Content uploaded by Eleonora Fanari
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eleonora Fanari on Aug 21, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 2 (1): 43–74, January 2019
SPECIAL SECTION: Ecological Distribution Conflicts in India
Relocation from protected areas as a violent process in
the recent history of biodiversity conservation in India
Eleonora Fanari
Abstract: In the last two decades conflicts due to biodiversity conservation
projects have been rising all over the world. This is due to the interest at the global
level towards environmental protection. It is often implemented at the expense of
communities living within and around important biodiversity spots. This paper
analyses the violent processes of relocation and displacement from the protected
areas of India. Its purpose is to document the illegal relocation of indigenous
communities and forest dwellers from such areas. It examines the specific laws and
regulations that legalize relocation of inhabitants from their ancestral land in
contravention of legal recognition of the community’s forest rights under the
Forest Rights Act. The paper argues that these results from non-recognition of
tenure rights, and mirrors the contradictions embedded in the environmental
protection policies not only in India but at the global level as well.
Keywords: biodiversity conservation conflicts, ecological distribution conflicts,
environmental justice movements, Forest Rights Act.
1. INTRODUCTION
Conservation of biodiversity is going through a significant challenge as the
cost and benefit for the creation of protected areas are not equally shared,
bringing the issues of displacement and dispossession at the pick of the
problem. Although displacement and relocation from protected areas is
undertaken throughout the world since the pre-colonial era,
1
in the last two
EJAtlas, Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Ambiental (ICTA), Universidad Autonoma de
Barcelona (UAB), Calle Lleida 25, 4-1, 08004, Barcelona, Spain; e.fanari86@gmail.com
Copyright © Fanari 2019. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.
Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.
ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web).
1
As of October 2017, there are about 200.000 protected areas around the world as per The
World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA). The 11 Aichi Targets of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) have the objective to cover by 2020 at least 17 per cent of
terrestrial and inland water areas and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas.
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [44]
decades the increasing number of protected areas around the world and the
continuous restrictions put on the local communities have created a
situation for which “conservation has become the number one threat to
indigenous territories”, as declared by one indigenous delegate at the United
Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP 2004)
(Dowie 2009). The creation of protected areas for the conservation of
biodiversity and ecosystem has been valuable for the public who benefits
from the common sharing, while the cost is almost entirely borne by the
local communities living within those spaces who risk losing their access to
land, forest resources and other development opportunities (Krueger 2009).
The notion of biodiversity and forest as pristine and wilderness comes from
a classical western idea of conservation. It sees tribal people as
“encroachers”, “poachers” and responsible for the decline of biodiversity.
It considers relocation and displacement as a possible solution, if not the
only strategy to save the environment (Dowie 2009). However, as observed
by many thinkers and scholars, displacement of people from protected
areas become risky both for the people who live out of natural resources
and for the biodiversity itself (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau 2003). In general,
the complex literature of displacement due to conservation shows a picture
of the loss of livelihood, income, and impoverishment of the affected
communities and loss and degradation of the wildlife (Brockinton and Igoe
2006). Besides, conservation based on exclusion influences the behaviour of
conservationist NGOs, forest officials and administrative authorities who
continue to deny the access to the local communities to their land and
forest resources, looking at them as the enemy rather than possible co-
operators in the conservation management process. All these take place
despite recognition of community conservation management approach and
indigenous land rights at the policy space, at both national (vis. Forest
Rights Act 2006 in India) and international (Convention of Biological
Diversity, COP7, IUCN) levels—to ensure the rights of habitat and use of
the forest resources to the indigenous. According to the estimates,
worldwide, from the Masai and Ogiek in Kenya, the Batswa in Uganda, the
Ashaninka in Peru and the Adivasis in India, conservation efforts has
displaced about 10 to 20 million people (Agrawal and Redford 2009, 4),
who formerly lived, farmed, fished and hunted in the protected areas.
2. METHODOLOGY
This paper provides an overview of conservation conflicts in India. It uses
legal framework to explore the relocation policy as a mean to environmental
protection, and also as a source of violence. It is the result of one-year
[45] Eleonora Fanari
research conducted in India, working with Kalpavriksh,
2
a non profit
organization working on environmental and social issues. The data on this
particular category of ecological distribution conflicts (EDCs)
3
mainly came
from five sources: (i) English language newspaper report, (ii) reports
available in the Forest Rights Act website, (iii) secondary information
shared by the Community Forest Rights – Learning and Advocacy (CFR-
LA) group, (iv) primary data directly observed and reported from the field,
and (v) data shared by activists, reporters, journalists, etc. The primary data
have been gathered through interviews, group discussion and documents
collected in eight protected areas visited from March to September 2017.
The secondary data have been gathered for 30 protected areas through
journal articles, reports, and documents collected by civil society
organizations working on the ground with local and forest communities, as
well as from testimonies of socio-environmental activists and sanghatanas
working on advocacy for the just recognition of the Forest Rights Act. The
study areas were chosen based on 4 criteria: a) political sensitivity, b)
geographical area, c) accessibility and contacts, and d) presence of forest
dwellers and indigenous communities.
Some of the biodiversity conservation conflicts in India are recorded and
explained in the EJAtlas, a project at the ICTA UAB with which the author
has been working. The EJAtlas has registered nearly 300 ecological
distribution conflicts in India as of December 2018. Of these, only about 15
are classified as “biodiversity conservation conflicts”, including some such
as Save Silent Valley Movement in Kerala against building of a dam
(EJAtlas 2018a) and the Bhitarkarnika wildlife sanctuary (EJAtlas 2018b) in
Odisha (preserving a mangrove forest) showing a degree of confluence
between outside conservationists and local people.
However, many other biodiversity conservation conflicts pitch the
conservationists, the Forest Department and the State against the local
people. These include conflicts in Jaldapara National Park in North Bengal
(EJAtlas 2018c) and Kaziranga (EJAtlas 2017a) and Manas National Parks
(EJAtlas 2018d) in Assam. This article focuses on this second type of
conflicts.
2
The study was carried out with the support of Kalpavriksh in India as a National Report on
the implementation of Forest Rights Act within protected areas in India, funded by Rights
and Resources Initiatives (RRI).
3
EDCs are defined as conflicts over the distribution of environmental benefits and impacts
associated with economic growth (Martinez-Alier 2002).
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [46]
3. THE INDIAN SCENARIO
In India, the first relocation drive started in pre-independence time, when
two small villages were removed from the Kaziranga reserve in Assam in
1908. This was followed by relocations in Kashmir from Shikar reserve, and
then the Baigas were relocated from the Kanha National park in Madhya
Pradesh. Soon after gaining independence in 1947, there were some
displacement in the Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan, in the Gir
Forest in Gujarat (Lasgerscoix and Kothari 2009). But the relocation from
Protected Areas (PA) became common only during the 1970s, after the
enactment of the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA) in 1972, and the
launching of Project Tiger in 1973; the Act prescribed the procedures for
setting up and managing the protected areas and regularizing the
biodiversity activities (Kothari 2009). The numerous regulations of
biodiversity activities under the WLPA had a direct impact on thousands of
Adivasi and forest dwellers whose traditional practice and lifestyle got
directly affected, all these while urban tourism activities and hunting
practices of elite sportsmen were indeed sanctioned (Dowie 2009). Then,
there were about 67 national parks and 336 sanctuaries, which made up
about 2.59 per cent of the entire India land mass, which has today nearly
doubled to 4.88 per cent (Wildlife Institute of India 2016). As of 2018, the
protected areas in India have increased to 771, including 544 sanctuaries,
104 national parks and 200 conservation areas, including 50 Tiger Reserves,
making up to 4.88 per cent of India’s landmass.
4
The number of people relocated from Protected Areas in the entire Indian
subcontinent—according to a study conducted in the mid-1980s—was
estimated to be around 100,000 (Langerscoix and Kothari 2009). According
to Langerscoix and Kothari (2009), the estimated number of people
relocated from protected areas in the last 10-15 years is about 60,000. Many
of these relocations remain unaccounted for, with millions more slated to
be displaced forcefully.
