Relocation of forest dwellers from tiger reserves must be voluntary’

The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and several state forest departments have been implementing relocation schemes to move human settlements out of core areas of tiger reserves.
A recent judicial observation (based on a High Court direction or expert committee finding) reiterated that all such relocations must be voluntary, informed, and humane, in accordance with the provisions of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 and the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972.

The judgment underscores the principle that conservation cannot override the rights and dignity of indigenous forest communities.

What Happened

• Authorities have been relocating forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDSTs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) from core tiger habitats to minimize human-wildlife conflict and aid tiger conservation.
• The recent directive emphasised that forced evictions are illegal and violative of FRA provisions, which recognise individual and community rights over forest land.
• The NTCA has clarified that only voluntary relocation — backed by written consent and fair rehabilitation packages — can be undertaken.

Why It Matters

1. Human Rights & Tribal Justice: Many tribal and forest-dependent families face loss of livelihood, cultural dislocation, and lack of proper rehabilitation when moved forcibly.
2. Conservation Ethics: True conservation requires community partnership, not coercion. The global shift toward inclusive conservation now stresses coexistence over exclusion.
3. Legal Balance: The ruling reinforces the need to harmonise the Forest Rights Act (2006) with the Wildlife Protection Act (1972) and Project Tiger guidelines.
4. Governance Challenge: States often bypass consent clauses, citing conservation urgency, leading to litigation and mistrust among local populations.

Challenges in Implementation

1. Inadequate Compensation: Cash payments often fail to sustain livelihoods, and relocation sites may lack water, healthcare, or arable land.
2. Coercive Consent: Reports of pressure or misinformation to obtain “voluntary” signatures undermine genuine consent.
3. Livelihood Disruption: Loss of access to forest produce and cultural identity leads to poverty, alienation, and social stress.
4. Administrative Overreach: Local forest officials sometimes prioritise conservation targets over community rights.
5. Conflict Narratives: Human-wildlife conflict is often exaggerated to justify displacement.

Alternative Models and Success Stories

• BRT Tiger Reserve (Karnataka): Participatory relocation with NGOs ensured proper compensation and alternative livelihoods.
• Periyar Tiger Reserve (Kerala): Community-based ecotourism involving former forest dwellers reduced conflict while sustaining incomes.
• Mendha Lekha (Maharashtra): Example of self-managed community forest governance under FRA, showing coexistence between people and wildlife.

These models prove that coexistence and co-management can be effective alternatives to forced exclusion.