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

net/publication/262123788

Relocation of People from Wildlife Areas: Socio-Economic and Ecological

Issues

Article in Economic and Political Weekly · January 2003

DOI: 10.2307/4414307

CITATIONS READS
10 595

2 authors:

Ghazala Shahabuddin Amita Shah

Ashoka University Centre For Development Alternatives
67 PUBLICATIONS 3,200 CITATIONS 90 PUBLICATIONS 960 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Conservation Policy in Developing Countries View project

Challenges, Opportunities and Imperatives for Techno-Economic and Institutional Reforms under Trade Liberalisation: Case Studies of Tea and Rubber
Plantation Sectors in India View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ghazala Shahabuddin on 11 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Relocation of People from from the PA, which would have accom-
panying ecological changes. On the other
hand, many participants present at the

Wildlife Areas seminar felt that relocations were neces-

sary to allow biodiversity conservation.
Evidence of growing ecological degrada-
tion as a result of increased pressures for
Socio-Economic and Ecological Issues biomass extraction was cited. H S Panwar
(ex-field director of Kanha tiger reserve)
for example, felt that relocations alone
Debates on relocation of affected communities from areas declared had allowed the highly endangered swamp
protected still appear, in many cases, to closely mirror similar deer to thrive in Kanha tiger reserve today.
concerns in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when forest
management was tailored to suit colonial interests. However, as a Inadequacy of Relocation
recent seminar on relocation revealed, there has been of late a Processes
significant improvement in approaches adopted towards relocation However, overall it was felt that there
as increasing numbers of forest managers seek to sensitively is a severe lack of quantitative information
consider aspects of equity and justice. But while a comprehensive on the ecological aspects of relocation,
approach linking PA management with people’s livelihoods on a particularly with respect to the grounds for
relocation and post-relocation regenera-
regional scale is needed, such approaches also need to be locale- tion of biodiversity. Related to this, it was
specific rather than a blueprint solution to meet all needs. felt that management of PAs today lacks
clear objectives which has led to a con-
GHAZALA SHAHABUDDIN, AMITA SHAH Development, New Delhi organised a fused situation where there is no room for
national seminar-cum-consultation to dis- considering alternative paradigms, such

