Chapter 2

POVERTY, RURAL LIVELIHOODS AND THE

ENVIRONMENT: A REVIEW

14

2.1. Sustainable Development

Literature

A Review of

The evolution of development economics 1n the mid-20th

Century saw a shift in focus from economic growth to economic

development, by broad basing the idea of growth to include non­

monetary attributes. Another major watershed in development

thinking in the last quarter of the 20th Century was the shift in

emphasis from economic development to sustainable

development. The evolution of the concept of sustainable

development marks growing attention to the interface between

the environment and economic development, which has

attracted a lot of academic attention not just in economics but

also in other social sciences. The World Commission on

Environment and Development, in 1987, defined sustainable

development as a process that "meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

their own needs". When defined as above, an important element

of time is introduced into the idea of economic development,

thereby raising the issue of inter-generational equity.

Three distinct aspects of sustainable development can be

discerned - economic (relating to the continued production of

goods and services over time), ecological (concerned with

maintaining the natural resource base at stable levels over

time), and social (related to equitable sharing of the benefits of

development across space and time). Viewed in this manner,

sustainable development is a far more complex and multi­

dimensional concept than economic development, to understand

which a range of multi-disciplinary tools need to be employed.

Within economics, the study of sustainable development

requires a break with the traditional neoclassical "more is

better'' type of thinking, since it can be shown that small

increases in consumption (combined with improved social

institutions and a healthier environment) may yield higher levels

of sustainable development than rapid increase in material

consumption alone (Ifjt.#nifigl:],_Q~~). In this sense, adoption of

the concept of sustainable development implies some

fundamental shifts in the mainstream, neoclassical, market­

centric economic paradigm. The very definition of capital has

been revised to focus on five types of capital - physical, natural,

financial, social and human capital. An important contribution

of environment economics 1s to question the implicit

substitutability between physical and natural capital, which

may not hold especially for critical natural resources like clean

air and water. In turn, this suggests that there may be clear

limits to the growth of the economic system, beyond which the

quality and quantity of natural capital may decline (I-J~rris

2001)~

Ecological economics was inspired by the path breaking work of

Geofgest'\;l-"R(.)§~il--.(19?;'1), who postulated that the economic

system is a subset of the larger biophysical system, and

following the second law of thermodynamics, degradation of the

earth's resources over time is inevitable. Thus, he argued, in the

long run it will be impossible to maintain the stock of natural

capital at a stable level. Inspired by his work, others argue that

different decision rules may be required for the management of

renewable and non-renewable resources, so as to maintain a

constant stock of natural capital (¢1?n§t~if-aiit(:_I.)~ty_~i9'9_2).

Standard neoclassical economics has often equated the idea of

sustainability with economic efficiency or efficient allocation ,of

resources to maximize welfare. However, this reductionist

approach depends heavily on the use of discount rates to value

16

future benefits and costs and compare them to current benefits

and costs. This has been critiqued extensively, and the use of

discount rates has been contested due to their bias against

future generations and in favour of current generations

(~§w~f~lf!~sN'1trgi(s1£ij1tilQQ~). In order to address valuation

problems arising out of arbitrariness of discount rates, some

scholars have advocated what came to be known as the

"precautionary principle". This principle calls for maintaining

safe minimum levels of critical natural resources facing heavy

degradation threats (like the tropical rainforests), since the

future benefit flow from such resources are uncertain and

society should retain the option values inherent in these

resources (f£qm@.!tif:~~1fr:~i,R~fi.1ing~]~~Qlii). Thus, the valuation of

ecosystem services provided by natural resources like forests is

a heavily contested area, and at issue here are not just

economic techniques of valuation but the philosophical basis of

value itself (§gyJqtf@J;iUf.fid.r,~~fil:i.~~y,.192~). While it is important

to take equity, efficiency and sustainability concerns . into

account during the process of valuation, this is very difficult to

achieve in practice, since the exercise is highly normative

(@gi.l~,~~tJl~~~~~EgJ~~·j~;;~:Q.Qgi). However, inspite of practical

difficulties, it is important to engage with valuation issues

because if this is not done, the market system may assign

values close to zero to the vital ecosystem services and other

positive extemalities generated by environment conservation

(Hgr#i§I~~-~~~)l. Thus, there appears to be broad consensus that issues of

natural resource conservation and sustainability must be

addressed if economic development is to be meaningful. This

consensus is also reflected in govemment policies in the

industrialized as well as less industrialized. countries, where a

slew of policy measures have been taken over the decades to

preserve biodiversity and reduce the environmentally damaging

17

impacts of the process of economic growth. An important area of

enquiry emerging from implementation of conservation policies

relates to the linkages between environmental sustainability and

social equity. In his seminal contribution to this issue, UUah I

Martinez~Alier>i~'~(:}gg'~j argues ·that there is a clear disjoint

between the impact of and dependence of the rich and the poor

on environmental resources. The rich have a larger ecological

footprint due to much higher levels of consumption, but are

affected to a lesser extent (or with longer gestation periods) by

deterioration of natural capital. The poor, on the other hand, are

dependent on natural resources for a large part of their

(relatively meagre) survival needs, and suffer sharp and

immediate consequences of environmental degradation. The

formidable track record of economic development across the

world has been blemished by the persistent problems of

absolute poverty, inequality and environmental decline. There is

a significant body of knowledge that views these phenomena as

interlinked, as well as endemic to the very nature of economic

development after the Second World War. Therefore, in the

following section, we will move from a broad discussion of

sustainable development to the specific arena of rural poverty

and its interconnections with the environment (and with

conservation policies), especially in the so-called Third World.

2.2. Poverty - A Review of Literature "Poverty has various manifestations, including lack of income and productive resources sufficient to ensure sustainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition; ill health; limited or lack of access to education and other basic services; increased morbidity and mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe environments; and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterized by a lack of participation in decision-making and in civil, social and cultural life. " -The Charter of Action released by the United Nations World Summit on Social Development, Copenhagen 1995

A vast body of literature has been generated in the field of

development economics on the nature and causes of poverty,

18

with special reference to rural poverty and its impact on

vulnerable social groups. Early theories viewed poverty

simplistically as a lack of adequate income, which in turn was

seen as a necessary but transient problem associated with t~e

initial phase of development, during which the economy

concentrates resources in the hands of groups with a higher

savings propensity (ffh~~::B~~§Qn]2R¢P~~;;~i~{?Q). Analytically, the

study of poverty can be traced back at least to 1901, when

Rowntree's study in York, England tried to develop a poverty

standard for individual households (~9wtl.#t~~<\i90l). During the

1970s, the scope of poverty studies began to widen, to include

not just income poverty but also basic needs and relative

deprivation. Additional nuances were added in the 1980s, when

non-monetary aspects of poverty began to be emphasized

(reflecting the work of Robert Chambers on powerlessness and

isolation). Other important ideas that began to be associated

with poverty studies included risk and vulnerability, coping

strategies, social relations and social capital, capabilities and

functionings, and gender issues, leading to a broadening of the

concept of poverty to sustainable livelihoods. The 1990s saw the

use of 'well-being' as a metaphor for poverty, through studies

that focused on the perception of the poor themselves. Since

then, the literature on poverty and development has progressed

to a stage where mainstream theories view poverty as a multi­

dimensional phenomenon that violates basic tenets of human

rights. Thus, the term poverty has been used, over time, to

describe a variety of things, including inadequacy of income or

consumption, human underdevelopment, social exclusion, ill-' .

being, lack of vital capabilities and functionings, vulnerability,

livelihood unsustainability, lack of basic needs and relative

deprivation, among others.

Alleviation of poverty has been declared one of the most

important priorities of the international community, as outlined

19

In the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted at the

United Nations Millennium Declaration of September 2000. The

MDGs emphasize not only poverty eradication through income

generation, but also focus on other correlates of poverty, '

including access to education and health, gender equality and

sustainability of the natural resource base. Significantly, the

Declaration mentions international cooperation as a way of

pooling together of resources to realize the MDGs. However,

according to some analysts, " ... even if the 2015 Goals are met in

full, there will still be around 900 million people, mostly living in

Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, whose poverty IS

intractable. Many of these people have been poor for years -

often since birth. Poverty is frequently an inheritance passed on

from generation to generation" (frl:i@~;. :ryloor~[.:;;uid 'S}1.eph$.rd

2001). Thus, despite an emerging global compact on the urgent

need to address all forms of poverty, policy prescriptions for

poverty alleviation seem inadequate to deal with the problem of

poverty in all its complexity and multi-dimensionality. This·

possibly explains the rapid evolution of the literature on poverty

and the emergence of increasingly complex and multi­

dimensional formulations like chronic poverty, the sustainable

livelihoods framework, the capabilities approach, and the rights­

based approach to poverty.

