Moving villagers from tiger reserves must be voluntary

Why in News ?

• The Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs has issued a new policy framework mandating that relocation of forest-dwelling communities from tiger reserves must be “exceptional, voluntary, and evidence-based.”
• This comes amid protests from Gram Sabhas and rights groups against recent NTCA (National Tiger Conservation Authority) directives prioritizing relocation of villages from core tiger habitats.

Relevance:

• GS-2 (Governance): Inter-ministerial coordination between MoTA & MoEFCC; policy balance between conservation and rights.
• GS-3 (Environment): Wildlife conservation ethics, Project Tiger, and coexistence models.

Background

• India’s Tiger Reserves are governed under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and managed by the NTCA.
• The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 legally recognizes Individual and Community Forest Rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.
• Frequent conflicts have arisen between tiger conservation goals and forest dwellers’ rights, particularly regarding forced or incentivized relocation.
• There are currently 591 villages and 64,801 families living within the core areas of tiger reserves (NTCA data).

Policy Title & Origin

• Title: “Reconciling Conservation and Community Rights: A Policy Framework for Relocation and Coexistence in India’s Tiger Reserves”
• Issued by: Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA)
• Addressed to: Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEFCC)
• Purpose: To ensure relocation processes align with constitutional rights, FRA provisions, and human rights standards.

Core Principles of the New Policy

• Voluntary Relocation Only: Displacement can occur only if communities consent after informed consultation.
• Exceptional Measure: Relocation should be rare, justified by strong ecological or safety evidence.
• Evidence-Based Decision: Each case must be supported by scientific assessment of necessity (wildlife conflict, habitat degradation, etc.).
• Rights First Approach: Relocation cannot override Individual or Community Forest Rights (IFR/CFR) granted under FRA.
• Consent Mechanism: Gram Sabha approval is mandatory before any relocation step.

Key Institutional Mechanisms Proposed

• National Framework for Community-Centred Conservation and Relocation:
  • Jointly formulated by MoTA and MoEFCC.
  • To define standard procedures, timelines, and accountability for relocation.
• National Database on Conservation–Community Interface:
  • To record and track all relocation cases, compensation, rehabilitation status, and post-relocation outcomes.
• Annual Independent Audits:
  • Conducted by empanelled third-party agencies to assess compliance with:
    • Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA)
    • Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
    • Human Rights norms and environmental justice principles

Community Rights & Options

• Right to Stay: Communities may choose to continue living within their traditional habitats inside tiger reserves.
• Exercising Rights: Can exercise Individual Forest Rights (IFR) and Community Forest Rights (CFR) under FRA.
• Coexistence Principle: Encourages models of “people-in-reserve” conservation where sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity protection coexist.
• Participation: Local institutions (Gram Sabhas, JFMCs) to be partners, not adversaries, in conservation.

Rationale Behind the Policy

• Addressing grievances: MoTA received several representations from State governments and Gram Sabhas about non-implementation of FRA and forced relocations.
• Conflict resolution: Aims to reconcile wildlife protection with tribal livelihood rights.
• Governance balance: Promotes inter-ministerial coordination between MoTA and MoEFCC for rights-based conservation.

Legal & Ethical Anchors

• Constitutional Basis:
  • Article 21: Right to life with dignity (includes livelihood and habitat).
  • Article 46: Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Tribes.
• Statutory Frameworks:
  • Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 – Recognizes land and habitat rights.
  • Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – Regulates tiger reserves and core zones.
  • PESA Act, 1996 – Ensures Gram Sabha’s role in local decision-making.
• Human Rights Standards: Calls for Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) principle in all relocations.

Challenges Addressed

• Forced relocations violating FRA provisions.
• Inadequate compensation and lack of livelihood rehabilitation.
• Poor post-relocation tracking, leading to social marginalization.
• Inter-ministerial coordination gaps between NTCA (MoEFCC) and MoTA.

Broader Conservation Context

• India’s Project Tiger (1973) evolved from exclusive protection to inclusive conservation.
• The new framework aligns with Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2022) principle of “Rights-based Conservation.”
• Reflects India’s commitment to SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 16 (Justice and Institutions).

Way Forward

• Develop a joint national protocol for relocation and coexistence under MoTA–MoEFCC.
• Ensure transparency through public database and audit reports.
• Promote co-management models where tribals are partners in tiger conservation.
• Strengthen capacity building for State forest and tribal departments to implement FRA effectively.

---