chapter 2 poverty, rural livelihoods and the environment...
TRANSCRIPT
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.