Relocating villages from tiger reserves: Why it is needed, issues plaguing the process

Relocating villages from forests is not new. The British enabled relocations in order to produce timber, while in independent India, these were carried out to create space for wildlife species, most notably for tiger conservation.

Why are villages relocated from tiger reserves?

Tigers are solitary and territorial predators which require a large area to establish their habitat, especially for reproducing and sustaining their offspring.

When Project Tiger began in 1973, protected areas were identified and declared national parks, with Kanha, Jim Corbett, and Bandipur being notable among the early ones. During this period, relocations were carried out in Kanha in Madhya Pradesh, Bandipur in Karnataka and Ranthambore, Rajasthan.

The argument for conservation-led displacement centres on creating areas free of human settlements and movement, known in conservation parlance as ‘inviolate’ spaces.

The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), the Union Government body spearheading tiger conservation in states, said a minimum inviolate area of 800-1,200 sq km is required to maintain a viable population of 20-22 breeding tigresses. Further, an ecologically sensitive zone (buffer, coexistence area, multiple-use area) of 1,000-3,000 sq km is required around this inviolate space for sustaining tigers mature enough to create their own space and old displaced tigers. These inviolate spaces are legally known as core areas or critical tiger habitats.

Village relocations focus on shifting settlements of Scheduled Tribes and other forest-dwelling communities from such core areas.

What governs the relocation process?

In 2006, the Forest Rights Act (FRA) was passed, and the Wildlife Protection Act 2006, (WPA) was amended. These two legislations are central to effecting village relocations.

The WPA empowers national park and tiger reserve wildlife managers to create people-free, inviolate spaces. However, it must be read with the provisions of the FRA, which allows people to claim land titles and the right to harvest non-timber forest produce, such as mahua, gooseberry, and tendu leaves. As per these laws, relocation is voluntary in nature and must be carried out on ‘mutually agreed terms and conditions.’

Further, in 2008, the NTCA prepared voluntary village relocation guidelines. These detail the relocation process, recognition of rights under FRA, payment of compensation, and implementation of the relocation and rehabilitation scheme through the forest department.

Those opting for a monetary package are awarded a sum of Rs 15 lakh per family, with each adult counted as a family unit. The rehabilitation scheme comprises agricultural land, homestead land and house construction, incentives for relocation, and the provision of basic sanitation, water supply, irrigation, power, community, and communication amenities.

Conflicts between communities, forest departments and district administrations arise over the gaps in the implementation of the laws governing relocation, their provisions and relocation guidelines.

For instance, some communities eligible for relocation have accused forest departments of harassment and pressure tactics to force them to relocate, even though the process is strictly voluntary. In recent complaints to the Centre, people from Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve alleged that while many villages chose to relocate, those who opted to stay back were deprived of amenities.

Last month, over 50 Gram Sabha from Rani Durgavati Tiger Reserve complained to the Centre that their individual and community rights claims were pending. They also pointed out that access to their farm fields for harvesting forest produce was being blocked. Further, communities also complain of shoddy relocation processes, leaving them in worse conditions than they had experienced inside forests.

How many villages are located inside tiger reserves?

The Tiger Task Force was formed in 2005 following the wipeout of tigers in Sariska, Rajasthan. It carried out a detailed evaluation of relocation and displacement-linked issues faced by affected communities. It also included the crucial exercise of compiling data on relocations till 2005 and data on how many villages were still inside tiger reserves.

It found that until then, about 80 villages had been relocated under Project Tiger and the track record of relocation was not uniform or praiseworthy. The task force compiled data on the number of villages inside tiger reserves, and recommended that a comprehensive study be undertaken to determine relocation requirements based on their location in areas where tigers breed.

The task force estimated that there were 273 villages in 28 tiger reserves and 1.01 lakh people from 19,125 families in the core areas alone. It estimated the presence of 1,487 villages and 3.80 lakh people from 66,516 families in the overall tiger reserve.

In a June 2024 letter to states, the NTCA sought action plans on village relocations and provided data on villages inside tiger reserves. There are 57 notified tiger reserves in the country now, four more since the NTCA sent the June letter, and 29 more since the 2005 Tiger Task Force report.

As per the NTCA’s June 2024 data, there were 848 villages and 89,808 families in core areas across 53 tiger reserves. Of these, 257 villages and 25,007 were already moved out. Now, 591 villages and 64,801 families remain inside core areas.