Environmental Policies Versus Socio-Economic Sustainability: A St d R l ti f I di C iti i Si ili l TiStudy on Relocation of Indigenous Communities in Similipal Tiger

Reserve, India

Green and Social: Managing Synergies and Trade-offs

12-13 March, 2014DIE, Bonn

Madhusmita DashBhagirath Behera

Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology KharagpurIndian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

West Bengal – 721302, India

Outline of Presentation Motivation of the study

R i l d Obj i f h S d Rationale and Objective of the Study Study Area, Methodology, and Data collection

Why some households are willing to relocate and others are not despite the fact that people living inside h l k b i i ithe PAs lack many basic amenities?

How local people perceive the biodiversity conservation?

Are the already resettled households better-off compared to existing households inside the PA?

Conclusion & Policy Implications

2

Motivation of the study

Habitat degradation - biomass extraction such as grazing, fuelwoodg g g,collection and commercial non-timber forest produce (NTFP) extractioninside PAs (Heltberg et al., 2000; Heltberg, 2001; Karanth et al. 2005; Kumar &Shahabuddin, 2005; Shah, 2007)

Preservation through setting aside inviolate or human-free zonesg g(Terborgh et al., 2002; Gell & Robert, 2003; Karanth, 2006) Displacementof local communities / ‘fortress’ or exclusionary conservation (Rossi,2000; Geiseler, 2003; Schimdt-Soltau, 2003)

3

Motivation of the study (cont..)What are the Implications of Biodiversity Conservation?

Marginalization of population living inside PAs (Torri, 2011; Karanth etal., 2008; Sekhar, 2003))

Restricted access rights over resource useHuman-wildlife conflictInvoluntary Displacement

Both ecology and economy seem to be looser in many conservationinduced sites in developing countries

Delayed in payment for compensation, mismanagement, lack ofi i i i l i f il f di l

4

participation in relocation process failure of displacementmechanism

Motivation of the study (cont..)Indian Case,4 8% of the land area is protected for wildlife conservation (Menon et4.8% of the land area is protected for wildlife conservation (Menon etal., 2010)20% of the total population directly dependent on the PA resources forp p y ptheir subsistence (McNeely & Strade, 2003; Torri, 2011)80 villages & 2,904 families have been relocated from different tiger

i h i i f P j Ti i 1970 ( i kreserves since the inception of Project Tiger in 1970s (Tiger Task ForceReport, 2005)

However Conservation efforts fail to consider :However, Conservation efforts fail to consider :the interest of local communitiesundermine existing indigenous management systemundermine existing indigenous management systemrestrict local authorities in their decision making on resources managementAll intensify the loss of biodiversity (Wade, 1988; Ostrom, 1990; Bromley,y y ( , ; , ; y,1992; Baland and Platteau, 1996; Bashir, 2000)

5

Rationale behind the study

Neither e tensi e research on the reason behind ns ccessf lNeither extensive research on the reason behind unsuccessfulrelocation mechanism exists nor have studies on local tribalcommunities’ perception towards relocation been studiedcommunities perception towards relocation been studied

A detailed and careful analysis of the present conservationA detailed and careful analysis of the present conservationmechanism and its social and economic impact on local people’slivelihood is essential

6

Objectives of the study

To examine

1. various factors that influence local communities’ (living( ginside the reserve) perception towards conservation,management of the PA and relocation and;g ;

2 critically analyze the processes and procedures of2. critically analyze the processes and procedures ofpresent relocation mechanism followed and assess thesocio economic and livelihoods implications of resettledsocio-economic and livelihoods implications of resettledhouseholds from the Similipal Tiger Reserve (STR)

7

8

Study Area Description STR located in Mayurbhanj district (200 17’- 220 34’ N and 850

40’- 870 10’ E) covers an area of 5569 sq km (encompasses both) q ( pProposed National park & Wildlife sanctuary)

Sixth largest biosphere reserve in the country

One of the nine prime areas for tiger conservationOne of the nine prime areas for tiger conservation

Included as a part of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves byUNESCO (2009)UNESCO (2009)

Falls under one of the Schedule V (tribal sub plan area) of the state( p )

Abode for- Khadia, Bhatudi, Kolha, Bhumija tribes

9

Study Area DescriptionSimilipal Biosphere Reserve (SBR)

