Relocation of people from Protected Areas: the road ahead

Tanushree Sood

Though the gathering (about 70 odd people) at the India International Centre, New Delhi , was small but the agenda at hand was mammoth. Forest officers. Lawyers. NGO representatives. Academicians. About a fortnight ago, they all assembled to share their experiences and put their heads together on the complex issue of relocating people from Protected Areas (PAs). Thanks to the Council for Social Development, New Delhi , it was perhaps the first attempt and initiative of its kind to raise the issue on a national platform.

Rising cases of man-animal conflict and the rapid shrinkage of wildlife habitat due to biotic pressures have made relocation inevitable. The objective of the seminar was to initiate a dialogue on the process of relocation and the issues surrounding it. Discussions ranged across different aspects of the process such as analysis of the government's policy on relocation (process of settlement of rights after initial notification of national parks and sanctuaries), evaluation of socio-cultural impact on relocated communities and examine the rehabilitation package offered by the government. "Displacement in most cases primarily affects more marginalized communities for whom adjusting to a new lifestyle or joining the so called mainstream is a painful and often traumatic experience", said Joy Dasgupta, Project Coordinator, West Bengal National University of Judicial Sciences.

Case studies on the subject from across the country dominated the day-long seminar. These dated back to the first ever relocation held in the Kanha National Park in 1969 (presently Kanha Tiger Reserve) to some recent attempts of relocation in the Melghat Tiger Reserve, Maharastra in 2000. The first village in Kanha was relocated in 1969 and all the 24 villages were relocated by 1978. In fact, the initial plan was to relocate only 17 villages but keeping in view of the success of the whole process, more people wanted to move out and thus finally 24 villages were relocated.

Though every relocation effort had its own unique story to tell, there were common threads in each such as the challenges faced and lessons learnt thereof. In most instances, problems began soon after the community in question was informed about their relocation. The authorities found it hard to convince the localities. "They were just not ready to believe the fact that they will be evacuated from the land where they have been residing since decades", remarked Mr. H.S. Panwar, IFS (Retd.), who undertook the work of rehabilitation in Kanha Tiger Reserve in the 1960s.

Administrative delays also emerged as one of the biggest hurdles. The studies revealed that the process is difficult and cumbersome both for the implementing agency as well the villagers. Thus, it demanded a genuine interest on the part of the agency coupled with effective communication with the effected community. To cite an instance, for 736 families residing inside Bhadra Tiger Reserve in Karnataka, the threat of relocation loomed over their minds for 25 long years. They had been living inside the forests for over a century before the government declared the region as a sanctuary in 1974.

In the case of Melghat Tiger Reserve, the government of Maharastra took ten years to design a suitable rehabilitation package incorporating the needs of the villagers. The money was allocated in the year 1999, and since then only three villages have been rehabilitated till March 2002, the remaining 56 are yet to be relocated.

The subsequent impact of rehabilitation on the livelihoods of the communities was not dealt with in much detail in most of the presentations. "The process does not end at relocation", said Asmita Kabra from Samrakshan Trust, an organization conducting socio-economic evaluation of rehabilitated villages from Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, MP. The analysis by Samrakshan shows that the rehabilitation package at Kuno had a significant negative impact on the livelihood of the people, at least in the short run. Each family in Kuno obtained two hectares of land for agriculture but the communities were largely practicing hunting and collection of non-timber forest produce such as honey, tendu leaves etc. "We also have to see if people are eating more or less after the process", added Asmita. She stressed on examining the food consumption patterns of relocated people and believed it was a good benchmark for evaluating the impact on a resettled community.

The relocation of people has to be supplemented with basic infrastructural facilities such as opening of schools and hospitals. In many cases of relocation this gap is being filled by local NGOs. For instance, in the case of Melghat Tiger Reserve, Nature conservation society is playing a pro-active role by organizing health camps at the relocated site. Samrakshan has started primary schools at the relocated site of Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, rightly named as Asha Shalas.

Asha Shalas , Primary Schools opened by the Samrakshan Trust in the relocated communities from Kuno WLS.

Some valid suggestions that emerged from the seminar were :

•  People's Participation

The general consensus was that affected communities should be consulted during the decision making process. In particular, they should have a say in choosing the land where they will be rehabilitated. At the same time, it should be made clear to them that they will not be permitted to choose an area inside the PA.

•  Improvement in the rehabilitation package

Steps should be taken to ensure that people obtain the best resettlement and rehabilitation package in terms of monetary benefits and basic facilities. In addition, special care should taken to ensure that the flow of finances should be transparent.

•  Gaining support from the state government

To make the process a success, the forest department needs help and support from the state government for the speedy completion of the project. This is crucial to avoid administrative delays and obtain financial assistance.

•  Stress on employment generation or source of sustainable livelihood

Many people felt that in the whole process of resettling, employment generation gets a back seat. In many of these villages, collection of non-timber forest produce like honey, gooseberries etc. are the main source of livelihood which they lose after the process of relocation. Thus, special steps should be taken to ensure that adequate employment opportunities are available for displaced people.

•  Conducting a post-relocation survey

With the acknowledgement of need for relocation, it is important to study and analyze the living conditions of people who have been relocated. There is a clear need to institutionalize the process.

•  Training of the forest department

Proper training and equipping of the staff is a pre-requisite before the initiation of such projects. This will go a long way in mitigating the pain and suffering caused to the relocated villages.

Many gaps still remain. With constraints like lack of information and dearth of trained personnel, a lot remains to be done to mitigate adverse impacts of relocation. People have been intricately linked with wildlife and it is unfair to make them pay the cost for conservation.

Tanushree, Assistant Project Officer, Wild Policy, attended the seminar on -
Relocation of people from PAs : Policy and Process.
This article is her report on the same.

Pic Courtesy : Aniruddha Mookerjee / Samrakshan