2.2.1 Common Approaches to Poverty

Three distinct approaches to poverty can be identified In the

traditional development literature:

a. The Income Approach: These tend to define poverty in

terms of "a lack of income, expenditure or consumption", and

the poor are identified as those whose income falls below a

certain threshold, called the poverty line (~?fi~y!)2~:~1:!CJ!s§~y!r~

;~~$~~~;_F~g~J~i§ml£~~Q~l)':[(§lj}~\}';[M~K~1tgQ.Q!1). Thus, material

poverty is defined as "a low standard of living, meaning

20

deprivation ... because of insufficient resources to avoid such

deprivation" (~l~lf~fi~~~$:~~¥(:~). The money-metric

definitions to poverty are criticized for their narrowness, but

on the other hand are easier to compute and track across

space and time. In practise, these are the approaches used

most. commonly by policy-makers, governments and

empirical researchers.

Within the money-metric approach, poverty can be viewed as

either absolute or relative deprivation. The absolute poverty

approach defines poverty as subsistence below some

absolute threshold of physical well being, usually defined in

terms of income or calories, but often also including some

other minimum non-food physical requirements. Relative

poverty, on the other hand, sees the poor as those whose

income or consumption is lower than some fraction of the

national average, and in this sense, also focuses on

inequality in distribution of income and wealth.

b. The Basic Needs Approach: Here, poverty is viewed as lack

of access to certain "basic needs" ($~reet~pief~81<)98i). The

notion of 'basic needs' itself has expanded to include

essential material requirements like food, water, shelter, and

clothing, and also non-material needs like education, health,

credit, participation in political process, security and dignity.

In general, more recent work has viewed poverty as a multi­

dimensional phenomenon, including material deprivation,

higher levels of insecurity and risk, and lack of participation

in civil society processes (~PtJft·~~il~;~;:g:QQQ).

Here, however, two distinct strands can be seen In the

poverty literature. Even as many recent formulations define

poverty more broadly in terms of the inability to participate

in society, its roots are seen to lie in lack of material

resources (~dJEiliZ~~{i~i.!3¥11~l~)f~lT:fi9J?:f~,9~; M~it±Wfi~6ft71©§'8}

2()04). On the other hand, others also include non-material

21

elements of poverty - for instance, the UN definition of

poverty includes aspects like 'lack of participation in

decision-making", "violation of human dignity",

"susceptibility to violence" and "powerlessness" - not all of

which flow necessarily from low resource access.

Recent research has established that the poor aspire not just

to raise income and consumption, but also for "survival,

based on stable subsistence; security, based on assets and

rights; and self-respect, based on independence and choice"

!pha;riib~f~:;l:,S~~ft~£~~~[1)~l~~!;~~~). Clearly, then, the poor

themselves view their own poverty as a multi-dimensional

and not just an economic phenomenon. Participatory studies

of poverty reveal that people in poverty often identify non­

material aspects like humiliation and lack of self-esteem as

important defining features of poverty (~~~y~;:,et~~itl;~~OQO;

Galloway,:2Q02).

The Capabilities Approach: This approach, based on the

work of Amartya Sen, views poverty as the lack of basic

capabilities, both intrinsic and instrumental, which allow

people to achieve functionings (the things they want to do)

and beings (the states of existence they want to experience).

Sen argues that the well being is a function of an individual's

'capability' of functioning in society, which in turn is derived

from being well-fed, healthy, educated, secure and

independent, and having various freedoms like those of

speech and expression.

Usually, the capabilities approach is used in relative terms,

for instance, in the UNDP's Human Development Indices

CQi':U;~_Rci{:~~~~3;[;~±gQ,QQ). However, if a minimum set of

capabilities people need can be defined, then the capabilities

approach can also be operationalized in absolute terms

(~q~~l1{~{~i:lriQ:9iioot~QQ~). In fact, Sen himself provides a

framework for reconcilin <€\~yt ~d absolute poverty using - · f·z'~-""~"-.:_ &~ ...

95T4H160954 r' ~~/ \~~:~~ 333. . d--~:; Li"hr··nJ '; ;-;. l K113 Dl · \;::q .v .. av, >21~

lll ll ll II lllllll\1 llllllll\llll \~~~-,/~~::// T H 15091 ~'-- ·.!!.: . .:f'/

LL

the capabilities approach, by arguing, "relative deprivation in

terms of incomes can yield absolute deprivation in terms of

capabilities' (§[ziZ4~2~2J§:~J. Hillm~t .. ~t.~i.(~QQ1:9) point out

that the capabilities approach, by highlighting "the

relationship between the means and ends of poverty

reduction, ... makes strong and explicit links between human

agency, poverty and public policy (necessary to ensure

entitlements)". However, the capabilities approach is difficult

to operationalize precisely because of its broad sweep, and

the mapping from capabilities to achievements is non-unique

as well as controversial mii1i2P..:~JiY:i4 ~E:l.V:~lion .1995,:2566;

4fi~~:g:o9:?3ft).

2.2.2 Other Approaches to Poverty

Various other strands in poverty studies can be identified,

which have enriched our understanding of this complex

phenomenon:

a. Marxist and Neo-Marxist Approaches: These political

economy based approaches locate the origins and

continuation of poverty firmly in the very nature of the

capitalist system. Marx himself had theorized "the advance of

capitalism is characterized by the amassing of wealth at one

pole and of deprivation at the other'' (Jl).~~ii~OQ~;:~2). Neo­

Marxist theories of dualistic and uneven development,

colonial and neo-imperialistic practices of global capital,

alienation and 'catching-up' industrialization re-emphasize

that immiserization of the masses in the so-called Third

World is linked inextricably to the accumulation of wealth by

a few in the advanced industrial countries (p~th;#~~dQ9$;

&illJrlk~:@2:~;:h~ggqffi1~!;2J~g·;jft{~~t~2~i~). These theories argue

that poverty in the modern world is not due to the

23

unavailability of resources and technology to eradicate it, but

is a direct fall-out of the capitalist mode of production.

b. Sociological Approaches: Various sociologists have examined

in detail the role of agency (individual action) and structure

(wider social, economic and political institutions and

processes) for people in poverty and their ability to cope with

or move out of poverty (~~,~~~'[«<;g~~~~~~~~~m~l'i~~ffi';;}~Q'(j_~;­

~J§~j[~~~-~fE~Il'll:I,IIJ~<~~). "Of particular significance for

the study of poverty is the extent to which, on the one hand,

structure enables or constrains the agency of different

groups and, on the other, the agency of different groups is

able to impact on structure." (~l~~~~;r~~:Q11t"if~g§)

c. Environmental Approaches: Complex ecological linkages

affect the relationship between poverty and the

environmental resource base (m~~mijj~\:J[~?~;$}~). However, the

link between degradation of environmental resources and the

impact of this on poverty, especially among remote rural

communities eking out a livelihood in degraded, semi-arid

dryland areas of the world's poorest countries, is a relatively

under-researched topic. An intricate relationship exists,

prima facie, between poverty and the environmental resource

base, since a majority of the poor are agrarian or pastoral by

occupation. Many studiesl based on an interface of

anthropology, sociology, economics and nutrition science

have emphasized both the dependence of the poor on . common pool resources (CPRs), and the declining access of

the poor to CPRs due to mainstream forces of "development"

(JJ?(ll'i.:g!~-Q'(;>.~). Increased pressure on national governments in

recent years to protect and conserve vital ecosystems

through designation of biodiversity rich CPRs as PAs has

only served to curtail access of the poor to the CPRs- that lie

at the 'core of their survival strategies.

L'+

2.2.3 Measurement of Poverty

Given the diversity of ideas subsumed within the overall

category of 'poverty', the measurement of poverty is bound to be

complex as well as controversial. Different definitions of poverty

use different indicators for measurement. For instance, money­

metric models of poverty seek to generate information on income

and consumption; vulnerability models need information on

income, wealth and exposure to risk; models based on capability

and functioni1.15 C:U c; ~Ua.>:>c;U." VJ.J. 'I,;J..lc; J.J.J.va.>:> U.J. vJ.J.J.v.l.ll.: V.l J.J..lv

expectancy and levels of education; models of well-being or

social exclusion try to assess performance on indicators like the

degree of social cohesion and mutual self-help. Usually, studies

based on any one of the above models also try to present

information on indicators used by other approaches, in order to

capture the multi-dimensionality of poverty (Maxwelll999).

