Bharat Dogra argues that the approach of complete prevention of human activities in protected areas is environmentally both undesirable and unnecessary, and has led to a great deal of avoidable conflict
There is growing worldwide agreement that conservation efforts should learn from past mistakes and seek the active involvement of local people, particularly rural and tribal communities. The big mistakes have been displacing people and harming their livelihoods, which turned them hostile and made their cooperation in conservation work out of the question, although it is they who are most capable of taking this work forward with their knowledge of local conditions.
Course-correction is particularly important for countries like India, where the welfare of tribal communities is supposed to get top priority, as per the frequently stated official stand, and where there are strong constitutional and other legal provisions for the rights and welfare of these people. This does not at all mean going back on conservation objectives; instead, it will strengthen conservation with the close involvement of villagers, particularly tribal communities. Where erosion of local livelihoods cannot be avoided, it should be compensated for by new livelihoods generated in various aspects of conservation work.
It is in this context that the debates on Project Tiger in India should be seen. The displacement caused by the project has been a subject of controversy and criticism, and has resulted in a lot of discontent among the affected villagers and tribal communities, as well as others who fear that they may be next in line. Even in five areas where tigers do not exist, people have been displaced in the name of protecting tigers. A study by the Rights and Risks Analysis Group, titled India’s Tiger Reserves-Tribals Get Out, Tourists Welcome, released in July this year, shows that the extent of displacement caused by the project in the recent past and in the near future may be much higher than commonly believed – over half a million! There is just not enough land to resettle such a large number of people, although about 92,605 people were re-located up to 2021.
A different model is needed, where people are not displaced but can co-exist with wildlife. The Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Tiger Reserve Project is an example. Here, the Soliga tribal people and villagers were not displaced and yet a good level of protection for tigers was achieved. As several experts have been pointing out, conservation models which are compatible with sustainable livelihoods for villagers are not only possible, but may also have higher chances of success.
Ramachandra Guha, delivering the keynote address at the Conference on Wildlife and Human Rights in Asia at the University of Oslo, said, “The belief in a total ban on human intervention is misguided. Studies show that the highest levels of biological diversity are often found in areas with some (though not excessive) human intervention. In opening up new niches to be occupied by insects, plants and birds, partially disturbed ecosystems can have a greater diversity than untouched areas.” According to David Western, in East Africa, “the ending of human activity in national parks … has reduced biodiversity. Those human activities created the patchiness of terrain that encouraged more species. By pulling out the human components, and maintaining too many elephants we are losing biodiversity.”
On the other hand, where communities were disrupted, they were also victims of violence, at least partly to increase pressure on them to move out quickly. This is tragic and entirely avoidable. In Bharatpur Park in Rajasthan, some years ago, the authorities banned grazing though the Bombay Natural History Society had concluded that here buffalo grazing was “an integral part of the ecosystem, helping to counter the tendency of the wetland to turn into a grassland.” When villagers protested against the ban, a conflict ensued, in which seven villagers were killed. Since there was no need, even from a conservation viewpoint, to ban grazing in the first place, the conflict was totally unnecessary.
In some other cases also, including the famous Valley of Flowers in the Himalayan Region, bans on traditional grazing had a negative impact on diversity and required a reintroduction of grazing or grass-cutting. A more rewarding approach to conservation than banning human activity would be to look at how local people can prove helpful in protecting animals and birds, trees and plants, and evolve a system based on involving as well as rewarding them for their help, making creative use of their impressive knowledge of local forests as well as their various skills. Several communities of forest dwellers have been living in harmony with wildlife. They have self-imposed restrictions on forest use as well as on hunting or causing any harm to wild animals. There is much to learn from them regarding peaceful coexistence with wildlife.
Forests play an important role in the food security of several indigenous communities by providing free food which is shared much more equally and generously compared to cultivated and market-purchased food. A study by the Living Farm organisation in the Odisha tells us that 121 types of food available from forests are known to the tribal communities which are shared by the communities and are particularly useful for meeting the need for several micro-nutrients. During lean seasons and drought years, the importance of such forest food increases.
When villagers are displaced from national park areas, or their livelihood is gravely jeopardised, chances also increase of some of them being used by poachers and smugglers to work for them, thereby increasing the risks to wildlife. On the other hand, local communities can be involved in checking poaching through either full-time or part time employment for some members, or through an annual grant to the community as a whole for supporting various welfare activities.
Famous ornithologist and naturalist Salim Ali, too, had stressed the need for involving local people in wildlife protection. He had asserted: “No conservation laws or measures can succeed fully unless they have the backing of informed public opinion, which in our case means the usually illiterate village cultivator.” He had stressed that conservationists must find the right approach for involving the villagers, not excluding them. “We have never really tried enough. Devising a realistic strategy is now a challenge to all conservationists,” he had warned.
(The writer is a senior freelance journalist and author who has been associated with several social movements and initiatives. He is honorary convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. He lives in Delhi.)
from Webdoux