3.1. The Forest Rights Act: a legal protection only on paper
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA) was enacted to counterbalance the
historical injustices propagated under forest and conservation laws, policies
and practices against the forest communities. This legal instrument
recognizes the scheduled tribes and other forest dwelling communities’
rights to inhabit, use and manage their traditional forest. As per FRA, these
4
More details can be accessed here
http://www.wiienvis.nic.in/Database/Protected_Area_854.aspx.
[47] Eleonora Fanari
rights have been recognized also within the limits of a sanctuary or a
national park. In this regard, the provision establishes the declaration of
“critical wildlife habitats” as important wildlife areas that are to be kept as
inviolable, i.e. no human activity that is scientifically and objectively may
damage wildlife is permissible in these areas (Broome and Fanari 2017).
This means that the FRA recognizes the possibility of resettlement of forest
communities from this area, only if it is scientifically determined that their
activity causes damage to wildlife.
The FRA was born as a result of the peasant struggles for the recognition
of forest land rights, and the attention drawn to protection for the
indigenous communities at the international level. One such international
recognition in relation to protected areas is the World Parks Congress in
Durban in 2003, which highlighted its commitment to involve local
communities, indigenous and nomadic peoples in the creation,
proclamation and management of protected areas.
5
Moreover, the ‘Free
Informed Consent’ as a prior requirement for the notification and
management plan of the PAs has been extensively addressed in treaties such
as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Article 8(j) in its and
related provisions note that “the establishment, management and
monitoring of protected areas should take place with the full and effective
participation of, and full respect for the rights of indigenous and local
communities consistent with national law and applicable international
obligations”.
The Indian Government recognizes the rights to the forest dwellers living
within the PAs through the FRA, stipulating that relocation can only take
place if scientifically determined that co-existence is not possible, and only
after the free informed consent of the Gram Sabhas.
6
However, the
milestone Act is continuously challenged and contested not only by mining
companies and builders of infrastructures all across India (as shown in the
EJAtlas), but also by classical conservationists and forest officials who do
not acknowledge the law within the limit of the protected spaces. Indeed,
while these policies gave hope to the local communities and strengthened
their identity and unity, new conservation “necessities”—based on the need
for ensuring protection of the wildlife—have developed new paradigms
which are often in contrast with the necessities of the communities. These
5
The Vth IUCN World Parks Congress was held in Durban, South Africa in 2003. The
Congress represented the largest and most diverse gathering of protected area experts in
history.
6
The term Gram Sabha is defined in the Constitution of India under Article 243(b). It is the
primary body of the Panchayati Raj system. It discusses local governance, development, and
make need-based plans for the village.
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [48]
are reflected in strengthening the measures to enhance environmental
security through creation of new borders, measures of control such as
militarization and biodiversity offsets programs.
3.2. In the name of Tiger Conservation
The global attention to Tiger Conservation has further added to the
number of conservation conflict refugees in India. In this regard, the
government of India has strengthened its measure to protect the tigers, and
since 2008 the number of such reserves has shot up from 28 to 50 in 2018.
New funds have been promised for the relocation of people from the
critical tiger habitat, under the section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection)
Amendment Act, 2006 (WLPA), also called Tiger Amendment. It specifies
the possibility of resettlement of communities to make protected areas
inviolate. Although the WLPA Amendment acknowledges the existence of
the FRA and the recognition of the informed consent of the Gram Sabhas,
the new guidelines for relocation from the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH)
strengthen the measures adopted for the protection of tigers. One of the
issues is that many of these reserves have been notified with little public
outreach, with no consultation with the communities living in the area, and
no consideration of their livelihood and cultural rights (Kothari 2011).
Consequently, in the last years the situation on the ground has aggravated,
and numerous communities living in and around the protected areas
continue to remain excluded, and their rights and dignity violated (Bro ome
and Fanari 2018). Moreover, as criticized by many authors, this “exclusion”
based “fortress conservation model” has failed in positively contributing to
the protection of tigers. This has been called by Bijoy (2011) as the “same
old stale wine in a new bottle”. This keeps the forest and its inhabitants in a
state of insecurity, which recall the colonial attitude of control and
domination upon resources. More than 37 years after the launch of Project
Tiger in 1973 with 1,827 tigers (as per the first tiger census of 1972), the
tigers are today down to 1,411 in 28 tiger reserves (Bijoy 2011). This shows
that the Tiger Project has only benefitted the tourist industry letting down
both the community forest dwellers as well as the wildlife. According to
some research, the eviction drive from the PAs, and especially from the
core of the Tiger Reserves, is significantly increasing, undermining the law
and denying the recognized land rights to the community forest dwellers.
3.3. Relocation as a violation of FRA
According to the FRA and WLPA, relocation can take place only from the
CTH or Critical Wildlife Habitat (CWH) and can happen only when co-
existence is absolutely not possible; that too after obtaining the free and
informed consent of the gram sabhas in writing and after ensuring that the
[49] Eleonora Fanari
resettlement package has been prepared to the satisfaction of people being
relocated. However, in my own research for Kalpavriksh, which consisted
of fieldwork in 8 protected areas, interviewing various stakeholder in each
site, and review of secondary data for a number of other protected areas
(for a total of 22 Tiger Reserves and 8 Wildlife Sanctuaries), it was observed
that many irregularities have marred the process. The 2016 Report of the
UN Special Rapporteur (Rights of Indigenous People) on Conservation and
Indigenous people’s rights stated that “[d]isplacement from protected areas
continues across India through a combination of misinterpretation,
coercion, and inducement”.
7
As per the UN, the Forest Rights Act
continues to be almost inexistent within the protected areas, and
testimonies of relocation have been observed both from tiger reserve and
wildlife sanctuaries, repeatedly violating the national and international legal
provisions.
According to the analyses, evidences of relocation being planned were
found for 23 PAs, either in Tiger Reserve management plan or in local
newspaper reports. Of these, in 22 there was evidence of relocation already
being carried out for last 10 years. These included 17 Tiger Reserves (TRs)
and 5 Wildlife Sanctuaries (WLSs) (details in the table in Appendix).
Available information clearly shows forced, coerced and dissatisfactory
relocation in violation of various required steps specified in section 4(2) of
the FRA, and section 38(V) of the Wildlife Protection Amendment Act
(WLPA) 2006, and reveals a large-scale violation of various provisions of
the FRA in the considered PAs. Among the numerous violations of the law
in each studied site, 4 major types of violations were identified: (i) no prior
informed consent from the local community; (ii) misuse of the FRA by the
forest department; (iii) absence of scientific studies for the creation of
“inviolate area”; (iv) relocation from the buffer area.
3.3.1. Prior informed consent
One of the major points discussed concerns the bypassing of the “prior
informed consent” of the Gram Sabhas mandated in section 4.1(e) of the
FRA that represents a precondition for every relocation. This was reported
from Tadoba TR in Maharashtra, from which 608 families were moved out
since 2012 and from Kanha TR in Madhya Pradesh, from which more than
20,000 families were forcefully displaced (refer to table). In many official
documents, the relocation is often described as “voluntary”. However, the
field research revealed that when consent was taken, it was mostly under
7
The full report can be accessed here
http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/index.php/documents/annual-reports/149-report-ga-
2016
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [50]
pressure or threat, or induced in other ways. This included taking signatures
of the individuals on blank papers as it happened in Simlipal TR (as per
fieldwork data). Violation of human rights, physical threats and use of force
were typically used to effect displacement; denial of access to basic health
and education facilities, and schemes like MNREGA, children
immunization programmes like angawadi were some of the ways in which
consent for relocation was induced.