However, a common problem in poverty measurement is that of

aggregating the different aspects of· poverty, which calls for a

system of weights to be attached to the different attributes of

poverty. The Physical Quality of Life Index and the ·Human

Development Index are examples of such attempts at

aggregation. While such composite measures provide a useful

simplified presentation of poverty, the outcomes of such studies

are highly sensitive to the choice of indicators and relative

weights attached to them. Therefore, they are used mostly to

supplement other measures of poverty, which in turn are

usually income-based.

2.2.4 Rural Poverty in India

The United Nation's International Fund for Agricultural

Development (!FAD) has developed a five-fold classification of

rural poverty (&fg~ggg[(;,·t@!;l::.!§l?!2R~~~:l~~~~2~;:.rZ~.;~;~), which can be

helpful for devising poverty alleviation strategies.

25

1. Interstitial poverty: pockets of poverty surrounded by power,

affluence and ownership of assets and characterized by

material deprivation and alienation. This phenomenon makes

it difficult to target resources at the rural poor without their

being pre-empted by the non-poor.

2. Peripheral poverty: found in marginal areas mainly among

smallholder farmers and the landless in upland areas and on

marginal agricultural land. It is characterized by material

deprivation combined with isolation and alienation.

3. Traumatic or sporadic poverty: often caused by natural or

social calamities, which can produce occasional poverty with

serious incidence of malnutrition.

4. Overcrowding poverty: generally arises from population

growth in areas of high agricultural productivity, which

sustain large rural populations.

5. Endemic poverty: caused by low productivity and poor

resource base resulting in low income, poor nutrition and

health. Typically, the groups most vulnerable to endemic

poverty are smallholders, small fishermen and small

herdsmen.

2.2.5 Poverty among the Scheduled Tribes

The Adivasis (the Scheduled Tribes - literally, the 'first

residents1 of India are recognized as an especially vulnerable

group, for which poverty and lack of productive assets has

become an increasingly vexed issue. Across India, a range of

economic, social and agro-climatic factors combine to make the

Scheduled Tribes especially vulnerable to severe, long duration,

inter-generationally transmitted poverty . (M4~~~~,·-~tf~~~}1@

. .20()~). In terms of geographical emphasis, a tribal region that

sociologists, anthropologists, historians and economists have

focused on especially is Central India (broadly comprising the

states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Jharkhand,

I

26

Chhatisgarh, Orissa and Maharashtra, which together are home

to about 70 per cent of the country's tribal population, apart

from northeast India). The historic dependence of the livelihood

of Central Indian tribes on land and natural resources has been

well documented (~[~~4):~0:Q~; Rijj.gafiiTan~~:fj'QQ($). Also well

known is the fact that over the years, their natural resource

base has been degrading steadily, even as poverty has

intensified and their rights over land, water and forests have

been eroded progressively.

While agriculture (along with forest produce collection) is the

mainstay of the Central Indian tribal economy, most farm

operations in upland, hilly tribal areas are rain-fed and are

characterized by low output and productivity. The landscape

has gradually been scarred by overexploitation of vegetation,

erosion of topsoil, poor regeneration of biomass and excessive

runoff of rainwater, which in turn has resulted in low soil

productivity and stagnant agricultural output. In Madhya

Pradesh, for instance, in recent decades the number of small

and marginal landholders has nearly doubled, and agricultural·

productivity has stagnated (§gah :8:Iid·;-y~j~yfi§qE~J).lfaf/2QQ2; M{?f:IDR 2()Q~:8~). Disaggregated analysis by agro-ecological

sub-regions (AESRs) shows that the severity of poverty and

agricultural stagnation is highest in the tribal-majority AESRs of

Madhya Pradesh ~U§lY:;i§h~~gk:l~QJ?.~). Thus, the general trend

among Central Indian Scheduled Tribes has been of

fragmentation of and alienation from the natural resource base

and increasing vulnerability of livelihoods. The debate on forest

conservation and its interface with tribal livelihoods needs to be

situated within this overall picture of declining sustainability of

dryland agriculture.

27

2.3. Tribes and Forests in pre-colonial and colonial

India

Imperial forester historians viewed the indigenous forests users

as destroyers of forest resources, and justified the introduc;tion

of scientific forestry by the British as an attempt to save India's

forests from wanton destruction by tribes and other forest­

dwellers (R1~b~i-itr{ip'719oo;~;S't¢ppltigt1~·~2;,~). Others, however,

argued that economic, social and cultural practices of India's

tribes were essentially ecologically friendly in the pre-colonial

period, and their traditional systems of land use were inherently

stable, except in the face of destabilizing external influences

(Eiwiti·,;;l:l;9$9;;';:,.Q~~gff;J:j':$Qtj§~;~·'~ytfa;';i:l~&~). According to this

viewpoint, a series of changes in land tenure, forestry and other

policies were unleashed by the British in India, which caused

disruption in the inherently balanced and harmonious

relationship of tribal societies with forests and nature.

Interestingly, both sides view the imperial period as a

watershed, signifying a break with the past as far as the

relationship between the tribes and forests was concerned

fRaqgi:if~Jiifii~'fQ_$():$). Yet another approach holds that the forces

pushing marginal communities (like pastoral and tribal people)

to the fringes of 'civilized space' had already begun acting in the

pre-colonial period. Scholars like David Ludden underscore the

broad continuity under colonialism, when certain decisive

changes in policy finally swung the balance of power against

mobile and indigenous communities, and in favour of lowlands­

based sedentary agriculturalists (~~IJ§f,t)I2~~).

R.a;l?;g~;Ij~':ilsl'Jl)Q'Q'{j) attempts to strike a balance between the

'disjuncture' versus 'continuity' debate outlined above. He

argues that while there were trends towards marginalization of

non-sedentary communities even in the pre-colonial period, the

advent of the British decisively altered not just the pace and

scale but often the very nature of these changes. Flexible user

28

rights of the pre-colonial period were replaced by an absolute

notion of property introduced by the British Empire, which did

not share a relationship of dependency with the tribal and

mobile peoples. Colonial foresters and administrators made

decisive moves to sedentarize tribes and mobile communities,

mainly for reasons of law and order. Thus, Rangarajan argues,

the state in colonial India intervened far more deeply than its

predecessors into the lives of tribal and other forest-dwelling,

mobile communities, often changing their entire production

process due to its deep interventions in the pattem of land use

and land management.

Early scholars in post-colonial India approached the issue of

Adivasis and their relationship with forests from the perspective

of economic development and political stability. In the early

years after Independence, a lively debate emerged on "what to

do with the tribals" (§f!x~~§&!1i~Ji[~J. Votaries of nationalism

and modernization questioned the claim made by ecological

romantics like ~J"Wni&l~9~21 that the Adivasis of India were

culturally and sociologically unique2. For instance, Ghul}'e

(1959} argued that the tribes were not different 1n any

significant way from the so-called lower castes. Scholars of this

orientation debunked the notion of the nature loving, peaceable,

essentially conservationist 'noble savage' Adivasi, who is content

to live amid remote forests. Instead, they called for rapid

assimilation of the Adivasis into the national mainstream, in the

combined interest of the nationalist project as well as

betterment of Adivasi communities.

In recent decades, a wider range of issues relating to tribes and

forests has begun occupying centre-stage. These include the \

historical relationship between tribes and forests, variations in

the social formations emanating from this relationship, patterns

of natural resource exploitation by the tribes, and the overall

impact of these on poverty, equity, human development and

29

political empowerment of the Scheduled Tribes. With the

evolution of disciplines like Subaltern Studies and environment

history, the discourse on Adivasis and forests underwent a shift

in the 1980s and 1990s. Instead of focusing on only economic '

development and national integration as main themes, studies

dealing with India's tribal history began to engage with other,

more complex issues like identity, class, gender, ecology, equity,

ethnic transformation and participatory forest resource

management (@}j.~qffijJ!l1i;[[~t-i~¥f,~~Q4). These shifts in thinking

have also been reflected in the paradigm shift in the

conservation and livelihood debate in India.

