Debate Over Village Relocation for Tiger Reserves (GS Paper 2, Polity)
Context
- The relocation of human settlements from critical wildlife habitats, particularly tiger reserves, has long been a contentious issue in India.
- The debate intensified following a June 2024 advisory from the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), which urged state forest departments to prioritize the relocation of villages situated within the core areas of tiger reserves.
- This recommendation has raised questions about the balance between environmental conservation and the rights of indigenous and tribal communities.
- The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) has now intervened in the matter, raising concerns about the legal and procedural compliance of these relocations.
Why is this in the News?
- The issue of village relocation from tiger reserves has once again gained national attention due to the NTCA's recent advisory.
- The advisory instructed state forest departments to submit action plans for relocating villages from the "core areas" of tiger habitats, which are designated as the most sensitive regions for tiger conservation.
- While the aim is to protect the endangered species and their habitats, the move has met with resistance from tribal rights groups and activists, who argue that such relocations should only occur voluntarily and in full compliance with the rights of the affected communities.
- The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) has now sought clarification from the NTCA regarding how the relocations are being carried out and whether they respect the legal frameworks designed to protect tribal rights.
Legal and Procedural Framework for Relocation
The process of relocating villages from tiger reserves is governed by a combination of legal requirements, procedural guidelines, and compensation mechanisms.
Legal Framework
- Under the Wildlife Protection Act, certain core areas of tiger reserves can be designated as human-free zones to ensure the protection of wildlife.
- However, this provision applies only after the rights of tribal and forest-dwelling communities are fully recognized under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.
- The FRA acknowledges the rights of tribal communities to live in and use forest resources, and relocation from these areas cannot be forced without due process.
- Crucially, relocations must be done with the informed consent of the Gram Sabha (village council), which must approve the move.
Voluntary Relocation Program (VVRP)
- The Voluntary Village Relocation Program (VVRP), introduced by the NTCA, is meant to be a transparent and participatory process. Before proceeding with any relocation, the state government is required to conduct consultations with both ecological and social scientists to determine whether the community's presence in a particular area is causing irreversible damage to the tiger habitat.
- The government must also conclude that there are no reasonable alternatives to allow for the peaceful co-existence of human communities and wildlife.
- Only when these conditions are met can the relocation proceed.
- Additionally, the NTCA has stipulated that families who choose to relocate voluntarily will receive compensation packages, including financial support, land, housing assistance, and basic amenities such as water, electricity, and sanitation.
Debate Surrounding Village Relocations from Tiger Reserves
The NTCA’s recent advisory urging the relocation of villages from core tiger habitats has drawn considerable backlash from tribal rights groups, environmental activists, and some members of the public.
Opposition to the NTCA Advisory
- Over 150 tribal rights organizations and activists have petitioned against the advisory, accusing the NTCA of bypassing crucial legal and procedural requirements.
- They argue that the NTCA's directive does not adequately emphasize the voluntary nature of relocation as stipulated under the Forest Rights Act and the Wildlife Protection Act, both of which require that relocation efforts be based on the consent of the local communities involved.
- Critics of the NTCA's advisory point out that it fails to focus on the consultative processes and consent-based approach that are mandated by law.
- The Gram Sabha’s consent is a cornerstone of the process, but this is often overlooked, as many tribal communities claim that they have not been sufficiently consulted or given a fair opportunity to voice their concerns.
- Furthermore, there are concerns that the NTCA’s actions violate the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act of 2006, which stresses that relocation from protected areas must be voluntary and involve fair compensation.
- Activists fear that the NTCA’s approach could lead to forced displacements, depriving tribal communities of their land and livelihoods without adequate support.
The NCST's Intervention
- In response to the concerns raised by tribal rights organizations, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) has sought an explanation from the NTCA on how it is adhering to the legal and procedural requirements for relocation.
- Specifically, the NCST has requested an update on whether the relocation efforts are in line with the 2018 recommendations it made regarding compensation and rehabilitation packages for relocated families.
- The NCST has also raised the issue of aligning the relocation compensation with the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act (LARR) of 2013, which sets out the entitlement of displaced communities.
- This includes providing compensation, resettlement assistance, and a livelihood restoration plan for families that are relocated due to conservation efforts.
- The NCST is pushing for more transparency and accountability in the process to ensure that the rights of displaced tribal communities are fully protected.
Conclusion: Striking a Balance Between Conservation and Rights
- The ongoing debate surrounding village relocation from tiger reserves underscores the challenge of balancing wildlife conservation goals with the rights of indigenous and tribal communities.
- On the one hand, protecting endangered species like tigers requires creating undisturbed habitats, which sometimes necessitate the removal of human settlements.
- On the other hand, the rights of tribal communities living in these areas cannot be ignored, as they have long been an integral part of the ecosystem.
- The NCST’s intervention highlights the need for a fair, transparent, and legally compliant relocation process that respects both conservation needs and tribal rights.
- For relocation efforts to be successful and just, they must adhere to the principles of voluntary participation, informed consent, and adequate compensation.
- Further dialogue between the NTCA, tribal representatives, and other stakeholders is essential to ensuring that tiger conservation efforts are not only effective but also equitable, respecting the rights of the communities that have long coexisted with these endangered species.
- As the issue continues to unfold, it will be important to ensure that the voices of tribal communities are not sidelined and that any relocation plans are truly in line with India’s legal and constitutional frameworks.
- Ultimately, a cooperative approach that seeks to harmonize the interests of wildlife and local communities will be key to the long-term success of both conservation and social justice.