3.3.2. Misuse of FRA
Available evidence points to not just the forest department’s rejection of
the community rights under the FRA, but also its misuse for the purpose of
relocation. For instance, in Simlipal TR, where the Community Forest
Rights (CFRs) were recognised in 2015 to all the 43 villages living within
the PA limits, the community leaders said that the distribution of land titles
were used to further “legalize” the relocation. This, according to the forest
officers, took place in a voluntary manner after the forest rights were
settled.
Indeed, the villages of Jamungarh and Kabathgai were relocated in 2015 just
after receiving the CFRs. The families in the core area continued to face
coercion, harassment and obstruction of activities (Deo 2016). This clearly
shows the lack of commitment in implementing the FRA in its true spirit
and confirms the priority for relocation in the agenda of the Forest
Department.
3.3.3. Absence of scientific studies
While the communities continue to be discriminated from the conservation
management activities, no studies and no expert-committee reports were
available with the forest officials. This means that at the time of our field
research there were no scientific documents to prove that co-existence
cannot be an option or that communities were leading to degradation of the
environment. In addition, in November 2007, the National Tiger
Conservation Authority (NTCA) notified
8
the states with critical tiger
habitats to set up the expert committees to “finalise and delineate core or
critical tiger habitats of tiger reserves, within 10 days of the receipt of the
notification” (Broome et al. 2014). This shows that even the time given for
scientific or consultative process prior to CTH notification was not
sufficient. In general, the lack of scientific research was reported from all
the study areas.
8
NTCA was created by the MoEF in 2005 and notified under the 2006 amendment to the
Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 to oversee the tiger reserves.
[51] Eleonora Fanari
3.3.4. Relocation from tiger reserve buffer areas and wildlife sanctuaries
According to available evidence, relocation has been taking place not only
from the CTH, as it should be per law, after the free and informed consent
is obtained by the gram sabha, but also from buffer areas, where co-
existence is expected to be prioritised over relocation. Relocation from
buffer zone was reported from many TRs such as Simlipal and Kaziranga,
etc. (refer to table). This showed that no co-existence in buffer areas was
practiced in violation of the FRA and WLPA. Moreover, relocation was
also carried out from the Wildlife Sanctuaries, even in absence of any
guidelines.
3.4. The threat of the NTCA
Since its enactment in 2005 NTCA has supervised the entire management
of the protected areas, including expansion of the tiger reserves. As
described above, the displacement has mostly affected people residing
within the TRs, which continue to be notified at a high speed by the
NTCA. Indeed, the 25,551 sq km of tiger forests in 2007 (Bijoy 2011) were
expanded and almost doubled to 40,340 in 2018, and as stated above the
notified tiger reserves have jumped from 28 to 50 in past 10 years (as of
July 2018, ENVIS). To add to this, in October 2016, at an international
conference held in Johannesburg, the Indian government representative
Bisha Singh Bonal announced the decision to further expand the protected
areas in the country to create another 10 Tiger Reserves in the coming years
(Indian Express 2016). On the ground, this has led to more people being
pushed away from their ancestral land and more conflicts between the local
people and the authorities.
In many places, the CTH was illegally notified and implemented against the
wishes of the community. One example is Bilgiri Rangaswami Temple
Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka that was converted into a Tiger Reserve in
2010 against the wishes of the Soliga indigenous community inhabiting the
area (Madegowda 2017). This process was carried out in violation of the
Section 4.1 of the FRA, which since January 2008 override the Tiger
Amendment.
These high-speed illegal evictions were made possible through NTCA
funding availability since 2008. The capital has scaled up from INR 30 crore
and INR 41 crore during 2007-08 and 2008-09 to INR 114 crore in 2009-10
(Tiger Link 2009). As per the information available on the NTCA website,
9
9
More information can be accessed here
http://projecttiger.nic.in/content/144_6_VillageRelocation11thPlan.aspx
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [52]
from 2007-8 to 2011-12 an amount equal to INR 435.46 crores (USD 66
million) was released. Moreover, between 2013-14 another tranche of INR
4,964 lakh was spent by the NTCA for the rehabilitation of other families
from Tadoba TR in Maharashtra, Dampa TR in Mizoram and Ranthambore
and Sariska TR in Rajasthan.
The disposal of money instead of supporting people has created a situation
in which plans of “voluntary relocation” were prioritized and cautiously
planned in every state instead of implementing Forest Rights Act for the
benefit of the forest communities. The funding is used to evict forest
communities without the consent of Gram Sabha and without conducting
proper scientific assessment as discussed above. One Jenu Kuruba tribal
from Nagarhole National Park said, “the availability of this funding has
only increased the violence and the coercion for relocation by the authority,
which using the money card has induced numerous families to relocate
from their ancestral space”. Moreover, the distribution of money without a
rehabilitation plan is detrimental for the development of the communities
as they get into the consumption of alcohol, leisure activities and other
harmful practices and squander away their compensation package in just a
few months. This mostly happens because of poor monitoring, lack of
effective relocation program, or simply because of their poor understanding
of the value of money.
Besides not facilitating the implementation of the law, NTCA has shown an
antagonist attitude against its enactment; this was manifested in the illegal
administrative order issued on 28 March 2017, stating that “no recognition
of rights” should be granted within the limits of the core of Tiger Reserves
(Order No 1-7/93.PT). The order had a negative impact on the ground,
such as the rejection of claims of 61 families belonging to the Nakesia
Adivasi – an indigenous community inhabiting the core area in the Palamau
Tiger Reserve, Jharkhand. The order had captured the attention of many
civil societies, which had asked for its immediate withdrawal. However, on
29 May 2017 the Ministry of Tribal Affairs merely issued a letter to the
Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) stating
that it considers the NTCA order as a “temporary measure” and requests
the Minister to initiate the due process of issuing the guidelines for
notifying CWH at the earliest (Broome and Fanari 2018). This shows a lack
of concern for protecting the forest rights of the forest-dwelling
communities, and the perpetration of a fortress model of conservation,
which continues to be based on the notion of exclusion in opposition to
co-existence.
[53] Eleonora Fanari
3.5. Relocation from Wildlife Sanctuaries
As explained above, the relocation guidelines are regulated by the NTCA,
which has the task to manage the voluntary relocation from the tiger
reserves. While in respect to the Wildlife Sanctuaries, the guidelines for the
relocation were not yet approved till March 2017. However, repeated threat
of relocation and eviction from wildlife sanctuaries were recounted during
the year of research (2017). For instance, eviction was reported from the
wildlife sanctuaries of Wayanad in Kerala, Barnawapara and Bhoramdeo in
Chhattisgarh, and Chandaka-Dompara and Debrigarh in Odisha, among
others. Considering that the guidelines for CWH, has been issued only on
February 19 2018, it is unclear how and why these relocations were being
carried out.
As per MoEF website, between 2011 and 2014 a total of INR 2,838 lakh
was released under the “Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats”
scheme for the relocation from Wayanad and Malabar WLS in Kerala,
Barnawapara WLS in Chattisgarh and Thoranghtlang WLS in Mizoram.
10
It was reported that the forest authorities were using the same NTCA
package for the relocation of people from these non-Tiger reserves. This
brings leads to evictions which are coerced and denigrating for the affected
people, often evicted without any rights of compensation and rehabilitation.
Considering the arbitrary decision of every local forest department in the
distribution and allocation of money to the affected communities, the local
people got less informed about the relocation procedures and excluded
from any decision-making. For example, it was observed in the study that in
Wayanad WLS the affected communities were relocated without following
the due process. Indeed, as per NTCA guidelines, the compensation was
based on a) INR 10 lakh per family or b) complete relocation with all basic
facilities and land. However, in Wayanad the compensation of INR 10 lakh
was used to purchase the homestead land for the families evicted, leaving
the people without agricultural lands and no money; this option was
decided without any consultative process with the communities, who now
seek to move back to their ancestral land.