2.4 A Typology of Conservation Paradigms

2.4.1. Fortress or Exclusionist Conservation

Government organized PAs began to be set up first in the 19th

century in Europe and America, with the establishment of the

Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, USA in 1872. This

model was consolidated and built up further by early colonial

foresters, administrators and scientists, who believed in

exclusion of local people from forests and water resources for

the greater common goal of preservation of these 'wilderness'

areas (M¢Cracl{¢ii: .:-;; :tf9$7ii'9Q; Qroy~}ij;':',:J.·9}~.7F2ili49; KJ:.tm:~

.t:Q.9$;~{t5ifQJ). The extent of Protected Areas worldwide has

grown remarkably over the 20th and 21st century, especially in

the last few decades. According to the IUCN, there are around

29,000 Protected Areas (PAs) in the world today, covering

around 8.5 million sq. km of land (~~§}~'f:,l't:~qQ~). Other

estimates are even less conservative. According to IQQ"\Vll'~(2{[()§)',

"In 1962, there were some 1,000 official PAs worldwide. Today

there are 108,000, with more being added every day." It 1s

estimated that the total land area under some form of

conservation protection worldwide has doubled since 1990,

when the World Parks Commission set a goal of protecting 10

30

percent of the planet's surface. In 2005, an estimated 12

percent of all land, and a total area of 11.75 million square

miles was protected. This is greater than the entire landmass of

Africa. The primary goal of PAs has been to protect and preserve

plants, animals and micro-organisms, but other related benefits

are also indicated, like watershed protection, preservation of

biodiversity, climatic regulation, tourism revenues and

consumption values (!;i~i!9_19Jdghi.eili4::QhimJr~)9.9p:J36).

More than 100 years later, a majority of PAs in Africa, Asia and

Latin America follow a model of conservation fashioned broadly

on the exclusionist paradigm popularized initially in Europe and

America. The accepted wisdom among wildlife conservationists

is that human interventions tend to interfere with the natural

functioning of these ecosystems through overstocking,

overgrazing, and otherwise overusing natural resources.

Conservation of these ecosystems, it is argued, requires them to

be restored to their 'pristine' state of undisturbed, untouched

and untamed 'wilderness'. This powerful 'wilderness' paradigm

has driven the creation of National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries

and other legally recognized Protected Areas (PAs) over the past

half century or more, while viewing local populations living in

and around PAs as a threat to the biodiversity and wildlife. The

establishment of PAs is based implicitly or explicitly on the idea

of "fortress" conservation ('§f.QJ;:~gt.Q~:,2002), which postulates

that human populations must be excluded from PAs to give a

chance to threatened flora and fauna species to recover and

flourish undisturbed. Thus, the fundamental philosophy behind

this exclusionist or fortress conservation approach is the

separation of "nature" from "culture" and livelihoods (4(:!~~

2PQ:1; l,,§c:{f>~~~t:f~X.'taJ1:ff2QQ§~~~). While the motives underlying

establishment of 'inviolate' Protected Areas have tended to vary

across space and time, some common strands can be identified

- for instance, revenue generation for the state, resource

31

prevention of environmental degradation and climate change

(A;ci~~!~'Q~;jj) and the creation of "wild" areas for tourism. Over

the years, many layers have been added to the "fortress"

conservation argument, some of which address the critiques

that this paradigm has faced from various social sciences and

even from biological sciences.

2.4.2. Fortress Conservation and Displacement from PAs

Apart from being a repository of some of the most endangered

flora and fauna, almost all globally important 'biodiversity

hotspots' are also home to some of the poorest human

populations in the world. An estimate by @itl~gt~:~l·tiirid

EJ,1geii:fi~U@QJ}Q) places the number of people living in 25 of the ··

world's biodiversity hotspots at 1100 million, or one-fifth of the

world's population. About 1.2 billion people worldwide live on

less than the equivalent of one dollar a day. Of these, about 250

million live in agriculturally marginal areas, and a further 350

million live in or near forests, of which an estimated 60 million

are indigenous people living in forests ~tifi~!~~li.;",·~QO~). The

20th century has witnessed rapid marginalization of many such

communities due to increased demands for resource extraction

by industry and mining lobbies on the one hand, and

biodiversity conservation driven pressures from government,

non-government and civil society groups on the other. The

'conservation' community has concerned itself increasingly not

just with industrial and commercial threats to wild habitats and

wildlife, but also with the supposedly unsustainable resource

extraction practices of poor communities who live in and around

biodiversity-rich areas and depend on these for survival

resources.

The history of conservation-induced displacement dates back to

the oldest PAin the world, the Yellowstone National Park in the

32

USA, which was established by the army by forcibly evicting the

original Native American Indian inhabitants of the area

(M~ff!§6'ri~1i99~). In recent decades, due to growing pressures for

improved protection of the highly threatened wildlife and

biodiversity of these areas, local communities have begun facing

increased threats of displacement from their places of residence.

The link between the exclusionist conservation paradigm and

displacement from PAs is very strong, and the "alleged

incompatibility between protected areas and the human

communities" provides the basic theoretical foundation of

protected area resettlement policies (TII:irif>Mci :rJhiw. 2006).

Population displacement exercises typically are premised on the

belief that the populations living inside the PAs are a threat to

wildlife and biodiversity. Voluntary resettlement of people from

PAs is viewed by many as a more practical solution to increasing

human-wildlife conflicts compared with other options like

modifying human or animal behaviour to tolerate coexistence

(Ka.I"anth and Madhtl§l.l.dan' 2()02:259). Even while recognizing

that wholesale population resettlement from PAs may not be

feasible due to resource constraints and the sheer magnitude of

the issue, wildlife biologists argue that, "when there is a serious

clash of human interests with the ecological needs of conflict­

prone species, such as big cats and elephants, ...... spatial

separation is a powerful conservation strategy" (~i5fiftf2~9).

Another powerful argument m favour of population

displacement from PAs is that "there are ... many settlements

marooned in the interior of parks whose inhabitants are

demanding access to social amenities .... As a result, there even

appears to be a substantial incipient demand for voluntary

relocation" (i~i~1t~§~€g~]i).

In echoes of Ghurye's position, in India it has been argued that

any attempts at providing tribal communities with rights inside

PAs amounts to perpetration of their "primitive" lifestyle, and is

33

antithetical to their long-term development3. Elsewhere in the

world too, in the early post-colonial period, forced removal of

people from PAs was often justified on grounds that indigenous

people, who rely on wild resources, are 'backward' and need to

be helped to 'develop'. In some instances, "the 'primitive' or

'backward' habits were regarded as attractive for tourism and,

in carefully regulated circumstances, a limited number of

groups, such as the San in areas of the Kalahari, were allowed

to remain in or near traditional lands" (Cfliih)riand colchester.

~'QJ~:~:~§). However, in the later half of the 20th century, "the\

image of the harmless, pristine native was replaced by that of a

dangerous and uncivilized local". Displacement from PAs now

came to be justified in the interest of not just conservation, but

also for "promoting development, easing administration, and

providing essential services such as health care" (ibid;'i2002:5).

In South and South-east Asia, the underlying purpose of such

evictions is to allow outsiders to access PA resources (LL·\1999),

or enabling the government to earn foreign exchange (McElwee.

2(:)()2).

Interestingly, the position taken by independent India's foresters

with regard to the degree of state control required to protect

India's forests mirrors the views of imperial foresters. Themes

like species extinction and loss of vital ecosystem services

provided by forests have been used by post-colonial foresters to

justify exclusionary conservation, including drastic and

controversial steps like large-scale displacement of people from

PAs. This echoes strikingly the arguments of Imperial foresters,

who raised the spectre of timber famine and the impact of forest

degradation on agriculture to expand scientific forestry

operations until they ended up controlling nearly one-fifth of

India's land mass (B~g~~ggl%.~:9,§~j:Q~). In their defense of

'fortress' conservation, imperial as well as modem foresters have

tended to label indigenous forest users and other nomadic I non-

34

sedentary groups as destructive and inefficient. Likewise, both

have stressed the indispensability of government control for

saving forests from ruin.

2.4.3. Community-based Conservation

Since the 1980s, however, the fortress conservation paradigm

has been challenged, and an increasing role has been advocated

for local communities in conservation. Challenges to the

exclusionist approach are founded on conservation as well as

human rights concerns (A~?.ifi~Z@~Ii~,(;'~;QQJ;;~_l\gf~w~L~t aJ:,,:,A9,9.,9.;

J-Iu~me>~.t:••••••@. I2~W;i'N~kimi:UlnE'!2.2}~;~~jp~b;t§9 )Q9~J, as well as

issues of practicality in implementation. One possible impetus

came from the recognition that most governments lacked the

resources required to carry out effective fortress conservation

(waif1rigfi,t·_. ruj¢,w~lirm~Y:~r- 1.2.2~:;a~m9~;-;~a __ frgJ:>iJgl.\J§::;~oo~J. Another argument was that "apparent wildernesses have often

supported high densities of people" (~i?ff1i{i;J~~~y~~gljy.~<l~J2,9§,;

Koth~~ ~'t ~r ~QQQ). The state-led wilderness paradigm provides

little or no space for sustainable local land-use and

management practices by communities living inside or adjacent

to PAs. M¢G.~~~ll;;:;~di'\l~Uili~ii9tfl.<'I~:9J)§;;i3.~l point out that

across the world, traditional livelihoods of indigenous people

were threatened by state enclosure of forests in the name of

conservation of natural resources, while traditional uses of

forests were restricted or even criminalized. This has placed

local people and official conservation agencies in a mutually

antagonistic position, and has resulted almost invariably in

dispossession and marginalization of the relatively less powerful

local communities. The fortress paradigm is seen to have

damaged conservation equally, by creating populations hostile

to conservation on the periphery of PAs (see, for example, the

case of Jordan and Syria, documented by Qlf~kfY;;\2QQ~;, or that

of Madhav National Park in India documented by ~,~~1~~).

