm. In the former case that featured central Indian adivasis, displacement was
relatively easy and did not attract any significant or effective resistance from the affected people. However,
in the examples from the northeast, where the communities in question were relatively more empowered and
articulate, not only was the state unable to displace them, but had to actually relinquish control of a part of
the PA, which was occupied by force by the people. This in itself points to the limitations of displacement as
a tool for conservation, since it emerges as a regressive tool, the success of which seems to be predicated
upon lack of information, organization and social and political clout among the displaced people. The
marginalized nature of most PA dependent communities in India increases the probability of indiscriminate
use of displacement as a conservation tool. Since it is easy to displace such communities, there is very little
pressure on the PA management to justify the decision to relocate using good science, or to design

16
rehabilitation packages and processes that will compensate the people adequately and help to recreate their
livelihoods outside the PA. Their tendency then is to view displacement of such communities as a preferred
option rather than the last resort, and to implement rehabilitation measures in an unplanned manner with
little attention to best practice principles.
Our argument, then, is that if conservation is to be ethically justifiable, socially acceptable, practically
achievable and sustainable, it must necessarily be based on principles of participation and equity, and must
make serious attempts to harmonize the livelihood needs of local communities with conservation objectives.
Population displacement, in such a paradigm, will be viewed as a tool for conservation only on the basis of
strong evidence that other, less exclusionist measures fail to work. Moreover, even when considered
unavoidable, displacement and rehabilitation will need to be designed and implemented using best practices
in various fields, with the involvement of multi-disciplinary expertise, and with community consent to and
participation in the entire exercise.

Conclusions
What then are the implications of the Kuno experience for the central theme of this book – is displacement
an effective option for achieving wildlife conservation? A cursory glance at the available evidence conveys
that displacement from Wildlife protected areas in India has created no adverse implications for wildlife
conservation, and may in fact have strengthened the potential of these PAs to protect biodiversity. On the
face of it, then, this seems to vindicate conventional theories of conservation biology, which predict that
wildlife will benefit from cessation, brought about by displacement, of human use of the PA (Terborgh
et.al. 2002). But a closer look will reveal that most of the so-called success stories stand on an edifice of
increased destitution and vulnerability of what, even to begin with, were among the poorest and most
marginalized communities in the country. It also emerges that if the communities in question are relatively
affluent and powerful, or are likely to become so over time, displacement as a tool for conservation begins to
look less promising. In such cases, it is difficult to coax, cajole or browbeat local communities into giving up
their traditional sources of livelihood and accepting the inadequate rehabilitation packages that are usually
offered by the state. Moreover, with the growing role that civil society actors like NGOs and CBOs have
begun to play in the conservation and social justice arenas, chances of communities being mobilized will
increase and rehabilitation packages and practices adopted by the state will be put under increasingly
careful scrutiny.
If the objectives of conservation and livelihood security of local residents of protected areas are placed on an
equal footing, displacement from PAs does not emerge as a viable option, particularly on a large scale. The
financial, physical and human resource requirements for designing and implementing a successful and
voluntary rehabilitation are prohibitevely high, especially given the existing mindset and expertise available
with the official conservation machinery in a country like India. On the other hand, the economic and social
costs of failure to rehabilitate are so severe for the affected community that it is ethically unacceptable to use
displacement, in its present form and content, as a conservation tool in other protected areas. Therefore,
even though conservation practice (as different from conservation theory) still perceives displacement as the
most important weapon in its armoury to deal with resident communities in protected areas, mainstream
conservation thinking has in recent years begun to question its validity. With the strengthening of democracy
and increased penetration of remote and wild areas due to communication technology, it is likely that people
living inside protected areas will increasingly resist involuntary displacement and reject poorly designed and

17
ill-implemented rehabilitation packages. Therefore, it is imperative that alternative methods be found of
reconciling conservation and local livelihood needs, and the most important emerging challenge for
protected area managers in poor countries will be to balance local livelihood needs with conservation
objectives.

References
Beazley, Kim 2005. “Exclusion in Madhav National Park, India: is Policy Change Required?”
(GHAZALA – HOW IS THIS TO BE REFERENCED CORRECTLY?)

Brockington, D. 2004. 'Community conservation, Inequality and Injustice. Myths of Power in

Protected Area Management' Conservation and Society 2 (2): 411-432

----- 2002, Fortress Conservation. The preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania,
Oxford: James Currey.

Cernea, M. and Schmidt-Soltau, Kai 2003. “National Parks and Poverty Risks: Is population
resettlement the solution?” Paper presented at the World Park Congress (Durban, September
2003).

Debnath and Yadav (unated) "Participatory Ecodevelopment in relation with Sahariyas - a PTG in
M.P.", Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal

Divyabhanusinh (2005) “Last Battle: The Story of Asia‟s Last Lions” In press.

Fernandes, W., Das, J. C. and Rao, Sam 1989. „Displacement and Rehabilitation: An Estimate of
Extent and Prospects‟, in W. Fernandes and E. Ganguly Thukral (ed.). Development, Displacement
and Rehabilitation. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.