On the one hand, the funding availability with NTCA is pushing up
relocation of the forest-dwelling communities, on the other, the lack of
funding for the relocation from WLS and mostly the absence of the
guidelines from MoEFCC has led to a series of denial of rights to these
communities. The use of force and violence has become justified and less
criticized as was seen in Amchang WLS in Assam. In November 2016,
10
More details can be found here http://www.moef.nic.in/division/introduction-19
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [54]
more than 1000 families living within and outside the WLS were evicted
without considering their rights, and with no plan of either relocation or
compensation (refer to table in Appendix).
4. WHY RELOCATION IS NOT DESIRABLE?
But what happens to the life of people once they get relocated? Do they get
better facilities, development and education, or better opportunities for
their future? These promises, often used to justify relocation, are not
fulfilled. Ground reality show a very different picture. Indeed, the camps
(yes, camp is the exact word!) where the affected people live have poor
housing besides lacking toilets and electricity. This was observed among
others in Achanakmar TR in Chattisgarh where six villages relocated in
2009 are still living in pathetic condition with no alternatives in sight (Bera
2015). The international and national policies on relocation, which should
guarantee an alternative livelihood for the affected people, continue to be
inappropriate or unobserved at the local level. The lack of monitoring and
the unfair distribution of compensation packages has fated people with
enormous risk of impoverishments both economically and socially forcing
them in a state of desperation and hopelessness (Cernea 2009). Although
there has been some improvement in their recent relocation assistance, this
was still not appropriate to compensate for the loss; also, a series of
discrepancies and anomalies are reported in the distribution of
compensation packages. Rampant corruption and ambiguities were reported
in Panna TR where a fake package of INR 1 lakh as per previous agreement
was distributed to many, while a few “lucky ones” received crores of rupees
(INR) (notes from field study). In addition to this, false promises of land
were also made to induce people to leave their place, such as in Simlipal TR
(EJAtlas 2018e) in Odisha where the promised land was never given; or, in
Achanakmar TR (EJAtlas 2017b) where the distributed land was barren,
unfenced, full of stones and unfit for farming. This is not rehabilitation but
pushing the displaced people into a state of poverty. This was the result of
the lack of a monitoring system and a culture of denigrating the socially
marginalised. Indeed, many studies have found that relocation not only
leads to joblessness and poverty, it also increases morbidity and mortality,
social disintegration and further marginalization (Cernea, 2003; Mathur
2013). Not just this, relocation also risks the loss of biodiversity. It was
found that the most damaging impact of the forced removals from the
protected areas is the resource degradation from unsustainable
consumption owing to increased demand (Cernea 2003). This means, as
argued by Cernea, that “displacements result in environmental degradation
through increase in permanent settlements and that soil erosion tends to be
[55] Eleonora Fanari
higher in permanently used agricultural plots than under shifting cultivation
regimes”. This brings us to the dual loss of the community and the
environment. Cernea argues that alienation of forest communities from the
forest areas brings them afar from their conservation objectives, causing a
set of degrading effect on forest ecosystem, calling them “second
generation” degrading effects. This, he argues, is because the presence of
residents in parks has, under certain circumstances, some “first generation”
effects.
5. CONCLUSION
The general conflict in the idea of “relocation” is born from the contested
nature of the problems and solutions. Indeed, as Sundar (2012) argues,
“while the forest department defines the problem in terms of the villagers’
use of forests as the cause of forest degradation, villagers define the forest
problem in terms of a lack of their rights”. This paper reveals the violence
of relocation in India as a consequence of a lack of recognition of
communities’ forest rights and a lack of support from the Forest
Department. This contradicts with Forest Rights Act (FRA) as well as with
several measures adopted by UN and ILO.
However, if we look at the international eco-political context this would not
appear so surprising. But in India, the discourse around biodiversity has
moved from “protection” to “offset”, a compensation measure that
portrays nature as something measurable in money value that can be
exchanged and replaced (Spash 2015). In this way, nature, which has
become valuable for the public and not for the local community, can be
exchanged as a commodity, leaving the people out of the discourse. This
idea of nature as equivalence, based on replacing an anthropogenic
landscape with another, does not leave space for traditional human
activities, raising the questions of power, territorial rights, violence and
inequality. In this perspective, the conflicts at the local level portray the
contradictions embedded in the political discourses around nature and its
protection.
Moreover, in a socio-cultural milieu as in India, which is already ruled by a
strong hierarchical power, the neoliberal policies have contributed in
reaffirming this power of submission by redefining the power of violence,
which continues to be based on the government dominance of the natural
resources. Indeed, the 2006 amendment of the WLPA represents this
imposition of power by the government in opposition to the democratic
tool represented by the FRA. This is the reason why the FRA is still
struggling to be applied under the legal system, as a hope and a weapon in
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [56]
the hand of the communities. The numerous conflicts emerging in the
country need to be read as a transformative process. These conflicts not
only represent hope but also strength of the movement which is trying
from below to overthrow the political contradiction of environmental
protection, asking both for the recognition of their rights (under the FRA)
and redefinition of nature as a source of livelihood and a living spirit.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article was written with the support of Kalpavriksh, Pune. The
author is grateful for the information and analysis shared by a number of
people from different protected areas mentioned in the article and others
associated with Community Forest Resource Learning and Advocacy
Process (CFR-LA)
REFERENCES
Agrawal, A., and K. Redford 2009. “Conservation and Displacement: an
overview.” Conservation and Society 7 (1): 1-10.
Bera, S. 2015. “Baigas in exile.” Down to Earth, June 7, 2015.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/baigas-in-exile-38674
Bijoy, C.R. 2011. “The Great Indian Tiger Show”. Economic and Political Weekly
46 (4): 36-41.
Brockinton, I. 2006. “Eviction for Conservation: A Global Overview.” Conservation
and Society 4 (3):424-70.
Cernea, M., and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2003. “The end of forcible displacements?
Making conservation and impoverishment incompatible.” Poly Matters 12: 42-51.
Cernea, M. 2009. “Introducing: Resettlement – An enduring issue of
development.” The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 10 (4): 263-265
Dowie, M. 2009. Conservation Refugees, The Hundred Year Conflict Between Global
Conservation and Native People. Cambridge: MIT Press.
EJAtlas. 2017a. “Kazinranga conflict: rhinos and poachers, Assam, India.” In Atlas
of Environmental Justice. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/kaziranga-conflict
EJAtlas. 2017b. “Displacement for conservation in Achanakmar Tiger Reserve,
CG, India.” In Atlas of Environmental Justice.
https://ejatlas.org/conflict/achanakmar-tiger-reserve
EJAtlas. 2018a. “Silent Valley hydroelectric project, Kerala, India.” In Atlas of
Environmental Justice. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/silent-valley-kerala-india
[57] Eleonora Fanari
EJAtlas. 2018b. “Land and livelihood conflicts in Bhitarkanika wildlife sanctuary
and mangrove forest, Odisha, India.” In Atlas of Environmental Justice.
https://ejatlas.org/conflict/land-and-livelihood-conflicts-in-bhitarkanika-wildlife-
sanctuary-odisha-india
EJAtlas. 2018c. “Jaldapara National Park, West Bengal, India.” In Atlas of
Environmental Justice. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/jaldapara-national-park
EJAtlas. 2018d. “Eviction from Manas National Park, Assam, India.” In Atlas of
Environmental Justice. https://www.ejatlas.org/conflict/eviction-from-manas-
national-park
EJAtlas. 2018e. “Simlipal National Park, conflict over conservation project, Odisha,
India.” In Atlas of Environmental Justice. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/simlipal-
national-park-conflict-over-conservation-project
Fernandes, W. 2006. “Liberalisation and Development-induced Displacement.”
Social Change 36 (1): 109-123.
Fairhead, J., M. Leach, and I. Scoones. 2012. “Green Grabbing: a new
appropriation of nature?” The Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (2): 237-261.
Indian Express. 2016. “India plans to add 10 more tiger reserves: Official”. Indian
Express, October 5. New Delhi.
Kothari, A. 2011. “Conservation suicide.” Infochange, March.
http://infochangeindia.org/component/content/article/154-
environment/politics-of-biodiversity/8705-conservation-suicide.