T
he implementation of the Wildlife
Protection Act (1972) in the esta-
blishment of national parks and
wildlife sanctuaries (or protected areas/
PAs) has often necessitated the relocation
of people. Relocation has specially been
prevalent in the case of national parks
where no – or very restricted – use of forests
is allowed. Relocation of people from
protected areas has been opposed by many
as unjust and unnecessary, because it has
adversely impacted the livelihoods and
lives of the displaced people, many of
whom belong to traditionally marginalised
groups. However, relocations have been
thought necessary by the government in
many cases where growing human-wildlife
conflicts and increasing pressures on the
natural resource base appear to be threat-
ening biodiversity to the extent that many
plant and animal species are faced with the
possibility of extinction. Lately, the issue
of people’s relocation from PAs has reached
controversial proportions with social acti-
vists and forest managers taking extreme
positions in the debate. To an extent, persis-
tence of such conflicting views emanate
from a lack of understanding of the pro-
cesses that have historically led to ecologi-
cal degradation and also those obtaining
in contemporary situations. As far as relo-
cation is concerned, little is known about
the policies underlying it, its implemen-
tation, its effect on the concerned peoples
or its role in PA management in India.
In September 2003, the Environmental
Studies Group of the Council for Social
cuss the policy and process of relocation
of people from wildlife sanctuaries and
national parks in India. The issues dis-
cussed included the scientific and socio-
economic basis for relocation of people
from PAs, alternatives to relocation, the
relocation package offered to oustees and
its implementation; and importantly, the
ecological and socio-economic impact
of relocation. The seminar was attended
by people from diverse walks of life in-
cluding social activists, officials of the
forest department, wildlife biologists, his-
torians, sociologists, and representatives
of development organisations from vari-
ous parts of India.
One of the primary issues discussed
during the seminar was the ecological and
political basis for undertaking relocation
of people from PAs. Avdhesh Kaushal
(Rural Livelihoods and Entitlement
Kendra, Dehradun) questioned the very
basis for relocation and criticised the entire
paradigm of development that forces ‘eco-
system’ people to move out. Diwakar
Sharma (Gujarat Ecology Society, Baroda)
presented the only ecological assessment
of relocation, based on ecological studies
in forest areas from where the nomadic
maldhari people have been relocated in
the past. His findings showed that maldhari
cattle camps in Gir are limited in their
adverse impacts on biodiversity, with the
effects varying from species to species.
These observations, however, need to be
seen in conjunction with the fact that large-
scale relocations have already taken place
as controlled forest produce extraction or
local involvement.
Apart from the scientific basis for re-
location, the severe gaps in the relocation
processes as well as inadequacies in the
relocation package in the past were the
subject of much debate during the semi-
nar. There is a general feeling among
environmentalists that the relocation pro-
cesses have been faulty, with insufficient
attention having been paid to the needs
of the displaced people, particularly with
respect to their transition into a new
economy and future livelihood security.
Particularly, the importance of evaluating
the extent of economic dependence of
local people on forest resources inside
PAs was brought out starkly in a presen-
tation by Rucha Ghate (SHODH, Nagpur)
who had studied this issue inside Tadoba-
Andhari tiger reserve in Maharashtra.
Such dependencies have to be quanti-
fied and taken into account while plan-
ning relocation.
Further, the adequacy of relocation effort
from a PA can only be evaluated if there
is baseline data on the socio-economic
status of relocated people so that compari-
son with post-relocation status can be
made. It appeared though that the efforts
at rigorous impact assessment are con-
strained due to lack of detailed baseline
data in case of most of the PAs where
relocation has taken place. Detailed
baseline and post-relocation surveys can
help deduce the actual impact of reloca-
tion on people’s lives and should be done

