Does History Repeat Itself?

 

The Honorable Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a comment in April 2023 stating that “… the culture of conservation (which) is intrinsic to every Indian. For wildlife to thrive, it is important for the ecosystem to thrive.” As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Project Tiger, my travels to various tiger reserves have shown the successful efforts made to conserve this magnificent cat. The increase in numbers is testimony to the success of tiger conservation. However, is there more one can do?

 

My research of the Sariska Tiger Reserve, located in the state of Rajasthan, revealed that 2005 saw a grave decline in the tiger population largely attributed to poaching and ineffective management practices. The Government took decisive and immediate steps to enhance the protection and management of Sariska while reintroducing tigers.

 

Following the completion of my open-source research, I identified two key and current risk factors – the existence of human settlements within the reserve and the visitation to the temple located inside. Noting that the Wildlife Protection Act (1972) was amended in 2006 including the formulation of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) with provisions for relocating communities residing in critical wildlife habitats or ecologically sensitive areas.

 

In the context of village relocation plan implemented in February 2008, I regularly visited the villages inside the reserve to understand the real issue at hand. According to the data provided by the Forest Department in 2009, there were 708 families in the tiger reserve residing in five villages - Sukola, Kankawari, Kraska, Haripura, and Deveri– with Kraska being the most populous.

 

A census was conducted of the villages in 2008-09 and relocation options were presented to the villagers. Data provided by the Forest Department further revealed the Government has successfully relocated 440 families as on January 2022. However, in the meantime, the headcount in the villages has increased. Despite not having any schools inside the reserve or any medical facilities, the settlements continue to grow. It is worth noting that children attend school (once they are old enough to walk outside the reserve). As such, the children in Kraska (which is far from the gate) only attend an informal school nearby. The main source of livelihood remains cattle rearing and selling milk outside the reserve.

 

The feedback from the villagers of Kraska and Haripura indicate that the main issue of contention in prohibiting these human settlements from moving is compensation. As the data above reflects, the last census was conducted in 2011 and in the last 12 years, the underage villagers have crossed 21 years of age, demanding independent compensation while their families expand in the meantime. One of the families interviewed in Kraska had eight sons. In 2011, seven of them were underage and the compensation was available only for the father and the oldest son. However, in the meantime, six of the boys are above 21 years of age and have families and children of their own. Therefore, they are demanding commensurate compensation for the adult male members.

 

Engagement with villagers living within the Reserve had a positive impact with them agreeing to move out of the Sariska Forest with fair compensation.

 

Another major risk identified is the visitation to the temple located inside the Sariska Tiger Reserve. Immediate and appropriate steps should be taken to manage the number of devotees, and restriction on private vehicles (and speed) inside the Tiger Reserve are some suggestions that could further help.

 

In addition to the above, my research identified discrepancies in the data provided by the Forest Department which is explained below and I would request a review of the compensation paid out to ensure no leakage of funds earmarked for the villagers.

 

While it is heartening to experience first-hand, the good work done by the Forest Department, Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Government of India, I would sincerely urge immediate action to relocate human settlements to mitigate the risks identified and to continuously monitor and address potential threats to tiger conservation in Sariska. Poaching, habitat loss, and human-wildlife conflicts remain ongoing challenges that require sustained efforts to prevent history from repeating itself. 

​

Decline of Tigers in Sariska (2005)

 

The reduction in tiger population in Sariska in 2005 was primarily attributed to poaching and ineffective management practices. Sariska Tiger Reserve, located in the state of Rajasthan, India, experienced a significant decline in its tiger population during that time.

 

Poaching was the main cause of the decline. Tigers are highly sought after for their body parts, which are used in traditional medicine and fetch high prices on the black market. The poachers targeted the tigers in Sariska for their skins, bones, and other body parts. The reserve's inadequate protection and security measures made it easier for poachers to carry out their illegal activities.