Krueger, L. 2009. “Protected Areas and Human Displacement: Improving the
Interface between Policy and Practice.” Wildlife Conservation Society 7 (1): 21-25.
Lasgorceix, A., and A. Kothari. 2009. “Displacement and Relocation of Protected
Areas: A Synthesis and Analysis of Case Studies.” Economic and Political Weekly
44 (49): 37-47.
Madegowda, C., and U. Rao. 2017. “Impact of Forest Policies and the economy of
the Soliga’s tribal in Bilgiri Ransgwami Temple Wildlife Sanctuary, South India.”
Journal of Historical Archaeology and Anthropological Science 1 (4): 112-123s.
Mathur, M.H. 2013. Displacement and Resettlement in India: The Human Cost of
Development. New York: Routledge.
New Indian Express. 2016. “India plans to add ten more tiger reserves: Official.”
New Indian Express, October 5.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2016/oct/05/india-plans-to-add-
ten-more-tiger-reserves-official-1525365.html
Pathak, N., N. D. Rai, and M. Tatpati. 2017. “Biodiversity Conservation and Forest
Rights Act.” Economic and Political Weekly 52 (25-26): 51-54
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [58]
Pathak, N, S. Desor, A. Kothari, and A. Bose. 2014. “Changing Paradigm in
Wildlife Conservation.” In Democratizing Forest governance in India edited by S. Lele,
and A. Menon. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Pathak, N., and E. Fanari. 2018. “To Respect Human Rights, the Government
should strategise to coexist first, Not to Evict.” The Wire. March 12.
https://thewire.in/environment/to-respect-human-rights-the-government-should-
strategise-to-coexist-first-not-to-evict
Spash, L. 2015. “Bulldozing biodiversity: the economics of offset and trading-in
Nature.” Biological Conservation 192: 541-551
Sundar, N. 2012. “Violent social Conflicts in India’s Forests: Society, State and the
Market” Deeper Roots of Historical Injustice: Trends and Challenges in the Forests of India,
13-32. Washington: Rights and Resources Initiative.
Tiger Link. 2009. “TigerLink: NEWS.” Tiger Link, December, 2009.
http://www.sanctuaryasia.com/docs/Tiger_Link_Magazine_2009_Final.pdf
APPENDIX
Table 1: Relocations in Protected Areas
No
Protected
Area
State
Status of Relocation
Planned Relocation
Other information
Sources
1.
Nagarjunsagar
Srisailam Tiger
Reserve
Andhra
Pradesh
By 2010 1000 families were
already relocated. 200 more
families were relocated since
2011 - in Shanti Nagar and
Gandhi Nagar near
Yerragondapalem plain in
Prakasam district (Local
sources).
Plan to relocate (a) two
(Vatrapalli and Telangana) out of
27 villages located inside the
CTH (Monitoring Evaluation
and Economic Report 2014) and
(b) from the core area about
1,100 families, respectively from
the villages of Nekkanti,
Ishtakameshwari, Paalutla,
Vattivarlapalli, Chinnarutla
Penta, Tummalabailu and
Peddacheruv (NTCA report).
/
1; 2; 3;
4, 5.
2.
Kaziranga
National Park
and Tiger
Reserve
Assam
22 families evicted from
Bonse Sapori in 2012-13; in
2016, 348 families evicted
from Deuchur Chang and
Banderdubi, in the elephant
corridor.
In 2016, the Guwahati High
Court, ordered the eviction of
666 families living within the
notified limited of the 2nd, 3rd
and 5th addition.
2 people were killed in
2016. In the last 10
years about 62 local
people were killed by
forest guards in name
of conserving the
Rhinos; In July 2016,
seven-year-old Okash
Orang, was shot in his
leg by the FD, now
handicapped.
6; 7; 8,
9.
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [60]
3.
Manas
National Park
and Tiger
Reserve
Assam
700 villagers evicted from
Betburi village, Kokracachar,
in Manas NP (December
2016 and February 2017).
1000 families living in Chirang
and Kokrachar districts were
threatened of eviction by the
Forest Department.
/
10; 11.
4.
Amchang
Wildlife
Sanctuary
Assam
37 villages, with more than
1000 families in total, were
evicted on 25 August 2017.
The families were
evicted without any
compensation and in a
very brutal manner.
12; 13.
5.
Achanakmarg
Tiger Reserve
Chattis-
garh
6 villages, 245 families, were
relocated in 2009 from the
core area.
Plan to relocate 16 villages from
the core. On April 2015, the
NTCA declared that 5 other
villages of the remaining 19 in
the core area will be soon
relocated from the ATR. Until
now these villages have not been
relocated but two villages,
Tilaidabra and Ranjaki have
already signed the relocation
papers. However, no “prior free
informed consent” was taken
and no information on the forest
rights was given to the forest
dwellers.
The relocated villages
did not receive proper
rehabilitation as per
FRA and WLPA,
2006.
14; 15;
16; 17.
6.
Barnawapara
Wildlife
Santuary.
Chattis-
garh
3 villages are entirely
relocated from the WLS,
Rampur, Latadadar and
Nawapara. In 2010, 135
families of Rampur were
There is a plan to relocate other
22 villages. Six of them in the
first phase, namely Bafra,
Gudagarh, Mudpaar, Bhimauri,
Dheba and Akaltara.
Since November 2017,
the 22 villages living
within the limits are
protesting against the
relocation plan.
18; 19;
20; 21.
[61] Eleonora Fanari
rehabilitated 58 km away, in
Mahasamund forest division,
and settled in a compartment
No 500 and 501, Vijaymaalin
Forest Compartment.
Latadar and Nawapara (628
people and 139 houses) were
resettled in 2014, and shifted
respectively in Vijaymaal
Gram panchayat,
Compartment no. 795 and
796 of Sinodha Gram
panchayat and Compartment
no. 507 and 509 in Mohgaon.
7.
Nagarhole
National Park
and Tiger
Reserve.
Karna-
taka
As many as 3400 families
were displaced during the
’70s and ’80s. 487 tribal
families were moved out of
the Park and relocated in
Nagapura and Sollepura
between 2000 and 2007 for a
compensation of INR 1 lakh
and 5 acres of land. Other
250 people have been
relocated since 2006.
Families are continuously
induced to relocate.
The relocation
programme was
supported by WCS.
The people relocated
as of 2006 have
received only some
barren land and no
money and are living
in a miserable
condition.
22; 23;
24; 25;
26.
8
Wayanad
Wildlife
Sanctuary
Kerala
4 entire village, vis. Goloor,
Ammavayal, Arakunchi, and
Kottangara were relocated
1,388 people (880 families) in 14
settlements (total 800 families)
inside the sanctuary are to be
From 2011 to 2014,
the MoEF allocated an
amount of INR 18
27; 28;
29; 30;
31.
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [62]
with 182 families in 2012.
relocated in the first phase at a
cost of INR 88 crore. A total of
10,604 people (2,613 families)
residing in 110 settlements inside
the Wayanad WLS are to be
relocated.
crore rupees for the
relocation project.
Other funds are
awaited.
9.
Kanha
National Park
and Tiger
Reserve
Madya
Pradesh
In 1973-74, 24 villages
(around 650 families) were
displaced outside the
boundaries of the TR. Threat
of eviction started again in
2010 (just after availability of
NTCA funding for relocation
from TR). Relocation started
in 2013, and about 450
families were evicted in June
2014. A total number of
22.000 people got evicted.
There are only 3 villages that still
need to be relocated, vis. Linga,
Jholar and Sukudi. In Jholar
process of relocation has already
started.
Number and data
remain uncertain. All
the evictions were
forced, in complete
violation of the FRA.
Roughly 7 villages still
exist in the core of
Kanha TR.
4; 32;
33; 34;
35; 36;
37.
10.
Panna Tiger
Reserve
Madhya
Pradesh
In 2015, two village vis.
Umrawan and Jardhoba were
forcefully evicted.
