New Delhi: A law that seeks to confer the right to land and other resources on forest dwellers is a challenge to the government to prove that its creation of about 600 national parks and other wildlife sanctuaries had sufficiently scientific grounds.
The tiger, which carries the torch for the cause of wildlife conservation in India, exists in just 36 of these protected areas. The others are home to elephants and rhinos, the more glamorous vanguards of conservation, and a variety of animal life, including snow leopards, black bucks and wild asses, turtles and ghariyals.
Survival at stake: Millions of people live in or around the forest areas, living off their produce and water and using them as grazing grounds. Padmaparna Ghosh / Mint
Evidence that a scientific rationale existed for creating these national parks and animal sanctuaries is crucial to designate them “inviolate”, or free of human habitation, as planned by the ministry of environment and forests.
The so-called Forest Rights Act of 2006, which the government is trying to implement now, requires the evidence to legitimize any moves to shift human settlements from forest areas. The law seeks to confer on tribals and other forest dwelling communities the rights to land and resources they have lived off for generations.
Tiger parks have already been declared inviolate in a move that has sparked a conflict in some areas, pitting the cause of wildlife conservation against the rights of forest dwellers who may be required to shift out.
“The forest department has a history of protecting areas by locking people out,” says Mahesh Rangarajan, a historian of conservation and ecology. “Though not all protected areas lack science, a lot of them were declared so with enormous ad hocism.”
Does India have a logical and fair protection regime for both biodiversity and people? Which species are critical enough to legitimize the relocation of locals in areas where economic value is key for villagers and an orchid may be more important to a scientist? Those questions are still being asked more than 40 years after India started protecting areas for forest and wildlife conservation.
Can’t be utopian
“The fixed idea of conservation on a legal basis is not feasible,” says R. Sukumar, professor of elephant biology and conservation at the Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. “In reality, we can and should change some boundaries (of protected areas) and ease conflicts. Himachal Pradesh has denotified four wildlife sanctuaries.”
ALSO READ
Ground zero of the fight between conservationists, forest dwellers
Tribals struggle to prove right to forest land and resources
“We can’t be utopian here,” he adds. “Science is just a part of the answer and you have to understand what is feasible.”