Area (Sq.Km.) Present Status / Remark

1. Core (3 villages) 845 Proposed National Park (declared in two phases during 1980/1986)

2. Buffer (61 villages)(i) Within STR 1905 Sanctuary from 1979(ii) Outside STR

(a) Nato RF(b) Satkoshia RF

77147

Reserved ForestReserved Forest

(b) Satkoshia RFTOTAL 2,129

3. Transitional Area (1200 2,595villages)

TOTAL SBR 5,569Source: http://www wildlifeorissa in/SIMILIPALBIOSPHERE htm as retrieved on 22 09 12

10

Source: http://www.wildlifeorissa.in/SIMILIPALBIOSPHERE.htm as retrieved on 22.09.12

Note: [SBR = Similipal Biosphere Reserve; STR= Similipal Tiger Reserve = the area of Similipal Sanctuary]; RF = Reserve Forest. The length of the periphery of Similipal Sanctuary is about 600 km.

Study Area Description

3 human habited villages: Bakua Kabatghai Jamunagarh 3 human habited villages: Bakua, Kabatghai, Jamunagarh

1 relocated village- Jenabil in 2010g

Census survey

Primary data --- both quantitative (semi-structured interviewsusing questionnaires to all the households) and qualitativeusing questionnaires to all the households) and qualitative(participatory exercises, focus group and key informantdiscussions) methods

Secondary Data ---- Office of the Field Director, Similipal TigerR B i dReserve, Baripada

11

Comparison between Non-displaced (Park) and Displaced Village households on key parameters

P k ill R l t d VillKey parameters

Park villages Relocated Village (Ambadiha)Bakua Kabatghai

Ethnic composition Santal 0 90 15Kolho 100 10 85

Average Household Size 6 5 5Education (Literacy rate) 21.66 42.58 32.63Average household Land holding Size (acre) 2.88 3.74 1.96Average Livestock Ownership (no.) 20 22 5g p ( )Average annual Income (Rs) 33320.97 ($ 545.44) 37767.33 ($618.23) 33609 ($550.16)Per capita Income (Rs) 6579.30 ($107.69) 7309.80 ($119.66) 7075.58 ($115.82)

Distance to Block Headquarter 30 40 3Distance to nearby village Haat 4 3 1

Remoteness and Market access

Distance to nearby village Haat 4 3 1Nearest Public Distribution System (PDS) 6 5 4

Distance to Primary Health Centre (PHC) 8 10 3

Nearest Urban Market 30 40 3Nearest Bus stand 30 40 3Nearest Police station 30 40 3

Access to Natural Distance to degraded forest 1.5 1 8Resources

gDistance to good quality forest 3 3 20Road Forest patch Forest patch Coal tar road Electrification Non-electrified Non-electrified Electrified Irrigation River water River water Irrigated canal (not

12

InfrastructureIrrigation River water River water Irrigated canal (not

working) Education No school Primary school Primary/Middle/Hi

gh school, college H i Q li M d h h d M d h h d RCC h

Socio-economic Status (Cont.)

Table 3: Share of different sources of Income to average total annualincome (Rs)income (Rs)

Sources of Income Bakua Kabatghai

A i lt 10916 15 13967 67Agriculture 10916.15 13967.67

Livestock 6683.87 9265

NTFP 4358 39 1885NTFPs 4358.39 1885

Wage 2816.13 2931.67

O h 3964 2 366 6Others 3964.52 5366.67

Total 28739.1 33416

13

Objective 1:People-Park Interaction- Benefits derived from ParkTable 4: Different Types of Ecosystem Services and other Benefits derived from parkderived from Park

Bakua Kabatghai Total (N=61)

Types of ES Services

Bakua (N=31)

Kabatghai (N=30)

Total (N 61)

Household R

Household R

Household R (%)Response

(%)Response

(%)Response (%)

Fuelwood 100 100 100

T ibl

NTFPs 77.42 43.33 60.66Medicinal Herbs/ Chera Mulika

100 100 100

TangibleTimber for house construction

3.22 0 1.64

Fodder 3 22 3 33 3 28Fodder 3.22 3.33 3.28Spices 100 93.33 96.72

IntangiblePure air 100 93.33 96.72C li h 100 100 100

14

Intangible Cooling atmosphere 100 100 100

People-Park Interaction: Restrictions Imposed on Access and Use Rights Used to collect Sal flower, Tendu leaves, fodder, Paluo etc

Access and Use Rights

Ban on collection of NTFPs (Sal flower, Tendu leaves) removal ofdead, diseased, dying or wing fallen trees, drift wood, grass ----y g g gSupreme Court order dated 14.02.2000