According to the MEE 2014,
there are only 3 villages and 180
families remaining in the core
area of the TR, and they are
planned to be relocated.
200 Gonds from
Umrawan have been
fighting and filed
petitions against the
eviction, however they
got relocated. An area
of 600 hectares has
been proposed inside
the ore area for an
irrigation project.
4; 38;
39; 40.
[63] Eleonora Fanari
11.
Pench Tiger
Reserve
Madhya
Pradesh
Between 1973 and 1990
more than 10.000 people
were evacuated and resettled.
Recently, in May 2017, it
started the relocation of
Fulzari village.
A plan of relocation was
presented in 2008, and since
then it is being contested by the
local people.
Fishing within the PA
is considered illegal by
the MLA, in contrast
with the FRA.
41; 42;
43; 44;
12.
Tadoba
National Park
and Tiger
Reserve
Maha-
rashtra
Eviction started in 2007. In
first phase about 116 families
were relocated - 45 landless
families from Botezari and 49
from Kolsa are rehabilitated
in compartment number 524
in Tolewahi in Mul forest
range. In 2013, 200 families
of Navegaon (Ramdegi) were
moved out, and other 222
families of Jamni were
moved out in March 2014. A
total of 608 families were
moved out.
There are remaining in the TR
only Palasgaon and Rantalodi.
Other families from Kolsa
village are given notice to
relocate, but they are resisting
against it in 2017.
45; 46;
47; 48;
49; 50;
51.
13.
Dampa Tiger
Reserve
Mizo-
ram
287 tribal families evicted
from Dampa in 1989. In
2010, 227 families were to be
evicted from Dampa. In 2010
12 settlements were
relocated, possibly forcibly
and with poor rehabilitation,
affecting already marginalised
61 villages are still located inside
the reserve and are threatened
with eviction.
The 287 tribal families
were not provided
relief and
rehabilitation.
4; 52;
53.
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [64]
ethnic minorities Chakma
and Reang.
14.
Melghat
National Park
and Tiger
Reserve
Maha-
rashtra
A total of 1360 families got
displaced after 2008. This
incuding 141 families from
Dhargad and 37 families
from Barukheda; during
2013-14 & 2014-15 relocated
families included 158 families
from Gullarghat village, 176
families from Somthana (Bk.)
and 248 families from
Somthana (Kh.). In June
2017, nearly 600 villagers
from Rohinkhidki village in
Akot wildlife division were
relocated.
About 21 villages remain to be
relocated from the core areas.
In 2007, many villages
were coerced to sign
for their relocation.
54; 55;
56; 57.
15.
Sariska Tiger
Reserve
Raja-
sthan
The first relocation of
villages from Sariska dates
back to 1966-67 when village
Slopka and Kalighati were
relocated. Thereafter,
relocation of village Karna
Ka Bas and Kiraska took
place in 1976-77. Relocation
drive started again in 2005.
Bhagani (2008) Umri (2011)
and Rotkyala (2012) were
There are 29 villages inside the
CTH, and a total of 2,409
families, which are all planned to
be relocated. As per first plan 12
villages will be relocated by
2021-22.
In 2005, a report
showed the extinction
of the tiger in the area,
attributing the loss to
the people. A new
relocation phase
started to take place
just after this.
58; 59;
60.
[65] Eleonora Fanari
relocated. According to
information shared by the
activists, 9 villages were
relocated from Sariska.
16.
Ranthambore
Tiger Reserve
Raja-
sthan
Relocation started in 1973-
79, when 11 villages, 681
families, were evicted from
the core of the tiger reserve.
In 2002, relocation started
again from the core area, and
among the 5 villages (Pathra,
Mordungri, Indala, Khatoli,
Bhir), Pathra, with 110
familes was relocated. The
other 4 villages, comprising
700 people, were relocated
from 2007 to 2014.
The park was extended,
englobing 65 villages. It plans to
relocate 53 villages. In 2016, 5
villages, vis. Talda Khet, Kala
Khora, Gadhi, Maharo and
Kiradki, comprising of 260
families, were identified by
priority for relocation to secure
the Ranthambhore-Kaila Devi
corridor.
The villages were
relocated forcing them
to sign the papers.
61; 62;
63; 64;
65.
17.
Rajaji Tiger
Reserve
Uttarakh
and
Massive threat of relocation
of Van Gujjars for past 15
years. A total number of
1,393 families have been
relocated. Of these, 512
families were relocated to
Pathari in 2000, 721 families
to Gaindikhatta in 2002-03,
181 to Sambalgarh in 2013
while three families were
relocated under a high court
Villagers face continued threat of
eviction.
66; 67;
68; 69.
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [66]
order. In 2015, 800 people
were relocated. In 2017, 200
families were relocated from
Gohri range.
18.
Corbett Tiger
Reserve
Uttarakh
and
Among the villages residing
inside the Tiger Reserve, 4
have been displaced since
1994 namely Laldangh,
Kothiraw (300 families),
Jhirna (70 families), and
Dhara (50 families). In 2014,
157 Van Gujjar families were
relocated from Sona River
Wildlife Sanctuary, situated in
the core area.
In December 2016, the
Uttarakhand High Court ordered
the eviction of the Van Gujjars
settlers in the zone for the
firings; The National Green
Tribunal (NGT) ordered the
eviction of 800 settlers in the
Kalagarh area, among which 398
are to be rehabilitated while 566
are to be evicted.
On December 19,
2016, Uttarakhand
High Court issued an
order prohibiting the
constructions of
buildings in 10 km
range around the park.
70; 71;
72.
19.
Satkosia Tiger
Reserve
Odisha
On September 30, 2017, 70
families of Raiguda village,
with more than 200 acres of
land within the TR, were
relocated to a new site in
Saruali in Angul District,
Bantala Range about 12 km
from their existing village.
/
73; 74.
20.
Simlipal Tiger
Reserve
Odisha
Since 2013, 4 villages, vis.
Bahaghar and Uppar
Barakhamundato (2013)
Jamunagarh (2015) and
Kabathgai (2016) have been
There is a plan to relocate 2
more villages from the buffer
area (Kejuri and Badhakasaira).
One village remains in the core
area (Bakua) and 4 (Bohra,
The villages were
illegally relocated after
they had received the
legal titles under FRA.
75; 76;
77; 78.
[67] Eleonora Fanari
relocated from the core area.
In December 2016 another
village from the buffer area
of Simlipal was relocated
without consent.
Jorjori, Jamboni, Asuracol) are in
the fringe area.
21.
Debrigarh
Wildlife
Sanctuary
Odisha
8 families have been
relocated in April 2017.
/
/
79.
22.
Chandaka-
Dompara
WLS
Odisha
85 families from 3 hamlets
were relocated in 1995. In
2008, 32 other families were
relocated from the village
Bhuasuni of Daruthenga
G.P.
/
/
79.
1. Information shared by T. Guruvaiah and T. Leeladhar from Nallamala Chenchu Jagruth during a meeting on the Status of Forest Rights in
the Protected Areas of India, New Delhi, November 15, 2017.
2. Venkateshwarlu K., and S. Murali. 2017. “Forced out of the Forest”. The Hindu, May 6, 2017. https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-
opinion/forced-out-of-the-forest/article18396401.ece
3. Bhargav P., S. Dattatri, and A. Desai. 2009. “Nagarjunasagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve. A Rapid Appraisal Report.” National Tiger
Conservation Authority (NTCA), November, 2009. http://www.wildlifefirst.info/pdfs/pa_ifa/3_NSTR_Final_Report.pdf
4. National Tiger Conservation Authority. 2014. “Monitoring Evaluation and Economic (MEE) Report of Tiger Conservation in India.”
Dehradun: Wildlife Institute of India. http://wii.gov.in/images//images/documents/mee_tiger_mgmt_eff_2014.pdf
5. Tata, M. 2010. “Changing their stripes”. Outlook, June 21, 2010. https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/changing-their-
stripes/265781.