35

Another argument is that local people often play an important

role 1n modifying, managing, sustaining and preserving

biodiversity (~h:atfY;:;a.n.a~\C6lcheS'ferZ:i~'Cib2~~; Piih9~ft1Jttii(i~~''Pr~~tY

199J~). A series of international initiatives also fueled this trend

(Ad~~\'26()Ji), and the historical validity of the concept of

inviolate 'wilderness', or of nature devoid of people in its past or

processes, began to be questioned (~!;oC'kihgf8ti\t~:2ob2i3;

$~~~cyii1Ji'~tfJ;J}~:@!f9:~; R.@g~aJ~';~~j~~@~[u(iai!\1@'6J:>6). The

discourse on poverty and development, meanwhile, has also

graduated from simplistic money-metric measures of poverty to

measures that focus on quality of life, access to secure

livelihoods, stewardship of the local environment, capabilities

and entitlements, and eventually to 'development as freedom'

(Dre~ . and.'~;$~#-:': tQ.~f>{l'.C>{;f}§~#.~~~T~~-9>.~~). This too has led to

revisions in exclusionist conservation approaches. The result of

this emerging synthesis of conservation and development

(especially rural livelihood) concerns is the community-based

conservation (CBC) or community-based natural resource

management (CBNRM) approaches. These approaches seek to

promote the collective use and management of natural

resources in rural areas by a group of people with a self-defined,

distinct identity (jf~~p~¢iil.§I2'Qp4).

Revisions in the exclusionary fortress paradigm have also

emerged as a result of increasing documentation during the

1990s (especially in Africa) of the ill effects on local livelihoods of

fortress conservation, which resulted in many cases 1n

summary displacement of people from PAs. The opponents of

involuntary displacement from PAs emphasize the destitution

that displacement creates among forest-dependent

communities. It is argued that instances of 'properly managed'

relocation from PAs has so far been rare, and that typically,

relocation involves shifting people entirely different socio­

economic or climatic zones, with very small land plots. In a large

36

number of cases, they have been forced to re-enter forests for

unauthorized cultivation or extraction of forest products,

thereby criminalizing hitherto legitimate livelihoods. Moreover, it

is argued, most PAs have severe restriction on resource

extraction in the form of grazing, hunting, fishing, food

gathering and collection of wood and biomass products, and as

a result, the communities which rely heavily on these activities

end up facing economic hardships and 'difficult social and

cultural adjustment processes' {gf~;r:~~:~~"'il

Socially irresponsible and unnecessary displacement can often

have negative consequences for conservation too, apart from

causing hardship to local people. Populations that have hitherto

had limited interactions with the market, as a consequence of

displacement become more active players who can channel PA

resources illegally into the market economy at a larger scale.

Hunters have greater opportunity and incentive to poach for the

market, and similarly, NTFP collected from in and around the

PA can reach a potentially wider and better paying market.

While it could be argued that effective policing of protected areas

will be able to circumvent such pressures, such policing

mechanisms are rarely in place in most Third World countries.

'@rt6n},'(2{5()~) argues that displacement from national parks

'will alienate the local population from conservation objectives

and thus require an ever increasing and, in the long run,

unsustainable level of investment in policing activities'. A

similar point is made by K9'illiri.~1f{g~'Q:~'), who questions the

wisdom "protecting'' protected areas by policing, while pursuing

conservation policies that continue to alienate local

communities.

People's expulsion from biodiversity-rich areas is likely to make

their attitudes vis-a-vis conservation and conservationists

increasingly negative, with measurable increase in instances of

poaching and vandalizing of natural resources, often

37

accompanied by land invasions' [(Eiii:)J1¢f,J4~£~t~~'~W'~~~~9!iigijj~'$21

#s cii49t~<i,::.iri.':.<s{~~~ijJJi~(;l:rill'$tl)ll'iiCfis~~ttiu}f~~~~I. ¥£~~1~!~~~qPJ: makes a similar point on the basis of research in Madhav

National Park, Madhya Pra?esh, citing instances of people

extracting more firewood than they need for their bona fide

consumption out of "spite" for the protected area. ~ni.J!!~t~

U9Qf1]', in a case study of the Mananara Biosphere Project in

Madagascar, argues that "the expansion of protected areas can

result in an increasing displacement of people and a disruption

of their livelihoods, but also that this process is frequently

accompanied by further environmental deterioration, including

higher rates of deforestation." The presence of resident groups

in forests quite often has been an effective deterrent against

other local and external groups that might encroach and

plunder resources. Displacement of resident people eliminates

the customary protector, and it is doubtful whether 'the state'

can be as effective against other users, local or commercial

interests. In Kuno, for instance, displaced families have claimed

repeatedly that their presence acted as a deterrent to, for

instance, the Mogiya hunters who frequent the sanctuary, and '

that their own displacement has left the forest wide open to

pressures from such quarters (f§~pr~.'i:g0()6})). All this points to

the need for a more inclusive conservation paradigm that would

permit latitude for local communities as well as wild flora and

fauna to coexist (~~(1;1~rnf~·@;:il9];1;;;;,ft{~g@~J~I~J~d:\\';$'gl;j~i2W:~

200$).

2.4.4. Critique of CBC Approaches

Inspite of the growing critique of fortress conservation and the

near-unanimity in favour of some role for local people in

conservation, the sway of the exclusionist approaches continues

to be strong on the frontlines of conservation practice. In most

countries, especially the less industrialized ones, local

38

community participation in conservation is the exception rather

than the norm. This disjuncture between theory and practice

can be understood better by r~cognizing the limits of

community-based conservation and some inherent strengths of

the exclusionist or 'fortress' conservation paradigm.

Proponents of community conservation approaches have often

downplayed or underestimated the inherent strengths of the

fortress conservation paradigm (§[99!9riit9ri>, .~6.92':1>1). This

paradigm is based on a conservation 'myth' - the wilderness

myth - that is powerful, has strong emotive appeal, and offers

concrete certainties that may well ensure that it survives long

into the future, even though it may not be based on facts. The

second strength of the 'fortress' conservation paradigm lies in

the fact that the communities it seeks to exclude from PAs are

often poor, marginalized and fragmented, with little scope for

organized political resistance to the official conservation

paradigm. The 'principle of local support', put forward by

proponents of community conservation, states that is not

possible for PAs to survive without support of their neighbours,

and thus it has been argued that fortress conservation is bound

to fail because it creates deep poverty and resentment among

local people. Brockington, however, argues that "if the poverty is

only experienced by the rural poor, and. if the benefits are

experienced by elites at home and abroad, then the vision has a

good chance of success" (§fQ:~nf@qgtqn~2~'g).J~~-:j,ji§). As long as the

fortress conservation model is able to sell the 'wilderness' myth,

exclusion of local people from PAs will not just continue to

occur, but also is likely to result, at least in the short to medium

run, in visible conservation 'successes'.

Drawing extensively from his research into the displacement of

the Masaai people from the Mkomazi game Reserve in Tanzania,

J?fd'Pf9-.ni£t~iii~t-(g:Q~ill demonstrates how local support may not be

vital for the survival of protected areas. Though this idea may be

39

unpalatable ethically, it seems to be backed by unflinching

evidence: In India itself, parks like Kanha that have seen violent

displacements of resident tribal people continue to flourish in

terms of biodiversity values. In fact, Kanha is widely cited as

among the best-:-managed parks in India, and has received

recognition, awards and publicity for its well.,.preserved habitat

and wildlife. Similarly Kaziranga, one of the few strongholds of

the one horned rhinoceros in India, is a conservation success

story predicated upon strong policing. Across India, there have

been many S'LlCh illustrations where exclusion of local use

coupled with punitive policing ~as resulted in parks that have

been able to survive and even thrive (I&"J~a'i[QI~§n~lf~Q.QZ).