Economic and Political Weekly November 22, 2003 4945

by adopting a common methodology and
by a team involving various stakeholders,
people, forest department and researchers.
Here issues of transparency in decision-
making and planning become all-impor-
tant. Asmita Kabra (Samrakshan Trust)
presented one of the few studies dealing
with socio-economic evaluation of reloca-
tion efforts in India, that from Kuno Wildlife
Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh, proposed
site of reintroduction of the Asiatic lion,
which is highly endangered today. She
pointed out the serious limitations in the
relocation strategy that has left numerous
homes worse off than before and that too,
in an alien environment. Joy Dasgupta’s
(West Bengal National University of
Juridicial Sciences) evaluation of relocated
people from Rajaji National Park also
showed that the process had been highly
unjust in the past, with no attention to land
quality in the relocation areas and lack of
agricultural support services.
However, the inadequacies in the relo-
cation process were thought to be related
more to implementation aspects than the
relocation package itself, which has gradu-
ally improved over the years. Rather than
the ‘land-for-land’ approach adopted in
the case of other development projects
such as dams (where landless people are
not considered for land distribution), an
effort is being made to substantially im-
prove landholding status through the re-
location process in PAs.
The important role of the local admini-
stration in justly and efficiently carrying
out rehabilitation of relocated people, in
coordination with the forest department,
was brought up repeatedly during the
seminar. Relocations cannot be the sole
responsibility of the forest department
alone, given the complexities of settling
people in a new environment. The role of
the concerned district administrations in
developing the infrastructure of roads,
power, irrigation and other such amenities
in the new sites, is all-important and some
better way to institutionalise this process
has to be worked out. At the same time,
there is a lot of scope for improvement in
the role of the forest departments in relo-
cating people, particularly in the initial
stages, such as identification of beneficia-
ries and of suitable lands and ensuring that
the relocation package is comprehensive
and just. Rucha Ghate emphasised the
economic cost that local people have to
pay because of delays during the long
planning period preceding relocation
caused by stalling of all development
works and suspension of rights on forest
produce. In some cases, this uncertain
4946
View publication stats
phase has lasted as long as 10 years, such
as in Melghat tiger reserve. These are
faults in the planning process that if
straightened out, can immediately bring
about considerable degree of relief in
people’s difficulties during and after the
relocation process.
A lot of debate was also generated on
the circumstances under which relocations
can be termed voluntary or involuntary. In
most cases, the voluntariness of relocation
appears to be related more to the lack of
viable alternatives available to the oustees.
People do not actually perceive a choice
over the decision to move or not or where
they would go. Nor do they have access to
critical information on the relocation sites.
Under current circumstances, marginalised
groups are more likely to be worse-off after
relocation while more educated and eco-
nomically better-off people are able to
make a success of it. For example, presen-
tations on Corbett tiger reserve by A S
Negi (Uttaranchal forest department) and
on Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka
by Yathish Kumar (Karnataka forest de-
partment) showed that people can be justly
and satisfactorily relocated given close
involvement of the concerned people and
close coordination amongst the various
governmental agencies in the new sites.
In many cases, relocation involves the
issue of transformation of an entire way
of life of the oustees. In such situations,
displaced people have had to face the
transition from a nomadic hunter-gatherer
or grazier existence to a livelihood based
on settled agriculture. Several communi-
ties such as the Gujjars in Uttaranchal,
Sahariyas in Madhya Pradesh and the
Maldharis in Gujarat have had to face this
difficult transition, which is difficult in the
best of circumstances. In these cases, the
issue of socio-cultural transition needs more
careful probing; as of now there are strong
views/observations taking extreme positions.
These need to be sorted out. At the same
time, it was recognised that many such
nomadic communities are undergoing tran-
sition to a settled existence even outside
of PAs, due to the changing Indian economy
and increasing pressure on resources.
Missing Links in Relocation
Notwithstanding the past record of
government, some of the presentations
revealed that lately there has been signifi-
cant improvement in the approaches
adopted and outcomes achieved, with a
growing effort among forest managers to
more sensitively tackle the issues involved
and take into account aspects of equity and
Economic and Political Weekly
justice. What is still missing, however, is
a comprehensive approach which links PA
management with people’s livelihoods on
a regional scale. Of course, these ap-
proaches have to be locale-specific rather
than based on a blue-print solution for all.
Bringing a historical perspective upon
the issue of relocation, Mahesh Rangarajan
(environmental historian) found that the
debates on relocation of today appear to
closely mirror very similar concerns in the
19th and early 20th centuries, when the
management of forests was tailored more
to the needs of colonial interests. The fact
that the debates in forest conservation have
not changed much since then, speaks a lot
about the continuing monolithic approach
of the forest department and lack of con-
sideration of local cultures, economies and
concerns.
The seminar on relocation provided a
platform for sharing experiences, and more
than that, perceptions of the practitioners
as well as researchers and representatives
of civil society organisations. The most
critical outcome of the seminar was that
it made even more clearer that the reality
is generally mixed and that, one needs to
have a more objective assessment of both
the achievements as well as problems in
PA management in general and relocation
of people in particular. Such initiatives
will lead to a shared realisation that one
needs to constantly look for new perspec-
tives on various aspects of PA manage-
ment. And that, new perspectives could
emerge only when there is willingness on
the part of the various stakeholders (PA-
managers, researchers, and people) to share
information, be open to alternative ap-
proaches, and above all, commitment both
towards conservation as well as people’s
livelihoods.
The future debate on relocation needs
to be based on more candid assessment of
various aspects of relocation, viz, the need
for relocation, the process as well as the
content of relocation package and the
impact thereof. Such assessments should
eventually lead towards the development
of a policy framework governing relocation
processes in India in the light of more
informed debate. This seminar could be an
important initiative towards setting up of a
long-drawn process of fact-finding research
dialogues and negotiations on PA manage-
ment that will be open to locale-specific
solutions and approaches. EPW
[This note is a summary of proceedings of the
national seminar-cum-consultation on ‘Relocation
of People from Protected Areas in India: Policy
and Process’ held on September 18, 2003 in New
Delhi.]
November 22, 2003