6. Information shared by Pranab Doley, convener Jeepal Krishak Sramik Sangha (JKSS), March 6, 2017.
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [68]
7. Rowlatt, J. 2017. “Kaziranga: the park that shoots people to protect rhinos.” BBC News, February 10, 2017.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-38909512
8. Kukreti, I. 2017. “Eight-year-old shot by Kaziranga forest guard in 2016 shifted to AIIMS Delhi”. Down To Earth, July 14, 2017.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/forests/eight-year-old-shot-by-kaziranga-forest-guard-in-2016-shifted-to-aiims-delhi-58273.
9. The Hindu. 2016. “Two killed in police firing during eviction near Kaziranga.” The Hindu, September 19, 2016.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Two-killed-in-police-firing-during-eviction-near-Kaziranga/article14988468.ece.
10. AT Kokrajhar Bureau. 2017. “Eviction at Manas National Park.” Assam Times, February 12, 2017.
https://www.assamtimes.org/node/18474
11. Eclectic Northeast. 2016. “After Kaziranga, Residents in Chirang Face Eviction Heat.” Eclectic Northeast, September 29, 2016.
https://eclecticnortheast.in/kaziranga-residents-chirang-face-eviction-heat/
12. Web India News. 2017. “1,000 families evicted, 2,300 hectares forest land cleared in 1 year in Assam.” Web India News, September 7, 2017.
https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20170907/3182323.html.
13. Barooah, P.S. 2017. “Over 700 Families Left Homeless After Assam Government's Eviction Drive at Amchang Wildlife Sanctuary.” The
Wire, November 29, 2017. https://thewire.in/environment/700-families-left-homeless-assam-governments-eviction-drive-amchang-wildlife-
sanctuary.
14. Deccan Herald. 2013. “Tribals relocated from tiger reserve face livelihood crisis.” Deccan Herald, August 16, 2013.
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/351434/tribals-relocated-tiger-reserve-face.html.
15. Chouhan, A. 2015. “Relocation of Villages: tiger population up in ATR.” The Times of India, April 27, 2015.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/flora-fauna/Relocation-of-villages-Tiger-population-up-in-
ATR/articleshow/47069389.cms
16. Menon, M. 2012. “Relocation Plan to Nowhere Land.” The Hindu, August 01, 2012. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-
ed/Relocation-plan-to-nowhere-land/article12674787.ece.
17. Bera, S. 2015. “Baigas in Exile. Once called lords of the jungle, the Chhattisgarh tribals are being evicted without adequate relief.” Down to
Earth, June 7, 2015. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/baigas-in-exile-38674.
[69] Eleonora Fanari
18. Information shared by Devendra Bhagel, convener of Dalit Adivasi Manch, during a consultation meeting on the Status of Forest Rights in
the Protected Areas of India. New Delhi, November 15, 2017.
19. Nandi, J. 2017. “Chhattisgarh Tribals oppose relocation from Barnawapara forest.” The Times of India, November 2, 2017.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/61470213.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
20. Update from Chhattisgarh State Assembly on issues related to Forest Rights. Budget session from February 18 to March 22, 2013.
21. Que 35/330 & 53/331 dated 21st July 2014 raised by Dr Sanam Jangde, and Que 50/517 by Dr Vimal Chopra.
22. Kumar, R.K. 2016. “Tribal forum seeks rehabilitation measures in Karnataka State Budget.” The Hindu, January 23, 2016.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/Tribal-forum-seeks-rehabilitation-measures-in-Karnataka-State-
Budget/article14015789.ece;
23. Chinnappa, J.K. 2013. “Tribal relocation proves tricky.” The Hindu, January 6, 2013. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-
environment/tribal-relocation-proves-tricky/article4277189.ece
24. Muzaffar, A. 2014. “Executive Summary of the Report: On the Tribal Issue of Rajiv Gandhi (Nagarhole) National Park”. Report submitted
to Honourable Court Committee on the Tribal Issues of Rajiv Gandhi National Park. July 2014.
25. Vikhar, A.S. 2010. “Eviction Fear”. Frontline, Vol. 27, Issue 04, February 13-26, 2010.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl2704/stories/20100226270409100.htm
26. Desai, A., and P. Bhargav. 2010. “Report on the progress of Village Relocation from Nagarahole and Mudumalai Tiger Reserves”. National
Tiger Conservation Authority. August 2010.
27. Information available in the Wayanad Management Conservation Plan, consulted in the fieldwork, May 2017.
28. Manoj, E.M. 2015. “Tribal families to leave wildlife sanctuary.” The Hindu, August 31, 2015.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/tribal-familiesto-leave-wildlife-sanctuary/article7598516.ece
29. Manoj, E.M. 2012. “Settlers in Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary to be relocated.” The Hindu, April 9, 2012. https://www.thehindu.com/todays-
paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/settlers-in-wayanad-wildlife-sanctuary-to-be-relocated/article3295442.ece.
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [70]
30. Ayappan, R. 2017. “Kerala: 20,000 families in forests to be relocated to safety.” Deccan Chronicle, September 20, 2017.
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/200917/kerala-20000-families-in-forests-to-be-relocated-to-safety.html.
31. Kalpvriksh. 2011. “Protected Area Updates” ENVIS, PA Updates, No. 89 February 2011.
http://wiienvis.nic.in/WriteReadData/UserFiles/file/89Feb2011.pdf
32. Saju, S. 2017. “A tribal tragedy: Baited by large compensation, Baigas of Kanha grapple with post-eviction dilemma.” The Indian Express, May
30, 2017. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/a-tribal-tragedy-baited-by-large-compensation-baigas-of-kanha-grapple-with-post-
eviction-dilemma-4680814/.
33. Venkateshwarlu, K. 2015. “Mass evictions from tiger reserves: French TV.” The Hindu, July 23, 2015.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/mass-evictions-from-tiger-reserves-french-tv/article7454461.ece.
34. Redd Monitor. 2015. “WWF scandal (part 6): Eviction of Indigenous people in India for Tiger Tourism.” Redd Monitor, July 23, 2015.
https://redd-monitor.org/2015/07/23/wwf-scandal-part-6-evictions-of-indigenous-peoples-in-india-for-tiger-tourism/.
35. Ranjan, R. 2016. “We cannot pollute our surroundings: Madhya Pradesh's deprived Baiga tribe is learning to survive outside forests after
being evicted from Kanha National Park.” Mail Online, June 12, 2016. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-
3636991/We-pollute-surroundings-Madhya-Pradesh-s-deprived-Baiga-tribe-learning-survive-outside-forest-evicted-Kanha-National-
Park.html.
36. Hazik, S. 2015. “Stop illegal eviction of tribes from Kanha Tiger Reserve, urge activists.” Down To Earth, July 04, 2015.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/stop-illegal-eviction-of-tribes-from-kanha-tiger-reserve-urge-activists-48277.
37. Business Standard. 2016. “With Luxury Encroaching In Forest Areas, Tribals Fear For Their Existence.” Business Standard, June 18, 2016.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/with-luxury-encroaching-in-forest-areas-tribals-fear-for-their-existence-
116061800258_1.html.
38. Dutt, B. 2017. “How to Drown a Tiger.” The Hindu, April 22, 2017. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/how-to-
drown-a-tiger/article18183135.ece.
39. Asia Indigenous People Pact Foundation. 2016. “Subject: Calling urgent attention to the eminent forced eviction of indigenous Gond
people for expansion of Panna Tiger Reserve.” Asia Indigenous People Pact Foundation, April 4, 2016. http://iphrdefenders.net/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/Letter-WWF-Panna-Tiger-Reserve-AIPP.pdf;
[71] Eleonora Fanari
40. Aggarwal, M. 2017. “Wildlife panel recommends clearance of tiger corridor area for canal.” Live Mint, September 14, 2017.
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/YKourKehbfj4FKnrdCPx3N/Wildlife-panel-recommends-clearance-of-tiger-corridor-forest.html.