 

Another contributing factor was the lack of effective management practices and monitoring systems within the reserve. There were reports of negligence and corruption among the reserve staff, which further facilitated poaching. The management's failure to keep track of the tiger population and implement proper conservation measures allowed the poaching activities to go unnoticed for an extended period.

 

Additionally, encroachments and habitat degradation within and around the reserve also played a role. Human activities such as illegal logging, mining, and agriculture encroached upon the tiger's natural habitat, reducing the available space and prey base for the tigers.

 

The decline in the tiger population in Sariska raised concerns globally and led to significant efforts to address the situation. Steps were taken to strengthen anti-poaching measures, improve management practices, enhance security, and involve local communities in conservation efforts. As a result, tiger reintroduction programs were initiated in Sariska to restore the population and revive the ecosystem.

 

The specific circumstances that led to the tiger decline in Sariska in 2005 have been addressed to a large extent, and significant efforts have been made to prevent a similar decline from happening again. Since then, various measures have been implemented to improve tiger conservation and protect their habitats in Sariska Tiger Reserve.

 

Following the 2005 incident, the Indian government took decisive action to enhance the protection and management of Sariska. This included strengthening anti-poaching efforts, increasing security measures, improving the reserve's infrastructure, and implementing stricter monitoring systems. The involvement of local communities in conservation initiatives has also played a crucial role in safeguarding the tiger population.

 

Furthermore, tiger reintroduction programs were initiated in Sariska to restore the tiger population. Tigers from other reserves were relocated to Sariska to replenish the depleted population and ensure genetic diversity. These efforts have shown positive results, with an increase in the tiger population in Sariska in recent years. The current count (2023) of tigers, as provided by the forest personnel in Sariska, is at 30 (thirty).

 

Government initiative to relocate villages from national parks

 

The Government of India has undertaken various initiatives to relocate villages from national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. These initiatives aim to address the challenges of human-wildlife conflict, promote conservation efforts, and improve the living conditions of both the affected communities and the protected areas. Here are some notable initiatives:

 

1. Project Tiger:Project Tiger, launched in 1973, focuses on tiger conservation in India. Under this initiative, efforts have been made to relocate villages from core areas of tiger reserves to minimize human-wildlife conflicts and create inviolate spaces for tigers and their prey.

 

2. National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries:Many national parks and wildlife sanctuaries in India have implemented relocation programs to protect and conserve endangered species and their habitats. These programs aim to relocate villages from within the boundaries of protected areas to peripheral or alternative locations.

 

3. Forest Rights Act (2006):The Forest Rights Act recognizes the rights of forest-dwelling communities, including Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, to live in and cultivate forestland. However, the Act also provides provisions for relocation in cases where communities are residing in critical wildlife habitats or ecologically sensitive areas.

 

4. Village Relocation Fund:The Indian government has established the Village Relocation Fund to support the relocation of villages from protected areas. The fund provides financial resources for the planning and implementation of relocation programs, including the provision of alternative housing, infrastructure, and livelihood support. This is further addressed in the section below.

 

5. Incentives and Compensation:To encourage village relocation, the government provides incentives and compensation packages to affected communities. These may include monetary compensation, provision of alternative land, rehabilitation support, and assistance in developing alternative livelihood opportunities.

 

6. Community Participation and Consultation:The government emphasizes community participation and consultation in the village relocation process. Efforts are made to involve local communities in decision-making, ensuring their concerns are addressed, and their rights are protected.

 

It is important to note that the success of village relocation initiatives depends on various factors, including effective planning, adequate resources, community engagement, and long-term sustainability. Each relocation project is unique and requires careful consideration of socio-economic, cultural, and ecological aspects to ensure the well-being of both the relocated communities and the protected areas.