2.4.5. Emerging Synthesis between Fortress and

Participatory Conservation

Among national governments as well as conservation experts,

an increasing number of people subscribe to the view that

purely exclusionist approaches will not work or are not

desirable. It is more commonly agreed now, at least in principle,

that local communities need to have a say in management of

PAs if conservation and development objectives are to be

attained simultaneously (~~~~lli'i~tJ'~~lj;~t~~lliig:Q;Q~~~Q;; nan'''"''~mr~"t'n~~r,;: ~~\..~~e·,.~t~Zi~ ~~"'~..J::1~~'1G~t1f'no·~,h:;s) ~--~.,.N .... ~~!!~~li_~p_p~~; ~:~~~~~\!~-~~t~£J§jM; ~"'~Jl~~~~~~t_~~f~~~~.:.;~g}~ •

A similar consensus is also reflected in international law, and

most countries now are signatories to international agreements

that recognize, uphold and seek to protect the unique practices

of indigenous and local communities in relation to their natural

resource base. Table 2.1 provides a summary of such

declarations and agreements.

40

Table 2.1: Conservation and Indigenous/Local Communities in International Covenants and Laws The Rio With reference to indigenous and local communities, it calls Declaration, 1992 upon the member states to " ... recognize and duly support their (Article 22) identity, culture and interests and enable their effective

Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8(j)4

The ILO Convention 169: Article 14 (adopted in 1989)

World Conservation Union, IUCN (1996) Principle 2

Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People Article 10

Article 26

participation in the achievement of sustainable development" Calls upon member states to "respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources ... " and " ... to protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements" "The rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned over the lands which they traditionally occupy shall be recognized. In addition, measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the right of the peoples concerned to use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities. Particular attention shall be paid to the situation of nomadic peoples and shifting cultivators in this respect." "Agreements drawn up between conservation institutions, including protected area management agencies, and indigenous and other traditional peoples for the establishment and management of protected areas affecting their lands, territories, waters, coastal seas and other resources should be based on full respect for the rights of indigenous and other traditional peoples to traditional, sustainable use of their lands, territories, waters, coastal seas and other resources." "Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return." "Indigenous peoples have the right to own, develop, control and use the lands and territories, including the total environment of , the lands, air, waters, coastal seas, sea-ice, flora and fauna and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. This includes the right to the full recognition of their laws, traditions and customs, land-tenure systems and institutions for the development and management of resources, and the right to effective measures by States to prevent any interference with, alienation of or encroachment upon these rights."

It emerges from the above discussion that traditionally, fortress

conservation (and its corollary- people's displacement from PAs)

has been viewed by the bulk of the scientific conservation

community as being essential for survival of at least some

species. However, others have questioned it for being based on a

'wilderness myth', with little ·scientific evidence to back the

claim that relocation of people improves the conservation

potential of a PA. In an emerging consensus, though, more

recent formulations begin with the premise that society must

41

not be asked to choose between conservation and protection of

livelihood for natural resource dependent communities. The

argument is that some amount of involuntary population

displacement is unavoidable, but loopholes in resettlement and

rehabilitation in such unavoidable cases must be plugged and

redress mechanisms created for cases of denial of adequate

compensation. These approaches also recognize explicitly that

an adequate package of rehabilitation must include not just

replacement of condemned assets but investments into restarting

livelihood ~Jt~Jr~~];~. A lively debate has been triggered

around the justification behind relocation, the policy framework

governing R&R, the economics of rehabilitation, social and

political implications of displacement for the relocated

communities, and the effect of displacement on wildlife

conservation potential of PAs.

Demonstrating a more nuanced understanding of the issues

involved, at least some conservation scientists and

administrators have begun now to highlight not just the

deleterious effect of people on PAs, but also the difficulties faced

by people living in remote enclaves inside PAs, in terms of

curtailed access to PA resources, frequent human-wildlife

conflict, remote location and lack of access to the development

infrastructure of the state. They argue that a majority of people

living inside PAs are, or will be willing to move out voluntarily to

a better life outside the PA, provided an adequate package of •"'?'",..~X,$:i>li'l>i"'~~""~i'::~ '-r.:'<;'-"·~..,.¢-'vn>"'"'•;.v•~:·:~;.·~"'.'•"-':··r :~·~·,

rehabilitation is provided and delivered ~f4!t~~f't~~~~~:.~:f~t¥;

t'tqJL:r.(~{i~)>-~). This "incipient demand for voluntary

relocation" should be channeled, they argue, through creation of

"new institutional mechanisms to sensitively interact with local

people, raise necessary funds, and implement the projects"

t~Gmfmi~Mi~:;~~~:miQ). Government schemes like Joint Forest Management and

Ecodevelopment, and legislation like the proposed Tribal Rights

42

Bill reflect this emerging synthesis, with significant space being

accorded to the rights of local communities and their

importance in sustainable management of forests. The recent

report of the Tiger Task Force set up by the Government of r

India, as well as the subsequent amendments to _the Wildlife

Protection Act seem to also point to a shift in policy. These

amendments were notified in September 2006, and contain the

following path breaking statements regarding the rights of

indigenous people inside PAs:

"(5) Save as for voluntary relocation on mutually agreed terms and conditions, provided that such terms and conditions satisfy the requirements laid down in this sub-section, no Scheduled Tribes or other forest dwellers shall be resettled or have their rights adversely affected for the purpose of creating inviolate areas for tiger conservation unless -(i) the process of recognition and determination of rights and acquisition of

land or forests rights of the Scheduled Tribes and such other forest dwelling persons is complete;

(ii) the concemed agencies of the State Govemment, in exercise of their powers under this Act, establishes with the consent of the Scheduled Tribes and such other forest dwellers in the area, and in consultation with an ecological and social scientist familiar with the area, that the activities of the Scheduled Tribes and other forest dwellers or the impact of their presence upon wild animals is sufficient to cause irreversible damage and shall threaten the existence of tigers and their habitat;

(iii) the State Govemment, after obtaining the consent of the Scheduled Tribes and other forest dwellers inhabiting the area, and in consultation with an independent ecologist and social scientist familiar with the area, has come to a conclusion that other reasonable options of co-existence, are not available;

(iv) resettlement or altemative packages has been prepared providing for livelihood for the affected individuals and communities and fulfils the requirements given in the National Relief and Rehabilitation Policy;

(v) the informed consent of the Gram Sabha concemed, and of the persons affected, to the resettlement programmes has been obtained; and

(vi) the facilities and land allocation at the resettlement location are provided under the said programme, otherwise their existing rights shall not be interfered with."

2.5. Displacement- A Review of Literature

2.5.1. The Development versus displacement debate

The issue of displacement of tribal people and other forest­

dwellers from Protected Areas needs to be viewed in the context

of the' larger debates on various aspects of sustainable

development. The issue has been· posited in a strongly

dichotomous fashion in recent decades, where displacement of

43

indigenous people is viewed as a necessary 'sacrifice' for the

greater common good of preserving the severely threatened

forests, wildlife and forest resources for. future generations. One

strand of this argument is that displacement of a few is the '

price that society must pay to avail of some social desirable, like

rapid economic growth and 'development', or improved

conservation of natural ecosystems. Another strand goes much

further and views resettlement of indigenous people as an

instrument for the integration of these remote, 'primitive' or

'backward' communities into the mainstream. According to

§'!l~m~~~:~(g~(ili;~~' "Ever since the scheduled tribes were first

'notified' in 1950, they have been seen as those who live in a

pre-agricultural stage of economy, have low literacy rates and

whose populations are seen to be stagnant or declining." Echoes

of this approach continue till today- the Government of India's

Draft National Policy on Tribals (2004), for instance, advocates

strongly the assimilation into the mainstream of the so-called

Primitive Tribal Groups (~Q~~f~I@,Q.tf). However, critics argue

that internationally, the assimilative discourse is now

recognized to be detrimental to the cultural identity of

indigenous peoples (see, for instance, the Intemational Labour

Organization's Convention number 169 on Indigenous Peoples).

Meanwhile, the debate on India's Adivasi or indigenous

communities has continued, and with. the introduction of the

draft Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, has

only become sharper and more acrimonious.

Enforced or induced relocation is an important phenomenon

worldwide, and every year, a large number of people (especially

remote, rural, marginal communities) face severe threats to

their livelihood security due to displacement. A study by the

World Bank found that nearly 10 million people enter the cycle

of forced displacement and relocation annually due to just dam

construction and urban and transportation development, and

44

that that in the 1990s, nearly 100 million people have been

displaced cumulatively by such projects · ~=-~_j]);

Thus, the sheer magnitude of the problem nationally and

internationally puts it on a footing "equiv~ent to the refugee '

crisis, long recognized as a major . international problem"

(§~ffla~W&t~Q). Added to this, the fact that involuntarily

displaced populations consist of some of the most

disadvantaged segments of society makes the importance of

intensive research into this area self-evident.