41. Pinjarkar, V. 2017. “Mansighdeo merges with Pench Tiger Reserve.” The Times of India, May 1, 2017.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/mansighdeo-merges-with-pench-tiger-reserve/articleshow/58450088.cms.
42. Langescoirx, A., and A. Kothari. 2009. “Displacement and Relocation from Protected Areas: A synthesis and analyses of case studies.”
Economic and Political Weekly XLIV (49).
43. Pinjarkar, V. 2017. “Ramtek MLA Reddy finally opposes fishing in Pench.” The Times of India, August 26, 2017.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/60226508.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst.
44. Pallavi, A. 2012. “Tribal fishers to move court after one of them is killed by forest staff in Pench National Park.” Down To Earth, July 6,
2012. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/tribal-fishers-to-move-court-after-one-of-them-is-killed-by-forest-staff-in-pench-national-
park-38623.
45. Kalpvriksh. 2010. “Protected Area Update” ENVIS, PA Update, No. 83, January, 2010.
http://wiienvis.nic.in/WriteReadData/UserFiles/file/83Jan2010.pdf.
46. Vijay, P. 2014. “Finally, Jamni makes way for Tadoba tigers.” The Times of India March 4, 2014.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Finally-Jamni-makes-way-for-Tadoba-tigers/articleshow/31365480.cms
47. CFR-LA. 2017. “Promise and Performance of Forest Rights Act, Maharastra 2017”. Maharasthra: CFR Learning and Advocacy group.
48. Pinjarkar, V. 2014. “Maharashtra to seek Rs 217 crore from Centre for relocation”. The Times of India, June 6, 2014.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/36117455.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst.
49. Pallavi, A. 2015. “Relocation by Half Measure.” Down To Earth, July 4, 2015. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/relocation-by-half-
measure-3690.
50. Pallavi, A. 2010. “Tribal Challenge Forest Department”. Down To Earth, March 15, 2010.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/news/tribals-challenge-forest-department-999.
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [72]
51. Aghor, A. 2009. “19 rehabilitated families return to Tadoba”. DNA, May 25, 2009. https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-19-
rehabilitated-families-return-to-tadoba-1258711.
52. Kalpvriksh. 2010. “Protected Area Updates” ENVIS, PA Updates, No. 88, December, 2010.
http://www.kalpavriksh.org/images/PAUpdate/PAUPDATE_88_Dec2010.pdf.
53. Alliday, A. 2015. “Mizoram: Decision on Dampa Tiger Reserve by September end.” The Indian Express, September 1, 2015.
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/mizoram-decision-on-dampa-tiger-reserve-by-september-end/
54. Government of Maharastra. 2014. “Melghat Tiger Reserve, Amravati. Tiger Conservation Plan: Core Area.” Maharashtra: Government of
Maharashtra. http://www.melghattiger.gov.in/documents/TCP%20CORE%20PLAN%20in%20MTR.pdf.
55. Jamwal, N. 2015. “Tension over relocation at Melghat sanctuary.” Down To Earth, July 4, 2015.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/tension-over-relocation-at-melghat-sanctuary-6229.
56. Pinjarkar, V. 2017. “Encroachers evicted from Melghat tiger reserve.” The Times of India, July 5, 2017.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/encroachers-evicted-from-melghat-tiger-reserve/articleshow/59447859.cms.
57. Press Trust of India. 2017. “Relocation of village in Melghat tiger reserve gains momentum.” Business Standard, June 3, 2017.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/relocation-of-village-in-melghat-tiger-reserve-gains-momentum-
117060300397_1.html
58. Viren, L., S. Dubey, and A. Singh. 2016. “Deliberate Deprivation of Forest Resource Rights and Forced Eviction of Indigenous
Communities Violation of FRA, 2006 in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Alwar, Rajasthan.” Udaipur: Institute for Ecology and Livelihood Action.
59. Information shared by Abhishankar Sharma, Krapavis, in the consultation meeting on Forest Rights Act in Protected Areas, Delhi,
November 15, 2017.
60. Shekhawat, R.S. 2014. “Tiger Conservation Plan: Sariska Tiger Reserve.” Rajasthan: Government of Rajasthan.
61. Times of India. 2015. “Funds delay hampering village relocation for tiger corridor.” The Times of India, June 24, 2015.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/47793499.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst.
[73] Eleonora Fanari
62. Sunny, S. 2002. “Villages to be shifted out of Ranthambhore this year.” The Hindu, July 7, 2002.
https://www.thehindu.com/2002/07/07/stories/2002070703510700.htm.
63. Times of India. 2016. “Relocating villages: Ranthambore struggles to find space for tigers.” The Times of India, September 25, 2016.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/54504642.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst;
64. Down To Earth. 2015. “Relocation farce. Only promises: some villagers want out, others fight it out.” Down To Earth, June 28, 2015.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/relocation-farce-10511
65. Dey, A. 2015. “Ranthambore National Park: Turf war.” The Times of India, August 27, 2015.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6442888.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
66. Sharma, S. 2014. “Few Van Gujjars in Uttarakhand have documents to claim job quota.” Times of India, February 4, 2017.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Few-van-gujjars-in-Uttarakhand-have-documents-to-claim-job-
quota/articleshow/29869537.cms
67. Sharma, S. 2017. “Shifting of Van Gujjar from Rajaji reserve begins.” The Times of India, November 26, 2017.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/shifting-of-van-gujjars-from-rajaji-reserve-begins/articleshow/61799253.cms
68. Rastogi, A. 2015. “Court Ruling on Forest Rights Cheers Van Gujjars.” Down To Earth, July 05, 2015.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/court-ruling-on-forest-rights-cheers-van-gujjars-6462.
69. Sharma, S. 2016. “With no political patronage, exodus of Van Gujjars finally begins from Rajaji Tiger Reserve.” The Times of India, April 20,
2016. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/With-no-political-patronage-exodus-of-Van-Gujjars-finally-begins-from-Rajaji-
tiger-reserve/articleshow/51915167.cms.
70. Sharma, S. 2017. “Kalagarh encroachers will be evicted from Corbett after elections.” The Times of India, February 14, 2017.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/kalagarh-encroachers-will-be-evicted-from-corbett-after-
elections/articleshow/57150121.cms.
71. Economic Times. 2016. “NGT seeks MoEF reply on funds to rehabilitate Kalagarh people.” Economic Times, September 8, 2016.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/ngt-seeks-moef-reply-on-funds-to-rehabilitate-kalagarh-
people/articleshow/54196253.cms.
Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [74]
72. Mazumdaar, J. 2017. “Corbett, now on sale.” Tehelka, September 17, 2017.
https://www.pressreader.com/india/tehelka/20120512/281694021796267.
73. Express News Service. 2016. “NTCA report on Satkosia village relocation sought.” The New Indian Express, November 13, 2016.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2016/nov/13/ntca-report-on-satkosia-village-relocation-sought-1538024.html
74. Kalpvriksh. 2010. “Protected Area Updates” ENVIS, PA Updates, No. 86, July, 2010
http://www.kalpavriksh.org/images/PAUpdate/PAUPDATE86_July2010.pdf
75. Tripathi, B. 2017. “Pushed out of the woods.” Business Line, June 23, 2017. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/cover/pushed-
out-of-the-woods/article9733528.ece
76. The Hindu. 2017. “Tribals against shifting of villages from protected areas.” The Hindu, January 7, 2017.
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/Tribals-against-shifting-of-villages-from-protected-
areas/article17002794.ece
77. The Ecologist. 2014. “India: tribes face eviction for ‘tiger conservation’.” The Ecologist, May 13, 2014.
https://theecologist.org/2014/may/13/india-tribes-face-eviction-tiger-conservation
78. Vasundhara. 2016. “Draft Report on the Implementation of Forest Rights in Protected Areas in Odisha.” Bhubaneshwar: Vasundhara.
79. Information shared by Pushpanjali Satpathy, Vasundhara, May, 2017.