Forced displacement
from protected areas: The spectre looms large
Pankaj Sekhsaria and Neeraj Vagholikar
18 December 2004
E23d/E23a
Nearly 4 million people in
In February 2000,
For the Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF), however, the order
meant something completely different. This is evident in a recently released
handbook of the MoEF relating to forest laws: “In
view of this (SC order), rights and concessions cannot be enjoyed in the
protected areas.” So, while the court wanted to stop the state and its agencies
from extracting timber and other such resources from protected areas (PAs), for the government it became a blanket tool to stop
all extraction of resources or the exercising of any rights in PAs, even by local people.
Further, the SC-appointed
Central Empowered Committee (CEC), in a letter dated July 2, 2004, to senior
administrative and forest officials in all states and union territories, says:
“Even the removal of grass, etc, from national parks and sanctuaries has been
prohibited…A number of instances have come to the notice of the Central
Empowered Committee where felling of trees/bamboo, digging of canals, mining,
underground mining, collection of sand/boulders…cutting of grass, collection of
minor forest produce, grazing, construction, widening of roads, etc, have been
allowed to be undertaken in protected areas without obtaining permission from
the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the plea that these
activities are part of the management plans…You are requested to ensure strict
compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order so
that none of the above prohibited activities are allowed to be undertaken in
protected areas.”
Read together, these orders
have the potential to seriously impact millions of people across the Indian
landscape who depend on natural resources from
protected areas for their survival. Already there are reports that this is
starting to happen. Earlier this year, on July 5, 2004 ,
Dharitri,
a leading Oriya newspaper, reported the migration of people from around 50
villages in the Satkosia Wildlife Sanctuary. They
were moving out in search of food and employment after increased restrictions
were imposed on the collection of forest produce like bamboo, mahua flowers and sal seeds.
The issue of people and
protected areas in
The 2002 amendment to the
Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA), 1972, becomes relevant here. The section that
is important in the present context is ‘Settlement of Rights’ (sections 18 to
26-A). Although one need not go into the details here, even the initial
notification (the intent to declare a protected area) is tantamount to allowing
the state to severely restrict the existing rights of people living in the
area.
It’s not just the issue of
the survival and rights of the concerned people. That in itself is absolutely
basic and non-negotiable. It also has severe negative implications for wildlife
conservation. To begin with, the first human interface with our wildlife is
being turned against conservation. People who are
displaced, and whose basic needs and rights are being violated in the name of
conservation and wildlife protection, cannot be expected to support the battle
for conservation.
We must also not forget the
historical context. It has been argued that large areas of forests survive
because the communities (often tribal) that have been living there have
traditionally respected and protected them -- whether they be the dry deciduous
forests of central India, the evergreen rainforests of the Western Ghats or forests in the mineral-rich Chotanagpur
plateau in eastern India. Now the people are being punished for precisely this,
by being forced to move.
One is not ‘romanticising’ the so-called ‘untouched’ tribal world;
values and aspirations everywhere are changing rapidly and this has an impact
on the natural world too. But, while this may be true, there remains a lot in
these communities and cultures that is oriented towards conservation. Such
societies impose an inherently lighter burden on our fragile earth than, say,
the urban societies that many of us belong to. There are numerous examples of
this: the small water bodies created by tribals in
parts of Tamil Nadu’s Moyar
valley that were crucial support systems for wild animals, including elephants,
in the dry season. Called keru in tribal parlance, they were created
many decades ago but have since fallen into disuse and silted up. Efforts are
on to de-silt them so that the animals can use them again. The irony is that
the tribals themselves don’t live here anymore. Many
have moved out voluntarily, seeking greener pastures elsewhere, while others it
is said were forced to move after their rights and access to resources were
restricted in the name of wildlife conservation by forest and other government
agencies.
It’s important to understand
that the mandate for conservation or that of protected areas is not being
questioned.
What is also important in
the context of the CEC’s clarification is that
activities such as tree felling, mining and road construction have been put in
the same category as grass cutting, grazing and minor forest produce
extraction, without caveats of any kind. So, a multi-crore
investment in a mining project that will blast lands and forests apart and
leave nothing for wildlife or local communities has been equated with the
grazing of three, even 300, cows or the collection of non-timber forest produce
(NTFP). Although certain activities by local communities will have to be
modified, and alternatives provided, to meet the area’s conservation
objectives, surely it cannot be done by issuing a blanket order stopping all
resource use.
Those denied a mining
project lose out on an investment opportunity and profits. They can look for
them elsewhere. The same cannot be said of a local community that is denied its
only source of sustenance, even survival. So while ‘one size fits all’ has been
the prescription for conservation, it’s ‘one size fits all’ to deal with its
failures as well!
Take any example on the
ground. A good one would be the Balaram Ambaji and Jessore wildlife
sanctuaries in Gujarat, where the state government has sought Rs 40 crore from the United
Nations Development Project (UNDP) for a project titled ‘ Conservation and
Sustainable Management of Dryland Biodiversity’. An
estimated 80,000 people live within the boundaries of the Balaram
Ambaji sanctuary alone. If the above-mentioned orders
and circulars are implemented, what will happen to these people? What will
happen to their rights? What will happen to the maldharis
whose livelihood depends on the cattle that graze in the park? Who will take on
the responsibility of implementing these orders? And if they cannot be
implemented, what is the point of having them in the
first place?
The one option suggested and
often implemented in such a situation is to de-notify the sanctuary so that
inhabited areas lie outside the park. Then mining, dam construction and road
laying activities do not pose a problem. But while the area may have had some
wildlife value earlier, it is now completely eliminated. It’s a no-win
situation.
In the case of Balaram Ambaji, the scene is
likely to play itself out in a particular way because of the huge population
living inside the park. The same cannot be said of protected areas where there
are only 100 or 1,000 people living inside or around them. The people here are
unlikely to have the clout, political or otherwise, to even suggest
de-notification.
There is only one way out
for them: to move out.
Towards the end of the 1990s
a general consensus emerged among conservationists across the country: that
there would be no forced displacement of people from protected areas in the
name of wildlife conservation. Dialogue and discussion would first be
initiated, and only if people were convinced and willing would a process of
shifting them be initiated. Project Tiger authorities even issued a circular
clearly articulating a no-forced displacement policy. The picture presently
unfolding, however, appears to indicate a move in the opposite direction.
Wildlife conservation itself
could end up paying a heavy price for this. The Karnataka state government
recently said it would not be declaring any more protected areas. The reason? Protected areas cause displacement and are too
much trouble. As the directives start being implemented in protected areas
around the country, other state governments are expected to voice similar concerns
about creating new PAs. And conflicts in and around
existing PAs are likely to worsen.
What we will be left with
are losers on both sides!
(Pankaj Sekhsaria and Neeraj Vagholikar are members of
the environment action group, Kalpavriksh.)
Source:
Infochange News &
Features, December 2004 http://www.infochangeindia.org/features223.jsp