Relocation at crossroads

One of the hotly debated issues in Indian wildlife conservation history has been the act of relocation. Though the number of people displaced to form inviolate areas for wildlife in comparison to other developmental projects is lower, tensions spark high between social scientists and those interested in wildlife conservation on this one subject. This is due to the dismal track record of relocation projects. The compensation paid has been grossly inadequate; amenities promised have not been fulfilled or were poorly implemented and the eviction was coercive. There was total insensitivity towards social and economic aspects of those getting relocated leading to impoverishment of most relocated families. Thus it is natural that people dread the word relocation popularly called as ‘rehabilitation’ or ‘conservation induced displacement’ in academic terminologies.

Relocating people from forests has a longer history in the country but the objective has changed over time. As wildlife historian Mahesh Rangarajan narrates, in the 19^th century relocation from forests was for ‘surveillance and collection of revenue’. However since the early 1960s wildlife conservation has been the major objective of relocation from protected areas.

Purely from an ecological perspective, relocation of people will help improve wildlife numbers which is the primary goal of wildlife conservation. Scientific studies have documented the impacts of chronic threats that emanate from human habitations. However it is imperative to accord priority to fair and well implemented relocation. The process and end result from a social angle is extremely important for any relocation project to be successful.

In the current scenario, both from an ecological and social perspective, if people are voluntarily willing to be relocated for better access to social amenities we need to encourage and handhold such aspirations. This could help us achieve the twin goals of betterment of people’s lives and flagship species conservation.

Based on the recommendations of the Tiger Task Force, which recognised the need for inviolate areas for tiger conservation, the Government has allocated increased budgets for relocation. There are more funds available for this under the centrally sponsored schemes and now lately under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) depicting political will. Now it’s time for the official machinery and civil societies to deliver results.

Committed civil servants who leverage external support have achieved the best results as in the case of Bhadra Tiger Reserve. In one of the recent relocation of 60 families from Nagarahole National Park to Sollepura we were able to turn tables grossly through informed outreach and facilitation with the district authorities. Apart from repairing leaking roofs, provision of electricity, water, schooling and other basic needs, measures that would ensure a better livelihood to the relocated families were executed. Enrolment to the voters list provides them political empowerment, attaching the hamlet to the nearest gram panchayat would entitle them for Government benefits, and very importantly providing them land titles for the land they received as part of compensation package assures land tenure security.

The communities were encouraged to form relocation implementation committees which decided the priorities of development activities that should be implemented for their hamlet. Committee’s approval was mandatory before it was placed before the District Level Monitoring Committee (DLMC). This was largely possible with the active participation of the Deputy Commissioner P.Manivannan as the Chairman of the DLMC.

A house at Sollepura relocation site before interventions (Photo: Vinay Kumar)

One of the houses that was modified and made liveable after the interventions (Photo: Sanjay Gubbi)

Under the new relocation package offered by the National Tiger Conservation Authority a proactive DLMC can tailor the package based on site-specific needs which can be decisive. With overarching powers, the DC can motivate and ensure that other Government benefits are provided in a speedy manner.

Despite all the complications that involves any relocation activity; it is simpler in certain aspects if the displaced are non-forest dwelling communities. Forest dwelling communities lack certain social and professional skills which others posses and negotiating with market forces is not their forte. Hence civil societies need to play a watch dog role to ensure accountability, transparency, quality implementation of the project and to engage in providing post-relocation support.

In India there are abundant social development schemes funded by both central and state Governments. These existing benefits can be leveraged if civil societies play the pivotal role in identifying and helping the relocated families to avail the benefits. Support for education, animal husbandry, horticulture, free electricity, old age and widow pensions are some of the benefits that can be accessed from the existing schemes.

Forest Department still lacks the sensitivity to implement relocation projects, inadequate staff and routine protection duties do not help the cause either. We need to explore possibilities of creating a new mechanism to implement relocation projects. Relocated families should be treated on par with other developmental project evacuees making them eligible for quotas in Government jobs.

The swiftness at which economic and social conditions are changing is unprecedented. Small pieces of land within forests with produce that has to be shared with marauding crop raiders might be difficult to sustain families. If people are truly eager to be relocated then we need to take a different perspective at relocation.

While creating inviolate spaces ensuring that other forms of habitat fragmentation such as highways, railway lines are not built through the same areas which are made inviolate through relocation of people. It will be neither ecologically feasible nor socially ethical. With less than two percent of the country’s landscape reasonably well protected for wildlife conservation we need to take a pragmatic view so that we give some space for wildlife to survive in the years to come. But this does not provide rights to anyone to implement the old model of relocation.

An edited version of this article appeared in Down To Earth, 16-31 August 2010