Ghimire, Krishna B. Parks and People: Livelihood Issues in National Parks Management in Thailand and
Madagascar in Dharam Ghai ed. Environment and Development: Sustaining People and Nature (Oxford,
Blackwell Publishers, 1994)

IIPA (2002): A Study on the Management of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India (6 Volumes);
Indian Institute of Public Administration; 2002, New Delhi

Jodha, N. S. 1986. „Common Property Resources and the Rural Poor‟, Economic and Political
Weekly, 25.

Johnsingh, A.J.T. (unpublished). The Ramblings of a Naturalist. Forthcoming by Universities Press

and Orient and Longman Pvt Ltd

18
Kabra, A. (2004). Chronic Poverty and Vulnerable Social Groups: The Case of the Sahariya
Adivasi community Displaced from Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. CPRC-IIPA
Working Paper No. 10. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi and Chronic Poverty
Research Centre

Karanth, Ulhas (2002) „The Way of the Tiger‟ Center for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore

Kothari, Ashish (2004) Protested Areas: Conservation policies set stage for nation-wide conflicts in
Frontline 31 December 2004.

MPCST (1999): Wildlife Habitat Mapping and Management of Palpur-Kuno Area Using Remote
Sensing Techniques and GIS; Madhya Pradesh Council of Science and Technology; December
1999, Bhopal

Negi, S.S. 1969. Transplanting of Indian lions in Uttar Pradesh state. Cheetal 12: 98-101.

Rangarajan, M (2001a): India's Wildlife History: An Introduction, Permanent Black in association

with Ranthambore Foundation, Delhi.

–-------- (2001b): 'From Princely Symbol to Conservation Icon, A Political History of the Lion in
India' in M Hasan and N Nakazato (eds), Unfinished Agenda, Nation Building in South Asia,
Manohar, Delhi.

--- and Saberwal, V. (eds) 2003 “Battles over Nature – Science and the Politics of Conservation”,
Permanent Black, New Delhi

Rawat, G.S. (2004, unpublished) A Report on the Visit to Kuno Palpur Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh. Dehra
Dun. Wildlife Institute Of India.

Rodgers, W. A. and .Panwar, H. S. 1989. Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in India.
Dehradun: Wildlife Institute of India.

Saberwal, V., Ravi Chellam and A.J.T. Johnsingh, “Lion-Human Conflicts in the Gir Forest, India”,
Conservation Biology, vol.8 (1994) (Hereafter Conservation Biology 1994)

______________ and Mahesh Rangarajan (2003) “ Battles Over Nature: Science and the Politics
of Conservation. Permanent Black, New Delhi.

19
Samrakshan Trust (1999): The Kuno Project: Progress Report I: December 1997- September
1999; Samrakshan Trust, New Delhi. Unpublished.

_________(2000): The Kuno Project: Progress Report 2: September 1999 - November 2000;
Samrakshan Trust, New Delhi. Unpublished.

________ (2001): The Kuno Project: Progress Report 3: December 2000 - April 2001;
Samrakshan Trust, New Delhi. Unpublished.

________(2001): The Kuno Project: Progress Report 4: May-October 2001; Samrakshan Trust,
New Delhi. Unpublished.

Shah, Mihir and Vijayshankar, P. S. 2002. „Land Reforms in Madhya Pradesh: Redefining the
Agenda‟, in Praveen Jha (ed.), Land Reforms in India, 7. New Delhi: Sage.

Sharma, Arpan 2003. „Displacement from Protected Areas and its Implications for Conservation
and Livelihoods: The case of Kuno wildlife sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh‟, Social Change, June-
September, 33(2 & 3).

___________and Singh S (2002). Profiles of Selected National Parks and Sanctuaries in India.
Mimeo. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi

Singh, Colonel Kesri (1969) Hints on Tiger Shooting. Jaico Publishing House, Bombay

Terborgh, J.W., C. Van Schaik, L. Davenport and M. Rao. (editors). 2002. Making parks work:
strategies for preserving tropical nature. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Turton, D. 2002. “The Mursi and the elephant question”. In Chatty and Colchester, Conservation
and Mobile Indigenous People. NY-Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Wildlife Institute of India (1995) "Survey of the Potential Sites for Reintroduction of Asiatic Lions",
Final Report by Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 1995

Endnotes:
i
According to the official website of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, 'primitive tribal groups' are defined as
follows: "Among the notified tribes, a group is still at most primitive stage. They continue to live in isolated
areas and practice either primitive agriculture or no agricultural practice and most of them are still in food

20
 gathering stage with almost stagnating population. Such groups (75 Nos.) are named as Primitive Tribal
Groups (PTGs). They are spread over 15 States/UTs." The use of this phrase is not meant to be pejorative.
ii
This section is based on the findings of the team from Samrakshan Trust that has worked in the villages
displaced from Kuno wildlife sanctuary since 1999. An account of these findings is available in the
unpublished reports generated by Samrakshan Trust during 1999-2004. These reports can be accessed from
the Trust’s web site www.samrakshan.org
iii
Report of the Joint Committee set up by the District Collector, Sheopur, 2002
iv
Field Visit Report to Samrakshan Trust by Padmashri TGK Menon, an agricultural expert, August 2001

View publication stats

21