 

VILLAGE RELOCATION FUND

 

The Village Relocation Fund is a financial mechanism established by the Government of India to support the relocation of villages from national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and other protected areas. The fund aims to address the challenges of human-wildlife conflict, promote conservation efforts, and improve the living conditions of both the affected communities and the protected areas. Here are some key aspects of the Village Relocation Fund:

 

1. Financial Support: The fund provides financial resources to facilitate the planning and implementation of village relocation projects. The options provided as per the Guidelines for the ongoing Centrally sponsored scheme of project Tiger is included here. The allocated funds are utilized for various purposes such as:

 

a. Alternative Housing: The fund helps in constructing and providing suitable housing for the relocated villagers in the designated resettlement areas. This ensures that the affected communities have access to safe and adequate shelter.

 

b. Infrastructure Development: The fund supports the development of infrastructure in the resettlement areas. This includes the construction of roads, water supply systems, electricity connections, schools, health centers, and other essential facilities to improve the living conditions of the relocated communities.

 

c. Livelihood Support: The fund assists in providing livelihood support to the relocated villagers. This may involve training programs, skill development initiatives, and financial assistance to help them establish alternative income-generating activities and adapt to their new environment.

 

d. Rehabilitation and Social Welfare: The fund also addresses the social welfare needs of the relocated communities. It may provide support for healthcare services, educational facilities, community centers, and other amenities necessary for their well-being.

 

2. Government Contribution: The Village Relocation Fund is primarily financed by the government. The central and state governments allocate funds as part of their budgetary provisions to support village relocation projects. The exact amount allocated varies depending on the scale and scope of each project.

 

3. Collaboration and Partnerships: The implementation of village relocation projects involves collaboration between various stakeholders. This includes government agencies responsible for wildlife conservation and rural development, local authorities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and community representatives. The fund facilitates coordination and partnerships among these stakeholders to ensure effective implementation and utilization of resources.

 

4. Monitoring and Evaluation: The Village Relocation Fund emphasizes the importance of monitoring and evaluation to assess the impact and effectiveness of relocation projects. Regular monitoring helps track the progress of the initiatives, identify challenges, and make necessary adjustments to ensure the desired outcomes are achieved.

 

5. Community Engagement: The fund recognizes the significance of community engagement in the village relocation process. It encourages the active participation of the affected communities in decision-making, planning, and implementation. Their perspectives, concerns, and aspirations are taken into account to ensure a participatory and inclusive approach.

 

The Village Relocation Fund plays a crucial role in supporting the relocation of villages from protected areas, contributing to both wildlife conservation and the well-being of the relocated communities. By providing the necessary financial resources, infrastructure development, livelihood support, and social welfare measures, the fund aims to ensure a sustainable and successful transition for the affected communities to their new settlements.

 

Methodology of identifying headcount of villages inside protected areas

 

Identifying the headcount of villages inside protected areas in India involves a systematic methodology that combines various data sources and approaches. Here are the common methods used to determine the headcount of villages within protected areas:

 

1. Census Data: The primary source of information for village headcounts is the national census conducted by the Government of India. The decennial census provides detailed demographic data, including the population of villages across the country. Census data can be used to identify villages within the boundaries of protected areas.

 

2. Satellite Imagery and GIS Analysis: Satellite imagery and Geographic Information System (GIS) technology are essential tools for mapping and identifying villages within protected areas. High-resolution satellite imagery helps in visualizing the landscape, boundaries of protected areas, and human settlements. By analyzing satellite imagery and overlaying it with boundary data, villages can be identified and counted within the protected areas.

 

3. Field Surveys and Ground Verification: Field surveys play a crucial role in validating and verifying the existence of villages within protected areas. Government agencies, research organizations, or local authorities may conduct field surveys to collect ground-level data, interact with local communities, and confirm the presence of villages.

 

4. Government Records and Reports: Government agencies responsible for managing protected areas maintain records and reports that document the villages located within these areas. These records may include information on population counts, socio-economic data, and infrastructure details.

 

5. Consultation with Local Authorities and Communities: Engaging with local authorities, village panchayats (local self-governance bodies), and community representatives is crucial for obtaining accurate data on the headcount of villages. Consultations allow for direct interaction with the communities and the collection of detailed information about village populations.