CConsequences

“The only option of livelihood has been snatched away and we are left toThe only option of livelihood has been snatched away and we are left todie”. During our interaction she desperately asked “is it illegal? Youall are educated people; can you tell me how we will survive? Wepeople are solely dependent on forest. We are trying to focus more onagriculture but there is no irrigation facility available in our village.W t t d t l b k E if t d th tWe are not accustomed to labor work. Even if we agree to do that,where is the work?” ------ Kuni Purti (age 50), Bakua 15

People-Park Interaction: Restrictions Imposed on Access and Use RightsAccess and Use Rights

“we don’t have money. How would we take child to Jashipur hospital?h l k l bl h lThis is a lean season. No work is available in the area. Earlier we

used to earn money by selling of Sal Seeds during this lean season.Once we go Jashipur we need minimum Rs 1000 ($16 37)”Once we go Jashipur, we need minimum Rs. 1000 ($16.37) .

People are forced to collect forest product illegally & sale it to thep p g ytraders in throw away prices

F d l k f b ib l ll f dd f Forest guards always ask for bribe only to collect some fodder forlivestock Kuni Purty, Bakua

A vertical power structure has thus been created between the FD andthe local communities

16

People-Park Interaction: Conflicting Interest between Local People and FD AuthoritiesLocal People and FD Authorities

Case of Bakua

Although per day labor cost in NREGA work has been increased to Rs. 150($2.46), the forest guards of Bakua are still giving them Rs. 50 ($0.82) per($ ), g g g ($ ) pday

Forest guards along with the ward member have collected Rs. 30 ($0.49)/h h ld l li ht t h f ilhousehold ---- solar light to each family very soon

Case of Kabatghaig

“we treat the forest guards like our daughters. They don’t exploit us in any way.They use to inform us about the new rules and regulations implemented inThey use to inform us about the new rules and regulations implemented inSimilipal and make us understand about their benefits. They never showany harsh behavior to us” ---- Muktilal Murmu, Village head

Declined cases of poaching & NTFPs extraction 17

People-Park Interaction: Local people attitude towards ConservationConservationTable 5: Questions Bakua (N=31) Kabatghai (N=30) Total (N=61)

Household Response Household Response Household p(%)

p(%) Response (%)

Is it important to conserve nature for the future?yes 96 77 96 67 96 72yes 96.77 96.67 96.72don't know 3.23 3.33 3.28Do you think over the years forest density has:Decreased substantially

64.52 46.67 55.74

Decreased somewhat 35.48 43.33 39.34No change 0 10 4.92Do you think over the years wildlife population has:Decreased 80 65 40 60 66Decreased substantially

80.65 40 60.66

Decreased somewhat 19.35 60 39.34D th k h l i t ti th ildlif d th f t ?

18

Does the park help in protecting the wildlife and the forests?yes 6.45 20 13.12no 87.10 50 68.85

Present Status on Relocation in India

National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2007

Option 1: (Cash Compensation)

The entire package amount of Rs.10 lakhs ($16,372/ 11,794 Euro) per familyp g ( ) p ywithout involving any rehabilitation/relocation process by ForestDepartment.

Option 2: (Cash + land Compensation) @Rs. 10 lakh(a) Agriculture and procurement (2 hectare) and

development35% of the total package

development(b) Settlement of rights 30% of the total package

© Homestead land and house construction 20% of the total package

(d) Incentives 5% of the total package

(e) Community facility commuted by the family (access road, irrigation, drinking water,

10% of the total package

19

sanitation, electricity, community centre, religious places of worship, burial/cremation ground)

Local attitude towards Relocation

Hypotheses :

H1: Age of the respondent is negatively related with the willingness torelocation

H2: Education is positively linked with households’ willingness torelocate

H3 C i i h i i i l iH3: Caste composition has a positive impact on relocationH4: Gender of the respondent has a negatively related to willingness to

l trelocateH5: Household size is hypothesized to have a positive attitude towards

relocationrelocationH6: Income from forest produce has a negative attitude towards

relocationrelocation

20

Model specification

Let the model is,* *yit* = xit + it*.