Inadequate rehabilitation packages and poor implementation of

these packages has tended to worsen the impoverishment risks

associated with displaced people. In India, according to

government estimates, only around 30 per cent of all displaced

people have been rehabilitated properly, leaving "almost 13.2

million people uprooted from their homes" (R~£'~{~Ail.'$D~).

Apart from the highly debated displacements due to dams on

the river Narmada, a number of other case studies have

highlighted the plight of people displaced. due to mega-projects

since independence (~~iR'~Imml~l~~~~l!~~~~~~~}f~~'fH;

~~-ciim~§im(jj.~g;~~~~H~~m~~~fi~~~ki~l~~~~~~lm ;~~~Qll~il~i~~~§l~tegJ~~lDiili~Jil~~~~~ t~~~ZI;r~tfg~~~~i~~:&~~l:Q:Q; mtllil~~. The impact of involuntary displacement on poor and

marginalized communities did not receive adequate attention

until recently in development econom1cs, even though path­

breaking anthropological and sociological research has been

carried out on various aspects (including economic) of

involuntary population displacement. From a modest start that

looked mainly at micro-studies of large development projects

like dam construction, recent social research on resettlement

has broadened its horizons and begun focusing on sectors like

forestry ~iil.J!iq~@{i~Ji'i1dt~jT.Ji('fi, mining and thermal

Power plants iH~i~i:'99::J.:Y, wildlife protected areas [}3n~d0n~~ci 1-,.~~ .. --~·J, it£,,... ..... ~~~ ... ...-.... ~;..-..-...~

45

~~!l§~~~1V.~2~~~~~r~~1lBJ'~-,.-~,~~~ and

transportation corridors. There has been a shift from simply

academic analysis to problem solving ·research and continuous

engagement with gra~sroots players like NGOs, and from micro­

level case studies to broader (regional or worldwide) estimates

and generally applicable policy conclusions. However, much

ground needs to be covered for economic research on

resettlement issues to catch up with other social . science

disciplines and develop synergic tools that can take forward the

analysis and bridge the gap between resettlement theory, policy

and practice.

2.5.2. Typology of Displacement

According to ~~~1f(gQ~, displacement or population relocation

can be classified into the following categories, depending on its

main causes.

· ·LOUD" nrsPLActMENT irsK!i iRo~f: • N.-\TURAL.CALAMmES

o ·· E:arthquaku · o . Cyclones o ., Flood.a,

• 2\iA..'J•hiADE CATASTROPHES

• • POU.CY MEA.5URES ... ·,. · •. 0 Land tenure re!ori:u and its ... . . impie~f'll.t(ltibn · · . . . ·

• ENVIRCU~'M~:r-rTAL E."7cLOSURES ·•2, · o Wildlue parks o ·.Bio,~di~~l:iity;protection·.·

•• IN\o:ESTMEJ\J;.PROJECTS;(;• ...

. . , "1_:_~ ...•. f_1_:_:_._··~-~.imm_.·.w~-~--~ .. _ •. •._[_· •. ~._t_t_~.~.m_._8

_~ .•. i~.J~-~,. ~· '· - - ~ ~ .: .,. >:.:::' .· ~,/.:flt;·:·:::~, ... {~:~. :,..,;

1. Calamity enforced Relocation (CER}: ·caused by natural or

human-made catastrophes, or epidemics;

46

2. Investment enforced Relocation (IER): caused by acquisition

or reservation of land for mining, urban expansion, urban /

renewal, irrigation, industrial or wildlife conservation

projects; and

3. Policy induced Relocation (PER): arising out of policy

measures that impact land tenure and agrarian relations in a

manner that forces vulnerable categories like the landless,

tenants or sharecroppers to leave permanently.

Rew argues that CER, IER and PER can be either 'loud' or

'silent' events, in terms of the publicity they attract and the

degree of redress that the people affected manage to attract as a

consequence . of this publicity. Typically, CER causes 'loud'

displacement, while IER and PER generally cause relatively less

loud or even entirely 'silent' displacement. It is these categories

of displacement that carry the highest impoverishment risks for

the people affected, since adequate mitigation measures are not

likely to be built into rehabilitation packages due to the 'silent'

nature of such displacements.

2.5.3 Displacement and Rehabilitation Policy in India

Till 1997, India had no national policy framework to govern

resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R), although there were some

state level policies and numerous sector or project specific

schemes, Resolutions or Government Orders relating to R&R.

Three states - Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab -

developed state-wide resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R)

policies, of which, the Maharaslitra Project Affected People's

Rehabilitation Act of 1976, amended in 1986, is the most

comprehensive. Madhya Pradesh enacted the Displaced Persons

Act in 1985, but has not framed rules so far to make the Act

operational (~!m~DlmM_~). Two national para-statal

companies, the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) and

Coal India Limited (CIL), have completed and issued R&R

47

policies consistent with the guidelines of the World Bank.

However; the degree ·of commitment of these agencies to their

own R&R policies is suspect, and it h~s been argued that the

policies were put in place basically to fulfill funding

requirements of the Bank -gfrti'A11t~;~~~~).

For instance, in the case of Coal India Ltd., the R&R guidelines

are operational only for the Bank-funded Eastern Coalfields

Limited, and do not apply to its other coalfields.

In general, till 1997, the extant R&R legislations and schemes

were minimalist in nature, varied widely across states, regions

and agencies, and did not provide. a coherent link with other

related laws like the Land Acquisition Act. To remedy this, many

civil society organizations in; India lobbied extensively for a

national policy on displacement, resettlement and

rehabilitation. In response, the Ministry of Rural Development

(MoRD) of the Government of India attempted to formulate a

draft National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation in the

late 1990s. The process was unusually broad-based, and

involved consultation with a number of civil society

organizations. Early versions of the MoRD draft Act included a

number of suggestions offered by these organizations, and

included fairly progressive and pro-poor clauses (R~f~ffi]:\~~.~~).

Eventually, the government _finalized a much watered-down

version of this draft, and promulgated a National Policy on

Resettlement and Rehabilitation (NPRR) on 17 February 2004

c§.~~~~~ .. ~Q,Q'~1·l~,~Jl. The NPRR 2004, instead of improving upon the policies and

practices of the past, actually regresses and strives to create

barriers that will prevent a majority of displaced people from

receiving due . compensation for their loss of assets and

livelihood (l,liil~ii\f.J). Specifically, the NPRR stipulates an area

to be 'project-affected' only if at least 500 families (in the plains)

or 250 families (in hilly areas) are affected by displacement. It

48

also decrees that only families that lose 100 per cent of their

land will be eligible for land-based compensation. Both clauses

are criticized since they narrow the definition of project-affected

people, and are designed to exclude a majority of such people

from accessing rehabilitation benefits. For instance, it is argued

that large industrial projects (like state-owned national

highways and privately owned mining projects) "have been

splitting land acquisition into small bits, each of them

displacing fewer than 500 families. Each of them can be called a

project and deprive the affected families of the benefits of this

policy" (~~rJ:!~~"~§~~~~Q~). The most serious problem with the NPRR 2004 is that even

those selected by the narrow definition effectively may not be

able to access land-based rehabilitation, since the policy states

that allotment of land is "subject to the availability of

government land in the district". This provides a convenient exit

strategy for the government to eventually fall back upon cash

compensation, and that too at abysmally low levels, amounting

to between 625 to 700 days worth of employment. Thus, the

NPRR 2004 seeks to buy out an entire lifetime of livelihoods of

among the most marginalized people in the country for a sum as

low as Rs.45,000 ({t1iij.Jt'l§~Ifg~). As Saxena points out, in an

exhaustive comparison of the 1997 draft with the NPRR 2004,

" ... all that the policy gives to the displaced people is some extra

cash, but no support for livelihoods" (§!ilei\~:@l'§11ID~~).

Some of these limitations are recognized by the government, as

witnessed by the following statement in the lli:ifif:liY..Q:il~Jg'Qf!§Y:

<?i!~:~i#2hl:~ [(g~m~)~ of the Government of India:

''fhe present National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation for Project

Affected Families -2003 (NPRR) compensates only assets, not livelihoods.

Consequently, the STs, having few property assets and depending largely on

common property resources, get little compensation and are further

impoverished as the cost compensation paid gets spent in debt repayment

49

and subsistence in the interim between displacement and rehabilitation,

leaving little or nothing for future livelihoods."

Subsequently, with a change in the government at the Centre,

attempts began to be made by the Union Ministry of Rural

Development (MoRD) to amend the NPRR 2004 (§}tigJ:l~J~()Q§).