 

It's important to note that the identification of villages within protected areas can be complex due to factors such as changing boundaries, informal settlements, and variations in data availability. The methodology may vary depending on the specific protected area and the availability of resources and data. A combination of multiple methods and data sources is often employed to ensure the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the headcount.

​

Reasons villagers are not relocating from inside the national wildlife sanctuary in Sariska

 

Relocating villagers from inside a national wildlife sanctuary, such as Sariska National Park, can sometimes face challenges and resistance due to various factors. There are five villages within the Sariska Tiger Reserve – Sukola, Kankawari, Kraska, Haripura, and Deveri totaling 708 families – with Kraska being the most populous in 2009. Please note that the document below has been provided by the Forest Department and there is a discrepancy in the total number of families as the below states it is 1027 whereas the number totals to 708. The same discrepancy was identified in the subsequent figures as well. The Government has successfully relocated 440 (instead of 759 families) as on January 2022. The number of families remaining in the Reserve was 206. The Department is well aware of the increase in headcount and have estimated it to be 164 families which increase the financial liability of the Government for their relocation.

 

Based on interviews of villagers from two villages – Haripura and Kraska - some reasons why villagers may not readily relocate from inside the national wildlife sanctuary in Sariska include:

 

Livelihood Dependence: Villagers living within the sanctuary may have generations of attachment to the land and rely heavily on it for their livelihoods. They might engage in activities such as agriculture, grazing livestock, or collecting forest products. Relocating away from the sanctuary could disrupt their traditional means of subsistence, causing uncertainty and economic instability.

 

Cultural and Social Connections: Villagers often have strong social and cultural ties to their ancestral lands. Relocation may mean breaking these connections and uprooting their communities, leading to a loss of identity and social cohesion.

 

Lack of Suitable Alternative Settlements: Villagers may be hesitant to relocate if suitable alternative settlements or adequate infrastructure, such as housing, water supply, and basic services, are not provided. Without viable options, they may perceive relocation as a step backward in terms of their living conditions.

 

Indifference to the Importance of Conservation: Some villagers may have limited knowledge or understanding of the importance of wildlife conservation and the ecological significance of the sanctuary. Inadequate awareness campaigns and educational initiatives can contribute to resistance and reluctance to relocate.

 

Lack of Trust and Consultation: If the process of relocation is not carried out transparently and in consultation with the affected communities, distrust and skepticism can arise. Villagers may be concerned about their rights, compensation, and the long-term sustainability of the relocation plans, which can hinder cooperation and support.

 

Emotional Attachment and Sentimental Value: The land and surroundings of the sanctuary may hold sentimental value for the villagers, who may have emotional attachments to their ancestral homes and the natural environment. Relocating from a place that holds cultural and emotional significance can be emotionally challenging and difficult to accept.

 

Economic Constraints and Compensation: Inadequate compensation or financial constraints can hinder the process of relocation. Villagers may resist moving if they perceive that the compensation offered does not adequately compensate for the loss of their land, livelihoods, and social bonds.

 

Despite not having any schools inside the reserve or any medical facilities, the settlements continue to grow. It is worth noting that children attend school (once they are old enough to walk outside the reserve) outside the tiger reserve – see the picture taken right outside the reserve - and as such, the children in Karska (which is far from the gate) only attend an informal school nearby. The main source of livelihood remains cattle rearing and selling the milk outside the reserve.

 

The feedback from the villagers of Kraska and Haripura indicates that the main issue of contention in prohibiting these human settlements from moving is compensation. As the data above reflects the last census was conducted in 2011 and in the last 12 years, the underage villagers have crossed 21 years and demanding independent compensation while their families expand in the meantime. One of the families interviewed in Kraska had eight sons – in 2011, seven of them were underage as such the compensation was available only for the father and the oldest son however in the meantime, six of the boys are above 21 years and have families and children of their own. Therefore, demanding commensurate compensation for the adult male members.