1654321 respondentschooling_ of years__ NTFPincomeHHsizesitioncastecomporespondentagerepondentgenderWTR

00 *

iy

01 *i

iit y

yy

1, when attitude is positive or ith household wants torelocate

0, otherwise• Using the logit distribution function,

Prob (it* a) = 1/ (1 + exp(-a) )21

Local attitude towards Relocation (Cont.)Table 7: Logit model results of Factors affecting households’ willingness to Relocation (WTR)

Variables Coefficient P>zGender of respondent -21.39 0.00*

Age of respondent -0 02 0 002*Age of respondent 0.02 0.002Years of schooling_respondent

0.28 0.00*

Caste composition 0.22 0.323HH size 0.41 0.00*

NTFPs income -0.001 0.00*_D1 -22.91 0.00*

Constant 9.83 0.02*

b hi2 0 00*Prob > chi2 = 0.00*

Pseudo R2 = 0.73 Wald Chi2(7)= 18.35

22

( )Logperseudolikelihood = -15.92

Successful Relocation of Jenabil: A Myth

Displacement of the Jenabil tribals is a blatant violation ofthe Forest Rights Act 2006 and the Wildlife (Protection)the Forest Rights Act 2006 and the Wildlife (Protection)Amendment Act 2006

N t f G S bh (Vill C itt ) No consent from Gram Sabha (Village Committee)

Agreements were in English, many people signed on it withouteven understanding what is written in the agreement

Option of continuing to stay on inside Protected Areas with a Option of continuing to stay on inside Protected Areas with aguarantee of welfare and rights measures provided by the state didnot made available to the community

Threatened people to relocate

23

Objective 2: Reality Perspectives among Resettled Households of Ambadiha ColonyHouseholds of Ambadiha Colony

Livelihood Impact

Table 8: Proportion of different source of Income in Total income

% of HHsIncome group

% of HHs within group

Agriculture LivestockNTFP

sWage

Others

less than 20000

10 4.12 2.03 9.56 72.42 11.87

20000-30000 32.5 6.35 2.74 2.69 77.07 11.1530000-40000 32.5 7.46 3.09 3.72 83.12 2.6240000 50000 17 5 7 81 2 51 7 48 70 23 11 9640000-50000 17.5 7.81 2.51 7.48 70.23 11.96above 50000 7.5 5.22 2.21 5.17 33.31 54.09

24

Reality Perspectives among Resettled Households of Ambadiha ColonyAmbadiha Colony

Social Impacts and RisksTable 9: Opportunisms & Constraints in resettled areapp

Opportunisms Household Response (percent)

Constraints Household Response (percent)

Safe from wild animal 25 Decline in agriculture 100damage productivity (both in terms

of quality & quantity)

Better health care facility 100 Decline in livestock l ti

100population

Better communication facilities

80 Difficulty in NTFPs collection

82.5

Better educational facility 92.5 Difficulty in Fuelwood 100collection

Access to wage earning 65 Difficulty in adjusting in the new place

92.5

Better market facility 100 Cultural part of life 97.5y paffected

Landless people got land 65 Extreme heat in summer 94.87

Access to electricity 100 Not acquainted with wage 61.54

25

labor work earlierAccess to credit facility 32.5

Feel more safe in new place 2.5

Conclusion & Policy Implications

1. Constant engagements and dialogue between local authorities and indigenousforest communities

2. Understanding the priorities of local communities is very crucial. The realimpact of villagers’ activities in the forests is often miscalculated andmisunderstood by forest officers. No negative impact on vegetation structure ofSTR due to core area villages (Rath & Sutar, 2010; Sahoo & Davidar, 2012)

3. Shouldn’t be a misconception that local communities residing inside the park donot like to move out of the area. A systematic relocation plan with technical andfinancial support and active participation from stakeholders is essentialpp p p

4. Provision of education amongst the indigenous communities is essential togenerate positive perception and awareness towards conservationg p p p

5. Employment of lady Forest guards - motivate local people for relocation andbiodiversity conservation

6. Option of remaining in a protected area with their rights and responsibilitiesshould be explained (FRA, 2006)

26

Conclusion & Policy Implications

The term “inviolate” itself is misunderstood to mean “free ofhuman beings”, when it means “free of activities andinfluences that would violate the needs of conservation”(Kothari, 2011)

An incl si e ‘bottom p’ approach here tribal people m st An inclusive ‘bottom-up’ approach, where tribal people mustbe involved in the protection and management of the PAs isneeded to get a win win situation for both tribals and theneeded to get a win-win situation for both tribals and thewildlife

27

THANK YOU 28

29

30

31

32

33