Meanwhile, a number of civil society groups collaborated to

prepare a 'people's draft' of the R&R policy, which was

submitted to the National Advisory Council (NAC) of the

government. The NAC then came out with its own draft R&R

Policy (the NAC draft), which was forwarded to the government

in early 2006. The MoRD made public a draft Rehabilitation

Policy (GOI Draft 2006) later in 2006, but critics argue that the

GOI Draft of 2006 falls way below the expectations of civil

society groups, as embodied in the NAC draft of 2006 ($!hgh They

unconvincing",

argue that the draft 1s "toothless and

and while it is high on politically correct

statements, it does not contain prescriptions to put these

statements into practice.

BOX 2.1 Policy Objectives Identified by the World Bank's OP 4.12

. (a) Involuntary resettlement should be avoided where feasible, or minimized, exploring all viable alternative project designs. (b) Where it is not feasible to avoid resettlement, resettlement activities should be conceived and executed as sustainable development programs, providing sufficient investment resources to enable the persons displaced by the project to share in project benefits. Displaced persons should be meaningfully consulted and should have opportunities to participate in planning and implementing resettlement programs. (c) Displaced persons should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher.

Clause relating to Displacement from or Restriction of Access to PAs (Clause 7) In projects involving involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas . . . the nature of restrictions, as well as the type of measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts, is determined with the participation of the displaced persons during the design and implementation of the project. In such cases, the borrower prepares a process framework acceptable to the Bank, describing the participatory process by which (a) specific components of the project will be prepared and implemented; (b) the criteria for eligibility of displaced persons will be determined; (c) measures to assist the displaced persons in their efforts to improve their livelihoods, or at least to restore them, in real terms, while maintaining the sustainability of the park or protected area, will be identified; and (d) potential conflicts involving displaced persons will be resolved.

50

The minimalist and regressive policy environment in India needs

to be contrasted with international policies and guidelines

relating to R&R, which seem to have moved in a far more

progressive direction. The most comprehensive set of best

practice principles related to R&R 'are to be found in the World

Bank's Operational Manual OP 4.12 (See Box 2.1).

A comparison of India's Rehabilitation Policy of 2004 with the

World Bank guidelines reveals that the national policy falls

short of the best practice principles identified by the World

Bank on almost all counts. Even though the stated objectives of

the national policy are in consonance with those of the OP4.12,

various operational clauses in this policy negate the very

objectives it was supposed to promote. At the level of

implementation, none of these policies seem to have yielded

satisfactory results. A study conducted by the Refugee Studies

Centre of the Institute of Development Studies, Sussex6, on the

efficacy of resettlement guidelines, found that

1. Policy is significantly transformed in the process of

implementation.

2. Policy outcomes reflect problems inherent in the institutional

process of resettlement and rehabilitation.

3. International Refugee Law 'Guiding Principles' concerning

internally displaced persons have only limited application to

development-induced resettlement.

4. The same government is responsible for both eviction and

protection of displaced populations, implying a fundamental

problem in upholding their rights.

2.5.4. Conservation-induced Displacement: Experiences

The problem of conservation-induced displacement is now

established to be non-trivial, and millions of poor people across

Africa, Asia and Latin America have been affected by it. While

there is "a paucity of official tallies on conservation refugees"

51

(Q.yisl~;I'/i:~Q,Q.~), it is estimated that over 10 million people have

been displaced worldwide from PAs by conservation projects

(S:tfi!rll,Clt~~9Jt~JiY0~{!QQ). In India alone, one estimate places the

number of people displaced due to conservation projects at

6oo,ooo (~~~A~t\~Q'§). A number of studies have been carried out in recent years in

'Africa and Asia on conservation-induced displacement, and the

number of peop~e affected by this is estimated to be vexy large,

although accurate figures are not available.

1. A comprehensive study of 12 PAs in 6 central African

countries found that over 120,000 people have been

displaced from the PAs since 1990; another 170,000 face

"significant risk of displacement" in the near future, while an

additional 250,000 people will be forced to become 'hosts' to

these dis laced eo le (Sclfffi~'St>Itli-&~2oos~ . p p p '•~·'·-~-.W>•'-·'~-"N•'•··"'"·'·-'·•'•' ,. ,• .. ' •.)

2. Studies of displacement from PAs in Uganda and Tanzania

show that over 32,000 people were displaced forcibly from 5

PAs. In each case, violence was used to evict people and no

compensation was paid to them.

3. By 1988, around 5,000 to 8,000 pastoral people were evicted

from the Mkomazi Game Reserve in Tanzania. The displaced

people faced significant loss of cattle and livelihood, which

was not compensated for by increase in tourism revenues.

4. Nearly 50,000 people belonging to various indigenous

communities are in danger of being evicted from their home

in Omo National Park in Southem Ethiopia, or losing access

to livelihood resources 1n the National Park area

(www. conservationrefugees.org).

5. Likewise, around 9,000 tribal people are under threat of

displacement from the Nech Sar Nation81 Park in the Great

Rift Valley of Ethiopia. A section of this population has been

facing harassment and threats from the government to evict

52

the Park, with some losing their homes and possessions,

which were set on fire in November 2004.

6. According to RB~,si:~0-(2J~Jj'Q}, extension of the Keran Park in

Togo in the early 1980s involved the intervention ,of the army,

which destroyed villages with grenades and flamethrowers,

leading to displacement of nearly 10,000 people.

7. Since 1964, the government of Nepal has been canying out

relocation of the people living within the boundaries of what

is now designated as the Royal Chitwan National Park

(RCNP). In 1964, a land settlement commission was

appointed by the government to relocate 22,000 people,

including 4000 people residing in the rhinoceros sanctuary,

the forerunner to the RCNP. During 1994-99, the Padampur

resettlement programme effected the relocation of around

2000 people or 516 families to a settlement called New

Padampur. A study of the Padampur relocation by~~~

~c;:l];;';f,!1$:it~~fl~:~m·:(@Qg~I§g])' found that "The resettlement

programme was forced upon the people.... Compensation

was by far inadequate (and) ... To most people the relocation

did not live up to the expectations, and it had detrimental

effects on people's livelihood".

8. In many PAs, the strict limits placed on access of local

communities to PA resources have resulted in 'voluntary'

out-migration of people. The case of the Bedouin of the Negev

and the Nagarhole National Park in India are cited as

examples of this trend (~fi~~~Tf~1[{g1Jl~J~w~~~J1i~)

A study of East African PAs, where population displacement has

been undertaken for improving conservation potential of the

PAs, found firstly that displaced people, by and large, suffered a

significant decline in livelihood security after relocation. Host

communities often suffer contraction of their resource base,

which is seldom compensated for. Secondly, it found that the

53

gains in conservation of PAs from which population

displacement occurred are not always clear and often contested.

The study concluded that the rationale for relocating people

from Protected Areas was seldom established a priori (SlfifPla_:{; ~Pl~~i!~Qlj).

In India, there is no full-length study of the impact of

conservation-induced displacement on people's livelihoods \

(RgnggrgJ"Ml~i~[RgJ'\1.~-~j§). In fact, a review of

conservation-displacement literature revealed that this is a

major lacuna not just in_ India but also for the entire South

Asian region The following

chapters will tiy and address this lacuna by documenting the

findings of among the first such studies in the context of an

Indian Protected Area.

Endnotes 1See, for instance, the study by ~~i:f~~~~-Q\1!~4~ "-~-

extraction in the economy of the landless in Brazil, and - ~{1~90) for a similar study in the forests of West Africa. For India, the seminal work by------ _j~~~j) frrst underscored the relationship between poverty and CPRs, especially in the semi-arid tropics. 2 Arguing that the Good were facing a socio-cultural crisis forced by the onslaught of modernity, Elwin had called for the isolation of the Goods (a "zoo") to allow them to evolve culturally at their own pace. However, ~~~~Ef~!J®: points out that by the time India attained Independence, Elwin's views underwent a major shift for a variety of reasons. He even began to identify the Central Indian tribes as being a part of the caste Hindu society, and exhorted upper caste Hindus to take a hand in educating and uplifting the tribals. 3 See, for instance, Letter by VB Saharia in Readers Respond section. PA Update Vol.43, June 2003. Kalpavriksh, Pune. Available at http://www .sanctuarvasia.corn/resources/paupdate/43 jun03 .doc 4 http://www.biodiv.org/conventi<in/articles.asp?a=cbd-08 5 (Draft National Policy on Tribals 2006, Government oflndia (http:/ /tribal.nic.in/finalContent.pdf, downloaded on 22-1-2007). 6 Excerpted from id21, March 2004 issue.