 

Addressing these concerns requires a comprehensive approach that involves effective communication, community engagement, and the provision of viable alternative livelihood options and basic services. It is essential to work collaboratively with the affected communities, respecting their rights, and ensuring their active participation in decision-making processes to foster a sense of ownership and cooperation for successful relocation initiatives.

 

Risk of History Repeating Itself in Sariska

 

RISKS OF NOT RELOCATING VILLAGERS

 

The risk of not relocating villagers from protected areas can vary depending on the specific circumstances and the ecological importance of the area. Here are some potential risks associated with allowing villagers to continue residing in protected areas:

 

•Risk of poaching: Villagers living within protected areas may collaborate with poachers to potentially enhance their income.

 

•Habitat Destruction: Villagers living within protected areas may engage in activities that lead to habitat destruction, such as agriculture, logging, or construction. These activities can result in the loss of critical habitats for plant and animal species, leading to declines in biodiversity.

 

•Species Displacement: The presence of human settlements can cause displacement or extinction of certain species. Villagers may hunt wildlife for food or engage in other activities that directly harm local fauna. Species that are sensitive to human disturbance or have limited geographical ranges may be particularly vulnerable.

 

•Human-Wildlife Conflict: Protected areas often support populations of large, potentially dangerous wildlife species. When villagers live in close proximity to these animals, conflicts can arise. This can pose risks to human safety and lead to retaliatory killings of wildlife in self-defense or to protect livestock or crops.

 

•Impacts on Ecosystem Services: Protected areas provide essential ecosystem services such as clean water, soil protection, and climate regulation. The presence of human settlements within these areas can disrupt these services through deforestation, pollution, or alteration of natural hydrological patterns.

 

•Legal and Policy Compliance: Allowing villagers to reside within protected areas may undermine the legal and policy frameworks established for their conservation. It can set a precedent that compromises the integrity of protected areas and weakens efforts to safeguard them.Relocating villages can help mitigate risks and promote the well-being of both people and the environment.

 

RISKS OF NOT RELOCATING TEMPLES

 

Another risk identified is the visitation of temples within the Tiger Reserve. Speeding private vehicles were seen in the tiger reserve that could pose a threat to the villagers and wildlife. The risk of not relocating temples from inside protected areas can also have various implications, including:

 

1. Ecological Impact: Temples and associated religious activities may result in habitat alteration and disturbance within protected areas. Construction, pilgrimage-related activities, and the presence of large numbers of visitors can lead to soil erosion, vegetation loss, and the disruption of natural processes. This can negatively impact the biodiversity and ecological balance of the protected area.

 

2. Cultural Heritage: Temples often hold significant cultural and historical value. However, allowing temples to remain within protected areas may increase the risk of damage or destruction due to natural disasters or human activities. Protecting cultural heritage is important, but it should be balanced with the need to safeguard ecological integrity.

 

3. Encouraging Unauthorized Settlements: Temples can become focal points for human settlements and related infrastructure development. Allowing temples to remain within protected areas may unintentionally encourage unauthorized settlements and human encroachment, further exacerbating habitat destruction and biodiversity loss.

 

4. Legal and Policy Compliance: Protected areas are designated and managed with the intention of conserving natural ecosystems and biodiversity. Allowing temples to remain within these areas may conflict with the legal and policy frameworks established for their protection. It can challenge the integrity of the protected area and create difficulties in enforcing regulations related to land use and conservation.

 

5. Ecosystem Services: Protected areas provide essential ecosystem services, including clean water, air purification, and carbon sequestration. Temples and associated activities may have unintended consequences on these services, such as pollution from religious rituals or increased demand for water and energy, which can disrupt the ecological balance and degrade the overall ecosystem services provided by the protected area.

 

Addressing these risks requires a careful balance between cultural heritage preservation and the conservation of protected areas. In some cases, relocating temples from inside protected areas to nearby locations outside the boundaries may be a viable solution to maintain both ecological integrity and cultural significance. Until that happens, this report is a request to reduce or restrict the use of private vehicles inside the protected area.